Military Review

Sunk by adjustment

78
Starting to create a full-fledged carrier fleet, China, judging by the plans and pace, in 10-15 years will be able to compete in this segment with the United States. But the fact that such a country was too much for our country, even during Soviet times, was the talk of amateurs.


Few people now imagine what kind of fleet the Soviet Union could have by the mid-90, in particular, which aircraft carrier forces it would have.

Until "Ulyanovsk" did not live

The first Soviet group-based ships aviation became anti-submarine cruisers of project 1123 "Moscow" and "Leningrad". Both carried 14–16 Ka-25PL helicopters and had developed weapons. Air defense was provided by the Shtorm air defense system (two twin beam-type launchers) and two twin 57-millimeter anti-aircraft missiles ZAK AK-725. Anti-submarine armament: SJSC “Orion” (at the time these ships were put into operation was one of the most powerful in the world), the Vikhr complex with a two-beam launcher for launching anti-ship missiles with a special warhead, two five-tube 533-mm anti-submarine torpedo tubes (SET -65) and 2 twelve-barrel RBU-6000. The project did not have anti-ship missiles. However, within the range of firing range (about 22 km), the universal Storm air defense system could operate on surface targets with B-611 missiles. These ships became part of the USSR Navy in the mid-60s and immediately became actively involved in military service, where they proved to be the most effective anti-submarine surface ships of our fleet, mainly due to the helicopter group, which significantly increased the search capacity of the KPUG.

If it were not for perestroika, "Moscow" and "Leningrad" could remain in our fleet at least until the end of the twentieth century. After all, their combat capabilities were decisively determined by the composition of the helicopter group, which could simply be enhanced by replacing the Ka-25PL with the more modern Ka-27PL.

From the beginning to the middle of 70-s of the Navy of the USSR, it was replenished with three TAKRs: "Kiev", "Minsk", "Novorossiysk" (respectively, projects 1143.1, 1143.2, 1143.3). They already carried attack aircraft - short-takeoff and vertical landing aircraft (SKVVP) Yak-38. However, these were precisely heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers - they had such a powerful and developed shock (the Basalt missile system with eight anti-ship missiles P-500 in four paired PUs), anti-submarine weapons and air defense weapons that their air group actually played a supporting role. Supersonic anti-ship missiles P-500, having a range of about 500 kilometers, significantly exceeded the available combat radius of the ship attack aircraft (about 200 km). In 90, they would have to be upgraded like the 1164 project cruisers with re-equipment on the Vulcan anti-ship complex with a range of up to 700 – 800 kilometers. Powerful was a set of air defense systems. These are the same “Storm” air defense system with two double-beam launchers and 96 SAM-BNNXX ammunition, two Osa-M short-range SAM systems, two twin 611-mm AU ZAK-AK-76 and four AK-726-mm ZAK-AK-X batteries. 30 on sponsons board. Anti-submarine weapons remained similar to what was available on the 630 project. Aviation group ship increased to 1123 aircraft. In the standard configuration, there were usually 40 – 12 SKVVP Yak-16, 38 – 16 Ka-20PL, two or three rescue Ka-27PS. With the advent of the DRLO Ka-27 helicopters, these machines could also be included in the air group. The “airborne” part was mainly intended for the destruction of individual surface ships and their small groups, mainly from weak air defense, the fight against enemy cutter forces in the interests of missile defense, the development of the success of the main and subsequent strikes against large naval formations of the enemy, and Particularly to ensure the landing of amphibious assault forces. The capabilities of the Yak-31 due to the lack of radar were insignificant, therefore, as an important element of the air defense system of ships at sea, these aircraft were not considered. Helicopters played a key role in solving the problems of PLO.

Sunk by adjustment

Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Baku", 1987 year.

"Kiev" served in the Northern Fleet, "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk" went to the Pacific Ocean. Just like the predecessors, they were active in our operational squadrons until the collapse of the USSR. It should be noted that the Yak-38 was considered as a temporary option - the Yak-141, also SKVVP, was being prepared for its replacement. This machine could withstand the F / A-18A Hornet US F / A-29A aircraft at that time. He had a powerful radar equivalent to that of the MiG-700. The combat radius reached 35 kilometers. Missile weapons included the latest at that time anti-ship missile X-XNUMX, a wide range of high-precision weapons short range, in particular X-29 and X-25 various modifications. The adoption of the Yak-141 was planned for the beginning of the 90-x. In this case, the composition of the air group would be somewhat reduced and would include 12 Yak-141, 12 – 14 Ka-27PL, two-three Ka-27PS and three-four Ka-31. However, with such aircraft, the operational value of the air group of the ship increased significantly - it could become a key element of the naval air defense system at sea, and also provide protection for sea-launched missile aircraft (MRA) from ground-based and deck-based fighters, which would significantly increase its combat effectiveness. The shock capabilities also increased - the range of the Yak-141 went beyond the reach of the Basalt anti-ship missiles, allowing the destruction of important ground targets in its operational depth. That is, even if it is very small in comparison with the US, our TAKR air group has already solved all the main tasks assigned to the wing of a “normal” aircraft carrier. A pair of such ships, taking into account their rocket armament, could fight with one enemy AUG.

In the 1987 year, one more classic 1143.4 TAKR entered our fleet. It was originally named “Baku”, and after the collapse of the USSR it was renamed “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshki”. This ship was significantly different from its predecessors in the composition of weapons, in particular electronic, and architecture, especially the superstructure. "Basalt" was enhanced to 12 PU. The air defense systems Storm and Osa-M disappeared from the air defense system. Instead, the ship received four much more efficient multi-channel “Dagger” air defense systems with 192 missiles. Instead of two AU AK-726, two single-barrel 100-mm AU AK-100 were installed on the ship. Only four twin-hp 30-mm ZAK AK-630 batteries remained unchanged. The Whirlwind was excluded from the antisubmarine armament of the ship. RBU-6000 was replaced with RBU-12000, the main purpose of which was anti-torpedo protection. The ship received the newest and most powerful so far SJC "Polynom". Significantly changed electronic weapons. In particular, the ship received a radar review of the airspace with phased arrays, in connection with which the architecture of the island superstructure changed dramatically - it became basically similar to that which was later installed on the 1143.5 and 1143.6 TAKR projects now known as Admiral of the Soviet Union Fleet Kuznets "And first" Varyag ", and then" Liaoning. " The ship’s displacement slightly increased, which, however, did not affect the composition of its air group due to increased ship armament. “Baku” - “Gorshkov” went to serve in the Northern Fleet.

The fifth and sixth ships of the 1143 project are already somehow embarrassing to call TAKR, although in our fleet they belong to this class. Even outwardly, these are already full-fledged aircraft carriers. In any case, their architecture is purely aircraft carrier. With TAKR they are united by the developed ship armament. This is primarily 12 PU complex "Granit" with a firing range of about 500 kilometers. The nomenclature of air defense facilities in comparison with the 1143.4 project was supplemented with the Dirk “Dirk” (eight units in four batteries on sponsors). The number of SAM "Dagger" remains the same, but all PU transferred to the sponsons. Reduced by one battery number ZACK AK-630.

Air Group - up to 65 aircraft. A typical squadron was to have X-NUMX Su-12, 33 – 18 multi-purpose MiG-20K / KUB fighters, about 29 – 14 anti-submarine Ka-16, three-four DRLO Ka-27 helicopters and four Ka-31 in search-and-rescue option. This is a full-fledged aircraft carrier, in which strike and anti-submarine weapons are already rather auxiliary to the air group. However, both of these ships still did not have catapults - the take-off of the aircraft was carried out from a ramp in the bow of the ship, although the landing of the classic aircraft carrier was on the corner deck with the arresting cables. "Kuznetsov" went to the North, where he is today, and "Varyag" was appointed to strengthen the Pacific Fleet.

The next series should have been already atomic aircraft carriers. They were still referred to TAKR, largely due to the fact that they ensure unhindered passage through the Bosphorus (according to international agreements, the strait is closed to aircraft carriers). They were provided with two steam catapults on the corner deck with the ramp in the bow. The launch of the first of them - “Ulyanovsk” (project 1143.7) was scheduled for 1995 year. Its full displacement has increased to 75 thousand tons. Attack missile weapons should have been represented by the same "Granite", but already in the number of 16 PU. Air defense and air defense systems remained unchanged compared with 1143.5 and 1143.6 projects. The power plant had four KN-3 atomic 305 MW reactors, similar to those installed on the 1144 cruisers, but forced with a core resource extended to 12 years (the Americans changed it every five years at that time). Significantly increased airship ship. According to the standard version, it should have 24 – 32 Su-33, 12 – 24 MiG-29К / KUB, eight DRLO Yak-44, 12 – 16 Ka-27PL helicopters and two Ka-27PS.

A new and fundamentally important component in the air group was to be the Yak-44. Outwardly, he looked like an American "Hokai." However, its speed was to become one and a half times more - up to 700 – 740 kilometers per hour, which significantly increased combat stability. The detection range of the fighter (EPR three square meters) was 250 kilometers, and the CD and RCC - 165 – 220 kilometers. The planned duration of patrols is from 3,5 to 6,5 hours. That is, eight of these aircraft could provide continuous presence in the air of two or three cars capable of creating an all-high-level RLP at a distance of up to 500 – 700 kilometers from a warrant in the sector to 100 – 120 degrees. This means that the line of entry into the battle of fighters from the “airborne alert” position could be shifted to 400 – 500 kilometers from the aircraft carrier, and from the “duty on deck” position in readiness No.1 - to 250 – 300 kilometers.

It was planned to build such aircraft carriers at least two. And the next series, proceeding from the logic of development, would have an air group equivalent to the American one.

Thus, by the 1998 year, that is, the 20 years ago, our fleet was to have eight TAKRs, of which four were full-fledged aircraft carriers. In other words, our carrier program more than 30 years ahead of the Chinese, and today we could reanimate it, if not for the continuing "market" chaos in the domestic economy.

Equal fight

Naturally, the question arises: with TAKR, inferior to the American "classmates" in the composition of the air group, we could fight on equal terms with the AUS of two or three Nimitse and 14 – 18 URO-class cruiser-destroyer? You can safely answer: yes. Let's start with the fact that we are talking about the opposition of AUS, and not to a single aircraft carrier - they do not act like that. Accordingly, our TAKRs should be considered as part of the ENG - a heterogeneous shock connection. And if the United States could (and still can) set up against us in the AUS, in addition to two or three aircraft carriers, five or six UIC-type cruisers Ticonderox, 8 – 12 destroyers URO “Orly Burk” and 6 – 12 ships of other classes with Three-four Los Angeles multi-purpose PLA (main type at the end of the twentieth century in the US Navy), supported by tactical (TA) and 24 – 36 basic patrol (BPA) aviation from coastal airfields, up to 12 – 18, of our ENG, there could be two or three nuclear missile cruisers besides the four TAKR 1144 project, two or three 1164 project missile cruisers in 10 – 12 escort destroyers, large anti-submarine and patrol ships (956, 1155, 1155М, 1135 and 1135М projects), three or four missile submarines of the 949M, and four-five missile submarines of the 971M, and four-five rocket submarines of the four-four-five missile submarines of the 671, 50, 54, 22, 3, 22, XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX, and XNUMX and XNUMXrtm, and from the coast they would be supported by naval rocket-carrying aircraft with forces up to XNUMX – XNUMX Tu-XNUMXМXNUMX with the X-XNUMX anti-ship missile system.

US carrier-based aircraft would have only F / A-120C / D 180 – 18 strike and fighter aircraft. We could counter the enemy 24 Yak-41, 36 – 48 Su-33 and 40 – 64 MiG-29K / KUB, total 112 – 124 machines. But they would have a significant advantage in terms of capabilities to deal with surface forces - our Su-33 could (and surely it was done - experienced launches were carried out) equipped with anti-ship missiles "Mosquito" with a range of 250 kilometers and supersonic flight speed unlike American subsonic " Harpoons ", which then had a firing range of about 120 kilometers. If NATO's TA could use only missiles with a maximum range of 15 kilometers (for example, a Maverick) and 50 – 100 kilograms of warheads against our ships, then our MRA is X-22 supersonic with 350 – 380 kilometers of firing range and a 700 combat unit kilograms. The short range of "Maverick" and "Harpoons" would force the carrier aircraft to overcome the opposition not only of the fighter aviation of our RUS, but also of the shipborne air defense systems of various order groups, in particular, air defense ships pushed to the threatened direction from the main forces, and TA - also The air defense missile system, which would inevitably lead to significant losses. Whereas only AUC fighters would oppose our vehicles, largely neutralized by escort aircraft from our TAKRs.

American submarines could strike using no more than 24 – 36 subsonic Tomahawks with scattered scraps of no more than 12 RCC, with a simple homing target having a short target detection range, which causes them to perform additional search maneuver, leading to a “blurring” of the salvo with a significant increase its scope. And the Soviet submarines were able to launch supersonic 72 supersonic rockets from 96 to 24 on a very small scale.

The American AUS exceeded our mix with the number of ASMs: 250 – 300 “Tomahawks” and 160 – 200 “Harpoons” versus 68 – 88 “Granites”, 56 – 72 “Volcanoes” (124 – 160) and 32 – 48NXX and XNUMXNNXX XNUMX and XNUMX XNUMX and XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX However, the quality of our missiles, as already mentioned, is significantly higher than the American "Tomahawks", and the "Volcanoes" also have almost twice the range, which allows our surface forces to strike without entering the enemy’s anti-ship missile system. The Mosquito rocket, launched along a low-altitude trajectory, with approximately the same firing range as the Harpoon, is almost invulnerable to air defense systems, in contrast to the subsonic American. And when flying along a variable elevation profile, our Mosquito was twice as good as the Harpoon in firing range with significantly greater stability from the effects of air defenses.

The presence of a sufficiently powerful group of naval fighter aircraft would allow our unit to catch up with the American AUS in terms of operational and tactical intelligence capabilities. Planes aimed at this would receive adequate cover and could conduct reconnaissance to the required depth.

The battle of our ENG with US AUS would take place in several stages. On the first — the deployment of the forces of the parties — the powerful fighter aircraft of our RUS would ensure the repelling of the strikes of the TA (on the Northern ATLM) with heavy losses. The second stage would most likely consist in the exchange of preliminary volleys from submarines. Our missile submarines would have allowed to disable or damage, significantly limiting the ability to perform take-off and landing operations, one or two of three aircraft carriers and destroy up to five to seven surface escort ships. The calculated effectiveness of American missile strikes from submarines would be significantly less: one or two cores disabled or damaged while preserving the limited combat capabilities of the ship (it is not at all necessary that at least one TAKR would be among them) and a maximum of two or three sunken destroyer, sentry or BOD. The content of the third stage, probably, would be our main engagement of the RUS with MN planes using X-50 anti-aircraft missiles up to 22. American AUS would have to repel it. To escort an MPA, our ENG could allocate from 24 – 30 to 36 – 50 ship fighter aircraft that would completely neutralize the 12 – 16 attacks of TA planes from coastal airfields and 12 – 15 deck (estimated value including aircraft carriers deactivated pre-strike). The MRA would have acted when the main ship forces of the opponents were more than 900 – 1000 kilometers away — beyond the effective radius of the deck and ship aviation of the American AUS and Soviet RUS. One or two strikes, depending on the combat load of the Tu-22М3 (one or two X-22 anti-ship missiles per plane), on 45-50 anti-ship missiles X-22 would lead to the sinking of one or two aircraft carriers with the destruction of the survivors and the destruction of up to one-third ships of escort. The loss of our connection would be limited only to aircraft - several MRA aircraft and up to 10 – 15 ship fighters. In fact, the AUS would be crushed. In the future, our ENG would solve the problems of developing success - finishing off the aircraft carriers and escort escort ships that remained afloat. At this stage, first would be delivered long-range missile strikes (Vulkan, Granit) and naval aviation with Mosquitoes and X-35, and later on destroyers of the 956 project and BOD of the 1155M project.

Thus, due to the superiority in the firing range of our ship and aircraft RCC, and most importantly - the presence of a powerful group of carrier-based fighter aircraft, our Northern and Pacific fleets could successfully solve the tasks of fighting US aircraft carrier forces in large-scale war.

Could we but China can

In peacetime, our fleets in operational-important areas of the ocean could have up to two aircraft carrier groups, including one TAKR, one or two missile cruisers and six to seven surface escort ships of other classes, two to four submarines, including one two rocket. With this composition, these compounds represented a full-fledged counterweight to the American AUG. If necessary, they could be reduced to aircraft carrier compounds of two TAKRs each with the corresponding number of escort ships. With the aggravation of the international situation in conflict areas, our fleet could deploy from three to four to five to six TAKR (from different fleets) with ships and submarines totaling up to 30 units and more. Thus, he fully implemented the "projection of force" (if we use American terminology) on a global scale.

The significance of these ships for Russia was demonstrated by Syria. We still have aircraft schools, both in construction and in operation. And we can build an aircraft carrier fleet, and faster than the Chinese. But while the country's resources are barely enough to replenish the personal accounts of "the captains of our business," this can only be dreamed of.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/38377
78 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. andrewkor
    andrewkor 19 August 2017 08: 35
    +6
    My beloved Soviet ships of the project 68,68 bis cruiser. Altai Territory was marching over the Sverdlov cruiser. Maybe it’s a child’s love too, but later it received more complete information on these outstanding ships only strengthened in its love. And what potential was laid in this project ! What are only rocket carriers pr 70,71!
    1. Finches
      Finches 19 August 2017 10: 52
      +19
      The dashing filibusters once had a creative kind of punishment - the guilty one was dragged under the keel of the ship, he beat there on the bottom, and having secured all sorts of nasty things with his carcass, as a rule he died in terrible convulsions ... A very worthy option for Gorbachev for him activity! I directly imagined how the stubborn and screaming Gorbi were dragged by the brave sailors on the deck to carry out this charitable act ... Already the mood had improved! laughing
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 19 August 2017 12: 53
        +8
        This procedure was called "pitching"
      2. Vision
        Vision 19 August 2017 13: 32
        +6
        In your opinion, is Gorbachev alone to blame for all the troubles?
      3. Damir
        Damir 19 August 2017 16: 37
        +9

        (c) O. I. Divov "On the issue of navigational accidents"
      4. Sevastiec
        Sevastiec 20 August 2017 09: 07
        +2
        Sadism cannot be pious. No need for animals to be like. Moreover, as Vision said below, not one hunchback is to blame. All are good.

        In general, I don’t understand these articles, in the style: “oh, what would happen if ...” Enough already, in my opinion. More than a quarter century has passed; rather, with nostalgia look into the past. Conclusions have already been made, mistakes taken into account, we must move forward.
        1. Finches
          Finches 20 August 2017 11: 10
          +8
          Forgive generously that I do not reach your mercy, but I feel extremely bloodthirsty for this character of our long-suffering story! hi
      5. Lexa-149
        Lexa-149 21 August 2017 21: 17
        +1
        You can hold on the board!
    2. Looking for
      Looking for 19 August 2017 22: 24
      0
      Yes, NECK, were good.
  2. ares1988
    ares1988 19 August 2017 09: 40
    +19
    Dedicated to lovers of alternative history.
    1. avt
      avt 19 August 2017 10: 00
      +17
      Quote: ares1988
      Dedicated to lovers of alternative history.

      Yeah! And such a signature is needed - captain - coefficient Kostya. bully In general, after this from Sivkov
      And we can build a carrier fleet, and faster than the Chinese.
      wassat coefficient captain
      And then the head physician Margulis TV banned
      well, in the sense, take away the comp from Kostya And then after all, it’s not far from sin and the next article will be
      That the Bermuda polyhedron is the uncovered navel of the Earth.
      1. vadim dok
        vadim dok 20 August 2017 11: 21
        +2
        These "writings-utopias" of the coefficient-captain "Sivkov, are just Nonsense!"
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 19 August 2017 21: 31
      0
      The presence of a sufficiently powerful group of naval fighter aircraft would allow our connection to be equal to the American AUS

      yes ,,,, dreaming is good at bedtime.
      the number of roads and supermarkets + vegetable stores with airport terminals is clearly less and now we have
      we are behind
      THE MAIN THING --- did not pass to city life, mentality.
      it is difficult for peasants to get used to an "active life position"
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 25 August 2017 16: 06
        +1
        antivirus August 19, 2017 21:31 ↑
        crit’s hard for the people to get used to the “active life position”
        You are raving, dear.
        The peasant always had a pitchfork and an ax at hand. Read the story.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 25 August 2017 18: 41
          0
          at hand were forks and an ax. Read the story.
          it is to the nearest lordly estate
          and insist on your position (without or with a pitchfork) in the capital?
          to coordinate it with other provinces? . to give in to something (compromise) by taking in the main thing? follow the goal --- to keep people -controllers (deputies). will fulfill power?
          and the arithmetic average is necessary for the whole country - from Kamchatka to the Baltic !!!
          Was Lenin right? "State and revolution"
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor 19 August 2017 09: 48
    +1
    Well, it seems like an illusion, only the projects were real, I read them from Shirokorad in "Weapons of the Russian Navy." It’s a pity that Kukuruznik has a lot of things ... l to the detriment of the country!
  4. San Sanych
    San Sanych 19 August 2017 10: 28
    +5
    Everyone was trying to invent a bicycle, instead of building normal aircraft carriers with a catapult, even small, French-like Fochs.
  5. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 19 August 2017 11: 16
    +8
    These aircraft monsters are the heaviest burden on the country's budget. Even the USSR was inferior to the enemy at times. Not to mention Russia. And most importantly. Where should these monsters operate? Shores to support. Or we have a system of bases around the world with a supply infrastructure. Or maybe the USSR was. The question of why we need them will be left out of brackets.
    1. San Sanych
      San Sanych 19 August 2017 11: 41
      +3
      If in the USSR the 1143s were built as full-fledged aircraft carriers, with catapults, they would be just about the topic, but in real life they would build something incomprehensible, they would like the best, but it turned out to be a mixture of a bulldog with a rhinoceros.
      1. mvg
        mvg 19 August 2017 13: 09
        +8
        You can imagine how much it costs, plus a naval base with a forwarder and a parking depth of 12-15 meters. Very unsuccessful projects, both in terms of type of power plant, and in architecture and armament. They stood on banks, without auxiliary engine-generators, spending motor resources. Plus, they need 50-60 destroyers, etc. 956 with the subject of KTU. Such an armada of the USSR would not have pulled.
        PS: You read Kostik less. He has trouble with his head, plus, in the sense of minus, a specialized education. This is not even a science fiction alternativeist, but just a sick person. I’m even ready to fold into a fund every month, for 2-3 rubles, only so that a person stops writing on military topics. It’s better to let him go as a loader, and in the evenings, under a glass, his colleagues sing fables about the oceans of the world ocean.
        1. San Sanych
          San Sanych 19 August 2017 14: 42
          +4
          Maybe I’m wrong, but I personally think that in the USSR in the 60-70s there were a lot of awkward, unnecessary and superfluous things built, but in modern Russia it’s even worse, even frigates in the minimum required quantity can’t overpower them, and even so the so-called "Russian business captains" do not experience a shortage of yachts not inferior in terms of displacement to class frigate ships, and with bank accounts of the probable enemy they are all right
          1. mvg
            mvg 19 August 2017 20: 42
            +5
            Let's leave the USSR in the past. We live in Russia, and we must love her.
            I’m happy to go to work in a workshop, in a design bureau at a shipyard. And a compass, auto-cad, sopromat can perfectly help.
            As I already got this cry, about phpegates for 9 years, Abramovich’s yachts, etc. Lives where we live and this is the homeland.
            PS: I'm already angry at Spartak and at one grief-defender. And here also this "kapraz" blue drew.
        2. vadim dok
          vadim dok 20 August 2017 11: 24
          0
          I agree with you 100%. Such articles are not for VO!
    2. Nehist
      Nehist 19 August 2017 11: 44
      +5
      In 1984, the USSR had 14 naval bases abroad, the truth was mostly called modestly and tastefully PMTO USSR Navy and on average they occupied about 50 sq / km and were protected to accommodate several thousand people and included ships of water area protection, marine corps with BTT and some optional aerodromes with aviation, both reconnaissance and assault, with destroyer
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 19 August 2017 12: 01
      +5
      Quote: Ken71
      Or maybe the USSR was.

      It was. Could in Kamrani. There, once the American aircraft carriers were based.
      1. kig
        kig 19 August 2017 12: 27
        +1
        There was no such thing.
      2. Kenxnumx
        Kenxnumx 19 August 2017 14: 07
        +1
        For basing AUG. Yes.
    4. rumatam
      rumatam 19 August 2017 20: 38
      +1
      There was a system respected by the USSR and Tartus and Vietnam and Mozambique and Yemen.
      1. Kenxnumx
        Kenxnumx 20 August 2017 22: 58
        0
        Yeah. Directly such bases for AUG based. Or maybe parking to replenish missile cruisers.
  6. NUR
    NUR 19 August 2017 11: 49
    +2
    I liked this article, it’s easier written, it seems to be true, only in fact everything turned out quite differently. They just took it and ruined everything. Then you have to restore everything, or it will be even worse.
  7. Hurricane70
    Hurricane70 19 August 2017 11: 58
    +6
    Quote: San Sanych
    Everyone was trying to invent a bicycle, instead of building normal aircraft carriers with a catapult, even small, French-like Fochs.

    Normal aircraft carriers with a catapult, you know how much more expensive the springboard? And how many mountains of clever papers were written because of problems due to malfunction of the catapults ... But something is not heard about the broken springboard ... More expensive does not mean better! Especially in the Russian Federation, the defense doctrine, the aircraft carrier does not fit into it. Cheaper to create a base, for example in Cuba, Venezuela, etc. The Americans took and sent the AUG to scare Eunovich, but he took it and was not afraid .... What did the mattresses have to do? Announce that they went to the exercises with a kangaroo, so that at least somehow I would account for the costs of empty skating along the waves ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 August 2017 12: 21
      +17
      Quote: Hurricane70
      Normal aircraft carriers with a catapult, you know how much more expensive the springboard?

      Springboard Kuznetsov according to the estimate - 550 million rubles, one and a half times larger nuclear catapult Ulyanovsk - as much as 800 million rubles. What a cost overrun, right? :)))))))
      Quote: Hurricane70
      And how many mountains of smart papers were written because of problems due to malfunction of the catapults ...

      How much? :)))) Let it be known to you that steam catapults are operated almost from the great domestic one, and have always been considered extremely reliable devices.
      Quote: Hurricane70
      But something is not heard about the broken springboard.

      And about the problems of launching aircraft from a springboard, too, is not heard? What is Kuznetsov’s one and only position from which planes can take off in full combat, why does he lose to Nimitsu in terms of the speed of ascent of an air group? Is nothing known? That due to the lack of a catapult, Kuznetsov is deprived of the opportunity to use AWACS aircraft - is nothing known either?
      Do you even know anything about aircraft carriers?
      1. mvg
        mvg 19 August 2017 13: 17
        +4
        You can’t take off from a full battlefield even from a springboard. The normal load of the Su-33 is 2 tons, instead of 8 tons that it can carry.
        Essexes and Midway just the Second World War and with a catapult. And Kuzya without the catapult MiG’s perfectly drowns ... What does it ahead of schedule.
        "Hurricane 70" - TV Star, this is my everything .. (
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 August 2017 15: 43
          0
          Quote: mvg
          You can’t take off from a full battlefield even from a springboard. The normal load of the Su-33 is 2 tons, instead of 8 tons that it can carry.

          In fact, in a full combat Su-33 they can even from both neighbors, but ... too risky, and therefore not necessary.
          Quote: mvg
          And Kuzya, without a catapult, MiG’s perfectly drowns ...

          This is not a question for the aircraft carrier, but to our lack of experience in the use of carrier-based aircraft. Now there is experience
          1. mvg
            mvg 19 August 2017 20: 49
            0
            This is not a question for the aircraft carrier, but to our lack of experience in the use of carrier-based aircraft. Now there is experience

            I am embarrassed to ask, Kuznetsov what, the first year serves? And the pilots on it yesterday's lieutenants? There is no lower than the major at the helm.
            But Kuzya goes to live firing in solo swimming to shoot from the "Dagger". Imagine, 60 tons, to drive, plus 000-2500 people to shoot with melee defense ...
            PS: And the link where Flanker will take 8 tons from the short track. I know for sure that they fly from 2-2.5 tons. Even in Syria.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 August 2017 00: 51
              0
              Quote: mvg
              I am embarrassed to ask, Kuznetsov what, the first year serves? And the pilots on it yesterday's lieutenants? There is no lower than the major at the helm.

              And what, what are the majors? Our deck aviation was used for the last time in the First World War. But the “Kuznetsov” is the only and unique, as for repair - the pilots have zero practice, and when in service, there are also not as many as they should. As a matter of fact, the fact that before GPV managed to save pilots capable of deck takeoffs / landings is already an achievement. Nobody ever gave massive take-offs from Kuzneov in general. What happened before the trip?
              The thread in the Crimea was covered, it was necessary to repair it for a long time, but they did not want to repair it, because even before the return of the Crimea they built an analogue in Yeysk, because they were tired of depending on the backs of the Ukrainian government. But Yeysk did not have time to complete, so the training of pilots dipped - and then there was a new type of aircraft (MiG-29K)
              As a result, a ship is sent to Syria with an air group that has not banally departed for the prescribed number of hours, and after all they need to constantly maintain a raid, otherwise mastery is lost.
              Quote: mvg
              But Kuzya goes to live firing in solo swimming to shoot from the "Dagger". Imagine, 60 tons, to drive, plus 000-2500 people to shoot with melee defense ...

              Those. Does the ship move, the crew learns to work as a single organism - does it mean nothing? Oh well.
              Quote: mvg
              PS: And the link where Flanker will take 8 tons from the short track. I know for sure that they fly from 2-2.5 tons. Even in Syria.

              I was mistaken, not with the full. Almost full :))) From the 1st position, the Su-33 took off with a weight of almost 30 tons. At an aircraft carrier speed of 7 knots. Fomin, Su-33 Ship saga, page 99
              1. mvg
                mvg 20 August 2017 01: 17
                +1
                Andrew, my respect.
                Those. Does the ship move, the crew learns to work as a single organism - does it mean nothing? Oh well.

                The exercises, the military campaign - this is a situation close to real military operations ... What seems to have been worked out? Air defense shooting? Oh well... ))
                This is a cloud of Kerov money, meaninglessly thrown away. Sailors will change in a year, you won’t restore motor resources, they burned a mazutik. They didn’t fly on airplanes. Actions in the order did not work. Even the barbecue did not fry and did not go fishing. It was cold.
                From the 1st position, the Su-33 took off with a weight of almost 30 tons

                The maximum take-off of the Su-33 is 33 tons, something like that. I wanted to write 37, but looked at the performance characteristics. The combat load of 6500.
                PS: Regarding majors and above. This is a pro, this is their profession, they fly all their lives and get sickly grandmothers for it. These are not conscript soldiers. I don’t need about teachings, etc. If a person works, he must know his work and be able to do it (do it). There are few of them (deck pilots), they are the elite ... must take off and land at night during a storm. The thread worked all the time, we sent a lot of dibs for its rent to Kiev. Where then is the return on invested dough?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 August 2017 13: 58
                  0
                  Quote: mvg
                  The exercises, the military campaign - this is a situation close to real military operations ... What seems to have been worked out? Air defense shooting? Oh well... ))

                  Yes, I would not say that, because not all sea going out must be accompanied by something colorful, like the actual use of weapons. This, as it were, is the crown of learning, and not its process. Even for the weapons part, there are a lot of procedures that are practiced without actual use, and about the other warheads — navigational, communications, electromechanical, radio engineering, and te te I generally keep quiet. And the aviation warhead is not only flights, but also the training of the crew groups providing takeoff / landing.
                  Quote: mvg
                  Sailors will change in a year

                  there are almost none left there - mostly contract soldiers.
                  Quote: mvg
                  The maximum take-off of the Su-33 is 33 tons, something like that.

                  in fact, I have first-hand data that took off, but for obvious reasons I can not refer to them. And from print sources - this.
                  Quote: mvg
                  Concerning the majors and above. This is a pro, this is their profession, they fly all their lives and get sickly grandmothers for it. These are not conscript soldiers. I don’t need about teachings, etc. If a person works, he must know his work and be able to do it (do it).

                  Sorry, but you do not understand. The pilot of carrier-based aviation (in fact, the pilot of any aircraft, even military, at least civilian) is obliged to carry out a certain minimum of flights / exercises. If he does not fulfill them, then he loses his qualifications. At least in the USA. This is an objective process, be there even a major, even a generalissimo, get at least 100 thousand rubles, at least 100 thousand dollars a month. A good example that I like to give is the cruiser Ochakov of imperial times. After standing for three weeks in the armed reserve, a drop in accuracy was diagnosed by one and a half times. The same people, the same shooting conditions, but ....
                  THREAD has long been breathing in the air, it was impossible to complete the practice there, I already wrote about the repairs of Kuznetsov, Yeysk and the retraining for MiG. Since 2014, we have both NITKA and Yeysk, but none of this works as it should.
                  1. mvg
                    mvg 20 August 2017 23: 44
                    +1
                    Good evening. Andrey, I’ve passed today. Tired, like a dog ... Tomorrow I will rummage, I will argue somewhere ...))) And now, have a good tea and sleep. Maybe I’ll look at today's football, in a cut.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 August 2017 18: 16
                      +1
                      And good evening to you! hi
                      Quote: mvg
                      I’ll dig around tomorrow, I bet somewhere ...)))

                      This is if it is your desire. And it won’t be - so we don’t have a holy war here after all, then someday we will argue :)))) drinks
                      Yours faithfully,
      2. maximghost
        maximghost 19 August 2017 16: 31
        +1
        I read that in France, because of catapults, they are not frail problems, it seems that due to their dynamic loads, all the mechanisms located nearby are shaken. How true is that - xs.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 August 2017 18: 09
          +2
          Everything can be, but the Frenchman is generally an infant terribble. In general, almost everything that could go wrong on this aircraft carrier of the French ... So this is not a matter of the fundamental depravity of the steam catapult, but the problems of a particular ship
    2. Nehist
      Nehist 19 August 2017 12: 31
      0
      Take-off from the springboard is primarily a limitation on the combat load of the aircraft, since it is impossible to start with a full load of fuel and weapons, and on each aircraft carrier with catapults there are at least 2 of them, and in the Nimitz class there are 4 of them, the output of a pair of catapults is not so critical
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 August 2017 15: 44
        0
        Quote: Nehist
        Take-off from the springboard is primarily a limitation on the combat load of the aircraft since it is impossible to start with a full load of fuel and weapons

        The Americans and the British are boasting with might and main that the F-35 flew in full combat. About Su-33, the same thing was written a long time ago
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 19 August 2017 16: 08
          +1
          With full combat load, fighters from Kuznetsov can only start from a single position located much “aft” of the midship - that is, the plane should in this case run up almost across the flight deck, which is ice and as far as I can remember after a couple of three practical I’m not dealing with these flights anymore, in any case, I haven’t come across such information ... Well, starting from a springboard determines high requirements for the thrust-weight ratio of the aircraft: the engines are switched to the "full fast and furious" (or "emergency afterburner" mode) before the start of the take-off, that's how the engines are raped. As far as I remember in the west, only VTOL aircraft took off from the springboard. In principle, they planned their F-35B and to push the Waps type into the UDC, but they do not have a ramp but just a through deck
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 August 2017 18: 11
            0
            Quote: Nehist
            With full combat load, fighters from Kuznetsov can only start from a single position, which is located much "aft" midship

            What I actually wrote about :)))
            Quote: Nehist
            and as far as I remember after a couple of three practical flights

            It seems like not, but such a thing - according to some reports, they stopped taking off in full combat from the first positions, but from the last ... The Su-33 in full combat is an extremely strange sight, well, why should he, the fighter, hang free-falling bombs? :)
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 20 August 2017 07: 50
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The Su-33 in full combat is an extremely strange sight, so what should he, the fighter, suspend free-falling bombs? :)

              So after all they hung in the Mediterranean, last year, Hephaestus was installed on some.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 August 2017 14: 05
                +1
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                So after all, they hung in the Mediterranean

                so the whole question is that some kind of need arose after Hephaestus, i.e. just the other day :)))
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 20 August 2017 17: 34
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  so the whole question is that some kind of need arose after Hephaestus, i.e. just the other day:

                  Gliders underwent repair and modernization, but there were no avionics, so the generals hastened to get out, the Irbises would be put on them and the animals would be on Kuznetsovo what they needed.
                  Regarding take-off with full combat load, they explained to me like this:
                  1. The body kit can be imitation. This is especially true for SDs suspended on the deck of the Su-27, after a certain number of landings on the deck (we read in the RLE the permissible overload when landing), the SDs are waiting for an SPR of 279 kiap, or for scrap, and the product costs a lot of rubles!
                  2. In 279 kiap was p / c - the craftsman took off without incl. afterburner from the 2nd position, when controlling the PRP - “on the brakes” in the person of the captain. So that c fool can ..... Air Force Wonderland.
    3. San Sanych
      San Sanych 19 August 2017 16: 25
      0
      Quote: Hurricane70
      Quote: San Sanych
      Everyone was trying to invent a bicycle, instead of building normal aircraft carriers with a catapult, even small, French-like Fochs.

      Normal aircraft carriers with a catapult, you know how much more expensive the springboard? And how many mountains of clever papers were written because of problems due to malfunction of the catapults ... But something is not heard about the broken springboard ... More expensive does not mean better! Especially in the Russian Federation, the defense doctrine, the aircraft carrier does not fit into it. Cheaper to create a base, for example in Cuba, Venezuela, etc. The Americans took and sent the AUG to scare Eunovich, but he took it and was not afraid .... What did the mattresses have to do? Announce that they went to the exercises with a kangaroo, so that at least somehow I would account for the costs of empty skating along the waves ...

      creating bases is not cheaper, because sometimes there may be changes in the policies of some “allies, a vivid example of this is Somalia,” and it’s difficult to move land bases, aircraft carriers are always with them, as they say, and are very mobile.
    4. San Sanych
      San Sanych 19 August 2017 16: 38
      +1
      better calculate how much has been spent on all these developing "promising" countries, more than a hundred billion dollars, and this is what we know from official sources, all these debts have been written off, and now there are no bases or allies.
    5. San Sanych
      San Sanych 19 August 2017 17: 00
      +1
      it should be noted that these were those full-fledged dollars, which now, if not a trillion, but a half trillion would surely be pulled, so count, compare with the same notorious Gerald Ford
  8. mvg
    mvg 19 August 2017 13: 01
    +1
    Can have a bite, all the same? There are still 2-3 dozens of tables with coefficients to insert .. sick person.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. xomaNN
    xomaNN 19 August 2017 13: 33
    +1
    The author recalled the "blacks" for the fleet of the 90s. Then a pack of petty crooks, crawling to the top of the Russian authorities, led by the close-bodied "booze" E., "pros ... a" of the USSR Navy. Not even for 30 pieces of silver, but sold ships suitable for service even cheaper bully
  11. Sailor
    Sailor 19 August 2017 13: 46
    +2
    Could, but they came betrayed to power everything went to dust.
  12. midshipman
    midshipman 19 August 2017 16: 06
    +5
    For these ships, under my leadership, "Flight, Navigation and Approach Control Systems" ("Drive") were created. Then, to enable the research work of NII-33 on space topics to be possible, the ship’s part of the system was transferred to the Polet software (Chelyabinsk), and the aircraft equipment was left at the NII-33. Ruined in vain our development in this direction. But on the other hand, the "Center" was created for Alkasha, and all labeled to be treated in Germany. In the early 80s, he even managed to bring his son to the Crimea in the "Sunny Valley" and show our aircraft carriers. I have the honor.
  13. exo
    exo 19 August 2017 17: 39
    0
    Nothing new. For an expert, to whom Sivkov considers himself, a very weak article.
  14. Reklastik
    Reklastik 19 August 2017 17: 57
    +1
    Now few people imagine what fleet the Soviet Union could have by the mid-90s
    - generally does not matter. "To" - from the realm of dreams. We live in a different time and the situation is not what it was then.
  15. Conductor
    Conductor 19 August 2017 19: 18
    0
    And what did Kuznetsov show in Syria?
  16. antivirus
    antivirus 19 August 2017 21: 22
    0
    Kuznetsov "headed to the North, where he is today, and the" Varyag "was appointed to strengthen the Pacific Fleet

    --- and how in 1904 access to the ocean depends on Japan
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 19 August 2017 21: 41
      0
      C what? Now, if we give back the smokers, then the fleet will be locked, but for now, the exit is free and does not depend on Japan
  17. Looking for
    Looking for 19 August 2017 22: 25
    -1
    Quote: Aviator_
    This procedure was called "pitching"

    But it turns out we did not know.
  18. Andrey Barinov
    Andrey Barinov 20 August 2017 10: 02
    0
    I served in the rocket forces I: D
    With the advent of a large number of satellites, why are expensive targets needed?
  19. Lucy
    Lucy 20 August 2017 10: 43
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Fomin, Su-33 Ship saga, page 99


    So you are a couch theorist.
    And lay as if your surname Diorditsa. wink

    And c / c TRANSC tried to read, or reports on state. trials? Or thin. end of IPP tavkr "Kuznetsov".
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 August 2017 14: 04
      0
      Quote: lusya
      So you are a couch theorist.

      Ага.
      Quote: lusya
      And lay as if your surname Diorditsa.

      Do not agree - refute. I bring a book that was reviewed by the general designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau and General Colonel Deyneko and whose data are confirmed (verbally) by people directly related to flying from the deck. What will you bring?
  20. Lucy
    Lucy 21 August 2017 00: 32
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: lusya
    So you are a couch theorist.

    Ага.
    Quote: lusya
    And lay as if your surname Diorditsa.

    Do not agree - refute. I bring a book that was reviewed by the general designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau and General Colonel Deyneko and whose data are confirmed (verbally) by people directly related to flying from the deck. What will you bring?


    I have no desire through this site to seek adventure for several years.
    Then GDP will not have mercy, because it will not be a telephone call from women with things. market.

    If you are not familiar with the said owl. secret literature (with the exception of IPP tavkr) what to refute? Funny pictures, or balabol from military acceptance, secrets, NTV, RTR .....?
    1.) Mr. Deyneko bomber (missile carrier), and even heavy, he held on to the helm, not to the RUS! He did not read the Su-27 RLE, and perhaps he doesn’t even know how to “chase a mirror”. Generals believe when they are driven around their ears, and sign their decisions, and application plans, after the reports of early. management (services). And those, in turn (speaking the language of the "translator with a clothespin" of Hollywood masterpieces), cover their backs with the theory described in official documents (I recommended it for review above) written in VMA! In the Navy, unlike the Air Force (VKS), this is normal.
    2.) Gene. OKB designer, has nothing to do with the tactics of using tactical groups of the Su-27k. He knows what a resistor is, but he does not know what a Mars Passat, a lumberjack, is. He does not know that the programs are written in the automated control system for the use of the MiG-29k from the moment the ship was built, from the stage of calculating the given probability of hitting the target with the calculation of the strength of forces, suspension options, calculations of lines, flight routes of tactical groups, because the Su-27k does not carry UR "VP". Moreover, everything is calculated scrupulously, from the stage of raising the TSA from the cellar, to the time of takeoff of the extreme aircraft, with the electronic approval of the BK KK.
    The Sukhovites are not interested in the BPASP in the MC and SC.
    They don’t give a damn (this is not their specificity), to the fact that the Su-27k VTs intercepts can be provided by operators of height removal ((we read about lawn ap-ru (alloy in the Air Force)), with an accuracy of thousands of meters.
    Pugachev, Raevsky, Petrush, Bogdan, ..... was not interested (the task was not set) how combatant pilots would fight on the Su-27k! There are other "astronomers" for this.
    In the years that were hungry for the Russian Federation, Sukhoi's firm sold Su-27k.
    But time puts everything in its place, albeit with a great delay.
    Sincerely, for sincerity!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 August 2017 18: 14
      0
      Quote: lusya
      Sincerely, for sincerity!

      And my respect to you, as a person who knows! hi
      Quote: lusya
      I have no desire through this site to seek adventure for several years.

      I understand you perfectly :)
      Quote: lusya
      If you are not familiar with the said owl. secret literature (with the exception of IPP tavkr) what to refute? Funny pictures, or balabol from military acceptance, secrets, NTV, RTR .....?

      I’m not familiar with top-secret access to state secrets, but there’s no such thing :)))) But what to refute ... Generally speaking, the dispute came out over whether drying at maximum take-off weight could take off from the 1st and 2nd positions . I say that it’s possible, because there were such take-offs (the memory really let me down, I still took off the Su-33 with thirty tons), my esteemed opponent disagrees with me. If you can say something about this without violating military secrets, we will be very grateful :)
  21. Eflintuk
    Eflintuk 21 August 2017 12: 37
    0
    What a foolish thing to do: to collect everything from us theoretically can go to all fleets, call it RUS and fantasize about the battle with one mattress AUG. These are not our methods; we need an asymmetric answer. And in fact, all these aircraft helicopter carriers - weapons of aggression - are we going to attack someone? For parades on the Neva and the "demonstration of the flag" - impermissible luxury.
  22. Lucy
    Lucy 21 August 2017 18: 30
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    can drying at maximum take-off weight take off from the 1st and 2nd positions


    Once the Su-25utg was distilled "on foot", along the route the pier of Vidyaevo (Ura Guba) - Severomorsk-3. With an interesting location of the relief (hills) at the take-off course. so what?
    The use of aviation is a complex task, not limited only outstanding TTX LA.
  23. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 22 August 2017 07: 42
    0
    And the use of new engines on Sukhikh (AL-41 with UVT) or on MiGs with UVT can somehow help take off from a springboard on Kuznetsovo?
  24. irazum
    irazum 22 August 2017 11: 04
    0
    Some kind of heresy, a misfortune, definitely!
  25. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 22 August 2017 11: 22
    0
    The importance of these ships for Russia was demonstrated by Syria.

    This is apparently about 2 lost aircraft as a result of breakage of the cables of the aerofinisher.
  26. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 22 August 2017 11: 36
    +1

    I was at TAVKR "Kiev" in Tianjin in November 2016.
    I see no reason to talk about these obsolete ships. It’s a pity that the achievements of Soviet shipbuilders are shown by the Chinese to their children, and not by us ...
  27. true
    true 22 August 2017 18: 11
    0
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    The importance of these ships for Russia was demonstrated by Syria.

    This is apparently about 2 lost aircraft as a result of breakage of the cables of the aerofinisher.

    Does anyone know if the idea of ​​using a brake rocket engine instead of an aerofinisher was considered?
  28. Poppy
    Poppy 24 August 2017 16: 49
    0
    Anti-submarine cruisers of the 1123 project “Moscow” and “Leningrad” became the first Soviet ships with group-based aviation. Both carried 14 – 16 Ka-25PL helicopters, had advanced weapons. The air defense system was provided by the “Storm” air defense system (two twin beam-type PUs) and two twin AU caliber 57 mm ZAK AK-725. Anti-submarine armament: SAC Orion (at the time of putting these ships into operation was one of the most powerful in the world), the Vortex complex with a two-beam PU for launching a PLR with a special warhead, two five-pipe 533-mm apparatus for anti-submarine torpedoes (SET -65) and 2 of twelve-barrel RBU-6000. The project had no anti-ship missiles. However, within the range of firing (about 22 km), B-611 missiles could work on surface targets for the universal Storm air defense system. These ships became part of the Soviet Navy in the middle of the 60-x and immediately became actively involved in combat service, where they proved to be the most effective anti-submarine surface ships of our fleet, mainly due to the helicopter group, which greatly increased the search performance of the CSG.

    I served in Leningrad, so a couple of remarks:
    - he went into operation in the 68th year, so this is not the middle, but the end of the 60s
    - by the end of the 80s torpedo tubes were already dismantled as unnecessary
    - “Orion” in my time was, after all, a CEO, not a Huck, I served on it, so I know that this is not a complex, but a station
    - there was another GUS there, not mentioned in the article - with a towed immersion antenna (I forgot the name already), this antenna could be thrown under the jump layer. which is relevant for the Black Sea. otherwise there is no submarine deeper than a certain depth
  29. Bob 57
    Bob 57 26 August 2017 10: 51
    0
    Friendship friendship and tobaccos in the ros!
  30. Zero Fifty
    Zero Fifty 28 August 2017 19: 08
    +1
    then, as part of our RUS, there could be two or three nuclear missile cruisers of project 1144, two or three missile cruisers of project 1164 guarded by 10-12 destroyers, large anti-submarine and patrol ships (projects 956, 1155, 1155M, 1135 and 1135M ), three to four missile submarines of project 949 and four to five multipurpose submarines of projects 971 and 671 rtm, and from the coast they would be supported by naval missile aircraft with forces of up to 50–54 Tu-22M3 with anti-ship missiles X-22.
    In the best of times, we wouldn’t scratch so much, not like in the early 90s
  31. Clone
    Clone 5 January 2018 00: 34
    0
    Quote: Finches
    screaming gorby dragged by brave sailors

    Uh, no ... this most important event can be trusted only to those age groups that have personal scores for the ghoul. am