Military Review

Russian and US fleets: destruction statistics. Part of 1

68



It all started when Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev came to power in the USSR. Retelling for the hundredth time what happened to our country after that is a routine and uninteresting exercise. Therefore, we proceed immediately to the point. The task of this work is to understand how strongly the end of the Cold War affected the reduction of the naval composition of the fleets of the opposing sides - the United States and the USSR. Is it appropriate to talk about the collapse, early write-off and degradation of the Russian Navy in comparison with similar losses (if any) in the United States?

An older reader who has survived 90, in its own skin, the very statement of the question will seem absurd: after all, everyone knows about the collapse of everything and everything, about the mess and ruin that reigned. What is there to talk and argue about? Everything is obvious and has long been known! No exception - and the author of this article.

However, you need to pull yourself together and stand in the place of an impartial researcher. It is obvious that all of us who survived 90-e, are in the position of victims. And victims, as is known, are not only in a special emotional state, but also tend to exaggerate the tragedy of their position very much. It is not their fault, just fear has big eyes. So the legitimate question arises: was it really that bad in 90's? Compared to what is “bad,” can it be considered really “bad”? Compared to 80 for years? Compared to modernity? Compared to the situation in the United States in the same time periods?

Indeed, who among those who lament the collapse of our Navy in the 90s has objectively analyzed the reductions in the US Navy? But what if their reductions are even larger than ours? It turns out that then our losses are not so huge if the end of the Cold War equally painfully hit our opponent. Here he is, an action-packed detective - an investigation into the losses of the American fleet!

Another question: if the reduction was really a landslide, then is this a consequence of objective processes? For example, single-stage disposal of large amounts of obsolete weapons. Then this is simply an inevitable situation, and there is no need to talk about some kind of catastrophe.

Veterans of the Soviet Navy, as well as other patriotic readers, please do not close this article after reading above. The most interesting will be ahead.

Investigation method

To answer all the questions formulated above, it is necessary to study and count all changes in the naval composition of the US Navy and the USSR. At the same time there are two processes - the replenishment of new ships and the decommissioning of decommissioned. Between these two streams is the current state of the fleet - its combat composition. Thus, the task is reduced to the careful accounting of these two streams.

The work is so voluminous that it requires acceptance of certain conditions and assumptions. This is normal, because any measurement has its own error, its tolerances. While dealing with this topic, the author faced a number of serious obstacles that formed these restrictions. We list them below.

- The calculations take into account all warships and submarines built after the 1950 of the year, as well as earlier buildings, retired from the fleets after the 1975 of the year. Thus, the study period: 1975-2015 years.

- As the main indicator in the calculations used the full displacement of ships. This is due to the fact that for a number of US ships in foreign sources only this indicator is indicated and there is no standard displacement. Search outside of existing databases is too time consuming. In order for the calculations to be fair for both sides, it was necessary for the calculations of the USSR Navy to also take into account exactly the total displacement.

- Very scant information in available sources about the post-war torpedo boats of all projects and missile boats of the 183Р project. They are excluded from calculations. However, rocket boats of later types (205, 205Y, 12411, 206MR) are taken into account, since for the Soviet side, they were an important factor in combat power in the coastal zone.

- All combat ships with a full displacement of less than 200 tons, as well as landing ships with a full displacement of less than 4000 tons are excluded from counting. The reason is the low combat value of these units.

- The date from which the warship ceased service in its original capacity is taken as the date of withdrawal from service. Those. ships that are not physically destroyed, but reclassified, for example, into a floating barracks, will be considered decommissioned at the time of transfer to the PKZ status.

Thus, the backbone of the military personnel, taken into account in the resulting data set, includes aircraft carriers and aircraft carriers, submarines, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, BOD, SKR, MRK, IPC, PKA, minesweepers and landing ships with a displacement of more than 4000 tons.

Russian and US fleets: destruction statistics. Part of 1


The results are presented in the 1 table. As you can see, the table is rather complicated for perception. Therefore, we divide it into several stages. We present the same information in the form of a table 2 - the average values ​​over five-year periods.



The 3 table shows the current total displacement of ships and their number. The data is taken at the end of the year.



Already from this data one can notice an interesting feature - the USSR Navy has more ships, but their total displacement is less than the American one. This is not surprising: almost half of the composition of the USSR’s ship was occupied by light forces — MRK, IPC, and boats. We were forced to build them, since the threats emanating from the US European allies in the coastal seas were substantial. Americans treated only large ocean ships. But the "small" forces of the Soviet Navy must be considered necessarily. Despite the fact that these combat units were individually weaker than foreign frigates, they still played a significant role. And not only in the coastal seas. IRC and IPC were regular guests in the Mediterranean, South China and the Red Seas.

First stage. The height of the Cold War (1975-1985 years)

The 1975 year is taken as the starting point. Time of the established balance of the Cold War. Both sides have calmed down by this moment, so to speak. Nobody thought about a quick victory, the forces were approximately equal, there was a systematic service. In the seas, hundreds of ships were on alert, constantly tracking each other. Everything is measured and predictable. The scientific and technological revolution in the fleet has long been accomplished, and no new breakthroughs were foreseen. There was a systematic improvement of missile weapons, the combat composition grew slowly. Both sides do not hit the extremes. One word is stagnation.

The tables show how the planned development of the fleets takes place without noticeable distortions in the direction of utilization, or, conversely, abrupt construction. Both sides put into operation approximately the same tonnage, but the United States is somewhat more involved in recycling. This is due to the decommissioning of a number of aircraft carriers and cruisers of the Second World War in 1975-1980.

Overall numbers suggest that over the years 10 both sides increased fleet tonnage by about 800 000 tons.

Second phase. On the eve of the collapse of the USSR (1986-1990 years)

1986 year is marked by an increase in ship recycling in the USSR. Compared with 1984 year - an increase of more than twice. But an even brighter leap is visible in the 1987 year. In the USSR, mass ship recycling begins, reaching record numbers for 1990: 190 ships with a total tonnage of more than 400 thousand tons. Unprecedented scale.

In the US, similar processes begin with a lag of several years, and the leap is less global. By 1990, the United States is reaching the level of 250 thousand tons and 30 ships. This is 5 times larger than the average in previous years. However, in the USSR such a jump is even stronger - 10 times.

How to explain this situation? The first obvious link with the change of leadership of the USSR. The beginnings of Gorbachev and the new commander of the Navy, Chernavin, in the direction of winding up the Cold War bring certain fruits. It is clear that the burden on the economy from the side of military vehicles was enormous, both for the USA and for the USSR, and reductions were inevitable. In the context of that historical period (the end of 80-x), it is impossible to make an unequivocal conclusion about the dangers of such reductions - on the contrary, it is rather welcome. The only question is how these reductions are made, but this will be discussed later. For now, we only note that with the beginning of disarmament in the USSR, a gigantic, previously unprecedented company for the utilization of shipboard personnel begins, and that the United States joins this campaign a few years later. Obviously, only after they were convinced of the veracity of the intentions of the USSR to begin cuts. And what is especially important, even having begun similar reduction processes, the United States is not in a hurry to overtake the Soviet partner in this matter - the write-off in general goes 2 less times.

As for the replenishment of fleets, in both the USSR and the USA the volume of commissioning of new ships in this period continues to grow slowly. As a result, the reductions that have begun have little effect on the combat strength: the total number of fleets slightly decreases, but not too dramatically.

The third stage. Disarmament on the wreckage of the USSR (1991-2000 years)

The first years after the liquidation of the USSR, the new Russia adheres to the previously chosen course for mass utilization. Although the 1990 record of the year has not been surpassed, the numbers at first fluctuate around 300 thousand tons per year. But the construction of new ships looks like a car that has flown on a concrete wall - a sharp slowdown. Already in the 1994 year, 10 times less ships were commissioned than in the 1990 year. The Soviet legacy is being completed. It is not surprising that the volume of utilization, which increased 10 times, combined with the volume of construction that fell 10 times, leads to a gradual drop in the number of combat personnel. Over the 90-e years, it is reduced by more than 2 times.

The United States, as noted above, is in no hurry to overtake Russia. The United States surpasses the Soviet record for recycling 1990 of the year only in 1994. Further volumes gradually decrease. It seems that now parity with Russia is clearly visible. But this is only if you do not pay attention to the construction of new ships. And it is decreasing in the USA, but not as catastrophic as in Russia. The reason is clear: in conditions when your former opponent desperately writes off his weapon, you can not strain much. However, the numbers speak for themselves: in the United States, construction has not stopped, and even with respect to Russia it has become many times more. As a result, the total strength of the US Navy decreases very smoothly and only slightly. If in Russia there is a fall in 2 times, then in the USA it is only by 20% from 1991 of the year.


And "they" had premature cuts. The picture shows the destroyer DD-990 "Ingersoll", which served only 19 years. In 2003, he worked as a target. Recorded the moment of hitting two RCC "Harpoon" in a training attack


Fourth stage. Stability (2001-2010 years)

2002-th year becomes a record for Russia: not a single new combat ship was commissioned. The Soviet backlog was generally completed in 90's, and there is nothing more to enter. And those crumbs that are not yet completed, actually stopped in construction. Volumes are being exhausted for disposal: they have already written off almost everything that can be done, so volumes continue to decrease smoothly. The total number of fleets for 10 years is reduced in 1,5 times. The fall is smooth but continuous.

In the United States, in the same 10 years, the utilization volumes also slightly decrease, but remain in 2-3 times higher than in Russia, for the first time in all history in the study period. But at the same time the construction remains at a high enough level. Compared to the RF, the fantastic 30-40 times higher! All this allows the United States to update the fleet combat composition, and its total number drops just as smoothly - by only 7% over 10 years (while in the Russian Federation the fall is 1,5 times). The total tonnage of the US fleet exceeds the Russian one in 3,5 times, although back in 1990, the lag was in 1,4 times.


Destroyer DDG-88 "Preble" in 2002 year after the transfer of the US Navy. Whatever large-scale utilization, the American fleet was replenished with new ships regularly. In 2002, the Russian Navy for the first time did not receive a single warship. The US Navy received three destroyers, including the one shown in the photo.


Fifth stage. Unsustainable growth (2011-2015 years)

The last 5 years are characterized by very small amounts of recycling. It seems that there is simply nothing left to write off. But with the construction there is a first, still unstable growth. For the first time since 1987 (!), The volume of commissioning of new ships exceeded the amount of utilization. It happened in 2012 year. Due to some revival of construction over the years 5, the overall strength of the crew has even increased, passing the bottom in the 2011 year (again, for the first time since the 1987 year).

In the US, the previously detected trend persists: a gradual decline in numbers, the preservation of moderate volumes of construction and write-off. Over the 5 years, the combat strength of the US Navy was reduced by only 2,8% and still exceeds the Russian one by about 3 times.

Preliminary findings

So, we have identified the main processes in the field of utilization and replenishment of ship compositions in 1975-2015. You can sum up the preliminary results. But for now, we will try to bypass making decisive ratings. Just stating the facts.

Since 1987, both countries have launched processes of mass arms reduction. The USSR confidently began this process first and decisively, without looking at its partners, increased the volumes of utilization. The United States was more cautious and increased the volume of reductions only after the USSR. At the same time, both sides maintained the volume of construction of new ships. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia continued the process of cuts, but at the same time stopped construction. Following the Russian side, the United States in the same period (with the delay noted earlier) increased the amount of utilization, but did not abandon the construction of new ships. Then Russia, having reached the bottom in the 2011 year, gradually reduced the write-off volumes to a minimum and made a timid attempt to resume construction (after the 2012 year). The United States at the same time reduced both construction volumes and write-offs, while maintaining the overall high strength of the fleet.

To be continued ...

Photo used:
http://www.navsource.org/
http://www.navsource.narod.ru/
Author:
68 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. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 8 February 2017 15: 20
    +11
    Thank you Alex for the article! It’s bad that you are building so few warships now, and even worse, we are building from too long.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 8 February 2017 16: 07
      +5
      in addition to quantity and filling, you need a modern one. and not .. would you just shut up the lack of tonnage
      1. Alex_59
        8 February 2017 21: 06
        +11
        Quote: antivirus
        in addition to quantity and filling, you need a modern one. and not .. would you just shut up the lack of tonnage

        Undoubtedly. This will be further. Although a qualitative assessment is a secondary objective of this work. Including because the quantity is an objective thing, it is difficult to fake or manipulate it, depending on the point of view of the author. And quality, it is very subjective, because a simple comparison of the performance characteristics (i.e., again, an attempt to switch to an unbiased language of numbers) does little here - in life, the effectiveness of a weapon depends very much on many unpredictable factors that passport performance characteristics can distort beyond recognition. Therefore, such an assessment is highly dependent on the opinion of the author. He can tailor this matter to the desired result, ignoring a couple of factors, and with the help of other selectivity. I try to avoid this.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 9 February 2017 01: 24
          +6
          Quote: Alex_59
          And the quality is very subjective, because simple comparison of TTX

          As usual, he suggested stupidity and offered to argue with her.
          No, it is not necessary to compare TTX

          The cost and duration of the construction of a serial ship, on 75%, depends on the following factors:

          - the presence of a modern multi-channel SAMs - there is / no
          - type and number of radars, characteristics of antenna devices, radiation power and basic functions



          The most complex and expensive elements, the development of which takes decades
          And the ships carrying such radar and air defense missiles, can not build anyone except 10-ki most developed countries in the world

          Further - the obvious. Take into account all those who have a displacement under 10 thousand tons and attributes of a warship (radar set; power plant, with a power clearly higher than that used on civilian and auxiliary ships; numerous rocket and artillery weapons)

          For these reasons, it is impossible to equate even 40 boats to one destroyer Spryens or, especially, Kidd-type EMs.
          Also, as nine women still can not stand the child for 1 month
          Quote: Alex_59
          I try to avoid it.

          You try to avoid it, because otherwise all your concepts don't work.
          _______________________________
          Actually, what is the subject of the dispute:

          From 2000 to the present the Russian fleet is in a worse condition than in the 90-ies, when something else worked, and the fleet was still able to perform combat missions

          Cheerful reports about the revival - a phantom created with the help of the media, eagerly savoring every promise and detailed coverage of the construction of each launch. Zakadka - (through 3 of the year) launching - (through 3 of the year) access to tests ... As a result, an illusion is created that three ships were built cheerfully, and in fact not one

          Alex59 tried to argue with that, but the numbers showed exactly that
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 9 February 2017 07: 00
            +10
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            As a result, the illusion is created that three ships were cheerfully built, and in fact - not a single one

            Oh Oleg, Oleg! Oleg, let's fantasize in your style? Suppose ... the Kremlin radically revised its doctrine of a new world order, as a result, most of the allocated financial resources for defense were redirected to destabilize interethnic, interreligious, interclass and separatist views of the US population. As a result of these Kremlin actions, the United States lost 10-12 states that declared themselves independent states. Moreover, neighboring countries took advantage of the situation - California alone, and another territory from the state of Pennsylvania to the state of Maine. So the question arises, Oleg, how soon can the US recover from such a blow?
            Why am I talking about all this?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The cost and duration of the construction of a serial ship, on 75%, depends on the following factors:

            The cost and duration of construction does not depend on whether there are air defense systems and radar! About 1000 (THOUSANDS!!!!) factories and 26 ministries throughout the Union! 2 years after the collapse of the Union, 60-70% of these plants ordered to live long! The cost and duration of building a ship directly depends on the availability of production from the kenaf rope to air defense systems and radars, inclusive!
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 9 February 2017 08: 00
              +3
              Quote: Serg65
              As a result, most of the allocated funds for defense were redirected to destabilize inter-ethnic, inter-religious, interclass and separatist views of the US population.

              In this case, it must be admitted that the KGB was full of idiots

              "Change!", 1990 year

              At the stadiums of the country - millions of paid agents of the CIA, the same as himself Tsoi

              Quote: Serg65
              So, Oleg, a question arises - how soon can the United States recover from such a blow?

              The USSR was able to recover from an even tougher blow in 15 years

              complete destruction of industry and infrastructure - not anywhere in Tajikistan, but in the most developed, central regions of the country
              the death of 10% of the population + the same number of cripples from the front, 20% of the country's population
              Quote: Serg65
              In the construction of "Orlan" participated around 1000 (THOUSANDS !!!!) factories and 26-ti ministries throughout the Union!

              Because radar and air defense systems
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 9 February 2017 08: 32
                +7
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                In this case, it must be admitted that the KGB was full of idiots

                No, Oleg, unfortunately I admit that the KGB did not have suckers (if it were suckers, it would not be so offensive). according to open official data, the KGB actively participated in the discharge of the USSR.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                At the stadiums of the country - millions of paid agents of the CIA, the same as himself Tsoi

                Choi is a product of Perestroika, sitting in a St. Petersburg fireman and demanding change - this was in complete harmony with the spirit of the time.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The USSR was able to recover from an even tougher blow in 15 years

                Well, my friend, comparing the methods of Stalin and Putin is at least incorrect! Do you think that a spoiled and pampered American citizen rolled up his sleeves, stepping over his ego will rush to restore the greatness of his country? laughing Hollywood very convincingly shows the future of the USA after the Apocalypse! Robbery, robbery and murder! By the way, the same thing we saw last year during the uprising of blacks, sorry, African-Americans!
              2. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 9 February 2017 19: 06
                +5
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Because radar and air defense systems

                Nuclear reactors are bullshit. The main radar and air defense system! Oars in hand!
          2. Alex_59
            9 February 2017 07: 11
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Next is the obvious. Take into account all those who have a displacement of 10 thousand tons and the attributes of a warship

            I would say - obviously incredible. Those. the patrol ship of the 22350 project is the “bottom” unworthy of accounting. Oh well smile
            Why are you torturing the keyboard for nothing? Take and count. Am I against it? I am always happy! And then the pictures from World of Ships copy-paste is not a tricky business.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            For these reasons, it is impossible to equate even 40 boats to one destroyer Spryens or, especially, Kidd-type EMs.

            And to the frigates "O.H. Perry" - can you equate 40 boats? As part of the US Navy, they are counted. Why 40 boats? And not 30 or 20, or 100?
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 9 February 2017 07: 45
              +2
              Quote: Alex_59
              Those. 22350 project guard ship

              You're confused again, this is the newest generation.
              Now there is an opportunity to put a large-range multi-channel air defense system on ships of this size

              And we argued about the ships of the cold war
              Quote: Alex_59
              And why boats 40?

              By displacement Spryance = 40 pk

              This is about the wretchedness of the method of accounting for warships only one parameter
              Quote: Alex_59
              And then the pictures from World of Ships copy-paste matter is not tricky.

              In order to seriously consider something, you have no initial data

              For example, did you know about the existence of the Charleston-class, Suribachi-class

              Did you count them?
              1. Alex_59
                9 February 2017 08: 20
                +6
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Charleston class
                Yes. smile
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Suribachi-class
                No. smile Like all Auxiliary. For the Navy of the USSR, too, did not consider auxiliary. Just do not right now here prove the greatest combat value of the five dry cargo ships 50-ies built.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Now there is an opportunity to put a large-range multi-channel air defense system on ships of this size

                That is, all the same, we delete Sproens with his wooden C-Sparrow air defense system? laughing
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 9 February 2017 08: 46
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Like all Auxiliary

                  Yes, you do not look at the words, look at their features. KCC is not a kilctor

                  If you even considered 200-ton boats in the article, motivating them as important in the near-sea zone, then why not take these warships permanently included in squadrons

                  Dry cargo - with a crew of 300 people, el. network under military standards, speed 20 knots., with a helipad, military-style radars and weapons (i.e. even the principle of a warship is observed here)
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  For the Soviet Navy, too, did not consider auxiliary.

                  And these should also be taken into account - Berezina and so on.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  That is, all the same, we delete Sproens with his wooden C-Sparrow air defense system?

                  Take into account all those who have a displacement under 10 thousand tons and attributes of a warship (radar set; power plant, with a power clearly higher than that used on civilian and auxiliary ships; numerous rocket and artillery weapons)
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 9 February 2017 08: 58
                    +5
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    And these should also be taken into account - Berezina and so on.

                    By the way, I recently ran into nete on Chinese pr.901

                    Doesn't remind anyone ???
                    1. Sailor
                      Sailor 9 February 2017 22: 34
                      +4
                      One to one Berezina, stood at the minks when I served.
                  2. Alex_59
                    9 February 2017 09: 01
                    +5
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Yes you do not look at the words

                    I will look at the words, I will look at the contents. If you look at the words, i.e. for classification, then the Americans themselves quite clearly separate the "combat" ships from the "auxiliary". Therefore, the LKA is a warship, it solves the combat task of landing, as the letter "L" - Landing speaks in its class. And AE is never a warship. And the content too. A large displacement and a few guns do not make a ship out of "AE" for combat.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    And these should also be taken into account - Berezina and so on.

                    Not going to.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    If you even considered 200-ton boats in the article, motivating them with importance in the near sea zone, then why not take into account these warships, which are constantly included in the squadron

                    Because I consider the objective purpose of the ship. If it is intended for warfare, then we consider it. Point.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Take into account all those who have a displacement under 10 thousand tons and attributes of a warship (radar set; power plant, with a power clearly higher than that used on civilian and auxiliary ships; numerous rocket and artillery weapons)

                    Sorry, I find this proposal inappropriate. If you want to count by these criteria - do it yourself. I’ll give only one hint. Are you sure that the situation will not become even more terrible for our Navy and its period of existence in the 90 years?
                    Personally, I know the answer. wink
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 9 February 2017 09: 16
                      +5
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Are you sure that the situation will not become even more terrible for our Navy and its period of existence in the 90 years?
                      Personally, I know the answer.

                      And I'll tell you, if you count everything. then it’s necessary to count the mobile reserve of the Navy of the USSR, this is minus Batumi, Novorossiysk, Black Sea, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Baltic, Murmansk, Northern, Sakhalin and Far Eastern shipping companies - this is more than 1000 ships!
                      1. Alex_59
                        9 February 2017 09: 24
                        +4
                        Quote: Serg65
                        And I'll tell you, if you count everything. then it’s necessary to count the mobile reserve of the Navy of the USSR, this is minus Batumi, Novorossiysk, Black Sea, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Baltic, Murmansk, Northern, Sakhalin and Far Eastern shipping companies - this is more than 1000 ships!

                        Yes, this was also one of the "stop factors", why I did not consider everything as an "auxiliary". In addition to the fact that accounting for these vessels is very complicated, it is also not easy for the USSR to separate where the military ends and the civil begins. Because MMF vessels were built taking into account the requirements of the Navy with reinforcements for the installation of weapons. The ships got into the Navy, then again transferred to the civilian, then again transferred to the Navy. Well, all this is secondary.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 9 February 2017 09: 29
                        +2
                        Quote: Serg65
                        It is imperative that the naval base of the USSR Navy be counted, this is a minus of Batumsk, Novorossiysk, Black Sea, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Baltic, Murmansk, Northern, Sakhalin and Far Eastern Shipping Companies - this is more than 1000 ships!

                        Do not go to extremes

                        And then count MAERSK Group
                    2. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 9 February 2017 09: 19
                      +2
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Therefore, LKA is a warship, it solves the combat mission of landing, as the letter "L" - Landing says in its class.

                      USNS Bob Hope (T-AKR-300)

                      Without the letter "L"





                      Quote: Alex_59
                      I consider the destination of the ship to be an objective criterion.

                      Write something else, make fun of the pentagon
                      the Americans themselves quite clearly separate the "fighting" ships from the "auxiliary".

                      These are no different from BDK

                      The KMP gas turbine rocking unit has its advantages - capacity, high speed - 24 knots, the possibility of over-the-horizon unloading of military equipment and ammunition, in the open sea - by helicopters and landing craft
                      1. DrVintorez
                        DrVintorez 9 February 2017 12: 19
                        +6
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Write something else, make fun of the pentagon

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And then count MAERSK Group

                        Oleg began to be rude and threaten - a sure sign of Alex's rightness.
          3. antivirus
            antivirus 9 February 2017 07: 57
            +1
            All of you are right in your own way.
            presence at the point of the world's oceans is necessary for diplomats (to disperse tonnage across different seas) - a flag demonstration, and TTX - before the death of the United States, you need to know how many times they will be killed
          4. Ustinov 055 055
            Ustinov 055 055 9 February 2017 08: 51
            +2
            The CSF shows the state of our fleet, if the fleet on which I serve in this state, imagine the other 2. (Caspian Sea and Baltiysk don’t take it into account at all) I support you The media is cultivating too happy a picture
    2. leshiy076
      leshiy076 8 February 2017 19: 28
      +8
      Very good analysis, based on logic and numbers. It is clear, accessible, clearly.
  2. Leeder
    Leeder 8 February 2017 16: 18
    +6
    While the Americans have strong air defense and navy, they will not lose any war, at least ...
  3. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 8 February 2017 16: 21
    +1
    Great article, tonnage data will come in handy for various disputes.
  4. Rokossovsky
    Rokossovsky 8 February 2017 17: 03
    +8
    Thank you so much for the work done Alex!
    A worthy response to a recent article Mousya Kaptsova!
    We look forward to continuing! drinks
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 9 February 2017 01: 33
      +4
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      A worthy response to a recent article Mousya Kaptsova!

      Agree

      just the data is wrong, and everything is in order
      1. Alex_59
        9 February 2017 06: 44
        +7
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        just the data is wrong, and everything is in order

        Do the faithful. No problem.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 9 February 2017 07: 48
          +1
          Quote: Alex_59
          Do the right ones.

          I can not do right, up to each ship

          But I know for sure that you were wrong. Because even on a vskidku you can see that you did not take them all
          1. antivirus
            antivirus 9 February 2017 08: 01
            +1
            All of you are right in your own way.
            the presence at the point of the world's oceans is necessary for diplomats (to disperse tonnage across different seas) - a flag demonstration, and TTX - before the death of the United States, you need to know how many times they will be killed.
            US Navy - for presence near land over 2–3 t km from the USA, and we have enough land missiles and air defense (at such a distance). This is the defense of its territory.
          2. Alex_59
            9 February 2017 08: 21
            +6
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            But I know for sure that you were wrong. Because even on a vskidku you can see that you did not take them all

            Accurate and offhand concepts are opposite.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 9 February 2017 08: 49
              +1
              Quote: Alex_59
              Accurate and offhand concepts are opposite.

              It does not change the essence
              you counted them not all

              I have already accumulated 290 - written off in the period from 1991 to 2000, 90% - large warships, from 4000 thousand tons
              1. Alex_59
                9 February 2017 09: 04
                +4
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                I have already accumulated 290 - written off in the period from 1991 to 2000, 90% - large warships, from 4000 thousand tons

                I did not consider the military. I considered fighting.
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 9 February 2017 09: 20
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  I considered fighting.

                  It is fighting
                  In your understanding
                  1. Alex_59
                    9 February 2017 09: 34
                    +4
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    It is fighting
                    In your understanding

                    Spread the list. Compare.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 9 February 2017 10: 31
                      +1


                      Written off in the period from 1991 to 2000.
                      and i'm sure it's not all
                      1. Alex_59
                        9 February 2017 11: 19
                        +5
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Written off in the period from 1991 to 2000.

                        Answered below.
                        I have everything from the list, some sort of reassortment by years of cancellation is visible - not critical. Nothing was lost. But the transports (17 pieces seem) and Stalwart go by the forest - I did not take them into account and did not plan, as well as for the USSR.
  5. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 8 February 2017 17: 08
    +3
    As always: "Bravo, Alex!"
  6. gorsten79
    gorsten79 8 February 2017 18: 50
    +1
    Thank you. Very interesting. We look forward to continuing.
  7. sergei1975
    sergei1975 8 February 2017 18: 52
    +1
    In the first photo, it seems, the helicopter carrier “Moscow” is the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. Probably the last photo before cutting to metal. sad
    1. Alex_59
      8 February 2017 20: 57
      +7
      Nearly. This is "Leningrad" before cutting on the beach in India. 1995 year.
      1. Galleon
        Galleon 9 February 2017 02: 39
        +6
        This place in India is called Alang. 400 dismantling sites for scrap, one and a half thousand ships a year, from 20 to 40 thousand workers work. All labor is manual. Hell's job, but what to do - there are 672 million poor people in India. The gently sloping sandy bottom without stones, a sufficient tide height, the most unloaded ship hulls - they are brought almost to the shore on an even keel. Type "Alang" in the "Google Earth" and see the photo. Impressive.
        I won’t be surprised if our decommissioned steamers and American ones are met there before death.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 9 February 2017 08: 03
          +1
          Former pariahs know best the survivability and security of warships around the world? "special forces" of God.
  8. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 8 February 2017 19: 07
    +4
    To write so much to “come to a conclusion” that now the American fleet exceeds the Russian fleet by 3 times and will this trend continue? what
    1. Alex_59
      8 February 2017 20: 58
      +10
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      To write so much to “come to a conclusion” that now the American fleet exceeds the Russian fleet by 3 times and will this trend continue?

      Well, firstly, if I want to - why not write? After all, my work. And then, the article is not about what is now, but about what happened in the last 25 years, how normal it was (or ugly), and not just blah blah blah, but with proof in the form of numbers.
  9. KaPToC
    KaPToC 8 February 2017 20: 09
    +1
    Photo by the way to the question of harpoons that can not sink not the largest ship.
    1. Rokossovsky
      Rokossovsky 8 February 2017 21: 11
      +1
      Quote: KaPToC
      Photo by the way to the question of harpoons that can not sink not the largest ship.

      Enjoy it!
      The Americans of his 12 clock drowned with all that is possible!
      Target - Frigate Fach, 4200 tons of displacement!
  10. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 8 February 2017 21: 36
    +1
    It is intelligible, as always with Alexey!
    True, I was intrigued by a certain confusion .... to be continued.
    What is there to continue?
    At the beginning of the article, the task of the article was clearly stated. It was also convex in this part that our fleet was one third of the American in mass, and we are in the dead ass for introducing new hulls. Rear admirals, in short, if Divov is sometimes read.
    I readily believe that our anti-ship missiles are the most anti -.... in the world. But, Christmas trees, the salvo weight is the salvo weight. And if we have it initially three times lower.
    Maybe it will be easier to fight with packs?
    Although .... but, yes, we are fighting not for the sake of war, but for the Victory.
    Well, the victory will be ours, I have no doubt. That's just what remains of the fleet, the fourth or fifth series of formation.
    It is sad.
  11. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 8 February 2017 21: 45
    +2
    It is advisable to link the composition of the fleet with the activities of naval educational institutions. How much was, how much was left. And so an interesting analysis. I look forward to continuing.
  12. Ayratelinsion
    Ayratelinsion 8 February 2017 22: 10
    +1
    Table 1 would be supplemented with several columns reflecting the difference between the commissioned and the utilized ships (it is also possible to do with tons). Such a modification would greatly increase the visibility and readability of the table.
  13. Serg65
    Serg65 9 February 2017 07: 39
    +5
    hi Welcome Alex!
    1986 year is marked by the growth of ship recycling in the USSR.

    Here, Alexei, you, like Oleg Kaptsov, are absolutely right! But it is worth noting what was written off and what came (or was laid) in exchange! In those years, destroyers of 30bis Ave., Pl.613 Ave. (at that time there were 170 units), SKR A35 Ave., IPC 50 Ave., KR Ave. 204bis, KR A 68bis Ave., destroyers 56 and 57 projects were partly written off. , and partly withdrawn to the second line or to the reserve. Here I would not blame Gorbachev and Chernavin, the massive rearmament of the fleet was announced by Gorshkov long before these "comrades" came to power. Gorbachev’s guilt was that he systematically ruined and handed over his country, but Chernavin did not possess the Kuznetsovsk-Gorshkovsky inner core and was following the reformers, and besides, he was not at all interested in building new ships!
    Aleksey, you correctly noticed that before the 95 year, shipbuilders went on the thumb and finished what was laid before the collapse, Oleg is trying to prove the unprovable here, but Oleg, 90% of metal and money in the construction of what was launched in 90 -x was mastered even before the 92 year, But what was ready for 45-50% was happily cut directly on the stocks or, when a foreign sponsor was found, it was exported.
    1. Alex_59
      9 February 2017 07: 48
      +3
      Good day, Sergey! hi
      Quote: Serg65
      Here I would not blame Gorbachev and Chernavin, the massive rearmament of the fleet was announced by Gorshkov long before these "comrades" came to power.
      But for now, I’m not blaming anyone for anything. The conclusions section is intentionally emphasized - only a statement of facts. I would even say, here I justify Gorbachev a little, indicating that reductions were inevitable. We turn to the charges in the following parts.
      Quote: Serg65
      In those years, destroyers of 30bis Ave., Pl.A. 613 Aircraft (at that time there were 170 units), SKR A35 Ave., IPC 50 Ave., KR A 204bis Ave., 68 and 56 Project destroyers were partly written off , and partly withdrawn to the second line or to the reserve.

      I ask you not to run ahead of the engine and not to reveal the intrigue. laughing In this part, I described the processes as a whole, but what exactly and when was written off - this will be next. An interesting picture turned out, by the way.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 9 February 2017 07: 52
        +3
        Quote: Alex_59
        I ask you not to run ahead of the engine and not to reveal the intrigue

        repeat Well, I'm by accident!
  14. Serg65
    Serg65 9 February 2017 09: 53
    +3
    SWEET_SIXTEEN,
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Do not go to extremes

    Far from Oleg! Framing of Batumi tankers for the needs of the 5th OPEC was commonplace, in August of the 1989th USNS sisterships “Junior Corporal Roy Vita” the skipper “Captain Smirnov”, “Captain Mezentsev” and “Engineer Ermoshkin” took part in large maneuvers Grigoryevka, transportation during the operation "Anadyr" completely fell on the Baltic and Murmansk shipping companies! This is essentially the answer to the lack of an analogue of the Military Sealift Command in the USSR!
  15. alstr
    alstr 9 February 2017 10: 11
    +3
    SWEET_SIXTEEN,
    Why extremes then? Indeed, civilian vessels, especially the ocean class, were built taking into account the requirements of the Navy and had Native weapons. Moreover, these weapons were put, tested and then deposited in the arsenal.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 9 February 2017 10: 56
      +1
      Quote: alstr
      And why the extremes?

      Because then it is necessary to consider Cunard, Mersk Group and others.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 9 February 2017 11: 28
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Because then you will have to count Kunard, Marsk Group, etc.

        laughing Oleg, my friend, are we now comparing the US and Russian fleets (USSR) or the NATO fleet against Russia? If the second one, then ships and ships of the Warsaw Pact must be spun here bully The difference between Kunard and Marsk Group from Soviet shipping companies is still quite large, in the case of Soviet ships, they were simply mobilized without paying a fraction, the crews underwent military retraining with the preservation of the RF.
      2. Alex_59
        9 February 2017 11: 37
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Because then it is necessary to consider Cunard, Mersk Group and others.

        Well, it seems you have come to the same conclusions as me. laughing With this "then it is necessary to consider and ...." you can go so far that you simply crush this volume. At some point you need to stop. I consider it reasonable to dwell on the criteria for a "warship", because this is the main striking force of the fleet - everything else is secondary. Therefore, I calculated only the combat. There is no desire to engage in the counting of numerous Soviet ambulance boats, torpedo tubes, aquarius, hydrographs and sea crawlers.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 9 February 2017 12: 26
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          I consider it reasonable to dwell on the “warship” criteria,

          And you think it is reasonable to put boats and destroyers for a billion dollars in one list. The main shock force of the fleet, so you can die of laughter

          But what about Hope - is it a warship? If not, how is it different from the same BDK
          ________________________
          If you started counting the boat, then take into account the conscience of the KCC and the transport of the ILC
          They do not look like civilians (from coloring to filling)
          They constantly escort squadrons.
          Some even carry weapons, although it is not their task.
          Their construction is worth hundreds of millions, and their loss will seriously affect the capabilities of the fleet
          ______________________
          If you started talking about the main striking force - consider the FPO cruisers and so on. Large destroyers-BOD, it is meaningless to talk about the MCD and the boats there

          Better reduce NATO count
          1. Alex_59
            9 February 2017 13: 08
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Better reduce NATO count

            Counted. Is it necessary? Too lazy to spread again, he wrote once.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Do you think it is reasonable to put boats and destroyers for one billion dollars on the same list?
            Yes. And the landing ships (read the box without the URO, PLURO and SAM), too.
        2. ihnovich990
          ihnovich990 12 February 2017 15: 07
          0
          "Asynesators." Literacy hurts the eye.
  16. Alex_59
    9 February 2017 11: 17
    +2
    9 LEAHY
    9 BELKNAP
    1 TRUXTUN
    2 CALIFORNIA
    4 VIRGINIA
    11 CHARLES F. ADAMS (plus 9 written off in 1990 g, 3 in 1989 g)
    8 FARRAGUT (plus 1 written off in 1990 g, 2 in 1989 g)
    4 KIDD
    9 SPRUANCE (plus 22 decommissioned in 2002-2005 years)
    Total: 57

    8 PERMIT (plus 2 written off in 1990 g, 3 in 1989 g)
    36 STURGEON (plus 1 written off in 2001 g, 1 in 2004 g)
    11 LOS ANGELES
    2 ETHAN ALLEN
    14 LAFAYETTE
    12 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
    Total: 83

    46 KNOX
    16 OLIVER HAZARD PERRY

    19 NEWPORT
    6 IWO JIMA
    2 RALEIGH
    5 CHARLESTONS

    6 PEGASUS

    4 forrestal
    1 AMERICA
    1 Lexington
    1 midway

    4 Iowa

    17 MSOs

    TOTAL 268 pieces.

    Stalwart and others, what goes below the forest, not combat. For the USSR, intelligence, transports, etc. also not considered.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 9 February 2017 11: 42
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      Stalwart and others, what goes below the forest, not combat. For the USSR, intelligence, transports, etc. also not considered.

      For the USSR, you are not shy to consider RK

      So what did not like the anti-submarine ship with a multi-kilometer towed antenna.

      At the same time count downsizing of the NATO Navy
      1. Alex_59
        9 February 2017 12: 03
        +7
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        So what did not like the anti-submarine ship with a multi-kilometer towed antenna.

        The presence of exceptionally powerful weapons. laughing The USSR had similar ships, for example, the Kamchatka underwater lighting ship. In the calculations, it was not taken into account like the American AGOS. All is fair. Like other "intelligence", which the USSR had many dozens.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For the USSR, you are not shy to consider RK

        Are you sitting there for armor? RK - FIGHTING SHIP. Just do not tell how all these American vehicles with a pair of guns heroically break through to our boat at the distance of a pair of cables to sink it with well-aimed artillery fire.
        And logic must be friends too. The USSR had opponents at hand and shallow seas, and even skerries. They also need to fight. Therefore, built MRK, IPC and RCA. The United States simply does not need them. But the United States there is what kind of landing force it has - you’ll sway. I’m not saying, “let’s not consider the American paratroopers” just because the USSR did not have them at all. Conditions should be equal and take into account all factors. The USA wanted to have powerful landing forces - they had them. The USSR wanted to have boats - he had them. We do not give any discounts to anyone. All is fair.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        At the same time count downsizing of the NATO Navy

        Oh, Oleg, I’ve already calculated all this for a long time, and the ATS countries too, do you even think before you write. By God, you’re throwing arguments against me now. There, the contrast will be even tougher. NATO has shrunk a bit. And the USSR-at times.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 9 February 2017 12: 30
          +1
          Quote: Alex_59
          Just do not tell how all these American vehicles with a pair of guns heroically break through to our boat at a distance of a pair of cables to sink it with accurate artillery fire.

          For armor you sit, and not treated

          Each class has its own task. Including the air defense ship, which is the most important to detect (PLO is a network task). To finish the discovered (read - helpless) boat there will be those who wish

          So it’s not a fact who has more rights to be on the list - from PLO ships or outdated RC 200 tons.
          1. Alex_59
            9 February 2017 13: 06
            +5
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            For armor you sit, and not treated

            Came out a bummer with lists, with Charleston, can only be hysterical? laughing
            In addition to boats, apparently there is nothing more to cling to. Oleg, and if I take away the boats, and even the MRK and the IPC, how much do you think the picture will change? Do not answer immediately, think. laughing

            PS Why am I so impudent and cheerful? I'm not a fraer. I’ve got it, on the desktop already and without boats everything is counted. I know the answer. laughing
  17. alstr
    alstr 9 February 2017 13: 33
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    At the same time count downsizing of the NATO Navy

    Oh, Oleg, I’ve already calculated all this for a long time, and the ATS countries too, do you even think before you write. By God, you’re throwing arguments against me now. There, the contrast will be even tougher. NATO has shrunk a bit. And the USSR-at times.

    I would say that they moved from the ATS to NATO - the GDR, Poland, the Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania.
  18. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 9 February 2017 14: 19
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Do you think it is reasonable to put boats and destroyers for one billion dollars on the same list.

    and a little lower
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    If you started counting the boat, then take into account the conscience of the KCC and the transport of the ILC

    then you can’t put the boats on the same line with the destroyers "for a billion dollars" (oleg, let me sell you an old motorboat for lam bucks?), then if you count the boats, then consider the transports of the KMP ... well, how can this be ??? in one post to combine mutually exclusive things?