Shipbuilding Program of the Russian Navy, or a Very Bad Premonition (part of 5)


In this article we will consider the construction of domestic "mosquito" forces and summarize the cycle.

Despite the fact that in the USSR they paid great attention to the development of small fleet, in the GPV program 2011-2020. included a minimum of strike ships with a displacement of less than a thousand tons. They planned to build 6 small artillery ships (IAC) of project 21630 "Buyan" and several of their "older brothers", small missile ships "Buyan-M" - and that, in fact, was all.

The purpose of these ships is not easy to understand. Take, for example, the Buyan artillery: a small, about 500 ton displacement, the ship had to have good seaworthiness, but a small draft, so as to be able to act at the small depths of the northern Caspian Sea and the Volga River. But what is there to do with an artillery ship? The artillery of the “Buyan” consists of the 100-mm artillery system, two 30-mm “metal-cutters” AK-306, the “Bending” launcher (for using standard Igla MANPADS) and the Grad-MRLS, and the RSZO hints at the possibility of against shore targets. This is fine, but if we create a river ship for action against the enemy’s land forces, then who will be his most dangerous enemy? Ordinary tank - it is perfectly protected and has a powerful gun that can quickly cause critical damage to the ship in a few hundred tons. And in the composition of the weapons "Buyana" is missing weaponcapable of knocking out a tank. Of course, we can assume that the installation tank guns on a ship of such a small displacement would create problems, but placement of a modern ATGM should not cause any difficulties. But even with the ATGM, the river ship can hardly count on survival in modern combat - it is quite large and noticeable (and no Stealth technologies will help here), but it’s practically not even protected from small arms, services will have to be "substituted" under fire from the shore.

MAK project 21630 "Makhachkala"

With the project 21631, or MRK "Buyan-M", is still more difficult. It is larger (949 t), but just like the Buyan, it belongs to the river-sea type of ships. Two AK-306 installations changed the Spark AK-630М-2 Duet, but the main innovation is the abandonment of the MLRS and the installation of the Caliber missiles on the 8. But why the river, in essence, a ship, such fire power? Against who? A few Iranian missile boats? So they PKR "Uranus" will be behind the eyes, and in general such a trifle is much easier to destroy from the air. In general, the composition of the “Buyan-M” weapons looks completely incomprehensible, but exactly until we remember the international treaties limiting armaments, and in particular the INF Treaty on December 8 of 1987.

A detailed description of the reasons why the United States and the USSR signed this agreement is clearly beyond the scope of this article, but it should be noted that the agreement banning the ground deployment of ballistic and cruise missiles of medium (1000-5500 km) and small (500-1000 km ) The range was beneficial to both parties. The Americans were deprived of the opportunity to deliver a disarming attack on the most important targets on the territory of the USSR (only 1613 km in a straight line from Berlin to Moscow), and such a blow threatened to become really “lightning fast” - the flight time of the “Pershing-2” was just 8-10 minutes . The USSR, in turn, was deprived of the opportunity to destroy the main European ports in one short stroke and thereby block the transfer of US ground forces to Europe, which, against the background of the superiority of the ATS countries in conventional armaments, made the NATO position completely hopeless. Interestingly, under the INF Treaty of the USSR, it was forced to abandon the RK-55 "Relief", which is a land variant of the C-10 "Granat" sea missile, which became the forerunner of "Caliber".

Shipbuilding Program of the Russian Navy, or a Very Bad Premonition (part of 5)

Self-propelled launcher 9В2413 complex RK-55 "Relief"

However, it should be remembered that under the INF Treaty, only land-based missiles were destroyed, but air and sea cruise missiles remained permitted. In the era when the USSR was alive, which possessed a powerful fleet and missile-carrying aviation, this did not carry an excessive threat, but now that the Russian Federation, at sea and in the air, has only a shadow of former Soviet power, this restriction has begun to play against us. Yes, the United States of America destroyed its land-based Tomahawks, but they now have 85 surface ships and 57 nuclear-powered submarines capable of carrying sea-based Tomahawks, and any of their destroyers can take dozens of such missiles on board. The capabilities of our fleet are incomparably smaller, and the only serious “counterargument” is strategic aviation, capable of carrying medium-range missiles, but here too our capabilities are far from desired. Under these conditions, the creation of a certain number of cruise missile launch vehicles capable of navigating through a single deep-sea system in the European part of the Russian Federation (of course, provided that it is still maintained in a sufficiently “deep-sea” state) makes some sense. Not a panacea, of course, but ...

In view of the foregoing, it is quite understandable to refuse the further construction of the 21630 “Buyan” ships (three ships of this type that became part of the Caspian Flotilla were incorporated in 2004-2006, that is, long before HPV-2011-2020). and the tab of the nine interregional companies of the 21631 “Buyan-M” project, the last of which is to be commissioned in the 2019 year. Accordingly, we can say that the plans for the SPV 2011-2020. in part of the "mosquito" fleet will be fully implemented. And even exceeded.

The fact is that in addition to “Buyanam” and “Buyanam-M”, which were planning to build according to the HPO 2011-2020, the Russian Federation began the construction of small rocket ships of the 22800 “Karakurt” project. These ships will have a displacement of the order of 800 t, i.e. even less “Buyan-M”, speed up to 30 units, armament - all the same 8 “Calibers”, 100-mm (or 76-mm) gun mounts and anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex. According to some reports, the Pantsir-M or Palash were to be put on ships of this type, and that would be a good choice, but the Mortar Storm’s hired board hints that at least the first ships of the series will have to get by with old AK-630 or even 306. Initially it was assumed that the series will be 18 ships, then there were suggestions that it will be reduced to 10-12 ships.

Where did they come from, because in the original HPV 2011-2020. nothing like that? Perhaps the most resonant statement related to "Karakurts" were the words of the commander-in-chief of the Navy V. Chirkov, told by him on July 1 on 2015:

"So that we would not lag behind the pace of construction of ships, then to replace, for example, the 11356 project, we are starting to build a new series - small rocket ships, corvettes with cruise missiles on board the 22800 project."

In what they didn’t blame the commander in chief after these words ... the softest epithet "on the Internet" was "the inconsistency of the position". And really, how can you replace high-grade frigates with eight hundred-ton IRAs?

No, and it is obvious. But V. Chirkov was not going to change frigates to Karakurts, because the commander-in-chief does not have any frigates “for exchange”. Three ships of the project 11356 will come to the Black Sea, and a point. For the other three there are no engines, but there is nothing to say about 22350: all the problems are described in previous articles, and it is clear that even the head Admiral Gorshkov will replenish the fleet very much and not very soon. For frigates, the HPV program 2011-2020 failed miserably, and the only way to at least partially alleviate the situation is to build ships of other classes. The question is not that we build ISCs instead of frigates, but that we either get the frigate 3 to the Black Sea, and that’s all, or we get the same 3 frigate and in addition to them some ships of the 22800 project. About this and said the commander in chief.

Project view "Karakurt"

But here another question arises. If we, being aware of the need to urgently replenish the ship composition, are ready to replace the frigates, which we will not build anyway, in the terms we need with other ships, then why was the 22800 “Karakurt” project chosen? Do we really need small rocket ships?

Surprisingly, but a fact: at the stage of formation of our shipbuilding program, the command of the Russian Navy almost completely abandoned the marine mosquito fleet (represented by small rocket / anti-submarine ships and boats). Scheduled for construction in HPO 2011-2020 The “Buyans-M”, in essence, are mobile river platforms for launching the “Kalibr” KR, belong to the “river-sea” type and do not have sufficient seaworthiness to operate in the open sea. How justified was the abandonment of rocket boats and / or IRAs?

Let's try to guess: it is known that small rocket ships and boats are fully capable of operating in coastal areas and can be effective against surface ships of the enemy, both in their class and larger ones, such as a corvette or a frigate. But they have a number of unrecoverable "vices": narrow specialization, very modest air defense, small size (why the use of weapons is limited by excitement to a greater degree than that of larger ships) and a relatively small range of progress. All this leads to the fact that modern ground-based aviation and long-range mobile coastal missile systems are fully capable of replacing missile boats and IRAs. Moreover, modern IRAs are not a cheap pleasure. According to some data, the price of the IRAs of the 22800 “Karakurt” project amounts to 5-6 billion rubles, i.e. corresponds to the cost of 4-5 type aircraft Su-30 or Su-35. At the same time, the main enemy in our coastal waters will not be enemy rocket boats or frigates, but submarines against which RTOs are useless.

Apparently, such (or similar) considerations played a role in the formation of the LG-2011-2020. In addition, the program involved the massive construction of corvettes, which are capable of performing, inter alia, the functions of RTOs. That's just the construction of corvettes also not wondered. What is left? Lay the new "Buyan-M"? But they, by virtue of their "belonging" "river-sea", are not sufficiently navigable. Another question: why do our RTOs are seaworthy? If we assume that the range of Caliber missiles for ground targets is 2 600 km, then the same Grad Sviyazhsk (the leading ship of the Buyan-M type), anchored in the cozy bay of Sevastopol, is quite capable of striking at Berlin. Well, going to Evpatoria, it will reach London. Thus, from the point of view of a big war with NATO countries, the seaworthiness of our RTOs is not very necessary.

But this is from the position of a big war, and in fact the fleet is not only a military but also a political tool, and it is used regularly in politics. At the same time, the state of our surface forces so ... does not correspond to the tasks facing them, even in peacetime, that in the current, 2016, year we were forced to send to strengthen the Mediterranean squadron "Green Doll" of the "Buyan-M" project. It is clear that the Russian Federation in its military capabilities by orders of magnitude inferior to the USSR, and today no one expects the revival of the Mediterranean 5 OPESK in all the splendor of its former power: 70-80 pennants, including three dozen combat surface ships and a dozen submarines . But sending a river-sea type ship to the Mediterranean service ... even for today's RF, this is an obvious overwhelming. However, let's not forget that in the USSR they could not provide the Mediterranean squadron exclusively with ships of the first rank: starting from 1975 (or still 1974?), Small rocket ships were sent to reinforce the 5 OPESK (this is a project of 1234 “Gadfly "). It is worth paying tribute to their crews:

“In the Aegean Sea fell into a hard storm. It was possible to get into storms both before and after that. But this one is remembered for a lifetime. Developed 6-point excitement, the wave is short, almost like in the Baltic, the ships chatter and beat so that they, shuddering with the whole body, are already ringing, the masts are shaking so that it seems that they will tear off overboard, rolling in all planes to 30 degrees, we draw water in containers, the commander of the warhead-2 is worried about missiles. ”

Service in the "alien sea" on a boat in 700 tons of full displacement ... "Yes, there were people in our time." But, according to eyewitness recollections, our “sworn friends” from the 6 fleet took the “Gadgets” very seriously:

“In fact, with the entry into the Mediterranean Sea of ​​the ROC ISCs, it was immediately followed by tracking ships and aircraft of the 6 fleet, aircraft readiness of air defense systems increased on aircraft carriers and cruisers, and in the direction of the CUG-AUG AUG fighters patrolled. They practiced the tactics of their combat use according to us, and we according to them: a great opportunity to train air defense calculations. ”

Of course, the author of this article did not participate in the BS as part of the TUG, composed of "Gadfly", but sees no reason to ignore such memories: a group of 3-4 such ships, each armed with 6 missiles "Malachite" and carrying combat duty in relative proximity to the AUG, represented a serious threat to American ships. In view of the foregoing, the construction of the series of MRs of the 22800 project, which differ from “Buyanov-M” in the first place with increased seaworthiness, has a definite meaning. Of course, an attempt to solve the tasks of frigates (and better - destroyers) by small rocket ships, is, of course, a palliative, but in the absence of official paper, you have to write in idle.

Thus, the construction of a series of MRKs for the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy is fully justified by the gloomy realities of today, and would not cause questions if ... if the patrol ships of the project were not laid at the Zelenodolsk CVD in 2014, the 2011-2020 GVVX 22160.

Estimated appearance of the patrol ship project 22160

On the one hand, reading about their purpose on the manufacturer’s official website, you get the impression that this is not so much about a warship, but about something borderline with giving the function of MES:

“The Border Patrol Service for the Protection of Territorial Waters, patrolling the 200-mile exclusive economic zone in the open and closed seas; suppression of smuggling and piracy; search and assistance to victims of marine disasters; environmental monitoring of the environment. In wartime: escorting ships and vessels at sea crossings, as well as naval bases and water areas in order to warn about the attack of various enemy forces and assets. ”

Accordingly, try to enter them into the existing “table of ranks” of warships according to the LG 2011-2020. there seems to be no point - the problems are completely wrong. Yes, and the performance characteristics, to put it mildly, are not impressive: “around 1 300 tons” the standard displacement for the domestic corvette is somehow not enough (“Guarding” - 1 800 t), but a lot for RTOs. The standard armament - one 57-mm artillery unit A-220M, “Bending” and a pair of 14,5-mm machine guns — are quite sufficient for a border guard or a pirate catcher, when the most dangerous thing that threatens a ship is a speedboat with light rifle weapons. But for a serious fight such a set, of course, is not suitable.

But here are the other characteristics: hydroacoustic complex MGK-335EM-03 and GAS Vignetka-EM. The latter is capable of detecting submarines at a distance of up to 60 km in the sonar or noise-finding mode. What are they on the patrol ship for? Environmental monitoring of the environment? So that no Turkish poachers on their “Atylai” (German diesel-electric submarine type 209) would disturb the eco-balance of the region to us? And if they break, then what? Finger shocked? No anti-submarine armament on the patrol ship 22160 seems to be provided. There is only a helicopter, but it says about it:

"Telescopic hangar and landing area with means to ensure take-off, landing and maintenance of a search and rescue helicopter weighing up to 12 tons of type Ka-27 PS".

Of course, the Ka-27PL from the ant-submarine Ka-27PS is not that fundamentally different, and if the PS can be based, so maybe the PL will be able to accommodate? There is a hangar, there is fuel, there is maintenance too, there remains the question of an ammunition depot for an antisubmarine helicopter and their maintenance / supply, but perhaps this can be solved? But then - the most delicious:

"Additional armament installed on request:
1 LAWS "Calm-1" with two modular PU 3C90E.1.
1 integrated caliber-NKE rocket system.

Of course, either one or the other can be installed on the 22160 project ship, and according to reports made in October 2015, it will be the “Gauges” that will be installed.

From the point of view of percussion functionality, such a ship will not lose anything to the 22800 project's MRC: the same 8 Calibers, the same speed in 30 nodes, but as a “force projection” 22160 is preferable, if only because of a larger displacement ( means, and seaworthiness) and the presence of a helicopter (allowing to monitor the movements of those we are afraid). On the other hand, artillery and other armament is an obvious step back — instead of 76-mm or even 100-mm AU — only a weak 57-mm, instead of ZRAK, it is only “Bending” with its capabilities of a conventional MANPADS. But the presence of sufficiently powerful sonar equipment, which is completely devoid of the 22800 project: in combination with a helicopter and anti-submarine "Caliber" is not so bad.

In fact, in the 22160 project, we see another attempt to create a corvette, and it could even be successful: slightly add displacements, replace “Bending” with the SIGNATURE, put “weave” instead of 57-mm cannons ... But again it did not work out. And most importantly, if we really think that our fleet needs such a “peaceful tractor”, that is, a patrol ship with a powerful gas and eight “Gauges” (absolutely indispensable means of environmental monitoring, yes), then why not just start mass construction 22160, without being distracted by any "Karakurt"?

Okay. The author of these articles is not a professional naval sailor, and, of course, does not understand much in naval art. It can be assumed that with the patrol ships of the 22160 project, something turned out to be wrong, and they are not suitable for our fleet. And therefore the ships will not go into the big series, they laid two such patrol ships in 2014, and that's enough, and instead they will be more suitable for the Russian Navy "Karakurt". After all, the first ships of the project 22800 ("Hurricane" and "Typhoon") laid in December 2015 of the year.

But if so, then why in February and May 2016 of the year was laid the next pair of patrol ships 22160?

If you look closely at what we are doing now in the small military shipbuilding, the hair just stands on end. We began to recreate the Russian Navy after a huge break in military shipbuilding. If there was some kind of plus, it is that we could start everything from scratch and avoid the mistakes of the USSR Navy, the main of which was the creation of many non-unified projects. And how did we take advantage of this opportunity? Here is the corvette 20380, it does not all go well with a diesel power plant. But in the 2014 year, we proceed to the serial construction of patrol ships in much the same functionality, in which the power plant is different, and more powerful, but also diesel. What for? Few attacked the same rake? Or, perhaps, there are some reasonable assumptions that the new power plant will be more reliable than the previous one? But why not unify it with the power plant, which is used on 20380 / 20385 corvettes, in order to continue their construction? Why do we need two types of corvettes at all (and the patrol ship 22160, in essence, is) a similar purpose? And at the same time, small rocket ships, in which, naturally, power plants will be different from both 20380 projects and 22160? Why do we need to use 100-mm, 76-mm and 57-mm artillery units at the same time? Or (if 76-mm is still refused) 100-mm and 57-mm? Why do we need the simultaneous production of Pantsir-M (or Chestnut) and much weaker Bending? Survey radar on the corvette of the 20380 project - “Furke” and “Furke-2”, on the patrol ship of the 22160 project - “Positive-МЭ1”, on the MRK of the 22800 project - “Mineral-M”. Why do we need this zoo? Are we seriously gathered to outdo the USSR in terms of the range of weapons being manufactured ?!

According to the author, the problem is as follows. The corvette of the 20380 project was created by the Almaz PKB, and the patrol ship of the 22160 project was created by the Northern PKB. Collectives are different, and subcontractors are different too. In the end, everyone is concerned with the promotion of their own products, and not at all unification with competitors' ships. On the one hand, this is a natural consequence of market competition, but on the other hand, why does the state need such consequences? Of course, competition is a blessing, it doesn’t “nurture the fat” and “rest on its laurels,” therefore, in shipbuilding, and in any other industry, it is highly undesirable to close everything on one team. But you need to understand that honest, decent competition only happens in economics books for authorship of professors divorced from life, and in our reality, it is not the one who offers the best product that wins the reality, but the one who has the greater “administrative resource” or other similar "benefits". Accordingly, it is up to the state’s business to establish such “rules of the game” in which the benefits of competition would be maximal and the damage minimized. One of these “rules” could be the requirement for all creative teams to unify weapons and units when designing ships of the same (or similar) classes. Of course, this is easy only on paper, but the benefits of such an approach are undoubted.

Conclusion: the construction of the "mosquito" fleet is the only area in the part of the surface shipbuilding where we will seriously overtake the schedule by the year of 2020. However, the only reason we do this is to try to replace larger ships (frigates and corvettes) with something that can sail on the sea. Given the unreasonable heterogeneity of projects, there is little joy in this.

Well, let's summarize the fulfillment of the shipbuilding program for the HPN 2011-2020.

The only position where we failed, not much, is the 955 Borey SSBN. It is quite possible that we still get 8 ships of this type before 2020 (not 10, as planned, but the deviation in 20% is not that bad). Reducing the number of "Ash", obviously, will lead to the fact that at least in the period to 2025 (and with probability to 2030), the number of atomic multi-purpose submarines will decrease even from the current, completely insufficient number of them. The Lada 677 naval project turned out to be a failure: instead of the 2011-2020 expected by LG. 14 units will be commissioned only three ships of this type, and even those, given the rejection of their large-scale construction, are likely to be of limited combat capability. We will have to replenish the fleet of non-nuclear submarines with Varshavyanki, but if the order for 6 of such diesel-electric submarines for the Pacific is placed in a timely manner, then there are good chances to get 6 of the Black Sea and 6 of Pacific-AED diesel-electric submarines in time.

The amphibious ship construction program failed completely: instead of the four Mistrals and the Grenov 6, we might get the Grena 2. An error in assessing the importance of localizing ship power plants in Russia led to the fact that before 2020, instead of the planned 14 frigates, the fleets would receive a little over a third, i.e. only five, and that provided that "Polyment-Redut" by some miracle will bring to mind. The corvette construction program, even if timely supplied, four patrol ships of the 22160 project, which we also write to the corvettes, will be completed with 46%, while the Redut air defense problems will follow 11 ships from 16, and problems with the power plant will all 16. But the construction of 9 "Buyanov" according to the plan and a dozen "Karakurts" above the plan, most likely, will go on schedule, unless the company "Pella", which had not been involved in the construction of warships, and "More" in Feodosia, which (because of being part of a separatist Ukraine) for a long time was not seriously engaged in military construction.

In general, we have to state that the shipbuilding program in the framework of HPV 2011-2020. did not take place, and for some reason not because of a lack of funding, but as a result of systemic errors in the strategy of the development of the Navy, the organization of the work of the military-industrial complex and the control of this work by the state.

And yet this is not the end. Despite the fiasco of the 2011-2020 shipbuilding program, the country still has about 15 years before the ships that replenished the national fleet during the years of the USSR and early Russian Federation and make up the backbone of the Russian Navy today. The future of our fleet depends on whether the leadership of the country, the Defense Ministry, the Navy and the military industrial complex can draw the right conclusions based on the results of the HPN 2011-2020, and whether they have enough energy to reverse the situation.

There is still time. But he has very little left.

Thank you for attention!

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    1 September 2016 13: 16
    Again, "everything is gone, everything is dumbfounded."
    Not interested.
    1. +39
      1 September 2016 14: 09
      Do you want to say that with the implementation of the above-mentioned shipbuilding program, everything is just fine with us? In the article, there is no castati - "vsepalomyvseumrömputinslil" .... A completely balanced analysis of our successes and failures in terms of the actual implementation of the shipbuilding program. Maybe not? It seems that there is no indiscriminate slander in the article on all the issues considered.
      1. +3
        2 September 2016 21: 05
        Not interested.

        Well, why? Analysis of an opinion other than yours allows you to find gaps in your knowledge or logic.

        The author of the article:
        on the ship of project 22160 you can install either one or the other

        No, they are installed in different places.
        Aft PU for gauge containers is installed at the stern)

        Between the gun and the superstructure - calm1:
        1. +1
          4 September 2016 00: 22
          Yeah, here’s just the MO where the Shtil could be shoved to improve the ship’s promise :) There’s only a place in the stern, God knows how to shove the Shtil shit, and most importantly, where are the radar posts for him?
          1. +2
            4 September 2016 11: 27
            assigned to improve the habitability of the ship

            And rightly so.
            This ship operates in 2 modes.
            1) In peacetime, it's just a patrol boat. Why does he need air defense systems and calibers? Carrying extra tons of expensive equipment with you, wasting his life?
            It will have a gun, 2 machine guns, bending, possibly a helicopter.
            This is enough to catch a poaching seiner or a freighter of smugglers.
            Shtil-1, Containers with "calibers", towed hydroacoustics (the keel remains) - are stored for conservation in the home port.
            2) In the event of an aggravation of the situation, the ship is understaffed with these modules, becoming already a reconnaissance boat of the distant security zone with the ability to neutralize ships of its own, or of a slightly larger class independently, relatively protected from enemy missiles and aircraft, and even with some kind of sonar for detecting submarines.

            In this concept lies the very modular principle that the developers talked about - the ship drags only what is needed at the moment, and not everything that was pushed into it at the factory.
            In addition to saving the resource of weapons in this, there is another, not obvious for ordinary people, but very important for strategic command plus, namely:
            The enemy never knows a complete set of weapons on a boat and is forced to take into account the maximum. And as we understand it, the maximum here is cruise missiles with a range of 3000 km and air defense with a radius of 30 (50?) Km.
            This is unnerving - because even a simple patrol boat sailing 2000 km from your military facility (port) in peacetime poses a potential threat. You will have to send your ship to monitor it (aviation will not work, because the boat can have an air defense system), moreover, preferably, a larger ship (because the boat without a good missile defense system can sink this boat on its own).
            1. +4
              4 September 2016 14: 53
              Yeah ... That's how I imagine and how in wartime a couple of crew cabins are cut out of a ship, or for example a rest room and Calm is inserted instead .. Yeah now.

              As far as I understand, the project itself initially had several options, they offered it both for export and the Moscow Region without a preliminary order, and as an option for border guards, therefore it was possible to put Calm and something else in its place. Actually, the Moscow Region chose a project option with improved habitability, and, consequently, a sailing range, but without air defense. I believe that Calm can no longer be put on that regular place. In addition, the air defense system is not only a PU, but also a radar and a combat control system, does it all also lie in the warehouse? I doubt it very much.

              And about the fact that why all this in peacetime? Well, in the article there is an answer PLO, then someone should do the same?

              About the fact that we confuse a conditional opponent - stupidity. Do not confuse. If in wartime the enemy is in the know where such a boat hangs, he will simply sink it, that's all.

              In general, the boat is very interesting. It can really become a lifesaver for the near sea zone in the current situation with the fleet construction program ...
            2. +1
              4 September 2016 17: 29
              as in wartime a couple of crew cabins are cut out of a ship

              Or maybe they have a jacuzzi with girls in a helicopter hangar?
              Let's not invent redevelopment. The fact that the room is free does not mean that a bunch of metal structures will be welded onto it and they will make a cozy brothel for officers. The maximum will be used as a warehouse.
              In addition, the air defense system is not only a PU, but also a radar and a combat control system, does it all also lie in the warehouse?

              Have you seen a message somewhere that the ship was cut off a superstructure with a radar? Everything is in place.
              As far as I understand, the project itself initially had several options, it was also offered for export

              The export version is distinguished by a simplified illumination radar for Calm, and the absence of "caliber" containers in the basic configuration. Calm itself is available in both variants.

              About the fact that we confuse a conditional opponent - stupidity. Do not confuse.

              Confuse or not confuse - this is not a boat problem, this is a general staff problem. If they are sitting in the General Staff, unable to use the flexibility in arming a small patrol boat, as an advantage in the formation of fleets in dangerous directions, then they will also surrender the missile cruiser, which will be destroyed without a single salvo. Unfortunately, in our history this was similar ...
              he’ll just drown him, that’s all.

              Well, let him try. A simple patrol boat the enemy will generally ignore as not posing a threat. And on this one, if you want it or not, you have to spend something.
            3. 0
              7 September 2016 11: 31
              Quote: Darkmor
              This is enough to catch a poaching seiner or a freighter of smugglers.
              Shtil-1, Containers with "calibers", towed hydroacoustics (the keel remains) - are stored for conservation in the home port.
              So these are the tasks of the border guards, and they have beautiful ships of project 22460, with the same machine guns and a helicopter. For me, the biggest mystery is - why do the Navy need a patrol ship?
              1. +1
                7 December 2016 20: 54
                Quote: Stirbjorn
                the biggest mystery - why do the Navy even need a patrol ship?

                A patrolman was always needed. In peacetime, chasing pirates or ensuring the presence of a cruiser or destroyer is somehow too greasy. And eyes and ears are always needed and where. Therefore, the patrol officer has the right to life - to drive to Africa, to see what and how, and to see in the Japanese or Yellow Sea - while not annoying anyone, not forming a squadron, not dragging along a bunch of escorts, tugboats, tackers, and much more still.
                Moreover, if somewhere someone is rummaging under water, or what unhealthy activity - the patroller and the bottom feel, the underwater world, so to speak, looks. Suddenly someone pulls what cable, or puts an underwater surveillance system where it is not necessary.
                So do not scold the patrolman - believe me, in peacetime it will be the most popular ship.
      2. +1
        4 September 2016 20: 01
        Answer sub307

        "Quite a balanced analysis" ?? Yes, just no! After reading all the articles of the cycle, the notorious phrase of the classic "Everything is confused in the Oblonskys' house ..." (Well, or in the head of Andrey from Chelyabinsk) begins to spin in my head. No work done HUGE, just TITANIC! This is not a joke or sarcasm !!! But! Again, this damn "BUT"! Along with very accurate and capacious conclusions, there is also outright nonsense.
        Just when you undertake to analyze such a monumental thing as the analysis of the Shipbuilding Program for the 10th anniversary (and the course of its implementation), you cannot consider it in isolation from the geopolitical and macroeconomic situation in the country and in the world. And this, as you know, is far from being constants, but the parameters are rapidly and dramatically changing. And if you do not do this, then the conclusions are often biased and simply funny and ridiculous! It's a pity!! Moreover, the topic has been raised really topical ...
    2. +23
      1 September 2016 14: 23
      Want to say that what is described in the article is not true?
      Do we have turbines for frigates?
      Does Polyment-Redoubt work without problems?
      Have we finally eliminated the problems with Kolomna diesel engines due to which the fleet was forced to switch to MTU?
      We haven’t ordered 3 types of corvettes / RTOs for the fleet, one of which corresponds to the PSKR BOKHR FSB rather than a naval ship in its tasks?
      "Lada" brought to mind?
      Are there any problems with Gren?

      But there is still an unplowed field of ships and mine defense systems, in which we lagged behind the West by a whole generation (SW.mina030 will not lie).
      1. 0
        4 September 2016 12: 51
        There are many problems with new ships.
        As for the 3 types of RTOs, not everything is clear.
        Buyan with 120 RZSO missiles which so far fly 20 km, and in the near future 40 km is a very even combat tool, including with tanks. And he doesn’t have to go to the direct range with the tank. This is some kind of nonsense.
        Everything is clear with Buyan-M, control of the territory adjacent to the Caspian. In the picture below, everything is visible taking into account the curvature of the Earth's surface.
        Karakurt will come in handy everywhere: at the Black Sea Fleet, and at the BF, and, possibly, at the Pacific Fleet. For example, you can base on Matua. All of Japan will be under fire along with the bases of the "partners".
        As for 22160, then everything is confused, but there are ideas. smile
        PLO KUG is in a sad state in terms of detection. As a ship for remote detection of submarines and guidance of missiles and helicopters, this corvette can be indispensable. When the Turks sent 2 submarines to the Varangian, who could protect him? 40 year old TFR? Hardly. And there are plenty of such options. 11356 - yes, not bad ships, but there are only 3. 6 22160 they will improve the situation. They have a sufficient range, as in 1164. And air defense is the task of cruisers. Well, they don’t remember about the 57 mm gun. On ours will stand 76 mm. hi

    3. +21
      1 September 2016 14: 44
      And if the author had painted all sorts of miracles, such as how easily Caliber from the Caspian Sea could sink all AUG in the Atlantic or flush all Florida into the sea with nuclear landmines, this would certainly be interesting for the patriots.
    4. +10
      1 September 2016 17: 05
      Again, "everything is gone, everything is dumbfounded."
      Not interested.

      My friend, are you really that small? (another word here)
      That's itching to do ... Where did you see the "drain" here? The author conducted a review and perspective of the domestic Navy. There is not even criticism, but just an adequate analysis. And he is unfortunately disappointing ...
      You remind one now forgotten character ... You (he) will probably be more interesting.
      1. +1
        1 September 2016 22: 09
        Who is this, And what side is she to this article?
        1. +2
          7 September 2016 11: 35
          Sveta from Ivanovo, a prominent representative of the Nashi movement, which is doing well in the country
    5. +1
      3 September 2016 08: 35
      Duck and everything was gone, didn’t you understand yet?
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. +1
      29 November 2016 10: 08
      Quote: Flinky
      Again, "everything is gone, everything is dumbfounded."
      Not interested.

      Let's do it this way: "uniquely powerfulworldflot" rf "
      continental killer and aircraft carriers tore through all the shreds "
      It's time to either start thinking or stop dull scribbling ...
  2. +7
    1 September 2016 13: 48
    Andrei would collect his articles and send to the Ministry of Defense. I wonder what they will say in the form of feedback on such a brochure
    1. +20
      1 September 2016 14: 36
      Quote: DenZ
      I wonder what they will say in the form of feedback on such a brochure

      Nothing, I think. Professionals already know everything (and much better than I do), but for those who are more concerned with careers or personal wealth, they don’t care.
      1. +6
        1 September 2016 20: 56
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk

        I enjoyed reading articles, thanks a lot good
        And somewhere it’s even too soft, I would write even more rudely, according to the dates of the same Ash. How many boats by the year 20 will be, 2 and a half? After all, the program prescribes to have a quantity, of course they will finish it later, but plans are frustrated. Moreover, the indicated available boats, listed in the first articles, smiled. There, for each fleet, if you remove from the list the boats that are in the sludge, for modernization, repair, etc., and leave only those capable of completing the task, then there will be half as much, at best. Although part of the repair and modernization should come out, if again they don’t burn everything or don’t cut the financing ... That’s damn it, it’s saddened again, well, it doesn’t matter =)

        Regarding 22160, there is an opinion that this is a replacement for our frigates and even BOD (!) In patrol places remote from bases (Gulf of Aden, for example). The number of which is already not large, and spending on pirates and so on and so the precious resource of ships of rank 1 and 2 is too wasteful. Autonomy of swimming is much higher, unlike Karrakut and other Buyans. So, apparently, such a calculation, and this is not RTOs at all =)

        In general, everything is rolling back for years, there really is time, but it really is not enough. After the 20th year, more or less it should get better with the turbines, during this time the first frigates will work out new technologies, test them to the fullest, find flaws, the main thing is not to start building the new 22350M, otherwise it will drag on for years. There you see the armor, redoubts, S-400, S-500 and other Zircons will finish (or what are they going to shove into the 1st rank ship?) And at least most of the filling will be ready, build for your pleasure, although do not forget that in Of Russia lol drinks
        So if you draw conclusions from the mistakes and correctly use them, then nothing really happened. But only if we draw these conclusions ... So we can only wait and see.
        1. +2
          3 September 2016 08: 42
          Do you think that They will give us time to do all this and fix it? Bu ha ha ha ha-They are not for that we were all falling apart to give the opportunity to raise all this again, especially since it takes a couple of decades. All that is being done right now is drinking Borjomi, a patient with liver cancer - death seems to be pushed away, but the star-striped pathologist grinning sarcastically, already preparing tools, looking over the shoulder of the treating doctor
      2. +2
        1 September 2016 22: 31
        Andrey - about 22160 - I think I understand why they are being built. I will venture to suggest - that for the leadership of Karakurt 22800.
        That is, on the same principle as the Soviet 956 project supplemented the 1155 project and vice versa - individually they are vulnerable, but together form a symbiosis - a combat systemwhile covering each other's weaknesses.
        I think that the 22160 will be equipped with the Shtil air defense system (zonal air defense), which will be supplemented with their Broadswords (missile defense) as part of the squadron with Karakurt.
        Air defense + missile defense = layered air defense.
        In addition - on 22160 there is a powerful GAS, but on Karakurt it is not. But there are Gauges on the RTOs - part of the UKKS cells can be loaded with PLURs, and they will shoot at the control center with 22160 or its helicopter.
        In general, the same scheme as 956 + 1155, only in miniature.
        PS - in no case do not pretend to be the ultimate truth.
    2. +1
      1 September 2016 18: 34
      Andrei would collect his articles and send to the Ministry of Defense. I wonder what they will say in the form of feedback on such a brochure

      Want to know what the answer is? As one of the examples, you can read "The history of the creation of attack underwater drones in Russia."
      Well, they will answer. So, what is next?
      1. +1
        1 September 2016 22: 01
        And they will answer approximately the following. The development of various forces is carried out in accordance with the priorities of the total open and closed articles. We don’t know much. In addition, delays are possible due to the expectation of refinement of more modern weapon systems with a partial change in existing projects. The fleet should be built specifically for promising weapons systems! And the fact that they cut a lot of old ships should also be considered from the standpoint of their combat effectiveness so that they do not become mass graves. And the new complexes just started, basically, to develop in this very GPV2020. Therefore, the program objectively stalled. The same Ash-M, it’s better to let it hold on for a bit, but it will come out with the standard Zircon and X101, Physicist-2 (2018) and Case. New anti-torpedoes + still uninhabited vehicles and other systems for opening the underwater environment. And so you can say for each position. For example, about the corvette 20380 (5), which has good ASGs, but lacks anti-submarine weapons. So what prevents to give the group to the corvette MRK Buyan-M, or Karakurt with the necessary arsenal?
  3. +2
    1 September 2016 14: 16
    And then the question arises why helicopters are not armed with "Caliber" ... this will not be a violation of the treaty on medium-range missiles?
    1. +2
      1 September 2016 18: 29
      And I have a question, why barges are not armed with gauges, because more than one hundred will enter the barge, unlike 8 pieces on the RTOs. I’ll try to answer it myself - it’s probably a little expensive. The gauges are standing and we cannot do a lot of them.
      1. 0
        2 September 2016 18: 16
        Quote: Fan-Fan

        Fan-Fan Yesterday, 18: 29 ↑
        And I have a question, why barges are not armed with gauges, because more than one hundred will enter the barge, unlike 8 pieces on the RTOs. I’ll try to answer it myself - it’s probably a little expensive. The gauges are standing and we cannot do a lot of them.

        Are you sure you are not arming?
  4. +7
    1 September 2016 14: 23
    Thank you, Countryman, for an interesting series of articles! as the "real colonel" and the mayor of Chebarkul Andrei Orlov used to say: "Bring a problem to the management. Offer a solution to it" !? I would like to clarify the problem of "variegation" of "mosquitoes" - my "godfathers" from the Central Research Institute No.! at the graduation project (1987) insisted on the dominance of the concept of modular construction on the basis of a universal platform, as children assemble from cubes or from Lego transformers, i.e. "stuffing" depending on the tasks to be solved: corvette of the MRK format - missile module PU URO, air defense ship - PU SAM, PLO - PU RO PLO. Of course, it is difficult to change the "spices" (radiometry, acoustics, RR, etc.), but on the whole, the "sister" principle is quite a possible reality - the Japanese and Koreans have succeeded! I wish you creative success! Yours, Konstantin K. But all the same, our Metallurg is the CHAMPION!
    1. +3
      1 September 2016 20: 57
      Quote: KudrevKN
      Thank you, Countryman, for an interesting series of articles!

      You're welcome!
      Quote: KudrevKN
      as the "real colonel" and the mayor of Chebarkul Andrei Orlov used to say: "Bring a problem to the management. Offer a solution to it" !?

      Who will listen to me? laughing And so it would be possible to propose ... on the organization of work.
      Quote: KudrevKN
      But all the same, our “Metallurg” is the CHAMPION!

      I am not a fan, therefore - no problem, Metallurg is so Metallurg :)))
  5. +8
    1 September 2016 14: 42
    Good review. I understand the author in his disappointment with the GPV 2011-2020.
    I don’t understand why there are so many RTOs. Maybe 22160 will fulfill the role of the TsU ship to fight the enemy’s submarines? Although it is more and more like a banal attempt to realize the allocated funds + to weld on your projects. To be honest. I would gather the directors of all the major shipyards and give the lyule in full. The point then is USC if some shipyards have one subcontractor, while others have others.
    Boreas have always been a priority. In addition, because the boat is not burdened with the task of tracking and destroying all AUGs there, hence the simplicity in its implementation. the same 885 Ash is many times more complicated and by the way more expensive.
    About the BDK - tolerant. Most of all, Polement-Redoubt and GTE itself disappoint. In fact, if I understood correctly, these are the two biggest problem areas.

    And more:
    the country has another 15 years

    As the Supreme Commander said: "If by 2020 we do not raise the army from its knees, then there may not be such an opportunity anymore."
    I’m all about the fact that time can be limited not by the operating life of old ships, but by the geopolitical situation.
    Clearly, the world is heading for global war. Huge systemic crises are coming that rarely go without war.
    So the correct conclusions from the GPV may be unfortunately not timely.
    1. +5
      1 September 2016 20: 45
      The 2011-2020 program was adopted in a different era. This era ended in 2014. Th then she began to change dramatically. You can argue about the justification of any types of ships, although in my opinion it is useless.
      22160 is a ship that can have several purposes. For starters, this is a corvette ravine. Patrolling the water area is its main purpose. Then the anti-pirate missions, so as not to drive large ships there. On them, instead of a module with calibers, in this case, a prison camera module for prisoners is placed. Again, a demonstration of the flag. In total, 6 of them are planned for the Black Sea Fleet. TOTALLY FULLY USEFUL SHIP FOR DAILY PATROL and normal tedious work.
      MRK 21631 and 22800 are essentially overgrown rocket boats that have become strategic carriers of the cr. One for the calm seas and rivers, the second for the rest. These are just cheap CD carriers. By the way, 22800 are planned 18 pieces, but I think. that they will order 6 more at the Eastern shipyard for the Pacific Fleet - personally my IMHO. The main plus of the boat - we can build them a lot and quickly. Already now we can build them in 2 years, and if necessary - and a half. In the case of pre-war time, we can very well lay dozens of 3 at minor shipyards and in 2 years we will receive them. Well, if we lay the heels of the destroyers, then when will we receive them? In 8-9 years, when the war can end already. Again, the MRK squadron carries as many PKR as the destroyer, and it can launch them faster, and it will be noticed later. In my opinion, Karakurt is the most important project now.
      "Corvettes" 22380 are in fact specialized ships for protection from the sea, laid down specifically for two tasks - the defense of Kaliningrad and the Kuriles. Squadrons of 6 for the Baltic Fleet and Pacific Fleet. First of all - from the strikes of the kr and aviation of a potential enemy. Since the task is to protect the coast and serve as defense nodes from the sea, hence its performance characteristics.
      1. +2
        1 September 2016 20: 57
        What else is there. 20385 - adaptation to the north by adding shock capabilities to defensive.
        Frets - yes, they failed. These were transitional diesel-electric submarines to Kalina, but there were too many problems and new technologies. Now they are already reporting that we have an air-independent engine or will have it now, which means that there is no sense in frets.
        Varshavyanka is also a cheap and well-developed element of coastal defense and territorial waters. In my opinion, a pretty good and cheap option. They built Krasnodar in a year and a half, which means if anything, we can build 6 or even more in the same year and a half.
        In general, the protective properties of the fleet are being restored, plus an auxiliary fleet. Well, the strategists again. The states have 14 strategists. We have 6 modified dolphins, 3 Squids, 3 Boreas, plus the last shark for experiments. 12-13 vs 14. Another 5 strategists are being built, as they arrive, squids will be written off. It will be 14 against 14. Parity however.
        1. 0
          2 September 2016 11: 14
          Welcome. hi
          1) Don't you think that at 22160 it’s somehow funny to show a flag?
          In addition, drive small to Somalia. Or will we be looking for pirates in the Krasnodar Territory? No.
          2) Strategists parity yes, but we have a full paragraph on shock nuclear submarines. 885 is the only one. Well and old people like 949 and 971. I.e. as always, hodgepodge. According to corvettes: Everyone has different weapons, different HACs, air defense systems and anti-ship missiles, propulsion systems ... corvettes at cost turn into floating raptors (F-22).
          About "Dmitry Donskoy" I generally keep quiet. This is a pure mace stand. It is unlikely that he will ever swim somewhere beyond the coastal zone.
          3) According to VNEU, silence so far. It seems like 3 Frets are going to get it. Again at the exit of Warsaw (which pleases), fret and promising viburnum.
          4) I constantly hear different sometimes opposite information about polyment-redoubt ("furke-redoubt"). I still don't understand where the truth is and what the problem is. If on corvettes, Fourke cannot give control center for SD and DB, then where does 22350 with Polyment? In short, a riddle.
          5) Today I read an interesting thing: Pu arrived at Bolshoi Kamen, where Zvezda laid 2 huge docks for groats up to 350. A topic went about a tanker with Koreans, but Pu transferred to the military commissar. There is hope for Lazarev 000. It is not for nothing that they are not sawing, it seems that even the conservation was prolonged, that is, It may well be that in conditions when there really will be nobody to demonstrate the flag soon, Lazarev will be finished and there will be 1144 eagles. And this is just lovely.
          1. +1
            2 September 2016 15: 23
            22160 is not so small. 1600 tons is the second rank, however. For Somalia and other patrol missions a lot is not necessary. They promise autonomy of swimming for 2 months - it’s quite normal. Well, it’s quite enough to demonstrate the flag and go on visits - which is why, for the sake of diplomacy, constantly tearing off the PKK.
            The shock emphasis is now on the modernization and repair of those submarines that are - a dozen pike-b, 2 Barracud, 2Kondorov and 8 Anteev. If these 22 submarines bring to the modern level, then it will be already good. Plus 7 Ashes. 29 multi-purpose apl is a lot. In addition, napl Kalina will be able to perform the same functions in essence, after launch, but cheaper. Yes, and by the time when the Ash-trees are completed, maybe the Husky will already begin to lay or even Ash-trees. In general, there is plenty of work and if it is done, there will be new contracts. There is no sense in building plans for the community, until this has been dealt with yet.
            According to the corvettes - well, out of 12 pieces planned 20380 for the Baltic Fleet and Pacific Fleet, only the first - "Stereguschiy" is different, and the rest are the same. 11 ships of the same type is a decent series.
            20385 is yes. Initially, it also seemed to be 12 pieces. They were designed for MTU engines. So now the project is not relevant. A couple is being completed, but what will happen next - xs. There is infa that work goes on 20386.
            Two frets are under construction, but most likely there will be no new bookmarks.
            I read ABOUT LAZAREV TODAY, BUT ON MY LOOK THIS IS A FICTION OF JOURNALISTS. The fact that the Star will be military orders is likely. Moreover, they already ordered a floating dock for them for me, but where did the journalists see from here - xs. It is highly doubtful that it will be modernized. The ships at the pier are not getting younger, and I saw pictures from the inside of it - nothing good.
            1. +1
              2 September 2016 15: 47
              22160 is over rank 3. Purely from the wiki: "medium submarines, large rocket ships and large anti-submarine ships are rank 2 ships. Small submarines, small missile ships, patrol ships are rank 3 ships."

              On the drums: the Americans won, like in the 5th dozen drums, the APLs launched their new Virginia. And what you described, i.e. modernization of existing (in reserve and storage) and the construction of another 7 ash trees will take sooo much time.
              For some reason, pessimism penetrated me in full.
              According to Lazarev: this assumption was made by a journalist, but I still want to hope. In addition, for some reason it has not yet been disposed of, even the tender has not begun for recycling. The same NEPL is somehow also not clear when they will be.
              We are doing well only 2 projects: 11356 and 636 - those who have worked on export. The rest is trouble.
          2. 0
            7 December 2016 21: 01
            Quote: silver_roman
            Don't you think that on 22160 it’s somehow funny to show a flag?

            Well, how can I tell you ... The Death Star has not yet been built, and the demonstration of the flag does not imply an immediate death from the horror of everyone who sees it. So it’s not funny. Quite normal.
      2. 0
        7 September 2016 11: 41
        How is the defense of Kaliningrad and the Kuril Islands fundamentally different from the defense of Crimea or Severomorsk?
    2. +1
      3 September 2016 08: 46
      Oh well done !!! - finally, the correct conclusion, They won’t give us anything to finish off !!! and that there is very little !!! Weapons are good, but what is the use of rockets for the whole country, roughly speaking, a pair of regiments? -A pair of hundreds of calibers that are collected on the knee?
  6. +3
    1 September 2016 14: 42
    Thanks to the author for an interesting series!
  7. +10
    1 September 2016 14: 55
    XRMX is the only one from the whole palette that deserves approval, because firstly Zelenodoltsy build them at a fairly good pace, and secondly, it’s the only one that perfectly matches the purpose - bypassing the INF.

    Etc. 22160 I would scold until in a hurry. We need to see what happens. The idea is not bad, and again Zelenodoltsy build well and quickly. I hope it will turn out just the way we need the TFR PLO of the near zone.

    One more thing. Andrei has not yet reached the minesweepers. That's where the tears ... not even tears - a tantrum. I would honestly begin with minesweepers, because without them, on the first day of the war, the enemy clogs up everything described in this series of articles with active mine installations in bases and that's it. How to trawl? Nothing. They are building 12700 at a snail's pace - 5 years on a watercraft with a VI 600 tons, it's even worse than 20380 with its 2000 tons for 8 years ...
    1. +2
      1 September 2016 20: 51
      Quote: Alex_59
      One more thing. Andrei has not yet reached the minesweepers. That's where the tears ... not even tears - a tantrum.

      Here you are absolutely right, did not get. I am not very familiar with mine-sweeping forces and therefore decided to keep at least some illusions ... until next time laughing
  8. +2
    1 September 2016 14: 59
    After 11 years, there have been global changes in the policies of our and neighboring countries. From a hypothetical enemy partner hatched a very real enemy, even enemies. Conditions have changed dramatically. It would be foolish not to react to these changes. Building large ships takes a lot of time and solving big problems, and forces are needed now, that's the reason for building small ships. And if some border ship carries out "ecological monitoring" of the depths, then I do not see anything wrong with that. Information may well be transferred to whomever needs to be done. And the fact that the border ship will have 8 "greetings" to enemies is also good at scattering attention to partners. As for the large nomenclature, I would like to hear the opinion of experts, is it so large and is there something universal - outstanding, ready to replace everything. And what about the system of the economy, then this is where we need to start the topic: "Or maybe the capital economy, with the press of interest-based usury of banks, to carry out state programs?" Yes, there are state corporations, but this is no longer from a good life, and not all of them are members.
  9. +2
    1 September 2016 15: 09
    Everything is clear. And will the current warriors, like us, from May to November 1996 without money allowance, or how?
  10. 0
    1 September 2016 15: 28
    Bad and sad like that sad
  11. 0
    1 September 2016 15: 30
    For rivers, the most is
    t = simage
  12. +3
    1 September 2016 15: 36
    In my opinion, the problem of the "mosquito ships" is that they gave an order from above: give me a fleet immediately! But there is an old rule "we can work quickly, efficiently and cheaply - choose one thing." We chose something that can be put into operation "here and now". And up to 20 years and beyond, "still have to live." This is a crummy habit of most bosses, fraught with a bunch of problems in the future, but alas, ubiquitous. Although - from the Kremlin they may know better.
    1. +2
      1 September 2016 20: 49
      Quote: Borus017
      "we can work quickly, efficiently and cheaply - choose one thing"

      More fun: "we can work quickly, efficiently and cheaply - choose any two options" :))))
  13. exo
    1 September 2016 16: 47
    It's good that the author can be given a plus. It's bad that the country's leadership cannot be given a "minus"
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. +2
    1 September 2016 18: 46
    Quote: exo
    It's bad that the country's leadership cannot be given a "minus"

    And you!
  16. +1
    1 September 2016 19: 28
    Good afternoon, the article, from my point of view, is balanced and completely adequate, the analysis of small naval ships under construction is objective (excuse me, there is no hard sign on my tablet). The conclusions by which the author completes the series of articles are also difficult to challenge. In general, from my point of view, with each subsequent article of the cycle, the author was deeper and deeper immersed in the topic under discussion, and accordingly his arguments and arguments became more and more balanced and weighty.
    In particular ... unverified information has recently been circulating, though with reference to Almaz Antey that the recent tests of Polyment Redoubt and his long-range missiles were successful, but journalists ... they are such journalists)) could wishful thinking ..
    To the author - plus my traditional gratitude for his work.
    1. +4
      1 September 2016 20: 45
      Thanks for the kind words!
      Quote: slm976
      unverified information has been circulating recently, though with reference to Almaz Antey, the recent tests of Polement Redoubt and his long-range missiles were successful

      Your words to God’s ears ... Only one thing bothers me about all this. There were publications that the topic of Polement-Redoubt became interested in GDP, there seemed to be even a few meetings on this subject. And I have a concern that the Potemkin villages will now try to paint.
      1. 0
        2 September 2016 08: 08
        Your words to God’s ears ... Only one thing bothers me about all this. There were publications that the topic of Polement-Redoubt became interested in GDP, there seemed to be even a few meetings on this subject. And I have a concern that the Potemkin villages will now try to paint.

        Andrey, such a probability is certainly present, which is why I wrote that the information is "unverified"))), from my point of view, the fact that the Polyment-Reduta problem is taken over by the GDP will at least not interfere, but rather will significantly help its solution ... We have already seen the first personnel decisions, usually it helps people in production to come to their senses ... I propose all the same to look into the future with optimism, and for some reason I have confidence that by the time the afterburner turbine is launched into serial production on Saturn , Polyment-Redut and all the others, not brought to mind, the "Gorshkov" systems will still finish and we will be able to continue construction of Project 22350 at a normal pace ...
        1. 0
          2 July 2018 13: 12
          Quote: slm976
          I suggest that all the same, I look to the future with optimism, and for some reason I have confidence that by the time of the launch of the afterburner turbine on the Saturn, the Polement-Redoubt and all the other, not brought to mind, Gorshkov systems will be finished and we will be able to continue the construction of pr.22350 at a normal pace ...

          How I would like to believe in it !! And I would also like the Navy to start building a series of commercials of 5-7 warships, say, modernized pr. 11560 (with 24 Caliber / Onyx and Fort-M air defense systems, or something like that, with a radar " The screening "seeing and giving the TsU at 360 degrees.), Which could become the basis of hope for the revival of the" adult ocean fleet ", as well as the bookmark for its Navy" Cheetahs "(pr. 11661-K type" Dagestan "), to replace aging MPK, and SKR-s 1135, which in my opinion (IMHO) are much more balanced than pr. 20380, and in my opinion the price / quality ratio (+ defense defense capabilities) is an order of magnitude higher than pr. 20380, and should mean look more preferable .... But then, unfortunately, we are not customers of the defense of the order of the Navy ....
          1. 0
            2 August 2018 10: 08
            And I would also like the Navy to start building a series of commercials of 5-7 warships, say, modernized pr. 11560 (with 24 Caliber / Onyx and Fort-M air defense systems, or something like that, with a radar " Barrier "seeing and giving TsU on the 360th hail.)

            In my opinion, it is time for our Moscow Region to finish producing a zoo and to stop at one concept of building a fleet and follow it! No need to invent new projects, the ideal option, from my point of view, would be to continue the construction of a series of corvettes, etc. 20380 and frigates, etc. 22350!
            But it did not work out! Our Defense Ministry and the Navy cannot do this and, apparently, we are moving to a pair of 20386 and 22350M, let it be so, especially the decision to increase the size and armament of the under-destroyer Project 22350 and make it a real destroyer (modestly calling itself a frigate), as it were, after how Ukraine shabbed us with the gas turbine, which postponed the deadline for laying new frigates for 5-7 years.
            Given this shift in terms, it is quite logical to lay down a new, modified project, taking into account all the comments and recommendations received during the Gorshkov test, with the systems worked out at Gorshkov, with increased dimension, autonomy and quantity of weapons. As for pr.20386, this is still a kind of "thing in itself", there are a lot of rumors about him, but no one really knows anything about him ..
            The main thing is that they finally begin to build ships in normal series, and not 3-4 pieces each.
  17. +4
    1 September 2016 20: 51
    Colleague, as always detailed, respect.
    And yet I have, as always, to say a few words about.
    As part of the Buyan’s armament, there is no weapon capable of knocking out a tank.

    The armament contains a "hot" MLRS capable of using RS with anti-tank self-aiming submunitions, and from distances inaccessible to tank guns. As far as I understand, duel battles at a distance of effective fire of tank guns, if planned, are only in force majeure situations. As for the rest, the Buyans are quite good gunboats, imprisoned for the Caspian Sea (sort of heirs of the Kars and Ardogan).
    Let's try to guess: it is known that small missile ships and boats are quite capable of operating in coastal areas and can be effective against enemy surface ships of both their class and larger ones, such as a corvette or frigate. But they have a number of irremovable "defects": narrow specialization, very modest air defense, small size (which makes the use of weapons limited by excitement to a greater extent than that of larger ships) and a relatively short range. All this leads to the fact that modern land-based aviation and long-range mobile coastal missile systems are quite capable of replacing missile boats and RTOs.

    The design and construction of modern RTOs fits well with the A2 / AD concept - the development of access denial systems. In principle, the massive construction by the Chinese of stealth catamarans of pr. 022, rather mediocre in terms of the composition of weapons, but very massive (under 9 dozen units) and rather massive (for such a country) construction by the Persians of their boats of the Zolfaghar type fit into this concept (it follows remember that in addition to the "mosquito" fleet, the concept also includes coastal complexes, both anti-ship and air defense systems).
    Accordingly, try to enter them into the existing “table of ranks” of warships according to the LG 2011-2020. there seems to be no point - the problems are completely wrong. Yes, and the performance characteristics, to put it mildly, are not impressive: “around 1 300 tons” the standard displacement for the domestic corvette is somehow not enough (“Guarding” - 1 800 t), but a lot for RTOs. The standard armament - one 57-mm artillery unit A-220M, “Bending” and a pair of 14,5-mm machine guns — are quite sufficient for a border guard or a pirate catcher, when the most dangerous thing that threatens a ship is a speedboat with light rifle weapons. But for a serious fight such a set, of course, is not suitable.

    But here are other characteristics: sonar complex MGK-335EM-03 and GAS "Vignette-EM".

    In general, it is a normal practice for modern patrol ships to have understated weapons, but reserve space and energy for more serious systems. By the way, in this case, I would compare pr. 22160 more likely with French frigates of the "Floreal" class - with the exception of the AU, the characteristics are quite close.
    Why do we need the simultaneous production of ZRAK “Shell-M” (or “Chestnut”) and the much weaker “Bending”

    I think "Flex" is better suited as a mob. option. Ultimately, the very same French are armed with quite solid air defense systems "Aster", they designed (it seems like they covered up this project, but the fact of design itself also matters) air defense systems for small ships "MICA-VL", but for boats, supply ships and the same "floraaley" have the "Mistral-Sadral" air defense system based on MANPADS.
    Well, in general, I can agree with the conclusions of the author. Until 2020, a little less than 3,5 years are left. I'm afraid that the program will not be fully implemented. However, we will see ...
    1. +1
      1 September 2016 21: 11
      Greetings, dear doctor!
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      As I understand it, if dueling at a distance of spectacular fire of tank guns, if they are planned, it is exclusively in force majeure situations

      It is understandable, but the problem is that even in the Caspian Sea when operating near the shore and on the river, especially the IAC can fall under a tank gun at almost any moment.
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      The design and construction of modern RTOs fits into the concept of A2 / AD - the development of access control systems.

      Yes, but I nevertheless believe that aviation and ground-based complexes of anti-ship missiles are better than RTOs according to the cost / effectiveness criterion.
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      In general, it is normal practice for modern patrol ships to have low armaments, but reserve areas and energy for more serious systems

      As it were, yes, and I do not say that 22160 is a bad ship (only diesel engines are embarrassingly embarrassed), but it turns out that we are building several similar ships - the capabilities and functionality of 22160 overlap strongly with both 20380/20 385 and 22800. Why?
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      You can also add that the probable opponent with the conceptual component is also not doing well, which requires the correction of shipbuilding programs

      Yes, but they, having 85 Ticonderoges, Berkovs and other ghosts, can afford it. And here we are ...
      1. +2
        1 September 2016 21: 32
        they, having 85 Ticonderoges, Berks, and other imperfections, can afford it. And here we are ...

        Well so, at them and interests extend more globally ....
        You can argue though.
      2. +1
        2 September 2016 06: 48
        It is understandable, but the problem is that even in the Caspian Sea when operating near the shore and on the river, especially the IAC can fall under a tank gun at almost any moment
        The most interesting thing is how can enemy tank guns appear in the Caspian? If they have reached the Caspian, then our affairs are sad. Most likely, the IACs are designed to fire at the Basmachi, which have few tanks. Then everything is logical. Although in any case, the degradation of the class of armored boats and IAC is obvious. In the years of the Second World War, the MLRS and the 76-mm cannon could fit on the BKA at times smaller, and all this economy was covered with armor. And there were also "skerry" boats, such as MKL, project 186. 156 tons of VI, armor: side from 13 to 30 mm, deck from 8 to 20 mm. Armament 2x85 mm, 1x37 mm, 2x2 12,7 mm. That was the thing!
        1. +1
          2 September 2016 09: 04
          Quote: Alex_59
          The most interesting thing is how can enemy tank guns appear in the Caspian? If they reached the Caspian, then our affairs are sad

          I don’t know :)))) The landing in Iran? :))))
          1. 0
            3 September 2016 12: 14
            The revolution in Kazakhstan?
      3. 0
        2 July 2018 13: 25
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        As it were, yes, and I do not say that 22160 is a bad ship (only diesel engines are embarrassingly embarrassed), but it turns out that we are building several similar ships - the capabilities and functionality of 22160 overlap strongly with both 20380/20 385 and 22800. Why?

        I completely agree, and I would add pr. 11661-K to this series, and the most interesting thing for me is just the cost of building the ships of each of these projects (20380, 20385, 22160 and 11661-K, well, I would really like to compare the construction costs of each of them for the Navy). And to me, as an outside observer, pr.20380 seems to be almost the most “toothless” in this company regarding the capabilities of the PLO, but far from the cheapest to build, and for some reason, for the most massive in the series?
  18. +1
    1 September 2016 20: 54
    You can also add that the probable opponent with the conceptual component is also not doing well, which requires the correction of shipbuilding programs.
  19. +1
    1 September 2016 21: 57
    By the way, it is interesting to evaluate the Chinese shipbuilding program in this vein. From the "fleet of samples" of the mid-90s - the beginning of the "noughties" to the beginning of mass construction at the end of the "nil" ships of average characteristics, but rather massive ones. And now they are already building their own aircraft carrier (albeit on the basis of our 11435), and they swung at a serious opponent, "Improved Arlie Burke" ...
  20. 0
    2 September 2016 06: 50
    I do not quite understand the urgent need to have a serious anti-submarine weaponry in addition to the ASG on a small patrol boat. As far as I understand, in the fight against submarines the task is divided into two subtasks: detect / drive away and drown. Moreover, in peacetime, it is necessary to solve only the first. And in the military - to find out - to call a torpedo bomber or with what is suitable from the shore to shoot.
    I agree, it is better to have right on board than to meet an adversary. But near their shores this is not so relevant and you can save on cost and what else to take instead of rockets / torpedoes. In the end, what hinders after shooting missiles in Paris to reach the base and put something anti-submarine instead of Caliber?
    1. +2
      2 September 2016 09: 02
      Quote: tat_shurik
      as far as I understand, in the fight against submarines, the task is divided into two subtasks: detect / drive away and drown. Moreover, in peacetime, it is necessary to solve only the first. And in the military - to detect - to call a torpedo bomber or with what is suitable from the shore to shoot

      Transfer the above to the border service, an ordinary border guard. Can you imagine that an unarmed fighter, whose task is only to detect, will, in case of detection of the enemy, call machine gunners on the radio?
      The fleet is not much different.
    2. +1
      2 September 2016 10: 06
      If the IPC does not have the ability to attack the submarine it discovered, then why is it needed? The very same tasks of detecting submarines will be successfully solved by a much cheaper GAS carrier based on a serial trawler.
      By the way, the concept of a cheap mass unarmed GAS carrier was worked out in the USSR in the 70s. In parallel with the mass carrier of anti-submarine helicopters on the basis of a serial ro-ro - the future "Halzan". At that time there was such an idea of ​​reducing the cost and mass scale due to the construction of ships of the second line on the basis of civilian ships (hello, citizen Tukhachevsky smile ).
      As a result, the GAS carrier based on the trawler was hacked to death by the fleet commander precisely because it was unarmed against the submarine - "the fleet does not need floating targets."
  21. +4
    2 September 2016 07: 26
    Why do we need this zoo? Are we seriously going to outdo the USSR in terms of the range of manufactured weapons ?!

    This is the main misfortune of our fleet, the absolute lack of will of the Navy command in front of the military-industrial complex, which for their selfish interests are ready to turn the fleet into a hodgepodge (in fact, they have already converted it).
    Look at China!
    In the series ONE! destroyer type 052, ONE frigate type 054 and ONE type corvette 056.
    1. +2
      2 September 2016 17: 01
      Of course, I wildly apologize, but, for example, EM type 052C and 052D are being continued to be built in parallel, which, with the same digital designation, differ considerably in the composition of weapons, and radars, and, slightly, layout.
      That is, if you do not take into account the beginning of construction of the "large destroyer" type 055.
  22. 0
    2 September 2016 10: 40
    What are the claims to the Kolomna diesels? The head corvette has been walking on them for 10 years and has never stood up. Smoke is notable, you need to bring it to mind, and (IMHO) the hands of those who serve too. If the customer got confused and actively worked with Kolomna to get an adequate diesel engine, in those very 10 years, there was a chance.
    1. 0
      2 September 2016 12: 54
      Problems with diesels on pr.20380 were repeatedly including the head one, it was lazy to look seriously, but what was quickly found:

      Corvette "Smart", which dismantled diesel engines, will return to service by the end of May
      April 22, 2016 at 12:13 Topic: Industry
      The Corvette of the Baltic Fleet "Soobrazitelny", which has been undergoing repairs of diesel engines at the St. Petersburg enterprise "Severnaya Verf" since the beginning of April, will leave the water area of ​​the plant at the end of May and go to the place of permanent deployment.

      At present, Severnaya Verf specialists have carried out work on the ship's bottom and outboard fittings, and Kolomensky Zavod specialists who arrived from the Moscow region have completely disassembled the corvette's diesel engines.
      According to FlotProm's sources in the shipping industry, nothing serious happened to the ship. For the most part, the work on the "Soobrazitelny" is of a routine nature - specialists from various industries examine the equipment of the corvette to determine the degree of wear and tear and possible problems.

      It is worth noting that the power plant of the project 20380 corvettes is a "sore spot" and problems in it happen more often than we would like. In 2012, there was a fire in the engine room at the "Smart". Then it prevented the ship from participating in international naval exercises.

      In the fall of 2014, three out of four diesel generators were out of order on the Stoyky corvette. One of them broke down during the ship's passage from St. Petersburg to Baltiysk.

      The corvette of the same project "Guarding" in March 2015 was repaired at the Baltic shipyard "Yantar", and a month later a fire broke out in the engine room of the ship during the exercise. The corvette needed repairs again. After what happened on the ship, the commander and the first mate were replaced.БалтийскийФлот8/

      That is, the Kolomna plant needs to work very hard on the errors, which, incidentally, they were going to do on the following ships, etc. 20380/20385 ... And the hands of those who service you all the same were in vain .. the ships of the project 20380 stably go to sea and for this honor and praise to their crews, who, despite problems, cope with difficulties ...
      1. 0
        2 September 2016 22: 15
        Corvette "Soobrazitelny" was left without running in the western part of the Baltic Sea due to a fire in the engine room.

        According to the Central Naval Portal, the personnel managed to cope with the fire, but as a result of the extinguishing measures, separate equipment turned out to be flooded and failed. There are no casualties or injuries among the personnel.

        According to preliminary information, probable causes of ignition are a short in the wiring or incorrect crew actions. A fire center arose in the corridor of the gas ducts. A personal fire took more than an hour to eliminate the fire.

        I had a similar problem on the SFP pr.1806.1 during a long anchorage in the landfill, the remnants of unburned fuel in the false pipe of the DG-200 gas ducts No. 1 and 2 ignited. load close to nominal. Basically, diesel generators operate at 15-30 percent of their capacity, as a result of which the problem of unburned fuel residues arises. Once a fire occurred while the ship was moving, which led to its power outage. By the way, a serious fire was avoided by pure chance - the gas ducts room had access to the corridor and into the false pipe - and the hatch in the false pipe was constantly torn off. When a fire broke out - the silumin stopper of the hatch melted and the hatch slammed shut, which led to self-extinguishing of the fire in the gas duct room - the heat protection of the gas ducts was partially charred - well, it's good that the door to the inner corridor was always battened down, otherwise there will be trouble. It is good that there are 4 DG-200 and 2 DG-100 on the SFP, it is not realistic to be left without power and you can always start.

        Actually, I don’t know the design features of this project, nor a detailed description of the fire (but I would like to). But the ignition of soot or the remains of unburned fuel in the flue, in my opinion, is not new to either the designers or the operators. On both of my ships, this was envisaged and measures were taken. On the minesweeper 266 ave in the false pipe - the irrigation system, on the gas station pr. 870 - a fire extinguishing system - the steam was directly fed into the flues. These are projects of the late 60s.
        So, to design a ship now, without fire extinguishing means in the flues, and a modern one - without automating this extinguishing is the same as designing a strategic bomber from plywood. :)
        By the way, there were fires in the above projects all the same, both in extreme situations, on the stowage - with long towing of the trawl (it was not possible to burn the flues) - at the junction of the flues, where there was no water shirt, on the GSE on the second day of the storm (short course against the wave) , after repeated ignitions inside, the flue still burned through. Both cases are without consequences, because for the experienced crew they are expected, and there are no complaints to the designers, because all cases cannot be foreseen. Although it happens they squint openly. And a normal designer should collect and analyze such errors and not arrange srach. :)

        Taken from
        If you believe this (and in my opinion quite convincingly), diesel engines have nothing to do with it.
        1. 0
          3 September 2016 08: 30
          Good afternoon, Sergeant. You gave a discussion of just one case of a fire at Soobrazhestvennoe ... and, of course, a discussion of professionals who clearly had a direct relationship with the fleet, but did not have objective information (at that time) who were trying to deal with a specific problem in their official experience .. That is, they at that time simply expressed certain assumptions about the possible causes of the problem .. and nothing more.

          Problems with diesels on pr. 20380 have happened repeatedly, which I gave you a link in the post above, if you are interested in checking this information, you can easily find a selection of articles on all these cases, and as far as I remember, even specific causes of problems with engines are mentioned (I repeat , I’m just lazy to search now, I raised all this information at the time when the first discussions of these problems were going on and I already made up my mind).
          I think that this problem should and will be solved by the manufacturer, especially since a series of ships of this project continues to be built and the reliability of their power plants is a state matter.
          1. +2
            3 September 2016 10: 40
            I agree. The whole point of my message was that Kolomna diesels can and should be scolded, but there is nothing critical and unsolvable in their problems.
  23. +1
    2 September 2016 17: 27
    Well, usually the ranks are still distributed according to displacement. From 5000 tons - the first rank, from 1500 to 5000 tons - the second, 500-1500 third, and everything below 500 fourth. Moreover, the boundaries between the classes of ships are erased and the same Navy or destroyers are of the first and second rank. The same goes for other types of ships. The Iranians have a destroyer. which doesn’t even pull on a frigate. Personally, I personally completely agree with the classification for displacement. The same watchdogs according to the western classification pass partly as corvettes, and partly as frigates. And basically 2 classes. request
    As for a long time - of course it is. But the same Gorshkov was built for so long because it was built for systems and armaments that did not exist yet. That is, in parallel with its construction, weapons for him were developed and tested. Last year, there was a transcript of MoD Putin's report on this. After passing the tests of all systems and weapons on the lead ship, it will be easier and faster to continue. Now the main stage is ending - the development of projects for ships and weapons systems. Having ready-made projects and weapons systems, you can put new ships on the stream, like 11356 or 636,3. And if you also catch on overseas contracts, then you can bring down the cost of one ship. hi
  24. +3
    2 September 2016 19: 06
    I hasten to please you, Andrey, and all your (our) friends - opponents with good news from the Ministry of Defense (VVP) - simultaneously (in parallel) in 2017 both at the Baltic Shipyard (St. Petersburg) and at the "Zvezda" (B. Kamen) TARK will be laid approximately displacement. 17-20 thousand tons (the digital code of the project is unknown to me, as well as the series), but ... The laying in St. Petersburg will take place after the launching of the hull of the nuclear-powered ship "Ural", instead of the AL "Siberia". With regards to D.Vostok. then when dry dock is ready. By the time the hulls are launched (completed) (landmark - 2020), the shock complex (hypersound) should be ready to hit. I wish everyone not to hang their noses and more optimism: "These bugs smell of cognac" !!!
    1. 0
      2 September 2016 19: 42
      Interesting. And where does infa come from? Is there a reference?
      I’m very happy about this news, but not very much about 17-20 kilotons. I will explain why.
      The series is likely to be very limited, plus when it is necessary to get in for repairs - even 1-2 ships will be a huge gap (not to mention the loss or sabotage). If instead of one giant to build 2-3 medium destroyers of 8, 10 or even 12 thousand, the part will still be in order, and this is something. Plus for distribution, tactics, etc., a larger number of medium-sized ships is preferable to one huge one. The Germans also had a super ship, they drove it with a whole pack.

      Of course, there is a desire to see a series of at least 10-12 hulls, then, along with frigates, this will be enough to create a strong IBM in each of the fleets.
      1. +2
        3 September 2016 08: 46
        Info from friends from USC. With the repair just all the way - the "stars" will be repaired! With regard to the dispute about medium and large tonnage, I am a supporter of large cruisers in the oceanic operational zone, acting either independently (raiding, cruising) or as part of a group of heterogeneous forces (submarines, long-range aviation, space). Isn't it possible to drag the train of a slow-moving tanker - a gas station or a supply company? From the experience of combat service (BS) on the EV 956 I responsibly declare - medium-tonnage ships are not capable of solving strategic tasks in the Ocean!
    2. 0
      3 September 2016 10: 55
      Most likely we are talking about a leader. True, he is persistently called a destroyer, although he is planned more and more armed than the Atlanta cruisers. The only alternative is udk. More plans for ships of the first rank have not yet been listed. Most likely a leader. hi
    3. exo
      3 September 2016 22: 55
      Good news! If this is true, then serious steamships are planned. It is a pity that it was not possible to save the landing ships 1174 and the ships of the auxiliary fleet. Especially, the Berezina was good.
      I had a chance to live in Bolshoy Kamen. I also visited Zvezda.
  25. +2
    2 September 2016 21: 01
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk is a big plus for you, you have opened everything and conveyed to the reader, and especially the last words; And time is running out!
  26. 0
    3 September 2016 00: 29
    Once again, great article. Everything is clear, on the shelves, and the questions are correct. I read all five parts with great interest.
    About the project 21160 surprised.
    Who, interestingly, in the Ministry of Defense thought of building a patrol ship in such a displacement (1300t)., And even with a GAS, why is it to a patrol ship. "Buyan-M" (VI 950t.) Carries more weapons than a patrol. Where did the developers take the rest of the useful VI?
    Placement of the Shtil-1 air defense missile system with two modular launchers 3S90E.1.
    and the Caliber-NKE integrated missile system is produced at the request of the customer. And if he does not demand, then what? It will turn out to be a ship with weak armament, excess displacement and with a GAS (for some reason).
    They would have made a full-fledged anti-submarine ship of the near zone (enough for the Black Sea)
  27. +1
    3 September 2016 02: 14
    After such a series of articles it is not interesting to go to the bookstore. No.
  28. +2
    3 September 2016 10: 27
    Yes, things are bad and that’s all because the factory workers are now paid too little, and the management and support services, like accounting, are too much. A frank imbalance is created, as a result of which enterprises are sorely lacking qualified workers and practical engineers, hence the problems with diesels and turbines.
  29. +1
    3 September 2016 11: 13
    Thanks to the author for the series of articles!
    PS As for me, we have already lost the ocean fleet forever - it needs monstrous money, and we don’t have modern ship weaponry and electronics technologies.
  30. 0
    3 September 2016 14: 35
    Andrey, the articles are interesting, there is a personal interest and indifference to the fleet, but the conclusions are scanty at the end. From your articles, the reason for the difficult situation not only in the Navy, but in the whole country, is completely incomprehensible.
    The main, visible reason is the sanctions war, and it began against us after the capture of the Crimea, primarily Sevastopol, the base of the Black Sea Fleet. The place which was supposed to take the US and NATO fleet. As a result, today we, as never before, have come close to the brink of a great war on land, in fact we have already gotten involved in it. In the present difficult conditions, it is quite natural for the ground forces and their rearmament to be given priority.
    P.S. Still, you need to touch the ekranoplanes. Mine-torpedo weapons are far less of a problem for them than for NK. You can’t block them with mines in the database.
    The speed is 7-10 times higher than that of NK. Time to exit to the area of ​​use of weapons is much less. Depths do not limit since NK. May operate year-round in freezing seas and water areas, as well as on land in coastal areas. These are the pluses. We have a lot of minuses now ...
    The Navy command threatened to engage in ekranoplanes, but only after 2020. You can, if you really need to, cooperate with China, since he has been building for several years, according to our technology, lightweight ekranoplanes and start building drums together. China should be harnessed to the construction of the platforms themselves, while we are weapons and aircraft engines. Thus, at least for the Pacific Fleet it is possible to make a unique type of weapon for cooling the hot heads of the adversary, with whom we border in the east through the Berengov Strait.
  31. 0
    4 September 2016 11: 00
    I didn’t master everything, I stumbled on words in time:
    "The author of these articles is not a professional naval sailor, and certainly does not understand much about naval art."
    There are no questions to the author ...
  32. 0
    4 September 2016 19: 06
    The fact that the room is free does not mean that a bunch of metal structures will be welded onto it and they will make a cozy brothel for officers. The maximum will be used as a warehouse.Darkmor,

    OK, but should the storage room be eliminated as unnecessary?

    Have you seen a message somewhere that the ship was cut off a superstructure with a radar? Everything is in place.

    Do you think that the ship on which Calm is absent was installed a radar from him in advance? Well, if indeed, as you write, the ship goes into operation as a border patrol, and somewhere in the warehouses there is a "body kit" for it in the form of Calm, calibers and an additional GAS, then it is great, especially if all this good is installed on it for a day or two. But doubts gnaw at me about this.

    Take for example corvettes 20380. Everyone, including the author of these articles, scolded him for being overloaded with weapons, as for a corvette. while the displacement there is 1800 tons. Autonomy -15 days. Compare with our handsome 22160. Displacement - 200 tons less, and armament and all characteristics - higher. 60 days autonomy, Gauges instead of Uraniums, and even a working calm instead of incomprehensible as a shoved redoubt. Of course, I want to believe in miracles, but something tells me that there will be either something. Either autonomy of swimming - or calm. Either Gauges - or towed GAS.

    Confuse or not confuse - this is not a boat problem, this is a general staff problem.

    In general, if the task of this project was to confuse, then so far he succeeds in it. I've been feeling confused from the first day I heard about him
    1. 0
      4 September 2016 19: 26
      And one more thing, the very concept of "modular Lego" applied to the ships of the Russian fleet raises my doubts. Of course, it's great to be able to convert the "peaceful Soviet tractor" into a tank if something happens. but first of all, you may not have time with this alteration. I understand why Japan followed this concept. They have a bunch of restrictions both under their own legislation and on external restrictions. So Japanese patrol boats with a displacement of destroyers and a large reserve about the places of installation of weapons ply the seas. But Russia, which is sorely lacking ships, these games in modularity, why?
  33. 0
    5 October 2016 16: 56
    I read a series of your articles.
    Everything is sad somehow. If we can’t stamp the corvettes with a series ....
    What are you talking about.
    They also waved the aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant
    Some kind of ambush
    Thanks for the articles - interestingly written.
  34. 0
    5 November 2016 15: 44
    1. The cost of Buyan-m is 140-160 m dollars and the cost of a similar karakut will not be 5-6 billion rubles. and at least 12-14 m. For example, the cost of a frigate from 250 million dollars.
    2. About the fact that the 57mm gun is a step backward, the author is wrong, the topic of the 57mm anti-aircraft guns is being actively promoted, new shells are being developed for it, and it is planned to create a guided anti-aircraft projectile with laser guidance, such a projectile is already in service in the Italian Navy .
  35. 0
    5 February 2017 12: 26
    I want to tell the author of the article a separate "thank you" for the review.
    Good knowledge of the topic, competent presentation and objective conclusions are what makes the article interesting. The state must have a strong army, navy and VKS. Only then, the state, according to Count Potemkin, has both hands and ..... (And mine). When the fleet is more like a prosthesis, this is a cause for concern at least. At a time when our sailors go to sea in small artillery ships, to fulfill the tasks intended for frigates, the billionaire Melnichenko built himself the next eight deck sailboats in shipyards in Germany for 400 million euros.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"