Influence ships or new "Leader"

With the beginning of the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria and the decisive use of SLCM "Caliber" from the ships of the Caspian flotilla again, the further paths of the development of the ship’s composition of the entire Navy, the necessity or prestige of building Russian aircraft carriers become relevant. For the inexperienced layman, the media not only give a picture and comments about what is happening, but also make you think, how can it be, the entire anti-Ghilean coalition led by the USA and the EU, having AUG and air bases in the Persian Gulf and Turkey, for three years and several billion dollars was not successful that the Russian air group in Syria at one airport and four "boats" from the Caspian? Maybe we do not need “such” aircraft carriers as the Americans? And do you need the latest ocean-going destroyer of the Leader project, if Buyan-M copes?


I will offer my opinion to the court of a dear audience of the Military Review.

We surrendered Yugoslavia (Serbia), Libya and Iraq, we turned away from the Poles, Bulgarians and others. Matter of the past. Now the BRICS countries, who disagree with the world order of the Anglo-Saxons, are looking for support from each other. And these are only those who dared passively not to obey, to whom they have not yet sent color revolutions and terrorists. I will not reveal the truth if I say that only China and Russia are capable at the present time, no, not to challenge, but simply to have and defend their point of view, different from the United States. And what kind of real help could we provide to such potential allies as Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, India, Vietnam?

The ways of US pressure are simple and clear: the arrival of aircraft carriers, the declaration of an economic blockade, the creation of a no-fly zone, civil war or terrorists ... Of this set, only the naval component is not available to the BRICS countries. And it will not be possible to come closer to its solution by building ships of the “Leader” type.

It is proposed to change the concept of the ship. Russia cannot afford to have a fleet of a dozen nuclear aircraft carriers and amphibious groups with cover and support ships. We must try to seize the initiative at sea in another way. It is well known how expensive and time-consuming R & D in the field of air defense. When a call arises, Americans will have to answer it with dignity, on the subject and forget about the projection of force around the world in the form of aircraft carriers. The territory of the USA, EU, Australia is washed by the oceans and, if a threat from the ocean arises from the air, then the European missile defense system in Poland and Romania will seem like children's pocket expenses!

Such a threat for the likely enemy to create even the atomic "destroyers" of the project "Leader" will not succeed. By the way, why the "destroyer"? After all, it is larger in size than all Tikondery and Glory, and no less than atomic predecessors from the United States. The cruiser - it sounds proudly, and in fact the assigned tasks are more suitable. The following tasks are proposed. Creation of a no-fly zone, both along the route and at the point of the combat mission. Destruction of the enemy aircraft carrier group. Destruction of the enemy amphibious assault group. Destruction of enemy aircraft and naval bases in coastal areas. Raider actions on sea and air communications. Ensuring the sustainability of the forces of the fleet at the sea crossing. Localization of the amphibious assault landing area.

And what's in the arsenal? Let's start, so to speak, with the main caliber. Yes, from that very “Calibra-NK”, with a stated range of 2600 km and the ability to start from the CWD with discreteness in 3-5 seconds, very similar to the BGM-109 “Tomahawk” product. “Buyan-M” with a displacement of 950 tons carries 8 “Calibrov”, reworked “Ohio” with a displacement of 18500 tons carries 154 “Tomahawka”, the average temperature in the hospital is 120 tons per product. I would like to propose as a carrier for the “Calibrov” an analogy with existing cruisers of the type “Kirov”, which in the modern world are also called line cruisers for the eyes. So, for such a ship 120-144 rocket type "Calibra-NK" in combination for various purposes will not become an unbearable burden. As a highlight for the new cruiser, I would like to preserve the well-proven 16 weapons in the form of the PU SM-248 under the 3М70 "Vulkan" anti-ship missiles, similar to those of the "Glory" type cruisers. Still, it is necessary to do away with aircraft carriers decisively and beautifully, especially since no one is going to remove the Volcanoes from service.

We are awaiting the question of intelligence and target designation for such weapons. If for Caliber-NK when hitting ground targets I modestly keep silent, referring to all the latest known events and examples from Syria, for the Volcanoes I suggest I recall the Falklands war and the KA-31 helicopters undeservedly forgotten in our fleet. So smoothly moving to the mixed air group of the ship, I want to immediately limit the wild imagination to four permanent-based helicopters and 6-8 reconnaissance drones. Yes, helicopters AWACS KA-31 - machines of the last century, but venturing the construction of such ships, you can not leave them blind. If in the realities of the end of the 20th century, if the Fort had long-range missile systems on ships with 5V55 missiles with a maximum range of 75 kilometers, the helicopter should not have gone beyond these limits, so as not to become deck prey aviation, now it can be covered by a longer-range missile 48N6E2 with a range of 200 kilometers. Naturally, even 2-4 modern AWACS helicopters will not be able to provide round-the-clock surveillance and reconnaissance at the crossing by sea and in the area of ​​the combat mission, they should be replaced by drones. And helicopters should be used in combat mode or in case of a threat revealed by other reconnaissance methods. In carrying out the tasks of raiding, combating piracy, escorting a detachment of ships and others, it is possible to replace the KA-31 pair with any other from the Navy's arsenal (strike KA-52K; transport-combat KA-29 or anti-submarine KA-27PL).

Now about defense. We will operate within the framework of the already existing nomenclature of weapons, not repeating the experience of Kirov-type cruisers, of which only the fourth ship of the series received all the weapons planned for the project. The long-range air defense zone is the Fort-M in the amount of two units with a common ammunition in 120 48Н6Х2 missiles; near air defense zone - “Dagger” in the amount of two units with a common ammunition in 200 9М331 missiles. On the new ship, you just need to get rid of the revolver launchers of both complexes. And finally, the Pantsir-M ZRPK consists of four batteries (8 modules) with a total ammunition load of 256М9 and 335 missiles in 64000. The modules on the superstructure should be placed in such a way that at least two batteries can work from any direction. This circumstance acquires special significance in case of complete abandonment of other models of cannon artillery on the ship.

The presence of the modern anti-submarine defense anti-aircraft defense anti-submarine antennas in combination with the PLUR “Waterfall” and RBU-12000 “Boa” on the ship is enough to provide defense against the attacks of submarines, with time there will be other hunters on them. A place in the stern, which takes on the Glory and Orlans towed automated sonar system, is very useful for the mixed aircraft group of the ship.

This should be a large and heavy ship with a displacement within 25.000 tons of armor and new technologies, approximate dimensions in 240 meters of length, 30 meters of width and draft to 10 meters. Ice-class hull contours, thrusters, controls, and pitching comfort should provide the cruiser with a sustained maximum speed at the 32-33 knot when cruising to the 24-25 knots. Such excessive speed characteristics should ensure the unconditional fulfillment of the task of searching, detecting and accompanying the carrier-based strike group of a potential enemy in any weather and climatic conditions of the world’s ocean.

The purpose and tasks of the combat use of the ship leave no alternative to the use of a nuclear power plant on it. Without limiting the flight of design ideas of design organizations and customer requirements, the author would like to elaborate more on his vision of a set of problems and technical solutions. So, probably, to many, the 30 meters of ship width, which requires the stayer speed characteristics, seem overvalued. But what tasks are supposed to be solved for this account? The use of a double bottom over the entire significant width of the ship, the provision of the “ice class” of the outer skin of the outer hull near the waterline and the presence of a constructive anti-torpedo protection of the “battleship” type are designed to provide accommodation and reliable protection of the three reactors. In this case, it is supposed to spread two reactor reactors, which, naturally, are located in the aft part of the hull, and a backup combat reactor, located from the first two to the first third of the hull length. The two reactor reactors will run on three propellers. The central main (and possibly larger diameter) is traditionally located in the keel plane and is driven through the shaft line by an ordinary turbo-tooth unit of forward movement only. The two side screws are driven by azipod electric propeller speakers, and they also carry out ship control along the course while moving. In the bow to arrange hump thrusters for maneuvering in the home and in difficult ice conditions. Such a scheme of propulsion involves the abandonment of the traditional steering, which will give some power savings and a speed increment. In addition, the effectiveness of rudder control on small moves and in ice is sharply reduced, and the location of the steering columns on the opposite sides also gives the ship greater combat stability when a torpedo hits one of them. Electric propulsion thrusters, systems calm roll and “azipodov” provided steam turbine generators, significantly reduce and simplify the design of steam pipelines, increase its reliability, will allow more flexible selection of operating modes of nuclear reactors. And the ability to transfer electricity to all of these consumers from a backup combat reactor and, conversely, will generally increase the reliability of the ship as a single organism. Three reactors also do not seem to be a luxury with the complete abandonment of various backup diesel and gas turbine generators, which do not require storage and refueling at sea with fossil fuels, which is important in terms of improving fire and explosion safety. Of course, the availability and storage of stocks of fuel and lubricants will be required for the combat work of the mixed air group of the ship and the possibility of refueling helicopters of the detachment’s ships during joint long-distance hikes. All this is possible to localize in the aft part of the times, and does not require an extended nomenclature - two.

The presence and placement on the cruiser of the main rocket armament in the vertical-launch installations and the basing of the mixed air group certainly implies large open free areas of the upper deck and aft tip, as well as significant amounts of underdeck and overboard space (and if possible, I apologize, and reserve space). It is precisely for the convenience of the location and the creation of maximum conditions for the realization of the combat capabilities of the armament that displacement reserves and hull dimensions may be needed. Considering that time and scientific and technical progress do not stand still, and the construction of such a ship, especially the series in 4-8 units will take more than one “five-year period”, and they will have a service life of forty years, requires laying a modular design and the possibility wide and deep modernization. After all, where, how on these ships to place in the future elements of the mobile naval missile defense components?

One should not neglect the fact that the use of missile and air defense weapons, in particular, in or around the storm, requires stabilization of antenna posts, combat modules of the SCRA, making certain corrections and eliminating errors resulting from rolling. And the more stable and stable the main platform for deploying weapons systems, the higher the probability of hitting targets, and the lower the ammunition consumption.

The order of combat use of such a ship may be as follows. In peacetime, escorting American aircraft carriers in those areas of the world’s ocean where Slava-type missile cruisers cannot do this, but Russia has a need to demonstrate its flag or fulfill allied obligations. It could be Yugoslavia with Libya, now it is the Persian Gulf or Venezuela with Cuba, in the future Argentina and Vietnam may become. The presence of such a ship will be cheaper than the future or the modern Russian aircraft carrier, and the performance of the combat mission by unmanned Calibers may be even more efficient than manned aircraft of the carrier group. Yes, "Peter the Great" can demonstrate the flag in the North Sea off the coast of Britain, and in the USA Florida, but it does not have a "Caliber" and does not have that threat to force to build an air defense-missile defense on both coasts of America and on all the British Isles. The ice class of the ship will allow it to be quickly relocated from the Northern Fleet to the Pacific Fleet and, conversely, along the Northern Sea Route at any time of the year, both independently and accompanied by modern Russian icebreakers, which will eliminate the preconditions of the next Tsushima and quickly increase the power of the ship’s strike forces.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Goga101 6 November 2015 06: 14 New
    • 19
    • 0
    +19
    Everything is beautiful about the future ship painted ... only when will it all be? In the meantime, we are not that a cruiser or destroyer - every new boat in the Navy - is happy fellow
    1. BMW
      BMW 6 November 2015 06: 34 New
      • 33
      • 0
      +33
      Quote: Author
      Yes, Peter the Great can show a flag, but he doesn’t have Caliber

      Why are you boiling water from the "Caliber". This is a weapon of the 80s, as are "axes". In a serious collision, they will be effective only in their mass character, when the number of striking means is greater than the means of defeating them. Alas, this is a weapon against the Indians. We need hypersound and only it, there are no classical remedies from it.
      1. BMW
        BMW 6 November 2015 06: 57 New
        • 15
        • 0
        +15
        PS. By the way on the topic. It is much cheaper and more efficient to build submarines and carriers of tactical strike weapons. Such a ship, as the author describes, is of course prestigious, but a burden is not affordable. hi
        1. saturn.mmm 6 November 2015 08: 40 New
          • 26
          • 0
          +26
          Quote: bmw
          PS. By the way on the topic. It’s much cheaper and more efficient to build nuclear submarines,

          In Severodvinsk there are two Sharks pr.941, Arkhangelsk and Severstal, once again I propose making arsenals out of them, like the Ohio that the Americans rebuilt as Axes. You can place 250 Caliber in the Shark "and two ships with a total of 500 Caliber on board arriving in any region will force any country to seriously talk with Russia.
          1. BMW
            BMW 6 November 2015 10: 27 New
            • 11
            • 0
            +11
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            In Severodvinsk there are two "Sharks" pr.941

            Nice offer. hi A good nail of NATO.
            Write to Rogozin, and if anything, immediately complain to the supreme. repeat
          2. lelikas 6 November 2015 11: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            In Severodvinsk there are two Sharks pr.941, Arkhangelsk and Severstal, once again I propose making arsenals out of them, like the Ohio that the Americans rebuilt as Axes. You can place 250 Caliber in the Shark "and two ships with a total of 500 Caliber on board arriving in any region will force any country to seriously talk with Russia.

            It’s more efficient to put a couple of BDRs under this business than to get another hemorrhagic based Sharks.
            1. DenZ 6 November 2015 12: 45 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              It’s more efficient to put a couple of BDRs under this business than to get another hemorrhagic based Sharks.

              BDRs are too old to make arsenals of Caliber from them. And too noisy.
              1. lelikas 6 November 2015 15: 58 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: DenZ
                BDRs are too old to make arsenals of Caliber from them. And too noisy.

                Five years of age difference with the Sharks and the minimum difference, about 10 km of noise detection range? Where is that too?
            2. DenZ 6 November 2015 12: 45 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              It’s more efficient to put a couple of BDRs under this business than to get another hemorrhagic based Sharks.

              BDRs are too old to make arsenals of Caliber from them. And too noisy.
        2. lelikas 6 November 2015 11: 19 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: bmw
          PS. By the way on the topic. It is much cheaper and more efficient to build submarines and carriers of tactical strike weapons. Such a ship, as the author describes, is of course prestigious, but a burden is not affordable.

          The submarine will not cope with the tasks of the destroyer in any direction; the Syrian express is a good example. For this, destroyers are needed, not as many as the Yankees, but they have been needed for a long time.
          1. jjj
            jjj 6 November 2015 11: 32 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            By the way, at the turn of the century it was estimated that for the life of the boat, the 971 pr. Is much cheaper than the destroyer of the 956 pr. The calculation included all costs, including construction, repairs, maintenance, consumables, salaries, etc.
          2. BMW
            BMW 6 November 2015 12: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: lelikas
            The submarine will not cope with the tasks of the destroyer in any way,

            Now we need to make a move with the horse, to reset their missile defense. To do this, deploy a nuclear submarine with tactical RO near the east and west coast of the USA, near the coast of England and France. The idea of ​​using old refitted strategists looks very tempting, and most importantly cheap and cheerful. This is the majority of their fleet to be torn off from the shock functions, and switched to PLO, and for cover, one frigate is enough, at least to disrupt tracking, to interfere.
            This is so with my strategic bell tower. repeat
            1. Xsanchez 6 November 2015 14: 13 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Submarine-class submarines are best suited for this. And you don’t have to redo anything there. You need to re-equip the submarine with Zircon missiles, which is hypersonic. It’s better not to upgrade them at the expense of the Orlanes: it will cost a lot and the shipyards will occupy it. It’s cheaper build new ones with an open architecture and block structure of modernization.
      2. hydrox 6 November 2015 08: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: bmw
        We need hypersound and only it, there are no classical remedies from it.


        And what are you saying !?
        Now, if you can give a price on this device, then maybe we will have to agree with you, but for now - I wish you hello and not generate this “white noise”: they don’t shoot at the sparrows from the gun.
        1. BMW
          BMW 6 November 2015 10: 21 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Quote: hydrox
          Now, if you can give a price on this device,

          See directly, like our government: “you cannot build,” a comma in the wrong place. tongue Give you the price, the case is not a manager? what
        2. Asadullah 6 November 2015 12: 26 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Now, if you can give a price on this device,


          To give a price, you must have a product. There is a product, and it can be accelerated to hypersound, but it cannot be controlled at such speeds, because it is impossible to control the plasma tunnel in the direction of travel. It is these works that raise the question of not only price, but the fate of the product in principle. And it itself, as a free artist, where I want to fly there, exists at a price not too different from the Kyrgyz Republic. And the person correctly says that hypersound is one shot and one affected object. All possible and impossible air defense, merge into the toilet, the aircraft carrier becomes just a big, convenient target.
      3. NIKNN 8 November 2015 20: 25 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        BMW (1) RU November 6, 2015 06:34 a.m.

        Why are you boiling water from the "Caliber". This is a weapon of the 80s, as are "axes". In a serious collision, they will be effective only in their mass character, when the number of striking means is greater than the means of defeating them. Alas, this is a weapon against the Indians. We need hypersound and only it, there are no classical remedies from it.

        "plus" without talking. I, too, am tired of this ascension of “Caliber” to the podium. All problems were solved by the ode of the Kyrgyz Republic, so many areas of application were invented for her, only that the satellites did not bring down wink , well, a miracle and not a weapon.
        Hypersound and control on a ballistic trajectory, using means of jamming, are in the surface (above ground) zone, underwater drones with good autonomy against the AUG, and of course it’s not worth putting outdated weapons into a ship under construction
        Given that time and scientific and technological progress do not stand still, and the construction of such a ship, the more a series of 4-8 units will drag on more than one "five-year plan"

        Is it possible to launch it in the water in order to overtake it for repair for re-equipment?
        The author is also "+", I love dreamy optimists (he’s like that) wink
        hi
    2. Blondy 6 November 2015 08: 33 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Guys, relax, imagine imagining a beautiful leaflet. In some blondes, for example, at such moments even the mood rises.
      1. BMW
        BMW 6 November 2015 10: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Blondy
        In some blondes, for example, at such moments even the mood rises.

        What a woman! love
        1. BMW
          BMW 6 November 2015 12: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I also wanted to criticize the project.
          Quote: Author
          The central main (and possibly larger diameter) is traditionally located in the keel plane and is driven through the shaft line by an ordinary forward gear turbo gear assembly only. Two side propellers are set in motion by azipod-type electric propeller-driven columns; they also control the ship in the course of movement.

          I'm afraid that such a design will not be able to provide the speed characteristics you have set, due to the large power consumption, and therefore the dimensions. Such columns and hydrodynamic loads will not stand, or become disproportionately large.
  2. Andrey Yuryevich 6 November 2015 06: 22 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    with all due respect, delusional fantasies of the author. we would have to rip the SKR, and the MRK ... at least ... where the cruisers are ... difficult times, huge expenses, it is unlikely that we will soon be able to return to the production of ships in the ocean zone.
    1. hydrox 6 November 2015 08: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      back to the production of ships in the ocean zone.


      The author has a bias in the brain in the direction of planetary dominance.
      Enough of us has already passed. We now provide reliable protection of the coastal economic zone and the establishment of a reliable regime of the "right" border, and not intelligence in the scale of galactic wars.
      The author’s ideas may be good and correct, but untimely and one should not forget that politics is the continuation of the economy by other means (including military).
      Nobody knows yet what kind of economy Russia will have in 2-3 years, so what to look into politics for 30 years ahead !?
      1. Silhouette 6 November 2015 08: 52 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Not just a distortion in the brain - but a flight in the stratosphere.


        And what real help could we provide to such potential allies as Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, India, Vietnam?


        Maybe it’s time to rephrase the question in a different way: And what kind of real help could such potential allies as Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, India, Vietnam provide?

        Answer: None.
        1. strannik1985 6 November 2015 09: 11 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Maybe it’s time to rephrase the question in a different way: And what kind of real help could such potential allies as Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, India, Vietnam provide?

          Answer: None.


          So now we are not one of the two superpowers whose offer is "impossible to refuse", it is also more difficult for us to build allied relations.
        2. BIG
          BIG 6 November 2015 12: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Dear Silhouette, you think in terms of war, if I understand correctly. Why not think in terms of peaceful competition? Note:
          RIA Novosti: Monday, USA, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), The Wall Street Journal reported. “Indonesia and the Philippines expressed their desire to join the TPP.
          Consequently, in the coming decades, the United States will milk the economies of the above countries. And oust competitors from their markets. And if the government of Vietnam decides, for example, to build a nuclear power plant, then we will not build it, but the USA. And we will supply fuel not to Rosatom, but to Westinghouse.
          And when you write:
          Not just a warp in the brain - but a flight in the stratosphere
          I agree with you, because denyuzhkov dumb. And how to earn them in the foreign market? But you have to push the right decision. And for this we need not only beautiful and RIGHT WORDS, we need POWER.
      2. Gani 6 November 2015 13: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The author has a bias in the brain in the direction of planetary dominance.
        -possibly so, but
        It is well known how expensive and laborious are R&D in the area of ​​missile defense. When a call arises, the Americans will have to answer it with dignity, on the topic and forget about the projection of force around the world in the form of aircraft carriers.
        - i.e. The author suggests giving a super excuse to our American friends partners for MEGA cutting the dough.
        but for this, it’s several orders of magnitude cheaper to put CLUB in containers, to let go of the duck that they’re already one and a half thousand in service - and each container ship - there is a reason for building missile defense throughout the USA
      3. Xsanchez 6 November 2015 14: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Nobody knows what will happen in 2-3 years, so it’s necessary, like in the USSR, to plan for 5-10 years ahead. Moreover, the best defense is an attack, which means that you need to defend your homeland at distant frontiers, and for this 5-8 “Leaders” are simply necessary.
    2. saturn.mmm 6 November 2015 10: 57 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      it is unlikely that it will soon be possible to return to the production of ships in the ocean zone.

      To some extent, this issue is being resolved today.
  3. Wolka 6 November 2015 06: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I'm not an engineer, much less a shipbuilder, but still interesting and curious, the author plus
    1. hydrox 6 November 2015 08: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Cognitively (but as a version), if at the same time adding the clarification "in the 30s - 50s of the 21st century" ...
  4. seos 6 November 2015 06: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And what did the author mean by this? That we need an incomprehensible universal ship for all tasks ... but the cost of such a trough will be too high ...., then again there is an attempt to impose various armor belts and other useless crap .. (there were firing cruise missiles at tanks ... so the rocket pierced the tank through and exploded underneath it ..., armor will appear - cheap warheads for cruise missiles will appear, piercing with a leading charge of several meters of armor). I really liked the dimensions - 240 meters long and 30 wide 8) - but isn’t it easier to make a bunch of aircraft carrier cruisers with such dimensions? MIG-29K is not difficult to put on such a trough.
    We need an inexpensive but efficient and modern fleet - for this it is necessary to look for new technical solutions. It may be worthwhile to confine yourself to small highly specialized corvettes - PRO Corvettes, Antisubmarine corvettes, Corvettes with URO. And just to develop a submarine fleet, from a submarine you can shoot the same calibers.
    1. lelikas 6 November 2015 11: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: seos
      And what did the author mean by this? That we need an incomprehensible universal ship for all tasks ... but the cost of such a trough will be too high ....,

      What is incomprehensible to you in that same Burke?
      Quote: seos
      Corvettes ABM, Antisubmarine corvettes, Corvettes with URO.

      -And three corvettes will be cheaper than one destroyer?
      Quote: seos
      And just to develop a submarine fleet, from a submarine you can shoot the same calibers.

      And invent the anti-aircraft submarine!
    2. Xsanchez 6 November 2015 14: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Under these conditions, the Ash submarine is better suited, it is designed to launch missile strikes without getting anything in return, quiet enough to sneak up imperceptibly, but weak air defense. I think all the same, universal platforms with powerful layered air defense and anti-submarine weapons are necessary. The corvettes will simply tear apart the same destroyers "Orly Burke" which is already 69 pieces! On corvettes and boats, powerful air defense and anti-aircraft defense can not be delivered.
  5. sa-ag 6 November 2015 06: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But how to use anti-submarine weapons in ice?
    1. Andrey Yuryevich 6 November 2015 07: 00 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: sa-ag
      But how to use anti-submarine weapons in ice?

      under the ice ...
      1. evil partisan 6 November 2015 07: 53 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        under the ice ...

        laughing
        With ice! drinks
  6. SergeySeverny 6 November 2015 06: 36 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    everything is beautiful, Wishlist are understandable, as an option - very well designed wink
  7. MolGro 6 November 2015 06: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In order to adequately make a ship you need to have access to all the developments and research institutes, then you can say for sure what will be put there and what not and why this ship is being built (the example with the Caspian flotilla showed that they said one thing and showed another)!

    the next water pitchfork on a subject "I could be better" !!
  8. Mera joota 6 November 2015 06: 40 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The dream of reason gives birth to monsters ...
    Author, wake up!
  9. Vladivostok 6 November 2015 06: 51 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The idea of ​​creating an attack ship operating as part of a squadron, in my opinion, is certainly attractive. The author for the concept is a plus.
    As a shipbuilder, I will cling to particulars: an unconventional propeller-driven group. In my opinion, a system of two propellers and a steering wheel in the steering wheel, plus a steering wheel in the bow provide greater reliability and economy with very good handling.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich 6 November 2015 07: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Vladivostok
      a system of two propellers and a steering wheel in the steering wheel, plus a bow stalk in the bow provide greater reliability and economy with very good handling

      on the "956" project it seems so? only EDU is lousy ...
    2. hydrox 6 November 2015 08: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Vladivostok
      In my opinion, a system of two propellers and a steering wheel in the steering wheel, plus a bow thruster in the bow ensure greater reliability and economy with very good handling.


      Yeah, especially in the ice environment of SevMorPuti ...
      1. BIG
        BIG 6 November 2015 12: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What's the problem?
        During the transition (both along SevMorPuti and any other way), the main propellers are used - screws. Like all ships and ships of all countries of the world. A bow thruster is only needed when mooring.
        If you are confused by the use of a thruster in ice conditions, well, the gratings at the entrance to the tunnel protect winked .
  10. capitosha1rang 6 November 2015 07: 07 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    Beautiful!
    The love for the Russian fleet is felt.
    But where is this "bedside table" from which money is taken for the construction of the fleet?
    The Admiral of the Fleet Kuznetsov stumbled on this.
    In a country that deprives pensioners of surcharges and indexation (of course, there is no money), which is ready to literally “strangle” small and medium-sized businesses by raising the tax by 16%, when “cuts” and “kickbacks” become a strategic factor - one can only dream of a new fleet of the World Ocean (until).
    I walked through both the Suez and Panama Canals. And in those, even Soviet times, he was surprised (or admired) of their insecurity, vulnerability.
    What is it worth setting a couple of supertankers going to Europe (Suez) or container ships in Panama (Southeast Asia - USA, Europe) off shore?
    Ships are beauty embodied in metal, but even in the Bible it is emphasized somewhere that the Lord does great things with little means.
    Follow His example?
    Or "collect a pretty penny" (Comrade Stalin)?
    I’m only afraid that in our time, “we’ll collect a pretty penny” will turn into a “wrap up to the last.”
    1. Vladivostok 6 November 2015 07: 45 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      That's just where this "bedside table" from which money is taken

      In my opinion, this "bedside table" is called the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
      Interest-free targeted loan for designing, modernization of production and construction of ships. There would be a "political will" ..
      1. BIG
        BIG 6 November 2015 14: 15 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        That's interesting.
        A completely sane scheme of advance financing of shipbuilding enterprises due to their own capabilities is proposed.
        MO places an order for "ship production" at factory N.
        Plant N receives an interest-free loan and “produces a ship”
        After the acceptance tests, the ship is transferred to the Moscow Region, and the plant receives money for completing the order.
        The plant returns a loan to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
        The Central Bank withdraws the amount received from circulation.
        Total: the plant receives an order, tens of thousands of people receive well-paid jobs, the country receives a ship, inflation = 0.
        Of course, there are other options:
        and. Borrow money in the west.
        b. ten years to sell oil and gas, save up, and even then ...
        The train will leave, and we will forever catch up.
        I remember Heinlein in the "Starship Troopers" argued that the cost is relative, and some economists argue that money is just a tool.
        Maybe it's time to learn how to use?
        Comrades, minus Vladivostok, please justify your position.
        1. BMW
          BMW 6 November 2015 14: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Not minus.
          To take from the nightstand, you must first put there. It seems simple. hi
      2. mav1971 6 November 2015 17: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Vladivostok
        That's just where this "bedside table" from which money is taken

        In my opinion, this "bedside table" is called the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
        Interest-free targeted loan for designing, modernization of production and construction of ships. There would be a "political will" ..


        The army is not built on credit.
        It is built on budget revenues. But they are not.
        1. BIG
          BIG 8 November 2015 07: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: mav1971
          The army is not built on credit.

          Well, actually they are building. An example is the USA. This is not to blindly copy, but certain financial management technologies are available.
  11. seos 6 November 2015 07: 20 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Yes, the problem is all the more not in the fleet - in a global war the fleet will not live a day, and the matter is precisely to the global ...
    Pa fact, we have already squeezed out space for 100% -
    1) Left the ABM Treaty
    2) They built Aegis with CM3 missiles capable of shooting down any satellites.
    3) We left the treaty on the non-placement of weapons in space.
    And here the question arises - will the "calibers" fly to the target without satellite navigation?
    Now it is necessary to think about the restoration of the status of the KVO, and not about image boats ...
    1. EvgNik 6 November 2015 07: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: seos
      Pa in fact, we have already squeezed out space for 100%

      For the fact - space to "squeeze" 100% - the task is unrealistic.
  12. Per se. 6 November 2015 07: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Cruiser - it sounds proudly, and in essence the tasks assigned are more suitable.
    It was interesting to read the article, but it is doubtful to solve the problems by cruisers alone. Here, the point of view of those who advocate only for the submarine fleet is even better. How much it is already possible to reinvent the wheel, or try on, how to pierce other people's wheels with a nail “cheaply and angrily”, instead of gaining your normal “car” - a full-fledged, balanced fleet. It is impossible to solve all problems at sea with one class of ships, it must be understood and not fooled, each class of ships did not arise on a whim, but as a result of the evolution of weapons at sea, the laws of scientific and technological progress. You don’t need to have as many aircraft carriers or destroyers as the United States (and it is unlikely that this will be possible at all), but you need to have a fleet capable of performing any task at sea, and this, I repeat, cannot be solved by cruisers or submarines alone, without other classes of ships, including aircraft carriers.
  13. V.ic 6 November 2015 08: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    KA-31 helicopters undeservedly forgotten in our fleet. Author Kononov Andrey Vladimirovich

    Yes, helicopter AWACS KA-31 - machines of the last century, Author Kononov Andrei Vladimirovich

    (shock KA-52K; transport-combat KA-29 or anti-submarine KA-27PL). Author Kononov Andrey Vladimirovich

    In the designation of the aircraft, the author should type the second letter in lowercase, i.e. without caps lock, namely Ka. Ka-31 RLDs were launched in 2011-12. / for India and China, if I remember correctly /, but not in the last century.
  14. Old26 6 November 2015 08: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Article plus - it’s written well, but for the author’s fantasies I would put a minus. Correctly wrote comrade Mera joota
    The dream of reason gives birth to monsters ... Author, wake up!

    The author wants to have everything in one bottle. Here and 2-3 hundreds of "Caliber". but for some reason there are also 16 “Volcanoes”. The author raises the question of AWACS - but again stops at helicopters. And do they also give helicopters for the "Volcano" with a range of 700-900 km?
    Non-rechargeable launchers are also available. And the question of whether 16 missiles is enough to destroy an aircraft carrier does not rise at all. Plus an air group, plus an ice class.

    So recalls Lukyanenko and his "Everyone capable of holding weapons" with the mention of icebreaking aircraft carriers of the Admiral Kolchak class

    In all this shove it into a displacement of 25000 tons .... No, it’s better without such a "cruiser"
  15. Monster_Fat 6 November 2015 08: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    They are worn with these "calibres" like "fools with a written shell" ... They write correctly here-this is the weapon of "yesterday" and it is effective against the enemy with weak air defense, or even in its absence. If the air defense is strong and covers the object from all sides, then no "gauges" will help. The USA and NATO countries have long had the same "calibers", but made using the Stealth AGM-129 AGM-86 technology, etc. Our X101 \ 102 "super-missiles" are so far only "on paper", experienced the samples were not able to meet the technical specifications for super-range, accuracy, and most importantly, in visibility. In addition, our "sworn partners" have cruise missiles JASSM-ER, "Taurus", etc., albeit not with such a long range as "calibers," but with an EPR of 0,001 an order of magnitude less than our best samples.
    1. Dry_T-50 6 November 2015 09: 33 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      AGM-86

      It is not true! This is an analogue of X-55-rockets of 80-s.
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Our "super-rockets" ХХNUMX \ 101 are so far only "on paper", the prototypes have not been able to meet the technical specifications for super-range, accuracy, and most importantly noticeable.

      You have outdated data. X-101 / 102 has already been adopted, and they meet all the requirements
  16. kartalovkolya 6 November 2015 08: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    One conclusion suggests itself, as in the old proverb: "Stretch your legs on clothes!" And you need to look for a solution in something "average", according to the principle of price and quality: it can be cheaper, but no less effective! And most importantly, do not forget the precepts of Peter the Great: "TO the Russian Navy - BE!" And it is also necessary to remember that we never attacked anyone first and therefore we always had the advantage of defense!
  17. strannik1985 6 November 2015 08: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The logic is quite interesting - if we don’t have money, then we won’t build universal weapons (aircraft carriers) even in smaller quantities, we will build special anti-aircraft weapons that can damage the enemy only in the military service mode and only if we strike the first, or there is a long special period during which the mass take-off of aircraft from AB can be interpreted as the beginning of a war. And if the Americans use the standard technique of the times of confrontation at sea during the Cold War, the separation from the BS ship through the territorial waters of a friendly state? And if you need to urgently strengthen the air base in Latakia or hit the broads in another territory, where they do not expect this?
    The USSR Navy has already passed this, even the project resembles the cruiser pr.1144 Orlan, only the USSR, after all the troubles, came to ATAKR pr.11437, the logical end of the chain is the creation of a full-fledged (and not just air defense) strike carrier aviation did not make it.
  18. Orlan1144-2 6 November 2015 09: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The article reminds me of the dictum, "The road to hell is paved with good thoughts." Why am I doing this. If you take an ordinary person and make him one leg longer, then he will not run faster. So it is with ships: if you take the TARKR pr.1144 at 25.000 tons of displacement with two reactors and set the volumes and mass that the biological protection has, then it turns out that there is a catastrophic lack of displacement to accommodate the third reactor. The author plans to place the “standby combat reactor” in the “first third of the ship”. Oops, and what to do with Fort missiles and 120-144 missiles of the strike complex (I don’t stop at the rest of the armament).
    It is easy to throw out gas turbine generators, but why supply electricity before loading the core? And if an accident occurs with the supply of electricity, the ship will be "de-energized" for a long time. And he needs to maneuver in narrowness, reflect enemy attacks ...
    Summary:
    As a bedtime story, retirees can read, but nothing more.
    Yours faithfully,
    Valeri.
    1. strannik1985 6 November 2015 10: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The funniest thing in all of this is the price, if we take Pr.11442 as an example, then with a displacement of 24300/26396 tons, the cost of building a cruiser is 500 million rubles, the cost of building a TAKR pr.11435 (Kuznetsov) is 550 million rubles ( with an air group-800 million rubles), ATAKR pr.11437 (Ulyanovsk) - 800 million rubles (with an air group-1200 million rubles), SSGN pr.949 / 949A-350-400 million rubles, submarine ave. 671RTM-150-200 million rubles. If we remove completely unnecessary PU anti-ship missiles, then the price of A / TAKR would be even less (as if Kuznetsov and Kalinin would not be equal).
      RKR is not much cheaper than AB with significantly less combat capabilities and possible applications.
  19. ALEA IACTA EST 6 November 2015 09: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The era of surface giants left on the day of the death of Bismarck.
    The main naval fist of Russia should become submarines.
  20. glavnykarapuz 6 November 2015 09: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As the author’s imagination, I completely approve the text.
    But let me "find fault" with the details.
    1) The author’s love for armor and anti-torpedo protection is visible. One feels the influence of the same lover of marine armored Drendut (Oleg Kaptsov, are you this?).
    2) Short-range air defense Shell-M? About the land option there were a lot of critical articles.
    3) There is no clear understanding and description about long-range and medium-range air defense. Described some kind of rocket and everything (and that in passing)?
    4) Nuclear power plant. The site already had a very detailed analysis that a nuclear power plant does not have special and strong advantages over gas turbines based on gas turbines (gas turbine plants) neither in compactness, nor in weight, nor in power. Adding to this specific serious security requirements and associated risks.
    5) CR "caliber". Are there no others? or is it due to recent events? And the sea range of the "caliber" is not 2600 km (it has already been mentioned here that it is about 300 km, and Onyx and other how is it?
    6) The ice class of the ship and all in together. Icebreaker + warship with powerful air defense + high-speed + strong helicopter and UAV fleet + impact weapons based on the KR + nuclear power plant - this is of course a strong dream "I want everything everything!"
    P.S. I must admit, the author’s idea is very interesting for all its dubious moments and sincere errors. And it is quite possible that in some kind of design bureau this is already being worked out, only in a more professional and balanced manner.
    1. common man 6 November 2015 14: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: glavnykarapuz
      Nuclear power plant. The site already had a very detailed analysis that a nuclear power plant does not have special and strong advantages over gas turbines based on gas turbines

      Ship nuclear power plants have one advantage. We know how to make them. And already now, and not IN PROSPECTS. And then, if we want an aircraft carrier. it will most likely be atomic. And he needs escort. If the accompaniment is also atomic, then it certainly will not be worse.
  21. NEXUS 6 November 2015 09: 51 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    25 000 tons of displacement is a lot, and not so much. 14 000-18 000 tons for the destroyer is quite optimal. Here forum users say that the Leaders are prohibitively economically for the country. But they do not think that the fleet is aging. Modernization of Atlantes and Nakhimova and Peter will only delay time and no more. And then what? Climb to our coastal zone building boats and small ships? But nothing that two-thirds of the surface of the globe is oceans and seas ... It is clear that ships of this class are pleasure not cheap. But unless the country's defense was ever cop her?
    Nobody even says that it will be easy and simple, but if we do not build ships of the first rank, Russia will lose the title of naval power.
    In addition to the Leader, there is a project of the Flurry destroyer with a non-nuclear power plant. There is an opinion that it is being developed for export. But why not build one for yourself?
  22. sevtrash 6 November 2015 10: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The author remained in the last century with his variations of Orlan. The real value of such a ship in the fight against AUG is near-zero, such a ship will receive its escort from the enemy even after leaving the base point, which will lead throughout the campaign. This is not to mention the possibilities of AUG, with Hokai, Aegis, SM3, Virginia / Sivulfami / LosAngelos.
    Power projection? Is it too expensive? Moreover, there is something similar - two Orlans. Yes, "Kuznetsov." Enough for the projection.
    The real needs of the Navy are probably different. Maintaining the component of the triad in a combat-ready state, the fleet of the near zone. And, as it turned out recently, AUG would not be out of place. But they could have done without it, but in some perspective AUG would be needed. But this is completely different money.
  23. Rurikovich 6 November 2015 10: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Once Kaiser Wilhelm II brought Tirpitz his dreadnought project. He looked and said that it would undoubtedly be the most armored, most heavily armed, fastest ship in the world, but it has one small drawback - as soon as it is launched, it will turn over.
    I also love to REMEMBER on such topics, but at the same time I do not forget about the laws of physics and ordinary logic, and I understand that there are certain criteria, the non-observance of which will lead to a distortion and the appearance of a kind of “freaks”. Displacement (cost) - efficiency has not been canceled yet. One should not forget that the accompanying characteristics are as important as the main ones. And the ship is built for specific tasks, and therefore has the finished look that allows you to perform these tasks. At the same time, they often never succeed in achieving such perfection, where everything is perfect. Because only Klava Schiffer is ideal, and then in the picture. And the picture and the embodiment in life are two different things! Do not forget this, so as not to slide into Kaptsovsky's "most-most."
    Opportunities to have one or another ship are not only connected with political needs, but also with the possibilities of economics and science. And so that there is no imbalance in desires. Like we can, but it’s worthless for the gentleman to walk on foot, but what we want, we can’t.
    That's why you need to really look at things, achieving your desires steadily, developing and building on the basis of opportunities, real goals. Indeed, sometimes the desired effect can be achieved without getting involved in a confrontation that destroys the economy, but simply with a different solution to the problem, asymmetrically. And the lag in any area can be compensated for by superiority in another. For example, the lag in the quantity of the same Navy by comparison. with the main democrats of the planet can very well be leveled with reliable air defense systems and electronic warfare systems. Still, we always fight, and the defenders are always effectively costed by lesser forces
    Personally, I believe that you need to have a sober mind and a cold calculation, then everything will work out. soldier
    Personally, my opinion hi
  24. Streich 6 November 2015 10: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A beautiful article, it is felt that the author understands what he writes and knows this subject. Indeed, our country needs a strong fleet, but it may be better for the current time and economic period to engage in the latest re-equipment of existing ships. I’ll explain why it’s temporary (economic understandable ... though ...). The author repeatedly sounds the idea of ​​developing equipment, so it may focus on the development of new conceptual types of defensive and offensive weapons, such as: 1) hypersound that changes height and yaw, 2) real invisibility, and not these smeared with paint like swamp (I have in view of the plasma shell) 3) the latest types of "combustibles" for missiles and aircraft, and finally the main thing (my favorite) is the ELECTRONIC FIGHTING RADIO system. It is no secret that all modern military systems from a tank to a submarine have electronics on board. So, if this electronics, not just “make noise” for a while, but finally cut down, then all this super technology will turn into scrap metal. And of course, do not engage in the development of such figures who create SuperJet (shame). There are many talented goals in our country and we need to give them application.
  25. kapitan281271 6 November 2015 11: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As far as I understand, the “Caliber” hits 2600 for stationary ground targets in the RCC version no further than 300 km, in which case more than one surface ship will not be more dangerous and effective than nuclear submarines or diesel-electric submarines with the same weapons, or am I mistaken? I’ll probably say something stupid, but the pin ** to ** sy after all redid the Ohio (b * la how it is written * bane name) or Los Angeles under the axes why don’t we need to remake the Sharks very sorry for these scaffolds to be scrapped and judging by the size if that 120 pieces takes that our pieces 200-250 will take here is a very good demiator off the coast of Uncle Sam.
    PS I apologize for the earlier, for possible incompetence I will be very grateful to the professionals for the educational program.
  26. Old26 6 November 2015 13: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: kapitan281271
    our pieces 200-250 will take

    Take 2 times less, at least comparable to Ohio

    Quote: Streich
    finally, the main thing (my favorite) is the ELECTRONIC FIGHTING RADIO system.

    You should not make a prodigy from any type of weapon. EW, like all other systems, is a double-edged sword. After all, you can cut down not only someone else's, but at the same time your own. In addition, it is quite difficult to knock out something in the rocket if it is the main part using the ANN.
  27. chunga-changa 6 November 2015 14: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    First of all, it’s worth figuring out what kind of help “our allies” will need. Suppose they need only air defense, this is one thing, let's say they need to drive away the AB and landing groups, this is another. Or, for example, they have everything, but because of the blockade, there is not enough fuel, or they need equipment and food. For all these purposes, different means are needed and it is stupid to reduce everything to the modern version of Kirov.
    The most optimal option is the creation of a large base of armaments, MTOs, supplies and repairs in the Caribbean, with the possibility of access from the open ocean, without passage in the territorial waters of third countries. Ideally, the purchase of the island, ideally, the calculation of the supply of our weapons. And a small, high-speed, armed supply fleet. even if you don’t build special ships, you can write off BDK 775 there over time, or donate (sell) them to your allies. Then it will be possible to easily cope with the supplies by cash, an escort and several modern “Leaders” or SKR + PL, for cover, plus coastal aviation “to create a no-fly zone”.
  28. SPLV 6 November 2015 15: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The ice class of the ship will allow you to quickly relocate it from the Northern Fleet to the Pacific Fleet and, conversely, along the Northern Sea Route at any time of the year, both independently and accompanied by modern Russian icebreakers

    This is exactly the phrase that hit me the most. Apparently, the author sincerely believes that the icebreaking contours almost coincide with the contours of a seaworthy and high-speed ship, and the bow bulb helps a lot when passing ice.
  29. Termit1309 6 November 2015 15: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: glavnykarapuz
    1) The author’s love for armor and anti-torpedo protection is visible. The influence of the same lover of marine armored Drendut is felt (Oleg Kaptsov, aren't you?)



    We surrendered Yugoslavia (Serbia), Libya and Iraq, the Poles, Bulgarians and others turned away from us

    After this phrase quickly flipped down. Easy surprise - Is that not Kaptsov !!?
  30. Waterfowl 6 November 2015 17: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    Quote: bmw
    PS. By the way on the topic. It’s much cheaper and more efficient to build nuclear submarines,

    In Severodvinsk there are two Sharks pr.941, Arkhangelsk and Severstal, once again I propose making arsenals out of them, like the Ohio that the Americans rebuilt as Axes. You can place 250 Caliber in the Shark "and two ships with a total of 500 Caliber on board arriving in any region will force any country to seriously talk with Russia.

    I agree. We need to switch from AUG to the United States. She must know: a fist under her nose, and not over three nine lands.
  31. Ingevg 6 November 2015 18: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Bravo, Mr. Student. Your essay receives credit, but in your second year you need to study the tactics of the Navy forces in various naval theaters of operations, and (for example) accordingly realize that the ice belt in warm waters is not needed. The last only, for an example of mistakes made to you. And according to the article: review the very places where questions are asked. But are there any answers to them in the subsequent text ... I did not find them. Those. there are questions, but there are no intelligible answers. The second half of the article is the absolute porridge of the TTX and TTD of the ship, which should defeat everyone. If you express a corresponding wish, you can do a phrasal analysis of your opus.