Military Review

Russian Navy retains all ships

145



In the 90-ies, the Russian Navy did not lose a single valuable ship.

All combat units that could solve tasks at the level of the best world analogues were equipped and armed with the most modern weapons - remained in the ranks and well and good health today.

Horror stories about how “damned enemies under cover of night drove the ships to a groove in Alang” or “sold the cruisers to the Chinese for a penny”, or “cut the newest boats for the sake of American“ friends ”, do not correspond to reality.

If you do not agree with this statement, check out the list of the Navy. Key facts, specifications, dates of commissioning and decommissioning fleet.

Now name at least one modern at the time, really combat-ready ship that would just be sent for scrapping.

The main reason for write-off is absolute moral obsolescence. As a rule, associated with physical deterioration caused by decades of service.

What tasks could the destroyers of 56 and 57 projects deal with in the middle of the 1950s?



Why do the fleet include dozens of patrol boats of the 159 Ave. and small anti-submarine ships of the 204 Ave? By the time of the cancellation, most of them did not go to sea for ten years, simply “hovering” on the balance of the Navy.

Why did over two hundred diesel submarines of post-war projects rust at moorings?

For what? Right, what a question! To blow up the number of personnel and, consequently, increase the number of admiral posts.

For the same reason, the service of conditionally combat-capable 1-2 submarines was extended.

With all due respect to the creators of these vintage masterpieces, as of the beginning of 90, no real problems could be solved. Any technique has its limits.

Writing off obsolete ships was a natural process, regardless of the political situation in the country.

All of the above is true for missile cruisers and BOD 60-70-ies.

The large anti-submarine ships of the 61 project, the RNR of the 58 “Grozny” projects and the 1134 “Berkut” were over 30 years in service. Some insisted on their modernization and extension of service life. Are you seriously?

Helicopter "Leningrad" and "Moscow" from the 1960-s. By the end of the century, they were completely outdated from keel to dung, and the capabilities of their wings were inferior to any Mistral.

Actually, I'm not going to look for all the flaws in the ships of the cold war era. Suffice it to say that even relatively modern ships that were sent for scrapping had major problems.

Therefore, it was decided to write them off.

Those combat units with which there were no questions, continued service and still survive with us.

Among those less fortunate:

Destroyers Ave 956. The ships were destroyed by an unreliable boiler-turbine installation.

The world's largest submarine "Shark". The series was created for solid propellant rockets with a mass of 90 tons (like the three modern Bulava). The industry could not at that time ensure the fulfillment of the TK requirements with smaller rockets.

With the advent of more compact weapons, the need for “Sharks” simply disappeared. Doubtful achievements of the giants leveled quite real flaws. Two reactors, two propellers, maximum dimensions - max. disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field, the maximum area of ​​the wetted surface. More noise - less secrecy. In combat it is deadly.

Reconnaissance ship CER-33 “Ural”, which since the entry into service had a constant list of 2 hail. to port side.



Its creation is proof of the great possibilities of science and industry of that time. But still, at the stage of issuing the TK, someone had to think: could such a complicated ship be operated in real conditions? Will proper l / s training and equipment be provided with the necessary specialists? Will the compatibility and performance of countless radio-electronic means and systems be ensured in practice?

Probably not thought. Hence the result. In 1989, the intelligence officer "Ural" made the transition to the duty station on the Pacific Fleet, after which it was permanently out of order. All the "nineties" and "zero" ship stood on the roads, now decided to dispose of the "Ural".

Aircraft-carrying cruisers “Kiev”, “Minsk”, “Novorossiysk”, “Baku”.

The hybrid of the missile cruiser and the aircraft carrier turned out to be ineffective as a cruiser, and completely inefficient as an aircraft carrier.

One fact is enough: their main weapon, an aircraft with a vertical takeoff of the Yak-38, had no radar. The appearance of the supersonic Yak-141 could not be corrected: compare its characteristics with the ship’s Su-33, with which they were born at the same time.

The composition of the weapons TAVKR corresponded to a large anti-submarine ship, despite the sixfold difference in their displacement! With the appearance of the RKR “Glory”, the comparison generally lost all meaning due to the incomparable capabilities of the TAVKRs and “normal” cruisers armed with 16 “Basalt” and the long-range anti-aircraft system C-300.


Plus age. The head “Kiev” served almost 20 years, most of which he spent on the roadstead, developing the resource of his GEM. Creating full-fledged base sites for TAWCs was not deemed necessary.

Subsequently, one of the aircraft-carrying cruisers (“Baku, aka“ Admiral Gorshkov ”) was rebuilt into a classic aircraft carrier and sold to India at a price of $ 2,3 billion.

Now experts will definitely remember the Ulyanovsk nuclear aircraft carrier, forgetting that at the time of the decision to disassemble it, the readiness level of the Ulyanovsk was only 18%.

The only one who can sympathize with this stories, this is the aircraft carrier Varyag, which remained in Nikolaev and was sold to China with 67% ready. After 15 years, the former “Varyag” was finally completed and introduced into the PLA Navy under the name “Liaoning”.

However, even in the case of “Varyag” it is not about the current, but about the unfinished ship. And, as the recent epic with the campaign of the Kuznetsov to the Syrian shores shows, the need for ships of this class for the Navy causes more and more doubts. And where to get the planes to equip the two ships, if in the recent march on the deck of "Kuznetsov based only 8 fighters! ..

As mentioned above, all decommissioned ships were or unreliable, or redundantly complex, or not capable, or all at once.

What about those with whom there were no problems, who met modern standards and whose presence was justified in terms of the capabilities of their fighting qualities? ALL THEY STAYED IN THE STRUCTURE.

Here it is, the backbone of the modern Russian Navy



Rocket cruiser project 1164. All three project representatives built are still in service.



Large anti-submarine ship “Admiral Chabanenko” (commissioned in 1999)


The 8 of 12 ships of the 1155 family have been saved and survived to our day. One of the four decommissioned BOD was the victim of an accident (the explosion of a turbine at the Admiral Zakharov BDK, 30-hour fire). The remaining three, for technical reasons, were put into reserve and dismantled already in “zero” years.


Undergoing modernization of TARKR “Admiral Nakhimov” in the drained pool of PO “Sevmash”



Underwater strategic missile carrier pr. 667BDRM “Dolphin”. All seven units - in the ranks!



The third-generation multipurpose submarine of the 971 Avenue Pike-B. The backbone of the submarine fleet, from 13 built 11 boats kept in the Navy. By age, the two earliest representatives of the project, built at the beginning of the 80s, were written off. The hull sections of the "Shchuk" written off were used to complete the construction of the strategic "Boreyev"


Amphibious ships of 775 Ave. from the “Syrian Express”


Epilogue

Bulk write-off modern ships in the 90-ies. there is a figment of the public imagination.

Only the most outdated and problematic units were written off, the real combat capability of which caused doubts. And the country's economy of dubious experiments is no longer pulling. The deterioration of the economic situation is not good, but keeping hundreds of units of rusty rubbish on the balance sheet is also not a good idea.

Similar processes took place in the United States, where 300 combat ships were written off during that period, including all 9 nuclear cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers and 60 nuclear submarines. At the same time, frankly, many of the American ships were “still nothing” against the background of what our military had to write off.

Russian Navy retains all ships

Atomic cruiser type "Virginia"


Contrary to the prevailing stereotypes, the fleet in 90-s not only wrote off ships, but even managed to replenish with new ones. The Kursk, which was tragically lost, was the newest nuclear-powered nuclear-powered ship built in the 1995 year. A total of five atomic submarines were built at that time. And all modern projects also originate from the 90-x. The head "Ash" was laid in the 1993 year, and the first of the "Boreev" - in 1996.

The habit of blaming all modern problems on the “dashing nineties” seems unreasonable. First, the ships at the time were built at the very least. And if “for garlic”, they were built much faster than today. Secondly, that era has already become history.

The culprits of the scandalous "protracted" and postponement of the delivery of ships should be sought among contemporaries, and not among historical characters.

Also a myth is the lack of capacity and qualified personnel. If the shipbuilding industry really experienced such intractable problems, how would export ships be built?

Who replaced the 234 hull section and power plant of the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya?





Who built four destroyers for China and six more Indian Talvars?

Who put 15 submarines for export to the Indian, Algerian and Vietnamese Navy?

Pride takes for the domestic industry. Damn it, we can! But there is an ambiguous situation with the navy.

Returning to the title of the article ... We could not find a single clear example when modern combat-capable ships would have been withdrawn without any reason. There were no such cases in 90.
Author:
145 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 27 January 2017 06: 19
    +5
    Now they plan to send 945 Barracudas, titanium underwater interceptors, very valuable and successful nuclear submarines for repair.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 27 January 2017 08: 14
      +20
      In the 90-ies, the Russian Navy did not lose a single valuable ship.
      it must be understood, did not sink? and the lack of normal financing of the fleet affected in the future, in the 2000s .. the list of losses is large ...

      Border patrol ship, pr. 11351 “On the name of the 70th anniversary of the Border Guards”. In 2003, “The Name of the 70th Anniversary of the Border Guards” was expelled from the Marine units of the Border Guards of the Russian Federation and withdrawn for cutting (presumably to China).

      TK-12 “Simbirsk” is a submarine of the TRPKSN class of project 941 “Shark”, for disposal.

      TK-202 - a submarine of class TRPKSN project 941 "Shark". The second ship of the series. In 2005, it was divided into scrap metal with the financial support of the United States.

      TK-13 is a submarine of the TRPKSN class of project 941 Shark. The fourth ship in the series. On July 3, 2008, disposal began at the Zvyozdochka docking chamber.

      The Borisoglebsk nuclear submarine before cutting into nails.
      jk / T8U3jGMkRsI / AAAAAAAAGyQ / SuDZtOUXETE / s1600 / 1297
      445789_swalker.ru_8cb71c46a5ce89e61d29a62c429.jpg

      Disposal of RPKSN K-530. Sawed rocket mines - as a guarantor of security for you and me.

      Severodvinsk 2009 - on the dismantlement of the Borisoglebsk RPKSN project 667BDR on the left and the Bars project 971 nuclear submarine.

      Transportation of the nuclear submarine to be disposed of, pr. 671 (NATO - Victor) on board the docking vessel Transshelf.

      ARKR pr.1144 "Admiral Lazarev." Waiting for disposal.

      TFR "Friendly". Proudly defends Moscow in the form of a night "club-restaurant".
      Large anti-submarine ship, pr. 1155 "Marshal Vasilevsky." December 11, 2006 (February 10, 2007) a naval flag was lowered on the ship. Dismantling and disposal
      The border patrol ship, Project 745P Amur, on Shikotan Island, May 21, 2007. Stranded, disposed of. So we guard the Kuril Islands.
      Project 97P Iceberg border patrol ship. Disposed of.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Santa Fe
          27 January 2017 09: 14
          +11
          Speedy Lira 705 (K) - 6 series of submarines of the Soviet Navy

          K-64 - excluded from February 9 1978 year lists

          K-316 - excluded from the fleet 19 on April 1990

          K-364 - excluded from the fleet 19 on April 1990 of the year (reason: radiation accident in the reactor compartment, the boat could not dispose of 20 for years, waiting for a decrease in the background radiation)

          K-464 - excluded from the fleet 19 on April 1990

          K-123 - out of service for 10 years, radiation accident in 1982 year. Finally excluded from the fleet in 1996

          K-432 - reactor unloaded in 1991 g, excluded from the lists in 1996

          K-493, transferred a radiation accident in 1986, removed from the standby forces in 1989

          These are the "Lyra", ditched themselves. Severe radiation accidents on all six boats of the project
          And here is politics?
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 27 January 2017 09: 31
            +8
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And here is politics?

            Yes, what do you mean. Oleg? Shakhrai, Burbulis and Gorbachev already in January of the 90-th Belovezhskaya Pushcha was prepared!
            1. Schultz
              Schultz 27 January 2017 15: 52
              +9
              Apparently, citizen Kaptsov is working on a grant received from Rusnano, and at that time Borya Nemtsov famously danced hawa nagila in a frying pan - as a requiem for the stockpiles and research institutes destroyed in the 90s, in projects and in stoves (from combat duty ) of the Russian fleet. The processes over the fleet terminators are slowed down - but not closed, the time will come and we will recall everyone by name.
              1. Ustinov 055 055
                Ustinov 055 055 10 February 2017 11: 21
                +2
                Quote: Schultz
                the time will come and remember everyone by name.

                I fully support you, how painful it was to watch Sarychi when they became donors for Kuznetsov. All to the wall of ghouls
                1. atakan
                  atakan 12 October 2017 16: 32
                  +2
                  admins rarely comment, but.
                  - Return the cons !!!!!!!!! article is a complete fraud.
                  Kuroyedovskie fraud, we remember.
                  I would put the fattest minus for this article.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 29 January 2017 13: 46
              +2
              Along the way, breaking the reactors on submarines.
          2. ssergn
            ssergn 2 February 2017 16: 21
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And here is politics?


            In Faces, everything is true. They were very emergency. The technology was not yet a power of attorney to the end.
      2. 123dv
        123dv 27 January 2017 14: 02
        +16
        Here is what he writes !!!
        We could not find a single obvious example when modern combat-ready ships would be taken away for no reason to be cut. There were no such cases in the 90s.
        Author: Oleg Kaptsov

        After this in the face I want to give.

        The largest irreparable loss of the fleet, among other things, was the systematic destruction of the drums destroyers 956 project. We would have them now, well, at least a couple of pieces and on the go! And if there were four, then they alone would decide.
        But no, ditched! And the Chinese go and have no problems!
        And nothing to do with boilers and turbines.
        ................................................
        Yes, and now, the site comments from the Crimea automatically marks the Ukrainian flag !!!!!
        Full ales kaput.
        1. Ivan staryi
          Ivan staryi 27 January 2017 16: 23
          +4
          Here! Also immediately remembered about them! And the Chinese go and it looks like they will walk for a long time. I’m really not a specialist in the fleet even once, but I wonder if someone who knows can explain how realistically a boiler-turbine plant can be replaced if there are problems with it? Or is the game not worth the candle?
          1. Ustinov 055 055
            Ustinov 055 055 10 February 2017 11: 24
            +1
            I will tell you so. On the Internet, look at the campaign of the beginning of zero 4 ships Ustinov, Kuznetsov, Peter the Great and Ushakov. The video shows how Ushakov is storming, if everything was written here, he would have drowned because during the storm on Ustinov a flagpole with a guyshtotk had torn off 10 Plotikov was lost, Turilin said Head of Ass Assault commander of BS 2 broke his hand when contacting Us. EM normal the main thing is how to exploit
        2. Yury Malyarov
          Yury Malyarov 27 January 2017 17: 06
          +8
          So we are under sanctions ... The mainland is afraid to come in ... We have a connection with Krasnodar, the Internet is mostly Ukrainian, the banks have been miscalculated ... But at the expense of the ships, they sold a lot of good and military personnel or cut them into needles ... For example . this is what remains of our 7th squadron - Petya Kuzya and two anti-submariners - Kulakov and Severomorsk ...
        3. ava09
          ava09 2 February 2017 21: 17
          +1
          Quote: 123dv
          Yes, and now, the site comments from the Crimea automatically marks the Ukrainian flag !!!!!

          And with these "gentlemen" from the site, too, everything is not in order, it seems. Some of them are clearly not keeping up with the people. And the fact that they still consider Crimea to be Ukrainian is an ideological and political diversion in general. Because they print provocateurs like Kaptsov.
    2. mashinist
      mashinist 27 January 2017 12: 54
      +13
      The author accidentally sent a Cossack from the Yeltsin Center trying to tell us that in the 90s it was not so bad? Maybe, of course, it wasn’t so bad in the fleet, but cargo ships sold so nicely ..
      1. seos
        seos 27 January 2017 15: 19
        +2
        Oleg FSO !!!
        Kuzyu then cheated)
        Kuzya worked well in Syria as a helicopter carrier, where K-52k was tested in battle ...
        The basis of the modern fleet is not a cruiser, but an aircraft carrier or a helicopter carrier.
        We need helicopter carriers, but not "Mistals", but either a universal destroyer-helicopter carrier, or an arzaz-helicopter carrier converted to a sub-crewman from a bulk carrier - enough for local conflicts.
        T.K. "Mistral" is a large and defenseless floating target of 720 mil. Euro.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 27 January 2017 22: 37
          +3
          Quote: seos
          The basis of the modern fleet is not a cruiser, but an aircraft carrier or a helicopter carrier.

          Since when?
          The basis of the modern fleet is submarine missile carriers.
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 27 January 2017 12: 56
      +6
      It depends on who evaluates the "need" of the ships and the reasons for their cutting. Suffice it to recall how the FSB prevented the sale of a warship with all the weapons of Japan for "cutting". And how many of those went under the knife? There was the only aircraft carrier and he went to India.belay
  2. demiurg
    demiurg 27 January 2017 07: 04
    +8
    And what's the point that the ships are saved?
    Most of them are either under repair or standing against a wall, waiting for repairs.
    It would be nice to make a sign and show, for example, how many RF Deletes have, and how many of them are ready to leave tomorrow at sea for 6 months.
    And what is going on in the Far Eastern Shipyard, when a submarine / ship is repaired for five years, is not extensible to the mind.
    1. Santa Fe
      27 January 2017 07: 26
      +8
      Quote: demiurg
      It would be nice to make a sign and show, for example, how many RF Deletes have, and how many of them are ready to leave tomorrow at sea for 6 months.

      You are absolutely right

      modern managers have failed below the level of 90-x, which are routinely blamed for all the problems if someone notices the discrepancy between slogans and the real situation
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 27 January 2017 09: 41
          +9
          Quote: rudolff
          And here I agree with Oleg

          And here I am Rudolph, I do not agree! I not only served with 91, but also lived on a ship, because the house I was supposed to live in was. because Messrs. Sergeev and Chernavin stopped financing housing for the fleet, he could not rent an apartment because the Russian Federation stopped financing the payment of salary. And now, one of the gentlemen of the officers will tell me how many new ships came to their memory in the 90's?
          1. Santa Fe
            27 January 2017 09: 53
            +5
            Quote: Serg65
            And now one of the officers will tell me how many new ships came to their memory in the 90's?

            K-141 Kursk - not the only submarine built at the time. Together with her, on the stocks of "Sevmash" was built the same type K-150 "Tomsk": bookmark - August 1991, launching - July 1996. 17 March 1997 of the year K-150 became part of the 1 fleet of submarines of the Northern Fleet. In 1998, the newest underwater nuclear-powered vessel made the transition to the Far East under the ice of the Arctic Ocean. Currently part of the Pacific Fleet.

            K-419 Kuzbass. Bookmark 1991. Launch: 1992. Admission to the fleet in 1992.
            K-295 Samara. Bookmark 1993 d. Launching 1994 d. Admission to the fleet in the year 1995.
            K-157 "Vepr". Bookmark 1990 d. Launching 1994 d. Admission to the fleet in the year 1995.
            K-335 "Cheetah", laid in the 1991 year, adopted as part of the Northern Fleet in 2001 (for a long time, but nowadays boats are under construction even longer)

            Heavy nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" - completed and transferred to the fleet in 1998

            Large anti-submarine ship "Admiral Chabanenko" - completed and transferred to the fleet in 1999.

            In trivia - the "Warsaw" B-345 "Mogocha" - laid in 1993, introduced into the Navy in 1994


            In the photo - patrol ship "Fearless" (laid in 1987, transferred to the fleet in 1993)

            Now we are waiting for information from esteemed Sergey, HOW MANY SHIPS HAVE COME TO THE FLOT FOR THE LAST 17 years

            especially interested in large units, and not the launch and anti-diversion boats
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 27 January 2017 10: 30
              +7
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Now we are waiting for information from the respected Sergey, how many ships came to the fleet over the past 17 years

              According to your calculations, to the "zero" built ... not! Completed 7 pennants. 1 built, a total of seven pennants. Over the past 17 years, 19 warships + 1 were built:
              Ex. 955 - 2 units
              885 Ave. - 1 units
              Etc. 667 - 1 units
              Etc. 20120 - 1 units
              Etc. 636.3 - 6 units
              Etc. 20380 - 4 units
              Etc. 11540 - 1 units
              Etc. 11356 - 3 units
              + Etc. 11711 - 1 units
              and a bunch of auxiliaries that didn't smell in the 90's.
              And it's not that how much and when it was built! But the fact is that it wasn’t fucking to break what you did not build !!!!
              1. Santa Fe
                27 January 2017 10: 49
                +1
                Quote: Serg65
                Completed 7 pennants. built 1

                In this case, you must indicate that six of your 19 pennants are also completed from the backlog of 90's
                Quote: Serg65
                And it's not that how much and when built!

                That's the thing

                Nothing is noticed to speak of a renaissance of the fleet, compared to the failed 90
                Ships are built at the same pace, and sometimes much longer.

                Moreover, most of the ships built in 90-e - nuclear boats, BOD and nuclear-powered cruiser

                Now - mainly guard and diesel-electric submarines
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 27 January 2017 11: 00
                  +7
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Moreover, most of the ships built in 90-e - nuclear boats, BOD and nuclear-powered cruiser

                  Well, throw out the slogan "Forward to 90 - the best years for Russia!"
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  That's the thing

                  Oleg, what do you want to prove? That in 90's there was an adequate replacement for decommissioned ships? Or Putin
                  Oleg, if on the Internet I didn’t come across your Probander’s articles, I would think that this article is the fruit of your self-delight.
              2. avt
                avt 27 January 2017 11: 00
                +5
                Quote: Serg65
                And it's not that how much and when it was built! But the fact is that it wasn’t fucking to break what you did not build !!!!

                Well, somehow
                Quote: rudolff
                Sergey, well, don’t get excited
                Oleg is right in something - they kept the Soviet backlog and even completed it. The fact that the same “Ivanov Washington” and all the 1143 projects were written off, Oleg is again right, as well as in the assessment of “Kuzi”. Well, after all, it was 1143.7 that would really become a full-fledged aircraft carrier. 1143.5 would be feldipers, they would not sculpt 7-ku. So they wrote off really a lot and not very much needed. Another question, and here Oleg is already bending, the 90s were not in vain for anyone. What actually we observe at the right shift of the shipbuilding program for complex ships, requiring really lost technologies and manufacturers in the 90s. Well, you are right
                Quote: Serg65
                and a bunch of auxiliaries that didn't smell in the 90's.

                About the auxiliary, non-heroic "fleet, in general, is a separate issue and .... separate money! Moreover, it’s a very savvy gesheft, like with the merchant fleet. But nobody raises and counts it. If all the same, we discard emotions, and from both of them sides, the Soviet groundwork of course remained, and it is precisely on it that the fleet now rests, on its modernization. But there were a lot of things lost! And it wasn’t even a matter of clueless initially, but beautiful 1143. The same Beach was ruined and a fleet base lost even for a day is no longer a base.
                Quote: tomket
                Kaptsov burns in the morning !!!!

                Well, this is his style, and for that such attention is paid to him - he burns with a verb, well, maybe bully
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 27 January 2017 11: 57
                  +8
                  hi Hello buddy Shark!
                  Quote: avt
                  The fact that the same “Ivanov Washington” and all the 1143 project were written off, Oleg is again right, as well as in the assessment of “Kuzi”.

                  Of the Ivanov Taravs, only Rogov was disposed of, Mosk.alenko and Nikolaev seem to want to restore. as for 1143. As far as I remember, the YAK-38 was withdrawn from service in the 91-92, and the YAK-141 managers were not much better than the current ones. 1143s were left without the main weapon, which gave rise to admirals-businessmen and best managers to sell them. Admiral Gromov is now among other things the director general of the enterprise for recycling! With regards to the “Eagles,” Gromov and Kuroyedov spun around in their circle, but the atomic cruiser didn’t get off the condoms (or didn’t agree on the rollback price), so their powerful sizes saved them. Can you remember which Kuroedov launched the anti-advertising “Peter”? When Ukraine offered to give Lobov for gas, Chernomyrdin asked Chernavin ... do you need him? Needed! Don’t ask you, you need everything .... you’ll manage! Oleg here gives data on how much was built in the 90's, and how many were cut on the slipways? At the 90 year under the USSR, the rearmament of the Navy was planned, a lot of ships and ships were laid. At the end of the 80, the auxiliary fleet of the KChF was upgraded to 70%, and the same Kirov PSKR, and now the flagship of the Navy Sagaidachny, is an example of this.
                  It's just that all this passed before my eyes and through my heart ...
                  1. avt
                    avt 27 January 2017 12: 13
                    0
                    hi
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Mosk.alenko and Nikolaev seem to want to restore.

                    wassat And dviglo ???? Well then gut him and stuff again ... what request Well I do not know....
                    Quote: Serg65
                    and Yak-141 managers are much better than the current ones and have not been adopted. 1143th left without the main weapon, h

                    No. Well, I wouldn’t do the weather! 1143 was initially flawed due to intrigue! And let's be honest - 1143.6 didn’t go that far. 7- they didn’t have time to finish it in the USSR, this is trouble. Thank God they seem to have fought off 10200, the notorious “Khalzan”
                    Quote: Serg65
                    ? When Ukraine offered to give Lobov for gas, Chernomyrdin asked Chernavin ... do you need him? Needed!

                    what No. About ,, Varangian "graters with Uncle Vitya were precisely this person involved, For ,, Orlan" did not hear.
                    Quote: Serg65
                    It's just that all this passed before my eyes and through my heart ...

                    Well, judging by the emotions - I have no doubt. Something about the auxiliary and I myself heard, for example, that Aquarius was taken away for repairs to Yugoslavia back then and after the repair ... they were written off for sale. The fact that they robbed us was not sour - no doubt.
                    1. Ivan staryi
                      Ivan staryi 27 January 2017 16: 31
                      0
                      So is it really cheaper to build a new one than to replace an old dviglo? Or are they all so outdated? It’s not a sailor who has never even been a techie, but some kind of longing attacks when I read about recycling. (((
            2. kote119
              kote119 27 January 2017 13: 30
              +1
              Oleg forgot K-410 Smolensk, and K-266 Eagle
            3. spravochnik
              spravochnik 27 January 2017 13: 42
              +1
              All these COMPLETED ships, this is the inertia of the shipbuilding industry. The construction of the ship does not begin from the date of laying, but 1-2 years before it.
            4. EvilLion
              EvilLion 29 January 2017 13: 50
              +1
              Most likely, because they do not come, they completed the Soviet groundwork in the 90s, and for new deliveries there is no clear understanding of why the fleet is needed at all except strategic submarine (rather even sub-ice) missile carriers and all kinds of coastal stuff.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 27 January 2017 10: 40
              +5
              Quote: rudolff
              Sergey, well, don’t get excited

              Sorry, brother! Just some with their conclusions should not go where they do not ask! Love armor - and write about it. and where it is paid with blood. broken destinies, unfulfilled dreams, you should not bend your liberal nature !!!!
              Rudolph smile , so you graduated from the School of Song and Dance ??? (VVMUПП them. Lenkoma)
              1. The comment was deleted.
          3. Sasha_Sar
            Sasha_Sar 27 January 2017 11: 43
            +3
            In 1992, MPK-7 (pr 1241) came to Gremikha, a year later the 14th. That's all. Given that by that time all TFR pr. 159 were decommissioned. In Severomorsk, 1994 came 956, and 99th came Chebonenko. By the 99th, 56 steamers had 2 ships left.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 27 January 2017 11: 59
              +3
              Quote: Sasha_Sar
              1992 year in Gremikha came IPC-7 (pr 1241), a year later 14-th. That's all.

              Excuse me, but where is that Gremikha now ???
        2. Evgeniy667b
          Evgeniy667b 1 February 2017 07: 29
          0
          In general, the main reason for the mass write-off of ships and ships is an elementary greed, but in no way a concern for combat readiness. Do not dissemble Oleg! "Free Iron Development" is the point!
    2. Blondy
      Blondy 27 January 2017 07: 34
      +7
      In the 90s, the Russian Navy did not lose a single valuable ship. Yes, of course, Minsk, which was sold for nails, was not Russian. And now, over there, Kuzya goes to the Mediterranean Sea, to the malicious snickers of the whole world
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 29 January 2017 13: 53
        0
        That's why it’s not a pity, because it’s a trough for vertical bars. Caused more damage to their existence.
        1. Blondy
          Blondy 29 January 2017 18: 07
          +1
          It would be trough, and vertical lines would bring to mind. When Minsk was alive, the question of the Northern Territories somehow did not become acute.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 30 January 2017 02: 53
            +1
            Well, of course, because of the “Minsk”, he did not sharpen. Take one simple thought into your head, the vertical line is ALWAYS worse than a normal plane. The plane is already becoming very complicated because of the need to land, and to carry another system of vertical take-off and landing, this is generally a bolt, the Yak-38 alone greatly damaged the country.
            1. Boatsman_Palych
              Boatsman_Palych 6 February 2017 17: 26
              0
              After the Falkland War, the people of Naglits will not agree with you;)
    3. Boatsman_Palych
      Boatsman_Palych 6 February 2017 17: 24
      0
      Follow the link: http: //navy-korabel.livejournal.com/
    4. Ustinov 055 055
      Ustinov 055 055 10 February 2017 11: 26
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      And what is going on in the Far Eastern Shipyard, when a submarine / ship is repaired for five years, is not extensible to the mind.

      You would have seen craftsmen from Zvezdochki blue-haired generally would have gone crazy
  3. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 27 January 2017 07: 07
    +10
    Well done by the author. With one stroke of the pen, he destroyed the work of hundreds of talented shipbuilders and designers. Well, naturally, the Gaidar and Chubais teams were whitewashed. It was they who did this, "optimized" the Russian economy. They cut still combat-ready ships and sent it abroad.
    1. Smog
      Smog 27 January 2017 07: 12
      +4
      Well done author.
      So Kaptsov, however.
      The most important thing America did not forget to mention. Well, how without it .......
    2. Santa Fe
      27 January 2017 07: 18
      0
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      They slaughtered ships with more combat-ready ships and sent them abroad.

      Of course, neither the board numbers, nor the names of those "combat-capable ships" you can provide

      And if so - keep your opinion with you
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 27 January 2017 07: 25
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Mar. Tira
        They slaughtered ships with more combat-ready ships and sent them abroad.

        Of course, neither the board numbers, nor the names of those "combat-capable ships" you can provide

        And if so - keep your opinion with you
        "About how ships were cut in the 90s" Military Review of December 26, 2012 link: https: //topwar.ru/22510-o-tom-kak-rezali-k
        orabli-v-90-h.html is enough for you? the same kaptsov
        1. Santa Fe
          27 January 2017 07: 28
          +1
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          reference: https: //topwar.ru/22510-o-tom-kak-rezali-k
          orabli-v-90-h.html
          is enough for you?

          There about the decommissioned ships of the US Navy
          1. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 27 January 2017 08: 02
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There about the decommissioned ships of the US Navy

            and you didn’t pay attention to ours?
    3. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 27 January 2017 07: 21
      +4
      Well done by the author. With one stroke of the pen, he destroyed the work of hundreds of talented shipbuilders and designers. Well, he naturally whitewashed the Gaidar team, Chubais
      Kaptsov does not know how otherwise ...
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 29 January 2017 13: 58
      0
      I have a question, and who interfered with the Gaidars and the Chubais if they wanted to saw the same Atlantes? If you break, then it is them, and not some destroyers in 5000 tons of displacement. And the aircraft could declare the Su-27 as the US "raptor" "too expensive", and the MiG-23 would be enough. Well, the MiG-31, which, it seems, will still survive us, especially. At least with a targeted breakdown I would do just that. After 10-15 years, the modern army and high-tech industries would simply cease to exist.
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 29 January 2017 14: 52
        +2
        Quote: EvilLion
        and who interfered with the Gaidars and the Chubais

        I don’t know who was interfering, but under Gaidar they were just offering instead of Su to release bicycles.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 30 January 2017 02: 55
          0
          And for some reason, it was Su. And to offer, it’s like Sakharov, like an academician, but he suggested this ... There are always a lot of offers, only that is interesting. what they did in fact.
  4. tomket
    tomket 27 January 2017 07: 18
    +6
    Kaptsov burns in the morning !!!! At first I thought, who went so far as to issue such pearls, and this is Kaptsov !!!!
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 27 January 2017 07: 21
      +3
      Quote: tomket
      Kaptsov burns in the morning !!!! At first I thought, who went so far as to issue such pearls, and this is Kaptsov !!!!

      I guessed by the title of the article ...
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 27 January 2017 15: 53
        +2
        To be honest, he was sick of his "polemical" articles.
  5. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 27 January 2017 07: 35
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    They slaughtered ships with more combat-ready ships and sent them abroad.

    Of course, neither the board numbers, nor the names of those "combat-capable ships" you can provide

    And if so - keep your opinion with you

    Just like you, dear, leave your opinion to yourself. What's the point of breaking spears from year to year with provocateurs. Our PSKR pr.745P, Amur, was enough for me. Now you will rush to look for him on the Internet.
  6. Alex_59
    Alex_59 27 January 2017 07: 42
    +11
    It is difficult to unequivocally calculate the percentage of lies and nonsense in this article. We can only say by eye that more than half.
    In order not to be unfounded, I promise to publish an article in the coming 2-3 weeks (as time permits), where to summarize statistics on the commissioning and decommissioning of the ships of the Navy of the USSR-RF and the US Navy. Each ship will be counted, each submarine from the 50's to about 2015. The average age of the decommissioned ships will be calculated. I have been working on the analysis of this issue for about six months now and I am close to the finale.
    1. Senior manager
      Senior manager 27 January 2017 09: 40
      +1
      Please pay attention to "Marshal Moskalenko." The author for some reason forgot about him.
      1. Santa Fe
        27 January 2017 09: 56
        +2
        Quote: St. Propulsion
        Please pay attention to the "Marshal Moskalenko."

        It was actually written off in 2006.
        In 1994, it became part of the Atlantic squadron of surface ships.

        Since July, 2001 has served in the Kola Flotilla of heterogeneous forces.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 27 January 2017 10: 11
        +1
        Quote: St. Propulsion
        Please pay attention to "Marshal Moskalenko." The author for some reason forgot about him.

        Ohhh ... You know, this is a titanic amount of work, so I’m not sure that there will be some kind of finished look on the "paratroopers". To get rid of combat, so that the work had a finished look, with a minimum of errors. But they are inevitable, the work is routine. Try to sort through all the American frigates. Or our dizelyuhi. Tin.
        1. avt
          avt 27 January 2017 12: 29
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          Quote: St. Propulsion
          Please pay attention to "Marshal Moskalenko." The author for some reason forgot about him.
          Ohhh ... You know, this is a titanic amount of work, so I’m not sure that there will be some kind of finished look on the "paratroopers". To get rid of combat, so that the work had a finished look, with a minimum of errors.

          wassat Actually
          Quote: St. Propulsion
          "Marshal Moskalenko"

          Marshal is not a name, but 1174 was ,, Mitrofan Moskalenko. "And what is it about? Well, in the sense of“ Marshals ", like the 1914 project there wasn’t such a marshal request
      3. Ustinov 055 055
        Ustinov 055 055 10 February 2017 12: 48
        0
        Are you talking about Mitrofan Moskalenko ????? This miracle was kept for the post of the ship com (they put their people on it). It was hit by the hull pier a long time ago (pseudo-secret)
    2. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 27 January 2017 09: 41
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      The average age of decommissioned ships will be calculated. I have been working on the analysis of this issue for about six months now and I am close to the finale.

      Thanks for the work done, we will look forward to publication.
  7. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 27 January 2017 07: 56
    +3
    Quote: Alex_59
    It is difficult to unequivocally calculate the percentage of lies and nonsense in this article. We can only say by eye that more than half.
    In order not to be unfounded, I promise to publish an article in the coming 2-3 weeks (as time permits), where to summarize statistics on the commissioning and decommissioning of the ships of the Navy of the USSR-RF and the US Navy. Each ship will be counted, each submarine from the 50's to about 2015. The average age of the decommissioned ships will be calculated. I have been working on the analysis of this issue for about six months now and I am close to the finale.

    It would seem that thousands of articles have already been written about the damage done by the optimizers, our army, and the fleet. But here you go. Young reformers appear again and again. I don’t know what is worse in them, patriotism or whitewashing crimes? And then and another cannot benefit our country. We will wait for your article.
  8. tomket
    tomket 27 January 2017 08: 24
    +6
    Dear Oleg, what kind of combat mission can “Ushakov”, “Nakhimov” and “Lazarev” accomplish at the moment? But this is the skeleton, beauty and pride of the USSR fleet. Useless, in your opinion, “semi-aircraft carriers - semi-cruiser” could undergo a modernization similar to the “Vikra”, and they could not sell “Vikra” either. Together with the Orlanes, we would have 4 full-fledged KUG, which would ensure rotation off the coast of Syria, and would allow us to repair the Kuznetsov normally and without haste, and not be dishonored after the well-known events. Let the same redesigned Novorossiysk air group be more modest than at the Kuz, but it would be! In addition, one could come to an agreement with Ukraine on Varyag. It would be a desire. However, in the 90, the fleet survived such a blow that they are now doubting that it will be reborn as part of large ships, given the epic with the Gren.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 29 January 2017 14: 05
      +2
      We could. Here are just a hundred aircraft for them where to get?
      Well, rotation off the coast of Syria is part of schizophrenia. They managed to do without aircraft traders and will continue to be.
    2. Ustinov 055 055
      Ustinov 055 055 10 February 2017 12: 53
      0
      You forgot that by this time there would have been Ulyanovsk and 3 more ships of the series. So TAVKR would be already in conservation. By the way, my commander served during a fire in Kiev, after all, they put him on for repair afterwards for REPAIR and not FOR CUT. In 90, the implicit destruction of the navy on the face (large). And Oleg, dear to you, the floor of my division would have crumpled on the tank
  9. tomket
    tomket 27 January 2017 08: 46
    +1
    Oleg, throwing an idea for the next article. In the 90-2000 years, the greatest cover operation was launched in order to mislead our foreign partners. In the West, they thought that our fleet would have fails ... but in fact .... That's why the Yeltsin Center is not demolished.)))))
  10. Serg65
    Serg65 27 January 2017 08: 52
    +10
    Welcome Oleg hi . You touched on a very painful topic for me. Yes, in what you are right, they began to write off ships at the end of the 80's. But .... first they carried out the cutting at home and did not sell metal to the left.
    Now about that. what...
    Horror stories about how “damned enemies with the cover of night led ships to be cut in Alang”

    Exactly so, in silence and under cover of night, Leningrad PKR was taken to Alang, for the repairs and modernization of which the personalities you were protecting did not have enough money (I will not talk about how weak the son of the deputy minister, the construction manager somewhere found the very money that was not enough for defense and became oligarchs).
    What tasks could the destroyers of 56 and 57 projects deal with in the middle of the 1950s?

    In the middle of the 80s, the 39-I amphibious assault division was formed in Donuzlav, and the artillery support division just included these old destroyers with their 130-kami. Replacement of these projects was to be pr.956. who, with the death of his country, also died quietly and does not need to talk about that. that it was an unsuccessful ship because of problems with the KTU, if the "democrats" had not ruined the boiler-turbine workshop on Kirovsky.
    8 of the 12 ships of the 1155 family have been preserved and have survived about our days. One of the four decommissioned BODs was the victim of an accident (turbine explosion at the Admiral Zakharov BDK, 30-hour fire). The remaining three - for technical reasons, put into reserve and dismantled already in the "zero" years.

    the conclusion from your words-the evil Putin sold the ships and blames the good Yeltsin! Your deceitful wording "in the" zero "years is very vague, and specifically," Udaloy "- 2002," Vasilevsky "- 2004," Spiridonov "- 2003. Putin became president in 2000, then active ended phase of the 2 Chechen, God bless him that 80% of the plants are in ruins or privatized. the most interesting thing is that the commander-in-chief of the Navy was the admiral from the Kuroedov business!
    Etc. 1155.1 was planned 10, laid 2, the fleet included 1, where are the rest of 9? Who's guilty?
    I hope you don’t need to talk about how ships that underwent major repairs and modernization immediately after leaving the factory were withdrawn to the reserve, and after a year written off to needles?
    Similar processes took place in the USA, where during that period 300 warships were decommissioned, including all 9 atomic cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers and 60 atomic submarines

    And how much did the Americans receive in return? How much are we?
    .
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 27 January 2017 09: 28
      +11
      You can certainly say that the homeland did not have money. but here is a list of ships sold, prices are in thousand $
      Patrol ships:
      “Valiant” - 69,54 thousand
      "Vigilant" - 227,5
      Strict - 316,5
      The Guardian - 314,16
      Clever - 292,56
      Ferocious - 97,7
      Destroyers:
      “Persistent” - 173,9 “Persistent” - 117,99
      Thundering - 225
      Unbreakable - 216
      Wrathful - 363
      Large anti-submarine ships:
      Khabarovsk - 579,6
      "Yumashev" - 468 (completed the average repair at the 35 factory, in Rost)
      "Makarov" - 516
      “Isachenkov” - 514,25 “Isakov” - 496,1 (in 1991, he left the 35 factory after an average repair that lasted 5 years. He ran as good as new, had to go with Gorshkov to the battle.)
      “Intentional” - 189,57
      Chapaev - 744
      "October" - 724,8
      Vladivostok - 1083,77
      Cruiser:
      Zozulya - 756
      Fokin - 543,4
      Murmansk - 1718,87
      Minsk - 4236,7
      Novorossiysk - 3832,34
      “Kiev” - about 1800 (sold in the 2000 year
      Landing and reconnaissance ships:
      LDK “Muromets” - 97,28
      BDK "Illichiv" - 242,5
      BDK-47 - 248,9
      BZRK "Transcarpathia" - 192,24
      MRZK Ilmen - 3180,39
      CER “Sarychev” - 113,24
      CER "Primorye" - 150,48
      CER Chelyuskin - 114,59
      WWS "Transbaikalia" - 207,99
      Floating shops, floating workshops and measuring ships:
      PB-27 - 252,52
      PM-147 - 161,7
      PM-150 - 181,22
      KIK "Spassk" - 868,5
      CFC "Chumikan" - 1544
      KIK-357 - 205
      Total: 23 mil. 400 thousand $ !!!
      Moreover, a ship sold for scrap is not subject to customs duty, unlike, say, black and colored scrap or a ship sold for further use.
      In the 1995 year, the cost of scrap metal on the world market was 120 $ (+ -), the first in the list of TFR "Valiant" was sold at 35 $ per tone!
      In addition to selling metal, Gromov and Kuroedov had another tricky scheme - renting out, as a rule, these vessels (mainly vessels of the auxiliary fleet) did not return!
      1. Santa Fe
        27 January 2017 10: 21
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        In the 1995 year, the cost of scrap metal on the world market was 120 $ (+ -), the first in the list of TFR "Valiant" was sold at 35 $ per tone!

        Naturally, ship recycling fees
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 27 January 2017 10: 43
          +5
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Naturally, ship recycling fees

          Oleg, I’m not a child, I don’t need to tell bedtime stories
      2. Sasha_Sar
        Sasha_Sar 27 January 2017 11: 59
        +4
        “In addition to selling metal, Gromov and Kuroedov had another tricky scheme - renting out, as a rule, these vessels (mainly vessels of the auxiliary fleet) did not return!” In-in! According to the same scheme, N. Chicker wanted to be "washed down." Fortunately, the head of the ACC KSF Ivantsov A.N. sent them on further and retired from sin on on ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 January 2017 13: 24
          +1
          Quote: Sasha_Sar
          In-in! According to the same scheme, N. Chicker wanted to be "washed down." Fortunately, the head of the ACC KSF Ivantsov A.N. sent them on further and retired from sin on on ...

          But on the same type of "Fotiy Krylov" the admirals from commerce managed to put their paw. Lease for $ 1, several resales - and the fleet lost the latest Finnish-built tugboat (1989). They barely returned it through the court - after which they had to repair the "loss" for 5 years before re-commissioning.
  11. tomket
    tomket 27 January 2017 09: 00
    +6
    Oleg’s reasoning is especially touching on where to get a whole breakthrough of aircraft for two aircraft carriers, if there were only 8 units on the Kuz off the coast of Syria?) Oleg apparently doesn’t know that the contracts for the construction of the MiG-29K are fulfilled, and they would rivet with joy a hundred more, but there is no need for them, because they have no where to base. About Yak-141 is a separate song. The ILC of the United States is apparently "stupid ...", as Zadornov said, since they are demanding the vertical bar without fail.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 30 January 2017 03: 03
      +1
      Exactly, there is no need for them, including those 24 spoiled MiGs that could go to the Air Force regiment and do something really useful, at least stand on duty.

      The U.S. ILC is just a masterpiece of schizophrenia in itself; in fact, it’s an additional army that can accomplish the same tasks as an ordinary army. And these generals with admirals remember that they have a Harrier there for specials. ships, and they are ready to ruin thousands of aircraft for the Air Force only to get how many dozens or hundreds of verticals they need there. Since no one will do a separate plane for them, then you need to twist your hands, requiring modification for yourself. In addition, they apparently suspect that if you arm yourself with ordinary decks, then the obvious question will arise, but why the hell do you need some separate command, his planes are the same, the tanks are the same.
  12. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 27 January 2017 09: 33
    +6
    The world's largest submarine "Shark". The series was created for solid propellant rockets with a mass of 90 tons (like the three modern Bulava). The industry could not at that time ensure the fulfillment of the TK requirements with smaller rockets.
    With the advent of more compact weapons, the need for Sharks simply disappeared. The dubious achievements of the giants were leveled by quite real shortcomings. Two reactors, two propellers, maximum dimensions - max. disturbances in the Earth's magnetic field, maximum wetted surface area. More noise - less stealth. In combat conditions, this is fatal.

    The mass of the rocket was 84 tons, the Americans 60 tons, so what? For the ocean, this difference does not matter. What appeared more compact at that time? The reason was the Russian-American Joint Threat Reduction program, only Ohio Americans did not cut them all as one in the ranks.
    As much as the Shark walks a lot of myths, only in length it is equal to Ohio and a couple of meters higher and only twice as wide as Ohio, the ocean doesn’t care. Two reactors and two propellers are more of an advantage than a disadvantage; in the event of failure of one, the boat can continue the combat mission, by noise, from the statement of one officer who served on the Shark, when the boat was new, then its noise was at the Ohio level afterwards when current, secondary and other repairs were not carried out, the indicators worsened.
    Well, now the most unexpected thing is that neither Yeltsin, nor Gaidar, nor any of the 90 liberals were involved in the disposal of the Akula nuclear submarine, all three boats were disposed of during Putin’s presidency V.V. I mean in 2005-2009 year
    And the oldest Shark "Dmitry Donskoy" regularly serves the country, new types of weapons are being successfully tested on its board.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 27 January 2017 10: 47
        +3
        Quote: rudolff
        Decent ship

        If Obama did not try to bend Putin, then most likely your Beasts would be sick somewhere in the settlers. So it turns out there is no silver lining.
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC 27 January 2017 22: 54
        0
        Quote: rudolff
        That's right, Michael. Sharks could still serve and serve.

        The fate of the dinosaurs is extinction.
    2. tomket
      tomket 27 January 2017 10: 15
      +8
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Well, now the most unexpected thing is that neither Yeltsin, nor Gaidar, nor any of the 90 liberals were involved in the disposal of the Akula nuclear submarine, all three boats were disposed of during Putin’s presidency V.V. I mean in 2005-2009 year

      If the collapse of the fleet under Yeltsin was a consequence of the impenetrable stupidity of the country's leadership, then after 2000-x came cold calculation and a thirst for profit or profit. Recall that it was not under Yeltsin that we left Vietnam and Cuba. It was not under Yeltsin that they flooded the Mir and stole the Buran, utilize the Eagles, Sharks, sell Gorshkov, reduce them (and then heroically restore that we dispersed just a couple of years ago). Before the famous events in 08.08.08 and in Libya, it was not yet known who was a great friend of the army, the government of 90's or 2000's.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 30 January 2017 03: 06
        0
        Is it okay that Mir has already worked out all the planned dates and broke just according to the design documentation, and Kursk drowned in the summer of 2000, even before Putin could see the mess going on? Nothing that smaller boats appeared instead of Sharks? Nothing that the Shuttle turned out to be a fail? “Buran” may have advanced something, but most likely, he would have been waiting for the same fate.
    3. Santa Fe
      27 January 2017 10: 52
      0
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Well, now the most unexpected thing is that neither Yeltsin, nor Gaidar, nor any of the 90 liberals were involved in the disposal of the Akula nuclear submarine, all three boats were disposed of during Putin’s presidency V.V. I mean in 2005-2009 year

      What an unexpected moment
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 27 January 2017 12: 25
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What an unexpected moment

        Of course unexpected, Yeltsin also ruined everything and sold it.
        But it seems to me that the apogee of the Russian economy is Gazprom, in which 27% of the shares belong to some American bank, 11% to Germans and others from Europe (but here Gazprom at least tows mackerel unlike the USA where there is no activity), even Baturina has 1% . So it turns out that from a net profit of 6 billion for 2016, you will have to give 2,4 to the left, that is, 1/4 of the total annual rearmament in Russia. Your deeds are wonderful.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 30 January 2017 03: 07
          0
          Suddenly, yes, if you were given money, you poozed it, then do you have to give a share from this?
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 January 2017 13: 35
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      The mass of the rocket was 84 tons, the Americans 60 tons, so what?

      90 tons against 59. And 16 meters against 13,5. But the length of the rocket determines the length of the shaft and the diameter of the durable body.
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      For the ocean, this difference does not matter.

      Hehehehe ... I immediately recall the classic description from Cousin - what can one extra meter of length and one ton of mass on a new rocket do with a ship:
      ... the dimensions of the missiles again directly "crawled out" through the ship. “Armed men” did not understand this at all: “Just think, they added“ just something ”(!) Less than a meter of length and less than a ton (!) Of weight” (meaning a new rocket). Looking ahead, we note that these "just something" cost the ship an additional 13 m in length, 2,3 m in width and 2700 tons of displacement.

      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Well, now the most unexpected thing is that neither Yeltsin, nor Gaidar, nor any of the 90 liberals were involved in the disposal of the Akula nuclear submarine, all three boats were disposed of during Putin’s presidency V.V. I mean in 2005-2009 year

      They were excluded from the fleet at EBN:
      TK-202:
      In 1996, the cruiser was withdrawn from the Navy in reserve; in 1997, it was planned to reload the active zones of the reactors. In 1999, sent to Severodvinsk for disposal.

      TK-12:
      In 1997, the ship was expelled from the Navy.

      TK-13:
      In 1997, the cruiser was withdrawn from the Navy in reserve, in 1998 it was expelled from the Navy.

      However, other options for the carrier of ballistic missiles without the missiles themselves are somehow not visible.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 January 2017 14: 38
          0
          Quote: rudolff
          Regarding the extra meter of length, did it seem to be about Basalt in the Atlanteans?

          Right. So with the P-39 compared with the "trident" it turned out: + 50% by weight, +3,5 meters in length - and instead of "Ohio" or BDRM, a "water carrier" was obtained.
          Quote: rudolff
          And Sharks without any problems could be converted to any SLBM in service.

          That is, to use a 48 kt SSBN underwater for transporting 20 SLBMs. While the new SSBN raises 24 SLBMs by only 16 kt. smile
          Moreover, the new SSBNs would still have to be built - the service life of 941 projects, especially taking into account all the delights of sludge, would have gone somewhere in 2025.
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 27 January 2017 14: 54
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        They were excluded from the fleet at EBN:

        Not excluded and withdrawn from the combat fleet.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        However, other options for the carrier of ballistic missiles without the missiles themselves are somehow not visible.

        Four Ohio Americans did this

        On TK-208, the mine was converted into a mine under the Mace
      3. spravochnik
        spravochnik 27 January 2017 15: 47
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        They were excluded from the fleet at EBN:

        This is precisely the problem of the decommissioned ships already in the 2000s. They were decommissioned in the 90s, they stood up without repair in the crap and the "dead man is ready", given the fact that the ships being withdrawn basically required at least a current repair. "And the main thing is that, and the main thing is that I'm not to blame for anything." He did the dirty trick, and the successor who received the “object”, which is not even repairable, is to blame.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 27 January 2017 17: 34
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Right. So with the P-39 compared with the "trident" it turned out: + 50% by weight, +3,5 meters in length. "

          Is there anything wrong with your math, 84 tons to 60 tons, a 50% difference?
          The launch mass of the rocket (together with the ARSS and the tail compartment) is 90 tons, after separation of the elements of the launch system - 84 tons
          . After all, the mass of Triiden-2 you are considering without a missile ejection system from the mine.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          and instead of "Ohio" or BDRM, it turned out to be a "water carrier".

          Yes, a water carrier is better than Ohio, which starts to sausage after the fourth launch or BDRM, another unsuccessful modernization of Azuhi
          .
          Quote: Alexey RA
          That is, to use a 48 kt SSBN underwater for transporting 20 SLBMs. While the new SSBN raises 24 SLBMs by only 16 kt

          R-39 was disposed of before 2002, it was possible to return to the Bark project which was mastered without the participation of Ukraine.
          Quote: spravochnik
          This is precisely the problem of the decommissioned ships already in the 2000s. Decommissioned in the 90s, stood without repair in a sludge and "dead man is ready"

          There is some truth in this, but there are examples that raise doubts.
          1. Nakhimov stood in the sump from 1997 to 2015 until his modernization?
          2. The nuclear submarine pr.971 "Bratsk" from 2003 to 2014 was awaiting repair for all sumps.

          And here in 1998 she carried out combat missions in 1999, was taken out of the squad, and in 2005 it was already dead, somehow strange.

          Hello Kaliningrad.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 27 January 2017 19: 19
            0
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Is there anything wrong with your math, 84 tons to 60 tons, a 50% difference?

            Good, + 40% by weight of the "trident".
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Yes, a water carrier is better than Ohio, which starts to sausage after the fourth launch or BDRM, another unsuccessful modernization of Azuhi

            Yeah ... and which can only be based in two places, one of which has not been completed, and the second is the plant that this water carrier built. smile
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            R-39 was disposed of before 2002, it was possible to return to the Bark project which was mastered without the participation of Ukraine.

            Ahem ... are you talking about that mastered projectwho, after two consecutive unsuccessful trials during the third (equally unsuccessful), destroyed his own test bench in Nenoks? wink
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 27 January 2017 20: 48
              +2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Yeah ... and which can only be based in two places, one of which has not been completed, and the second is the plant that this water carrier built.

              A base was built in Zapadnaya Litsa; it was turned off at the Pacific Fleet.

              Quote: Alexey RA
              Ahem ... are you talking about that mastered project, which, after two consecutive unsuccessful tests during the third (same unsuccessful) one, destroyed its own test bench in Nenoks?

              Mace how many failed starts? The mace did not really bring to mind a new missile such as the modernization of the Mace, since 1998 almost 20 years have passed and there are no missiles for either Borei or Sharks. Blown rocket booth so what? If this designers stopped then we still have not flown into space.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 30 January 2017 10: 40
                +1
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                A base was built in Zapadnaya Litsa; it was turned off at the Pacific Fleet.

                "Hangman" in the Western Face commissioned? Have you lost the railway? Have you fully commissioned floating berths (with all feeding systems)?
                Judging by the equipment, there was not a base, but a base point in the Western Face.
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Mace plainly not bringing to mind engaged in a new missile type upgrade Mace

                So ... everything is like the Makey people: the development of the R-39U was started in the year of adoption of the basic R-39. And after 2 years - the development of the next modification of the R-39UTTX was started.
                1. The comment was deleted.
  13. retractor
    retractor 27 January 2017 09: 43
    +10
    Kaptsov, do you get your knowledge from Wikipedia for an hour?
    In order to inflict damage to the fleet, it is not necessary to write off ships. It’s enough just not to service them, thereby withdrawing them to the 2 category reserve and OFI. Do you know these concepts?
    As an example - 24-I DIPL KSF with nuclear submarine pr. 971. At present, there is only one ship ready. As the division’s authorities say, in order to shoot from it if a war starts. About what was going on in the nineties, I did not say anything at all. Just at that time, he served on the nuclear submarine pr 671RTMK - this is just the “second-generation vintage masterpiece” that you mentioned. It went into operation in 90. Incidentally, at that time it was quite an effective steamboat.

    In general, Kaptsov, not quite owning the information - better not to shine.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 27 January 2017 12: 11
      +4
      I would like to recall about the third building of the TFR pr.11540 "Fog", incorporated in 1993 year. An empty case still stands in the bucket at the Yantar. A series of St. 100 units was planned. Where? And where with fanfare laid in 1997 TFR pr.01244 Novik? An empty case is in the Amber bucket.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 27 January 2017 12: 51
        +3
        But would it be possible to remind the author of the construction of the nuclear submarine, project 90, which was stopped in the 971s, at least 7 hulls were mothballed to varying degrees of readiness. Something was completed (2 units), something was used to build the Boreev (these are the hulls, and not from decommissioned nuclear submarines, as the author writes). It was in the 90s that the construction of nuclear submarines, project 949A, was stopped, Belgorod is being completed from this reserve (laid down in 1993, in 1994 construction was stopped, the boat was mothballed).
  14. Gust
    Gust 27 January 2017 10: 01
    0
    But do not destroyers, etc. 956, go in China and complaints seem not to be heard on their KTU? I heard that the boilers from the utilized destroyers were put on Kuzya ... I don’t know how true the information is ..

    It's a pity the Orlans will not upgrade everything.
    1. jumbo
      jumbo 27 January 2017 15: 30
      +1
      Quote: Rafale
      But do not destroyers, etc. 956, go in China and complaints seem not to be heard on their KTU? I heard that the boilers from the utilized destroyers were put on Kuzya ... I don’t know how true the information is ..

      It's a pity the Orlans will not upgrade everything.
      1. jumbo
        jumbo 27 January 2017 15: 48
        +2
        among the Chinese, kleptocrats are not allowed to take off on such a scale as it was in the 90s in Russia, and indeed in the post-Soviet space ...
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 27 January 2017 16: 25
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      But do not destroyers, etc. 956, go in China and complaints seem not to be heard on their KTU?

      They walk as they walk. The first put on modernization with a complete replacement of weapons.
    3. KaPToC
      KaPToC 27 January 2017 22: 57
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      But don't destroyers, etc. 956, go in China

      Somewhere even sailing frigates go, and so what?
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 28 January 2017 13: 51
        0
        Quote: KaPToC
        Somewhere even sailing frigates go, and so what?

        This, excuse me, where? And the fact that 956 in China go and undergo further modernization suggests that the main problems of these same 956 are associated with illiterate operation in the USSR and Russia.
  15. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 27 January 2017 10: 33
    +1
    Quote: retractor
    Kaptsov, do you get your knowledge from Wikipedia for an hour?
    In order to inflict damage to the fleet, it is not necessary to write off ships. It’s enough just not to service them, thereby withdrawing them to the 2 category reserve and OFI. Do you know these concepts?
    As an example - 24-I DIPL KSF with nuclear submarine pr. 971. At present, there is only one ship ready. As the division’s authorities say, in order to shoot from it if a war starts. About what was going on in the nineties, I did not say anything at all. Just at that time, he served on the nuclear submarine pr 671RTMK - this is just the “second-generation vintage masterpiece” that you mentioned. It went into operation in 90. Incidentally, at that time it was quite an effective steamboat.

    In general, Kaptsov, not quite owning the information - better not to shine.

    Yes, and I do not want to look, but how many of them were withdrawn as a result of accidents, fires? And what in return?
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 27 January 2017 11: 22
    +1
    Bredyatina that with our thundering, etc. the whole series was welded to the wall
  18. Sasha_Sar
    Sasha_Sar 27 January 2017 11: 49
    +3
    For some reason, the author didn’t remember about the BDK pr 1174. The BDK M. Moskalenko raised the flag on February 23, 1990, and lowered it on December 2006. What? Given his last "independent walks" in 1996. A separate "thank you" to the Nikolaev turbines .... About the auxiliary fleet and ACC in general silence.
  19. exo
    exo 27 January 2017 12: 11
    0
    I don’t agree. Three BDK 1174, they could walk. The Berezina, albeit not a combat unit, but a valuable supply ship. Regarding em.956, there are also questions. Unsuccessful design of boilers or inability of teams? Could walk.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 27 January 2017 12: 59
      +5
      Quote: exo
      . "Berezina", albeit not a combat unit, but a valuable ship

      Ships add the awesome floating assembly plant АСС "Elbrus", brand new "Sventa", cable layer "Tsna". "Chilikin", "Tambourines" - which this hour is lacking in the Mediterranean,
  20. Tektor
    Tektor 27 January 2017 14: 12
    0
    Oleg did not notice a “minor” nuance: significant progress in armaments, thanks to which the missile system, including operational-tactical purpose The caliber can be placed on a ship with a displacement of about 800-950 tons, i.e., in terms of strike power and the scale of the tasks to be solved, it corresponds to the destroyer of the times of the Union ... They were built 5 Buyanov-M from the planned 12 and 18 Karakurt (5 under construction) - this is 30 pieces of 8 CR, which provides a good salvo from different water areas. The fleet’s striking power will increase significantly, as will its defensive power, since depends on the type of CR.
  21. Oriental express
    Oriental express 27 January 2017 14: 23
    +2
    Frank lies. Russia has lost at least half of the Orlan nuclear-powered cruisers and not a few nuclear submarines that could still be useful. This is me about the Premier League, Antei and Pike-B, for example.
    1. 52
      52 27 January 2017 15: 11
      +1
      Could we keep ships standing at the wall? There weren’t enough Chubais for yachts, but you are talking about the Fleet.
      1. Oriental express
        Oriental express 27 January 2017 16: 56
        +2
        If you look from this point of view, then you have to sell the whole of Russia to the West for a long time so that the Chubais have enough for yachts and drinking bouts with heifers.
  22. 52
    52 27 January 2017 15: 09
    +1
    Well, a good article! Thank you Oleg!
  23. smoke break
    smoke break 27 January 2017 16: 06
    +4
    Apparently, the author either was “in the subject”, or did not understand what he was writing about ...., so, for example, the 22nd Pacific Fleet Landing Division (including project 775) was destroyed in 1995 (the remains are summarized in brigade, the size of a division 4 ships) y, 26 division of the RPKSN Pacific Fleet (667 b) completely destroyed in 2000, 36 division of the Pacific Fleet Rocket ships - destroyed in 2002 (including 7 project 956 destroyers) ... the list goes on long .... Author, how are you ?????
  24. vezdehodov
    vezdehodov 27 January 2017 18: 29
    +1
    And where did all the 670 project nuclear submarines go? All 17 Skates that drove NATO AUGs across the oceans were disposed of from 91 to 94. And they could still walk and walk. Great boat by the way.
  25. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 27 January 2017 19: 29
    +4
    Olezhek, this opus can be regarded as a complete drain. The amount of delirium scales.
  26. blotov
    blotov 27 January 2017 20: 58
    +10
    I have nothing to say, especially everyone said. I wanted to call the author a colleague - a naval officer, but something according to his article does not look like a colleague, but looks more like a lawyer thief admirals profiting from the sale of ships.
    LOSSES OF THE RUSSIAN Navy DURING Perestroika
    During the period of perestroika, only from 1991 to 1997 (without submarines and auxiliary vessels, since 1995 629 warships and vessels of the Russian fleet were decommissioned, sunk in bases and sold for metal, 225 of them are ships of the 1st and 2nd rank. But taking into account that here data are given for surface ships only in 1997, and for submarines and auxiliary vessels only until 1995, the true numbers are likely to exceed today 800 ships and ships of the Navy
    According to military open sources, the fleets were decommissioned, sold, abandoned, cut into metal in 1991:
    Carrier cruisers - 4 (Varyag, Minsk, Novorossiysk, Kiev).
    Anti-submarine cruisers - 2 (Moscow, Leningrad).
    Missile cruisers - 4 (Vladivostok, Vice Admiral Drozd, Grozny, Admiral Zozulya)
    Artillery cruisers - 2 (Murmansk, Mikhail Kutuzov)
    There are 1 large anti-submarine ships of rank 17 - XNUMX (Admiral Nakhimov, Kronshtadt, Admiral Makarov, Khabarovsk, Admiral Isachenkov, Marshal Tymoshenko, Admiral Yumashev, Nikolaev, Tashkent, Admiral Isakov, Admiral Oktyabrsky, Vasily Chapaev, Vladivostok Petr. Tallinn, former Tallinn Admiral Spiridonov, Daredevil)
    Large anti-submarine ships of rank 2 - 14 (Red Crimea, Komsomolets of Ukraine, Glorious, Flaming, Insightful, Persistent, Quick-witted, Intelligent, Strict, Vigilant, Decisive, Model, Capable, Guardian)
    Destroyers of the 1st rank - 4 (thundering, knowledgeable, prudent, desperate).
    Guard ships of the 2nd rank - 19 (Valorous, Striking, Worthy, Strong, Ferocious, Prideful, Gusty, Active, Menacing, Zealous, Sharp, Vigilant, Peppy, Selfless, Immaculate, Striking, Zealous, Loud, Permanent).
    Patrol ships of the 3rd rank - 19 (SKR-13, SKR-11, SKR-92, SKR-34, SKR-27, SKR-112, SKR-84, SKR-19, SKR-16, SKR-82, SKR-96 , SKR-115, SKR-126, SKR-135, SKR-23, SKR-128, SKR-33, SKR-138, SKR-110,).
    There are 46 border guard ships (Kuropyatnikov, Gnatenko, Neman, Izmail, Dnipro, Rubin, Emerald, Pearls, PSKR-680, PSKR-691, PSKR-681, PSKR-682, PSKR-683, PSKR-684, PSKR-689, PSKR-663, PSKR-685, PSKR-686, PSKR-687, PSKR-688, PSKR-698, PSKR-103, PSKR-105, PSKR-813, PSKR-108, PSKR-102, PSKR-623, PSKR- 629, PSKR-630, PSKR-635, PSKR-636, PSKR-637, PSKR-642, PSKR-643, PSKR-645, PSKR-648, PSKR-650, PSKR-652, PSKR-702, PSKR-705, PSKR-709, PSKR-720, PSKR-722, PSKR-693, PSKR-3, PSKR-60)
    Small missile ships - 13 (Storm, Breeze, Thunderstorm, Thunder. Grad, Whirlwind, Cyclone, Rainbow, Flurry, Typhoon, Wave, Dawn, MRK-5).
    Small anti-submarine ships - 30 (MPK-65, MPK-117, MPK-8, MPK-44, MPK-108, MPK-528, MPK-180, MPK-41, MPK-81, MPK-31, MPK-40, MPK-10, MPK-33, MPK-35, MPK-36, MPK-122, MPK-147, MPK-155, MPK-5, MPK-37, MPK-91, MPK-145, MPK-93, MPK- 116, MPK-170, MPK-4, MPK-89, MPK-43, MPK-52, MPK-143).
    Missile boats - 71 (РКА-59, РКА-84, РКА-161, Р-196, Р-173, Р-39, Р-192, Р-370, Р-46, Р-123, Р-199, Р -206, Р-210, Р-212, Р-254, П-45, Р-66, Р-69, Р-76, Р-251, Р-260, Р-262, Р-265, Р-113 , R-230, P-623, P-629, P-630, P-635, P-636, P-637, P642, P-643, P-645, P-648, P-650, P-652 , P-702, P-705, P-709, P-720, P-722, P-102, P-103, P-105, P-108, P-53, P-54, P-141, P -125, P-501, P-502, P-503, P-504, P-505, P-506, P-507, P-508, P-509, P-510, P-511, P-512 , P-517, P-519, P-523, P-524, P-525, P-526, P-534).
    Torpedo boats - 5 (T-126, T-272, T-273, T-117, T-15).
    Artillery boats - 47 (AK-394, AK-401, AK-487, AK-604, AK-605, AK-608, AK-610, AK-611, AK-613, AK-234, AK-374, AK -55, AK-354, AK-587, AK-203, AK-242, AK-314, AK-316, AK-317, AK-318, AK-384, AK-387, AK-581, AK-584 , AK-225, AK-197, AK-198, AK-205, AK-385, AK-398, AK-399, AK-408, AK-585, AK-588, AK-589, AK-22, AK - 382, ​​AK-211, AK-246, AK-563, AK-248, AK-327, AK-397, AK-506, AK-564, AK-583, AK-602).
    Minesweepers - 65 (Rear Admiral Pershin, Rear Admiral Khoroshikhin, Vice Admiral Sabaneyev, Midshipman Pavlov, S. Roshal, Paravan, Zaryad, Volley, Trawl, Anchor, Disilist, Turbine player, Signalman, Torpedo player, Anti-aircraft gunner, Rocketeer, MT- 80, MT-82, BT-103, MT-193, MT-226, BT-155, MT-242, MT-263, MT-208, MT-238, BT-16, BT-77, BT-258, BT-260, BT-291, BT-320, BT-324, BT-266, BT-327, BT-734, BT-277, BT-284, BT-356, BT-347, BT-438, BT- 10, BT-150, RT-214, BT-79, BT-126, BT-267, RT-402, RT-437, RT-278, RT-223, BT-38, BT-56, BT-78, BT-121, BT-470, RT-403, RT-52, RT-33, RT-136, RT-146, ШУ-15, ШУ-16, ШУ-17).
    There are 16 large landing ships (Ivan Rogov, Donetsk Miner, Krasnaya Presnya, Sergey Lazo, I. Azarov, K. Olshansky, A. Tortsev, BDK-35, BDK-80, BDK-48, BDK-63, BDK-90, BDK-181, BDK-197, BDK-200, BDK-47)
    There are 11 medium landing ships (SDK-102, SDK-172, SDK-82, SDK-96, SDK-111, SDK-73, SDK-99, SDK-79, SDK-135, SDK-156, SDK-137)
    Small landing ships - 17 (MDK-28, MDK-36, MDK-37, MDK-68, MDK-107, MDK-2, MDK-7, MDK-21, MDK-24, MDK-99, MDK-173, MDK-29, MDK-7, MDK-93, MDK-123, MDK-174, MDK-175)
    Air cushion landing ships - 52 (D-556, D-435, D-346, D-349, D-227, D-360, D-555, D-343, D-512, D-536, D- 52, D-277, D-347, D-348, D-456, D-337, D-702, D-423, D-424, D-426, D-441, D-226, D-227, D-228, D-337, D-369, D-555, D-556, D-702, D-318, D-347, D-425, D-452, D-703, D-833, D- 418, D-420, D-427, D-430, D-431, D-435, D-436, D-437, D-439, D-440, D-443, D-445, D-305, D-455, D-319, D-332, D-572,).
    Submarine cruisers and boats with a BR - 19 (K-389, K-279, K-245, K-395, K-423, K-253, K-214, K-426, K-403, K-249, K -19, K-79, K-93, K-96, K-142, K-183, K-372, K-366, K-477).
    Submarine cruisers and boats with KR - 28 (K-23, K-144, K-25, K-325, K-77, K-81, K-124, K-203, K-478, K-124, K -77, K-81, K-56, K-204, K-557, K-458, K-479, K-308, K-313, K-43, K-121, K-302, K-201 , K-320, K-134, K-1, K-22, K-35).
    Other submarines - 46 (B-33, B-143, B-6, B-59, B-105, B-409, B-826, B-2, B-31, B-34, B-103 B-68, B-85, B-156, B-304, B-318, B-8, B-15, B-50, B-855, B-94, B-95, B-169, B- 853, B-856, K-476, K-488, K-469, K-67, B-28, B-101, B-164, B-213, B-397, B-4, B-7, B-21, B-25, B-46, B-36, B-109, K-454, K-370, K-481, B-39, B-427).
    Rescue submarines - 8 (SS-11, SS-368, APS-3, AS-7, SS-128, AS-3, AS-7, SS-384, BS-486).
    Rescue ships - 10 (Kazbek, Pulkovo, SS-38, SS-21, Agatan, Zhiguli, Beshtau, BSS-222050, AS-14, AS-19).
    Hydrographic and auxiliary vessels - 62 (Vychegda, Dmitry Galkin, Chukotka, GKS-15, GKS-11, TL-3, TL-29, Tveritsa, VTR-11, VTR-13, Khariton Laptev, Krenometr, Magadan Komsomolets, PM- 17, PM-22, PM-147, GS-275, Fotiy Krylov, TL-1374, TL-1476, TL-1602, TL-865, TL-965, SN-109, SB-28, Dzhambul, ПЖК-12 PZhK-179, RVK-639, RVK-754, RVK-1289, Nara, MVT-138, KM-895, KM-1207, RB-290, Magomed Gadzhiev, PRTB-20, PM-163, Chazhma, Sarychev, Semyon Chelyuskin, Transcarpathia, Transbaikalia, Ilmen, Pelorus, Seliger, Reducer, Repeater, Theodolite, Chirikov, Nevelskaya, Baikal, Astronomer, Horizon, BGK-631, BGK-930, BGK-1629, Dixon, Donbass, TL-533, TL-856, TL-842, SR-165, SR-176, VM-143, VM-266, VM-84, VM-106, VM-127 KM-332 KVM-702, Ilya Muromets, MB-116, MB -91, MB-122, Desna, Koida, Abakan, Pripyat, Sukhon, Pripyat).
    Data on the decommissioning of auxiliary vessels and submarines is only available until 1995. Then they were also charged off with the same intensity.
    Considering that real shipyards under contracts concluded by Viktor Chernomyrdin, together with Anatoly Chubais and Boris Nemtsov, built surface ships only for China and India, the decommissioning of the fleet did not resume at all. So, the real numbers are likely to exceed even 800 ships and vessels.
  27. blotov
    blotov 27 January 2017 21: 08
    +6
    And I would also like to say about fleet aviation and its fate in the period from 1987 to 2000. First, virtually all aviation headquarters were reduced, and buildings were either abandoned or sold. The same applies to communications hubs of the fleet aviation. At the headquarters of the fleets, small groups of aviation officers of 6-8 people remained. The fully anti-aircraft divisions in all fleets were destroyed by the TU-22M3 shock carrier rocket carriers. The reconnaissance regiments and squadrons in all the fleets of the TU-95 RC were destroyed. Destroyed aircraft and anti-submarine aviation units, hydroaviation. Dozens of airfields are simply abandoned, looted. Destroyed the unique 311 Okshap Pacific Fleet.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  28. Old26
    Old26 27 January 2017 23: 17
    +1
    The world's largest submarine "Shark". The series was created for solid propellant rockets with a mass of 90 tons (like the three modern Bulava). The industry could not at that time ensure the fulfillment of the TK requirements with smaller rockets.

    Or maybe it’s more correct to say that Makeev could not do less?
  29. edeligor
    edeligor 29 January 2017 10: 19
    +4
    With respect to the author - if you want, you can justify almost everything! Just do not be proud of the resources saved in 90 years, and even more so be measured by “units” with a probable enemy in the fleet !!! As I understand this article, the answer to Mikhalkov in his program "Besogon". From myself - I believe Mikhalkov, NO to the author! For I served in these damned years for our country and saw what was happening in the development of the public good ...
  30. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 29 January 2017 13: 48
    +4
    But what about almost all EM pr.956? For example, my native "Prudent" (CTOF)? Or is the practically light cruiser of the 1st rank, which is the destroyer pr.956, not a "modern combat ship" inherited by Russia from the USSR? The author confused something in his cheers - a patriotic country, or is it such an apology for the crime and "whitewashing" those hucksters of admirals and generals with officials who put warships and fighting ships on needles and sold for butchering to China or Singapore, like cattle to a slaughterhouse ? To the author "fak" with a big bolt !!!
  31. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 1 February 2017 07: 07
    +2
    Mr. Kaptsev! No one would mind if instead of writing off obsolete ships and submarines, something was created in return. At least instead of 2-3 units removed from the fleet, one new one. However, the greatly reduced possibilities of industry do not allow this. You refer to the United States, that there is also a lot written off. But they put 1-2 "Virginia" in operation, and the surface fleet is replenished. And as we had one, "Severodvinsk", it is still one. 15 diesel engines were exported, and 6 pieces at the Black Sea Fleet with a sin in half. About Pacific Fleet so far, only talk, about iron, you can’t hear anything ... And what are the Rubin projects for VNEUS projects? Export is not a matter of pride, but SHAME, the interests of Russia's defense capabilities, is that just an empty phrase? Most likely this is a deliberate action for the sake of a third force, from which our country does not have to expect anything good, but not the grand master skills of Vladimir Vladimirovich.
  32. Rurik
    Rurik 2 February 2017 23: 58
    +1
    I don’t understand the author. Well, what did you save? Or is it good that you lost? In any case, we will not be able to restore the fleet for a long time, IMHO.
  33. Goblin13
    Goblin13 3 February 2017 15: 15
    +1
    Yes, I read the article and I don’t even want to argue, the author is definitely paid, if things like in the article http://forum.topwar.ru/topic/9149-90810 are happening now
    "Features of the Russian national submarine fleet," what can be said about the 90s ...
  34. Photon
    Photon 25 May 2017 16: 10
    +2
    The author is a giant of thought! It looks like he can explain to the woman in bed that there is no erection. better than having it.
  35. Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 25 May 2017 16: 25
    +2
    Rocket cruiser project 1164. All three project representatives built are still in service.


    - a series of four cruisers built at the Baltic Shipyard in the USSR from 1973 to 1989,
    As of 2016, only one of the four cruisers built, the Peter the Great TARKR, is operational.
    ??? so a series of three or four.
    1. Atlant-1164
      Atlant-1164 25 May 2017 16: 29
      +3
      the author does not know who gives you the pluses .. but all this crap is complete .. I would say rubbish .. with the USSR fleet. we were not on paper but in fact 2 and where 1 fleet of the world. and now we are 2 from the end of that list .
      1. Atlant-1164
        Atlant-1164 25 May 2017 16: 30
        +3
        and why are the cons removed ?? so I did not understand.
  36. without reverse
    without reverse 25 May 2017 16: 45
    +3
    author!! What are you about??.
  37. Anatoly Dobry
    Anatoly Dobry 25 May 2017 19: 24
    0
    The world's largest submarine "Shark". The series was created for solid propellant rockets with a mass of 90 tons (like the three modern Bulava). The industry could not at that time ensure the fulfillment of the TK requirements with smaller rockets.

    And what, that same "Mace" flew? or again conditionally successful?
  38. Galleon
    Galleon 30 May 2017 00: 59
    +2
    The author forgot to mention the unique ocean rescue tugs SB-90, SB-131, and also the docking ship Anadyr, safely stolen in the 135s and taken away under the flags of others.
    1. leonid-zherebtcov
      leonid-zherebtcov 2 November 2017 14: 59
      0
      By the way, "Fotiy Krylov" has long been at home ... It happened to work on it in 1995 under the Cyprus flag through our Sovfracht ..., the crew was all our Russian, so to speak, the operation to return our fleet began. On the "Phot ..." he worked as the 3rd PCM, and served as the 2nd PCM ...
  39. xomaNN
    xomaNN 26 October 2017 10: 09
    0
    Oh, Oleg Kaptsov loves to "stick a stick in an anthill" repeat I mixed the cancellation of NK from the 50-60s with the sale of the Takr Novorossiysk and Minsk (and I think they remember that almost by chance the customs discovered military equipment that was being prepared for smuggling). And as regards SSBN 941 project, I also argue. I had to work on the main one. And they especially didn’t have to go somewhere to the Atlantic - they would almost get from the base to the adversary. And under the new missiles, these "missile smelting. Platforms" could be completely altered. Even after a few years
  40. leonid-zherebtcov
    leonid-zherebtcov 2 November 2017 14: 49
    0
    In 1993 I had to extinguish the Novorossiysk TAVKR in Sovgavan, while I was working as the 2nd captain of the Bars obs ...