Military Review

Russian and US fleets: destruction statistics. Part of 2

58

BOD "Gifted" in the Sea of ​​Japan, 17.09.1983 of the year



What is recycled?

In the first part of the article it was shown that the USSR, and then the USA, began at the turn of the 90s of the last century a large-scale reduction of fleets. Let us ask ourselves a question - what was good in this process and what was bad? Obviously, the reduction process was multifaceted and consisted of objective, inevitable processes, as well as coercive actions aimed at consciously reducing combat capabilities fleet. The latter is a political decision aimed at defusing tensions between the superpowers.

Among the objective and inevitable processes are - reducing the level of tension and the likelihood of a full-scale war, the release of human and financial forces, bound by huge armies, for peaceful affairs. In addition, some of the recycled equipment in any case had to be written off in terms of life. This is all wonderful and can only please.

The subjective processes, on the other hand, include the compulsory loss of combat capability and the elimination of equipment, which has not yet fully given up its resource to the defense of the Motherland. We are not talking about people, since this is not part of the task of this work.

Focus on the purely technical aspects of the problem. Decommissioning of the ship can be carried out on a strong-willed decision of the command to develop their normal life. This is possible when the ship was no longer needed, its modernization and operation is not advisable. Or because of the complete use of the resource - by old age.

If we calculate what proportion of ships that were destroyed before the end of their service life in the total utilization flow, it will be possible to understand how carefully the management of the fleet and the state treated the resources available. It is clear that if the inevitable task of reduction has arisen, then it is better to get rid of obsolete trash, and not the best and most valuable combat units. The ship is not built to go on needles a few years after construction. But what if the authorities thoughtlessly sent to the smelt not only the outdated trash, but also the latest weapons? And what about the situation with the enemy? Indeed, it is one thing when under the guise of abbreviation you write off something that should be written off as well, since it is hopelessly outdated. And it is quite another thing when you send the latest technology to the scrap, in which the money and strength of your people were invested several years ago.

How to separate the new from the old? As a conditional barrier cutoff, the author considers the most objective indicator - the service life in 20 years. If the ship is written off after serving 20 years, then we can assume that the funds invested in its construction, one way or another, spent with benefit. 20 years the ship defended the interests of the country - this is the return that is required of him. But if the ship goes to the scrap, not having served even 20 years - it already looks like wrecking. There are exceptions when the newly built ships very quickly become morally obsolete and their modernization is comparable to the construction of new ones. Yes, this is possible. But only if it is an exception. And if this is a system, then this is already wasting public resources. It also includes the premature destruction of equipment due to the inability to properly maintain and repair it.

Russian and US fleets: destruction statistics. Part of 2


All new - in a landfill!

Table 4 shows the total tonnage of scrapped ships under 20 years, and the percentage of total scrapping. It can be seen that before the upheavals associated with the collapse of the USSR, the share of writing off new ships ranged from 0 to 15%. In other words, both sides tried not to remove the newest weapons from the squad.

It also speaks clearly about the processes of mass write-off of ships in the Soviet period, before 1991. As shown earlier, recycling began in the USSR back in the 1987 year, before the destruction of the state, when it was still relatively safe. Then this process continued even after the collapse of the country. This may give a false impression of a natural phenomenon — as if we were just ridding ourselves of junk and junk. And after the change of power from Gorbachev to Yeltsin, this process continued. In fact, before 1991, the share of new technology in the total write-off was a small part. On average, for 1986-1990 years - about 16%. Specifically, in the record 1990 year - no more than 40%. Those. The reductions concerned, first of all, the really old and outdated technology. But already in the next 5 years, from 1991 to 1995 years, this figure soared from 16 to 43%, and further to 63%. For example, in 1995, the share of writing off new equipment was 96%, in 1998 and 1999 years around 85%, in 1993 - 76%, in 1994, 1996 and 1997 - around 68%.

Simply put, the massive reduction that began in 1987-1990 as a positive process of detente in the Cold War was carried out quite cleverly - mostly old equipment was disposed of. There really was something to get rid of without regret. USSR copied entirely on what did not fit submarines 613 projects, 627, 658, 611, 675 and other surface ships -. TFR 50 projects, 204, 35, destroyers 56 projects, 57, 30-bis, boats 205 project cruiser 68 -bis and another. Of the relatively new ships, obviously unsuccessful ones were decommissioned, for example, the nuclear submarine of the 705 project, or the nuclear submarine of the 667A project, which in any case were subject to write-off under the SALT and START agreements, and it was too expensive to rebuild all of them into the carriers of cruise missiles.

But since 1991, and after the collapse of the USSR, this process has changed structurally, and ships that had recently descended from stocks have gone to junk. No other than deliberate sabotage can not be explained.


The absolute leader in terms of displacement / service life is the Novorossisk TAVKR, which has served just 11 years.


At the same time, in the United States, reductions didn’t seem much more rational. In the 1995 year, when Russia decommissioned ships younger than 20 in years, with a total tonnage of 300 thousand tons (96% of the total volume for the year), in the United States just the same new ships were scrapped by 35 thousand tons, or 23% of the total tonnage. The difference in 10 times! The average values ​​of the share of new ships in the total volume were only one time closer to the Russian ones - in 1996-2000, reaching 30%. In other periods - no more than 5%. In just the years of cuts, Americans wrote off 4 times less than the tonnage of ships under the age of 20 years.


The DDG-79 Oscar Austin destroyer conducts artillery fire on the decommissioned Conolly destroyer of the Spruance type. The latter served in the US Navy 20 years.


After 2000, the destruction of new units in Russia has decreased, but reached zero only in the last 5 years.

Perhaps someone seems far-fetched estimated criterion of "old age" in 20 years. Why not 25 or 15? I hasten to reassure the reader - the author has conducted calculations for these ages too. The situation has not changed dramatically. Ships younger than 15 in the USA over the years of active reductions were written off in 13 times less than in Russia. And if you start from the number of "25 years", then in 2 times less.

The calculations made it possible to separate the ships, the decommissioning of which was natural, and in any case they had to be disposed of. Just the time of their withdrawal coincided with a general large-scale reduction. And now it is possible, not in words, but in numbers, to measure the damage inflicted by our own authorities to the navy.

Depending on the evaluation criterion, the authorities of Russia deliberately destroyed the efficient modern ships in 2-13 times more than the USA, and the total tonnage within 450 thousand tons - 1900 thousand tons. The greatest part of these losses (85%) fell on the period of Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin’s rule ...


BOD "Tallinn". Served about 15 years. Written off in 1994 year. At the time of write-off was in perfect technical condition.


Building

By itself, the cancellation of ships, even if relatively modern and still good-quality, is still half the problem. If they are replaced by newly built, even more effective combat units, the disposal process can be assessed positively - fresh blood is poured in, accelerated renewal is underway. How was this with both sides?

The USA, even incapacitating relatively fresh combat units, actively filled the fleet with even more powerful ships. Construction did not stop them even once. Every year, the US Navy received something new. Getting rid of junk, they gave the sailors something in return. Of course, the total number of the fleet also declined, but very smoothly and not as much as in Russia. You can consider this decline natural.

In Russia, with the collapse of the USSR, construction was rapidly deteriorating. In the first post-Soviet five-year plan, everything looked quite rosy in the first place because of the completion of ships built back in the 80s. This process went by inertia. But gradually everything that was left of the USSR ended. Were new ships laid? And how did they finish building them?



Table 5 shows the number of hulls being laid, as well as the proportion of completion of the number of pledged (with the exception of landing ships and minesweepers). In the Soviet years, it was the norm to build on 16-18 cases and finish building almost everything. In the first 5 years of the RF, the bookmark did not stop completely - on average, around 5 cases were laid per year. But the completion ... Less than half of the pledged was brought to commissioning. Part of the bookmark buildings before the 1990 year was not completed, therefore the 91,3% figure during the 1986-1990 period is also largely on the conscience of the Yeltsin era.

In 1996-2000, the entire 2 enclosure is embedded. Shipbuilding record! During the same period, the US Navy received 36 brand new ships ...


The only large ship laid for 1996-2000 years is K-535. Active completion began only at the end of the 2000s. For comparison, over the same 5 years (1996-2000 years), the US Navy received 17 ocean destroyers, one nuclear aircraft carrier and 6 nuclear submarines


In 2001-2005, the first moves began. And at least they could finish all that was laid. Only in the last 5 years has any progress been made. Still too weak to rejoice.

Thus, for all the post-Soviet times, the smallest average annual number of bookmarks of new buildings and the least productive completion falls on the period of Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin’s rule ...

Adjustment of preliminary findings.

In the first part, the very fact of the existence of a mass ship utilization by both sides was indicated. But to judge the benefits or harms of this process was clearly impossible. Now we can give such an assessment. The abbreviations begun in the USSR are quite adequate - due to the outdated technology in the new Russia, it is not the old, but the new technology that has become a destruction. We can express it in concrete numbers - thoughtless, premature destruction of ships cost Russia 1200 thousands of tons of displacement, and 85% of this number fell on the years of Yeltsin's rule. Similar losses to the USA turned out to be smaller in 4.

Construction during the Yeltsin era collapsed 5-8 times, compared with the Soviet period. While the United States reduced construction volumes by just 20-30%.

This is the net loss of our country, without taking into account the cancellation of ships that have served their time, which in any case should have been disposed of.

The ending should ...
Author:
58 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. Basil50
    Basil50 16 February 2017 06: 59
    +10
    It is so easy and unconstrained to destroy the labor of thousands of people only with complete irresponsibility. After all, they didn’t even threaten with a finger those who created all this. Yeltsin and the memorial were rebuilt, and his relatives are still in power.
    1. Orel
      Orel 16 February 2017 11: 05
      +1
      The article is interesting, but somewhat meaningless. Any statistical analysis in isolation from the economy and the doctrine of the fleets looks faded. Our fleet with the US fleet is generally meaningless to compare, since they have different purposes. For the United States, a fleet is a vital necessity, since it depends on the seas. For the continental power - Russia - the fleet is intended only as an application to provide access to the world's oceans and ensure coastal security. To project power the fleet of the USSR / Russia far from the sea borders of the USSR / Russia was never intended. This is evident in the composition of the fleets and types of ships. The comparison of our fleets here looks like a comparison of warm with soft.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 16 February 2017 12: 15
        +9
        Quote: Orel
        To project power the fleet of the USSR / Russia far from the sea borders of the USSR / Russia was never intended

        Expression interesting but somewhat meaningless! Dear friend, Orel, I dare to notice you. that the ships of the USSR Navy, ranging from artillery boats to the SSBNs, from the 1958 year to the 1993 year, projected their strength from the Gulf of Mexico to the island of Freysinet! And do not tell me what the Russian Navy ships are doing in the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean, and even in the same Gulf of Mexico? Is the Russian border passing there?
        Quote: Orel
        This is evident in the composition of the fleets and types of ships.

        what Is it possible to disclose this topic in more detail? For retarded collective farmers. pliz!

        Quote: Orel
        There is nothing surprising and criminal in the collapse of the construction of ships, there was not and cannot be.

        smile Well, dear, the crimes started back in the 1985 year with the introduction of the anti-alcohol decree and still do not end !!!!
        Quote: Orel
        When there is nothing to eat, ships are not built.

        belay Where did the food go? On the 1 / 6 part of the planet, suddenly the food ran out at once and no one was to blame! Paradox!
        1. Orel
          Orel 16 February 2017 13: 06
          +3
          The fleets of Russia and the USA have completely different doctrines. Different concepts. From this and a different composition. That is why the USSR fleet did not have classic aircraft carriers, and aircraft carriers cruisers were intended only to provide and cover the deployment of the USSR nuclear submarines in the northern seas. Comparisons of our fleets here lose all meaning. For us, the fleet is a means of covering the coast and providing a retaliatory strike with strategic missile carriers. For the United States, the fleet is the same, but the plus is the maximum support for large-scale landing operations. The USSR never envisioned anything like the doctrine for the fleet.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 16 February 2017 15: 38
            +3
            Quote: Orel
            The fleets of Russia and the USA have completely different doctrines. Different concepts. From this and a different composition. That is why the USSR fleet did not have classic aircraft carriers, and aircraft carriers cruisers were intended only to provide and cover the deployment of the USSR nuclear submarines in the northern seas. Comparisons of our fleets here lose all meaning. For us, the fleet is a means of covering the coast and providing a retaliatory strike with strategic missile carriers. For the United States, the fleet is the same, but the plus is the maximum support for large-scale landing operations. The USSR never envisioned anything like the doctrine for the fleet.

            Classic aircraft carriers were already on their way (Ulyanovsk), just the collapse began earlier. So, everything was in order with the concept and understanding of the role of the fleet by the mid-80s. And yet, the USSR had the largest SSBN fleet in the world, probably they also served to defend its own coast.
    2. Orel
      Orel 16 February 2017 11: 10
      +1
      Quote: Vasily50
      It is so easy and unconstrained to destroy the labor of thousands of people only with complete irresponsibility.


      When there is nothing to eat, ships are not built. There is nothing surprising and criminal in the collapse of the construction of ships, there was not and cannot be. The economy did not allow this.
      1. aliis-M
        aliis-M 17 February 2017 02: 50
        +5
        another question is relevant - why was there nothing left to eat? And who is to blame? This is what the author says.
    3. the most important
      the most important 16 February 2017 22: 54
      +3
      Quote: Vasily50
      Yeltsin and the memorial were rebuilt, and his relatives are still in power.

      And at the same time they are indignant that their people do not like and spit on a monument and on all relatives ... that they deserve, they have!
  2. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 16 February 2017 07: 27
    +2
    Thanks again Alex for the article hi I look forward to continuing.
  3. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 16 February 2017 07: 34
    +3
    Thank you! Everything is intelligible and understandable. Here is the answer to a recent article that everything was not so bad with us. I would say that it was not only bad, but also catastrophically bad. And it was like that everywhere, in all sectors, and the types of troops. The cemeteries of the ships have not yet been cleaned. Somewhere. It came to the point that, in my opinion, Vilyuisk was connected to the SSBN, so that there would be light!
    1. jonht
      jonht 16 February 2017 08: 27
      +1
      Vilyuchinsk ...., but unfortunately the boat does not include the current frequency in boats of 400 hertz in the power system, and 50 hertz in the network.
  4. Pecheneg
    Pecheneg 16 February 2017 07: 48
    0
    Yeah, I would laugh if I didn't want to cry.
  5. Serg65
    Serg65 16 February 2017 08: 00
    +7
    Hello Alexey hi
    This can give a false impression as a natural phenomenon - as if we were simply getting rid of junk and junk.

    With your permission, I will give a few examples of this "false representation"
    RCC "Moscow" from 1982 to 1989 of the year underwent repair and modernization, the last exit to the sea in 1993, and already in 94 it was put into reserve of the 2 category with subsequent renaming to PKZ No.108, in 1997 - it went into its last trip to distant Alang. According to rumors, the fate of “Moscow” was decided by Yeltsin himself, offended by the fact that in 1992 in Novorossiysk he persuaded Commander Bogdashin to raise the Andreevsky flag, Kasatonov’s refusal “Or the whole fleet for Andrei or nothing”, after which the cruiser started strange fires , well, and as a result - joyful Indians!
    BPK "Capable" in 1987 was put into repair with modernization in the SMZ (Sevastopol), for 1992 th 70% readiness. 3.07.92 was an attempt to raise the Ukrainian flag, in 1993 it was transferred to the SMZ on account of paying off the debts of the fleet (the Motherland did not find money for the BOD, the Motherland was selling itself at that time), the same fate befell the “Tallinn” you mentioned, by the way he was from the last series of bukars.
    And how many such ships were there! Many were immediately allowed on needles after repairs!
    In 1996-2000 years, the entire 2 case was laid. Shipbuilding Record!

    what Remember the fate of the Novik TFR - Kuroedov’s hope!
    1. Alex_59
      16 February 2017 08: 38
      +3
      Good day, Sergey!
      Quote: Serg65
      Remember the fate of the Novik TFR - Kuroedov’s hope!

      By the way, yes! Cant! I do not have it in the list. Although this has little effect on it, it was still not completed.
      Quote: Serg65
      And how many such ships were there! Many were immediately allowed on needles after repairs!

      Almost all 1134A. And 1134B most of them did not even need repairs, they were in excellent condition and were decommissioned without any logic.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 16 February 2017 09: 13
        +3
        Quote: Alex_59
        Almost all 1134A. And 1134B most of them didn’t even need repairs,

        BOD "Nikolaev" in 1987-m, and BOD "Tashkent" in 1988-m. were put on modernization on pr.11347. They planned to place Granat rockets on 32 in the place of the stern air defense missile system Storm, replace the bow Storm with Storm-N, and place two Wasps and Trump. Huck "Star - M1". But in 92 they repaid the plant with debts with a subsequent exit to Alang.
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 16 February 2017 15: 44
        +2
        Recently viewed the memoirs of sailors. Mentioned "Kiev" and "Novorossiysk", also after repairs, all from the needle, Shines. After two or two to write-off.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 February 2017 12: 35
      +1
      Quote: Serg65
      And how many such ships were there! Many were immediately allowed on needles after repairs!

      So it began in the USSR. The first wave was at Khrushchev, the second at Mechen.
      EMNIP, some ships were written off without even waiting for the exit from the repair.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 16 February 2017 13: 00
        +3
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The first wave was under Khrushchev

        Hello Alexey hi Khrushchev is certainly not an angel, but let's be honest. In 1959, 7 cruisers pr. 68 bis were cut on the stocks, but ... in 56, work began on the 61 and 58 projects, and already in 61 and 62 they were already in the fleet! Yes, Khrushchev cut. but also built! But Gorbachev did not destroy the fleet, he destroyed the country's economy, which ultimately affected the financing of the construction of new ships.
    3. spravochnik
      spravochnik 16 February 2017 15: 46
      +1
      Quote: Serg65
      Remember the fate of the Novik TFR - Kuroedov’s hope!
      Who does not remember, can go to Kaliningrad - see. The hull is still hanging in the bucket of the plant.
    4. the most important
      the most important 16 February 2017 22: 58
      +1
      Quote: Serg65
      The Motherland did not find money for the BOD, the Motherland was selling itself at that time),

      Homeland itself was in shock !!! In the drunk and henchmen stuffed pockets ... many now "lead" this process.
  6. kote119
    kote119 16 February 2017 08: 02
    +2
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    It got to the point that, in my opinion, Vilyuisk was connected to SSBNs so that there would be light!

    Vilyuysk is a village in Yakutia, you mean the wrong Vilyuchinsk. And about the connection of the pla to the city electric networks, in my opinion, it's a fairy tale.
  7. Monarchist
    Monarchist 16 February 2017 08: 13
    +3
    Oh, for a long time we will hiccup from EBEn. Various Kasyanovs and others are surprised: why the people do not want to vote for us, because we are such imposing librarians. The people ate for a long time
    1. Army soldier2
      Army soldier2 16 February 2017 17: 52
      +2
      When the EBNu and his team will be given an official political and legal assessment, then they will stop hiccuping.
  8. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 16 February 2017 08: 59
    +8
    Horror.
    Numbers, dry numbers make a much more terrible impression than the most emotional stories.
    Here's what to compare such a history of the fleet?
    Two Tsushima at the same time and the blockade of the Baltic Fleet in World War II.
    Build ships to cut them right there? In four years, lay just two buildings?
    Although Alexey doesn’t want to touch people, I can’t pass by. He himself served on project 50, and saw how many such hulls stood in the base of the crew of conservation ships in the North. And there were such bases in all fleets.
    Officers and midshipmen also served there. Where was this breakthrough of the young military going to be? On the citizen.
    And what happened in those years on a civilian?
    I imagine the degree of disappointment and loss of meaning in life for all these lieutenants, old-captains. Studied. prepared, served - and under the knee in the ass ... into the narkhoz, as they frightened at one time. And the specifics of preparation are still somewhat different than that of a graduate, say KVIMU or Taganrog Radio Engineering.
    Horror.
    Thank you, Alexei, for the academic dryness of the presentation.
    Because for me, this is HELL.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 16 February 2017 09: 25
      +5
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      Himself on the 50 project served

      The Ermines is one of my favorite ships, and the first warship I saw in Kronstadt Middle Havana! drinks
    2. Alex_59
      16 February 2017 10: 52
      +3
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      Because for me, this is HELL.

      Yes, it is, just keep in mind that now is not much better. We have reached the bottom and lie. One cannot speak of any revival of the Navy.
      Of course, there are other points - for example, moral, there probably is a real revival of the spirit, at least the people who serve now do not look as depressed and confused as those who served in 90 and 00. There is no hopeless gloom and a feeling of hopelessness. All the same, now it’s better with money, and in general we live more fun. At least I, the land, have such impressions of communicating with relatives that I live and serve in Sevastopol and Severomorsk.
      1. Ustinov 055 055
        Ustinov 055 055 16 February 2017 11: 47
        +5
        We live and serve. I have the honor
  9. Schultz
    Schultz 16 February 2017 09: 08
    +1
    A competent analysis, only to complete the picture, closed projects should also be included in the list of destroyed ships, and then any doubting "expert" can be put under the nose in the form of an indictment under the article "CHANGE OF HOMELAND"
  10. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 16 February 2017 09: 09
    +1
    Again, “a lot of bukoffs” to confirm only the fact that the time of the EBN carried out a deliberate disarmament policy of Russia ... And even that is not visible ... It is enough to take the appropriate reference books, for example, Jane's Fighting Ships for 1991 and for 2015 and compare ..
  11. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 16 February 2017 09: 47
    0
    Quote: jonht
    Vilyuchinsk ...., but unfortunately the boat does not include the current frequency in boats of 400 hertz in the power system, and 50 hertz in the network.

    You have to look in the news of the nineties. And the tension is constant!
  12. X Y Z
    X Y Z 16 February 2017 09: 59
    0
    In 2001-2005, the first progress.


    Dear author! It's time to stop using this gloomy Gorbachev legacy long ago. I remember how, in 80, well-educated people strained their tongues strainingly, adjusting themselves to the peculiar dialect of "Secretary General." There are no such words in Russian! It's time to destroy this infection!
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 16 February 2017 10: 03
      +5
      Quote: XYZ
      There are no such words in Russian! It's time to destroy this infection!

      laughing Oh well I can’t! And where do you get such literate?
      Explanatory dictionary Ushakov ..
      ACTION, motions, wives. (specialist.). Movement, moving.
      Good luck, specialist in Russian wink
    2. Alex_59
      16 February 2017 10: 13
      +1
      Quote: XYZ
      Dear author! It's time to stop using this gloomy Gorbachev legacy long ago. I remember how, in 80, well-educated people strained their tongues strainingly, adjusting themselves to the peculiar dialect of "Secretary General." There are no such words in Russian! It's time to destroy this infection!

      I was an excellent pupil in Russian and liter, and my works were read to the class as exemplary. But maybe here you are right. Even if it is a literary, printed word, it could be formulated better.
  13. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 16 February 2017 11: 03
    +3
    Over the course of 20-25 years, the sea shield of Russia was systematically destroyed .... this is political prostitution and the sale of the interests of the Motherland first of all ..... and now it is not known how to restore our glorious Navy !!!
  14. commbatant
    commbatant 16 February 2017 12: 41
    +1
    I believe that it is impossible to consider the data of this article without statistics on the decline in the welfare of the population of the former RSFSR and its GDP.

    The article itself is well written, there is an analysis, assessment, conclusion, but it smacks of an order (again, they all blame the poor “orphan” B.N.E., as if, given the economic realities, it would be different with the GDP) ...

    The author takes as the basis for the age of the ship's 20 years and gives an explanation. I do not agree that this age rating is given to ALL surface and submarine ships, ALL TYPES.
    For example, American aircraft carriers (AVMs), UIC-type cruisers of the Ticonderoga type are more than 20 years old, but I think they will have a life expectancy of more than 50 years, and after upgrading even more, it turns out they are “old” ships and were not taken into account by the author.
    I don’t try to criticize someone else’s work indiscriminately, it’s just that the age requirement should be given not to ALL ships in their total mass, but according to their type, for example:
    AVM, KR URO, UDC, UKVD, PRARB, PLA - 35-50 years;
    EM, FR, BDK, PL - 15-20 years
    TFR - 10 years, etc.

    Now, if you take apart all the “new” NKs and submarines (with an age of 20 years) that the BNE “cut”, it turns out (I’m surely not a specialist, but you can analyze it from open sources, using the example of KChF — the only ships of the 1st rank, which could be left are the KR URO and the helicopter carrier both “Moscow”, from ships of the 2nd rank, for example, the Kerch BPC and similar to its class, everything else was already old then without deep modernization they had nothing to do in the Navy. Novorossiysk is a cruiser - a museum ship, look, when it was removed from the KChF of the Russian Federation, and at the same time its TTX), that ships of the 2nd rank (which form the basis of any fleet) are equivalent to ships with 20 years of experience with similar performance characteristics with ships The United States, Germany, Italy, Britain and France will be units.

    Therefore, now the Russian Federation is building ships of the coastal zone in order to give time for the creation and construction of ships of the ocean zone, so the new corvettes of the Russian Federation are better armed than the same type of NATO ships, so that there would be some head start.

    You can even now compare the old American "O. Perry" (56 pcs.) In its performance characteristics with our surface ship of a similar class built during the USSR.
    1. Alex_59
      16 February 2017 13: 12
      +4
      Quote: commbatant
      however smacks of order

      Yeah, an engineer in a remote provincial town surrounded by mountains and taiga is just an order and is engaged, tochnyak. Bucks, where are you, awww?
      Quote: commbatant
      The author takes as the basis for the age of the ship's 20 years and gives an explanation. I do not agree that this age rating is given to ALL surface and submarine ships, ALL TYPES.

      The criticism is fair. Yes, the aircraft carrier who served 45 years and the boat 20 years can be said to be of the same age. But then what a matter. If the Novorossiysk TAVKR are retired after 11 years of service, and the BOD project is 1134B after 15 years, and the boat after 18 years, they are already written off ahead of schedule anyway. Of course, there is a difference, roughly - TAVRK has developed 15-20% of the resource by age, and the boat - 90%. But the fact of early write-off is like a knife switch - either yes or no. You can’t be "a little pregnant." Have you written off before? Everything, the switch is on. And this approach applies to both sides. In the United States, ships that retired for 19,5 years are considered to be prematurely decommissioned in this work - without any discounts.
      1. commbatant
        commbatant 16 February 2017 13: 26
        0
        Sorry about the ordering, I just don’t like it, when all the sheep are hung on one, nobody has canceled military and economic advisers.

        About ships, you could write the third part to your article, where you can describe the performance characteristics of all the wrecked BNU ships, then it will become clear to everyone whether they were rightly killed or not, a ship with 20 years of experience can become morally old in 10 years (although I suspect that the old frigate can always be redone in TFR)
        1. Alex_59
          16 February 2017 14: 08
          +2
          Quote: commbatant
          About ships, you could write the third part to your article, where to describe the performance characteristics of all the wrecked BNE ships

          So will be still. It is written below: the end follows. smile It has already been written everything, just lay out at once such an array - tin. I'll lay it out on the trail. week.
          There really will not be TTX, but simply each project is listed, covered in an overview. TTX, they also matter, but this thing is flexible. You can upgrade - just give money. The same Americans pumped their Sproujens well, replacing the girder PUs at the UVPU. True, then they cut it anyway. On the whole, I don’t argue, the assessment of the performance characteristics is a separate huge question, which of course needs to be studied, but it is impossible to do everything all at once, but in one work. Therefore, so far we are only talking about quantity.
          1. commbatant
            commbatant 16 February 2017 14: 38
            +1
            Articles (1 and 2) were interesting.
            When I looked through when our fleets were in proportion, what happened to the USSR and what now, I understand how many junk there were, and most importantly how many different types of ships there were especially nuclear-powered ships, so if Gorbachev needs to put a cast-iron monument to remove junk from the USSR, then for tricks comrades who had high posts at the BNU, you can probably put on the wall ....
            The third part will be more interesting than the first two, because You will have to analyze the performance characteristics and ship classes of not only the USSR / RF Navy but also the US Navy.
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 16 February 2017 16: 22
              +1
              Quote: commbatant
              When I looked through when our fleets were in proportion, what happened to the USSR and what now, I understand how many junk there were, and most importantly how many different types of ships there were especially nuclear-powered ships, so if Gorbachev needs to put a cast-iron monument to remove junk from the USSR, then for tricks comrades who had high posts at the BNU, you can probably put on the wall ....

              And you did not think, why so? It has long been known that the fleet is the most complex and difficult to replace part of the armed forces. That is why, knowing the capabilities of domestic industry, they held onto the ships to the last. It’s another matter that this could be achieved more rationally — to withdraw to the reserve and to conservation. After all, this is the weapon of the "Doomsday", for the moment when a large part of the army and industry will be destroyed, and when everything that is left will go into action. That is why even T-34 and steam locomotives are on preservation.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 February 2017 18: 33
              +1
              Quote: commbatant
              therefore, if for the withdrawal of junk from the Soviet Navy, Gorbachev needs a cast-iron monument

              Then for everything else, it should have been used as a mold when casting this very monument
              1. commbatant
                commbatant 16 February 2017 19: 15
                +3
                some kind of horror, but I approve as probably a couple of hundred million former fellow citizens of the Union ...
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 16 February 2017 13: 27
      +5
      Quote: commbatant
      I'm not an expert, but can be analyzed from open sources

      Here you are my dear, call yourself a combatant, but even open sources can not analyze!
      Quote: commbatant
      on the example of the KChF, the only ships of the 1 rank that could be left are the KR URO and the helicopter carrier both “Moscow”, from ships of the 2 rank, for example, the BPC “Kerch” and similar ones of its class, everything else was already old deep modernization they had nothing to do in the fleet

      RCC “Leningrad” was more efficient than “Moscow”, “Nikolaev” and “Tashkent” were waiting for the “Glory” and the fact that the “Glory” which later became “Moscow” remained afloat is the merit of Luzhkov and Khazbulatov, not Yeltsin. BOD "Kerch" ship of 1 rank and not 2 rank, from 7 ICR pr. From 1135 to 2, the Black Sea Fleet did not receive more than one ship of 1 and 1991 rank.
      Quote: commbatant
      in the city of Novorossiysk there is a cruiser - a ship-museum, look when it was removed from the KChF of the Russian Federation, and at the same time its performance characteristics

      This ship - museum in 89 was repaired and modernized. In the same year, after all the tasks were completed, it was put into reserve and there is no question about it!
      1. commbatant
        commbatant 16 February 2017 14: 29
        +1
        and the fact that the “Glory” which later became “Moscow” remained afloat is the merit of Luzhkov and Khazbulatov, not Yeltsin


        I completely agree with you, my city took a march not only over the KR "Moscow", but over the whole of Sevastopol and did a lot for the RF CCF ...

        BOD "Kerch" ship of the 1st rank and not the 2nd


        from which frigates did we become ships of the 2nd rank?

        From 1991 to 2014, the Black Sea Fleet did not receive more than one ship of the 1st and 2nd rank.



        why did they write it, the reason is so clear?

        I asked you to analyze ships that were younger than 20 years old and which could compete with the same type (class) ships of the "NATO aggressive bloc", and which were cut by BNEs, when you isolate these ships from the general scrap metal that you lament about, then write part 3. After this, you can immediately show to throw not only to the deceased BNU, but also to other "respected people" who are quietly retired ...
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 16 February 2017 16: 28
          +1
          Quote: commbatant
          BOD "Kerch" ship of the 1st rank and not the 2nd

          from which frigates did we become ships of the 2nd rank?


          First, not frigates, but BOD.
          Secondly, BOD pr. 1134 - these are ships of the ocean zone and, therefore, have always been ships of the 1st rank.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 17 February 2017 10: 04
          +2
          Quote: commbatant
          from which frigates did we become ships of the 2nd rank?

          A frigate of 7 thousand tons? Widely lived partisans Bosnyuk... ©
          Base project 1134 was generally eventually classified as a missile cruiser.
  15. silver_roman
    silver_roman 16 February 2017 18: 08
    +2
    in principle, there is some logic. take at least Sharks pr.941 with a displacement of 50 tons. there were 000 of them.
    Considering that Dmitriy Donskoy was converted into a stand for testing the Mace, we get 300 tons already. There were also completely unnecessary and unsuccessful either cruisers, or helicopter carriers (I don’t remember the project), which were essentially under the deck vertical, which we did not go. And what was, the Yak-000 didn’t even have a radar, worked as nurses and had a meager radius.
    I’m also wondering where the author took ships lost from the fleet due to the passage of ships under the flag of other states. Objectively speaking, we had a failed program for aircraft carriers (including helicopter carriers). the output was some kind of cruise ship with the possibility of placing aircraft. Fleet diversity has always been our problem. Latali holes with everything they could. Which by the way we are doing now.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 February 2017 18: 32
      +3
      Quote: silver_roman
      in principle, there is some logic. take at least Sharks pr.941 with a displacement of 50 tons. there were 000 of them.
      Considering that Dmitriy Donskoy was converted into a stand for testing the Mace, we get 300 tons already.

      Actually, their displacement is 23 200 tons. This is the total mass of the boat - well, if you take the steelyard, and ... And about 50 - this is their underwater displacement when the boat absorbs a monstrous amount of water (it was not for nothing that they called sharks as water carriers)
      Quote: silver_roman
      There were also completely unnecessary and unsuccessful either cruisers or helicopter carriers (I don’t remember the project)

      Well, you may not need them, but the Russian fleet would really need them. Even with some helicopters, firstly, an excellent means of covering the deployment of their own SSBNs, and a good demonstration of the flag (with marines and landing helicopters) They would still be terrifying as if they had already reached Mistral.
      In addition, no one would have bothered to transform one such into something like Vikramaditya. It would be much cheaper than building a new aircraft carrier, but the functions of training carrier-based aviation and displaying the flag would be quite pulled.
      1. Alex_59
        16 February 2017 20: 37
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Actually, their displacement is 23 200 tons. This is the total mass of the boat - well, if you take the steelyard, and ... And about 50 - this is their underwater displacement when the boat absorbs a monstrous amount of water (it was not for nothing that they called sharks as water carriers)

        In all the calculations, the maximum numbers were used - for surface ships this is a complete I / O, for submarines it is a full I / O. This was in the 1 part. This is due to the fact that for some foreign ships it was not possible to find out the surface and standard airborne forces. Therefore, the 941-e boats are accounted for underwater / and, like all other boats.
        True, the complete w / and it was for this project in different sources that it was indicated with a large gap and I took the minimum of those encountered - 30 450 tons. Why again? So that I would not be accused of artificially inflating the losses of our side. Wherever there was a discrepancy or not accuracy, I rounded in favor of the United States.
        Quote: silver_roman
        I’m also wondering where the author took ships lost from the fleet due to the passage of ships under the flag of other states.

        In loss and related. You probably mean the Black Sea Fleet section? Yes, a number of ships from the Black Sea Fleet were transferred to Ukraine, and I attributed them to the losses of our Navy, and this is logical, because we lost them, and this is also the result of the collapse and degradation of the USSR. But do not think that these losses on the division between the former republics are very significant. Ukraine got mainly IPC and RCA. Amid the massive write-off of cruisers, BODs and nuclear submarines, these are such trifles. Within the limits of calculation error.
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 17 February 2017 13: 17
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          Amid the massive write-off of cruisers, BODs and nuclear submarines, these are such trifles

          I agree.
          True, the same 1164 could be saved. It would be very useful for the three existing ones. And so the poor fellow decays in Nikolaev (((.
          ps For some reason, the button "yet" does not open for me. I can’t insert links or emoticons. what nonsense, modera IN !!!! but it's worth someone to send. immediately a warning!
      2. silver_roman
        silver_roman 17 February 2017 13: 14
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        . This is the total mass of the boat.

        then you need to understand how the author considered the tonnage of the same nuclear submarines.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, you may not need them, but the Russian fleet would really need them

        just the same, they really could not occupy any niche. neither a cruiser, nor a helicopter carrier, nor an aircraft carrier. As always, ours chased after eybdthcfkmyjcnm. and did not catch up. I heard a lot of opinions about these ships, and many considered them unsuccessful.
        Googled it, project 1143. Quote from Wiki: Nevertheless, the cruisers of project 1143 can hardly be considered completely successful. With the significant size of the ships (up to 45000 tons of full displacement), their aviation capabilities were very limited. The Yak-38 ground attack aircraft, which formed the basis of the air group, unlike the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier, similar in flight characteristics, did not have an airborne radar.
        What actually I wrote above.
        And in terms of time they were quite young. The first “Kiev” was relocated to its home in 1976.
        That and the carriers on fuel oil - ridiculous. How many problems with these boilers does Kuzi have, the British will soon undermine the ecology with their exhausts))
    2. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 16 February 2017 18: 54
      +2
      Quote: silver_roman
      And what was, the Yak-41 didn’t even have a radar, worked as nurses and had a meager radius.

      you mixed up yak38 and yak 141. 38 had the nickname "jakobpalubuh ** k", and 141 had to have supersonic, ur cb sd (p27 and 77), radars of the beetle family. actually with 141 made f35. partially, of course.

      Quote: silver_roman
      . There were also completely unnecessary and unsuccessful either cruisers, or helicopter carriers (I don’t remember the project), which were essentially under the deck vertical, which we did not go.

      nothing, redid this project for a springboard and sold to the Indians. What prevented you from remaking for us?
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 17 February 2017 13: 20
        0
        Quote: DrVintorez
        you messed up

        may well be. I apologize
        Quote: DrVintorez
        nothing, redid this project for a springboard and sold to the Indians. What prevented you from remaking for us?

        at that time there was no money even to maintain the military personnel. and in order to reach such colossals to the present day - the moment of alteration, it was necessary to throw it into conservation and maintenance of technical condition normally.
        That and to be honest, I do not think that many have the desire to buy them from us. The same Chinese are now trying to buy everything in minimal batches in order to copy. I repeat: the same Kuzya, and pr.1143 - extremely unsuccessful aircraft carriers.
        And history in Syria proves this.
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 17 February 2017 13: 48
          0
          Quote: silver_roman
          the same Kuzya, and pr.1143 - extremely unsuccessful aircraft carriers.

          blacksmiths and 1143 - these are not aircraft carriers.
          Quote: silver_roman
          And history in Syria proves this.

          how is the story in syria? drowned two planes? duck it because of those reasons and gouging. not significant absolutely - the sample is too small.
  16. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 February 2017 18: 22
    +1
    Bravissimo! good I read the first part with pleasure, but now I look forward to the end hi
    1. Alex_59
      17 February 2017 06: 44
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I read the first part with pleasure, but now I look forward to the end

      You're welcome! hi
    2. litus
      litus 17 February 2017 23: 38
      0
      with pleasure? And I'm with pain :-(
  17. Galleon
    Galleon 21 February 2017 20: 32
    +2
    I heard in the 1990s about the Moscow Compass JSC, which turned the main business of selling decommissioned ships for scrap metal abroad. AO was tied to Fleet Commander.