Military Review

Dmitry Rogozin: "You need to put as many weapons as possible on warships!"

63
Dmitry Rogozin: "You need to put as many weapons as possible on warships!"



Surface ships for the Russian Navy should be built so that they have as much as possible weapons, and the sizes remained the same. We examined the modern ship ("Boky"), which, in its armament, "musculature", despite its modest size, can with the ships with more "broad shoulders." Further modifications of this project, corvettes, frigates, ships of other displacement will be associated with the formation of an optimal weapon scheme - that is, as many weapons as possible should be on a ship that does not “swell” in size

- Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, an interview at the opening of the International Naval Salon in St. Petersburg, July 4 2013

Dmitry Rogozin quite rightly identified the main trend of the domestic shipbuilding: in the construction of Soviet / Russian ships, priority was always given to weapons!
Modest in size "tin" carried tremendous power strike systems, developed means of self-defense and multifunctional complexes of naval weapons.

The huge masses and dimensions of the Soviet anti-ship missiles (to match their capabilities!) Created certain difficulties with their placement on board ships - the original layout was usually used with the open placement of launch canisters right on the upper deck.

As a result, even with the naked eye it was noticeable that the ships, literally, are overloaded with weapons and ammunition. The upper decks were literally “overwhelmed” with rocket launch canisters, beam launchers, multi-barreled RBUs ​​and naval artillery barrels.
The ferocious face of Soviet ships, also known in the West as a “purposeful-looking design” (a serious ship for serious tasks), left no doubt as to the intentions of the Soviet Navy. Only forward, for the right of global domination in the sea!


Missile cruiser pr. 58 "Terrible" (1962). This is not to say that he was a super-hero, but for its size and cost, its capabilities were simply frightening. With a preventive strike, the “kid” could fill up any naval group of the US Navy (two salvos of 4 anti-ship missiles, two missiles with a “surprise”). The defensive capabilities of the cruiser itself were small, however, in those days the American aviation there was nothing more serious than subsonic attack aircraft and free-falling bombs.

Probably, that was what Dmitry Rogozin meant during his speech at IMDS-2013. However, in the continuation of the vice-premier's speech there are quite a few interesting phrases and statements: “Boiky corvette”, “optimal weapon scheme”, and also “as many weapons as possible on the ship while maintaining the same size”. At the same time, the Deputy Prime Minister stressed that "the buildup of armaments should not affect the comfort of the life and work of the crews."

Quite fair requirements to improve the effectiveness of combat surface units, while minimizing costs. Another thing is how feasible are these orders?

Indeed, the Russian boom of the 20380 project (adopted in the Russian Navy in May 2013), presented at the exhibition, corresponds in its class to the best world analogues. In addition to the rapid hull lines and superstructures, made with the technology of "stealth", the small ship carries on board such an impressive armament complex, which would envy a foreign frigate or light destroyer.
Tactics percussion arms (eight subsonic RCC X-35 «Uranium" with a range over 100 km), twelve topside cells SAM "Redut" (12 SAMs medium range 9M96E or 48 lung 9M100 missiles) - Corvette capable of attacking airborne targets at a distance of 40 kilometers from the ship. Universal artillery caliber 100 mm, two "metal cutters" AK-630M, anti-submarine complex "Package-NK" (8 small-sized torpedoes) and, of course, a helicopter.



And this is not the limit - on the “Greater” corvette under construction (improved 20385 project), it is planned to increase the number of Red Army air defense systems to 16 units, as well as to equip the corvette with a universal firing system (ECCS): eight Caliber cruise missiles with firing range over 2 thousand kilometers. And all this in the body of a tiny corvette with a full displacement of 2200 tons!

For comparison: to deploy a similar armament complex onboard the frigate Brandenburg, German developers needed as many 4500 tons of displacement! A comparison of Russian corvettes with similar-sized German corvettes of the type "Braunschweig" gives truly compelling reasons to be proud of the domestic shipbuilding. It is the “optimal armament scheme” that Dmitry Rogozin spoke so colorfully about!


German frigate Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, visit to St. Petersburg, 2009 year


But what about the statement about the "increase in the number of weapons while maintaining the same size"? What did the deputy prime minister mean?
Probably, the articles of the load - the ratio of the basic elements of the ship. In general, the set of parameters is as follows:

- hull and ship mechanisms;

- constructive protection and booking (if any);

- power plant (engine and ship power station);

- armament (the most important parameter, according to D. Rogozin);

- fuel;

- team and reserves of provisions;

- displacement reserve (in this case it can be neglected).

All elements of the ship are in a given balance with each other - it is impossible to increase one parameter without affecting the others. Just putting an extra anti-aircraft complex on the ship and an additional fire control system will fail — or rather, an overkil maneuver will turn out. When calculating the design of the ship, key attention is paid to its stability - if the specified restrictions are violated (shifting the center of gravity position due to overload or roll caused by damage in the underwater part), the metacentric height will critically decrease - the unfortunate ship will fall to the side and will be buried in masts.
Obviously, you have to donate any of the elements. But how?

1. Hull and ship mechanisms.

A ship without a hull can not be, but you can try to ease it. It is possible to thin the casing to the limit and weaken the power set - but then the hull will pop and burst under the impact of the waves, as the hulls of American Ticonderoga type cruisers do.

You can try to fool mother nature by playing on the “density” parameter - durable and lightweight titanium alloys work wonders. But the cost of such a ship would be so high that it would be easier to build two similar corvettes (cruisers, frigates) from ordinary steel.

Also, you can use a cheaper structural material, such as aluminum-magnesium alloy AMG. Almost a complete analog of titanium, the only snag - AMG alloy perfectly ignites and burns with a hot flame. Deadly threat to the survivability of the ship.

As for the hull of the corvette "Boky" - the designers managed to "squeeze" out of it all the reserves. The steel smooth-decked case, but the superstructure is made of composite materials (fiberglass) - solid weight savings.

2. Constructive protection and booking

For modern surface ships this item is irrelevant.

3. GEM

Everything is simple here - the required power of the power plant is determined by the required speed of the ship. The speed itself is in cubic dependence on the power of the power plant. In other words, if, other things being equal, the ship's power plant's capacity is reduced by 2 times, the speed will fall by 8 times. Catastrophic law of nature.

In real terms, this means the following: to accelerate the 2200-ton corvette to speed in 27 nodes (50 km / h) four Kolomna diesel 16Д49 horsepower 6000 hp is required. each. The net mass of each “motor” (excluding gearboxes, generators and auxiliary equipment) is just over 26 tons.
Reduce the speed of the corvette "Boy" is clearly not worth it - it is already on the border of the lower limit.

The required power, and, therefore, the mass of the power plant, can be reduced by optimizing the contours in the underwater part of the hull. Alas, this method has already been used - the contours of Russian corvettes are already extremely perfect. As for the nasal bulba, in which the under-rocky gas is placed, it is impossible to do anything here.
Theoretically, it is possible to replace Kolomna diesel engines with foreign ones, for example, ship engines of the MTU company - this will save a mass of several tens of tons, but will significantly complicate the operation of the power plant of the Russian corvette.

4. Armament

This was much discussed at the beginning of the article. The Russian corvette is already full of weapons to the limit.


UVP anti-aircraft complex "Redut"


5. Fuel

A live parameter directly related to the notion of autonomy. Domestic warships, traditionally, are not too good in this matter. The Corvette “Boky” is no exception: the cruising range of the entire 3500 ... 4000 miles on the economic course of the 14 nodes - fuel reserves are hard enough even for the Baltic Sea.

6. Crew

Dmitry Rogozin was worried in vain - the weight of the sailors' bodies, their personal belongings, the interiors of the personnel quarters and the provisions could be neglected - this value is negligible against the background of the masses of the hull, armament and ship mechanisms. The personnel are accommodated in the most comfortable conditions, and the automation has made it possible to abandon a large number of people on board (the crew of the “Boky” corvette does not exceed 100 people).


The bridge of the corvette pr 20380

To summarize our brief study: modern ships of the Russian Navy carry powerful and diverse weapons on board, surpassing their foreign counterparts in quantity and quality. Steregushchiy type corvettes, a series of frigates under construction on projects 11356 (Admiral Grigorovich) and 22350 (Admiral Gorshkov) are under construction - all of them are “armed to the teeth”, and their designs are correctly balanced taking into account the realities, conditions and needs of the Russian military marine fleet Of Russia. Everything, as ordered by the Deputy Prime Minister.

The main disadvantage is that the construction pace is too slow (6-7 years for the corvette, this is three times higher than all the standards of decency). However, the design of the ships is absolutely nothing to do with - the whole thing is in the financing and delays in the development / testing / adoption of new ship weapon systems and radio electronics. As a result, the lead ship is usually accepted into the navy "naked" - all planned equipment is gradually being introduced on subsequent ships of the series.

However, there is another hidden problem that is not directly related to the construction of ships under construction. Dmitry O. suggested that the ship’s capabilities should grow, and the dimensions should remain at the same level - in this case, the “Boky” corvette, presented at the IMDS-2013 exhibition, was adopted as a reference.

The difficulty is that no matter how hard design engineers try, it is impossible to build a powerful and multifunctional combat ship in a hull with a displacement of 2200 tons. The corvette will remain forever a corvette - a guard, a ship of rank III, oriented to solve a wide range of tasks in coastal waters.

In the autumn of 2012, it became known that the Corvette "Savvyitelny" (the second ship of the 20380 project) failed anti-aircraft fire - in five cases out of five, the shipboard Redut missile system missed. Sailors attributed the failure to the unsatisfactory performance of the ship’s radar equipment. Mounted on the corvette, the general detection radar "Furke-2" is too weak to confidently "highlight" the air target at large and medium distances. As a result, the homing missiles are not able to "hear" the reflected "echo", and the missiles miss the targets.


Under the radio transparent hood is hidden radar "Furke-2"

The use of the Furke-2 radar as the main radar already says a lot - it is only the "well-fed" version of the land-based radar MASK of the Pantyr-C1 short-range radar. Installing something more serious does not allow the modest size of the corvette.
Even if we could find a reserve for the masses and spaces to install a full-fledged radar, there will certainly be a problem with power consumption - will the existing diesel generators have enough power or will we have to install something bigger?

And what do you want, since it was a hard technical task: to fit the overall complex into a small ship with a displacement of about 2,5 thousand tons? Because of the small size of the compartments, many units of the air defense system and radar we could not accommodate, and the rest had to be seriously squeezed. All this could not affect the effectiveness of the complex, but now we have found a technical solution.

- an anonymous interviewee "Izvestia"

You may ask: how are these problems solved abroad? The answer is no way. Foreign corvettes or LCS (littoral combar ship - ship of the coastal zone) are focused on solving their specific tasks - search / capture of traffickers, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, search and rescue actions, protection of bases, trawling of fairways, patrolling territorial waters. The corvette simply does not require such complex and cumbersome systems as the Redut air defense system - for self-defense, repelling provocations and random attacks, there are enough anti-aircraft machines and short-range air defense systems. More serious problems are solved by ships larger in size.

Promoting a tiny corvette to the role of a “super hero” is too naive and, at least, strange. Based on the level of development of modern science and technology, to create a full-fledged combat unit of the fleet, able to withstand any of the possible threats and operate effectively in coastal waters, in open sea areas and in the open ocean - all this requires a ship (destroyer) with a displacement of 3- 4 times as large as that of the lively corvette.

Such dimensions are necessary for the guaranteed placement on board of a destroyer of a universal armament complex; means of detection, navigation and communication; fire control systems and multi-functional BIUS. It is this displacement reserve that is required to construct a sufficiently strong hull with more or less worthy structural protection, to accommodate a full-fledged power plant and fuel reserves, providing a cruising range of at least 4000 ... 5000 miles at the operating speed of 18-20 nodes. The ship must be heavy enough to ensure normal seaworthiness and exclude bottom slamming (in other words, so that the ship does not jump out of the water during any light storm, and the possibility of using weapons was maintained even with sea 5-6 points). And, of course, it is required to provide comfortable conditions on board for the deployment of personnel.

For all this, a destroyer requires a full displacement within 8000 tons.


British destroyer of Daring type. Total Displacement - 8000 tons

Forty years ago, the Americans attempted to create a universal ship of the ocean zone within the frigate class. Alas, despite the vast experience in shipbuilding, the most modern materials and technologies, the attempt can not be called successful. The fact that the frigates "Oliver H. Perry" - helpless steel coffins, American sailors guessed for a long time: solid armament and ammunition, transoceanic cruising range, but something was wrong ...

Fire detection and control systems - trimmed copies of equipment from real cruisers and destroyers, an unclosed loop of near air defense, dubious seaworthiness (4500 tons - too little to withstand the pressure of the elements in the North Atlantic). The single-stage power plant and aluminum superstructure - all this did not add confidence to the sailors of the US Navy.

The truth turned out to be a real battle - in 1988, the Stark frigate could not repel the attack of a single Iraqi Air Force plane, received two missiles on board and almost bent at the scene of the incident - only the lack of excitement and nearby US Navy ships saved. The victims of the attack were 37 American sailors.


It seems that not everything is all right with USS Stark

After analyzing the results of the Perry type frigates service, the Americans completely curtailed the direction of work in this direction and since then they have built only full-fledged Burke destroyers (in / 8000 and 9000 tons). Prospective coastal ships (corvettes / patrols / minesweepers) of the LCS type are intended only for auxiliary operations in the intertidal zone and are not designed for direct combat with a serious enemy.

Fantasy is a slightly open curtain to the future, but the facts inexorably testify: no one has yet been able to build a successful warship, with a smaller displacement than other members of this class of ships.


Corvette "Boky", the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Navy
Author:
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NickitaDembelnulsa
    NickitaDembelnulsa 8 July 2013 07: 48
    +5
    Following the example of the Americans with their cruiser of the Ticonderoga type, X-101 and X-102 can be placed on our Eagles. It would be wise. The Americans deploy Tomahawks on their cruisers and we X-101. KR Caliber of course is a powerful weapon, but has a range of 300 km, against 5500 for the X-101. Half of the mines in Orlan can be given under Caliber, and the other part under X-101/102. Thus, one more element will enter our nuclear triad: Surface carrier of nuclear weapons.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 8 July 2013 08: 49
      +2
      The question is the universality of the UVP, as far as I know, we do not have a universal installation of a vertical launch similar to at least the MK.41.
      1. NickitaDembelnulsa
        NickitaDembelnulsa 8 July 2013 09: 05
        0
        And on the Ash tree 885 there seems to be a project, it and Onyx, and Caliber and X-101 and X-35 seem to be able to carry
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 8 July 2013 10: 31
          +1
          Perhaps, but what does this have to do with surface ships? In addition, versatility includes the use of a single CWP to accommodate almost all types of weapons. PLO, air defense, anti-ship missiles, tactical missiles ...
          1. NickitaDembelnulsa
            NickitaDembelnulsa 8 July 2013 11: 02
            +2
            If a universal launch container was created on a submarine, in conditions where space is limited, then I think you can also create the largest nuclear cruiser in the world
            1. patsantre
              patsantre 8 July 2013 14: 19
              +1
              These air defense missiles are not unified with air defense missiles.
      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 8 July 2013 14: 59
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        The question is the universality of the UVP, as far as I know, we do not have a universal installation of a vertical launch similar to at least the MK.41.


        And what's the point of this universal installation? And what can we unify with? Our ships are completely different. Why do we copy ambiguous solutions?
    2. Bronis
      Bronis 8 July 2013 12: 23
      0
      Quote: NickitaDembelnulsa
      Following the example of the Americans with their Ticonderoga-class cruiser, you can place X-101 and X-102 on our Eagles
      So far, they promise only air-based, but there are probably no fundamental difficulties here. Yes, and in air-based, she will have more than 5500 ...

      Quote: NickitaDembelnulsa
      The caliber is certainly a powerful weapon, but it has a range of 300 Km, against 5500 of the X-101
      "Caliber" is a whole complex of weapons, a range of missiles there for each type of target. RCC - about 300 km. And on land (stationary objects) there are missiles with a range comparable to that of the Tomahawk (On the Yasen, they seem to have been tested). Well, 280-300 km is for missiles with the letter E. Wikipedia takes from the developer's website, and there - only missiles for export. For obvious reasons.

      Quote: NickitaDembelnulsa
      Thus, one more element will enter our nuclear triad: Surface carrier of nuclear weapons

      It will not enter, at least - while treaties are in force to ban the deployment of nuclear weapons on such ships. And it has no practical meaning. Unlike SSBNs, it does not have the most important factor - secrecy, which, given the total dominance of the US Navy, is deadly. If the epic with the "Eagles" is successfully resolved, there will be more adequate work for them. Collective air defense, strikes with CD (non-nuclear), demonstration of the flag, etc.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 8 July 2013 14: 21
        -1
        Quote: Bronis
        So far, they promise only air-based, but there are probably no fundamental difficulties here. Yes, and in air-based she will have more than 5500 ..

        very unlikely
    3. Windbreak
      Windbreak 8 July 2013 18: 12
      +1
      Quote: NickitaDembelnulsa
      KR Caliber of course powerful weapons, but has a range of 300 km
      Rear Admiral Sergei Alekminsky, Commander of the Caspian Flotilla: "I will say that the best ship is not in quotation marks, but in the fact that it is the first surface ship in history to be armed with the latest Kalibr missile system, which is not found on more than one missile ship. Navy: In principle, not one surface ship now has such a long range of fire as our ship. He shoots more than two thousand kilometers on a coastal target... And 350 kilometers for a sea target. "
  2. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 8 July 2013 08: 10
    10
    Rogozin generally well done! He not only understands shipbuilding, but also gives advice to land developers, and how he reformed the space industry! Just before the next fall of Proton finished. And now he’s also going to reform ...
    And he said the right words: "more weapons" and "without prejudice to the comfort of the crew" - a real Doctor of Philosophy!
    1. NickitaDembelnulsa
      NickitaDembelnulsa 8 July 2013 09: 08
      +2
      He’s just one of those people who have a desire to work, and to benefit the country, and not stupidly fill their pockets like most
      1. Bronis
        Bronis 8 July 2013 12: 32
        +9
        Maybe Rogozin wants to be useful. At least, this is far from Serdyukov ... But he has a system-wide problem. Now he is an official. But he tries to behave like a politician (although he denies this). Often makes statements lacking foundation, but beautiful. a year ago he said that we will do PAK DA on hypersonic and almost suborbital. The reality is a subsonic and stealth aircraft. The reality looks to the layman not so bright and patriotic, although it is the only possible and expedient at the moment. Because of such statements, we often hear "Roissya Vperde", but we want "Russia - forward!" It's just that things need to be done, fewer plans to announce and more to report on specific results.
        And now, what did he say? Yes, as a politician: "We should have ships packed with weapons, but not to the detriment of the crew." Oil - oil for design bureaus. It is obvious!!! fellow How could the developers themselves not guess? lol
        1. Santa Fe
          8 July 2013 12: 53
          14
          Quote: Bronis
          Maybe Rogozin wants to benefit.

          Doesn't want to. His task is to carry nonsense in the media, assuring the layman that "the country is in good hands" (at a time when more serious uncles from their team steal money over the hill)
          Quote: Bronis
          At least, this is far from Serdyukov ..

          Serdyukov is from the same gang. His job is to play the role of the "bad guy" and serve as a lightning rod

          Shoigu plays the role of a "good guy" - a fighter for justice who is trusted by the people. But in reality, he will never offend the "bad" ones, because they are all from the same team.

          Vasilyeva, arrested in the case of embezzlement in Oboronservis, can move around Moscow at will, said the lawyer of the accused A. Gofshtein. The defense attorney explained that the FSIN officers are monitoring Vasilyeva with an electronic bracelet, radio Mayak reports.

          Earlier in the blogs, a photo appeared that captured Eugene Vasilyeva, who walks along Stoleshnikov Lane in Moscow and visits the elite boutique Chanel.

          - news from 8 July 2013 of the year

          Guys, they are all there for one. They are all - ACCIDENTS
          1. Bronis
            Bronis 8 July 2013 13: 58
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Serdyukov is from the same gang. His job is to play the role of the "bad guy" and serve as a lightning rod

            It is quite obvious that all those who are usually called the elite have crowded together over the past 20 years, formed groupings (but they are moving in the mainstream of the party’s general line, otherwise it’s boo!). All this "ilita" is not very monolithic. There is no single "cunning plan" for expropriation. everyone strives to grab what is bad. Sometimes interests intersect and then - the war ... Actually, Serdyukov and Rogozin are more opponents than allies (but not enemies). The spheres of influence were simply not divided. Rogozin is a better figure than Taburetkin. It is in his interests to improve (does not mean radically solve) the state of affairs in the defense industry. And it's not about patriotism, but about the desire to stay longer and create a political margin of safety. How it will be possible is another question. And what will outweigh - too ...
            Serdyukov became a lightning rod - it is his own fault. The edges must be seen ... In the end, it was decided that a political official is better than a commercial official. Well, so that the "strengthening of the vertical" would certainly not raise doubts, a man with a reputation of a strong security official was taken to the post of minister. And with 4 stars on the chase. True, he soon replaced them with one large, almost marshal's. In general, there is something in common with Serdyukov - the love of replacing the stars, only he took the higher - he redrew on airplanes.
    2. Black
      Black 8 July 2013 10: 50
      +3
      Quote: serge-68-68
      Rogozin generally well done!

      Yes, and the photo pleased. It can be seen who is in charge of the country !!!
      The article reminded me of the era of the communist past, where any article for the needs of the day began with the imperishable Leonid Ilyich, or the Founder.
      And then we do not have Minds except bureaucratic !!!!
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 8 July 2013 15: 02
      +2
      He’s a PR-box who collects laurels lobbying for any, without disassembling successful, not successful domestic weapons. Some pearls about the lack of diesel fuel for the Mistral are worth ...
  3. Horn
    Horn 8 July 2013 08: 13
    +3
    Something we pushed in the wrong place ... It is understandable that different ammunition is needed for a pigeon and a goose, and with ships the displacement is 2 times different. "The other way" is good, of course, but only fools learn from their mistakes. There is also world experience.
  4. Arberes
    Arberes 8 July 2013 08: 17
    +3
    Destroyers are certainly very good! But where to get them, they are still in the projects. It is necessary to bring to mind the same corvettes and frigates, I just do not see another way?
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 8 July 2013 12: 52
      +1
      Quote: Arberes
      Destroyers are certainly very good! But where to get them, they are still in the projects. It is necessary to bring to mind the same corvettes and frigates, I just do not see another way?

      I will support. As long as we don’t have too many ships, ships should be universal. And when the fleet grows, then it will be possible to talk about the arming of ships according to their specification (for coastal - their own, for ocean - their own).
      1. Santa Fe
        8 July 2013 13: 15
        +1
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Until we have too many ships, ships must be universal

        Meaning?
        In the foreseeable future, the Russian Navy will not have to fight with anyone

        Trying to create an Oken fleet of corvettes, frigates in a single copy is a waste of money. As O. Khayyam said: it’s better to starve than to eat anything. and better be alone than with anybody
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 8 July 2013 18: 54
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Meaning?
          In the foreseeable future, the Russian Navy will not have to fight with anyone

          You won’t have to fight if every potential friend knows that even a ship of the coastal zone can snap back so that the destroyer will not be too good.
          Ukraine has already lost a decent piece of the shelf in favor of Romania, only due to the fact that at one time it was necessary to show teeth, but there are none.
          And immediately there was no piece of land. Chopped off.
          1. Cat
            Cat 8 July 2013 19: 02
            +3
            Quote: Bad_gr
            Ukraine has already lost a decent piece of the shelf in favor of Romania, only due to the fact that at one time it was necessary to show teeth, but there are none.

            it's not about the teeth - Ukraine, by the way, once showed them, after which the Romanians shut up for a long time. The point is in the then "pan prézydente" - who wanted to please the "world community" to such an extent that he would have given an atomic bomb to the shelf (if there was one)
  5. kavad
    kavad 8 July 2013 08: 28
    +4
    2. Constructive protection and booking

    For modern surface ships this item is irrelevant.

    Sure sure! And then they bend from an unexploded rocket.
  6. Per se.
    Per se. 8 July 2013 08: 41
    22
    To be honest, everything is so florid in the article, just like in "Beware of the car", the investigator (Efremov) about Detochkin (Smoktunovsky) at the trial - he is guilty, but he is not guilty. "Surface ships for the Russian Navy should be built so that they have as many weapons as possible, and the dimensions remain the same", miracles do not happen, something will have to be sacrificed. There has been a saying for a long time - "Ships are built for guns", but in this case, a ship of the corresponding tonnage is designed for the required armament. “You ask: how are these problems solved abroad? The answer is no way,” there are no problems created there, which then need to be resolved by pushing in the unpushable. Construction overloads, a chronic illness that was in the tsarist, and then in the Soviet navy, all of this "opera" of self-restraint, incomprehensible parsimony on displacement. At one time, the British, examining our armored cruiser "Rurik", were surprised by the number of guns, but this surprise was not delight, the guns were not covered by armor, were not rationally, the sights and rate of fire were mediocre. Here it is useful to recall a no less well-known phrase for Dmitry Olegovich - "Less is better, but better." Design ships for the required weapons, and do not try to get a cruiser from a boat. And, a flag in hand, how to do it most efficiently, talentedly and efficiently.
    1. avt
      avt 8 July 2013 09: 33
      10
      Quote: Per se.
      Construction overloads, a chronic illness that was in the tsarist, and then in the Soviet navy, all of this "opera" of self-restraint, incomprehensible parsimony on displacement. At one time, the British, examining our armored cruiser "Rurik", were surprised by the number of guns, but this surprise was not delight, the guns were not covered by armor, were not rationally, the sights and rate of fire were mediocre. Here it is useful to recall a no less well-known phrase for Dmitry Olegovich - "Less is better, but better." Design ships for the required weapons, and do not try to get a cruiser from a boat. And, a flag in hand, how to do it most efficiently, talentedly and efficiently.

      good There is nothing to add, but try to explain this to the nerdy haste Rogozin. request He will first blur out something, well, and then he will explain what he actually meant and it seems like something completely different. As was the balabol since the times of the "Congress of Russian Communities" named after Skokov, and even a kick in the ass from the Jews, when the "Motherland" was declared a fascist party, did not help. Language runs ahead of the thought process as before.
  7. shurup
    shurup 8 July 2013 08: 49
    +2
    If the doctrine points to the ocean, then the displacement should be increased. Rogozin is not a specialist, but a shout that only voices the idea of ​​a coastal mosquito fleet.
    The duty of large ships with nuclear weapons on board near the coast of a likely enemy is a deterrent and a demonstration of soft power.
  8. Nayhas
    Nayhas 8 July 2013 08: 51
    +6
    Rogozin, as always in his repertoire. Speaking without thinking is his trick ...
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 8 July 2013 19: 00
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      Rogozin, as always in his repertoire. Speaking without thinking is his trick ...

      And what did he say wrong? He expressed his desire, and this is not at all the technical task, but just thoughts in the ear.
      It would be better to have a speech by Serdyukov (Makarov, etc.) who, without coming to the plant, would have scandalized his products in the press and after that bought some foreign pelvis at an astronomical price?
  9. mark1
    mark1 8 July 2013 09: 09
    +4
    I will repeat my comment on the same article in "Military Materials" - Everything has already been invented before Dmitry Olegovich - the "Aegis" system (as many weapons are needed, so much is placed, of the right type, in the right proportion, in the right amount) - we need the same
  10. svp67
    svp67 8 July 2013 09: 30
    +4
    Dmitry Rogozin: "You need to put as many weapons as possible on warships!"
    If only everything was reasonable and not reduced to an anecdote, when a lantern was "hung" on the mower, a wheelbarrow with a rake was attached and a multi-blade "Lithuanian" was put into hands. But whoever wondered if the harvester could be better ... what
  11. pensioner
    pensioner 8 July 2013 10: 33
    +3
    AMG. Almost complete analogue of titanium

    Something I didn’t understand ... According to my concepts, titanium has about 50% more Young's modulus than AMG alloys ... Maybe this is not the case? Or maybe I forgot everything ...
    1. Santa Fe
      8 July 2013 13: 10
      0
      Quote: retired
      According to my concepts, titanium has about 50% more Young's modulus than that of AMG alloys ... Maybe this is not the case? Or maybe I forgot everything ...

      of course titanium is stronger and better in every way
      but in this case, the main thing is density
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 8 July 2013 13: 20
        0
        Thank you Oleg! And the strength of the structure, and the strength of the structural elements in bending, in shock, in breaking ... Are we increasing the cross section? To hit - it won’t help. I still don’t understand ... Explain if in the know ...
        1. Santa Fe
          8 July 2013 13: 54
          +1
          Quote: retired
          And the strength of the structure, and the strength of the structural elements in bending, in shock, in breaking ... Are we increasing the cross section? To hit - it won’t help.

          AMG is a cheap replacement for titanium. In the case of shipbuilding, where high strength is not required, but lightness is required.

          Does the ship stand evenly on the keel, doesn't it sink? Well, that's all - more is not required of him. Cheap? Yes. Fire hazard? Yes, but maybe it’ll blow. The saved reserve in / and is spent on something useful.
          1. pensioner
            pensioner 8 July 2013 18: 24
            +1
            Oleg! And it won’t work out ...
            1. shurup
              shurup 8 July 2013 20: 20
              +1
              It’s a paradox, but children need to be taught not only on computer cubes, but also to assign different weight to classic real cubes.
              Otherwise, we will have an error in the form of a container ship in half.
          2. pensioner
            pensioner 8 July 2013 18: 26
            +1
            And the magnesium shavings in our factory were burning. I remember. Just before the real catastrophe did not reach ...
    2. My address
      My address 8 July 2013 13: 19
      0
      Yuri! What about declining speed in 8 times while reducing power by two?
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 8 July 2013 14: 00
        0
        Well, here I am Alexander is not strong. I remember that (again, it seems) that the air resistance at subsonic speeds is ~ V in the 2nd degree. Further - more and more difficult. As there in hydrodynamics - hell knows ... So, this paragraph missed the brain. I'm sorry ...
        1. My address
          My address 8 July 2013 14: 28
          +3
          The author "confused the jerseys of the clubs," as they say in football. Conversely, an eight-fold increase in power will only double the speed.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. pensioner
            pensioner 8 July 2013 14: 48
            +1
            Quote: My address
            an increase in power of eight times gives an increase in speed of only half.

            Ahhhhhh! Right !! I remember how they calculated the engine power of an aircraft with a propeller, necessary for the aircraft to reach the speed of sound. There, too, something similar happened. In general, the mass of the engine turned out to be somehow beyond the limit. I remember funny ...
      2. Santa Fe
        8 July 2013 14: 36
        +1
        Quote: My address
        Yuri! What about declining speed in 8 times while reducing power by two?

        or vice versa - to increase the speed by 2 times, increase the power of the power plant by 8 times

        living examples?
        Leader "Tashkent" (1937). B / and 4100 tons. Power 130 hp Speed ​​000 knots
        The frigate "Oliver H. Perry" (1975). B / and 4200 tons. The power plant is 40 hp. Speed ​​000 knots.

        The frigate is 1,5 times slower than the "Tashkent". At the same time, the power of their power plants differs by ~ 3 times (the minimum error is due to progress in the study of hydrodynamics and the emergence of new technologies)
  12. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 8 July 2013 10: 53
    +5
    The Navy is expensive, and they make up their minds how to sew seven hats from one skin. Thus, it is impossible to carry twenty tons of gravel on a ferrari. How not to reform the Academy of Sciences if science has two billion dollars a year. e. to allocate them only to fountain pens and that's enough. How not to reform the army, the division there or the brigade if it is armed with a pitchfork, then its platoon of machine gunners will disperse. How not to try to create a cruiser with a corvette ..... but then everyone understands.
  13. Santa Fe
    8 July 2013 11: 14
    +9
    "Why should we go to the moon? What can we find useful there? Maybe there are other tasks related to Mars, Venus and the study of solar physics "
    - Interview with Rogozin, March 2012
    (speech at the Central Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering of Roscosmos)

    read on:

    "... we have the technology of water, air circulation, delivery of the necessary cargo to this orbit, we raise this orbit all the time, because it changes in height with respect to the Earth, gravity works in these orbits," Rogozin said. and continue to pull this strap, or we can do it differently: why don't we take the International Space Station?".
    - Interview Rogozin, August 29, 2012

    "If we talk about the ISS, does it make sense to continue this program as an international expedition that orbits the Earth? Or maybe, in fact, it makes sense to solve this problem, placing such stations directly on other planets? We need to think about this "
    - another interview with Rogozin

    Space station on the moon will allow in the future to carry out "jumps and jumps," says Dmitry Rogozin. Construction of a station in lunar orbit - this is a “super goal”, which will help to “escape from the captivity of problems”, in which Russia has been for the last 20 years.
    - Interview with Rogozin, September 11, 2012

    Conclusion: Rogozin plays the role of populist and balabol (while, for example, DAM plays the role of a pseudo-liberal, Serdyukov plays the role of a lightning rod, etc., etc.)
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 8 July 2013 15: 31
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      it’s a “super goal” that will help “break out of the captivity of problems”
      And this super-goal is to bring the 3 of the GLONASS satellite into orbit. wassat
  14. Tatanka Yotanka
    Tatanka Yotanka 8 July 2013 11: 35
    +7
    Dmitry Rogozin: "You need to put as many weapons as possible on warships!"- a warship is not a cargo barge, its armament should be balanced based on goals and objectives
  15. gregor6549
    gregor6549 8 July 2013 11: 44
    +3
    "On warships, you need to put as many weapons as possible!". How much? Until he drowns? Another "great naval commander and shipbuilder" There was already a similar "admiral" before him and his name was Zhukov G.K. He was also sure that on each ship in besieged Leningrad at least 40 ammunition can be loaded.
  16. seller trucks
    seller trucks 8 July 2013 12: 29
    -1
    the price of these statements is human life, but with foolishness you can ... break. take the BZZh as an example, okay, a fire, most likely an automatic fire extinguishing system, and that is ideally, but if the hole is, and even below the waterline, the reduction in the number of the crew will lead to the fact that there will be no one to close it up. BCH-4 will not plug all the "holes".
    1. little man
      little man 8 July 2013 14: 45
      -1
      Reducing the crew - increasing the autonomy. And to fight against "holes" the ship is divided into compartments.
  17. nnnnnn
    nnnnnn 8 July 2013 12: 47
    +1
    Rogozin the shipbuilder laughing will soon become an aircraft manufacturer, etc.
  18. _KM_
    _KM_ 8 July 2013 13: 00
    0
    In modern ships, the complete lack of armor confuses me. Those. insanely expensive equipment is covered by AMg litas. Somehow disproportionate.
  19. My address
    My address 8 July 2013 13: 14
    +1
    Cool article! To declare that the alloy AMG analogue of titanium, that reducing the capacity of the installation in half gives a reduction in speed in 8 time is something! It turns out that metallurgists are fools who mess around with titanium, which is awesomely expensive and in production capricious, incl. in the fire relation ?! What is enough to double the power and the ship will fly?
    1. Santa Fe
      8 July 2013 13: 47
      0
      Quote: My address
      It turns out that metallurgists are fools that mess with titanium, which is awesomely expensive

      Something you overdid too and wound up

      Nobody says that AMG is an analogue of titanium. In the case of shipbuilding, this is just a cheap replacement for titanium and steel, where super-strength is not required, but lightness is required.

      Where titanium is mainly used - aviation and astronautics (individual units), durable and high-quality things (watches, tools), I heard that titanium is used in reactor fittings due to corrosion resistance ... but to make a nuclear submarine’s body out of it is too much . The USSR was forced to do this - due to problems with the smelting of steel with a high yield strength
      Quote: My address
      What is enough to double the power and the ship will fly ?!

      Still, the conversation was about real ship speeds - up to 40..50 knots

      In this case, the cubic dependence of power on speed
      1. My address
        My address 8 July 2013 14: 42
        +2
        1. The author confused one with the other. An eight-fold increase in power gives you a total doubling of speed. You write correctly, but read the article, there is the opposite.
        2. The USSR built titanium submarines for the following reasons: gain in weight, with the same rigidity and structural strength, titanium is lighter; Corrosion resistance in seawater is higher than even in nodular nodular cast iron (but problems with the pier in the parking lot, where the iron-titanium electrochemical pair worked). Sea water is an ideal, but slow, solvent that dissolves even noble metals. There were no problems with high-strength steel in the USSR.
        1. Santa Fe
          8 July 2013 15: 35
          -1
          Quote: My address
          gain in mass, with the same rigidity and structural strength, titanium is lighter

          Titanium is certainly not bad, it's all about cost

          as practice has shown, similar results can be achieved using high-quality alloy steel - remember the bathyscaphe "Trieste", which reached the bottom of the Mariana Trench
          Quote: My address
          the corrosion resistance in seawater is higher than even for nodular cast iron

          This is a pleasant, completely useless function - the submarine is not eternal; after exhausting the resource of mechanisms, it will nevertheless be sent to scrap
          Quote: My address
          There were no problems with high-strength steel in the USSR.

          Were
          Nothing like HY-80/100 (laboratory samples don't count)

          Steel gondola "Trieste", on January 23, 1960, the bathyscaphe reached the bottom of the Challenger depression (10919 meters) - and that was not the limit! - the structure could withstand heavy loads
          1. Kir
            Kir 8 July 2013 20: 38
            0
            Dear Sweet_Sixteen, read the book by O. Picard "To the depths of the seas in a bathyscaphe" _ from "SUDPROMGIZ 1961". and then speak. it clearly states that the so-called savings now turn into big expenses in the future. so that .....
  20. _KM_
    _KM_ 8 July 2013 13: 33
    +1
    Quote: My address
    What is enough to double the power and the ship will fly ?!


    As they say aviats. engine builders with a good engine and the fence will take off. :)
  21. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 8 July 2013 14: 13
    +2
    A joke comes to mind when a man comes to the pharmacy and asks: "Please give me pills for greed. Yes, more."
  22. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 8 July 2013 14: 33
    +4
    Once upon a time I read a historical anecdote in the "Technology of Youth": Once some of the Wilhelms, German Kaisers, who considered himself a genius in everything, developed a draft of the latest battleship and gave it to the designers for consideration. The answer was something like this: "This ship will certainly be the most beautiful, fastest, protected and armed in the world! It will have only one drawback: being launched into the water, it will sink like an ax ..."
  23. tomich
    tomich 8 July 2013 16: 19
    +3
    Rogozin needs to be awarded the "Balabol of the Year" award once a year, and why, the guy did so much, was included in countless all kinds of special commissions. who have not solved a single problem, once a week consistently makes various statements (little correlated with reality), in general, well done))) And his position is a court jester, well, certainly not a deputy prime minister)))
    1. Santa Fe
      8 July 2013 17: 16
      +2
      Quote: tomich
      Rogozin should be awarded the "Balabol of the Year" award once a year


      D. Rogozin on April 13, 2012 at 6:57 am tweeted: "The Russian Army in 2017 will receive tank with stealth technology... On April 21, I visit Uralvagonzavod and its tank range. Beware!) ", Providing a link to your interview with the Life News portal. According to the Deputy Prime Minister," Armata "will be created using stealth technologies in radar, infrared and optical spectrum

      IR = spectrum - I still understand, but how to make a 60-ton rumbling hulk invisible visually)))) resembles a joke about an invisible stealth plane)))
      1. Psyx
        Psyx 8 July 2013 22: 12
        0
        For example, place a small black hole on the tower that wakes up all the matter)
  24. rudolff
    rudolff 8 July 2013 16: 59
    +4
    It reminds me of a story when the great leader and teacher, comrade Kim Jong-un, went into the locker room before the game and gave some useful advice to the players. It's good that the naval salon, and not an exhibition of gynecological medical equipment, otherwise this specialist of a wide profile would have lifted everyone with his advice! The corvette has its own strictly defined goals and objectives, and there is no need to try to make a microcruiser out of it. It is possible to stuff any rockets you want, but what use will they be if, after turning on the main engine, they begin to "scratch their heads" thoughtfully, but where should they actually fly ?! You can't do anything with your fists if you suffer from myopia and one ear can't hear!
  25. rudolff
    rudolff 8 July 2013 17: 33
    +3
    It will not be superfluous to remind about the seaworthy restrictions. Once I told you already in one of the comments, in the late 80s I got to the floating practice in Liepaja at the RTO. When we left the base, the excitement was about two points. Closer to the strait zone along the coast of Sweden, the storm was already 4-5 points. For RTOs, five points is the design limitation of seaworthiness. I don't know what his passport performance characteristics are, but I know for sure that already at 4 points he was not capable of using any weapons. If only the stern gun mount in manual mode, and even then if the sailor-operator is tied to his "joystick". It chattered like that, except that only the screws from the water did not show. The elements of the radio mast were broken. One diesel engine is out of order. The commander, I remember then said that if there is another one, we will be a Shandets. Fortunately, I never went to sea on such small ships. MRK is certainly not a corvette, but a corvette is not yet a frigate.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Master Taiga
    Master Taiga 8 July 2013 19: 15
    +1
    Sometimes Rogozin is better to chew than talk.
    1. Hariva
      Hariva 9 July 2013 00: 01
      +1
      Heh heh. Of course of course! And yet, it’s vital for them (ships) to supply as much fuel as possible, to make them as inconspicuous as possible, to call up as many sailors as possible in the military service and, in the end, to produce as many of these ships as possible. Rogozin - you are my god! ))))
  28. Psyx
    Psyx 8 July 2013 22: 08
    +2
    Then you need to immediately build shock nuclear carrier aircraft with a take-off deck, an aviation group, a main caliber gun, cruise missiles and air defense air defense systems.
  29. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 9 July 2013 02: 32
    +3
    Once, after a glass of tea at a buffet table with the Germans, we had a peculiar debate: whose ships are better. We pressed on wearable weapons and striking power, dealers on universality (Flex Corvette - NATO 2000).
    Then the corvette captain Sigmund approached and reconciled everyone, saying: both your ships and ours are good. One difference: you build a hull, place the main mechanisms and systems of the ship, then weapons and electronic equipment, and place the crew between them. This is why you have so many weapons. After the main mechanisms and general ship systems, we place the crew, and in the remaining volume - weapons. And we still have room for "additional tasks". The thing is that your RES and weapons are 2 times larger than ours. Well, I objected here: but our missiles are more powerful than warheads, they fly farther and faster than their products, etc.
    When the 3 EM of Ave. 956E came to us from Peter for state tests for China, and I walked (under the supervision of the political commissar) over his superstructure, I realized that the modernization backlog, which we could not use, was used by the Chinese. They threw away all our cabinets with RES and replaced them with their 5-6 times lighter and smaller than our machines. Maybe we should think about saving weights and volumes, using new systems based on a new element base and LSI. And to disagree with the construction of new ships for yesterday, because the proms cannot do this because of the antiquity of the machine park, the lack of materials, qualified personnel, the director’s reluctance to tear his ass from a warm chair and modernize the production. We managed to do it for the X-101 and the rocket flew to 5000km.
    Then in these volumes it will be possible to place more weapons and have RES with better performance characteristics than now.
  30. Cat
    Cat 9 July 2013 03: 41
    +1
    Dmitry Rogozin: "You need to put as many weapons as possible on warships!"

    Once upon a time, one admiral (unlike Rogozin, clearly versed in the subject), said: "If you stick ten on a ship designed to accommodate eight guns, then only six will be able to shoot."
    and somehow it will happen with Russian ships - if TTZ will be issued by populists, not experts.
  31. Xnumx kopeek
    Xnumx kopeek 9 July 2013 06: 59
    0
    more warships should be put on warships! You can and atomic Rogozinih! -
    Oil should beat butter! Water should beat liquid!
  32. sumcream56
    sumcream56 9 July 2013 18: 13
    -1
    Dreadnought Rule: Smallest small bore guns, largest large bore. And the armament of the corvette is ridiculous. What vultures will it kill at 40 kilometers - the launch range of aviation anti-ship missiles is much greater? Vorobiev? And 100 km is clearly not enough for an anti-ship missile. 2500 km for shooting over land? But the way out is very simple - for closed theaters - to build ekranoplanes (or rather ekranoplanes) with modular weapons. At a speed of 300-500 km / h, they can wander back and forth throughout the day, changing weapons "like gloves". Eaglet ekranoplan could fly at an altitude of over 300 meters, that is, any wave - on the drum. The fuel consumption becomes on a jump like a helicopter, but in the Baltic, Caspian, Black Sea, there will be enough fuel. And with normal excitement, a screen flight at 2-3 meters, while if you use the scheme of the composite wing of R. Bartini or the tent-shaped wing of A. Lippish, the fuel consumption is the same as for a car (examples of Ivolga / Orion-EK-12, ESKA-1) for the ocean, cruisers of 10-12 thousand tons and more are needed.
    1. Santa Fe
      9 July 2013 20: 03
      0
      Quote: sumcream56
      And the exit is very simple - for closed theaters - to build ekranoplanes (or rather ekranoleta) with modular weapons

      And why are you so attracted to these prodigies?
  33. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 14 July 2013 18: 20
    0
    "Pleased" about the capabilities of the "Furke-2" radar, about diesel engines, it seems that they know about the UVP only on this forum! There was an impression of continuous "dampness" ...
    Although they say it’s better than nothing, I’ll answer - on Indian projects it would be possible to develop a more harmonious ship.
  34. caretaker
    caretaker 19 July 2013 05: 15
    0
    Quote: serge-68-68
    Rogozin generally well done! He not only understands shipbuilding, but also gives advice to land developers, and how he reformed the space industry! Just before the next fall of Proton finished. And now he’s also going to reform ...
    And he said the right words: "more weapons" and "without prejudice to the comfort of the crew" - a real Doctor of Philosophy!


    If he already holds a position in the government, he would take care of finances, and there are other, real experts in the design of the equipment.