Lately, we have only been talking about whether we need to build another whopper, a nuclear-powered destroyer the size of a cruiser, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a displacement of 100,000 tons, and so on.
Meanwhile, we cannot give mind to the existing large ships (yes, I am all about the "Eagles"), and, obviously, the only aircraft-carrying cruiser is now added to the heavy nuclear cruisers in this regard.
But we make rockets …
Okay, we do make rockets, it's a little easier than building a battleship. But a ship built by someone with rockets is much easier to bring to the state of scrap metal.
But even with our missiles, which are rightfully considered the best in the world, not everything is so rosy and beautiful. Simply because the missiles must be placed on some kind of platform, the missiles must receive target designation and support.
And this is where the nuances begin …
In general, there is a certain tendency in the world to simultaneously reduce the size and displacement of ships on the one hand and equip them to the maximum in terms of armament and mechanization on the other.
This is quite normal with the development of technology in particular. Yes, ships are still being built, as they were a hundred years ago, approximately according to the same canons, only the classes are getting smaller, precisely because scientific and technological progress and universalization rule at this ball.
And if progress is almost always useful (if you do not overdo it, as with computerized latrines on the latest American aircraft carriers), then there are doubts about universalization.
For universalization (coupled with a decrease in size and volume), it has been paid for by a decrease in the combat capabilities of weapons systems. Agree that in the same almost "Washington" 10,000 tons of "Ticonderoga" squeezed into weapons well, a little more than in "Arleigh Burke". But it seems like a cruiser … "Orlan", of course, carries on itself much more, but there is also 25,000 tons afloat.
But this is a heavy cruiser and almost a cruiser. What's at the bottom of the food chain? And at the bottom it is generally even more interesting.
As an example, our talk of the town is the project 20380 corvette.
Why this particular ship? But because it is not for a distant sea zone, DMZ with "flag demonstrations" and other expensive show-offs that we cannot afford yet - it is far away. And the huge sea border with the coast, it, now, has not gone anywhere. And if we say, what is more important, to frighten the American fleet with its presence in the ocean (yes, there is a threat for the Americans, they can burst with laughter, looking at our "DMZ grouping") or really "to hold" the coastal waters of the Pacific Ocean in their hands is definitely more important second.
So, the corvette of project 20380, and if in a simple way, in our opinion, a small patrol ship, is a project of multipurpose ships of the 2nd rank of the near sea zone.
The ship is designed specifically to work in the near sea zone, to combat enemy surface ships and submarines. It can provide fire support to amphibious assault forces during amphibious assault operations by inflicting missile and artillery strikes, and can patrol zones of responsibility for the purpose of blockade.
Station wagon? Station wagon. To the very frames.
And the corvette / patrol boat has all the properties due to it: a small displacement, a small draft. And (for many it turned out to be a surprise) quite a decent seaworthiness. That is, not only the Baltic Sea area, but also the Pacific Ocean region. Maybe.
But about the content - not very much. Judge for yourself: the Poliment radar station, which is customary for ships of this class, and tied to the Redoubt complex, did not fit on the boat at all. I had to dodge by installing a radar with a HEADLIGHT 1PC1-1E "Furke-2".
But alas, "Furke-2" is not a reduced "Polyment", it is "Pantsir-1C", which after being registered on ships received the name "Pantsir-M".
However, if it did affect the range, it was not in the best way. Polyment-Redut uses three types of missiles, long-range (9M96E), medium-range (9M96E2) and short-range (9M100).
The range of the Redoubt missiles can reach 150 km. But the radar "Furke-2" cannot work at such a range, however, a lot has been written about this at one time. The situation has not improved much since the first scandals in 2012, and the Redoubt with Furke-2 still resembles a large-caliber rifle without a telescopic sight.
And there is nothing to be done here, the size of the ship does not allow to improve the situation with the radar.
Roughly the same with anti-submarine / anti-torpedo weapons. A corvette is not an IPC, a small anti-submarine ship, sharpened specifically for the search and destruction of enemy submarines. But the Project 20380 ship is armed with the "Package", a rather elegant small-sized installation capable of operating as torpedoes against submarines, and as counter-torpedoes against torpedoes from these boats.
The small size is the problem. The data, of course, are not enough, but it is known that there are two variants of a hydroacoustic station, differing from each other in the number and configuration of antennas. Thus, the version with a cylindrical antenna weighs 352 kg and provides a view of the sector with a width of 270 °. When using two flat antennas, the weight of the station is reduced to 127 kg, but the field of view is reduced to 90 °.
Small size and weight fee.
Torpedo MTT from "Packet" can travel up to 20 km at a speed of 30 to 50 knots. If the boat of a potential enemy stood still, there would be no problems. But alas, enemy boats, even training ones, do not stand still. And it is quite normal to move under water with a very decent speed. Seawolf 35 knots, Virginia 34 knots. And this speed may well give a chance to break away from our torpedo. In theory. In practice, earlier the target will lose the miniGAS from the "Packet", especially if the enemy boat runs away from the ship.
In this case, it would be nice to launch a missile-torpedo in pursuit, but the trouble is, for it, too, you need the appropriate equipment, and there is no place on the corvette.
Well, the helicopter. Anti-submarine Ka-27, we don't really have others. Again, a tribute to versatility. The corvette will patrol the shallow water, blocking the area, will launch cruise missiles, helping to solve the combat mission of the main forces of the fleet, will shoot enemy aircraft with the Redoubt, supporting the landing or strike along the coast in the interests of the same landing - the corvette will carry this ill-fated anti-submarine helicopter everywhere … Which can be used exclusively to counter submarines.
By the way, the helicopter is not useful in other cases, but harmful. For example, when the enemy counteracts from the shore, the helicopter will be able to become such a source of fire on the ship, while being completely useless for the landing party.
Of course, there is an option when you can carry everything with you. And we have it, albeit in a single copy. If you take all the hobbies in the form of weapons and place them on one ship, then it is clear that you will get "Peter the Great". For only this giant carries everything necessary for all cases of battle. Alas, everyone else in the world is failing. The size did not come out.
But it is not easy with the Eagles either. We are not able to support them, because we have either one and a half out of three, or one whole and how many tenths there. Expensive to build, expensive to maintain.
In addition, such cruise-class ships are simply not able to work at shallow depths. They cannot sweep and destroy mines, they cannot hunt for submarines. They can't do a lot of things.
And if you take and build not a corvette with a claim to versatility, but a really universal ship? Which one could be adapted to the task in the shortest possible time and used with the greatest efficiency?
Indeed, the conclusion about a certain modular ship just suggests itself. We have to go chase submarines - two helicopters, GAS, bombers and torpedoes. It is necessary to cover the convoy - they deployed a radar and an air defense system. We need to land a trooper - no problem, a pair of 130mm cannons and surface-to-surface missiles.
Meanwhile, there are already countries in the world that have really not only thought about, but even implemented such a modular structure.
In the 1980s, Danes pioneered modular shipbuilding. In general, you can argue who was the first or the very first, you can endlessly, but the Danish fleet is the first fleet in the world where all ships are built according to the "Standard Flex" system or "StanFlex" for short.
Yes, the Danish fleet is small, and it was necessary to save on everything. This is how the first ships appeared, equipped with the StanFlex system, which made it possible to reduce the number of ships without loss of combat capability. And reconfiguration for specific tasks greatly simplified the life of the command of the Danish fleet.
Today the Danes have at their disposal a wide variety of StanFlex modules: artillery, with anti-ship missiles, anti-aircraft defense module, anti-aircraft defense module with torpedo tubes, GAS, trawling module, electronic warfare and so on. A total of 101 modules of 11 different types are at the disposal of the Danish fleet.
The modules are installed with the simplest 15-ton truck crane. It takes about half an hour to replace the module, while connecting and testing the ship's system takes several more hours. Next, the ship is ready to perform a combat mission. The main thing is to train the crew or to staff it with specialists of the required profile from the reserve.
In general, it is clear where this came from in the Danish navy, just remember who "Lego" came up with.
Meanwhile, the newest frigates of the Danish fleet of the "Ivar Huitfeld" type have 6 slots (this is the name of the module installation site) in the design and a complete reconfiguration of the ship takes no more than a day.
Anything to think about? So our potential ones also thought, looking at how the Danes solve their problems. But the Americans did not have such problems with the budget and will not have them, but nevertheless they did have something.
We are talking about a reflective project of the coastal zone ships Littoral Combat Ship (abbreviated - LCS) with a modular construction scheme. A "contemplative" project - because in the United States they are still thinking about how much the ships will cost in the end and whether they are needed for that kind of money.
These are ships built according to a modular scheme, in principle very similar to the Danish one. The module is a standard marine 20-foot container, equipped for a specific task.
LCS-1 "Freedom" became the American firstborn of a modular structure.
The tasks of ships of this type include anti-submarine and anti-terrorist protection, conducting special operations, searching for and destroying minefields, as well as the rapid transportation of military cargo.
There are already 6 ships of this type in service, three more are being completed, four are under construction and several more have been ordered.
Ships of this type have a fairly wide range of configurations, and Lockheed (developer-manufacturer) emphasizes that, despite the change in configuration, the ship will be in no way inferior to specialized ships when performing a combat mission.
LCS-2 "Independence".
This is the brainchild of General Danaimix. No less worthy project than "Freedom", although due to the aluminum construction it is significantly inferior to the competitor in terms of strength.
So far, two trimaranes of this class have been built, but three more ships are under construction and several more have been ordered.
Everything in the LCS-2 concept is modular, even the crew quarters. That is, in addition to the combat modules, there are living quarters, if the expansion of the crew is suddenly required.
In general, the Americans have such ships with two crews, focused on specific missions.
The main difference of the LSC-2 is that it is available on board the Mobicon container handler for quick replacement or loading / unloading of container modules, making it much easier to reconfigure the ship by a trained crew.
Well, the third and last American development, also in the test rank, FSF-1 "Sea Fighter".
This ship-catamaran of the coastal zone under the upper deck on the sides has 12 standard 20-foot container modules with weapons and equipment for participation in various kinds of operations: anti-mine, anti-submarine, as well as against surface ships.
The modules are lifted and changed using a special lift. The catamaran is still being tested.
In general, we can say that 9 already built ships are nothing more than an admission that there is something in the modular program. Either the buried billions of the budget, or a certain essence.
In general, we must admit that the modular ship system has several very clear positive aspects.
1. Unused modules can be simply stored and stored, saving their resource.
2. Ships do not lose their combat capability when it is necessary to maintain equipment or repair it. It is enough to replace the module to be serviced.
3. Rearmament or re-equipment of the ship does not necessitate a major overhaul at the factory.
4. If the ship is decommissioned or lost in battle, the modules remaining in storage can be used on other ships.
Perhaps, it is quite possible that such multipurpose configurable ships will be somewhat less effective than specialized ships, but we are talking about actions with the near sea zone …
And here the opportunity to get the necessary ship in a day will probably outweigh all the disadvantages of the modular scheme.
For example, if it suddenly turns out that the enemy has secretly installed minefields, then quickly assembling the minesweeper and starting demining will be more convenient than getting out of the situation if the minesweeper is simply not available.
Surprisingly, nobody thinks about modular systems in shipbuilding. And obviously in vain. Or vice versa, it is not in vain.
The fact is that the module is a fairly high-tech product, which, moreover, will require proper treatment. Storage, care, maintenance, debugging. That is, really trained specialists. That is, considerable costs are looming behind all this.
Well, our expenses didn’t scare anyone, even more: the higher the amount for any program, the greater the opportunity … well, you get the idea.
But specialists and everything else …
Apparently, this is where the root of the problem lies. The refusal to consider the concept of the OVR modular ship cannot be explained in any other way. Our ideas were in the air and even lay down on paper. However, everything remained at the same level.
Ten years ago, they talked about the OVR corvette project, which was supposed to be modular and, as it went to the landfill, to replace the outdated MPK projects 1124M and 1331M, MRK project 12341, RCA project 12411 and minesweepers.
However, the project "did not play", and the protection of coastal waters and naval bases is still carried by old Soviet-built ships and anti-sabotage boats. When the Soviet old stuff is finally and irrevocably written off, there will be simply nothing to guard the bases with.
But that's only half of the problem.
The second half is that even in the state in which our shipbuilding is (eerie), we continue to build seemingly the most versatile ships with acceptable characteristics that initially allow us to perform a wide range of tasks.
That is, the same AK-47, but in the 21st century. It's a shame.
Meanwhile, the experience of the Danes has shown that the model system is a lifesaver in case of a budget shortage. Instead of 30 ships (and we need more, the boundaries of the sea, oh what), 15 are being built and 60 modules for them. And here is a minesweeper, reconnaissance, anti-submarine ship and so on.
Yes, and transportation too. In case you still have to organize "express trains".
Today, Russian shipyards and factories are unable to produce ships larger than a corvette. Everything that is above is still pink dreams and a cut of the budget for projects, nothing more. It is here that one could play, plugging holes in many places with modular structures.
Moreover, they can be played as we please. With rockets, it turns out quite well, isn't it? Why not try in the image and likeness with the ships of the near sea zone?
