Corvettes instead of cruisers

Corvette is a class of warships intended for guard and patrol service in the coastal zone. The main objectives of the corvettes is patrolling and anti-submarine defense of the coast. This, however, does not exclude their direct participation in military conflicts. The heirs of the missile boats of the second half of the XX century, modern corvettes successfully combine multifunctionality and moderate cost. Powerful rocket armament, hacking and towed GAS, object air defense systems, stealth technology, combat information systems, multifunctional radars, UAVs, helicopters. The displacement of modern corvettes exceeds the v / and destroyers of the period of the Second World War, and by combat capabilities "kids" are not inferior to ships of higher rank.

Before you - a short review of the five best world representatives of the class "corvette". Their sizes differ by thousands of tons, and the characteristics are “sharpened” to the needs of their fleets and the conditions of particular seas. Nevertheless, they are all united by the general idea of ​​a small multi-functional warship of the coastal zone.

Project 20350 "Steregushchy" and its further development. 20385 Ave. (Russia)
In the ranks - 4. 4 + 2 Corvette Ave 20385 are under construction. Plan - 18 units.

Length 90 m. Displacement (full)> 2200 tons. Crew 99 people Full speed 27 knots. Cruising range - 3500 miles at a speed of 14 knots. Armament (production ships, project 20380):
- three modules 3K96 "Redoubt" (12 starting cells). B / K 12 anti-aircraft missiles, large or short-range 48 anti-aircraft missiles. On upgraded corvettes pr. 20385, the number of CWPs should increase to 16;
- eight small-sized PKR X-35 "Uranus";
- small package anti-submarine complex "Package-NK" (8 torpedoes caliber 324 mm);
- universal gun A-190 caliber 100 mm, two six-barreled AK-630М;
- landing site and hangar in the aft superstructure to accommodate the Ka-27PL helicopter;
- anti-sabotage protection, large-caliber small weapon.

"If you put ten guns on the 8-gun ship, they will be able to shoot them six" (old British rule).

Despite the overload and inadequate weapons class, the domestic project 20380 turned out to be a success. The capabilities of the “Stereguschy” go far beyond the traditional tasks for ships of the corvette class, and its shortcomings (the weak Furke-2 radar was not able to provide target illumination at large distances) is only a consequence of attempts to duplicate the tasks of larger frigates and destroyers.

The excessive power of the Russian corvette is due to the good desire to quickly get a ship of the ocean zone in the conditions of an acute shortage of ships and the stagnation of domestic shipbuilding at the beginning of the XXI century. The result can be proud of. The latest technology and noble lines with traces of technology "stealth": corvettes such as "Steregushchy" - harbingers of the new look of the Russian Navy.

Corvette "Boky", in place of the DIRECT "Dirk" are visible starting cells of the "Redut" air defense system. In the background are his predecessors, small anti-submarine ships of the project 1124.

Stealth corvette type "Visby" (Sweden)

In the ranks - 5 units.

Length 72 m. Displacement (full) 640 tons. 43 crew

Combined diesel-gas turbine power plant, full speed 35 knots. Cruising range - 2300 miles at speed 15 knots. Armament: 57 caliber Bofors universal gun, mm 8 small RBS-15 anti-ship missiles, two paired TA mm 400 caliber (anti-submarine torpedoes Tr 43 and Tr 45 Tr, specially designed for small depths of the Baltic Sea), helipad, non-submarine aerial vehicles, underwater vehicles underwater aerial vehicles 127, Baltic Helicopter, 2007 mm; and enemy submarines. The means of lighting the underwater situation include three different types of gas suppressors (under the ground, towed and lowered). In the aft part of the superstructure, a place is reserved for a helicopter hangar or an air defense missile system, the space for the XNUMX mm block of unguided missiles (the ALECTO anti-submarine system, whose development was discontinued in XNUMX), remained unclaimed. There are those. opportunity to place minefields.

Visby, of course, is impressive. Invisible Corvette, whose appearance was to change the balance of power in the Baltic and become a revolution in military shipbuilding. The Swedish ship is ideally suited for operations in narrow skerries and the search for submarines in the shallow waters of the Bothnian Bay. It is unobtrusive, fast, versatile, relatively cheap, and at the same time it has an outstanding set of tools for controlling underwater conditions.

However, many questions remain: in the existing form, Visby is virtually defenseless against air attacks (the capabilities of the only Bofors, EW and MANPADS are clearly not enough to counter any serious air threat). On the other hand, corvettes serve in the coastal zone, under the cover of the Swedish Air Force. The small signature of their physical fields allows them to safely approach the enemy for a strike less than 10 miles, while remaining undetected ("advantage zone").

Corvettes "Type 056" (China)

Built - 23 units. Built - 7. The plans: 43 corvette Type 056 and at least 20 modernized Type 056.

Length 89 m. Displacement (full) 1440 tons. 60 crew Full speed 28 knots Navigation range at an operating speed of 18 knots. - 3500 miles. Armament: 76 mm caliber universal gun, 4 compact C-803 anti-ship missiles, HQ-10 self-defense SAM system (8-charging unit on the rotary carriage), two torpedo 324 mm, 2 automatic caliber automatic guns. 30 mm, helipad, no hangar.

Everything is too obvious. The only thing left to add is a lot of them.

Braunschweig type corvettes (Germany)

Built 5 units.

Length 89 m. Displacement (full) 1840 tons. Crew 60 people. Full speed 26 knots. Cruising range 4000 miles at a speed of 15 knots. Armament: OTO Melara 76 mm universal gun, 4 RBS-15 small-sized anti-ship missiles, two RAM self-defense air defense systems (21-round unit, missiles with thermal seeker), 2 remote-controlled MLG installations ( automatic guns of 27 mm caliber). The dimensions of the Braunschweig heliport allow it to receive any anti-submarine helicopter (SeaKing, NH90), but their permanent deployment is not provided. In the aft part of the corvette, a hangar with limited dimensions is equipped to accommodate two reconnaissance and strike drones Camcopter S100.

Strict Teutonic silhouette in the color of "gray thunderstorm." The German corvette is missing stars from the sky. It is durable, reliable and most consistent with its current tasks. Patrol coastal waters, without unnecessary "Ponte" and attempts to seem better than he is.

At the same time, German engineers have much to be proud of. In addition to the centimeter-range radar, the Corvette Detection Toolkit includes the MIRADOR optoelectronic complex for all-weather monitoring of the situation in the IR range. Braunschweig has one more interesting detail - the MASS (Multi-Ammunition Softkill System) active jamming complex, capable of shooting numerous traps that can deceive the GOS of any rocket. MASS puts interference in all possible ranges (thermal, optical, UV, laser, radar).

Littoral battleship LCS (USA)

In the ranks - 4 units. Built - 7. The plans - 20 ships LCS.

The data for the LCS "Independence" are given: Length 127 m. Displacement (full) 3100 tons. Standing crew of 40 people, space reserved for 75 people on board. Full speed (practical) 44 knots 4300 miles sailing range at 18 knots. Armament: 57 caliber mm Bofors universal gun, SeaRAM self-defense SAM system, two BushNaster II 30 automatic guns, 50 machine guns of the caliber. Most of the ship is given under a huge flight deck and helicopter hangar. The LCS modular design allows you to combine equipment depending on current tasks (towed sonar tools, submersibles to search for mines, anti-sabotage tools, electronic reconnaissance equipment, etc.). Free space on the upper deck can also be used to accommodate the target load in non-standard positions. In practice, this is reflected in the installation of rocket launch containers - from the small Hellfire to the Kronsberg NSM ASM of Norwegian production.

High-speed trimaran stealth, duplicating the tasks of corvettes, minesweepers, patrol cutters, anti-submarine and small rocket ships. Created under the specific conditions of the US Navy, where seafarers needed a mobile helicopter base to solve both the simplest (chasing boats of drug couriers in the Gulf of Mexico) and the most difficult tasks (PLO in the open ocean, mines sweeping, reconnaissance, patrolling and transportation of special cargoes in zones of military conflicts).

USS Freedom (LCS-1)

LCS are built in parallel on two different projects. The high-speed single-hull ship (Lockheed Martin project) and the fantastic trimaran from General Dynamics showed a complete identity both in terms of cost and in terms of their combat capabilities. And each project had its own merits. As a result, the contract was divided in half - each company received an order for 10 ships.

Particular fun comes from the attempts of Americans to achieve cherished speed in 50 nodes. Despite the most powerful power plant of the type CODAG (a combination of diesel and gas turbines) and four Finnish water jet "Värtisl", the estimated speed was not reached. Instead, many problems have been received - from the fires of the power plant to the cracking of the hull at high speeds. Today max. The speed was demonstrated by the LCS-1 Freedom. The ship issued 47 knots (87 km / h) on the measured mile.

Transfer of fuel from the aircraft carrier "Carl Vinson" to the littoral battleship "Freedom"

Comments

[Wedmak]

The excess power of the Russian corvette is explained by the good desire to quickly get the ship of the ocean zone in the face of an acute shortage of ships and stagnation of domestic shipbuilding at the beginning of the XXI century.

Our ships have always been crammed with weapons the best I can. More often, even to the detriment of crew comfort. By the way, at present, really let there be excess power than a drawback in the form of a complete absence of air defense systems or anti-ship missiles.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Wedmak

More often, even to the detriment of crew comfort.

More importantly, to the detriment of the fuel supply

Quote: Wedmak

By the way, at present, really let there be excess power

it made sense to put a long-range air defense system on the corvette if it nevertheless remains unclaimed - the ship’s MSA is not able to provide stable target tracking at max. range. But it affected the cost and the timing of commissioning

how at one time they put huge rocket-torpedoes "Rastrub-B" (launch range 90 km) on the Petrel, when hydroacoustic means could give target designation at a distance of <20 miles

[Wedmak]

it made sense to put a long-range air defense system on the corvette if it nevertheless remains unclaimed - the ship’s MSA is not able to provide stable target tracking at max. range.

I do not think that the designers who created the ship thought so. Perhaps target designation can come from external systems - helicopters, ships, planes.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Wedmak

Perhaps target designation can come from external systems - helicopters, ships, planes.

This is true in relation to the "Petrel", there was an idea that control units would give out turntables or other ships of the same type (although, why, in that case, they do not shoot themselves?)

As for the air defense system (of any), it’s pure fantasy, no one can control the rocket and highlight the target, except for the ship’s SLA. "come from external systems" - this impossible in principle at the present stage of technological development

[Nayhas]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Regarding the air defense system (any) - pure fantasy, no one can control the missile and highlight the target, except for the OMS of the ship itself. "coming from external systems" is basically impossible at the present stage of technology development

Come on, Oleg. Last year, Americans also tested the SM-6 from E-2D while shooting over the horizon, also tested the ABM-120D with external guidance (I don’t remember which source) and the MIM-104F from a JLENS balloon. It's all about Link16 ...
Another thing is that this is not available to us ...

[Santa Fe]

Good afternoon, Nayhas

Quote: Nayhas

experienced guidance SM-6 from E-2D when shooting over the horizon

SAM with ARGSN should be simpler - issued by the control center from an AWACS aircraft, the position of the target is known - launch a rocket on autopilot in the right direction and hope that ARGSN can capture the target

But there are a couple BUT:

- ARGSN is weak, and the target maneuvers quickly - who will adjust the flight and reprogram the rocket autopilot on the marching section ?? Aircraft AWACS? It is doubtful that this will work outside the landfill

- who said that AN / SPY-9 is stronger than the same "Furke-2"? She can see then - but broadcast a steady signal aboard a rocket ??? For a couple of hundred kilometers? In the conditions of the enemy using electronic warfare?

[Nayhas]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

But there are a couple BUT:

- ARGSN is weak, and the target maneuvers quickly - who will adjust the flight and reprogram the rocket autopilot on the marching section ?? Aircraft AWACS? It is doubtful that this will work outside the landfill

As the Americans write, the transfer of data about the target to the missile occurs via Link16 online, bringing the missile right to the target until it is captured by the missile's ARLGSN.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

It is doubtful that this will work outside the landfill

The main threat from the air is not so much the plane as the guided munition. Modern missiles vz allow launching out of the air defense range, so the ship's air defense will have to deal with anti-ship missiles. ALL anti-ship missiles in the world use only low-altitude flight as protection against air defense, at which maneuvering is impossible, anti-ship missiles are practically not equipped with electronic warheads, so anti-ship missiles flying at low altitudes are virtually defenseless, all hope is for speed and a horizontal horizon. External guidance allows you to begin the destruction of anti-ship missiles at a distance exceeding the radio horizon, in fact, at the maximum flight range of the SAM.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Nayhas

External guidance allows you to begin the destruction of anti-ship missiles at a distance exceeding the radio horizon, in fact at maximum flight range SAM.

perhaps copy my question

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

- who said that AN / SPY-9 is stronger than the same "Furke-2"? She can see - but broadcast a steady signal aboard a rocket ??? For a couple of hundred kilometers? In the conditions of the enemy using electronic warfare?

[Nayhas]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

perhaps copy my question
Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
- who said that AN / SPY-9 is stronger than the same "Furke-2"? She can see it - but broadcast a steady signal on board the rocket ??? For a couple of hundred kilometers? In the conditions of the enemy's use of electronic warfare means?

9M96 missiles at 200 km. does not fly ... so I don’t quite understand what are you talking about 200km.? Furke’s capabilities in the conditions of electronic warfare are unknown to me, but they write that her capabilities are modest. The fact that Redoubt is redundant for corvettes for me is definitely yes, all he adds is the cost ...

[Botanologist]

Quote: Nayhas

The fact that Redoubt is redundant for corvettes for me is definitely yes, all he adds is the cost ...

Right. Indeed, on a new project - a patrol ship of the ocean zone - it does not smell like a redoubt. The corvette needs to be put in order in the coastal zone, and in the open ocean it will at least with Redut, at least with C-300. And it’s stupid to develop a coastal ship armed with a destroyer weapon. After all, he will have to carry it all, chasing smugglers and poachers, or conducting patrols. In which case will a redoubt be required? Only with a sudden massive air attack. And what, someone will send a bunch of planes to the corvette? . For me, they would put a numbed Shell or the same Dagger for close self-defense, and everything would turn out rationally and beautifully. Yes, and 12 cells with RCC to carry, you know, is not a task for the corvette. I sincerely believe that it would not occur to any military commander to send corvettes for a showdown with an enemy squadron. Since at least you have 16 anti-ship missiles, at least 50, the detection range of the frigate is always greater. And to catch the oncoming volley without seeing the enemy is a very sad task.

[Dog of war]

Why would he be chasing double basses? Or did I miss it when our project 20380 corvettes were transferred under the control of the FSB? They are part of the Russian Navy, and not the coast guard, their task is to protect coastal areas, and not to chase motorboats with a double bass. No one is going to let it into the open ocean, it is a coastal zone ship, in fact, a mobile missile battery, anti-ship missiles at over-the-horizon range are guided by target designation, in this case, such radars as "sunflower", in the future and with the help of "liana". With missiles, the problem so far, the target designation error for their guidance is too high, that the "Liana", that of the "sunflower", even an active seeker is not a fact that will help, there the refresh rate of "frames" is low, the target can simply leave the radar sector SAM during the update of the "frame". With "Furke" I will not say in detail what, but all effective firing of missiles with the defeat of the target was carried out using the illumination of the AU radar, and not "Furke", but an optronic mast will appear at 20385 for aiming the missile defense system. So this question does not bother me personally, more worrisome is the fact that the Amur shipyard, apparently, raised the price of the project corvette 20380 (not even 20385) to the level of the Talvar frigates.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Nayhas

SAM 9M96 at 200 km. does not fly ... therefore I do not quite understand what are you talking about 200km.?

Well, what about
we are talking about SM-6 and E-2D

Quote: Nayhas

External guidance allows you to begin the destruction of anti-ship missiles at a distance exceeding the radio horizon, in fact, at the maximum flight range of the SAM.

My version is different: if there is not enough power of "Furke", how should Hokai be enough. Broadcast of a stable signal for 200 km. in an environment of interference. Moreover, the plane is not necessarily in the direction the threat is coming from. Means the distance is even greater

[Yarhann]

modern missile launchers are so small and radio-invisible that no horizontal intercepts are out of the question - the missile is intercepted already on approach to the target when the GOS starts to work or it detects near-range RSL that works in combat conditions in automatic mode - that’s all. The remote-area air defense system on ships is used exclusively for hitting aircraft of reconnaissance planes and helicopters, as well as surface targets (the destruction of ship detection and guidance systems). The electronic warhead systems on the anti-ship missiles were used but on heavy GRANITE type ones - there is generally a large range of equipment and electronic warfare and the seeker and the on-board computer that guides missile warrants for attacking while the missiles are quite armored and are supersonic. The trouble is they are very expensive. The modern concept of using anti-ship missiles is speed and stealth - that is, to minimize the reaction time of the ship’s air defense system. And the search for anti-ship missiles in the far zone is senseless and dangerous, as the reconnaissance plane of these anti-ship missiles will itself be shot down faster than it finds something. therefore, only the near zone is the priority of protection against anti-ship missiles; the far zone is protection from aircraft that can themselves carry anti-ship missiles or carry out reconnaissance and target designation. That's all arithmetic.

[Dog of war]

Oh already these tales, oh already storytellers. Nothing more to say about your active GOS, which have a refresh rate of 3 to 5 seconds and anti-ship missiles, which at an altitude of 5-20 meters refuse to maneuver (apparently from religious beliefs), I can’t.

[Dreamwriter]

In fact, the MiG-31BM is capable of acting and most often acts precisely in this way. So everything is available, and to Americans, and to us, do not invent.

[ARES623]

learn materiel !!!

[Nayhas]

Quote: Wedmak

I do not think that the designers who created the ship thought so.

They thought how to shove something more expensive for the sake of Almaz-Antey, who everywhere crams the unsuccessful / unfinished 9M96 ... Project 20380 would be enough for a dagger.

[Kassandra]

maybe a surface ship is just further visible
right now comrade again it will appear that they say missile torpedoes are supposedly only anti-submarine weapons although there is nothing better than him to overcome CIWS, and then most warheads of Granites are diving.

[Nayhas]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

how at one time they put huge rocket-torpedoes "Rastrub-B" (launch range 90 km) on the Petrel, when hydroacoustic means could give target designation at a distance of <20 miles

Good afternoon, Oleg.
Yeah ... the absence of PLO helicopters greatly cut the capabilities of pr.1135. Especially when positioning him as a guard. In this regard, in the variant of PSKR, he looked more profitable.

[insafufa]

I like the project of corvettes, ships of the project 11661 code "Cheetah" they are somehow more balanced about it told me a sailor who served on two projects 11661 and 22380 so said with annoyance that cheetahs are not built for our fleet although he also said that the cheetah more noticeable than a tiger is not so technological, but habitability is better and weapons at a decent level

[donavi49]

There are no air defense systems at all, like PLO, and more importantly, there is no helicopter basing. This is a Caspian option. Plus on the power plant, there are Turbines - which you build yourself know where.

[insafufa]

Hull and superstructure

The ship has a traditional smooth-deck architecture with 10 watertight compartments. The superstructure of the ship is made of aluminum-magnesium alloys to ensure low visibility (the so-called stealth technology).
weaponry

Ships have powerful missile, anti-aircraft missile and artillery weapons. The main weapons of the Project 11661E and RK Tatarstan ships are the Uran (Uran-E) anti-ship missile system with X-35 (E) cruise missiles, with a firing range of up to 130 km (up to 260 km for Uran-U) with X-35U missiles). The Project 11661K ship, Dagestan, is the first ship of the Russian Navy armed with the Kaliber-NK universal missile system, which can use several types of high-precision cruise missiles capable of striking surface, underwater and coastal targets at a distance of up to 300 km [3 ].

Artillery weapons include a 76,2 mm bow gun AK-176M (152 rounds of ammunition) and two 30 mm AK-630M automated artillery shells with 2000 + 1000 rounds of ammunition, which ensures combat against sea, ground and air targets. On the Dagestan RK, two 14,5 mm marine machine-gun machine gun mounts (MTPU) were also installed.

For anti-aircraft defense, the ships of projects 11660 and 11661, as well as the RK “Tatarstan”, use the Osa-MA-2 anti-aircraft missile system with an ammunition reserve of 20 missiles. On the Dagestan RK, instead of the Osa-MA-2 SAM and two AK-630 SAMs, the Broadsword was installed), and on ships of Project 11661E, its export modification is installed on the forecastle - Palma, while both AK-630 are installed in aft part of the superstructure.

As anti-submarine weapons on ships of Project 11660 and 11661, two double-tube 533 mm torpedo tubes were provided. On ships of pr. 11661E, one RBU-6000 missile launcher is used as anti-submarine and anti-torpedo weapons. It is possible to equip ships with other weapons options, including the Ka-27 ship-based anti-submarine helicopter.
Radio weapons
RK "Tatarstan" at the parade in honor of the Navy Day in Astrakhan, 2012

At different times, ships were equipped with various radar and electronic means. Thus, the 34K1 Monolith radar complex, the MP-352 Positive radar, the MR-212 Vaigach radar, the MP-123 Vympel artillery fire control system and the Zarnitsa GAS were installed on the ships. On the Republic of Tatarstan, the anti-sabotage OGAS MG-757 Anapa-M was installed [1]. To control the shooting of the RBU on ships of Project 11660 and 11661, the Temp Storm was used; on ships of Prospect 11661E, the Purga-ME is used. The EW complex consisted of two launchers KL-101 of the REP-PK-16 system or of four launchers KT-216 of the PK-10 Smely complex.

In the Republic of Dagestan, the Monolith radar was replaced by Mineral-M, and the general detection radar was replaced by Positive-M1. Also installed sonar complex (SAC) type MGK-335, electronic warfare system TK-25 and BIUS "Sigma". Ships pr. 11661E equipped with the same equipment installed in the RK "Dagestan" in export performance with some differences in its composition.
Power plant

The main power plant is a twin-shaft type CODOG. 61 hp medium speed type 8000D diesel through a complex gearbox provides all cruising modes, and two gas turbines with a total capacity of 29000 hp (one for each shaft) provide a full course of the ship up to 28 knots. The electric power plant includes three diesel generators of 600 kW each.

[insafufa]

What is good for the Caspian is relevant for the Black and Baltic Sea
the wholesale of two warriors showed that in the Baltic and on the Black Sea our cruisers and destroyers will be locked up and will not fully fight all their power will be on virgin lands to block the ground forces, for this purpose too cruisers, destroyers and frigates will be used for this purpose tigers and cheetahs

[Evgeny_Lev]

Gentlemen, it seems to me that you did not carefully study the performance characteristics, and began to throw kakahami at the designers.

- three ZRK 3K96 "Redut" modules (12 starting cells). B / k 12 large anti-aircraft missiles OR 48 short-range missiles. On the modernized corvettes of the project 20385, the number of UVPs should increase to 16;

[insafufa]

This is not about the fact that he is a chopping block, but about the fact that the ship is a compromise between the main characteristics. Between armament, range, survivability and habitability, all these characteristics are important, so you have to find a compromise and balance.
At the forefront of the niche have always been armament and survivability habitability on the residual principle

[Evgeny_Lev]

Wow, minus another))

And what did I say that?

Comrades, in fact, you are acting like garbage. UVP for that and UVP, while there is no guidance means for long-range air defense systems, short-range air defense systems will be equipped. Isn't that obvious?

[Dog of war]

Furke is really not in a position, but at 20385 there will already be an optocoupler mast with a target designation radar. "Redoubt" for good, in general, was not supposed to stand on the 20380 project, initially they put a "dagger" from the reserve under the frigates "Talvar".

[ilya_oz]

But then it gets into 48 short-range anti-aircraft missiles, which are perfectly aimed. And thus, unification with the new frigates takes place.

[Cat]

Corvettes are ships of escort and combat security. No one will let them go to the oceans alone. There will be reconnaissance ships and cruisers, and support vessels in the connection. In addition, the Stereguschiy class corvettes are equipped with a platform for the Ka29 helicopter and, in principle, can receive the Ka31, so the observation area increases significantly. Well, the last thing that prevents them from upgrading in the future with the advent of the new radar.
The Ps "Swede" has the ability to strike only at a distance of 10 miles, our gun has a range of over 14 miles.

[Yarhann]

Corvette can not be a replacement for the cruiser as it is written in the title is sheer stupidity. A cruiser, like an aircraft carrier, is a component of the ship’s warrant, its flagship, it has the largest displacement, the most distant means of detection and target designation and the layered air defense system, all of which its missiles are capable of breaking through the enemy’s echelon air defense system and penetrating the flagship. The rest of the group’s ships in most cases are just disposable damage dealers and near-field cover ships to protect against anti-ship missiles and torpedoes — their task during the group’s attack is to release all their ammunition and cover the flagship and themselves from a retaliatory strike, naturally such ships go to the bottom from one of two hits RCCs are ships of the size of a corvette, etc. It is nevertheless necessary to build cruisers, maybe not according to such a concept as Peter the Great, but something close to this will be precisely such cruisers who will be the flagships of the warrant and corvettes will be deprived of their cover. Naturally, the main goal of corvettes, if not in the UG, is to protect their coastal waters from single targets, such as its size of a submarine and aviation - in short, to the fact that this ship is not designed for massive attacks on its own in the event of a single battle - in the warrant it is strong; it is a unit of the general air defense system alone; it is just as weak as probable enemy ships. The goal of our state in the near future is to cover its territorial waters, and for this corvettes and pl, the role of the missing flagships will be enough for the aviation, which will do just fine as a carrier of anti-ship missiles to protect the coastal zone. For the far zone of the oceans, it is necessary to recreate warrants with a flagship such as a cruiser or an aircraft carrier - but this is essentially a means of attacking coastal countries (in fact, the entire fleet of the tan is imprisoned for this). We do not have allies in military alliances such as NATO, we are not at least with maritime powers, because long-range ships don’t have a place for us right now, and in the medium term India and China will compete in the oceans with the United States - for them the control of the Pacific Rim is much more important than us because these powers will lead the race over the ocean.

[Hell's Angel]

It's probably hereditary. The destroyers "seven" during the Second World War, the allies belonged to the class of light cruisers. With design flaws (weak sides in view of designing for inland seas), they were armed with very powerful weapons. And by the way, they did not show themselves badly.

[donavi49]

These are myths - Feltcher is armed no worse, but with radar guidance and more efficiently.

Here the 26 / 26 bis project (Kirov and Co) was really referred to the Heavy cruisers because the 180 mm guns have good ballistics, whereas the light 152mm guns.

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: Wedmak

Our ships have always been crammed with weapons the best I can. More often, even to the detriment of crew comfort.

We are not alone in this sin, Virginia, for example.

[Dog of war]

By the way, our submarines are just much more comfortable for the crew than foreign ones. At least from the 3rd generation.

[Crang]

Quote: Dog of war

By the way, our submarines are just much more comfortable for the crew than foreign ones. At least from the 3rd generation.

It was like in a submarine of project 613. Mmmmmm ..... I can’t, I CAN’t agree with you.

[Jin]

Hi all!
Thanks for the review, Oleg!

[gorsten79]

The Chinese shipbuilding program is impressive. But, it does not scare. They do not build nuclear submarines at such a pace. And if the United States spends resources on possible counteraction to the Chinese navy, then it is better (calmer) for us, of course, that we are coastal zone ships, as in the title of the article "instead of cruisers ", we are producing. But still we are building. And good ships. In their class. Another issue of the development strategy of our Navy. The author correctly noted that there is an acute shortage of ships. And not only the ocean zone. We have a few of them. The fleet is generally an expensive pleasure. Therefore, I am in favor of corvettes, frigates. Submarines of various classes. We will not pull 1-2 AUG now. And do we need them. The main thing is to preserve the possibilities of construction, etc. And there is no need to compete with all NATO navies in quantity. now-quality. (and so that the navel does not come loose).

[89067359490]

It would be faster if all the ships of projects 20385,22350 and 11356 were built.

[Nayhas]

The excess power of the Russian corvette is explained by the good desire to quickly get the ship of the ocean zone in the face of an acute shortage of ships and stagnation of domestic shipbuilding at the beginning of the XXI century.

This is a sign of inexhaustible stupidity ... The ship turned out to be too expensive, which will definitely affect the number of them in the series. Air defense corvettes of course need, but within the same RAM and Bofors, because corvettes "work" in the area of ​​action of ground aviation. Anti-ship missiles are not needed at all, because a helicopter with a Penguin or NSM is much preferable.

The free space on the upper deck can also be used to accommodate the payload in off-design positions. In practice, this is expressed in the installation of missile launch containers - from the small Hellfire to the Norwegian-made Kronsberg NSM anti-ship missiles.

So they wrote that they only tested them on the helicopter deck, so they could be mounted faster, and there is a lot of space for monitoring and recording equipment. In reality, they will be installed in a superstructure where places are reserved for the installation of various equipment.

[donavi49]

There is no RIM-166 and is not being developed.

The fleet has such a choice now:
MZA - dual MZA - Bending for MANPADS - heavy Redut complexes.

ZRAK - no, for Shell-M is in operation and will not be earlier than the Destroyer.
There are no easy systems, except for the archaic Bending. Even the Chinese have long ceased to rape MANPADS and put B-V missiles in the system. On the same 056 corvette are their copies of the TY-90 Side-riders.

[Mairos]

Considering the lack of modern destroyers, we have such a "surplus" frigate - the very thing.

[Sailor]

During my service 89-92 sea minesweepers went to combat without any air defense and alone, and from the armament there 2-2m3m and 2-ak-230 and 2 RBUs, MPK-1124 was just a cruiser against them, and therefore they sharpen corvettes so that I could stand up for myself and cover my comrade.

[Dog of war]

"RCCs are not needed at all, because a helicopter with a Penguin or NSM is much preferable." show me at least one helicopter capable of launching "onyx" or "turquoise", but what is there, show me at least one helicopter capable of lifting 2 ton missile defense systems.

[Crang]

The heirs of missile boats of the second half of the XNUMXth century, modern corvettes successfully combine multifunctionality and moderate cost.

The author of the corvette is not the heirs of the missile boats. Missile boats, as they were, and are now - have not gone anywhere. A corvette is a patrol ship (TFR) of the near sea zone. The frigate is the TFR of the far sea zone. The world has already made a mistake once when it began to build huge superdreadnoughts instead of squadron battleships. Everyone knows how it ended for this class of ships. I think that no one will step on the same rake the second time. Yes, the fleet needs a certain amount of huge cruisers. But the main striking force of the KUG are precisely the MRK, corvettes and frigates. As for modern "destroyers", this not quite understandable class of warships is currently being dissolved in cruisers and frigates.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

Missile boats as they were, they are now - haven’t gone anywhere

In the fleets of developed countries? Of these, RTOs were born at one time, as well as of torpedo boats and hunters - IPC

IPC and RTOs gradually increased in size, acquiring new opportunities, until they became what they are

Quote: Krang

How it ended for all this class of ships is well known to all.

Developed to terrifying power, became a thunderstorm of the seas,
one Tirpitz fettered the entire British fleet in the Atlantic

Battlegroup Alpha, 1987

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Developed to terrifying power, became a thunderstorm of the seas,

And what about these "storms of the seas" immediately after WW2 disappeared then? Maybe they were not so formidable?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

In the fleets of developed countries?

Yes.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Of them, RTOs were born at one time

So what? But the RCA still remained. There are a lot of them in our fleet.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

IPC and RTOs gradually increased in size,

They did not increase anything. As they were so roughly there. Corvette is not an enlarged RTO. Corvette is the TFR of the near sea zone. They have always been.
The "Tripits" who "terrified" the whole war hid in the skerries. He made two military campaigns during the whole war. They once struck at Cape Spitsbergen, where they fired shells worth more than they caused damage. The second time is even worse. Throughout the war, he was able to sink one dwarf submarine of the British. Gradually he lost his combat capability and hid further in the skerries until he was the most mediocre way of the p.r.o.s.r..

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

And what about these "storms of the seas" immediately after 2MB then disappeared?

after the advent of jet aircraft, missiles and, to some extent, nuclear weapons

Quote: Krang

Corvette is the TFR of the near sea zone. They have always been.

SKR Ave. 50 - IPC / MRK - Ave. 20380

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

after the advent of jet aircraft, missiles and, to some extent, nuclear weapons

Firstly, battleships disappeared 10 years earlier than jet aircraft and missiles appeared, almost immediately after WW2 (the last battleship Vanguard entered service in 1946). Second, why didn't cruisers, destroyers and ships of other classes disappear from the same reason? After all, they are even more vulnerable than battleships from any type of weapon.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

the last battleship "Vanguard" entered service in 1946

after the war they stopped building any ships at all, the break was 10 years

the war destroyed all naval powers except the USA and Britain, but they had so many ships that the new ones had not been built for a long time.

Quote: Krang

Secondly, why didn’t the cruiser, destroyers and ships of other classes disappear from the same reason?

The artillery disappeared very quickly ... 56 Ave., Forrest Sherman, DeMoyne - and all ...

Only the USSR then tried to build the battleship "Stalingrad", but this is already the 50s and it was already too late, especially with domestic experience in this matter

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

after the war they stopped building any ships at all, the break was 10 years

No one stopped building anything. They continued to build cruisers of all classes, destroyers, etc.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

the war destroyed all naval powers except the USA and Britain, but they had so many ships that the new ones had not been built for a long time.

Battleships, even new ones, after the war, everything was quickly put under the knife with rare exceptions. And new ones were never built at all. How do you explain? This is the "thunderstorm" of the seas and oceans.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The artillery disappeared very quickly ... 56 Ave., Forrest Sherman, DeMoyne - and all ...

It does not matter. Instead of them, rocket-artillery (missile) cruisers appeared. Ships of other classes. Why didn’t rocket battleships appear?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

No one stopped building anything. They continued to build cruisers of all classes, destroyers, etc.

TRUE?

What kind??

(Now you google it and write about Oregon and DeMoyne - but do not forget to look at the date they were bookmarked. And at the same time compare the series of post-war Mitchers with Fletcher or Giring)
There is a separate story about the USSR, he built everything he could - it was urgent to create a fleet (which by that time was not left), they even built such obsolete junk as 30 bis

Quote: Krang

After the war, battleships, even new ones, were quickly put under the knife with a few exceptions.

Yes, I do not want to

WHAT KIND??

Quote: Krang

Why didn’t missile battleships appear?

It was believed that armor, like any means of passive protection, was useless
What this led to is known. Unfortunate Sheffield that burned out from unexploded RCC

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

TRUE?

Ага.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

(Now you google it and write about Oregon and DeMoyne - but do not forget to look at the date they were bookmarked. And at the same time compare the series of post-war Mitchers with Fletcher or Giring)
There is a separate story about the USSR, he built everything he could - it was urgent to create a fleet (which by that time was not left), they even built such obsolete junk as 30 bis

Well. They themselves confirmed that they were building. Destroyers, submarines, and MPCs and boats were built in the same way. But the battleships stopped building.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yes, I do not want to
WHAT KIND??

Yes all. The process began immediately after the war with nuclear weapons testing on them and ended by the end of the 50s. In the mid / late 50s, almost everyone was put under the knife. Until now, only the Iowa series battleships have survived. And then everything was written off already.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

It was believed that armor, like any means of passive protection, was useless

Who thought so? Then there were no idiots. Everyone perfectly understood what kind of protection armor provides. Thanks to her, the survivability of the battleship and any cruiser was different at times. And yet.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

What this led to is known. Unfortunate Sheffield that burned out from unexploded RCC

Why didn't Sheffield "open the eyes" of the dense, and everyone again did not start building battleships?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

Destroyers, submarines, and MPCs and boats were built in the same way. But the battleships stopped building.

After the U.S. War on xnumx years froze all major shipbuilding programs

Nothing was built, Oregon and DeMoyne RECEIVED, happily avoiding the fate of being cut on a slipway, like dozens of their colleagues
Construction of the United States aircraft carrier was canceled a day after the laying. 10 destroyers were built in 4 years - experimental Mitcher. The same situation with submarines.

USSR because of the devastation and those. even the simplest programs didn’t export the backlog;

The British Empire was falling apart before our eyes, the rest of the countries were not at all ready for the fleet

Quote: Krang

In the mid / late 50s, almost everyone was put under the knife. Until now, only the Iowa series battleships have survived.

Don't you think that the 4 battleship is more than ENOUGH in peacetime

Quote: Krang

Who thought so?

Those who built cold-war armored ships

Quote: Krang

from testing nuclear weapons on them

You might think they didn’t test on aircraft carriers))

Saratoga after a nuclear explosion

Quote: Krang

Why didn't Sheffield "open the eyes" of the dense

Even as he discovered, they began to build superstructures of steel. And try to hide behind 130 tons of Kevlar (like on the Berks). All that designers could do on ships with a / and 10 thousand tons

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

After the war, the United States froze all major shipbuilding programs for 10 years

Okay. After 10 years, ships of all classes began to be built again, except for the "storm of the oceans" - battleships. Why?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Don't you think that the 4 battleship is more than ENOUGH in peacetime

It does not seem. Following this logic in peacetime, military equipment is not needed at all. But as soon as the war begins, everything will be built right away.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Those who built cold-war armored ships

From these considerations, or from what others?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Even as he discovered, they began to build superstructures of steel. And try to hide behind 130 tons of Kevlar (like on the Berks). All that designers could do on ships with a / and 10 thousand tons

So discovered or not? Why didn’t they build huge battleships? And what does an armored ship with a displacement of 10 tons and a length of 000-130m look like?

Quote: Krang

The world once made a mistake when it started instead of squadron battleships build huge super dreadnoughts.

Isn't this the main conclusion from our discussion with you?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

After the expiration of 10 years started building again ships of all classes, except for the "storm of the oceans" - battleships. Why?

No, artillery ships completely disappeared
the latter were the Soviet pr. 56 and 68 bis, as well as the unfinished Stalingrad

Quote: Krang

Following this logic in peacetime, military equipment is not needed at all

And you thought why now the fleets of European countries look so dumb
Even destroyers do not want to build - only frigates and mistral barges

And because there is no sense, not adequate tasks for the fleet, all the money goes to social programs and a high standard of living

Quote: Krang

Those who built cold-war armored ships
From these considerations, or from what others?

There is one consideration - the armor was considered useless

The combat load of the jet aircraft exceeded the load of the largest Lancaster, a hail of bombs will smash and drown the ship to anyone in love + threat from nuclear weapons and the nuclear submarine fleet

Quote: Krang

Why didn’t they build huge battleships?

Because instead of huge cannons weighing thousands of tons - compact under-deck UVP
And instead of boilers Babcock & Wilksos - gas turbines
Armor in 10 thousand tons does not fit

Quote: Krang

And what does an armored ship with a displacement of 10 000t and a length of 130-150m look like?

On a cardboard washington cruiser

Quote: Krang

The world once made a mistake when, instead of squadron battleships, it began to build huge super dreadnoughts.

Horse, chair, 28

where does the squadron battleship ??

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

No, artillery ships completely disappeared

Artillery disappeared, rocket appeared. All classes. EXCEPT huge battleships. Why?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And you thought why now the fleets of European countries look so dumb

Yes, they do not look dumb. The US Navy has several dozen destroyers, frigates, etc. ships. Our Navy even now includes about 160 surface warships. And not a single huge battleship is present. Why?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

There is one consideration - the armor was considered useless

No.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The combat load of the jet aircraft exceeded the load of the largest Lancaster, a hail of bombs will smash and drown the ship

Yes, only the outfit of forces and means for drowning a destroyer / cruiser or a huge battleship should be completely different.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

+ threat from nuclear weapons and the nuclear submarine fleet

So destroyers and cruisers are even more vulnerable from this type of weapon than huge battleships. Why are they being built, and huge battleships - thunderstorms of the seas and oceans do not?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Because instead of huge cannons weighing thousands of tons - compact under-deck UVP
And instead of boilers Babcock & Wilksos - gas turbines
Armor in 10 thousand tons does not fit

Like this? Previously, in 10 thousand tons with heavy guns and boilers, armor was placed, but now with UVP and gas turbines, isn’t it?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

On a cardboard washington cruiser

Washington cruisers had a length of 180-200m and almost did not carry armor. What is it like well-armored ship with a displacement of 10 tons and a length of 000m?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

where does the squadron battleship ??

You started arguing with me:

Quote: Krang

The world once made a mistake when, instead of squadron battleships, it began to build huge super dreadnoughts. How it ended for all of this class of ships is well known to all.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Developed to terrifying power, became a thunderstorm of the seas,

Well, what is the result? What is the conclusion? A squadron battleship is the optimal battleship - a real thunderstorm of the seas and oceans. And recently there has been a tendency towards their resurrection. But the huge superdreadnought is a hypertrophied monster of dubious combat effectiveness that kills its own economy (read the armed forces). The squadron battleship is the T-72. The huge superdreadnought is the Mouse. Their combat effectiveness in general is understandable.
Read from cover to cover:
"Striking force of the fleet"
http://topwar.ru/38551-udarnaya-sila-flota-chast-1.html

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

missile appeared. All classes.

They were all small
All Legi and Belknapa cruisers - 7-8 thousand tons

The Soviet cruiser Grozny (1960 year), looks cool, but it's only 5 thousand tons. Like a destroyer

Quote: Krang

Yes they don’t look dumb

Yes, of course, the only full-fledged fleet is currently the US Navy
the British and Japanese are trying to do something
all other trash

Quote: Krang

about 160 surface warships. And not a single huge battleship is present. Why?

Peter the Great

Quote: Krang

only the outfit of forces and means for drowning a destroyer / cruiser or a huge battleship should be completely different.

As of the end of the 50's, one squadron of jet Skyhawks could be guaranteed to drown any artillery cruiser or destroyer. And completely disable the battleship. There everyone’s combat load like that of the Flying Fortress + transonic speed (with air defense systems remaining at the 2MV level and the first imperfect air defense systems)

And the boat, if it is near, will fill up everyone in a minute. All are equal before the Premier League

Quote: Krang

So destroyers and cruisers are even more vulnerable from this type of weapon than huge battleships.

They were originally created as disposable

Quote: Krang

Previously, in 10 thousand tons with heavy guns and boilers, armor was placed, but now with UVP and gas turbines, isn’t it?

Isn't it obvious?
No, it does not fit

Allocated to / and spent on other load articles

Quote: Krang

well armored displacement ship 10 000

there are no such ships, never was and could not be

Quote: Krang

This squadron battleship is the optimal battleship.

110 years ago, the Dreadnought at one moment depreciated the EDB as a class
EBR in our time - how do you imagine such a miracle?

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Peter the Great

This is a cruiser. The maximum thickness of the armor does not exceed 100mm.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

As of the end of the 50's, one squadron of jet Skyhawks could be guaranteed to drown any artillery cruiser or destroyer. And completely disable the battleship. There everyone’s combat load like that of the Flying Fortress + transonic speed (with air defense systems remaining at the 2MV level and the first imperfect air defense systems)

And with modern air defense systems and air defense systems how?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

They were originally created as disposable

Is this a waste, how cynical does it sound?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Isn't it obvious?
No, it does not fit

Well before it was placed. With heavy guns and old boilers. How so?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

there are no such ships, never was and could not be

Should I give you examples? Only from ours: "Peter the Great", "Nicholas-I", "Alexander-II", "Navarin", "Sisoy the Great", "12 Apostles", "Three Saints", "Sinop", "Chesma", "George Victorious "," Catherine II ", etc. etc. - not a complete list. All these ships with a displacement of 10 tons or less, with heavy guns and gun mounts, with their old boilers and steam engines, carried very powerful armor. How so?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

110 years ago, the Dreadnought at one moment depreciated the EDB as a class

The Dreadnought did not discount the EBRs. By his appearance, he discredited the very concept of a battleship. He devalued himself. Only it became clear after 40 years.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

EBR in our time - how do you imagine such a miracle?

A heavily armored ship with powerful missile, artillery and mine-torpedo weapons, with a length of not more than 130-150m. A displacement of 10-15 thousand tons. With a speed of 25-28uz.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

This is a cruiser. The maximum thickness of the armor does not exceed 100mm.

But how big! And dear! (if you are hinting that the battleships stopped building due to their high cost)

Quote: Krang

They were originally created as disposable
Is this a waste, how cynical does it sound?

And are you going to live long in the world war of superpowers?))

Quote: Krang

And with modern air defense systems and air defense systems how?

In the era of local wars, when there is a bunch of expensive hi-tech on board, and damage to radar antennas will not affect the firing capabilities of Tomahawks in any way, if new materials and those are available. decisions - the return of the armor seems to be quite justified

Quote: Krang

Well before it was placed. With heavy guns and old boilers. How so?

EDB Nicholas I and Ticonderoga

the difference is visible to the naked eye

Quote: Krang

With his appearance, he discredited the concept of a battleship. He devalued himself.

50 years ruled the sea))

All of these ships with a displacement of 10 000t and less, with heavy guns and gun mounts, with their old boilers and steam engines, carried a very powerful reservation. How so?

All of their "armor" is a narrow armor belt along the waterline and a cardboard deck that any 1000-lb. WWII bomb

But who will protect the add-ons?

A separate issue on anti-torpedo protection - even the first dreadnoughts were extremely vulnerable to damage in the underwater part, to say nothing about the EDB

Quote: Krang

A heavily armored ship with powerful missile, artillery and mine-torpedo weapons, no more than 130-150m in length. 10-15 displacement

Does not fit

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

But how big! And dear! (if you are hinting that the battleships stopped building due to their high cost)

And yet it is a cruiser. A battleship with similar weapons would have been even larger. This is exactly what I am hinting at. This means that such ships cannot be massive. And from this follows a number of specific circumstances that impede the effective use of these floating cities. "Peter the Great", although it is not a battleship - but also refers to this problem.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And are you going to live long in the world war of superpowers?))

Yeah. Survive and conquer. On the one hand, squadron battleships allow you to get away from "disposability" and save precious lives of people. On the other hand, they are adapted for mass production and use.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

In the era

And in our era, in order to break air defense even of a BOD or an EM aircraft carrier will lose horseradish knows how many planes were shot down. If at all able to do it. In Vietnam, the Americans were already yelling about the end of the era of manned aircraft.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

EDB Nicholas I and Ticonderoga

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

the difference is visible to the naked eye

Hmm .. What is it? "Nikolay-I" is much fatter and more voluminous than modern shells. You can stuff a lot more into it. Their displacement is approximately the same. At the same time, "Nikolay" is more compact in terms of external dimensions, which is a well-known advantage. "Alexander-II"

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

50 years ruled the sea))

Just 50 years old? They began to "rule" somewhere after 1910-12 (after the creation of fleets of dreadnoughts) and by the mid-30s had turned into such monsters that their population was sharply reduced. In addition, they had to take the threat from under the water seriously. Pearl Harbor marked the end of the era of the giants. Total ~ 30 years.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

that would break air defense even BOD or EM aircraft carrier will lose hell knows how much planes shot down.

You probably wanted to say rockets
Volley AGM-88 HARM + RCC - drown for sure. If necessary, finish the CABs

The only thing is it takes time. And some preparation.

Quote: Krang

Hmm .. What is it? "Nikolay-I" is much fatter and more voluminous than modern shells.

Modern shells have 80 antenna devices,

radar antennas weigh several tons, while being raised to a height of 20 meters - how much ballast is needed to compensate for their tipping moment and the effect of wind load, to maintain the ship an acceptable margin of stability and controllability

Further on the little things:

- hydroacoustics

- A huge add-on - where it squeezes the electronics and the numerous posts of the OMS;

- most of the hull and settings of a modern ship are occupied by "half-empty" volumes, modern electronics (quantity of them!) and weapons are lightweight, but they take up enough space - you can't pour fuel there, and you can't hang bunks

- elevators and conveyor belts along the whole ship hull;

- hull sealing and anti-nuclear protection elements (overpressure is maintained inside the cruiser’s hull, preventing air from entering outside the ventilation system filters) + automated systems for locating combat damage and fighting for survivability (smoke and water sensors, automatic locking of hatches and doors, video cameras, signal processors, automatic fire extinguishing systems) - all this something weighs and eats part of the fire.

- increased requirements for power supply, cooling systems and air conditioning in the compartments where the electronics are installed;

- Burke’s crew is 2 times smaller than Nicholas-1’s, but living conditions are not much better, air conditioning, etc.

There is still a desire to fantasize about the battleship of the XXI century.?
With a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons))

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

You probably wanted to say rockets

I wanted to say planes.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Volley AGM-88 HARM + RCC - drown for sure. If necessary, finish the CABs

AGM-88s shoot extremely at 100 km. SAM "Fort" hit 200 km. SAM "Polyment-Redut" at 250 km. So it was the planes, not their missiles. Moreover, no one will allow them to bombard the ship with KABs.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Modern shells have 80 antenna devices,

radar antennas weigh several tons each, and are raised to a height of 20 meters - how much ballast is needed to compensate for their overturning moment and the influence of wind load, in order to maintain an acceptable margin of stability and controllability

The EBR has a priori stability better than these shells. The width of the same "Nikolai-I" is more than 20 meters with a length of just over 100 meters. The width of the "Eagle" is more than 23 meters with a length of just over 120. Draft is 8 meters. The Triconderoga's width is only 16,7 meters (like the Aurora's), while the length is 173 meters. It is a long and narrow cigarette. Neither in terms of stability nor controllability, it will not be able to compare with irons.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

most of the hull and settings of a modern ship are occupied by "half-empty" volumes, modern electronics (its quantity!) and weapons are lightweight, but take up space

The internal useful volume of the EDB is greater than that of these cigarette-shaped shells. Due to the completeness and much more width and draft / height of the body.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

increased requirements for power, cooling and air conditioning in the compartments where the electronics are installed;

SO WHAT? Then what? I do not propose to make a ship according to the drawings of the old EDB and put a modern stuffing there. And if you make such a ship at the modern technical level - there will be no problems. A 15-ton EDB will be larger inside than an 000-8-ton cigarette-shaped shell and more compact on the outside.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

- Burke’s crew is 2 times smaller than Nicholas-1’s, but living conditions are not much better, air conditioning, etc.

Well? Then what? I somehow lose the thread of your argument. Yes - the crew is half as much and THEREFORE, its living conditions are better. What did you want to say?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

There is still a desire to fantasize about the battleship of the XXI century.?
With a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons))

Yes there is. Gradually, he goes to them.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

AGM-88s shoot extremely at 100 km. SAM "Fort" hit at 200 km

the curvature of the earth must also be taken into account

Quote: Krang

The width of the "Eagle" is already more than 23 meters with a length of just over 120. Draft 8 meters

Zamvolt - 183 - 24,6 - 8,4 m, 14500 tons
real armor did not fit, here's a real example for you

Quote: Krang

The stability of the EDB is a priori better than that of these shells.

multi-ton radar antennas at mast height and add-ons will require special measures to maintain their former stability. Remember how under Tsushima complained about the overload of armadillos with coal - so here it will be even more abrupt.

Ballast will gobble up the lion's share in / and. A huge superstructure will appear, for reservation of which there will no longer be a reserve, while limited in / and 15 thousand tons

Quote: Krang

Neither in terms of stability, nor in controllability can it be compared with irons.

Yes, this is especially noticeable in the examples of Oslyaby and Borodino

Quote: Krang

SO WHAT? Then what?

21st Century EDB - Pseudoscience Fiction

Quote: Krang

And if you make such a ship on a modern technical level

How do you imagine that))
If the layout and contours of the case remain the same (you are trying to build an EBR), the density of the steel is unchanged 7800 kg / m3

Quote: Krang

the crew is half as much and THEREFORE its habitability conditions are better. What did you want to say?

Save on the volume of inhabited premises will not succeed.

Quote: Krang

Gradually, he goes to them.

Yes, I do not want to

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

the curvature of the earth must also be taken into account

So this probably applies to both sides of the conflict? Or just to the ship?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Zamvolt - 183 - 24,6 - 8,4 m, 14500 tons

Hmm. First, you brought the Triconderoga cruiser 16,7 meters wide. Now they suddenly took the Zumwalt 24,6 m wide.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

real armor did not fit, here's a real example for you

And did not try to THINK why? It used to be placed like that. This is with heavy guns and cars.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

multi-ton radar antennas at the height of the masts and superstructures will require special measures to maintain their former stability.

"Multi-tone" is how much? Why say nonsense if you don't know yourself? On the same "Borodino", for example, at a height of 10m, there was a bow 305mm gun mount (the mass of the rotating part was 182 tons) and four 152mm gun mounts (the weight of the rotating part was 67 tons). And even higher was the conning tower. How many "tons" of antenna do they weigh?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Remember how under Tsushima complained about the overload of armadillos with coal - so here it will be even more abrupt.

There, coal was loaded wherever possible and where not. Even on the upper deck. The displacement of the same "Borodintsy" reached 17 tons. "Triconderoga" with "Zumvalt" if you load them like that, they will break in half.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yes, this is especially noticeable in the examples of Oslyaby and Borodino

I would have seen how "Triconderga" with "Zumvalt" would have withstood 40 hits with 50kg and 113kg shells in the first case and about 200-250 hits with 390kg, 113kg and 50kg shells in the second case. And how would they have with stability after that.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

21st Century EDB - Pseudoscience Fiction

And no one is talking about the EBR. You can call them whatever you like. The path would be "strike missile ship" for example.

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

How do you imagine that))
If the layout and contours of the case remain the same (you are trying to build an EBR), the density of the steel is unchanged 7800 kg / m3

Then what? Trying to prove your point of view to me, you are climbing into a jungle in which you yourself are poorly versed. And here the contours of the body and what do they affect in this case? If you studied such a subject as geometry at school, you should have known that the geometric body "sphere" has the largest internal volume with the smallest surface area. EBR, due to its proportions and layout, will always be smaller on the outside and at the same time larger and more voluminous on the inside than long and thin cigarettes like "Triconderogi".

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Save on the volume of inhabited premises will not succeed.

Do not understand.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yes, I do not want to

Yeah. At least it would be very cool. Because giant battleships, or even such cruisers as Peter the Great, cannot be built and maintained in the quantities necessary for operations at all theaters.

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

All their "booking" - a narrow armor belt along the waterline and a cardboard deck,

Not narrow, but normal. In addition, the upper belt. Deck with bevels or several decks. Traverses. Casemates. Gun turrets. Cutting room. Barbets The squadron battleship was booked almost like a tank - almost entirely. And given the relatively compact size and small length to width ratio, all this together gives such reinforced concrete strength that any modern ship is just a tin can next to the iron.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

A separate issue on anti-torpedo protection - even the first dreadnoughts were extremely vulnerable to damage in the underwater part, to say nothing about the EDB

Some EBRs, for example our "Tsesarevich" and a series of five ships of the "Borodino" type had internal armor and constructive anti-torpedo protection similar to the battleship "Bismarck". And there is no need to compare the technology of the beginning of the last century with modern realities. If they were planning to make a 10-15kton missile EBR now, I think that everything was in order with any protection. And DZ and KAZT and KOEP would be delivered.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Krang

ships of the "Borodino" type had internal armor and constructive anti-torpedo protection similar to the battleship "Bismarck"

Width of PTZ Borodino - 2 meters
The width of the PTZ Bimark is over 5 meters !!!

[Crang]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Width of PTZ Borodino - 2 meters
The width of the PTZ Bimark is over 5 meters !!!

I said - had an internal reservation and constructive anti-torpedo protection type battleship "Bismarck", and NOT exactly like his. For you, the difference is certainly not noticeable.

[Kassandra]

but what difference does it make if an explosion of rocket torpedoes, torpedoes or missiles with a diving warhead under the keel knocks a section up from the ship or breaks it in half?

[Crang]

Quote: Kassandra

but what difference does it make if an explosion of rocket torpedoes, torpedoes or missiles with a diving warhead under the keel knocks a section up from the ship or breaks it in half?

All this is happening with modern, long, thin, unarmored shells. A normal ship will just get a big hole in this place.

[Kassandra]

the water hammer under the keel, on the contrary, canceled the armor. Even the "Sverdlovs" on one of which NATO is tired of spending ordinary torpels.
this is not a question of breaking through the armor but of the structural strength of the hull.

[samoletil18]

What are you arguing. Remember how the German "Blucher" was sunk by the British battlecruisers, even without any tangible losses. And this with the general recognition of the excellent training of the German gunners. As soon as the Blucher fell behind, the crew had no chance. And in the Battle of Jutland, the Germans lost only the "luttsov" from the ships of the modern class, having carried out the evacuation of the crew. Everything has its time. The Japanese, destroying the American battleships, were glad of the success that they destroyed the main forces of the American fleet, while regretting that they did not fall into the PUMP, under the arm of aircraft carriers. And battleships in the third world still, and not after crossed out the aircraft carriers. Pearl Harbor and Yamato, Bismrk. Yes, the Scharnhorst sank the Glories (aircraft carrier) with an escort, but this is an exception, confirming the superiority of the aircraft carrier over the battleship in the range of impact. Which was expressed over the years in rocket ships. Battleships and line cruisers were for their time the normal means of naval warfare. But 40 years of service as a spokesman for the forces of a naval power is a short period for history, only battleships are not to blame, but technical progress. Although, many battleships have served more than the mentioned 40 years. Sorry, dear debaters about battleships, but your dispute dragged on a little, and allies began to build corvettes as a modern class of ships for escorting convoys in the Atlantic against submarines. And in my opinion, due to their size, they cannot be an independent ship even in our time. In the coastal zone, they are quite self-sufficient, because and are covered, and they can dump by shooting at the enemy, which is very good with a defensive doctrine.

[POKPAH]

The American trimaran in the photo where he is in the dry dock looks like a darth vader hat))))

And so very happy that our shipbuilders produce such a wonderful corvette, bursting with pride.

[Takashi]

I honestly can not understand this love of renaming.
and what is the difference between a corvette and an ordinary guard (according to the classification of the USSR)?
Watchdog - it’s immediately clear what kind of class, why, where.
And the corvette is immediately an analogy of a light cruiser (sailing), a kind of under-ship and not a destroyer, but no longer a missile boat.

[Crang]

Quote: Takashi

and what is the difference between a corvette and an ordinary guard (according to the classification of the USSR)?

No. Corvette is the TFR of the near sea zone.

Quote: Takashi

And the corvette is immediately an analogy of a light cruiser (sailing), a kind of under-ship and not a destroyer, but no longer a missile boat.

It is not true. It's just that with the growth of the unification of missile-torpedo weapon systems and, accordingly, the versatility of warships, their division by purpose has largely lost its meaning. It remains to divide them simply by tonnage, as in sailing times. The class of "destroyers" drops out of this classification and will soon disappear forever. After the frigates, cruisers will immediately go.

[donavi49]

No, there will be no more Cruisers. They will die.

Destroyers build all the leading countries of the world, from the USA and China to Europe. This is the most formidable surface unit apart from the aircraft carrier. The new Zumwalt and the new planned Chinese are destroyers. The new Russian destroyer is also, even if they do with nuclear power plants.

But no one is building a cruiser. The American program was slaughtered in favor of a new order for the destroyer Burke. Ticks are taken out of the composition. Even the Chinese do not plan to build a cruiser. And what is a cruiser? Burke has already outgrown Tiku in terms of displacement. Zumwalt outgrew Tiku 1,5 times in displacement.

[Crang]

Quote: donavi49

No, there will be no more Cruisers. They will die.

Cruisers, frigates, corvettes - this is the historical class of warships characterizing primarily their size and autonomy.

Quote: donavi49

Destroyers build all the leading countries of the world, from the USA and China to Europe. This is the most formidable surface unit apart from the aircraft carrier. The new Zumwalt and the new planned Chinese are destroyers. The new Russian destroyer is also, even if they do with nuclear power plants.

Destroyer this небольшойhigh speed combat ship whose main strike weapons are torpedoes... How can you call a giant 180-meter ship, stuffed with a variety of missile, artillery and mine-torpedo weapons, with airborne aircraft, a destroyer? Dear - destroyers have ceased to be "destroyers" soon after the 1st World War. Just count how many large warships were sunk by destroyers during WW2. Real pennies. Almost everyone in this "segment" has taken over the TKA and PL.

[donavi49]

Nevertheless, they are called Destroyer - they carry tactical designations DDG (destroyer URO), while cruisers carry tactical CG.

[Nayhas]

Quote: donavi49

Nevertheless, they are called Destroyer - they carry tactical designations DDG (destroyer URO), while cruisers carry tactical CG.

compare the displacement ... that's really a reason to think "what's the difference?" ...

[voyaka uh]

In my opinion, Americans are again conceptually
overtaken. Their littoral ships are high-speed trimarans, in fact -
mini aircraft carriers. A whole new class of ship.
And the Americans, when the series ends, will have 20 pieces.

It is easy to foresee the course of the meeting between the corvette and such a mini-aircraft carrier.
Long before rapprochement, the littoral will raise its aviation and
the first to strike.

[donavi49]

What kind of aviation are you talking about? Freedom (the one that is classic) carries aviation as a 1-storing helicopter, Independence (the one with 3 buildings) carries aircraft as the 1155 BOD, namely the 2 helicopter.

[voyaka uh]

2 Seahawk and one reconnaissance helicopter
drone.
But you forgot about the F-35B, which
easy to start-take with
wide deck Independence

[avt]

Quote: voyaka uh

- high-speed trimarans, in fact -
mini aircraft carriers. A whole new class of ship.

Quote: voyaka uh

2 Seahawk and one reconnaissance helicopter
drone.
But you forgot about the F-35B, which
easy to start-take with
wide deck Independence

Not, of course, you can fantasize about planes taking off and landing on this super-high-speed trough of 3100 tons. Somehow I happened to read the memoirs about working out vertical take-off and landing for the building "Kiev" on the "Moscow" Yak 38m, and after that I can not perceive yours other than fantasy. By the way, about the maniacal passion to reach 50 nodes in this littoral - somehow in the 70s I met their conceptual development of VTOL aircraft as a carrier of a pair of "Sea Kings" from Sikorsky, that's probably where the legs grow from the current ones.

[voyaka uh]

Such cases were in combat conditions.
During the Falkland War there was
a few cases where Harrier pilots
had to land their planes on small
destroyer helipads (and, in a storm
and on manual control). Plant F-35B which
on comp.control is not difficult.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: voyaka uh

I had to land my planes on small
destroyer helipads (and, in a storm
and on manual control)

Oh really)))

To give a link, you certainly were shy

[voyaka uh]

On health:
And not only for destroyers ...
Emergency Landing on Cargo Ship Alra by Sea Harrier ZA176

[avt]

Quote: voyaka uh

Such cases were in combat conditions.
During the falkland war

Yeah !? Specifically, which destroyers and which “Harriers”? Here in life these cases have passed by, although over the years, almost every sortie with the names of the pilots in the memoirs and the press has been painted.

[voyaka uh]

Read about Harriere landings in the Falkland War:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falkland-is
lands /

"They were too low on fuel to divert to the carriers and so the landing decks of the assault
ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid were hastily cleared to allow them a temporary landing spot "

[voyaka uh]

Dear avt,
Yak-38 - there was a technical breakthrough in its time, but control for the pilot was extremely difficult,
and only aces could carry out vertical take-off and landing.
At Harrier, the controls were more pilot-friendly and therefore
the British were able to complex emergency landing on helipads.
On the F-35B control is automatic, and any pilot can make a landing.

You, of course, know that the helipad is now the standard for all
surface ships. But one helicopter is not enough, so the Americans began to do
hangars under the deck. That is, the standard will soon be 2-4
air vehicles (helicopter or plane type F-35) on a surface ship.

After all, it is quite obvious that in the battle of two ships the one with more
... airplanes.

[Kassandra]

everything with the yak was fine and before him and with 36m

for the F-35, in general, Americans absolutely licked everything in the USSR, including the distributed lift control system
harrier they before this also unlicensedly licked the British
By the way, with Independence, it can fly quite like a tiltrotor

[avt]

Quote: voyaka uh

At Harrier, the controls were more pilot-friendly and therefore
the British were able to complex emergency landing on helipads.

Again twenty-five and the absence of any specific indications of very real planes and ships of a class no higher than a destroyer, and the time of landing one on the other. Landing on transport vehicles was not to be offered, and they did this in the USSR Navy.

[Veteran]

My dear, why predict incredible combat encounters - ships of the coastal and near sea zones of very remote enemy states? Do you really think that someone will send such ships tens of thousands of miles to storm an alien coastal zone?
Each state creates them in accordance with the characteristics of its coastal naval theater, where they will be used.

[Kassandra]

the corvette protects its coast and the "littoral" (littoral) is of two types - this one and the second with jvumya em. cannons
their meaning, unlike the corvette, is in attacking someone else's coast, and not in protecting their own.
in a purely naval battle, the aircraft carrier will draw closer, release aircraft, and then rush to flee to get it in response to. if possible ...
unless of course from someone else's fleet at all that remains after the action of the AUG.

conceptually, just everything that is better than an ordinary corvette (and earlier TAVKRA) in Russia is choking, that's all bicosis.

[D-Master]

To compare the characteristics of the corvette and the cruiser, I present the data on the armored cruiser of rank II "Novik". I think it is obvious to everyone that the corvette is almost the size of a full-scale cruiser from the early XNUMXth century
Length 90 m. Displacement (full)> 2200 tons. Crew 99 people Full speed 27 knots. Cruising range - 3500 miles at a speed of 14 knots. Armament (production ships, project 20380):
- three modules 3K96 "Redoubt" (12 starting cells). B / K 12 anti-aircraft missiles, large or short-range 48 anti-aircraft missiles. On upgraded corvettes pr. 20385, the number of CWPs should increase to 16;
- eight small-sized PKR X-35 "Uranus";
- small package anti-submarine complex "Package-NK" (8 torpedoes caliber 324 mm);
- universal gun A-190 caliber 100 mm, two six-barreled AK-630М;
- landing site and hangar in the aft superstructure to accommodate the Ka-27PL helicopter;
- anti-sabotage protection equipment, large-caliber small arms.

[Vladimirets]

At first I was scared for Oleg that there were no English corvettes on the list and once again revised the signature on the article. But then I remembered that the British now have no corvettes and calmed down. And by the way, why? Article +.

[Santa Fe]

Great!

Quote: Vladimirets

the British now have no corvettes and calmed down. And by the way, why?

Yes, River class
5 patrol corvettes in / and 2000 tons, of weapons only 30 mm gun

True, the cruising range is 7800 miles (14 000 km!)

Patrolling remote areas (Falklands, Antarctica), search and rescue operations, facilitating scientific expeditions, etc. Peace Time Fleet

[Vladimirets]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Great!

Hey.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

of weapons only 30 mm gun

If they still had at least one torpedo tube, you would definitely put them in the line of the "best".

[Iskander 090]

In order to remain respected, we must be head, no two superior in quality and power to everyone else, otherwise they will devour and not choke. Now we are in the minority, innovations are on their side, too much is working for them and we are still losing financially, we can only win with our minds, which have repeatedly demonstrated "our everything."

[xomaNN]

So the combat capabilities of our 20380 (20385) look worthy! Of course, I’m more familiar when similar ships in the Soviet Navy were called SK, IPC, MRK The hope is warming that new destroyers will follow them!

[Cat]

Down and Out trouble started!!!

[virm]

"Crew 99 people."
Isn't it a bit much? Others have 2 times less. They seem to have better automation and robotics. Even the Chinese.

[1c-inform-city]

Well, they have fewer weapons at times. and as a rule they are one and a half two times less in displacement.

[gameover_65]

the title does not match the content of the article.
neither corvette nor frigate will replace 1st rank ships.
if we want to be a power, then we need destroyers of the 1st rank and a cruiser.
and frigates and corvettes are a masked fleet, and they are in the arsenal of countries of the 3rd world.
at least one destroyer laid down? No, but what does this mean? that we are writing off the existing ones, but there is no replacement. and by 17-20, we were without escort ships of the 1st rank.
I’m not talking about cruisers.

[gallville]

weak radar "Furke-2" was not able to provide illumination of targets at long distances

Perhaps the launch cells were installed with the hope of bringing the radar to mind in the next series?

Although still for the corvette it is redundant.
It was easier to put in the bow and stern of a palm / broadswash with a reserve of space for the shell. All the same, the corvette operates in the area of ​​the ground forces.

Anti-ship missiles X-35 "Uranus"

From an economic point of view, it is fully justified.
With a tactical installation, the Caliber-NK with the possibility of attacking coastal targets (due to the location of the redoubt) would be more justified (Baltic, Black Sea).

[zavesa01]

TFR Ave. 1152 is what needs to be built. Well, 11356. the main escort ships. Shock TARK.

[padded jacket]

Well, what are corvettes for not particularly rich countries an excellent solution to raising defense capabilities, and for the rich, a good addition to the ocean fleet.
I liked the SAM on the new corvettes of Myanmar:

[padded jacket]

I apologize above with the air defense missile system cited a photograph (it is simply better seen) of the new DPRK missile boats (Myanmar has corvettes on the corvettes, because these corvettes were produced, for it was jointly the DPRK and Iran). Below (second photo) the corvette (light frigate) of the Myanmar Navy F 11 Aung Zeya:
New North Korean hovercraft missile launch boat:

[kirpich]

PANCAKE!!! Why "CORVETTE", "FRIGATE" !!! ??? Why not "Destroyers", "Cruisers" !!! ???
What, in the RUSSIAN Navy lacks the classification of ships? Agree to introduce an imposed classification? Maybe the Russian Navy should say its weighty word?

[Mother Theresa]

For several decades now, the Swedes have been catching submarines in their waters, and there are no results to this day. And the new corvette, specially sharpened for this purpose, could not cope with the task.

[bagel]

The Russian crew in 1,5-2 times more, even compared with the Chinese. Apparently bad with automation and control systems ...

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Bagel

The Russian crew in 1,5-2 times more, even compared with the Chinese. Apparently bad with automation and control systems ...

So he himself is 1,5 times larger - 2200 vs 1400 t
He has more systems, weapons and combat posts

[samoletil18]

Quote: Bagel

The Russian crew in 1,5-2 times more, even compared with the Chinese. Apparently bad with automation and control systems ...

Then, an unmanned aerial vehicle in the form of a corvette must be designed - we’ll drop the nose in the morning.

[spiolist pas harp]

For the review article, the author is uniquely thank you. As always, I wanted to learn a lot of useful things from the comments. I learned a lot, useful - not enough. Apparently not fate ...
Someone is proving something to someone, they are arguing utterly ... the state of higher Enlightenment. People on whom the present and future of our fleet depend, bellies would pluck up on these estimates, tips and recommendations.
Moms are different, moms are different... So it is with ships (and with everything else). We need different ships! And more. And victory in real battles does not depend on "who has thicker armor and more caliber", but on the skillful and purposeful use of available tools.
It brought a bunch of historical battles and unexpected victories. And in my memory sits the last real naval battle. Near Mariupol, from two boats, a Ukrainian guard was fired. If not mistaken, from RPG. The scale, of course, is not as huge as that of the above battles, but nevertheless, the guys completed their task. The Ukrainian Navy has realized that there can be no talk of any support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the sea. And they themselves quickly mined a considerable piece of the water area. And BCH can now absolutely not worry about any threat from the sea.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

everything else is trash

As you can see, skillful use of "trash" can turn out to be quite a meaningful pain in the ass for the enemy. Therefore, "Guarding", no matter how "bad, unnecessary and expensive" it is, will be very useful when combined and skillfully used with other ships and even with other branches of the military.

[Kassandra]

"The people on whom the present and the future of our fleet depends" make corvettes instead of patomushta frigates, and the latter, if desired, can be converted into a VTOL aircraft carrier, but a corvette cannot.
they also did everything and are doing it in order to concentrate the entire marine corps in just two boats and to burn it with helicopter fuel from getting just one air bomb into it, or to let it sink fresh ...
understand?

[spiolist pas harp]

Quote: Kassandra

"The people on whom the present and the future of our fleet depends" make corvettes instead of patomushta frigates, and the latter, if desired, can be converted into a VTOL aircraft carrier, but a corvette cannot.

I see no logic. They make corvettes, "patomushta-ah" them must not converted into a VTOL aircraft carrier? And, by the way, I see a landing deck on the corvette (and on some + a hangar), what prevents you from adapting a VTOL aircraft of a suitable size to the corvette? Another thing, then the question arises: "I'll screw the shelf here ... But why the heck is it needed here?" If the ship is designed for certain tasks, and it successfully performs these tasks with helicopters, then why does it need a VTOL aircraft?

Quote: Kassandra

they also did everything and are doing it in order to concentrate all the marines in just two boats and to burn it with helicopter fuel from a single bomb bombing

Right! The stupid designers, however, did not envisage air defense weapons on the landing ship, designed to attack the Death Star. It would not hurt! Because the landing ship will be sent alone! Without any escort!

Quote: Kassandra

well or so fresh to sink to the bottom ...

And here I also absolutely agree with you. If you didn’t offer anything, let me give you a little hint at three options for overcoming the difficult situation in military shipbuilding:
1. To hell, close the entire Navy in connection with worthlessness! For "for every ... ass, there will definitely be its own x ... oh, sorry, of course awl". Why then do we need a fleet, if there is a weapon that can destroy it?
2. Appear to the RF Ministry of Defense, point out to them their "childish" mistakes in the design of shipbuilding, accuse them of unprofessionalism and demand that they appoint themselves commander-in-chief of the Navy. If they doubt your professionalism, immediately open the Military Review for them and point out the comments with evidence-based criticism from the lips of real professionals (office managers, watchmen, Gazelle drivers, etc.). Naturally, they will not withstand such a pressure, and you are already the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy. We start to work. You point and explain on your fingers what kind of "wunderwaffle" they need to build. They will start bleating about the lack of capacities and resources in general ... But with a strong-willed gesture you take out of your pocket the amount that is not enough for the construction of a "wunderwaffe" and the problem is solved. You - everyone's respect, the country - security guaranteed by your "correct" ships. What? You don't have that amount and no one gives it to you? Well then, option number three remains ... But it's stupid, fantastic and I'm afraid you won't like it.
3. Confide in the leadership of the country, the Ministry of Defense, institutes designing weapons and ships, industries and shipyards. And to treat with at least a little distrust all the information seen / heard / read. But again, this is a fantastic option. After all, it’s stupid to trust admirals who don’t even know how to correctly use warships; to trust professors and doctors of science who bought their dissertations, they only drove flies at institutes for 20-40 years: to trust experienced shipbuilders - for 20-40 years they only learned to tighten the left nut with a crowbar using a crowbar and some kind of mother. Somehow it turns out?
Did i understand you correctly?

[Kassandra]

Quote: Speciolist on harp

I do not see the logic.

then this is a difficult case ... or ignorance of what a "conversion aircraft carrier" is, of which there have been a majority in the world at all times, including even battleships. but not from corvettes.

Quote: Speciolist on harp

That's right!

even harder to do - build the surviving 10% of the soldiers (because the Mistral will not have time to unload more) on the beach in a quarry undercover, because the country needs tin.
the Falkland had the only combat use of LPD without a nose ramp, and although the Argentines were still gouging, flew to the defeat from the mainland and only dying out by dinner, the British almost broke their guts ... American AAS were never used in battle, they were only unloaded South Vietnamese-controlled coast.

Quote: Speciolist on harp

2.

why is it that, in accordance with the "best of ... kill" shot at once?
Indians, and even Indians, they demanded that Gorshkov remove the entire garbage from the tank and remake the TAKR as a normal aircraft carrier. because they are Hindus and they themselves will kill anyone you want

[_KM_]

If in modern ships all loads run up, then why not build 2-hull ships or SMPV?

[DeFalco]

"Particularly amusing is the American effort to achieve the coveted 50 knots speed."
And what ships of this type in the world can reach speeds of 50 knots and above? Correct if I'm wrong, but it seems that such speeds are developed by boats - SPK or VTOL aircraft.