Military Review

Titans and Titanics of the atomic fleet

152



40 years ago, 27 December 1977 of the year, at the Baltic plant in Leningrad, the first domestic surface warship with a nuclear power plant (NPI) was launched - the heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Kirov" of the 1144 "Orlan" project. In operation, he entered exactly three years and three days.

The concept of "nuclear fleet" in the mass is usually associated with submarines. This is understandable - after all, the marine nuclear power industry is most widely used on submarines. But the creators of surface combat ships did not ignore her. The naval arms race between the United States and the USSR led, albeit with a large time gap, to the emergence of large surface combat ships with nuclear power units in the fleets.

First in stories became the American Long Beach missile cruiser with two nuclear reactors C2W, which provided this hulk with the mechanical power of 80 thousand horsepower. It entered service in the 1961 year, and almost simultaneously, the US Navy was replenished with the world's first nuclear aircraft carrier, Enterprise, in the world. With a displacement of about 90 thousand tons, it had eight A2W type reactors with a total capacity of 280 turbines of thousands of horsepower.

The following year, the Pentagon received another nuclear-powered icebreaker. The Bainbridge missile frigate had a displacement of almost half the size of Long Beach, but still it was a large combat unit equipped with two D2G type reactors with 60 turbo-gear units of thousands of horses. So the command of the US Navy has formed the first fully atomic carrier-based strike connection in the "Enterprise" with an escort of a cruiser and frigate.

Subsequently, the United States built ten more heavy Nimitz-type nuclear aircraft carriers, the last of which, George W. Bush, was accepted fleet in 2008 (“Battle of aircraft carriers”). On these ships, at the “enterprise” power of the mechanisms, the number of reactors due to the higher thermal power was reduced to two - type A4W. And the old Enterprise demonstrated amazing (in comparison, alas, with large Russian warships) longevity. He was officially expelled from the fleet only in 2017.

The program for the construction of the US aircraft carrier fleet continues. This year, the Navy received the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford. Next in turn are three more such giants, one of which, John F. Kennedy, is already under construction.

In 1967 – 1980, the United States acquired seven nuclear frigates of the type “Trakstan”, “California” and “Virginia”, continuing the Bainbridge pedigree. Subsequently, they were reclassified into missile cruisers, equaling the rank of "Long Beach". Thus, the entire United States had nine nuclear-powered cruisers armed in different configurations with anti-aircraft guns (TALOS, Terrier, Tartar, Standard), anti-submarine (ASROC) and attack (Garpun, Tomahawk) missiles, Some of their missiles, including some missiles, had nuclear equipment.

However, the duration of their service was not so long as that of nuclear aircraft carriers, for the protection of which these cruisers, in fact, were built. All of them were withdrawn from service in the mid-90's Navy. In principle, for ships of the ocean escort group of such size and displacement (most of the order of 10 thousand tons) NPIs gave only one advantage - no need for frequent refueling. But as for the speed, due to the high specific gravity of such installations (largely due to the presence of biological protection), it was even lower than that of ships of the same class with gas turbine power engineering. And now the Americans are escorting their aircraft carriers with gas turbine cruisers and destroyers, including squadron tanker tankers in such formations.

However, in relation to the heavy operational-strategic (I allow myself, given the diverse spectrum of combat missions they solve such a definition) aircraft carriers, given their enormous size, the Americans do not see an alternative to nuclear power plants. Here, the “cost / effectiveness” parameter acts unambiguously in favor of aircraft carriers, proving from the point of view of the US Navy the validity of the thesis that an atom in a surface fleet is beneficial for giant ships, and not for average peasants. And in the foreseeable future, aircraft carriers such as Nimitz and Ford will remain the basis of the surface combat power of the US Navy, an instrument for quickly projecting force into any area of ​​the globe that is within the range of the deck aviation.

As is known, its atomic aircraft carrier with a displacement of 40 thousand tons with a tail, called "Charles de Gaulle" (https://vpk-news.ru/articles/33938), was also built by the French in 2001 year, but it is far from American monsters. The British did not dare to apply nuclear power plants on their newest Queen Elizabeth (“Who is against the“ queen ”) due to budget constraints.

Save our carcasses

In the United States, construction of nuclear-powered surface ships proceeded with might and main, and the Soviet Union had already given its answer to this, passing the Lenin linear icebreaker (“Polar explorer’s dream”) to the civilian fleet in December. The publicity during its construction was unprecedented for our country - after launching to look at the nuclear-powered icebreaker, Leningrad schoolchildren were taken to the Admiralty Plant. No wonder - after all, it became the same recognizable domestic shipbuilding brand in the world as the cruiser Aurora. Actually, “Lenin” was chronologically the first in the history of technology of a surface vessel with nuclear power plants. But peaceful. With one, however, non-advertised "but" - in case of war, it was possible to arm Lenin in a mobilization variant, in particular the 1959-mm quadruple anti-aircraft automatic anti-aircraft installations SM-45.

Then there was a series of six more advanced atomic-type icebreakers of the “Arctic” type built at the Baltiysky plant (the 1052 project, the main one was commissioned in the 1975 year). NATO intelligence intercepted these icebreakers during sea trials, as they say, fully armed. For example, the icebreaker "Russia" was walking, bristling with universal artillery (76-mm AU AK-176) and anti-aircraft guns (30-mm AK-630). After the tests, the means of defense, of course, were removed, but there is no doubt that the domestic atomic icebreaking fleet (the development of which continues) is ready to raise the naval flag, supported by the appropriate arguments, if necessary.

It is curious that at the turn of the 50 – 60-x in the USSR, the question of equipping the whaling bases with nuclear power plants was considered, which would ensure their unprecedented autonomy. But here, Soviet scientists, despite the interest of the sailors, were perplexed by the fact that radioactive isotopes that were in the atmosphere because of nuclear tests weapons, could get on the whale carcasses, butchered on the whale decks. Detractors of the Soviet Union, including whaling competitors, would not fail to blame the nuclear power industry for such a vessel. This was fraught with serious political and economic costs. From the idea of ​​atomic whalers abandoned.

"Land mine" in Mordasov

In the Soviet shipbuilding KB worked on projects not only civil nuclear ships. Proposals for the construction of aircraft carriers did not find understanding with Khrushchev, and over nuclear-powered cruisers and missile-carriers they were already working seriously.

In 1956, the Soviet leadership adopted a new military shipbuilding program, which included, among other things, the creation of the KRL-R nuclear missile cruiser for the 63 project. The ship, surpassing the American "Long Beach" in terms of displacement and combat power, was to be launched simultaneously with it - in 1961. It was planned to build seven such cruisers by the middle of the 60-x. But at the project approval stage, doubts arose regarding the sustainability of the KRL-R against the massive strikes of enemy aircraft in remote areas of the ocean, with the result that the project was closed in 1959. Indeed, if the American Long Beach, guarding an aircraft carrier, was itself covered by its fighters from the strikes of Soviet long-range coastal-launched missile-carrier bombers Tu-16K and Tu-95К, then the KRL-R did not have such protection (which, however, did not prevent to build four steam turbine rocket cruisers of the 58 project of the “Grozny” type).

However, the idea did not die, and after the removal of Khrushchev from the political scene, who had a negative attitude towards large surface ships, in the USSR they again began to work out projects based on nuclear power plants. Began, however, with the patrol ship, then transformed into a large anti-submarine. Gradually, building up the “project muscles”, it was reclassified into a heavy nuclear missile cruiser. The project was called "land mines". Later he received the name "Orlan" and the number 1144. According to him, five ships were laid at the Baltic Shipyard in Leningrad - Kirov, Frunze, Kalinin, Yuri Andropov and Dzerzhinsky. The fifth building, however, decided not to finish building and dismantled, and "Yuri Andropov" entered service after the collapse of the USSR, in 1996, under the now well-known name "Peter the Great". On each such cruiser, two 300-megawatt KH-3 reactors are installed.

The first three cruisers, which entered service in 1980 – 1988, were later renamed Admiral Ushakov, Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Nakhimov in the process of desovetisation parallel with the decline of the Navy of the former USSR. Nowadays only Peter the Great is really in the battle formation.

The appearance in the Navy of the USSR of heavy nuclear-powered rocket cruisers of the Orlan type has caused understandable concern in the West. Two dozen long-range KRG "Granit", including nuclear warheads, the most powerful anti-aircraft missile and anti-submarine weapons (also in nuclear equipment), three helicopters on board and the high survivability of these floating fortresses produced on the naval headquarters of NATO indelible so far impression. Given the high impact and defensive potential of the new Russian ships, their size (length - a quarter of a kilometer) and displacement (28 thousand tons), the enemy classified them as battle cruisers, considering the Orlan project to be a qualitatively new reincarnation of WWII battleships. Long Beach and its classmates looked pale in comparison to Orlans.

However, the largest nuclear-powered warships in the Russian fleet were our short-term cruisers. At the end of 1988, the large atomic reconnaissance ship CER-33 "Ural" of the 1941 "Titan" project, unprecedented in any of the other fleets of the world, was completed. The displacement of the “Ural”, designed for multifunctional reconnaissance and tracking of space objects autonomously for almost a year, reached 35 thousand tons. Actually, the ship was ordered not by the fleet, which was pretty cool to titanium, but by the General Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces. The naval command, according to some historians, has just ensured that the second such ship (as allegedly insisted by the GRU) was not mortgaged, because it would prevent the completion of a series of 1144 heavy nuclear missile cruisers and nuclear-powered icebreakers.

The fate of Ural itself in connection with the collapse of the USSR was unenviable - it didn’t really serve the Fatherland, he was soon immobilized on arrival in the Pacific Fleet and died quietly, being written off in 2002 year.

The hull of another Soviet nuclear-powered battleboat - the heavy aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk of the 11437 project, built in Nikolaev, was cut into scrap metal by the government’s decision in 1992. Had it been built, the Soviet Union (if it had not been destroyed by the efforts of the higher party nomenclature) would have become the owner of a heavy atomic carrier (and a second such ship was planned), which is very close in its tactical and technical elements to US aircraft carrier aircraft. It even provided for analogues of the American Aircraft Depot E-2 “Hokai” - the Yak-44. But not destiny.
Author:
Originator:
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/40595
152 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 210ox
    210ox 31 December 2017 07: 12 New
    14
    Ural, of course, is a pity .. By the way, in the photo it was he ... Was it really impossible to upgrade?
    1. Wayfarer
      Wayfarer 31 December 2017 08: 26 New
      20
      Quote: 210ox
      The Urals, "of course it’s a pity .. By the way, in the photo it was he ... Was it really impossible to upgrade?

      Everything is possible, but not under the liberal-comprador power.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 31 December 2017 09: 46 New
      +5
      Quote: 210ox
      Really it was impossible to upgrade?

      Under Yeltsin, nobody needed this, and by 2002, everyone in the Urals had shattered, at least a couple of Orlans had been modernized.
    3. igorka357
      igorka357 1 January 2018 09: 45 New
      +3
      The Urals were redundant, difficult to maintain, operate, and train the crew .. and when they realized it, the intelligence tools had already changed!
    4. Comrade Kim
      Comrade Kim 1 January 2018 23: 17 New
      +4
      This was not part of the tasks and plans of the colonial government.
      They are still thinking about us:
    5. Vadivak
      Vadivak 5 January 2018 22: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: .......
      providing this giant a mechanical power of 80 thousand horsepower.

      Long Beach Hulk? standard displacement - 15 111 tons
      Our project 1144 "Orlan" for example -24 300 tons
  2. HEATHER
    HEATHER 31 December 2017 07: 14 New
    11
    Now it’s so difficult to make a video for the text? Guys. What are the problems? A "URAL" -use. It's a pity the ship. Like two of 1144.
  3. San Sanych
    San Sanych 31 December 2017 08: 12 New
    +4
    They built, they built, these Eagles with the Urals, and there was no use for them, only money down the drain ... Marshal Grechko proposed building aircraft carriers of Project 1160 Oryol, and there was nothing to be smart.
    1. Krabik
      Krabik 31 December 2017 18: 22 New
      +9
      From aircraft carriers, too, there would be no sense, they would also rot at the pier.
  4. Vard
    Vard 31 December 2017 08: 27 New
    +4
    Aircraft carriers build with nuclear reactors because of the steam that is needed for catapults ... Only nuclear reactors give it in such quantity .... Everything else is secondary ... And this is a very expensive weapon against technically undeveloped countries ...
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 31 December 2017 08: 52 New
      +7
      Quote: Vard
      Aircraft carriers build with nuclear reactors because of the steam that is needed for catapults ... Only nuclear reactors give it in such quantity .... Everything else is secondary ...

      And the predecessors of the Enterprise and the Nimitts, four aircraft carriers with gas turbines of the Forrestol type and a four of the Kitty Hawk type do not count? belay They then had enough steam from conventional boilers for their four catapults wink
      1. sabotage
        sabotage 31 December 2017 10: 18 New
        +6
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Quote: Vard
        Aircraft carriers build with nuclear reactors because of the steam that is needed for catapults ... Only nuclear reactors give it in such quantity .... Everything else is secondary ...

        And the predecessors of the Enterprise and the Nimitts, four aircraft carriers with gas turbines of the Forrestol type and a four of the Kitty Hawk type do not count? belay They then had enough steam from conventional boilers for their four catapults wink

        That's exactly what was missing. If you had to raise the whole group, then the aircraft carrier "got up."
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 31 December 2017 10: 30 New
          +4
          Quote: sabotage
          That's exactly what was missing.

          Come on lol If (keyword wink ) if such a problem existed, then agromadic ships would not be built in such series (four each).
          So the answer to your "if" was their usual use until the mid-90s hi
          1. sabotage
            sabotage 31 December 2017 14: 07 New
            +1
            Fishing and crucian carp - a woman.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 13: 32 New
        +5
        Quote: Rurikovich
        the four aircraft carriers with GTU type "Forrestal" and the four type "Kitty Hawk" do not count?

        Of course it doesn’t count, because no gas turbines were there. There were old-school CCGTs, precisely because of the need to supply steam to the catapults. On GTU / diesels, nonsense turned out, because steam is still needed.
        It will turn out with electric catapults to switch to electric propulsion - the reactors will be banned right there, they are all enraging. To realize 300K + power on modern commercial engines is not so difficult.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 December 2017 12: 26 New
      +4
      On the new Ford series, the catapults are electric, but the engine is atomic.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 13: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        catapults are electric, but the engine is atomic.

        Because catapults are experimental. Why take the risk?
        Show themselves normal - Fords will be the last CNV. This is the idea, in fact.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 31 December 2017 14: 33 New
          +1
          Fords Well 50 years?
          There, probably, all technologies will change pretty much.
          And reactors, and other engines.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 17: 45 New
            +2
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Fords Well 50 years?

            And what is the contradiction? Fords ordered only 3, and what will be built after CVN-69 - has not yet been determined.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 31 December 2017 17: 49 New
              0
              But it’s still planned 10 ...
              Instead of 10 Nimites.
  5. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 31 December 2017 08: 47 New
    +5
    Here the notorious economy plays a role. The criterion of "price-effectiveness" has not been canceled either. So it turns out that large ships due to their size are not so sensitive to the overall dimensions and prices of a nuclear installation. But the ship is (I have already talked about this childhood truth more than once) a compromise of characteristics due to limitations on displacement. So until acceptable low-cost reactors comparable in weight to GTU are created, no one will economically build small ships with nuclear power plants. If only such a country does not need a ship with specific characteristics and it spits on the other nuances of such a project, then the appearance of such a ship is possible. The same nuclear-powered icebreakers of the USSR-Russia are an example ...
  6. Nemesis
    Nemesis 31 December 2017 12: 48 New
    +2
    Soviet ships are not eternal, and it is time for Russia to begin the construction of new ships of the first rank, with operational weapons, and not repeat the mistakes made at 22350
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 31 December 2017 16: 12 New
      +5
      Why build surface ships of the first rank if they have no tasks?
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 31 December 2017 17: 12 New
        +3
        And why then military bases in Syria and basing points abroad, if you are not going to leave your own ports ?! In the 30s of the last century, there were already those who shouted that Russia did not need an ocean fleet ... After the fleet could not provide a reliable transfer of equipment and troops from the USSR to Spain, during the war with the Francoists, supporters of the mosquito fleet shot in the USSR ... So be careful with such short-sighted statements ...
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 3 January 2018 21: 40 New
          +1
          for tasks in the Mediterranean the abilities of ships of the third rank are quite enough, and ships of the first rank will not even enter the port of Tartus. During the Second World War all battleships shamefully hid in the bases, one truth once left Batumi and supported our army in Kerch a little, and the Japanese and the German battleships died in the first campaign
          1. Nemesis
            Nemesis 4 January 2018 05: 24 New
            0
            The USSR did not build a single battleship, and therefore releasing the antiques that the USSR inherited from the Russian Empire against Tirpitz, or Scharnhorst, was tantamount to suicide. Despite this, the fire of two old battleships, near Leningrad, was a significant contribution to the defense of the city, and the fact that Sevastopol was merged is the personal fault of Oktyabrsky, Khrushchev and Mehlis ... The Mediterranean Sea is not the only maritime theater and far from the main one for Russia ... There is a Northern and Pacific fleet where cruisers and destroyers are needed, and for the defense of Kaliningrad the destroyer would be quite out of place, as the leader of the squadron ...
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 4 January 2018 11: 23 New
              +1
              you have rightly noticed that releasing battleships at sea against an overwhelmingly superior enemy is undisturbed, but then what except for escorting convoys (unlikely by the way) and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Barents Sea have ephemeral missions on the oceans? transfer the list to the studio ..... by the way, there is a destroyer in the Baltic, it’s in reserve as unnecessary, but don’t tell me slippers, the leader of which squadron could be the destroyer in the Baltic .... and in general, can the NK get rid of the Baltic more than five minutes? he will immediately be covered with rockets from the coast
              1. Nemesis
                Nemesis 4 January 2018 12: 05 New
                0
                1) The destroyer in the Baltic Sea in reserve is not (as unnecessary), but because of moral and physical old age .. This is especially true for an unreliable power plant ... 2) Who will cover the Russian destroyer from the Baltic coast ?! The list of countries that can do this in the studio ... 3) Kaliningrad and the Kuril Islands, what are you going to protect ?! RTOs that do not have normal air defense systems, and anti-submarine defense systems are absent altogether, from the word at all ?! 4) What you call a storm seems to be a storm with only 12 tons of a yacht, and there are other waves in the ocean and if you were in good excitement, you would now feed your carcass with cod ...
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 4 January 2018 17: 19 New
                  +1
                  Baltic coast is saturated with NATO, list Poland Germany, Estonia Lithuania, Latvia. We’ll cover Kaliningrad from the shore. The Kuril Islands need to be fired by the total control of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, that’s why the fleet on Balik needs to be reduced dramatically, especially to destroy all ships of the second rank except submarines, and send them to the Pacific Fleet, send the unnecessary full-wave fleet in full there ..... well, I know people and talked with them who crossed the ocean in a 3-ton boat, and by the way without feeding sharks, and by the way, I don’t urge you to board boats, a ship of 500-3000 tons is completely seaworthy
                  1. Nemesis
                    Nemesis 4 January 2018 19: 48 New
                    +1
                    Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania have weapons that are dangerous only for poachers ... Poland is also not an enemy of Russia ... Germany remains, but here you can’t cover anything from land ... Poland has enough tanks to prevent reinforcements from being sent in time Kaliningrad ... Without a fleet, no control can be ensured, much less total ... Sailing in 12 ton boats with beer and sorting out the fleet are two different things ...
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 4 January 2018 20: 26 New
                      0
                      NATO countries use the US army, including on the territory of the Baltic states, so they can interleave any weapons there if necessary. In tanks of the Russian Federation still has an advantage, especially over Poland
                      1. Nemesis
                        Nemesis 4 January 2018 20: 30 New
                        0
                        An advantage in tanks over Poland will not help Russia keep Kaliningrad ... Poland will last long enough so that nothing is left of the Russian group in Kaliningrad ... Tsar Peter the Great also said that - the State has only a land army, only one arm it has, but a state that has both an army and a navy has two hands ... But people like you consider yourself smarter than Peter the Great ... Therefore, the results of the GDP policy are far from Peter's ...... To fight with the Russian Federation, most likely no one would dare, but to enter the blockade of Kaliningrad and the Kuril Islands, or even go to seize a part of the Kuril Islands, it is quite realistic and here the Russian Federation does not have a fleet in any way. It is the fleet that can break through the blockade and provide supplies if it is strong enough ...
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 9 January 2018 12: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            During the Second World War, all battleships shamefully hid in the bases, though one truth one day left Batumi and slightly supported our army in Kerch

            Yeah ... so "supported a little" that already in the spring of 1942 at the "Parisian" had to change the trunks of the Civil Code due to the complete execution and the appearance of cracks.
        2. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 5 January 2018 23: 59 New
          +2
          Doctors The troops were not going to send. SECRETLY sent weapons, armored vehicles and aircraft with instructor crews to train the Spaniards and test in battle. Neither tanks nor aircraft showed themselves. For this, a number of designers were tried and imprisoned, in particular Polikarpov and Tupolev. Our small arms 7,62 caliber inferior to the European 7,92 caliber. Hand grenades are also much inferior to European ones. Our guns "from Tukhachevsky" were crappy. Our "internationalist advisers" are crappy too. By the time Tukhachevsky was arrested in 1936, a complete failure with the armament and equipment of the Red Army and the Red Army became clear. Stalin and the Stalinists had to take urgent measures to save the situation with weapons, but they did not have time to fix it radically, and began a war with Europe with poor and backward weapons, especially inferior to artillery, including anti-tank and tank. Large ships of the country did not pull either technologically or financially. But the mosquito fleet was armed with very weak torpedoes and anti-aircraft guns, went on unreliable engines, without radio communications, etc. They punished for this. The Trotskyist conspiracy was - and the participants were shot. Sorry, not everyone.
          1. Nemesis
            Nemesis 6 January 2018 15: 22 New
            +1
            All you wrote, fables ... SB planes were able to sink the heavy cruiser General Franco. This is a success that no one can deny. Moreover, the SB in Spain bombed a German pocket battleship, such as Deutschland, which, however, remained afloat. 7,62 mm machine guns are not much inferior to 7,92 mm machine guns and this is not about caliber, but about the bullet’s shirt, which and today has not changed. On Russian machine guns, a French bullet (7,5 mm) was taken for the sample, in a copper shirt, on German machine guns a 7,92 mm nickel bullet shirt. The nickel is harder than copper and due to it the German (not European) bullet has a slightly higher penetrating ability ... (the caliber of English machine guns is 7,71 mm and the bullet is also in a copper shirt) In fact, the Soviet ShKAS machine guns had a very high rate of fire (exceeded the German MG-15), decent for our days, and the power of aircraft weapons was always measured with a volley of fire per minute (this is the total weight of ammunition that all the firing points of the aircraft release at the enemy per minute) ... In fact, Soviet weapons in Spain proved not bad ... The Soviet I-16s were completely superior to the German He-50 , He-51, Italian CR-30, CR-32, CR-42 and could fight on equal terms with the new German Me-109A and Me-109B .... Soviet T-26 were, at least not worse than the German Pz- 1 and Pz-2 which formed the basis of the German units in Spain ... The basis of the Italian tank forces and generally comprised armed with machine guns, caliber up to 12,7 mm, tankettes ... the USSR lost in Spain precisely because the USSR fleet was unable to deliver the necessary amount of equipment and ammunition, and he could not do it because of the enemy’s opposition and his own weakness ...
      2. andy.v.lee
        andy.v.lee 3 January 2018 17: 50 New
        +1
        There is such a thing as the scale of the use of weapons. At the same time, displacement also plays a role. Recently, pitch stabilizers have been used successfully. The optimal weight for today is around 9000 tons.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 3 January 2018 21: 42 New
          0
          Admiral Mkarov considered 3000 tons to be optimal, but I figure out that 3000-4000 is the most optimal, and for the ocean too
          1. Nemesis
            Nemesis 4 January 2018 05: 29 New
            0
            Did you go to sea on a ship 3000-4000 ?! There are significant restrictions on seaworthiness, which means the use of weapons in bad weather, the cruising range, I’m not talking about armaments, according to the nomenclature and quantity of which a ship of 3000-4000 can never compete with larger vessels .. 3000-4000 is already, at a minimum, a rejection of long-range air defense systems, which already makes the ship an inferior combat unit ... An attempt to make the shadow of the destroyer from project 22350 failed miserably, the Redoubt air defense systems could not be brought to mind and probably no longer they can ..... And without an air defense system it’s not a frigate, but a trough on which only hens can be bred ...
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 4 January 2018 11: 27 New
              0
              I went out to sea on a 12 ton displacement yacht and in a storm too, don’t scare me with a wave .... naturally, it’s impossible to hang battleship weapons on a frigate, but a long-range air defense system is possible, it’s easier than calibers, and they are put on small ships
              1. Almera
                Almera 5 January 2018 12: 05 New
                0
                So stick something like the S-300 onto the frigate. He will not drown near the wall of the plant?
            2. Almera
              Almera 5 January 2018 12: 01 New
              +1
              But riveting monsters under 10000 is also too much. Long-range air defense systems (as well as radar) can be deployed ashore.
              1. Nemesis
                Nemesis 5 January 2018 17: 57 New
                +1
                1) There is such a thing - Radio horizon ... So the real launch range of your rocket is no more than 300 km, if there are no sources of external target designation ... 2) For small ships there are restrictions on the use of weapons in bad weather. The smaller the ship, the more it is thrown in the wave. 3) There are big problems with external sources of target designation ... There are no more satellites of the Legend complex, but there are very few hopes for target designation with Tu-95, because they will not live long in the enemy aviation zone .. 4) Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, Kaliningrad, New You cannot protect the earth and the like with coastal air defense systems and anti-ship missiles, just as you cannot protect them and missile defense systems ...
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 19: 45 New
                  0
                  and I don’t insist on RTOs on the oceans, it’s best to submarine, and from NK these are frigates for the ocean and MNR for the sea, and NK need very little to break through sea blockades and escort convoys
                  1. Nemesis
                    Nemesis 5 January 2018 20: 44 New
                    +2
                    1) Where did you see a frigate with a long-range air defense system ?! There is no long-range air defense system, the ship will not be able to attack enemy planes attacking it with its own air defense system, and the one who only defends (medium-range and short-range air defense systems, this is only self-defense) always dies. 2) Where are you going to refuel the frigate ?! In a combat situation, the ship performs tasks at full speed, and this is an increased fuel consumption ... In bad weather, the frigate will not be able to shoot, they have limitations on the use of weapons on the wave, which cruisers and destroyers do not have ... The larger the ship, the more it more stable on the wave, he talks less. 3) On a yacht, you could sit in the port, change course to get around the storm, or just tie yourself to a bed, turn on the autopilot and wait for bad weather ... You need to work on any warship in any weather, make decisions quickly and correctly .. If a person is exhausted physically, he will have problems with it. 4) The frigate cannot be compared with the destroyer and cruiser in terms of armament ... 5) The submarine fleet cannot pull without a surface ... Read about submarines of the USSR during the Caribbean crisis ... If the war began, they would be destroyed ...
  7. cobalt
    cobalt 31 December 2017 13: 17 New
    +6
    The architecture of the cruiser Long Beach looked very exotic.
  8. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 31 December 2017 16: 10 New
    +2
    there are no conclusions in the article, I’ll conclude that it was not necessary to build them, it would be better if there were more submarines and minesweepers, in reality the battleship serves instead of the frigate, and in the war, like all battleships of the past, it will be in the base, judging by the delay in the delivery of Nakhimov, the chances of Lazarev’s repairs are decreasing, and Peter the Great may not even be upgraded at all, limiting himself to VTG
  9. Old26
    Old26 31 December 2017 16: 25 New
    +8
    In principle, a good review, but for some somehow blurry. What prevented the respected author from not just mentioning Arctic-type icebreakers, but at least listing their names. At the same time, the unrealized Dzerzhinsky was mentioned. But our icebreaker fleet also had the atomic Vaigach and Taimyr, the nuclear lighter carrier Sevmorput .. Okay, you can still understand when two lines are assigned to the French nuclear carrier.

    But if we talk about the beginning of the atomic era in shipbuilding, it would be worth mentioning both the American dry cargo ship Savannah and the German dry cargo ship Otto Gan, even the unsuccessful Japanese research vessel Mutsu. And the author either forgot about them, or considered that it was superfluous.
  10. Old26
    Old26 31 December 2017 18: 20 New
    +2
    Quote: vladimir1155
    there are no conclusions in the article, I’ll conclude that it was not necessary to build them, it would be better if there were more submarines and minesweepers, in reality the battleship serves instead of the frigate, and in the war, like all battleships of the past, it will be in the base, judging by the delay in the delivery of Nakhimov, the chances of Lazarev’s repairs are decreasing, and Peter the Great may not even be upgraded at all, limiting himself to VTG

    Build more submarines? Too much more. At the beginning of the 80s, we had almost 60 +/- of one missile boat. And there were almost 2 hundred nuclear powered ships. Minesweepers were also dofiga. A series of destroyers, cruisers, and BODs were also built. And then they did not fulfill the role of frigates ....
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 3 January 2018 21: 44 New
      0
      Yes, submarines and minesweepers are now clearly not enough
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 3 January 2018 21: 57 New
      +1
      in modern combat, all NKs carry out the task of escorting convoys, that is, both the cruiser and the destroyer work for the frigate ..... because you need to attack foreign shores with submarines and fight against the AUG, also because the likely enemy has an overwhelming advantage and any NK will die in an unequal battle ..... and aggression against third countries, we do not plan for peace.
      1. Almera
        Almera 5 January 2018 12: 10 New
        +1
        because you need to attack foreign shores with submarines,

        It is possible with AB. Deck attack aircraft carry at least KR. And the loss of even a flight link will be cheaper than the loss of one submarine. True, to maintain an AB and a link is more expensive than a submarine.
  11. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 1 January 2018 09: 26 New
    +4
    Whoever didn’t just scoff at the fleet, everything was done, as in quotes from the famous cartoon and no less famous film: "We built, built, and finally built!" , "Set Abdula on fire!" Nikita Kukuruza "threw back the fleet for 15 years, before that there was a military plague, and even earlier a revolution and civil war. In the 90s, the clique of shit-democrats not only ruined the country, but also naturally the shipbuilding industry, most of the naval research institutes. And that’s in the piggy bank : a few old, not modernized shipyards and miserable remnants of a once advanced science. The revival of the fleet begun in the early 2000s has not brought any significant results, only modernized nuclear-powered ships and surface ships of mainly 3-4 ranks are being built, equipping them with "calibers" significantly they weigh, but it’s a drop in the bucket. Problems with engines put an end to the construction of ships of rank 2-1 (take the same series of frigates!), there are no or not enough technical capabilities at the plants, and most importantly the “shift workers” and “efficient managers, pro-Westerners "still put the wheels in the wheel and not only shipbuilding and military science. Is it really not clear that the nouveau riche do not need a powerful
    1. Sergeant71
      Sergeant71 1 January 2018 16: 50 New
      +5
      The problems are not so much with the engines of the shipyards, but with the financing of fleet renewal. If desired, the engines could be purchased in China or through it to buy products that fell under the sanctions, but these engines are stupidly nowhere to put. One could even order a part of the vessels abroad, which the Soviet Union did not hesitate to do, loading the shipyards of the GDR, Poland and Finland, but again there is NO money for this. If oil drops under a hundred square meters again, then maybe that will change. The fact that in the next 10 years we will really have significant economic growth, and not the tales of the Vienna forest from the government with the president, can no longer be believed. For 17 years, it was possible to turn mountains and change the country (and the fleet, respectively) radically, but this, apparently, no one needs.
  12. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 1 January 2018 09: 30 New
    +3
    I'm really bothering someone! Rounding off. We cannot survive without the revival of the military-industrial complex and the creation of a powerful fleet and army!
    1. shahor
      shahor 1 January 2018 12: 04 New
      0
      And rejoining the military-industrial complex and creating powerful armies and fleets, we will bend. There is a fresh example. Remind me?
      1. Cat
        Cat 1 January 2018 16: 22 New
        +2
        There are a couple of other “freshest examples” when those who refused to revive the military-industrial complex and maintain a powerful fleet and army were bending down!
        So dear Shekhor-Kolya from Muscovy, it’s better to sharpen the shoes of your army than to lick someone else’s!
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 3 January 2018 21: 46 New
          0
          I agree, but we need the necessary military units, and not meaningless battleships, bashfully called armchairs
        2. Almera
          Almera 5 January 2018 12: 23 New
          0
          Need the ability to coordinate with Wishlist.
  13. Olezhek
    Olezhek 1 January 2018 12: 05 New
    +2
    Yes - the ocean fleet is impossible without big ships, whatever one may say ...
    But they are expensive. request
    1. sabotage
      sabotage 1 January 2018 12: 18 New
      +3
      It's great that Captain Evidence is with us at this difficult moment for the country.
      1. Almera
        Almera 5 January 2018 12: 24 New
        0
        drinks For the evidence!
  14. Old26
    Old26 1 January 2018 12: 25 New
    +3
    Quote: polkovnik manuch
    Whoever didn’t just scoff at the fleet, everything was done, as in quotes from the famous cartoon and no less famous film: "We built, built, and finally built!" , "Set Abdula on fire!" Nikita Kukuruza "threw back the fleet for 15 years, before that there was a military plague, and even earlier a revolution and civil war. In the 90s, the clique of shit-democrats not only ruined the country, but also naturally the shipbuilding industry, most of the naval research institutes. And that’s in the piggy bank : a few old, not modernized shipyards and miserable remnants of a once advanced science. The revival of the fleet begun in the early 2000s has not brought any significant results, only modernized nuclear-powered ships and surface ships of mainly 3-4 ranks are being built, equipping them with "calibers" significantly they weigh, but it’s a drop in the bucket. Problems with engines put an end to the construction of ships of rank 2-1 (take the same series of frigates!), there are no or not enough technical capabilities at the plants, and most importantly the “shift workers” and “efficient managers, pro-Westerners "still put the wheels in the wheel and not only shipbuilding and military science. Is it really not clear that the nouveau riche do not need a powerful

    Yes, comrade! Nikita’s time is .... And the most interesting thing is that the further away that time goes from us, the more ambiguous is what he has done. Moreover, the people who served in those years. I will try to explain my point. The conversation, the conclusions (fragments) from which I will give below was somewhere in 2009-2010. I was visiting one of my friends. The visit, and not only mine, was, what is called spontaneous, and while the women were trying to bungle something there quickly, the five of us retired to the arbor, taking with us a small glass container ...
    It somehow gradually came to the time of the reign of the NSH. The companion's father served in those years in aviation, and his neighbor in the navy.
    And here is the interesting thing. How people perceived these events then and now. I had similar conversations with my father, and the assessment of the situation was approximately the same.
    In the 50s, when the army was reduced in 2 calls to 2 million, when sawing ships and planes - the reaction to this action was extremely negative. But after 60 years for someone, this view has changed dramatically, for someone partially. But such a reaction as it was in the 50s was no longer there.
    In particular, everyone (these two comrades and my father) agreed that it was necessary to reduce, often officers who became officers at the front from the rank and file, sometimes with a four-year or 7 class education, were reduced. On the other hand, the reduction itself was carried out without taking into account vital factors. That is, a person had to serve a short time before the deadline - but they could take it and reduce it. The same was with Serdyukov.

    But to how the equipment was destroyed and what happened afterwards - everyone had their own view. For example, my father reacted very negatively to the fact that in artillery they didn’t even cut so massively as ships or planes, but even the utilization of artillery systems caused the greatest harm, but the fact that at some point in time we simply stopped creating new artillery systems.
    According to the opinion of the fathers of my friends, the fleet and aviation had such a "drank technician", which is oddly not their positive side. Instead of old models, they began to equip with more modern technology. And new ships began to be built. Although of course a series of cruisers is a pity

    But it turned out that by destroying certain ships in the 50s, we compensated for them by building new models. Like airplanes. But the 90s - this was really a tragedy for the country. It was written off even in the fleet that could still walk

    Something attracted me to philosophy? Probably the remains of Kuban wine and “polishing” after that with Stavropol (Praskoveyskiy) cognac. Now I’m sitting and sybaritism. A mug of freshly brewed coffee, Praskoveyskiy cognac (already at the bottom), philosophical mood and 3 days ahead, not counting today ) absolute relaxation
    1. Vard
      Vard 2 January 2018 10: 20 New
      +2
      How is it ... without resolving general issues ... when solving private issues, we will always stumble on general issues ... First ... we are a poor country ... if we spread the income from the sale of oil to the entire population ... we get 1000 dollars per person! Second ... we have an extremely low qualification of managers ... This is quite enough ... but there is also a third ... fourth, etc.
      1. sabotage
        sabotage 2 January 2018 12: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: Vard
        How is it ... without resolving general issues ... when solving private issues, we will always stumble on general issues ... First ... we are a poor country ... if we spread the income from the sale of oil to the entire population ... we get 1000 dollars per person! Second ... we have an extremely low qualification of managers ... This is quite enough ... but there is also a third ... fourth, etc.

        I want to clarify, does this mean that Russia is a gas station?
        1. Vard
          Vard 2 January 2018 13: 55 New
          0
          There is an interesting question ... there is clearly not enough money for raw materials for all hoteliers ... and where do they get them ...
          1. sabotage
            sabotage 2 January 2018 18: 24 New
            +1
            Quote: Vard
            There is an interesting question ... there is clearly not enough money for raw materials for all hoteliers ... and where do they get them ...

            Statistical digest Russia in numbers 2017. I recommend p. 369 http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/doc_2017/rusfig/rus17.
            pdf

            1/4 of income - insurance premiums for compulsory social insurance. So they take with us. There are no miracles.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 16: 23 New
          +2
          Quote: sabotage
          Does this mean that Russia is a gas station?

          Yes. And to a much greater extent than in the "dashing 90s." High prices for raw materials of the 00s turned the Russian economy into a patient who was prescribed vodka for all diseases.
          Of course, he stopped suffering. But his health, to put it mildly, has not improved.
          Is this news for you?
  15. xomaNN
    xomaNN 2 January 2018 20: 04 New
    +1
    Well, for the Russian Navy for the surface fleet, nuclear reactors are still irrelevant for a simple reason. From the construction of the NK of the Corvette / Frigate class to aircraft carriers of 15 years minimum.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 3 January 2018 21: 50 New
      0
      until Kuzya and Petya are scrapped, one won’t have to think about building new monsters, and it’s good if they let out nuclear submarines, and hard workers, minesweepers, corvettes, frigates
  16. Turgon
    Turgon 4 January 2018 11: 00 New
    0
    Everything in our country is in the projects and plan, and as regards implementation, something disturbs us as a bad dancer.
    1. Almera
      Almera 5 January 2018 12: 26 New
      0
      Will you give money for the project? And then doctors and teachers will howl ...
  17. Old26
    Old26 4 January 2018 13: 13 New
    +2
    Quote: vladimir1155
    in modern combat, all NKs perform the task of escorting convoys.

    An interesting statement of the question. It always seemed to me that modern combat and escort operations are still somewhat different things. And the tasks of such operations are different. In battle, the main task is to destroy enemy ships - in the convoy the main task is for the convoy to reach the place. Rosenbaum has a good song. Called "Convoy Ship". And at the end of the summary - "we have reached, so you have proved everything with this"

    Quote: vladimir1155
    because it is necessary to attack foreign shores with submarines.

    What does it mean to attack foreign shores? Strike coastal targets? Landing? What exactly do you mean by the term "attack foreign shores?"
    Surface ships, except for a fatal strike with ballistic missiles, will cope with this task much better. In addition, boats a priori will not be able to land.

    Quote: vladimir1155
    and fight aug.

    Years of experience have shown that it is impossible to fight AUGs alone with submarines. AUG detection range by submarine using its own means is negligible. And the AUG order is still not located on the aircraft carrier’s side, but at a distance of half a hundred to a hundred kilometers. In addition, the AUG also includes multi-purpose enemy boats. In addition, calculations show that for the sinking (incapacitation) of an aircraft carrier, a CR is required in an amount of about 11-12 (8-10) of the X-22 or Granite type. No wonder the calculations showed that for the destruction of the AUG requires the departure of an air division of bombers-missile carriers with 1-2 missiles on an airplane. For submarines, in any case, external target designation is required so that they are shot from a range close to the maximum

    Quote: vladimir1155
    also, because the likely enemy has an overwhelming advantage and any NK will die in an unequal battle

    Now yes, a likely adversary has an advantage over surface ships in the ocean zone. But their areas of operation are so extended that he is not able to concentrate everything in one place. Yes, and squadron battles, it seems to me, ended at the beginning of the last century.

    Quote: vladimir1155
    ..... and aggression against third countries, we do not plan for peace.

    Well, well, I see. We are for peace. And in the struggle for peace, we will not leave stone unturned from the whole world. Slogans do not just rush. Wrong place

    Quote: vladimir1155
    Admiral Mkarov considered 3000 tons to be optimal, but I figure out that 3000-4000 is the most optimal, and for the ocean too

    Admiral Makarov lived and served in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And what he considered the criterion then is now not a fact. For 30 years, from the 1880s to 1910, the displacement of the same battleships almost doubled. From 11000 tons at Chesma to 18600 at Andrei the First-Called. Over the next 30 years (from 1910 to 1940), the displacement of battleships increased from 25000 tons at the Gangut and sisterships to 65000 tons at the Soviet Union.
    Displacements of 3000-4000 tons are good for countries that do not claim to be the leader in the world, but delve into "their sandbox." For a country such as Russia (USSR), the fleet had to be a priori OCEAN. And there is nothing to do with 3000 tons of displacement. We have already gone through this after the war. Among the Soviet admirals was such admiral Amelko, who believed that it was enough for the Soviet Union to have only a coastal fleet. History has shown that he was wrong. Are you trying to follow his path? What will be the seaworthiness of such ships, the scale of the use of weapons, autonomy. What, in the end, will be the armament of such ships ....

    Quote: vladimir1155
    I agree, but we need the necessary military units, and not meaningless battleships, bashfully called armchairs

    Do you consider river-sea-class ships as your favorite displacement, with as many as 8 launchers for missiles and with a complete lack of air defense ???? Or what?
    And then. Battleships of the middle of the last century were already displacement under 70000 tons. Something we did not observe any such ship. If the "Peter" and can be compared by displacement with battleships, then the beginning of the 20th century. Therefore, there is no question of any "bashfulness"

    Quote: vladimir1155
    until Kuzya and Petya are scrapped, one won’t have to think about building new monsters, and it’s good if they let out nuclear submarines, and hard workers, minesweepers, corvettes, frigates

    If you wait for someone to be once scrapped, then there is no point in bothering the fleet at all, as it seems to me. Perhaps the time for the construction of the cruisers has not yet arrived, and perhaps it does not make sense to build from at all. Modern and promising destroyers already reach the cruisers of the second half of the 20th century in terms of displacement. But building ships of the 1st rank is necessary. At least in order to make up for the withdrawal of the old ones from the military personnel. You can’t go far on tregates, corvettes and minesweepers. Or it must be stated that we do not consider ourselves a world power, and we will only protect our coastal seas (if we can with such a fleet of minesweepers, frigates and corvettes)
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 4 January 2018 17: 59 New
      0
      “What does it mean to attack foreign shores? Strike coastal targets? Landing? What exactly do you mean by the term "attack foreign shores?"

      Answer. I mean the serious damage to the enemy by missile weapons (including nuclear) for 1 unacceptable damage to avoid war as such 2 for a retaliatory strike in order to destroy its infrastructure

      “Surface ships, except for a fatal strike with ballistic missiles, will cope with this task much better. In addition, boats a priori will not be able to land troops "
      Answer. Of course, the vulnerability and visibility of surface ships makes them useless suicide bombers. They will not even approach the enemy’s shore. As for the landing, where and where are you going to land it? Do you really think that it is possible to land on the US coast? And how much landing do we have? Yes, we and all the land forces will not be enough to protect the borders, and you are still landing ... landing operations can only be local near their shores with the support of frigates and corvettes, coast-based aviation.
      “Many years of experience have shown that it is impossible to fight AUGs alone with submarines. AUG detection range by submarine using its own means is negligible. And the AUG order is still not located on the aircraft carrier’s side, but at a distance of half a hundred to a hundred kilometers. In addition, the AUG also includes multi-purpose enemy boats. In addition, calculations show that for the sinking (incapacitation) of an aircraft carrier, a CR is required in an amount of about 11-12 (8-10) of the X-22 or Granite type. No wonder the calculations showed that for the destruction of the AUG requires the departure of an air division of bombers-missile carriers with 1-2 missiles on an airplane. In any case, an external target designation is required for submarines so that they are shot from a range close to the maximum. ”
      Answer. Well, despite the fact that no one will let NK to AUG, then Aviation and submarines remain,
      “Now yes, a likely adversary has an advantage over surface ships in the ocean zone. But their areas of operation are so extended that he is not able to concentrate everything in one place. Yes, and squadron battles, it seems to me, ended at the beginning of the last century. ”
      Answer. Do not count on the stupidity of the Americans who, at your request, will give you one destroyer for Petya to shoot them all individually ... because the probable enemy has an overwhelming advantage and any NK will die in an unequal battle
      “Well, well, I see. We are for peace. And in the struggle for peace, we will not leave stone unturned from the whole world. Slogans do not just rush. Wrong place ”
      Answer. This is a matter of principle, if we are strengthening the defense, then this is one thing, if we are going to attack the USA like everyone else, then of course you need an ocean fleet ... the triviality of the situation is that you don’t really succeed in dropping yourself, but you are talking about ocean battleships .... it’s better to tit in the hands ..... and aggression against third countries, we do not plan for peace.
      “Admiral Makarov lived and served in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And what he considered the criterion then is now not a fact. For 30 years, from the 1880s to 1910, the displacement of the same battleships almost doubled. From 11000 tons at Chesma to 18600 at Andrei the First-Called. Over the next 30 years (from 1910 to 1940), the displacement of battleships increased from 25000 tons at the Gangut and sisterships to 65000 tons at the Soviet Union.
      Displacements of 3000-4000 tons are good for countries that do not claim to be the leader in the world, but delve into "their sandbox." For a country such as Russia (USSR), the fleet had to be a priori OCEAN. And there is nothing to do with 3000 tons of displacement. We have already gone through this after the war. Among the Soviet admirals was such admiral Amelko, who believed that it was enough for the Soviet Union to have only a coastal fleet. History has shown that he was wrong. Are you trying to follow his path? What will be the seaworthiness of such ships, the scale of the use of weapons, autonomy. What kind of weapons will such ships eventually have. ”
      Answer. You have no arguments, some of the slogans “a priori ...” were still remembered by the USSR .... I respect Amelchenko who made more than a hundred submarines and saved them from the war, and Gorshkov built unnecessary battleships, they all stood in reserve or were written off before the deadline, here you right Amelchenko. Come back smart admiral .... oh come ... .. make us so many nuclear submarines so that no enemy attacks. I believe that 3000-4000 is the most optimal, and for the ocean too

      “And do you consider the river-sea class ships as your favorite displacement, with as many as 8 launchers for missiles and with a complete lack of air defense ???? Or what? "
      Answer. yes I think
      "And then. Battleships of the middle of the last century were already displacement under 70000 tons. Something we did not observe any such ship. If the "Peter" and can be compared by displacement with battleships, then the beginning of the 20th century. Therefore, there is no question of any “bashfulness”
      The answer. and did not try to compare military power?
      “If you wait for someone to be once scrapped, then there’s no point in bothering the fleet at all, as it seems to me. Perhaps the time for the construction of the cruisers has not yet arrived, and perhaps it does not make sense to build from at all. "Modern and promising destroyers already reach the cruisers of the second half of the 20th century in terms of displacement.”
      The answer. so you agreed that the cruisers are meaningless, and now bashfully call the battleships destroyers, and your like-minded people already call the battleships frigates, which you can’t imagine to cut people's money

      “But building ships of the 1st rank is necessary. At least in order to make up for the withdrawal of the old ones from the military personnel. You can’t go far on tregates, corvettes and minesweepers. Or it must be stated that we do not consider ourselves a world power, and we will protect only our coastal seas (if we can with such a fleet of minesweepers, frigates and corvettes) ”
      The answer is no, the frigates can reach Australia, and if necessary, but not necessary, it’s enough that the nuclear submarines go so far, and the NK should be auxiliary forces off their coasts ... .. it’s better to honestly state that the NKs are coastal than puffing themselves up to the detriment of the airborne forces, air defense, strategic missile forces, and ground forces. But Nakhimov, Kuzya and Petya, according to my calculations, will serve another 15-25 years, so for pride and vanity we still have battleships with the function of frigates.
  18. Old26
    Old26 4 January 2018 19: 50 New
    +3
    Quote: vladimir1155
    “What does it mean to attack foreign shores? Strike coastal targets? Landing? What exactly do you mean by the term "attack foreign shores?"

    Answer. I mean the serious damage to the enemy by missile weapons (including nuclear) for 1 unacceptable damage to avoid war as such 2 for a retaliatory strike in order to destroy its infrastructure

    Serious damage to missile weapons can also be caused by ground-based missiles, especially if it is preventive. This is the first option and the same thing as the second. the destruction of infrastructure will not require thousands of warheads. This is the second option. our own strategic forces rely mainly on the land component, and not on the sea.

    Quote: vladimir1155
    “Surface ships, except for a fatal strike with ballistic missiles, will cope with this task much better. In addition, boats a priori will not be able to land troops "

    Answer. Of course, the vulnerability and visibility of surface ships makes them useless suicide bombers. They will not even approach the enemy’s shore. As for the landing, where and where are you going to land it? Do you really think that it is possible to land on the US coast? And how much landing do we have? Yes, we and all the land forces will not be enough to guard the borders, and you’re still landing ... landing operations can only be local near their shores with the support of frigates and corvettes, coast-based aviation ..

    You can find out why they can’t get close to the enemy’s shore? What religion forbids them? Or are you sure that all the shores of the same US are littered with coastal rocket batteries and all their ships will be at a distance of visual contact with each other? Vulnerability from what? From anti-ship missile weapons or from aviation? So, unlike submarines, of which you seem to be a fan, ships of the 1st rank also have means. able to protect them.
    What about the landing? Will you name a point on the map, or are you already unable to abstract away when you talk about the fleet?
    Is it possible to land on the US coast? Elementary Watson. In 10 hours with a 15 nodal passage, one can land an landing on the coast of Alaska. And sailing from the Bay of Providence.
    You ask a question, how much landing we have or trying to prove that surface ships are not capable of this. Yes, of course we won’t drop out the army, well, a brigade or two - why not. And what, landing in the United States is mandatory? Do we have no other enemies?
    You can support the landing frigates and corvettes. Or maybe it will not work with corvettes due to their insufficient seaworthiness. But destroyers and cruisers to support the landing can be guaranteed.

    Quote: vladimir1155
    “Well, well, I see. We are for peace. And in the struggle for peace, we will not leave stone unturned from the whole world. Slogans do not just rush. Wrong place ”
    Answer. This is a matter of principle, if we are strengthening the defense, then this is one thing, if we are going to attack the United States like everyone else, then of course we need an ocean fleet ... the triviality of the situation is that you don’t really succeed in dropping yourself, but you are talking about ocean battleships .... it’s better to tit in the hands ..... and aggression against third countries, we do not plan for peace ..

    This is really a matter of principle. We cannot mount defenses based on ships of the frigate and corvette class. This is a pre-losing position against the United States. And I already said. If we want to be a world power to be reckoned with - the fleet must be oceanic, balanced. If we step down the powers of a great power and are ready to agree to 2-3 or fourth roles in world politics, roughly speaking, when our voice is needed - they will listen to us, no - then go out of the way - then we really need to be preoccupied with protecting our two hundred-mile economic zone and nothing else. And the second superpower besides the USA will be not Russia, but China, which is already on the way to this. It seems to be also not claiming the role of “attacking everyone”, but no. Builds destroyers, and in series.
    It turns out to defend oneself. And the only question is that those responsible for this should be fully responsible. If according to the plan the ship should be launched on day X, then on that day it should be launched. And those who made the shift right should be responsible for this. As well as cost overruns. Of course, if there were no "force majeure" circumstances.
    If we say that today it is better to have a "tit", then the "crane" can not wait. It is necessary to restore order and build in parallel and frigates and destroyers. We do not plan aggression against the lost countries? Interestingly, if Syria had not been an amorphous ISIS, but a very real state, would the help of Syria and the attack of this country not be an act of aggression against this country? Maybe you should not juggle with words and terms?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 4 January 2018 22: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      If we want to be a world power to be reckoned with - the fleet must be oceanic, balanced. If we step down the powers of a great power and are ready to agree to 2-3 or fourth roles in world politics, roughly speaking, when our voice is needed - they will listen to us, no - then go out of the way - then we really need to be preoccupied with protecting our two hundred-mile economic zone and nothing else

      I'm sorry to interfere, but you, it seemed to me, kept in touch with reality.

      Do you think the quoted text really seems reasonable?
  19. Old26
    Old26 4 January 2018 19: 52 New
    +2
    Quote: vladimir1155
    “Admiral Makarov lived and served in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And what he considered the criterion then is now not a fact. For 30 years, from the 1880s to 1910, the displacement of the same battleships almost doubled. From 11000 tons at Chesma to 18600 at Andrei the First-Called. Over the next 30 years (from 1910 to 1940), the displacement of battleships increased from 25000 tons at the Gangut and sisterships to 65000 tons at the Soviet Union.
    Displacements of 3000-4000 tons are good for countries that do not claim to be the leader in the world, but delve into "their sandbox." For a country such as Russia (USSR), the fleet had to be a priori OCEAN. And there is nothing to do with 3000 tons of displacement. We have already gone through this after the war. Among the Soviet admirals was such admiral Amelko, who believed that it was enough for the Soviet Union to have only a coastal fleet. History has shown that he was wrong. Are you trying to follow his path? What will be the seaworthiness of such ships, the scale of the use of weapons, autonomy. What kind of weapons will such ships eventually have. ”
    Answer. You have no arguments, some of the slogans “a priori ...” were still remembered by the USSR .... I respect Amelchenko who made more than a hundred submarines and saved them from the war, and Gorshkov built unnecessary battleships, they all stood in reserve or were written off before the deadline, here you right Amelchenko. Come back smart admiral .... oh come ... .. make us so many nuclear submarines so that no enemy attacks. I believe that 3000-4000 is the most optimal, and for the ocean too.

    Do you think that ace has arguments? And dear! Not Amelchenko, Amelko
    And in more detail, what battleships did Gorshkov build, which stood in reserve and were written off ahead of schedule. Let's go over specific ships. And then you really have nothing but slogans. Yes, if we did 3-4 hundred nuclear submarines, the maximum that we would have achieved was that they would all be sunk by the anti-submarine forces of the enemy. And in the far zone. For we will have nothing to maintain the stability of the underwater group. Only corvettes. If you think, continue to count. I have not heard arguments from you.

    Quote: vladimir1155
    “And do you consider the river-sea class ships as your favorite displacement, with as many as 8 launchers for missiles and with a complete lack of air defense ???? Or what? "
    Answer. yes I think.

    All clear. Further discussion after such a statement is considered unnecessary. A ship of the river-sea class "with 8 launchers and a complete lack of its own air defense, you contrast the destroyer class ships - I have no questions

    Quote: vladimir1155
    "And then. Battleships of the middle of the last century were already displacement under 70000 tons. Something we did not observe any such ship. If the "Peter" and can be compared by displacement with battleships, then the beginning of the 20th century. Therefore, there is no question of any “bashfulness”
    The answer. and did not try to compare military power ?.

    Tried, so what? "Peter" is comparable in displacement with the battleship of the beginning of the last century and surpasses it in all respects. And this does not allow the couple to call him a battleship.

    Quote: vladimir1155
    “If you wait for someone to be once scrapped, then there’s no point in bothering the fleet at all, as it seems to me. Perhaps the time for the construction of the cruisers has not yet arrived, and perhaps it does not make sense to build from at all. "Modern and promising destroyers already reach the cruisers of the second half of the 20th century in terms of displacement.”
    The answer. so you agreed that the cruisers are meaningless, and now bashfully call the battleships destroyers, and your like-minded people already call the battleships frigates, which you can’t imagine to cut people's money
    .

    Saying that the time of the cruisers did not come, and perhaps will not come, I proceed from the fact that this type of ship can sink into oblivion, like armadillos and battleships once did. The modern American destroyer in terms of its striking power reaches the striking power of American cruisers with a smaller displacement. And if the new domestic destroyer will be a displacement from 15-16 thousand tons, then by this parameter it will be equal to the current cruisers. Sense of having a cruiser will disappear. What will be called a new such ship I do not know

    Quote: vladimir1155
    “But building ships of the 1st rank is necessary. At least in order to make up for the withdrawal of the old ones from the military personnel. You can’t go far on tregates, corvettes and minesweepers. Or it must be stated that we do not consider ourselves a world power, and we will protect only our coastal seas (if we can with such a fleet of minesweepers, frigates and corvettes) ”
    The answer is no, the frigates can reach Australia, and if necessary, but not necessary, it’s enough that the nuclear submarines go so far, and the NK should be auxiliary forces off their coasts ... .. it’s better to honestly state that the NKs are coastal than puffing themselves up to the detriment of the airborne forces, air defense, strategic missile forces, and ground forces. But Nakhimov, Kuzya and Petya, according to my calculations, will serve another 15-25 years, so for pride and vanity we still have battleships with the function of frigates.

    A frigate can go anywhere. At the same time, its combat power is minimal. And again you are planning to submarine Australia. A little higher, you remembered people's money. Now find it cheaper. Build a full-fledged fleet or exclusively
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 4 January 2018 20: 44 New
      0
      Do you think that strategic forces should rely only on the land component? you’re wrong, trying to completely abolish the navy, because you deny its main task, because the probable enemy has air defense and the effectiveness of a missile attack is based on the number of attack means, taking into account that only a part will reach the target, and especially the submarines are capable of overcoming missile defense and achieving goals in the oceans where the governor will not reach, have you not been sent by Cossacks? about the NK of the first rank, so far no one has heard of his targets, except that they will help to land troops in Alaska, in Alaska you can also frigates and even on a boat from Chukotka .... brigade of marines, but what does the cruiser have to do with it? Do you write that Americans aloho protect the coast? As of March 19, 2013, the US Navy included 597 ships and vessels of various types, including: 10 nuclear multipurpose aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers, 62 destroyers, 17 frigates, 3 coastal ships, 14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines , 58 multipurpose submarines, 2 ...
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 6 January 2018 00: 11 New
        0
        In Alaska, the US airfields and the base of submarines and your boats with river-sea ships will be drowned by the Yankees as soon as they go to sea ... You don’t have aircraft carriers to cover the squad and you don’t want to build them, just as you don’t want to build ships with long-range air defense systems, and this is a minimum destroyer ... Since you have neither aircraft carriers, nor large ships with long-range air defense systems, you are a corpse as soon as you go to sea ... And if you add to this the complete absence of your Buyan and Karakurt anti-submarine defense means, then the first combat campaign of such ships is guaranteed to be their last ... The maximum that your Buyans and Karakurts can replace with themselves, these are missile boats, nothing more ...
  20. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 4 January 2018 20: 55 New
    0
    here is a list of meaningful NK ships of the first rank decommissioned ahead of schedule or stayed almost the entire term in reserveProject 1123 "Condor" - helicopter carriers
    Moscow • Leningrad • Kiev1

    Project 1143.1-4 "Gyrfalcon"
    Kiev • Minsk • Novorossiysk • Admiral Gorshkov

    Project 1143.5-6 "Gyrfalcon"
    Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov • Varangian

    Kirov (Ushakov) Nakhimov, Lazarev, Moscow, now decided to return Nakhimov to service due to the advantage of modernization compared to the construction of meaningless super destroyers, we hope that Lazarev will be returned from sludge, but there is no need to build new ones, it’s better to stamp the frigates
    1. Nemesis
      Nemesis 6 January 2018 00: 14 New
      0
      These ships were decommissioned prematurely because of the wrecking of Judas Gorbachev and the theft of foreign Russophobes like Chubais, and not because they were not needed ... Japan is building helicopter carriers today, helicopter carriers are part of the fleets of Australia, Spain, France, England, the USA, Italy, Nieder
      Lands and only you decided that Russia does not need them ... To understand the navy it is not enough to be a yachtsman ...
  21. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 4 January 2018 21: 03 New
    0
    it is impossible to support the landing of landings by cruisers, the draft does not allow, but corvettes are possible, because the landing is more limited by weather conditions near the coast (infantry floods with a wave) than weather conditions limit the combat efficiency of corvettes
    Well, China, with its population and economy is the first in the world, can afford a lot, not that we
    1. sd68
      sd68 5 January 2018 00: 29 New
      0
      And the aircraft will not melt?
      Corvette air defense is purely symbolic, and seaworthiness is not so hot
      1. Almera
        Almera 5 January 2018 12: 33 New
        0
        Aviation will melt and BDK and landing. For 2000, no one will decline. MANPADS ... from loners and helicopters.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 18: 34 New
        0
        corvettes must be protected by coast-based aviation
        1. sd68
          sd68 5 January 2018 19: 47 New
          0
          And what about landing on foreign territory under the protection of coastal aviation? This is an airborne landing with pilots and
          BAO to alien airfields first thing to land? Or at first will agree with enemy pilots what would cover?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 20: 32 New
            0
            referring to local operations off their shores
            1. sd68
              sd68 5 January 2018 21: 55 New
              0
              Why land on your shore? Or near your shore?
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 23: 40 New
                0
                war .... that's why
                1. sd68
                  sd68 6 January 2018 02: 10 New
                  0
                  very narrow scope
        2. Nemesis
          Nemesis 6 January 2018 00: 18 New
          0
          Aviation needs fuel ... Germany lost the battle for England because the British air force bases were closer to the battlefield than the German ... Kuril Islands, Kaliningrad, Sakhalin, Novaya Zemlya and other things are quite far from the main bases of the Russian Air Force and close enough to the bases Air Force of the likely enemy ... How are you going to defend them with coastal aviation ?! You write nonsense and the saddest thing is that you write it seriously, being convinced that you are right ... Such as you will bring Russia to a new Tsushima and revolution because the people will not forgive you for the drain of national interests and territories ...
  22. Old26
    Old26 5 January 2018 00: 13 New
    +2
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Do you think that strategic forces should rely only on the land component?

    Of course no. SNF should be three-component. But this does not mean at all that we need to rebuild our own strategic nuclear forces by relying on SSBNs. We have always been strong precisely with ground-based missiles, and our current segment allows us to resolve the issue as in the form of a Shelter, Shelter or Shelter. Both marine and aviation components are needed ..

    Quote: vladimir1155
    you’re wrong, trying to completely abolish the navy, because you deny its main task, because the probable enemy has air defense and the effectiveness of a missile attack is based on the number of means of attack, taking into account that only a part will reach the target, and especially the submarines are capable of overcoming missile defense and achieving goals in oceans where the governor will not reach,

    Am I trying to cancel the navy ???? I AM??? Or are you still trying to reduce the Navy to the level of nuclear boats, frigates, corvettes and minesweepers.
    Everyone knows that the enemy has a missile defense (and not air defense). Do you know the effectiveness of this missile defense? Yes, only a fraction of the missiles will reach the goal. But just what part? If out of almost 3 hundred of our missiles two “Voivode” or 3 “Yars” will be shot down - is it like, “part reached the goal” or “overwhelming majority”?
    What makes you think that only SLBMs can overcome missile defense? What kind? Our SLBM 3M30? With a cast weight of 1,15 tons with 6 warheads? Why is this rocket better than the same "Yars", which has a cast weight of more than 1,5 tons and 4 blocks ??
    Reach goals where the "governor" does not reach? The voivode’s range is enough to cover all possible and impossible goals, all states capable of having missile weapons. The only region that Voivod doesn’t reach is Chile and Argentina. But boats with their SLBM range need to go a distance of 5000 km to South America to get these countries (and there will be a distance of about 4000 km from North America. Does it consider it smart to bring your strategists so close to the territory of a potential enemy?

    Quote: vladimir1155
    Are you not a Cossack? As for NK of the first rank, so far no one has heard of his targets, except that they will help to land troops in Alaska, in Alaska you can also frigates and even on a boat from Chukotka .... brigade of marines, but what does the cruiser have to do with it? ...

    Well of course mishandled. Since I completely did not accept your view of the fleet. You belong to a category that has only two opinions. This is your opinion and wrong. Are you ready to go to Alaska on a boat? Will tanks also be transported on boats? As for the tasks of ships of the first rank - the most important task - they are able to carry out their tasks in the far ocean zone. Moreover, ships of the 1st rank are capable of performing their tasks in conditions of unrest, which are not suitable for ships of the frigate or corvette class. And not just to survive this excitement, but to perform tasks.
    And in the winter sea in the region of Alaska, a cruiser is preferable to a frigate, not to mention a corvette.

    Quote: vladimir1155
    Do you write that Americans aloho protect the coast? As of March 19, 2013, the US Navy included 597 ships and vessels of various types, including: 10 nuclear multipurpose aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers, 62 destroyers, 17 frigates, 3 coastal ships, 14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines , 58 multipurpose submarines, 2 ...

    Maybe you stop juggling? Did I say somewhere that the shores of Alaska are poorly guarded? But just from the ships and ships you have indicated, it is based in Alaska? SSBNs based there, or cruisers with destroyers?

    Quote: vladimir1155
    here is a list of meaningful NK ships of the first rank decommissioned ahead of schedule or stayed almost the entire term in reserveProject 1123 "Condor" - helicopter carriers
    Moscow • Leningrad • Kiev1
    Kirov (Ushakov) Nakhimov, Lazarev, Moscow, now decided to return Nakhimov to service due to the advantage of modernization compared to the construction of meaningless super destroyers, we hope that Lazarev will be returned from sludge, but there is no need to build new ones, it’s better to stamp the frigates

    I can still agree that the ships were decommissioned ahead of schedule, but not because they are meaningless ships, but just because of the current geopolitical situation. But about the fact that they stood in reserve for almost the entire period of time - here you are my old man banally lied. This can only be said for the ships of Project 1144, but not in bulk about everyone.
    • "Moscow" in the combat formation for 25 years. Year in reserve. Retired at the age of 28
    • "Leningrad" in combat formation for 21 years. Retired at age 22

    • "Kiev" in combat formation for 16 years. 2 years in the crap. Retired at the age of 18
    • "Minsk" in combat formation for 13 years. 2 years in the crap. Retired at the age of 15
    • Novorossiysk in the combat formation for 9 years. Retired at the age of 11.

    So, a year or two in reserve or sucks - this is almost the entire service life in reserve ????

    I repeat. I agree that they were written off prematurely. But mainly due to the collapse of the Union. Do not be the collapse of the Yak-38 could be replaced by the Yak-41. Could be carried out modernization on the type of "Baku" - "Gorshkova". There is only one reason for cancellation - the collapse of the Union. In addition, in any case, with or without nuclear power plants, new nuclear destroyers will need to be built. After 3 years, five or 10 but this is an objective reality. Lazarev’s corps is already 30 years old (it was launched in 1988). A couple of years for modernization and the age in the ranks will be 32 years. How long does it take? . "Lazarev" was launched in 1984. He is now 26. 15 years already in a sludge. For the body is this nonsense when in the crap?
    1. Almera
      Almera 5 January 2018 12: 30 New
      +1
      You rest on the Yak-41. Let's look at this miracle?
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 6 January 2018 00: 21 New
        +1
        The Yak-41 is certainly not a Su-57, but Harrier is not a Raptor ... Do not want to build aircraft carriers, so build at least destroyers with long-range air defense systems ... If the Russian fleet does not have aircraft carriers or large ships with long-range air defense systems, then you can no longer talk about the Russian fleet ... A fleet devoid of aircraft carriers, or at least large universal ships with long-range air defense systems, will not be able to fulfill a combat mission ...
    2. sd68
      sd68 5 January 2018 17: 05 New
      0
      I do not argue with the above, but there are two points
      The Yakovlevites did not succeed in single-engine Yak-41, although they tried to do it first, so they blinded the multi-engine Yak-141 according to the same unsuccessful scheme as the Yak-38, so he had no chance, regardless of the collapse of the Union.
      The second one. Project 1143 was also obviously unsustainable regardless of the failure with the Yak-41; these ships were based on the principle of “blinded from what it was”, expensive in construction and operation and not very suitable for solving any tasks, which was shown by further world experience.
      Nobody in the world crosses a light aircraft carrier with a heavy attack ship, since this does not make sense, a hybrid with UDC is another matter, which has become widespread.
      Not for nothing that the Indians with Gorshkov first threw all the heavy weapons
      1. Dalailama
        Dalailama 6 January 2018 01: 12 New
        0
        Oddly, the Yak-38 had chances (it was operated), but on the 41st everything was gone.
        UDC itself is not a good thing.
        1. sd68
          sd68 6 January 2018 01: 19 New
          0
          they had no chance.
          otherwise they would be used so far, like Harrier
          1. Dalailama
            Dalailama 6 January 2018 01: 41 New
            0
            There would be no chance - would not be used while the USSR was. Harrier everywhere began to be removed from service with the advent of the MiG-29.
            1. sd68
              sd68 6 January 2018 02: 09 New
              0
              I don’t see the need to comment on stupid things.
              1. Dalailama
                Dalailama 6 January 2018 02: 53 New
                0
                In his homeland in England, they took off almost 10 years ago.
                You and your followers from the link of December XNUMXth have been waiting, specifically "maximghost", with drawings and photographs.
                1. sd68
                  sd68 6 January 2018 03: 27 New
                  0
                  I am not interested in the old branches, all that I thought was necessary, I said in them.
                  And Harrier is still in service
                  1. Dalailama
                    Dalailama 6 January 2018 04: 04 New
                    0
                    you already wrote it
                    and it is here too, (in England - not worth it).
                    Then they got out equally on a new one in others.
                    1. sd68
                      sd68 6 January 2018 10: 40 New
                      0
                      Who is your doctor that does not reach you the first time.
                      And what, what in England is not in service?
                      Stands in other countries.
                      1. Almera
                        Almera 6 January 2018 14: 28 New
                        0
                        Many have experimented with GDP gliders. No one has taken root. Soon, and the US Marine Corps will refuse them in favor of the F-18. Even the fact that it’s expensive to teach a pilot a plane about GDP is that you need to create a separate faculty.
                      2. Dalailama
                        Dalailama 6 January 2018 18: 14 New
                        0
                        Doctor you goebbels and Lewis with his "slingshot."
                        In Kenya, some F-5 is also worth it.
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 18: 53 New
      0
      "As for the tasks of ships of the first rank - the most important task - they are able to perform their tasks in the far ocean zone" - iron argument, ...... !!!!! but what are these tasks? I've been trying for so many days

      . "Moreover, ships of the 1st rank are able to perform their tasks in the conditions of unrest, which are not suitable for ships of the class frigate or corvette" perfectly. but corvettes work in the seas, the Baltic, Black and Okhotsk, the largest and most stormy Okhotsk,
      When processing synoptic charts for 10 years (1955-1964), a cyclone was considered a storm if it gave a storm of 8 points or more at least once in any area of ​​the sea, and cyclones with storms of at least 7 points in transitional months.
      Both in the cold and in the warm half-year, a large proportion of storm cyclones is observed that go to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk along sea trajectories (in the cold half-year with a probability of 90-100%).
      Cyclones extending along continental trajectories do not always lead to storm situations on the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
      In the warm half year, cyclones emerging along sea trajectories are also the most stormy. At the beginning and end of the half year, the proportion of storm cyclones in the total repeatability of all cyclones entering the Sea of ​​Okhotsk rises. Local cyclones in the warm half-year are poorly developed baric formations, the duration of which is short. The probability of a storm for local cyclones averages 20%.
      Both in the cold and in the warm season, storms are most often observed lasting up to one day. The maximum repeatability of this gradation occurs in June and July, and makes up 76 and 67% of all storms on the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, respectively. This gradation has the least repeatability in March and January and amounts to 38 and 43%, respectively. In the cold half-year and in the transitional months, a significant part of cyclones causes storms lasting from 1,5 to 2 days. The maximum repeatability of this gradation occurs in January (41%), as well as in March and October (38%). The frequency of storms lasting from 2,5 to 3 days is much less. Storms lasting from 3 to 4 days in the period from May to August are almost absent, and in the period from September to April, their recurrence is from 3 to 10% with a maximum in December (10%). Storms lasting more than 4 days during the year are mainly observed in December and January; their frequency is from 3 to 10% with a maximum in December (10%).
      In general, the average duration of the storm increases from summer to winter and reaches its maximum values ​​in December (1,8 days); in June, it is minimal and amounts to 1 day.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 19: 37 New
        0
        not to mention frigates not having restrictions on a wave
        1. sd68
          sd68 5 January 2018 21: 56 New
          0
          Frigates are different. Very different.
      2. Nemesis
        Nemesis 6 January 2018 00: 27 New
        0
        I already wrote to you. The task of ships of the first rank is to protect Kaliningrad, Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, Novaya Zemlya and the like ... Your statements that you supposedly can protect these territories with one nuclear submarine with cruise missiles are as absurd as the statements of Pavel Grachev about the possibility of eliminating Islamic terrorists in Chechnya by the forces of one regiment of the Airborne Forces ...
    4. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 19: 06 New
      0
      Storm winds The Sea of ​​Okhotsk, more often in autumn and winter, and much less frequently in summer. The greatest frequency of storm winds in winter is observed in the region of the Kuril Islands and at capes in the northwestern part of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, where it is 20-30%, in the eastern and western parts of the sea 3–9%. In the northern part of the sea at that time, the frequency of storm winds makes up 10--20%, and in the area of ​​the Pestrayaya Dresva Bay
  23. pacific
    pacific 5 January 2018 16: 44 New
    +2
    Quote: Krabik
    From aircraft carriers, too, there would be no sense, they would also rot at the pier.

    If at the pier ....
    All our TAKRs stood on barrels in raid parking. And because they didn’t have a shore supply, and there was no structural “boiler” for the boiler; during the parking, 2 MKO boilers were driven alternately. So they worked out the whole resource.
    At the Pacific Fleet for the TAKRs, the pier was never built. Towards the arrival of Frunze and Ural, they began to build a deep-water pier. But I already quit and did not see how the construction was completed there.
  24. Old26
    Old26 5 January 2018 17: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Almera
    You rest on the Yak-41. Let's look at this miracle?

    I don’t rest on anything. But in principle, the replacement of the Yak-38 with the Yak-41 was supposed. We will not talk about the advantages and disadvantages of certain machines. The point is that the ships of this project could be upgraded. In particular, it was planned to modernize Baku under the MiG-23. But all these are just projects
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 19: 35 New
      0
      you rely on the metrological restriction of corvettes, then give the numbers, a very unsuccessful roll gadfly (in high arms) had a limit of 5 points at 700 tons, which is quite satisfactory for the Baltic and Black Sea, and Buyan and Karakurt have much better stability, and displacement 800 -950 tons
      1. sd68
        sd68 5 January 2018 20: 22 New
        +1
        Hussein’s entire mosquito fleet was melted by helicopters - even planes did not attract.
        Without air defense and without air cover, these are just targets.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 20: 34 New
          0
          no one argues., the mosquito fleet is working under cover of coastal forces ... but frigates are not a mosquito fleet
          1. sd68
            sd68 5 January 2018 21: 28 New
            0
            Is Buyan and Karakurt frigates?
            Well, you offered to cover with corvettes like landing parties.
            Again frigate frigate strife.
            Now the general trend is toward universal ships, specialized ones are too expensive.
            And universal is automatically an increase in displacement and cost.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 5 January 2018 23: 43 New
              0
              NKs became senseless and auxiliary even when aviation and submarines appeared https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUa98E4jXp0
              1. sd68
                sd68 6 January 2018 00: 00 New
                0
                well, yes, during the Second World War, all NKs were scrapped, and after that they weren’t built at all :)
      2. Nemesis
        Nemesis 6 January 2018 00: 29 New
        0
        The gadfly had Osa air defense systems, and your Buyan and Karakurt only have MANPADS, in the complete absence of anti-submarine defense systems ... The first combat output of such ships will be their last ...
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 6 January 2018 09: 55 New
          0
          tasks of the navy
          Basic (oceans only)
          1 strategic deterrence to prevent aggression of any enemy whoever he is and wherever he is (Strategic nuclear submarines)
          2 strike of retaliation of aggression of any enemy whoever he is and wherever he is (Strategic nuclear submarines)
          3 ensuring the exit and return of the nuclear submarines to Bases (apl, pl, coastal aviation, coastal facilities, minesweepers, frigates)
          Additional tasks
          4 Support for land forces, landing, fire support (pl, corvettes, BDK, MDK, minesweepers), it is especially important on the Sea of ​​Okhotsk
          5 Escort escort (frigates, pl, minesweepers), especially important on the Sea of ​​Okhotsk
          Optional (optional and unlikely task)
          6 Participation in a local conflict away from their shores (nuclear submarines, frigates, AB, minesweepers, BDK, cruisers, BPC).

          So, the conclusions
          1 NK of the first rank can be useful only as a frigate for tasks (3, 5, 6)
          2 dkbf and kvfl, to reduce, providing just in case the reserve of river-sea corvettes on the Black Sea Fleet
          3 transfer all frigates and aircraft-carrying corvettes to the oceans to solve basic problems, especially the Pacific Fleet is weak
          1. sd68
            sd68 6 January 2018 11: 03 New
            0
            And, you are one of those who are sure that there can be no other war than nuclear war by definition.
            And if Kenya begins to confiscate some Russians in order to fight drug trafficking, then only a nuclear strike will solve the problem
            Then your position is clear.
            Only for this, even submarine strategists are not needed, they also need to be cut.
            1. Almera
              Almera 6 January 2018 12: 26 New
              +1
              The Air Force defeats the Navy in any situation offshore. In the ocean 50/50, in the presence of AB with a warrant.
              1. sd68
                sd68 6 January 2018 14: 34 New
                0
                Along the coast, it can be more difficult to classify targets
            2. Almera
              Almera 6 January 2018 12: 31 New
              +1
              Kenya has weak air forces. There is enough Kuzyu to get into the Indian Ocean. They have at best Northrop F-5E in the amount of 2 pieces (which can take off). And for that matter, Kenya with Russia is even dangerous to engage in an economic war, not to mention the armed conflict.
              1. sd68
                sd68 6 January 2018 14: 33 New
                0
                Yeah, the ocean will smoke. But is it not under repair, is it?
                For Kuzi and the Air Force do not need the enemy, will do it on their own.
                Kenya has 17 f5e, according to Wikipedia.
                If half take off, enough to melt the landing party
                1. Almera
                  Almera 6 January 2018 15: 10 New
                  +1
                  I read the wiki too. Of the 17 delivered, now at best 2 pieces (assembled from 17).
                  1. Dalailama
                    Dalailama 6 January 2018 18: 17 New
                    0
                    Faculty with a separate dining room.
                  2. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 6 January 2018 18: 44 New
                    0
                    we don’t need the Kenyan coast and Africa we don’t need
                    1. Dalailama
                      Dalailama 6 January 2018 19: 01 New
                      0
                      Your Antarctic sector is also not needed?
                  3. Dalailama
                    Dalailama 6 January 2018 19: 07 New
                    0
                    About the canteen to ensure that the ideal harrier pilot should look like this
                    https://www.gettyimages.fr/detail/photo-d'actual
                    it% C3% A9 / sub-lieutenant-ian-soapy-watson-arrives-
                    at-gatwick-photo-dactualit% C3% A9 / 857751872 # sub-li
                    eutenant-ian-soapy-watson-arrives-at-gatwick-airp
                    ort-on-the-7th-picture-id857751872
                    1. Dalailama
                      Dalailama 10 January 2018 09: 53 New
                      0
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo_incident
          2. Nemesis
            Nemesis 6 January 2018 15: 38 New
            +1
            RTOs do not corvet and they are not enough to defend even the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea ... Especially in the Baltic Sea, where Kaliningrad needs to be protected ... You do not understand anything in the Navy
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 6 January 2018 10: 01 New
          0
          they should come out only under the protection of coastal assets and aircraft
          1. Nemesis
            Nemesis 6 January 2018 20: 23 New
            0
            Under the protection of which coastal assets and aviation are you going to protect the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, Novaya Zemlya and Kaliningrad ?! How do you not understand that the aircraft operating in the Kuril region will operate at the limit of the radius and will be in the same situation as the Germans during the battle for England, with the same result ?!
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 6 January 2018 10: 10 New
          0
          MRK should work in a group with IPC
          1. sd68
            sd68 6 January 2018 11: 50 New
            0
            Meaning? Aviation of both will drown without problems
            1. Almera
              Almera 6 January 2018 14: 12 New
              0
              In the MRK-MPK version, there is generally no chance for the latter. The frigate could still twitch, in the presence of a good radar, but also without a chance.
      3. Nehist
        Nehist 6 January 2018 01: 17 New
        +1
        And since when did Gadfly become a bloodlet? According to the classification, a small missile ship and in everyday life a boat is overgrown) And yet, in order to ensure combat stability, the MRK group needs a first-rank ship, some kind of BOD
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 6 January 2018 10: 00 New
          0
          Corvette is a conditional concept, Buyan and Karakurt are also small missile ships, just my opponents rest on weather restrictions and their only argument is not very successful Gadfly (speedboat)
          1. Nemesis
            Nemesis 6 January 2018 15: 35 New
            +1
            The Buyans and Karakurt do not have anti-submarine weapons at all, and their primitive air defense systems do not allow repelling enemy air strikes ... All that your missile defense systems can replace in the fleet are missile boats, and you are going to replace them with cruisers ... Well, a yachtsman like you , Such incompetence can be forgiven, and admirals should be brought to trial by a military court for this, because by their actions they undermine Russia's defense ...
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 6 January 2018 18: 43 New
              0
              karakurt and buoys replace gadflies, and cruisers are replaced by frigates, a pair behind a cruiser
              1. Nemesis
                Nemesis 6 January 2018 20: 25 New
                0
                The frigate will not replace the cruiser, it does not have a long-range air defense system and that number of ammunition ... In addition, Russia has only 3 combat-ready frigates 11356, no more ...
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 7 January 2018 14: 54 New
                  0
                  firstly, there are still two elderly 1135s, in general, initially 1155 were called frigates, not destroyers, 8 units were built, secondly, new frigates were built, and the decommissioning of 1155, 1135, 956 and 1164 will be phased and will last until 2030, and 1144 generally written off only in the years 2040-2050
                  1. Nemesis
                    Nemesis 9 January 2018 13: 17 New
                    +1
                    There is nothing to do with the old 1135s ... The short range of their weapons turns them simply into targets ...
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 10 January 2018 20: 23 New
                      0
                      so what are you all about the impossibility of installing a long-range air defense system on frigates, ... https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%
                      B4%D1%83%D1%82_(%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0
                      %BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0
                      %BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0
                      % B5% D0% BA% D1% 81). The air defense system includes the Poliment radar with 4 phased arrays. The maximum number of simultaneously fired targets is 16 (4 for each headlamp) [2].

                      Missiles are placed in vertical launch installations, consisting of modules of 4 or 8 cells each. In the cell there is one transport and launch container with a long or medium-range missile (9M96E, 9M96E2) or 4 short-range missiles (9M100). When launching a rocket, a cold start is used. A charge of compressed air rocket is thrown from a vertically located transport and launch container to a height of 30 m, turning towards the target using a gas-dynamic system. Due to this, the minimum interception range is significantly reduced. The gas-dynamic system also provides the rocket with a super-maneuverability mode and is capable of increasing the rocket overload by 0,025g in 20 s [4].

                      For 9M96E, 9M96E2 missiles, inertial command guidance is used on the marching section of the trajectory, and active radar homing in the final section [2]. The 9M100 short-range missile is equipped with an infrared homing head. Capture the target immediately after the launch of the rocket.

                      According to field tests and computer simulations, 9M96E and 9M96E2 missiles with a probability of 70% provide a direct hit on the head of a tactical missile, in the remaining 30% of cases the deviation does not exceed several meters [4]. The probability of hitting a plane is 80%, a helicopter - 90%.

                      The warhead weighing 24 kg due to multipoint initiation has a controlled lesion field [4].
                      1. Nemesis
                        Nemesis 14 January 2018 09: 16 New
                        0
                        About Reduk missile defense better keep silent ... This air defense missile system does not exist in nature, and what it doesn’t work, therefore, no frigate 22350 has been adopted yet, and frigate Gorshkov will soon decay from old age in endless trials that cost Russia excessively expensive ... As for me, the Redoubt air defense project is a thieves' money laundering organization ... A lot of money was spent, the result is zero ... It is time for the FSB of the Russian Federation to become interested in people working in this industry and ask them for embezzlement of public money. ..
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 7 January 2018 14: 57 New
                  0
                  and Yaroslav the Wise forgotten a couple at the KVF
        2. Almera
          Almera 6 January 2018 11: 32 New
          +1
          And yet, yes, in order to ensure combat stability, the MRK group needs a ship of the first rank, some kind of BOD

          The whole question is where. Along its shores, it is enough only to build an airfield. Aviation will completely cover the RTOs, and most likely will gouge the adversary until the RTOs approach.
          1. sd68
            sd68 6 January 2018 11: 48 New
            0
            That is, RTOs have limited real use, both with their aircraft, and without it.
            1. Almera
              Almera 6 January 2018 11: 53 New
              +1
              Of course. Like aviation, it depends on the weather. Aviation is better, but more expensive in maintenance.
  25. Nemesis
    Nemesis 6 January 2018 15: 31 New
    0
    Almera,
    However, the new American F-35 has the ability to take off vertically ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 7 January 2018 17: 14 New
      0
      Vertically - with some weight restrictions.
      It only loads the internal compartment with weapons and
      a quarter of the fuel. After vertical take-off, they refuel in the air.
      But the main convenience of the F-35B is take-off from a ship from a short take-off without a springboard and catapult.
      Directly across the direct board. Therefore, any helicopter carrier (and even a container ship)
      You can turn it into a light aircraft carrier without troubles. The Japanese are now thinking about this.
      Only reinforce the deck with an iron plate at the landing site.
  26. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 14 January 2018 14: 55 New
    0
    and see, promise in 2018