Military Review

Ours over "Horizon"

According to the integral indicator of the combat effectiveness of the ship to its destination, the Russian “Gorshkov” surpasses the NATO “Horizon” by almost 41 percentage.

The evolution of the destroyers led to the emergence of two modern classes of ships. These are large destroyers, which approached cruisers in displacement, and frigates. Both classes are universal, combining both escort and shock capabilities, including in terms of destruction of ground objects. Both are intended for actions in the distant sea and ocean zones - individually or as part of large ship operational connections.

The increase in the displacement of destroyers and the subsequent allocation of frigates into a special class are due to the need to deploy powerful combat information and control systems, developed defensive and strike weapons. The United States, which at one time paid great attention to the frigates, eventually abandoned their construction and concentrated on destroyers (bringing their displacement to 14, 000 tons, as is the case with Zamvolta). This was due to the need to ensure the actions of large operational units (primarily aircraft carriers) in remote areas of the oceans, including off the coast of the enemy, as well as the availability of funds for such projects. Other countries that do not possess similar capabilities and do not claim to have a global projection of power continue to develop the class of frigates. This also applies to NATO members with a developed shipbuilding industry.

In the near future, our Navy will receive only frigates for operations in the distant sea zone, primarily the 22350 project. Prospective destroyers of the type "Leader" and larger ships are still in the process of formulating tactical and technical requirements. Therefore, representatives of the 22350 (and 11356) project will be the only modern surface ships of the distant sea and ocean zones, which in sufficiently large quantities will go into service with our fleets.

Ours over "Horizon"

In this regard, it is interesting to compare domestic and foreign, primarily NATO, schools in terms of the development of frigates. Earlier in Russia / USSR, they were not built, their role was played by less universal guard ships, including those of the ocean zone, and the TFR of the 2 rank of the 1135 project. The first of our full frigate should be considered the project 22350. His and take for comparative analysis.

As opponents, it is advisable to choose a ship from the composition of the NATO Navy that is adequate in purpose, composition of weapons and characteristics, preferably the newest built. These conditions satisfy the frigates of the type "Horizon". They are also interesting because they are the product of the joint development of France, Italy and the UK (although the latter left the project at the final stage, its destroyer Daring is actually a version of the same Horizon).

Compare the characteristics

Our ship with a full displacement of about 4500 tons has a hull, made using the technology of "Stealth", which allowed at times to reduce the effective area of ​​dispersion of the ship, and accordingly its radar and optical visibility. The strike armament complex is represented by 16 units of the Onyx anti-ship missiles, located in two universal vertical launch complexes 3С14У1. Instead of "Onyx" in the cell can be loaded missiles of the family "Caliber-NKE" in anti-ship and anti-submarine versions, as well as in the configuration for firing at ground targets. Thus, the frigate is regarded as a multi-purpose, capable of solving the tasks of destroying enemy surface ships and destroying its infrastructure on the coast.

According to open sources, anti-aircraft missile weapons are represented by the Polymer-Redut air defense system. His missiles are located in four eight-cell modules. Full ammunition can include 9М96 and 9М96Х2 (up to 120 km) one per cell (total 32 missiles) or 9М100 self-defense missile (firing range - about 10 km) for four of the way of the 4-ths of the world, four X-9X128 self-defense missiles (up to about XNUMX km) or four XNUMX self-defense missiles (XNUMX km), or four XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XXNUMX XMXNUMX XMXNUMX XNUMX XMXNUMX XMXNUMX XMXNUMX self-defense missiles ). To defeat airborne targets in the zone of self-defense, the frigate is equipped with two “Palash” SIGNS, placed along the sides next to the helicopter hangar.

To defeat submarines designed missile system "Medvedka-2". Two of its launchers are located side by side, with four PLRs in each - a total of eight missiles.

The ship’s artillery armament is represented by the 130-mm A-192 artillery mount, which has a range of up to 22 kilometers and a rate of fire of up to 30 rounds per minute. The control system (5P-10 “Puma”) and the range of ammunition allow it to be used to destroy coastal, sea and air targets. Aviation the frigate’s weapons are represented by a Ka-27 helicopter, for which there is a deck hangar. According to Western experts, for the destruction or incapacitation of such ships it is enough to hit one or two anti-ship missiles “Harpoon” or one “Tomahawk”.

The frigate "Horizon" of the French Navy with a displacement of about 7000 tons as the main armament has eight MM40 Exocet or Teseo (Otomat) Mk 3 anti-ship missiles (both with a range of up to 180 km). In UVP on 48 cells are placed missiles SAM PAAMS Aster 15 (range - up to 30 km) or Aster 30 (range - up to 120 km). Currently, a ship version of the SCALP-EG aircraft missile is being developed, which should reach a range of ground targets up to a thousand kilometers (approaching this indicator to the US Tomahawk), and up to 250 kilometers over sea. It is supposed to place it in UVP instead of Zour. Universal artillery is represented by three 76-mm AU Oto Melara. There is one six-barreled 25-mm AU SADRAL Oto Melara Mod 503 in the self-defense zone for the destruction of the air defense system. Anti-submarine armament includes two twin-tube units TA MU 90 for small torpedoes. The ships have powerful hydroacoustic submarine search tools (GAS TMS 4110CL) and anti-submarine helicopters (Merlin EH101 HAS). For the withdrawal of such a frigate or its sinking may require one or two anti-ship missiles with a warhead of 300 – 400 kilograms.

Comparison of the tactical and technical characteristics of the ships indicates that our strength is the long-range missile and long-range missile defense, our 130-mm universal AU, as well as the anti-submarine missile system. Horizon has no equivalent systems. weapons. The ship version of the SCALP-EG rocket is still a prospect, moreover, very dubious considering the economic problems of the EU.

However, a simple comparison of characteristics is not enough for a correct comparison of ships. It is necessary to evaluate their capabilities in the likely conditions of combat use, taking into account their purpose.

In this regard, it is worth considering two options: the actions of the compared ships in a local war against a weak naval enemy in the interests of the air force and naval forces, or in a large-scale Russia-NATO war. It makes sense to calculate the following variant of the collision: our frigate against NATO as part of the ship's shock group (KUG).

Compare opportunities

In these conflicts, in general, both ships will solve the following main tasks, according to which we will compare: the destruction of groups of ships (KUG, KPUG) and submarines, repelling the enemy’s air attack, striking its ground targets.

In a local war against a weak naval country, the task weights (taking into account the probability of their occurrence) for a Russian ship can be evaluated as follows: destruction of groups of surface ships and boats - 0,1, submarines - 0,05, attack of air attack - 0,3, strikes for ground targets of the enemy in the operational depth - 0,5, for objects of antiamphibious defense - 0,05.

The “Horizon” in the modern version does not have strategic cruise missiles. Therefore, for him, the distribution of task weights in a limited war looks somewhat different: the destruction of groups of surface ships and boats - 0,3, submarines - 0,15, repelling an air attack - 0,4, strikes against anti-amphibious defense objects - 0,15.

In a large-scale war, the significance of task weights for the Gorshkov is as follows: the destruction of groups of surface ships (KUG, KPUG) - 0,2, submarines - 0,2, repelling air attack - 0,3, strikes against ground targets in operational depth - 0,25, anti-landing targets Defense - 0,05. For "NATO": the destruction of groups of surface ships (KUG, KPUG) - 0,18, submarines - 0,3, repelling enemy air attacks - 0,5, strikes against ground targets and anti-airborne defense systems - 0,02.

Now we estimate the capabilities of the frigates to solve typical tasks. The first is the destruction of groups of surface ships and boats. It is perfectly clear that frigates are significantly inferior in terms of combat capabilities to cruisers and destroyers, which will form the basis of the CCG and aircraft escort ships. Therefore, participation in strikes against groups of ships of this class is a non-standard task for them. More probable and feasible will be strikes against groups of ships of equal value or lower classes. These are ship search and strike groups (KPUG), hunting for submarines in the designated area, or shock groups of MRKs (corvettes) and missile boats. Therefore, as an example for comparison, we will consider a typical KPUG (KUG of corvettes) consisting of three to four units.

The Russian frigate, having more than twice the superiority in the range of missile weapons (Onyx and Caliber-NKE) over the target of the attack, all other things being equal, can go into a salvo position and fire, remaining out of reach of the enemy. 16-rocket salvo provides for the destruction or destruction of ships of typical KPUG or KUG with probability 0,76 – 0,8.

"Horizon" has a missile system with a range of fire almost equal to that which the strike object has (on the corvettes and frigates of the enemy, either the same "Exosets" or the latest modifications of "Harpoons" may be in service). In the event of an advance of the enemy in the salvo, he will be able to disable or destroy ships from the composition of a typical KPUG or KUG with a probability 0,4 – 0,48. But the opposing side has the same chances. Thus, the reduced probability decreases to 0,23 – 0,35.

In strikes against ground targets, our frigate can use “Caliber” missiles of that modification, which was demonstrated in Syria. Naturally, tactical scale tasks will be set for the frigate, that is, the destruction of one important object or group of three or four small ones. By using the Caliber missile, the Gorshkov will be able, within the effective shooting range (up to 2000 km), to solve the 16 rocket volley with a probability of 0,55 – 0,7.

In addition, our ship is able to suppress one company-based strong point in the antiamphibious defense system on the coast at a distance of up to 10 – 15 kilometers from the water's edge with a probability of 0,6 – 0.7.

"Horizon" does not have weapons for strikes against targets in the operational depth, therefore its capabilities in this regard are zero. Under certain conditions, he, of course, will be involved in strikes against objects of antiamphibious defense on the coast to a depth of five to six kilometers. If we consider the same company support point, the probability of its suppression by three 76-mm AU "Horizon" will not exceed 0,15 – 0,2 in the most favorable scenario.

It is advisable to make an assessment of the capabilities of frigates to combat submarines by the criterion of the probability of detecting and destroying an enemy submarine in a given area as part of a typical GTC of three frigates. Usually, the search area is defined so that the KPUG is capable of detecting and destroying enemy submarines in it with a given probability. This indicator depends on many factors, but when comparing different ships, the most important of them is the energy range of a submarine's detection of a hydroacoustic complex (GAK), as well as the power of anti-submarine weapons. "Horizon" surpasses our ship in the energy range of the SJC. But significantly inferior in weapons to solve the problem. The presence of anti-submarine helicopters on both ships, which conduct an additional search and have the means of destroying submarines at long distances, to a certain extent eliminates the superiority of our ship in striking power. If for a certain period of time our frigate is able to detect and destroy an enemy submarine with a probability of 0,5, then this indicator is slightly higher at Horizon - 0,58.

It remains to assess the capabilities of ships for the defeat of air targets. Let us take as a basis the reflection of a typical EHV outfit in the 24 RCC with a three-minute salvo sweep on a warrant in which there are three escort frigates and one ship of the nucleus (for example, a cruiser with an unsettling potential of 5 air defense units). Under such conditions, the likelihood of maintaining the combat capability of our ship's order warrant may be 0,55, and in NATO, 0,61.

One on One

It is interesting to consider a dueling situation. Other things being equal, our “Potters”, due to a significant superiority in firing range, has the ability to disable or sink “Horizon” with a probability up to 0,6 – 0,7, without entering the enemy's affected area.

With mutual detection at the range of the horizon missiles, the probability of the death of our frigate will be substantially less and amount to 0,3 – 0,35. However, the likelihood of such an event is relatively small, since the “NATO member” will have to move closer to our ship in order to enter the salvo position for several hours, all this time being within the reach of his weapon.

The analysis performed allows us to derive an integral indicator of the correspondence of two ships. The Russian frigate, he is in relation to local wars 0,655, and large-scale - 0,635. At Horizon, the indicators are distributed as follows: 0,466 and 0,546, respectively. That is, our frigate surpasses our opponent by almost 41 percent in local wars and 16 percent in large-scale by the degree of compliance of the combat effectiveness of the ship with its destination. In a duel situation, our ship has a clear advantage due to a significant superiority in the range of weapons.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cat
    Cat 10 July 2016 06: 53
    I read it with pleasure, we are waiting for the continuation.
    Our fleet is seven pounds under the keel! good
    1. TsUS-Air Force
      TsUS-Air Force 10 July 2016 14: 12
      pounds sterling in the UK and we have navy feet
    2. Ze Kot
      Ze Kot 11 July 2016 22: 15
      Quote: Kotischa
      I read it with pleasure, we are waiting for the continuation.

      "Therefore, representatives of project 22350 (and 11356) will be the only modern surface ships of the far sea and ocean zones, which in large enough quantities will enter service with our fleets. "

      How much is this ?

      "has a body made with the use of stealth technologies, which allowed significantly reduce effective dispersion area of ​​the ship "

      Factor of ? How many ?

      "our ship is capable of suppressing one company stronghold in the anti-amphibious defense system on the coast at a distance of up to 10-15 kilometers from the water's edge"

      Who will let him approach 15 km to the shore?

      Some kind of unfinished essay.
  2. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 10 July 2016 07: 08
    Another comparison of tabular characteristics by open data ...
    1. musorg
      musorg 10 July 2016 12: 09
      Fighting all comparisons nullify!
    2. The stranger
      The stranger 11 July 2016 00: 11
      What can I compare in the open press? Folders from the GRU safe? So they locked it on the weekend, they don’t give it to read and they will throw it on the Internet.
  3. demiurg
    demiurg 10 July 2016 07: 49
    According to the signs, Bismarck + Eugen lost a bunch of King George 5 + Hood. But everything turned out somehow not on the tablets. Relatives compared with Bismarck generally looked pale. And nothing, let him sink to the bottom. Captain Rodney probably didn't look at the table hi Game in general, or rather incomprehensible phallometry.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 July 2016 08: 42
      The captain of the "Rodney" did not have a headache because of the damaged shaft and because of this vibrating propellers coupled with a jammed steering wheel wink
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 10 July 2016 09: 01
        Well, for a red word and you can not say too much? lol
        There, King George was, in principle, on the sidelines. It seems that the cruiser was also fired by torpedoes.

        The very essence of comparing ships in a duel on unknown plates, without taking into account interaction with other ships and aircraft, is incomprehensible. And why is there no crew training ratio? Not a word about electronic warfare.

        Two spherical, absolutely elastic horses in vacuum are compared.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 10 July 2016 09: 03
          Okay, standings smile drinks
        2. igorka357
          igorka357 10 July 2016 14: 23
          So what is not clear, if the ship is superior in combat to its counterpart, then the duel situation is one on one, it is very easy to predict! If the group of ships is already difficult! If Gorshkov has long-range weapons, then why be surprised at such a forecast?
        3. Nubia2
          Nubia2 10 July 2016 19: 34
          Quote: demiurg
          There, King George was, in principle, on the sidelines.

          Yes, not the second. It is on par with Rodney.
      2. igorka357
        igorka357 10 July 2016 14: 24
        Yeah, and from constant attacks and threats from the air ..))
    2. igorka357
      igorka357 10 July 2016 14: 19
      And if you were interested in that fight, you should know that Hood was just unlucky, but Bismarck was very much the other way around ..)), and Rodney didn’t drown Bismarck alone, the whole operation was with aviation, Rodney was in a duel with Bismarck ! And indeed the Germans usually made two volleys of a plug, and the third hit! Well Zeiss knew his job!
    3. Nubia2
      Nubia2 10 July 2016 19: 35
      Quote: demiurg
      Relatives compared with Bismarck generally looked pale.

      Not really. In armament especially. Although, of course, he was a bit old.
  4. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 10 July 2016 08: 06
    Analytics based on the principle "floor, finger, ceiling". "I DO NOT BELIEVE!!!" Panikovsky is not obliged to believe everything! And the beginning of the article was intriguing. Minus
  5. Aurelius
    Aurelius 10 July 2016 08: 18
    “This is definitely a budget. It has a lot of numbers. ” J. Bush, Jr.

    our ship is able to suppress one company stronghold in the airborne defense system on the coast at a distance of 10-15 kilometers from the water edge with a probability of 0,6–0.7.

    Where did all these numbers come from? Did you throw a coin? Or did Gorshkov manage to shell a company stronghold a couple of hundred times (a sufficient sample), but I didn’t notice? recourse
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 11 July 2016 00: 44
      Quote: Aurelius
      Where did all these numbers come from? Did you throw a coin? Or did Gorshkov manage to shell a company stronghold a couple of hundred times (a sufficient sample), but I didn’t notice?

      Sivkov sucked these numbers from his authoritative finger. And then they will refer to it on the Internet - NATO frigates - sucks, Gorshkov - has no analogues ... The information war is on. A la ger a la ger
  6. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 10 July 2016 08: 35
    Of course, Sivkov is an expert in his field, but ultimately, the decisive importance belongs to the crew, their skill and fearlessness! There are many cases in history when the seemingly weak, but brave Russian crew, despite the enemy's superiority, both technical and numerical beat him and beat him very hard! I will not look back at history, but let me remind you how our ships drove away more powerful American ships in both armament and displacement from the shores of the Soviet Crimea! So we wish the Russian Fleet: "Happy sailing" and "Seven feet under the keel"!
  7. OlegYOla
    OlegYOla 10 July 2016 08: 57
    One on one - kill negative
    One against ten will be repeat
  8. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 10 July 2016 10: 09
    As always, the "strategist - accountant" namesake Sivkov "farted in the water" ?! Is this me about "Sivkov - an expert in his field"? Arithmetic? And I watched the Americans "in action" twice - in Libya (1986) and in Persian against the Iranians (1988) and I can briefly "constitute" - FAST, CLEARLY AND EFFECTIVELY they sink other people's ships! Especially those who considered them "weaker than themselves", SELF-CONFIDENTED? And here you can't get by with a calculator and you can't get off with the "probability of hitting the target", mathematician. Are you our sharp-witted ?!
  9. Berkut24
    Berkut24 10 July 2016 10: 12
    It seems like the author was somehow connected with the fleet, but it is not clear how he compares. We have one and a half Gorshkovs. The Americans have a horde of destroyers on the sea. Doesn't wake up any one-on-one combat. There will be a skirmish between the US aircraft carrier formation (and maybe two or three) and a relatively small formation of ships in the Russian coastal zone, which, obviously, will be supported by aviation and submarines.
    Yes, maybe our new weapons will allow us to respond asymmetrically, but so far we have no special chances at sea. All that is stopping Americans now is our 100% nuclear response. And while we build a contracted number of new frigates, it may happen that samples appear in NATO no worse.
    1. mitya24
      mitya24 11 July 2016 12: 03
      Absolutely right. If we count the amerovskoe "hordes" together with the fleets of NATO countries, we will get a ratio of 1 ours to 20-30 of the enemy, and it is necessary to possess alien technologies in general in order to compensate for such a numerical superiority with a qualitative component.
  10. Idiot
    Idiot 10 July 2016 10: 20
    It is not weapons that are fighting, people are fighting. The winner is the one who does not talk, roughly speaking. Not rude - the one with the core wins. If we compare this indicator, then it will turn out as with ours and English fans in France. And in general, we have such a mentality - to win, grandfathers and fathers taught us to this, I would say, spoiled. We are used to it. Hear how the former mujahideen speak of the "shuravi" - with respect. And what do they say about the Anglo-Saxons. They don't even hate them - they despise them. But of course, you need to be a professional to win modern warfare. On the whole, I like our training methodology: convincing, intelligible, unforgettable - like in a video about a tank commander who scolds an unlucky cadet (available on yu-tube) ...
    1. Forest
      Forest 10 July 2016 11: 17
      You cannot force a missile to bypass missile defense and your ship to withstand the blow of an enemy anti-ship missile. And the training of NATO sailors is excellent, unlike our conscripts, that in a year it is unlikely that 50% of the capabilities of such complex equipment as a ship will be mastered.
    2. Cartalon
      Cartalon 10 July 2016 11: 21
      Winning at sea is just an Anglo-Saxon habit, so we throw all the statements in the style with caps, end with a cap.
    3. igorka357
      igorka357 10 July 2016 14: 28
      I think that a couple of hundreds of fearless barbarians with axes, and will not come close to two machine gunners! What kind of nonsense have you written?
  11. shonsu
    shonsu 10 July 2016 12: 16
    We have good weapons and enough of them. the main thing is not to be afraid to take responsibility to apply it, which often affects our commanders.
  12. berezin1987
    berezin1987 10 July 2016 19: 53
    And why, then, is the Frenchman’s displacement 1,5 times larger than our frigate? Are we again stepping on the old rake and making a super-dense layout, sacrificing vitality and habitability. The Frenchman still has a reserve of 2,5 thousand tons. The British 45 type is even larger with comparable weapons. Can any of the sailors explain this contradiction?
  13. berezin1987
    berezin1987 10 July 2016 20: 01
    Hurry, they would lay the destroyer of a new project, because the ships of the 1144 and 1164 project are already more than 30 years old. And the frigates were needed yesterday, but the situation with the money did not allow to begin their mass construction. Shipbuilders should constantly develop new warships, and the state should continue to finance R&D. Then it’s very difficult to catch up with rivals if you score for R&D for a couple of years. Look at the creak of the adoption of the head frigate 22350, submarine frets and ash.
  14. masiya
    masiya 10 July 2016 20: 34
    Already "hetman Sahaidachny" our former "Kirov" can not be included in such a table, but it's okay, all the way !!!
  15. xomaNN
    xomaNN 11 July 2016 13: 03
    I, the shipbuilder, on the one hand, are pleased that the performance characteristics of our corvette frigates (TFR) are world-class and better, but it is depressing that you can count them on the fingers of one hand. Few recourse
    I recall in the 70s and 80s in the USSR a series of TFR 1135s, an exceptionally good ship (it was not in vain that they resumed 1135.6!) And there were several dozen of them from several shipyards good