Ships from China for the Russian fleet

108


To date, only four Russian Navy ships are capable of providing tactical (zone) air defense squadron in open sea areas. Their names are well known to you: the heavy nuclear missile cruiser Peter the Great and the three missile cruisers of the 1164 project - Moscow, Varyag and Marshal Ustinov.

The remaining anti-submarine, patrol and landing ships of the Navy, despite the presence of a wide range of anti-aircraft weapons - from the maritime defense systems "Dagger", "Hurricane" and "Osa-MA" to the deadly automatic anti-aircraft guns AK-630, can only provide air defense in the near zone in the interests of their own self-defense. In fact, the capabilities of their anti-aircraft weapons are reduced to the fight against the launched cruise missiles and the guided bombs of the enemy — they are no longer able to “get” the carriers.

For an unbiased comparison: in the US Navy are 84 missile cruisers and destroyers, armed with long-range SAMs. The Standard family missiles are capable of shooting down air targets at a distance of hundreds of kilometers, and the height of the newest Stand-3 is not limited at all to the limits of the earth’s atmosphere - American naval air defense missile systems are propelled to the missile defense range.

The current unsightly situation is a natural result of the many years of crisis in the domestic military shipbuilding. Three of the four existing cruisers with long-range air defense systems went to the Russian Navy from the Soviet Union. At one time, the USSR was so cool that he allowed himself to build ships of the same class on several projects at once - as a result, similar ships appeared, but with different, highly specialized functions: BOD (anti-submarine cruisers and destroyers), missile-artillery destroyers, missile cruisers with by the poetic name “grin of socialism” ... In accordance with this concept, heavy and bulky long-range air defense systems were installed exclusively on large missile cruisers, of which they managed to build quite a bit.

Flagship pacific fleetmissile cruiser "Varangian"

As a result, we have what we have: four missile cruisers equipped with the S-300F “Reef” air defense missile system. Three more "Orlan" are in sludge and, at best, can be returned to service no earlier than the end of this decade. A prospective super-helicopter carrier of the Mistral-a la-rus type will not be able to rejoice in terms of air defense: only self-defense systems are on board (according to the latest data, it is planned to arm the ship with the Gibka short-range anti-aircraft complex based on Igla air defense missile systems).

A situation where one opponent has a shield, and another has a sword - sooner or later leads to defeat of the defending side. Automatic anti-aircraft guns and short-range missiles are only the last line of the air defense of the ship. It is much more important to try to destroy the enemy aircraft before it launches cruise missiles. As soon as the Firetails “Harpoons”, HARMs, “Exosets” fall from the attacking bomber's suspension nodes, the task of repelling the attack will turn into a complex system of equations with many unknowns. And every second the chance to save the ship is rapidly approaching zero - the means of the ship’s self-defense are unlikely to repel such a massive rocket attack.

The launchers of the C-300F air defense system on the Marshal Ustinov missile cruiser, behind them is the “boob” of the airborne target radar. Further away in the stern, a round "bollard" of the air defense system "Osa-MA" is visible

Zonal air defense squadron - a mandatory attribute of modern warfare at sea. Those who dare to enter the zone of military operations without a zonal air defense system will face the gloomy prospects of the Tsushima pogrom. Delivery of military aid to the allies, prevention of provocations, escorting ships in areas of military conflicts - it is much safer and more pleasant to carry out all these operations under the cover of a powerful air defense system with C-300 characteristics, and even better C-400. The Russian Navy is faced with an acute problem of speeding up its saturation with ships capable of providing zonal air defense of a squadron with sufficient efficiency. But what should this ship be?

USS Spruance (DDG-111), 61-th rocket destroyer Orly Burk series

It is obvious that at the moment Russia is not in a position to massively build the nuclear-powered cruisers Orlan or analogs of Aegis-destroyers like the Orly Burk. Extremely complex and expensive "toys", the creation of which requires outstanding progress in all related fields: engine building, electronics, electrical engineering, precision engineering, physics of composites, etc.
The experience of Great Britain is also hardly applicable to modern Russian realities: the world's best destroyers of the Deering type are excessively expensive and difficult for mass construction, Her Majesty’s fleet was limited to buying only six ships at a price of 1,5 billion pounds each!

In my opinion, the best option for the Russian Navy could be the construction of a modest warship, the size of a large frigate or a small destroyer. Simple, relatively cheap, with the maximum possible use of all known, already "run-in" technologies. Do not fall into the "technological glamor" and try to create a super-destroyer - the situation clearly does not have to such bold excesses. Let's leave fantasies about nuclear power plants on the conscience of irreparable romantics. We will abandon the complex and, as yet insufficiently finished, missile systems and vertical launchers of the UBCS. Down with any talk about the over-versatility of the ship. Remember, we need the most simple and effective ships with zone air defense systems, for the speedy saturation of the Navy of Russia with them.

But what does such a ship look like? What are its real characteristics and capabilities?
The answer will tell us China.

Type 051 “Liuzhou” - modern squadron destroyers of the Navy of the People's Republic of China. Two ships of this type — Shenyang and Shijiazhuang — replenished the fleet composition of the fleet in 2006 and 2007, becoming the next stage in the development of Chinese military shipbuilding. The total displacement of each is within 7000 tons. Boiler-turbine power plant. Full stroke - about 30 nodes.

Why, of all the many Chinese destroyers, was chosen far from the newest Type 051С “Liuzhou”, and not much more technically interesting destroyer Type 052С “Liuyang”? Or is the formidable Type 052D under construction - a symbiosis of all the latest technologies and global trends in military shipbuilding?

The answer is simple, and to some extent, shocking - constructively the destroyer Type 051С is very close to the traditions of our domestic shipbuilding. In the design of the destroyer there is not a single element that the Russian industry would not be able to - the armament and radio-electronic systems are export samples of Russian weapons. Even in external forms, Type 051С slippage features of Soviet BOD and destroyers, the bow with a noble line of the forecastle with the head gives out the Soviet BOD of the 1155 project “Delete”, and the boiler-turbine installation may indicate affinity with the 956 “Sarych” missile-artillery destroyer of the 051 project ( four ships of this type fell into the hands of the Chinese just shortly before the start of the design Type XNUMXC).
This is one design school and, admittedly, the Chinese turned out to be extremely capable and talented students.

Our eastern friends were able to install in the body of a small 7000-ton destroyer ... 48 long-range 48H6 anti-aircraft missiles (C-300 family) in under deck launchers of a drum type. Structurally, the ZRK of the Chinese destroyer is identical to the C-300FM Fort complex, installed on the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great. As on the Russian ship, the destroyer Type 051С uses 48H6 missiles with semi-active guidance. The maximum firing range is 150 km. Altitude range: 10 meters - 27 kilometers. Anti-aircraft missile speed - up to 8 sound speeds!
Ships from China for the Russian fleet

Launch of the C-300FM anti-aircraft missile from the side of the Chinese destroyer

As a result, the small ship received solid capabilities for controlling the airspace - 48 missiles (half of the anti-aircraft ammunition of the Russian nuclear cruiser!) With equally sophisticated firing control systems: a multipurpose radar antenna with a phased active array (PAR) with electronic beam stabilization ФХNUMXМ, also identical to the one installed on Peter the Great.

The Russian C-300FM is the basis of the armament Type 051C, it is in this complex that the meaning of the existence of a Chinese destroyer lies. Understanding how great the air defense capabilities of the new ship are and what the main tasks of Type 051С will be, the Chinese honestly classified the “Liuzhou” into a “destroyer of air defense”. Cool ship!

However, the Type 051C has a moderate versatility: in addition to anti-aircraft missiles, there is an entire arsenal of anti-ship weapons on board the destroyer. Eight C-803 cruise missiles - solid-state anti-ship ammunition with a starting mass of one ton (depending on the modification). According to official Chinese data, the firing range can reach 300 km, while the subsonic rocket accelerates at the end of the trajectory to the speed of 2M, while the RCC rushes over the water itself at an altitude of 5 meters. The missile is equipped with a semi-armored warhead mass 165 kg.
By the way, the Chinese have extensive experience in the development and modernization of anti-ship cruise missiles - the aforementioned C-803 is based on the C-802 subsonic Chinese anti-ship missile system, adopted in service with 9 countries of the world.

Also, on board the destroyer Type 051С there is:

- artillery system caliber 100 mm. It is a clone of the French naval gun 100 mm. Universal weapon for firing air, surface and coastal targets. The small high-explosive action of the projectile is to some extent offset by high rate of fire - up to 80 shots / min.

- Two seven-barreled anti-aircraft guns Type 730 caliber 30 mm. According to its characteristics and appearance, it is a clone of the Goalkeeper anti-aircraft artillery complex (Netherlands). Well, the Chinese have once again shown prudence by copying one of the world's best shipboard self-defense systems. The Dutch Goalkeeper is an accurate and effective weapon with huge ammunition power - the artillery part of the complex is nothing more than a seven-barreled aviation the gun of the American attack aircraft A-10 Thunderbolt.

- anti-submarine armament - two three-tube torpedo tubes for shooting 324 mm torpedoes Yu-7. Something very familiar ... for sure, this is just a clone of the American system Mk.32 ASW and 324 mm anti-submarine torpedoes Mk.46. It is considered an effective weapon for PLO in the near zone. Americans themselves doubt that the small torpedo Mk.46 is powerful enough to seriously damage a modern nuclear-powered icebreaker. The combat unit - "just" 45 kilograms.

- Aviation armament destroyer Type 051C. And here is the disappointment! (mixed with relief - at least somewhere the Chinese have slack)
Aft Type 051C has a small platform for the Ka-28 anti-submarine helicopter (an export version of the Ka-27 Soviet naval helicopter). Surely on board there is a stock of aviation kerosene and a certain amount of aviation ammunition. But the main thing is that there is no helicopter hangar on the destroyer, i.e. the permanent basing of the helicopter is not provided.
Unforgivable mistake for the ship of the XXI century! Still, the helicopter is a useful system, greatly expanding anti-submarine, search and rescue, special capabilities of the ship. However, the first destroyers of the Orly Burk type also did not have helicopter hangars ...

After reviewing the Chinese destroyer Type 051C Liuzhou, it can be concluded that the presence of a dozen of such ships in the Russian Navy could significantly increase the combat potential of the surface component of the domestic fleet.
The capabilities of the Chinese destroyer in detecting and destroying air targets practically correspond to the heavy nuclear cruiser Peter the Great and significantly exceed the capabilities of the anti-aircraft defense of the missile cruiser Moskva ...

The Chinese C-803 anti-ship missiles are still a “dark horse.” According to the declared TTH - worthy representatives of the RCC class. What they are in reality is unknown. But the main thing is that 8 launchers in the middle part of the ship give every reason to believe that there would be enough space on the Russian counterpart of the Chinese destroyer to accommodate launch containers with Russian Kiber-class cruise missiles or, alternatively, X-55 Uranus anti-ship missiles .

Nose artillery installation is a matter of taste. You can save the original 100 mm option. And it is better to replace it with the Russian automated AK-192 artillery system of 130 mm caliber.
Anti-aircraft guns - there are excellent Russian development "Dirk" and "Palash" - anti-aircraft melee missiles significantly enhance the air defense potential of the ship.
Anti-submarine weapons - the domestic Medvedka small-sized missile system with 324 mm homing torpedo as a warhead. The maximum firing range is 20 km. Not a bad result.

In the end, no one calls for a complete copy of the Chinese destroyer - are we really not able to construct our own ship of this level? Taking into account all your own wishes and needs.

Main power plant? Her type doesn't matter. The Chinese use the good old boilers for fuel oil. You can install gas turbines. You can try a combined diesel-gas turbine unit type CODAG. What will be cheaper, easier and more profitable. The main thing is not a nuclear reactor - otherwise the whole idea of ​​a simple and effective “budget” destroyer “will be covered with a copper basin”. But how will the ships of the Northern Fleet go to Nagasaki without a nuclear reactor? I answer: the ships of the Northern Fleet will not go to Nagasaki. Pacific Fleet ships will sail to Nagasaki. After all, all the simplifications in the design of the destroyer serve the sole purpose - as quickly as possible to saturate the naval personnel of the Russian Navy with new ships with a solid combat potential.
108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    9 March 2013 09: 04
    Survived! All this is very sad ..... crying
    1. +9
      9 March 2013 09: 20
      It would be sad, but ships are needed now and not by 2020, and that is, doubts, I think you can order the minimum number, but think through everything that would not be like with the Mistrals - This is really sad.
      1. dimarm74
        +4
        9 March 2013 20: 12
        If you even imagine that they will now begin to design a ship with powerful air defense, no matter what they call it - a frigate, destroyer, cruiser, etc. with a displacement of 7000-8000 tons, they won’t even be in time by 2020.
        Think for yourself - 2-3 years goes to research, this is under favorable circumstances. The Navy will think for a year what power plant to put on it. Then another year they will determine the composition of weapons, etc. In the best case, project documentation will be ready by 2016. Then at least another year they will coordinate, remodel, etc.
        In 2017, a tender will be announced! (This red tape will be about a year!).
        At best, they will lay the lead ship in 2018!
        Dear members of the forum ... how many years have you been building the lead ship of project 20380? More than 7 years have passed from the moment of the laying to the commissioning of the "Guarding". Well ... let's believe in the best, 4 years at least, no less. Those. under the most favorable circumstances, the ship with a displacement of 7000-8000 tons, the new project will be launched in 2022.
        So it’s easier to strengthen the air defense of the existing frigates 11356 and 22350, if available on approved projects is considered insufficient.
        Let’s hope that the new destroyer or cruiser that was recently trumpeted in all the media has already been designed with sufficient air defense.
      2. +2
        10 March 2013 09: 07
        Denis,
        Quote: Denis
        now and not by 2020


        in order to pass by 2020 .. it is necessary to lay it now .. alas
    2. +20
      9 March 2013 09: 33
      I won’t comment, going into technical details, but the author really showed the weakness of our Navy. In fact, everything is very sad.
      1. +6
        9 March 2013 17: 53
        And even very much! half of the payroll of the fleet are ships that are under repair, are laid up, or nominally they are, but such a radical modernization is required that it is easier to write them off and build new ones. The same cruisers, such as "Peter the Great", require such investments that it becomes scary. Those who served in the navy know that the more the ship is against the wall. the faster it gets old. It's like a house without an owner, which is being destroyed at an alarming rate. I would like to ask a question to the USC management: why does it take so long to build ships? ; why the money received from the sale of ships built for export does not work to improve the construction technology? ; and many more why?
        1. +1
          10 March 2013 19: 52
          Hmm.-money received from the sale settled in their pockets and they can not be returned.
    3. +11
      9 March 2013 10: 55
      Quote: nycsson

      Survived! All this is very sad ...


      Everything that happens to our fleet since the end of the 80s can be identified with the help of one word P.I. .. EC! No matter how sad it sounds. In fact, we can now rely on only one serious combat-capable squadron of surface ships, but the truth is provided that the ships must gather from all four disparate fleets, which is very sad. So if our government does not care about the early start of the construction of ships of the 1st rank, everything will be even more sad.
      1. +12
        9 March 2013 12: 21
        We are developing slowly ............
        1. Melchakov
          0
          9 March 2013 14: 54
          nycsson,
          Of course, I apologize, but in fairness it is worth noting. And in 86 the USSR was gone ?!
          1. 0
            9 March 2013 15: 10
            Quote: Melchakov
            But in the 86 the USSR was gone ?!

            Decrypt .......
            1. Melchakov
              -4
              9 March 2013 17: 17
              nycsson,
              The Chernobyl accident occurred during Soviet times.
              1. +7
                9 March 2013 17: 20
                Quote: Melchakov
                The Chernobyl accident occurred during Soviet times.

                And what does it have to do with it? If the picture shows an accident at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station? request
                1. Melchakov
                  +2
                  9 March 2013 21: 25
                  nycsson,
                  The demo says 20 years without the USSR, but in fairness, it is worth noting that in the USSR, not everything was so smooth.
                  1. 0
                    10 March 2013 15: 44
                    Quote: Melchakov
                    The demo says 20 years without the USSR, but in fairness, it is worth noting that in the USSR, not everything was so smooth.

                    I agree!
        2. 0
          9 March 2013 15: 07
          Why are xnumx years old?
          The nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great was accepted into the Russian Navy in 1998.
          1. +11
            9 March 2013 16: 49
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great was accepted into the Russian Navy in 1998.


            Not a relevant example. Russia inherited Peter from Russia with a very high degree of preparedness, in fact, we can say that we were lucky that the reformers did not destroy this ship.
            1. +2
              9 March 2013 17: 54
              Quote: Sakhalininets
              in fact, we can say that we were lucky that the reformers did not destroy this ship.

              You inherited the nuclear submarine K-329 "Severodvinsk" (project 885 "Ash", laid down in 1993) from the Boriskin reformers. The boat is not finished yet

              Another boat - K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky" (project 955 "Borey", bookmark - 1996) was somehow completed by 2012.

              In general, all "Borei" are built from ready-made sections of the submarines pr. 971 and 949A, built in the "dashing nineties"
              1. +2
                10 March 2013 04: 48
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                You inherited the nuclear submarine K-329 "Severodvinsk" (project 885 "Ash", laid down in 1993) from the Boriskin reformers. The boat is not finished yet
                Another boat - K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky" (project 955 "Borey", bookmark - 1996) was somehow completed by 2012.
                In general, all "Borei" are built from ready-made sections of the submarines pr. 971 and 949A, built in the "dashing nineties"


                I absolutely agree with you, since the collapse of the USSR, Russia has been able to build only corvettes from scratch, and even this shadow is the faded remnants of the shadow of what was designed and built in the USSR for the Navy.
                1. +2
                  10 March 2013 23: 08
                  I will apologize for the amateurishness: let's build at least something, preferably in a series of the same type, even if it is "Guarding". The main thing is that the types of ships are smaller, and the ships themselves are larger - then the operating costs will be lower, and the training of personnel is simpler, and the variety in orders is less. Let's finally do, not promise!
    4. Melchakov
      -2
      9 March 2013 14: 51
      And generally speaking. Who told you that we will buy them or copy them. You never know what different "writers" write there.
  2. Zhzhuk
    +3
    9 March 2013 09: 29
    I read a book where the pros and cons of submarines were given, it was said that our submarines could sink deeper than American but lost in visibility, when for the submarine this is important and you can recall the cases with our submarines off the American coast when it is not clear how the cable turned on the screw and the boat got up (by one of the versions of the American case) the case of Kursk also has many questions. Therefore, the article is very interesting in terms of optimizing tasks, I can not describe in words but intuitively I feel that the author is largely right. I recall the German mouse powerful, big and the sense in the end is less than from the tractor
  3. PLO
    +10
    9 March 2013 09: 33
    interesting article, but as usual extremely subjective

    It is obvious that at the moment Russia is not in a position to massively build the nuclear-powered cruisers Orlan or analogs of Aegis-destroyers like the Orly Burk. Extremely complex and expensive "toys", the creation of which requires outstanding progress in all related fields: engine building, electronics, electrical engineering, precision engineering, physics of composites, etc.

    what is so super-technological in Arly Burke?
    just don’t talk about Aegis, you can even put it on a scum.


    Do not fall into "technological glamor" and try to create a super-destroyer

    Late
    The mechanic says that the 11-13 project of a thousand ton destroyer is already under development, even shared some delicious details


    We will abandon complex and yet insufficiently completed missile systems and vertical launchers of the UKKS.

    USCs have been put on ships since the 2000 years and you think it has not yet been brought?
    not to mention the fact that any uksk is much simpler than inclined and especially turret pu


    The capabilities of the Chinese destroyer to detect and destroy air targets practically correspond to the Peter the Great heavy nuclear cruiser and significantly exceed the capabilities of the Moscow missile cruiser air defense ... more turret launchers

    Do you really think that 1 radar of detection and one 1 radar of backlight corresponds to 3 radar and 2-mind radar of backlight?
    Tell me, why did you choose Moscow, and not the Varangian and Frigate? or Ustinov, who is now actually upgrading electronic weapons?

    anti-ship missiles X-55 "Uranus".

    what
    Medvedka domestic small-sized missile system with 324 mm homing torpedo as a warhead. The maximum firing range is 20 km.

    Bear? I have doubts that you mean Package-NK


    to summarize
    051c is a good but not necessary ship, according to the principle "it is not necessary better, it is necessary yesterday" we are building 11356s.
    22350 looks much more attractive than your example
    1. +5
      9 March 2013 11: 28
      PLO
      +, I agree completely. Of course, our claims on the destroyer in the parameters of the light cruiser are not very pleasing to me - it means that they will be built a little - but it is not worth going to extremes and fastening highly specialized ships. Already built. As a result, we got a fleet that can perform any task only as part of a naval group request
      On the other hand, the range of the Fort is good, but what is our radio horizon? Well, 30 kilometers. And the planes will go to the launch line at an ultra-low altitude. And after the launch of the anti-ship missile system, the Fort will not have any advantages over the Broadsword, rather the opposite.
      So shouting about the great Chinese shipbuilding is possible, but not so loud. We are also engaged in the fleet, finally. I want more, faster, but ... what we have.
      1. +2
        9 March 2013 14: 02
        I also completely agree. How 48 missiles of the "Fort" air defense system can be better than 64 missiles of the same air defense system. The Chinese project, it seems to me, is approximately equal to our frigate, project 22350
        1. -1
          9 March 2013 15: 05
          Quote: andrei
          how 48 missiles of the "Fort" air defense system can be better than 64 missiles of the same air defense system

          Very simple. On the GRKR "Moskva" there are old 5V55 missiles with a range of 75-90 km (according to various sources)
          Quote: andrei
          The Chinese project, it seems to me, is approximately equal to our frigate, etc. 22350

          Do not write nonsense
          1. 0
            10 March 2013 14: 21
            Why stupid things. Our frigate has 36 anti-aircraft missiles with a range of 150 km 16 anti-ship missiles and short-range air defense systems about the same as Chinese weapons. And the s-300f has 48p6 missiles with a range of 150km.
      2. -1
        9 March 2013 15: 23
        Quote: Botanologist
        but what kind of radio horizon do we have? Well kilometers 30. And the aircraft will go to the launch line at an extremely low altitude.

        It turns out that the planes, too, will not be able to detect the ship before reaching the launch line? The strike group simply will not find the target!
        Or the Hornets learned to see through the earth's crust?))))
        1. +1
          9 March 2013 15: 43
          airplanes, too, will not be able to detect a ship before reaching the launch line

          To begin with, airplanes generally know where they are carrying anti-ship missiles. They have target designation. The launch boundary is quite arbitrary - because the target is moving, so the plane goes into the square, rises, looks at the locator - and instead of 1 target, 3-5 appear on the ship’s radar. Of these, 1 or 2 are anti-radar missiles. The number of targets depends on the type of missiles on the carrier.
          Therefore, the proud statements of the author of the article that the Chinese ship will fight with carriers, and ours - with anti-ship missiles in the near zone - are very far-fetched. Everyone will fight everything at the launch line.
          However, maybe vaf will come up and tell you more.
          1. -1
            9 March 2013 15: 53
            Quote: Botanologist
            To begin with, airplanes generally know where they are carrying anti-ship missiles. They have target designation

            Who issues the central bank?

            And why should enemy aircraft go at low altitude?))))
            1. +5
              9 March 2013 16: 29
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Who issues the central bank?

              Yes, Christmas trees are green :))) Hokai will give them TsU. The same Hokai who hangs kilometers in 300-400 from your destroyer and sees it perfectly on his radar. But the destroyer also sees Hokai, but can’t do anything - the range of the air defense system does not allow ...
              1. -1
                9 March 2013 18: 06
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                which hangs kilometers in 300-400 from your destroyer

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But the destroyer also sees Hokai, but can’t do anything - the range of the air defense system does not allow ...

                48H6E3
                40H6
                1. +1
                  9 March 2013 18: 35
                  48H6E3
                  40H6


                  Have you read the wiki? What ship’s backlight radar will capture and guide Hokai over 400 km? Give an example from real actions,
                  not leaflets.
                  1. -2
                    9 March 2013 18: 54
                    Quote: Botanologist
                    What naval backlight radar will provide capture and guidance over Hokai for 400 km.?

                    40H6E equipped with an active seeker
                    1. +1
                      9 March 2013 19: 06
                      Those. in other words, you propose to replace C-300Ф with C-400. Generally speaking, I fully agree with this decision. There is only one question - why do you think that the creation of a marine version of the C-400 and even with missiles which simply aren’t available today - since the 40Н6Е seems to have not been adopted yet - but the 48Н6E3 is still not enough. this is how you write
                      Simple, relatively cheap, with the maximum possible use of all known, already “run-in” technologies.

                      For some reason, I’m not sure that the development of a new complex is simple and cheap.
                      1. -2
                        9 March 2013 19: 47
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        For some reason, I’m not sure that the development of a new complex is simple and cheap.

                        One new complex is not three.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        the creation of a marine version of C-400 and even with missiles which today simply do not

                        nevertheless, the C-400 is in many respects identical in terms of the weight and size characteristics of the C-300 - the creation of a marine version based on those. C-300F decisions should not create any significant problems.
                        missiles harder. hope to bring to mind.

                        In any case, a small cheap ship, even with S-300FM air defense systems with 9M96E1 and 48Н6E2 missiles, would become the only replenishment of the Russian Navy
                      2. postman
                        0
                        10 March 2013 01: 56
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        small cheap ship even with S-300FM air defense systems with 9M96E1 and 48N6E2 missiles

                        we rest against the masses about-dimensional characteristics of the ZR, and accordingly in the CPC
        2. postman
          +1
          9 March 2013 19: 56
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The strike group simply will not find the target!

          United States
          -SOCIAL_BOOKAMRK_LINKS
          -KN-11 optoelectronic reconnaissance spacecraft
          -SA radar reconnaissance "Lacrosse" / Reading Koretsky
          -SA of marine radio-technical intelligence SSU ("SSU-1" and "SSU-2")
          -CA radio intelligence ("Ferret")
          -CA of radio and radio-technical intelligence (Jumpseat, Dzheroboom, Magnum, Mentor, Chalet)
          -KA meteorological space system ("NPOESS" and "Noaa")/ accuracy of determining the temperature difference of 1,5 gC at sea level up to 40 km.
          -CA topogeodetic system "Geosat" / difference in the definition of an object by height at sea level 10 cm)
          -KA navigation system "Navstar"
          -SA of the strategic communications system of the United States based on the SC "DSTsS" / communication with aircraft carrier formations located in the water area of ​​the World Ocean
          -System of data collection and transmission based on the spacecraft "Sds"

          etc., 4 more components ...
          The peak of US satellite launches in the late 1990s. due to the creation of low-orbit satellite communications systems (Iridium, Globalstar and Orbcomm). For the entire period of space activity from 1958 to 2010, the United States launched 2402 satellites.The actual orbital constellation of US satellites as of December 31, 2010 included 440 spacecraft performing target tasks. US enterprises have created more than 300 satellites for other countries of the world.

          WE WAIT:
          - "KEASat"
          - "Brilliant Eyes"
          - "XSS"


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Or the Hornets learned to see through the earth's crust?))))

          In view of the foregoing, he does not require
        3. NOBODY EXCEPT US
          -2
          9 March 2013 21: 27
          I am not a specialist in radio engineering, but from school I still remember that 30 km is a line where heaven and earth "connect" visually and you can see this feature standing on the surface of the earth ... the radio horizon seems to me to be larger ...
          1. Kaa
            +2
            9 March 2013 21: 47
            Quote: NOBODY BUT US
            I still remember from school that 30 km is a line where heaven and earth "connect" visually and you can see this line standing on the surface of the earth.

            Do not say this to your former teachers:
            "
            Height above the Earth's surface Distance to the horizon Example of observation point
            1,75 m 4,7 km standing on the ground
            25 m 17,9 km 9-storey building
            50 m 25,3 km ferris wheel
            150 m 43,8 km hot air balloon
            2 km 159,8 km mountain
            10 km 357,3 km aircraft
            1. -1
              9 March 2013 23: 37
              Quote: Kaa
              Height above the Earth's surface Distance to the horizon Example of observation point


              The simplest formula D = 4 is multiplied by the square root of H,
              where H is the height of the radar observer / antenna above the Earth's surface

              an even more accurate calculation is given below:
            2. postman
              0
              10 March 2013 01: 59
              Quote: Kaa
              Do not say this to your former teachers:

              20-25 meters typical ship radar altitude ...
              and Oleg does not recognize balloons.
              the Americans really got the F-35 with its wonderful radar
    2. -1
      9 March 2013 16: 14
      Quote: olp
      what is so super-technological in Arly Burke?

      - BIUS Aegis, incl. AN / SPY-1 radar with four fixed headlights;

      - GEM based on gas turbines LM2500 - the most "run-in" system, used on frigates "Perry", destroyers / BOD "Spruens", cruisers "Ticonderoga". For 40 years, it has been brought to perfection;

      - universal UVP Mk.41, designed for the use of any missile weapons (KR; heavy and light SAM, PLUR) in service with the US Navy.

      - "Masker" system, modular design, maximum standardization and unification.

      Quote: olp
      The mechanic says that the 11-13 project of a thousand ton destroyer is already under development, even shared some delicious details

      the frigate 4500 tons are building the 7 year and the end of the construction is not visible.
      large, complex destroyer turn into a long-term
      Quote: olp
      USCs have been put on ships since the 2000 years and you think it has not yet been brought?

      examples of such ships
      Quote: olp
      Bear? I have doubts that you mean Package-NK

      RPK-9
      Quote: olp
      according to the principle "it is not necessary better, it is necessary yesterday" we are building 11356s.
      22350 looks much more attractive than your example

      Neither 11356 nor 22350 have zonal air defense.
      and therefore, any comparison with the Chinese 051С is inappropriate
      1. +2
        9 March 2013 16: 30
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Neither 11356 nor 22350 have zonal air defense.

        laughing it remains only to find out what you mean by zonal air defense. Mandatory availability of C-300? :)
        1. -1
          9 March 2013 18: 21
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Mandatory availability of C-300?

          C-400

          ZRK Redut - another bluff of the Russian defense industry. In 2012, Redoubt failed shooting three times.
          According to the results of the tests, the Central Scientific Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense (FGU “1 Central Research Institute”, St. Petersburg) concluded: the complex is underdeveloped, needs to be addressed by many shortcomings, it is not practical to supply it with weapons.
          The ships that were planned to be equipped with this complex also do not exist:
          - Frigate 22350 already promise to complete the seventh year;
          - 22385 corvette construction canceled (Rogozin as always did not fulfill his promise)
          - 20380 corvette:
          And what do you want, since there was a strict technical task: to accommodate the overall complex in a small ship with a displacement of about 2,5 thousand tons? Due to the small size of the compartments, we were unable to accommodate many of the air defense systems and radar units, and the rest had to be seriously squeezed. All this could not affect the effectiveness of the complex
          1. +2
            9 March 2013 19: 13
            Firstly,
            - This year, they shot three times - twice from the surface position from the Baltic Fleet “Soobrazitelny” and once from the ground installation.
            Читайте далее: http://izvestia.ru/news/537273#ixzz2N3VS6rT1

            and more
            Naval specialists are especially unhappy with the 9M96M missile and the Fuke-2 radar

            Those. we are not talking about the "Polyment-redoubt" complex, but only about the "redoubt" + "furka" which is an obvious perversion, because the furka is clearly too weak for aiming missiles.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            - Frigate 22350 already promise to complete the seventh year;

            This is tough, but maybe it’s just its “filling” - such as “Polyment-Redut”?
            1. -1
              9 March 2013 19: 40
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The Furka is clearly too weak to aim the SAM.

              the complex cannot exist as it is
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              but maybe all the same it is in its "filling" - such as "Polyment-Redut"?

              overly complicated ship
              as if they wanted to create a "super-hero" with a / and 4500 tons, which could replace an entire fleet
      2. PLO
        0
        11 March 2013 08: 47
        BIUS Aegis, incl. radar AN / SPY-1 with four fixed panels HEADLIGHTS;

        any BIOS is primarily in the field of software
        and do you really think that the AN / SPY-1 is more technologically advanced than the S-300FM or S-400 backlight radar?

        - GEM based on gas turbines LM2500 - the most "run-in" system, used on frigates "Perry", destroyers / BOD "Spruens", cruisers "Ticonderoga". For 40 years, it has been brought to perfection;
        the most run-in and super-technological in one sentence? highly doubt

        - universal UVP Mk.41, designed for the use of any missile weapons (KR; heavy and light SAM, PLUR) in service with the US Navy.

        there is nothing complicated in creating a VPU
        and its versatility rests only on the standard information input interface

        large, complex destroyer turn into a long-term

        any ship can be turned into a long-term construction,

        examples of such ships

        first three Indian Talwar
    3. +1
      9 March 2013 22: 22
      Quote: olp
      The mechanic says that the 11-13 project of a thousand ton destroyer is already under development, even shared some delicious details
      It is not under study. The concept has been adopted in principle, but now we are starting to implement it on paper. We have a whole department working on this. Now our youth is laying a fundamentally new solution in management. Well, it will take a few more years.
      1. postman
        +1
        10 March 2013 01: 54
        Quote: Mechanic
        Well, a few more years it will all take

        Eugene
        It will be late...
        in addition to "heads", technological capabilities of production are required / +
        labor productivity.
        Zyuza (2235):
        Bookmark the lead ship of this project - "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" withHeld on February 1, 2006 at the St. Petersburg shipyard "Severnaya Verf". The main builder of the ship was D. Yu. Silantyev. Launched on October 29, 2010. According to the plan, it is supposed to go into operation in 2012
        This is not even funny ....
        1. 0
          10 March 2013 13: 28
          Quote: Postman
          Eugene
          It will be late...
          in addition to "heads", technological capabilities of production are required / +
          labor productivity.
          As for our production, we will do. But here are all the approvals, alterations in the project, adaptation, test technology, test reports not only depend on us. The stands for SU30MKI, IL76 finished a month ahead of schedule. For Berievtsev, we invest in 3 a month earlier. A small brake with alterations for Almaty, but this is not our problem, UVZ cannot agree with the cooperators.
          1. postman
            +1
            10 March 2013 20: 43
            Quote: Mechanic
            As for our production, we will do

            for shipbuilding, power does not allow ....
            Regrettably.
  4. avt
    +2
    9 March 2013 09: 37
    “As a result, the small ship received solid opportunities to control the airspace" ----------- You know, we have been going this way for a long time, since Tsarist times. , Gangut "and one can immediately see the incorrigible shortcomings of this approach. In my opinion, the construction of the fleet is not the resettlement of people from barracks to panel five-story buildings as in the days of Khrushchev. The protection of our interests in the Ocean must be addressed differently, perhaps by inventing other methods than a simple increase in the crew.
  5. Guun
    0
    9 March 2013 09: 39
    The dragon takes the best from all over the world. These ships were built by our specialists (lured) which were unnecessary after the collapse of the USSR, there is no other explanation.
  6. djon3volta
    -10
    9 March 2013 10: 23
    I agree, things aren’t so hot as they say. BUT! do you give me a real scenario of an attack on Russia when you provide it? I’ve already asked at least an approximate date to announce when and who will attack Russia. I also used to believe that they’ll get away with Iran (supposedly We’ll surrender Syria (we don’t surrender), nu-nu ..), and now they will attack us fellow
    when they attack us, can you Roughly say? and not to describe in every news that everything is lost, we will all die ... you or really fool what do you think, or I don’t already know what to think about you! do you really believe that NATO, the United States or China will invade Russia ??? will they just take it and invade like the Germans in 1941? here who thinks so, show yourself and describe your performance of how it will be laughing
    1. Volkhov
      -8
      9 March 2013 11: 30
      They will not attack us, but "we" - on Syria, Iran, polar bases, for example, in Pechenga, so there is no need to sail far, and this year, so there is no need to build something big either, then there will be nothing systemic, so no need to worry.
      1. +8
        9 March 2013 12: 34
        djon3volta,
    2. Melchakov
      +2
      9 March 2013 11: 39
      Quote: djon3volta
      at least announce the approximate date when and who will attack Russia

      I can say one thing. CTTS.
      1. djon3volta
        -1
        9 March 2013 14: 34
        Quote: Melchakov
        I can say one thing. CTTS.

        Who is Comrade Stalin, is the CTTS so deciphered? wassat you better answer the question. if you don’t know who and when will attack us, it’s better not to write any nonsense encrypted. if you know who and when will attack Russia, please be kind enough to voice it, at least briefly.
    3. +7
      9 March 2013 12: 25
      Quote: djon3volta
      BUT! Do you give me a real scenario of an attack on Russia when you provide?

      Stop nonsense! fool If you want peace, get ready for war!
      Quote: djon3volta
      when they attack us, can you Roughly say?

      When people like you will become an absolute majority! We have not "reached" this yet, but we are getting close!
      1. -2
        9 March 2013 12: 39
        djon3volta,
        1. djon3volta
          -6
          9 March 2013 14: 29
          Melchakov and nycsson, pictures and texts off topic are not accepted.
          You tell me specifically when they will attack us and who, then we'll talk. And you can put the minuses all your life, the answers are where, the answers fellow
          1. Melchakov
            +2
            9 March 2013 14: 38
            djon3volta,
            Comrade, it sometimes seems to me that you are 12 years old, because you behave appropriately. You insert everywhere, then Putin, then when they attack us. Just a couple of your similar comments, and I will change my ideological and political views.
            1. djon3volta
              -7
              9 March 2013 14: 46
              Melchakov
              Yes, everything can be, maybe I’m 12 years old .. what will you evade a direct answer from, would you take it and sign up who will attack us, when is it really so difficult? Or are you afraid to write the truth?
              I’m personally 100% sure that nobody will attack Russia by war. I’m not sure about your campaign and you’re afraid that someone will attack Russia, right? Well, write who will attack us and at least when, it’s just curious.
              1. Melchakov
                0
                9 March 2013 14: 59
                Yes, the point is not who will attack, who will not attack. The fact is that you are asking this off-topic and in almost every discussion. I already wrote to you once that they would write an article and explain to everyone there that no one would attack us.
          2. +3
            9 March 2013 15: 05
            Quote: djon3volta
            you tell me specifically when they will attack us and who, then we'll talk.

            specifically-NATO, the timing-you still no one will tell
            I think Putin will better explain to you, do you trust him?
            http://www.belvpo.com/21614.html
            1. -2
              9 March 2013 15: 24
              Quote: Tatanka Yotanka
              I think Putin will better explain to you, do you trust him?

              Yes, something was worried late ....... request
            2. djon3volta
              -4
              9 March 2013 15: 39
              Quote: Tatanka Yotanka
              specifically NATO

              NATO will attack? Yes? And how do you imagine this attack? You have such scenarios in your head, then describe them. I can’t imagine the first steps of NATO, where will they start? 1000 tanks will go and 1000 planes will fly towards Moscow, yes? all kinds of missiles will fly, missiles will fly from submarines, yes? do you really believe in such a scenario? laughing such as Americans and NATO will walk around the cities like in Iraq or Afghanistan and kill Russians? do you believe in this garbage? Do you live in any country if you really REAL in such a scenario? ? wassat
              1. +6
                9 March 2013 16: 57

                dear John 3 volts - add voltage to the brain to 220 levels of simple household appliances, hi - what scenario do you need, if it happens late it will be something to talk about, show me the one who said before the well-known events that we will fight with Georgia
                if Putin - whom you like to quote so much speaks of a military threat - then there is possible threat of attack, attack scenarios are exactly what they are doing at the General Staff - go there
          3. +4
            9 March 2013 15: 19
            Quote: djon3volta
            tell me specifically when they will attack us and who

            We have been attacked for a long time! But such as you do not understand!
            Symptoms:
            1. Population decline
            2. Cultural and moral degradation
            3. Transition from a manufacturing economy to a commodity economy
            And they will attack when we cross the line of no return, i.e. then, when they will be confident in victory with the least losses for them.
            And further! If you ask who will attack, it means that you are, to put it mildly, a narrow-minded person! fool
            1. djon3volta
              -4
              9 March 2013 15: 44
              Quote: nycsson
              We have been attacked for a long time!

              I’m not ashamed to post such pictures about Russia, I can’t understand .. what do you like what is shown here? if not, then for whom do you show it? and if you like, then you are an enemy of the state, since you defame the country with such posters.
              1. +8
                9 March 2013 16: 02
                Quote: djon3volta
                I’m not ashamed to post such pictures about Russia, I can’t understand ..

                Why should I be ashamed? Isn't that true? I am not ashamed of the truth. Let those who brought the country to such a state be ashamed. If you do not agree with this picture, disprove it, let’s, and I read that you will put it on it.
                Quote: djon3volta
                do you like what is shown here?

                No I do not like! But this is today's reality and I can not do anything about it!
                Quote: djon3volta
                if not, then for whom are you showing this?

                For you, for whom else! For those who say that everything is fine with us!
                Quote: djon3volta
                then you are an enemy of the state, since you defame the country with such posters.

                I repeat, I do not like it! How can it really defame? request
                1. +2
                  9 March 2013 16: 20
                  djon3volta,
    4. rubber_duck
      0
      12 March 2013 00: 54
      Quote: djon3volta
      they’ll just take it and invade

      You will not believe, but "that's so straight and will take" ... Then, too, many did not believe.
  7. +9
    9 March 2013 11: 31
    By article:
    "At one time, the USSR was so cool that it allowed itself to build ships of the same class according to several projects at once" - this is not a sign of coolness, but a sign of a mess in the heads of admirals.
    "It is much more important to try to destroy the enemy aircraft before it releases cruise missiles" - the launch range of modern air-based missile launchers of the "probable enemy" has long exceeded 300 km. outside the coverage area of ​​any existing air defense, and for example JASSM-ER and all 1000 km. Therefore, no S-400 and S-500 will help, but will only clutter up the already meager internal volumes of the warship.
    In general, the reference to pr. 051C is somewhat strange. This is far from the best ship in the world, far from the best, and for China it was a transition to 052, i.e. actually an experienced ship. But pr. 052D is already more interesting, and if you are already guided by China (is it necessary?), Then this destroyer has nothing unattainable for the Russian military-industrial complex. BUT for starters, you must finally take up the mind and restore order in the nomenclature of weapons, because without this we will build exclusive projects in single copies. We need a standard UVP with which you can use the WHOLE spectrum of anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles and from this already dance according to the nomenclature of ships.
    1. 0
      9 March 2013 21: 23
      Quote: Nayhas
      and for example JASSM-ER and all 1000 km.


      This is not RCC at all.
      1. 0
        10 March 2013 09: 18
        The fact that this is tactical missile defense does not mean that it cannot hit surface targets
  8. 0
    9 March 2013 11: 34
    Either their stocks are so loaded, or there are no specialists of the required level (they are older in age), or the production part is outdated, or did not think about replacing Soviet giants and are just starting to develop ... what's wrong? What is missing, gr. Rogozin?
  9. 0
    9 March 2013 11: 49
    Research work under the name "Leader" for the development of a preliminary design for the creation of a new destroyer is included in the state defense order for 2013, the completion date is the end of the year. In 2014, it is planned to begin development work, the construction of the ship itself can begin in 2016
  10. +4
    9 March 2013 12: 32
    everything mixed up in the Oblonsky’s house ... in the last 2 (!) articles, the author spoke about the uselessness of aircraft carriers, and here the whole Soviet / Russian fleet, with the exception of 4 ships, is POWERFUL before the aircraft. did it really happen? and not every shot leads to an atomic the war.
  11. +6
    9 March 2013 12: 42
    In the Union, the fleet was supposed to inflict maximum damage to the enemy, and then what’s going to happen! Now, until we see the project of the destroyer, talking about something is useless! Only with him we will see what our leadership sees in the future! One thing is clear is universality. In our position, this is so, for while we are building single ships, their main task will be to demonstrate the flag. It’s a shame if our leadership doesn’t get a clear plan of how the fleet should be for many years to come, because today the fleet is not only ships, but and aviation and other means of navigation, target designation, and reconnaissance. This is already the basis for the development strategy and should be repelled by whom to put. For I’m sure that China itself will begin to build destroyers with a small strike potential, but with a large defensive, but the cruiser - on the contrary, to give this plane and aircraft carriers - and we will see a very powerful, balanced fleet, which will be a thunderstorm of the seas.
  12. 0
    9 March 2013 13: 06
    Again, buy. Well, new people came to the Ministry of Defense, Buy is a kickback. Something to build, restore is a headache ... I would really like to make a mistake!
  13. Mikola
    0
    9 March 2013 13: 10
    A sober view of reality, something that the leadership in Russia is sorely lacking. But few people listen to such voices in the Kremlin - and they will build an empire with expensive and inefficient ships like the Mistral.
    1. Hunghuz
      +1
      9 March 2013 14: 14
      You in Ukraine, as a user of the Mistral, know better what our fleet needs and what does not
      1. Mikola
        0
        9 March 2013 14: 20
        How NOT to Mistals users laughing Do the Chinese have many Mistral?
        1. 0
          9 March 2013 15: 01
          Quote: Mikola
          Do the Chinese have many Mistral?

          three landing helicopter carrier
          1. Mikola
            -1
            9 March 2013 15: 06
            Exactly Mistral class or another project?)
            1. 0
              9 March 2013 15: 13
              Quote: Mikola
              Exactly Mistral class or another project?)

              Structurally different, similar to the Dutch "Rotterdam"
              On landing capabilities - inferior to Mistral, aboard the entire 4 helicopter
              1. Mikola
                -1
                9 March 2013 15: 29
                So China made three blunders, and Russia four. They are probably familiar with the criticism themselves.
                1. +2
                  9 March 2013 22: 20
                  Quote: Mikola
                  So China made three blunders, and Russia four. They are probably familiar with the criticism themselves.

                  You are somewhat confused. The ships of the UDC class are very useful by themselves. But these are ships of the "ocean fleet" for carrying out large offensive operations. The PRC needs such ships, but Russia does not.
                  1. -1
                    9 March 2013 23: 42
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    But these are ships of the "ocean fleet" for large-scale offensive operations

                    Misconception. To carry out major offensive operations, bases and airfields in border countries are needed.

                    UDC is a good solution for rich countries when you need to land 700 fighters of the Foreign Legion somewhere in Côte d'Ivoire in order to suppress another tribal massacre among blacks.

                    However, much more often the airport in the capital of Côte d'Ivoire is used for these purposes, where soldiers and equipment are transferred by transport boards. Easier, faster, cheaper, more efficient.
  14. 0
    9 March 2013 14: 05
    No need to copy Chinese junk, which means quickly saturating our fleet, we need large and powerful ships, especially since no one has declared a war for us.
    1. Mikola
      0
      9 March 2013 14: 25
      You clearly have an imperial disease - Russia, a country with an economy, is NOT in the top ten advanced states. Beginning of the article - Today, only four ships of the Russian Navy are capable of providing tactical (zonal) air defense of the squadron in open sea areas. You live in illusions.
      1. +3
        9 March 2013 14: 57
        Quote: Mikola
        . You live in illusions.

        And you and the illusions dissipated lol
        1. Mikola
          -1
          9 March 2013 15: 05
          Long smile What do you wish
    2. 0
      9 March 2013 15: 20
      Quote: krokodil25
      No need to copy Chinese junk, which means quickly saturate our fleet, we need large and powerful ships

      no one is going to copy, you need to at least analyze the experience of China in this matter and there is nothing shameful in this
      such ships (corvettes, frigates, destroyers) are precisely the main power and workhorses of the fleet, unlike large and powerful ones - which they need to be covered, and I don’t say what budget it is to buy expensive trotters to plow nothing
  15. +7
    9 March 2013 14: 40
    And why if it’s an inexpensive option to overlook the use of dry cargo ships with installed S-300-400 air defense batteries? Of course, with dowels, can the PU go deep into the deck, they are vertical.
    Or make a specialized ship - an anti-aircraft battery. This can be included in the convoys and put on a raid of the defended port.
    1. 0
      9 March 2013 14: 59
      Quote: Kars
      And why if we are talking about an inexpensive option to overlook the use of dry cargo vessels with installed ground batteries for the S-300-400 air defense system?

      too bold and too unsuitable
      civil courts have low speed.
      the use of gas turbines such as "Captain Smirnov" - ruinously high fuel consumption
      Quote: Kars
      and put on a raid of the defended port.

      Raid is covered by ground-based S-300 air defense systems, an open ocean problem
      1. 0
        9 March 2013 15: 11
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        civil courts have low speed

        If I am unmistakable for the purposes of the fleet, there is cargo delivery
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Delivering military assistance to allies, preventing provocations, escorting ships in areas of military conflict is much safer

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the use of gas turbines such as "Captain Smirnov" - ruinously high fuel consumption

        Here I can quote you from the disclosure of the name - the costs of fuel / fuel are not commensurate with the cost of the warship.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Raid cover ground air defense systems S-300

        First, you need to bring him there, but then the air defense has already come up.

        In principle, the idea is not to use civilian vessels, but to build a highly specialized anti-aircraft ship. On which there will be no unnecessary systems that would make it more expensive. Anyway, no single sailing is planned.


        Once the landing on the US coast was calculated (nuclear weapons were artificially excluded), the use of barges with launchers with external targeting from escort ships and helicopters gave such a good effect for escorting convoys of invasion.
        1. Mikola
          +1
          9 March 2013 15: 18
          Modern air defense systems, if necessary, can work on surface targets. So, there are no more specialized ones as such.
        2. -1
          9 March 2013 15: 33
          Quote: Kars
          If I am unmistakable for the purposes of the fleet, there is cargo delivery

          And if you need to urgently arrive on the coast of Iran?
          Purpose: demonstration of military presence, actions as part of an international coalition, protection of communications

          or remember. how the entire Russian Navy was urgently sent to rescue the Arctic Star - there seemed to be a cargo of something forbidden on board the bulk carrier.
          Quote: Kars
          Here I can quote you from the disclosure of the name - the costs of fuel / fuel are not commensurate with the cost of the warship.

          What do you mean? Recharging and repairing RCOH Nimitz costs 1 / 2 the cost of building a ship
          Quote: Kars
          and in the construction of a highly specialized anti-aircraft ship. on which there will be no unnecessary systems that would cost it more

          still modest warship 051С is preferable
          1. +4
            9 March 2013 16: 22
            the whole trouble is that we will have to buy or build a civilian fleet in our priests, I suggest confiscating yachts from the oligarchs - why not corvettes, high-speed maneuverable, timely, and some people’s displacement would be suitable for cruisers fellow
            1. +9
              9 March 2013 16: 29
              Quote: Tatanka Yotanka
              the whole trouble is that we will have to buy or build a civilian fleet in our priests, I suggest confiscating yachts from the oligarchs - why not corvettes, high-speed maneuverable, timely, and some people’s displacement would be suitable for cruisers

              Russian "Zamvolt"
              120-meter yacht "A" by Andrey Melnichenko
              1. -3
                9 March 2013 18: 42
                Russian "Zamvolt"
                SWEET_SIXTEEN, what are my doubts - and you, an hour, did not begin to flood?
          2. 0
            9 March 2013 22: 37
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And if you need to urgently arrive on the coast of Iran?

            This is already a loss.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What do you mean?

            that the cost of kerosene is not so great compared to the billions for a combat destroyer.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            still modest warship 051С is preferable

            7000 tons how much I have not seen.
            And as you recall, building a larger vessel is more economical than building smaller ones (we looked at the examples of the German Spee-Scharnhorst-Bismarck line)
            I would prefer a warship in 18-25 thousand tons
            1. -1
              9 March 2013 23: 49
              Quote: Kars
              This is already a loss.

              What to do with Arctic Sea emergency rescue?
              Quote: Kars
              that the cost of kerosene is not so great compared to the billions for a combat destroyer.

              A combat destroyer has several advantages:
              - it is more universal
              - it looks like a warship and is capable of displaying a flag
              - it can turn out cheaper than a gas turbohod!
              the captain smirnov is larger, but differs from the warship only in the absence of 100 mm artillery and anti-ship missiles, and even his gluttonous power plant
              All the rest - on which the cost of the ship, the heavy air defense systems, SLAs, RTS + a pair of air defense systems - to a large extent depends - there are no differences.
              Quote: Kars
              I would prefer a warship in 18-25 thousand tons

              Here and 7000 are unlikely to master
              that's the problem
              1. postman
                +1
                10 March 2013 02: 11
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Everything else - on which the cost of the ship depends to a large extent,

                at the moment from the BIUS and "the size of the cellars" (SAM, PKR)
                1. +1
                  10 March 2013 02: 21
                  Quote: Postman
                  at the moment from the BIUS and "the size of the cellars" (SAM, PKR)

                  But it seems to me more dependent on the arrogance of the shipbuilder and his margins.
                  Well, the rest of the chain of allies and contractors.
                  1. postman
                    +1
                    10 March 2013 11: 48
                    Quote: Kars
                    Kars

                    Well, I wrote about a purely theoretical (academic) approach.
                    And you practical (life) ..
                    most likely you're right: remember the story with a rusty anchor.
                    but if the% ratio in the estimate, then I'm right.
              2. 0
                10 March 2013 02: 18
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                What to do with Arctic Sea emergency rescue?

                I don’t know what kind of event this is. But most likely special air defense was not needed there.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Combat destroyer has several advantages.

                Yes, let it be possessed by anyone who bothers him.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                - it can turn out cheaper than a gas turbohod!

                Well, this is a difficult question - you didn’t name the price of the Chinese.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                larger captain smirnov

                prikinb how many launchers of long-range large anti-aircraft missiles can be stuffed into it.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                even his gluttonous power plant

                just so voracious? what does it mean? in money or range?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Here and 7000 are unlikely to master
                that's the problem

                this is not my problem anymore --- I write what I want - and they buy Mistral with how many nodes speed? 19?
  16. zhang
    0
    9 March 2013 15: 15

    Type 051C "Liuzhou", ....
  17. +1
    9 March 2013 15: 32
    Yeah! Do not get tired of wondering! Since when, Russia began to look into China's mouth in matters of shipbuilding ??? request crying
    1. +4
      9 March 2013 18: 16
      With the beginning of the mess with us. It’s good that for now it’s just a drop in, and I don’t have to order from them (for my own inability to build). sad
      1. 0
        9 March 2013 18: 44
        Quote: gizz
        It’s good that so far only to drop in,
        We have a powerful own shipbuilding school. Our specialists taught many specialists in the world. So if now at least not to interfere, then the carabling industry will not die.
        1. +2
          9 March 2013 19: 47
          Quote: Mechanic
          We have a powerful own shipbuilding school. Our specialists taught many specialists in the world. So if now at least not to interfere, then the carabling industry will not die.

          At least not to interfere! So who does not give? Build ........... request
          1. +2
            9 March 2013 20: 02
            Greetings Dear hi I already somehow explained the reasons. Maybe this is my superficial vision, but
            1. The lobby is too powerful for several design bureaus, and the rest make only secondary orders, and this leads to a decrease in the quality of projects.
            2. Placing orders abroad is, first of all, cheaper import nodes due to lower customs.
            Yes, and a lot of everything, there is certainly something that we do not see.
            1. +4
              10 March 2013 12: 38
              Quote: Mechanic
              Greetings Dear

              Mutually! hi
              Quote: Mechanic
              Yes, and a lot of everything, there is certainly something that we do not see.

              But it seems to me, no, I'm just sure that the problem is different! This is the collapse of shipbuilding as an industry. because for a long time they didn’t build anything, the management was forced to cut staff, etc., i.e. to optimize costs, years went by and now GOZ has fallen on his head !!! laughing And nobody knows what to do with these grandmothers! request There is no power! They would be glad to lay pieces of 20 ships in the ocean zone, but where to lay them? Where to get frames (welders, turners, milling machines, engineers, etc.)? The country has been training economists and lawyers for the last 20 years.
              And the accessories? request
              + before the state defense order scored foreign orders!
              1. +2
                10 March 2013 13: 33
                Quote: nycsson
                But it seems to me, no, I'm just sure that the problem is different! This is the collapse of shipbuilding as an industry. because for a long time they didn’t build anything, the management was forced to cut staff, etc., i.e. to optimize costs, years went by and now GOZ has fallen on his head !!!
                May be. Only we will not know.
        2. postman
          +1
          10 March 2013 02: 12
          Quote: Mechanic
          Our specialists taught many specialists in the world.

          Whom? and when?
          1. +1
            10 March 2013 13: 32
            Quote: Postman
            Whom? and when?
            When I started my activity in practice, there were about 20 specialists from China, India, Vietnam, there were even blacks. And it was in the dashing 90. What do you think if I am now talking with one of those Chinese who were, so here he is a leading engineer for the development of new concepts in tank building. You can imagine where the rest is now.
            1. postman
              +1
              10 March 2013 15: 31
              Quote: Mechanic
              here he is a leading engineer for the development of new concepts in tank building.

              I'm talking about shipbuilding !!!!
              Yet (de facto) we are not an ocean power. Although they could have become in Kotz XIX, the beginning of the XX-FAR EAST and the North.
              There’s no talk about tanks.
              1. 0
                11 March 2013 09: 02
                Quote: Postman
                Yet (de facto) we are not an ocean power. Although they could have become in Kotz XIX, the beginning of the XX-FAR EAST and the North.
                There’s no talk about tanks.
                De facto, the bulk of specialists from China works precisely in the promising areas of hydraulics in shipbuilding. They laid the base, and now they begin to develop it. And do not call the Chinese stupid, they are very trained and with a living brain. They learn from them how to adopt the best. Nek, everything turns out right away both with us and with us.
    2. Zhzhuk
      +1
      10 March 2013 16: 15
      no offense, but the Chinese are mainly specialists in revision and copying, revision is interesting both in terms of modernization, and the author suggests paying attention to the possible direction of modernization and not to buying shit like lynxes to the detriment of my VPK, but I really liked the idea and an efficient ship for them the future
  18. Yastreb
    +2
    9 March 2013 18: 08
    More than sad.
    But not only with ships. We also have very few submarines - will we also buy from China?
  19. +2
    9 March 2013 22: 17
    Considering the real state of the fleet, first of all we need nuclear submarines (both strategic and conventional). And from the surface ships of the BOD (both to ensure the deployment of our own submarines and to combat enemy submarines). Air defense destroyers are still more ships for the "ocean fleet "
    Well, if we talk about them, then copying 051C looks too modest. Of course, this is a good ship, but the Chinese themselves considered it as an intermediate stage in the transition to the type of destroyers that would satisfy their requirements.
  20. His
    0
    9 March 2013 23: 35
    The fleet is only part of the land war. I recall how the French cruisers drowned after surrender from Germany. There really British helped
  21. stray
    +1
    10 March 2013 14: 32
    Oleg Kaptsov Moldavian and clever. a true navy promoter. if you arrange your own, even paid site, I’ll definitely subscribe, it’s interesting with him!
    1. 0
      14 March 2013 13: 12
      Subscribe
  22. +2
    10 March 2013 15: 29
    If they will appoint sons ... like sons to a boar-furniture maker, and then say that de they were well guided, that there is no evidence for them, then you can forget about the fleet.
    Like so much more. crying
    1. 0
      10 March 2013 21: 10
      No offense, but is he in charge of all this? ... And he gets all kickbacks at the end of the chain? ... And talks about protecting the country's interests? ... If we don't work ourselves, no "beloved leader" will help us .. And we (I in a general sense) are ready to sacrifice the interests of the country for a rollback, just to put a small fraction in our pocket today - after all, kickbacks are well, let it be 30 percent (less for each), i.e. are ready to throw out 70%, just to get their own ... And these are our people ... And many of them worked for years in the defense industries, and it was there that they worked out this vicious system ...
  23. +1
    10 March 2013 22: 32
    Thanks to the author for the article, for the delight in our Navy. Now in essence. In my opinion, before creating any weapon or ship for the Navy, you need to clearly understand why it is needed at all, i.e. what tasks it is intended to solve (of course, taking into account the development of science and technology, the economic capabilities of the state, the development of the military-industrial complex, etc.). For developed states (including Russia), this is, first of all, the conquest of supremacy at sea, in the part to ensure the combat stability of strategic submarines with ballistic missiles when they are deployed and delivered R-I strikes and further in order - fight against AUG, disruption of shipping, etc. So, such ships, which the author proposes to build for our Navy, are completely useless, for the following reasons: First, they will not come out cheap in any way, tk. SAMs themselves + support systems (detection radars, target distribution systems, gyro azimuth horizons, etc.) are a very expensive weapon. Secondly, zonal (collective) defense for modern surface ships is no longer relevant, because Our modern hydroacoustic means allow us to solve the main task (ensuring the combat stability of the missile launcher SN in such open search-and-strike formations, in which no F-300M will provide fire interaction according to the VC heading parameters. at such ranges, where the most long-range air defense systems will not reach. Therefore, now we need multi-channel air defense systems with very little working time (in other words, high-speed), with a large amount of ready ammunition for firing. It remains to be hoped that it will be completed in the shortest possible time, there is simply no other option.
    1. 0
      11 March 2013 02: 55
      And what is the advantage of "Polyment-Redut" in terms of multichannel over "F-Z00M"?
  24. 0
    11 March 2013 00: 37
    Quote: djon3volta
    that everything is lost, we will all die ...


    Nda ... Only idiots are eternal. Unfortunately. No pestilence takes them.
  25. 0
    11 March 2013 13: 51
    Read on the Internet, Wikipedia, for example. There are already quite a few open materials on the Polyment-Redut air defense system.
    1. 0
      11 March 2013 16: 53
      could write rtfm, and at the same time give an answer in essence, it would take as many characters as this answer, but it would be better - and hinted at intolerance to those who don’t seek information on their own, and the answer would be given.
      Now it's my turn to hint - when I select a word in the text, I have the line "Search google for ...." in the context menu of the browser [This means that something did not suit me in these open sources, since I decided to ask you]
      1. 0
        11 March 2013 17: 34
        The statement about the advantage of polymer-redoubt in multichannel over s-300 * was your thesis, it is logical to assume that you already know the numbers.
        Generally speaking, the defense of the thesis lies with the one who put it forward, and this defense includes references to figures directly related to the thesis
  26. 0
    11 March 2013 14: 58
    Our country has vast experience in operating a nuclear power plant in the fleet. Why does the author of the article propose returning to boiler turbine junk?
  27. 0
    11 March 2013 18: 59
    Dear xtur! I use only open information and 100% from the Internet. According to the Poliment-Redoubt wikipedia, a given air defense system can simultaneously fire up to 16 air targets (4 for each headlamp). Thanks for the study! Read the link:
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%82_%28%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%B
    D%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9
    _%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%29
  28. 713
    713
    0
    12 March 2013 02: 56
    Lord! Without another Tsushima, the state will not turn to face the fleet. A historical tradition, if you like. Time is still peaceful, thank God, and our fleet is financed according to the residual principle. Old song: Russia is a land, not a sea power, etc.
  29. 0
    9 September 2014 05: 36
    I agree, it's high time.
    For the 2-3 of the year they rivet them according to the project moderated by us (+ hangar, streamlined ala stealth ...)
    And we will arm them - the problem is solved.
    China is interested in the drawings of Ulyanovsk - I believe it is necessary to use this opportunity for a long time - military cooperation at such a high level as the fleet + economic rapprochement is what is needed for the emergence of a full-fledged military-political alliance, which both China and we need.
    Our technology and mohga are their money and hands.
    And this is the first weapon against all fears, prejudices and fears for the Far East
  30. 0
    18 November 2014 22: 17
    Article +, with the idea I agree, with the choice of the ship - no.
    In addition, it is necessary that they build the building, communications, wires, etc., and we will supply the weapons and radars ourselves.
  31. 0
    25 March 2018 19: 23
    I opened this article 5 years after writing. It is worth recognizing that the author’s thought was quite robust. Although there are certain doubts, domestic enterprises could build and commission at least the proposed destroyer project, given the real problems in the industry.
  32. 0
    April 21 2018 11: 54
    So misunderstandings and with "Adm. Makarov" put in 2017. and somehow disappeared?