From "Orlan" to "Buyan": the future of the Russian Navy for small ships?

August 17 2020 16

A month ago, a parade was held in our country in honor of the Day of the Russian Navy. The frigate Admiral of the Fleet Kasatonov, the large landing ship Pyotr Morgunov, the submarine Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and others marched in the city on the Neva. Everything was very nice, but it makes you think about the vector of the further development of the Russian Navy.

The huge size of our country is a great advantage, but at the same time a disadvantage. To protect the maritime borders, it is necessary to maintain simultaneously four fleets and one flotilla. Because of this, our Navy is seriously inferior to regional players in terms of numbers and capabilities. For example, the Japanese fleet is superior to ours in the Pacific Ocean, and the Turkish fleet is superior to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. NATO clearly dominates the Baltic. At the same time, the surface component of the Russian Navy has greatly decreased over the decades of "reforms", and only in recent years has a visible recovery begun. The key question is - in what direction should our Navy develop, what tasks should it face?

It is quite obvious that in the foreseeable future Russia will not have its own aircraft carriers. There is nowhere to build them, there is nothing and there is no particular need, since the external policy Moscow does not imply the need to send punitive raids to pacify the aborigines with "humanitarian bombing". The only domestic aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov", which does not leave the state of permanent repair, can be safely taken as brackets. At best, he is destined for the fate of a training ship for training pilots of naval aviation.

We have serious problems with ships capable of operating in the far sea zone. The program for the construction of a nuclear powered destroyer "Leader" has been frozen. After the severance of industrial ties with Ukraine, difficulties arose with power plants for frigates. Reported that the project of the frigate "super-Gorshkov" was also paused, but after появились information that work on it is still continuing. It remains to be hoped that this promising warship will be launched in a few years.

Until then, it makes sense to turn to the Soviet legacy. Russia inherited from the USSR 4 heavy nuclear cruisers of the Orlan project. Peter the Great serves as the flagship of the Northern Fleet. The second ship of the series, "Admiral Nakhimov", is undergoing deep modernization. "Admiral Ushakov" is not possible to return to service, but the last, "Admiral Lazarev", can still be restored. The cruiser is in the Far East, and in the event of a major overhaul, she could lead the Pacific Fleet, about which we are in detail told earlier. The appearance of such a powerful ship as part of a formation will dramatically increase its stability and combat capabilities.

Finally, with the development of missile weapons, one can take a fresh look at the small ships of Project 21631 Buyan-M. You won't get into the distant sea zone with them, but, being in the near one, they are capable of delivering effective strikes with Caliber cruise missiles, and in the long run - with hypersonic Zircon missiles. 9 such vessels have already been built, 3 more are planned. They will perfectly cope with the task of protecting maritime borders, while in fact they are capable of much more.

In general, the transformation into a striking force of small vessels is a very interesting direction. In the United States, for example, they are considering the possibility of creating unmanned ships, which are a floating "clip" stuffed with missiles. In Russia, work is underway to install standardized launch containers with missiles on ships of different classes: from boats and corvettes to patrol ships and icebreakers. Being united in a single network-centric grouping, such a "mosquito fleet", equipped with the most modern missiles, becomes a very serious argument.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Sergey Latyshev

-1

17 August 2020 15: 57

IMHO, all this has been discussed for a long time on military sites.
Conclusions: Small ships are good for hiding in the bay and shooting from an ambush. Light weapons allow you to fight off saboteurs or a helicopter.
In the ocean, single small ships are very afraid of rolling, singly weak and slow.
Containers are much inferior in efficiency to built-in weapons, but they allow changing weapons (not tested).
1. Rum rum
  
  +1
  
  17 August 2020 17: 29
  
  And where did you see the containers on the Buyans? We are talking about built-in weapons (single or universal launcher).
  And why did the frigates get so scared of the pitching? (We are not talking about "Buyans", I am aware that they are RTOs or corvettes).
  For me, two frigates with destroyer weapons (or four corvettes with a frigate kit) are better than one destroyer.
  The destruction of one large ship requires fewer missiles than a group of small ones, and there is always a decent chance that someone will survive and continue the battle (and the time lag for the destruction of a group is much greater).
  1. Sergey Latyshev
    
    -1
    
    17 August 2020 18: 06
    
    It's just your misunderstanding of the comment. Perhaps because he did not separate the lines with spaces.
    There is nothing about Containers on Buyan, etc.
  2. Observer2014
    
    0
    
    18 August 2020 21: 38
    
    Quote: Rum Rum
    And where did you see the containers on the Buyans? We are talking about built-in weapons (single or universal launcher).
    And why did the frigates get so scared of the pitching? (We are not talking about "Buyans", I am aware that they are RTOs or corvettes).
    For me, two frigates with destroyer weapons (or four corvettes with a frigate kit) are better than one destroyer.
    The destruction of one large ship requires fewer missiles than a group of small ones, and there is always a decent chance that someone will survive and continue the battle (and the time lag for the destruction of a group is much greater).
    
    Yes. Unless the large ships of potential partners will be more elementary in terms of the number of our RTOs, for example.
    1. Rum rum
      
      0
      
      19 August 2020 01: 25
      
      What a loss the enemy will have if these "big ones" drown!
    2. Rum rum
      
      0
      
      20 August 2020 19: 52
      
      Yes. Unless the large ships of potential partners will be more elementary in terms of the number of our RTOs, for example.
      
      You wanted to say - "More than missiles on RTOs"? Is this possible? This is 4-8 times.
      The number of opponents will be divided by missiles.
Sapsan136

+1

17 August 2020 16: 11

A number of media outlets are still flashing materials about problems with the new Redut air defense system, including on corvettes 20380. If this is the case, then the problems with air defense must be eliminated immediately. If ships do not have the means of self-defense, then talk about aircraft carriers sounds like the delirium of a mentally ill, or a traitor.
123

+2

17 August 2020 16: 19

Military shipbuilding in Russia is being restored and developing gradually, they started with MRCs (besides Buyans, there are also Karakurt - 2 in service, 14 in construction), then went into the series of corvettes (by the way, you missed them too), frigates, UDC was laid in Crimea, further large frigates 22350M will go whiter, for sure in the next state. the program will include destroyers (possibly with a nuclear power plant). The first aircraft carrier, I believe, will be laid down no earlier than 2025. By that time, enough ships will appear to escort them. Are they needed? Definitely yes.

It is quite obvious that in the foreseeable future Russia will not have its own aircraft carriers. There is nowhere to build them, there is nothing and there is really no needBecause Moscow's foreign policy does not imply the need to send punitive raids to pacify the aborigines by "humanitarian bombing".

And for example, does the Chinese, Japanese or Indian foreign policy imply the sending of punitive raids to pacify the natives with "humanitarian bombing"? Apparently, the use of aircraft carriers is not limited to scaring the natives. There really is a problem with the construction site, but temporary and completely solvable. Lack of money, a contrived and untenable argument.
1. Essex62
  
  0
  
  20 August 2020 16: 23
  
  Very well-off and not far-fetched for the current state of their country. It has long ceased to be ours.
  1. 123
    
    0
    
    20 August 2020 18: 04
    
    Very well-off and not far-fetched for the current state of their country.
    
    Can you justify the lack of money for the construction of the ship? Except for the bad mood, of course.
    
    It has long ceased to be ours.
    
    Did it belong to you before? How was this expressed, if not a secret? Did you receive any "dividends" or were you consulted about the construction of aircraft carriers?
    1. Essex62
      
      +2
      
      21 August 2020 09: 26
      
      Of course, he received dividends in the form of a super social system, an unlimited number of jobs and a complete absence of any dependence on the bad mood of a rotten moneybag.
      There is nothing to say about money, or rather its absence. Since I was forced to plow until 65, asking to "treat with understanding", it means "there is no money, but you are holding on and you are in a good mood." Russia has enough capabilities to contain the aggressor even without the UAF. We don't need them. The projection of force is of no use to us, the printing press is not with us. It is better to build a nuclear submarine, for even greater chances to bury the Masons in their habitats.
      1. 123
        
        +1
        
        21 August 2020 09: 44
        
        Of course, he received dividends in the form of a super social system, an unlimited number of jobs and a complete absence of any dependence on the bad mood of a rotten moneybag.
        
        Well, of course, social sphere, the opportunity to work - is it an indicator that the country belongs to you? Believe it or not, there are social programs and the opportunity to work even now. Somewhere better, somewhere worse, but all this is there. You can draw that line, for example, in terms of the level of employment, when, say, 100% of employment and the country belongs to you, and, say, 85% of employment does not belong to you anymore .... The same is in the social sphere.
        You probably did not depend on the "bad mood of the rotten moneybag", they simply did not exist at that time, this role was successfully performed by the chairmen of the mountains / district executive committees and the party nomenklatura.
        In general, I do not see any real arguments in support of your version, more like ...
        
        Essex62
        
        +1
        
        6 September 2020 09: 36
        
        Fairy tales and stories. I wanted to spit on the mood of party leaders and bureaucrats. You cannot send a laborer beyond the machine and you cannot take away guarantees. I had to send the forest, and pinch the tail of the one who had gone too far. Because the power was ours, the workers. There is no such social sphere today as in the Soviet Union, and there cannot be. Margin is at the forefront, not human. This changes everything dramatically.
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        6 September 2020 15: 12
        
        Fairy tales and stories. I wanted to spit on the mood of party leaders and bureaucrats.
        
        Who's stopping you from giving a damn about the mood of the "moneybags"?
        
        You cannot send a laborer beyond the machine and you cannot take away guarantees.
        
        That is, there is nowhere to go and nothing to lose? Somehow not very similar to a happy life.
        
        I had to send the forest, and pinch the tail of the one who had gone too far. Because the power was ours, the workers. There is no such social sphere today as in the Soviet Union, and there cannot be. Margin is at the forefront, not human. This changes everything dramatically.
        
        These are the ones to whom you "pinched the tail" and sent the Union to the forest and dismissed .... The moneybags did not recruit Martians by competition, almost all former communists, Komsomol members and so on. So while you believed that the power was yours, but they sent it through the forest, then who it really belonged to, and changed everything, you power ...... how to put it delicately .... lost.
        Now they don't need to pretend and yes, that changes a lot. But not all of them. Production for the sake of production itself is no longer kept. And there is no artificial employment in production either. You don’t like working for moneybags, work for the state. About half of the economy is state owned. Social sounds, of course, wow, but if you start to understand, it turns out that everything is so wonderful.
        
        Essex62
        
        0
        
        9 September 2020 13: 58
        
        Useless discussion. The state in its current form is the moneybags, it does not matter whether they are oligarchs or officials. It doesn't suit me, in principle. You understood everything a long time ago, but you continue to talk nonsense about working for the state and the possibility of spitting on the bourgeoisie! The production is kept for the sake of the need for the product of this production, for the vital activity of people, and in your system for the margin. The fundamental difference. At the heart of everything, you have profit, not a person. But the fact that the working class has lost power, one cannot but agree. We relaxed and believed in a classless society. The great community of the Soviet people, it seems, was how the idiot Suslov called the late USSR. The chief ideologist has scored on the foundations of ideology. The result is obvious.
        I propose to crush the discussion. Not a single one has deviated from the topic.
        
        123
        
        0
        
        9 September 2020 16: 02
        
        You are probably right, it is useless to argue.
        
        Production is kept for the sake of the need for the product of this production, for the life of people
        
        Such an approach does not occur in our time. However, the illusion is a little supported in Belarus, if you wish, you can see how it works. Probably still have time.