Military Review

"Eagles" go for disassembly

347
A rather unexpected point seemed to have been put in the case of the two “Eagles”, the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruisers of the 1144 project.


Immediately, several media outlets citing sources in the Ministry of Defense reported that they were disposing of Kirov and Admiral Lazarev. They will spend quite a large amount of money (logical, a large ship is a big disassembly) and two cruisers should become history by the end of 2021.

"Eagles" go for disassembly


What category News can this be attributed to unexpected or natural?

Let's think about it.

Yes, the Eagles is a legend and in some way even a symbol of our naval fleet. The world's largest non-aircraft naval warships. These are the only ships in the Russian fleet with a nuclear power plant, that is, with unlimited cruising range and "sharpened" initially for operation in severe climatic conditions, including in the Arctic region.

As is known, four Orlan-class cruisers were built for the USSR Navy:

"Kirov" (from 1992 to 2004 years - "Admiral Ushakov"), entered service in 1980 year.

"Frunze" (from 1992 of the year - "Admiral Lazarev"), was commissioned in 1984 year.

Kalinin (from 1992 of the year - Admiral Nakhimov), was commissioned in 1988.

Kuibyshev (from the year 1992 - Peter the Great), was commissioned in the year 1998.

As can be seen from the list, the construction of ships stretched out for a very long period of time. If between the transfer of the fleet "Kirov" and "Peter the Great" 18 years and two countries, then the whole series was built with 1973 year, that is, 25 years.

Today, only Peter the Great, the youngest of the cruisers, is actually in the ranks. The rest ... With the rest of the complexity.

It is clear that first of all financial. Over the years, we have witnessed discussions of many projects related to the commissioning of cruisers after conservation. Real money appeared only in the 2011 – 2020 state armaments program.

However, even the allocation of funds did not cause any special changes. Of course, the question arises: "Why?"

Yes, the most rabid part of our audience, of course, has the answer. Plundered. I agree, not without it, not to steal today, when billions are allocated, it is not to respect yourself. But let's use with the calculator another terrible thing. The calendar.

The story of the Orlans


So, "Kirov". He joined the fleet in 1980 year. From the fleet launched in 2002 year. That is, just through 22 years of service. Not enough, to be honest, not enough. Such ships can serve longer.



From 2002, the former cruiser just stood in Severodvinsk, waiting for a decision on his fate. 17 years.

As a result, we have in fact an 40-year-old ship, which half of its life stood for an unnecessary pile of metal. It's sad, but true. It is very difficult to imagine how much money and time it will take to get the ship back into operation. And does this make sense?

Moving on.

"Admiral Lazarev."



He joined the fleet in the 1984 year, having served just 12 years. In the 1996 year, due to the accident, the protection worked and the reactor was shut down. Surprisingly, in 1997, the ship was sent to the reserve of the 2 category, and in 1999, it was completely mothballed.

Since 1999, it has been suspended, disarmed, and nuclear fuel has been unloaded. It seemed that everything, the ship was actually waiting for scrapping, but in 2014, by the experts of 30-th ship repair plant of the Pacific Fleet, dock repair was carried out.


Year 2003



Year 2012



Year 2015. Already better, right?


And all?

In general, there is another problem with Lazarev. Repair in the Far East with the reboot of the reactor is impossible. So you want it or not, you have to drag it to Sevmash and Zvezdochka. How real it is, I can not even judge.

Total for “Lazarev”: 35 years old, 12 years old, in a settling tank with dismantling - 23 years.

Approximate estimates: the disposal of Admiral Lazarev will cost the country 350 million rubles, and Kirov - 400 million rubles. Penny ... Recovery will obviously cost more substantial amounts if it comes to that. And to break, as it is known, not to build.

Russia's problems


But let's think about it.

And think about this. Do you need this resuscitation at all? If in fact, two huge ships stood on the joke, without special supervision and repairs 40 (FORTY) for two years. That is an average of 20 years.

And if one at least hangs out near the plant, where it can be revived, then the second ... It seems to me that Lazarev has no chance at all.

To begin with, it seems to me, it is generally worth assessing how useful these ships are. There is no dispute, a huge and majestic cruiser is beautiful. It is impressive. It awakens the spirit, demonstrates the flag of Russia and denotes a presence in different areas of the ocean ...

Well, I don’t know what better can demonstrate the flag of Russia, the newest destroyer with great capabilities or a huge ship of the second half of the last century? What can demonstrate, say, someone from the family "Sarychey"? Atlantes? "Orlan"?

Yes, only one.

The fact that today Russia has degraded so much in comparison with the Soviet Union that it only demonstrates the ability to keep afloat the forty-year ships inherited from the USSR.

Their success is more than modest. This is the completion of "Peter the Great" and "Admiral Chabanenko."

In general, if we want to demonstrate our power to such powerful sea powers as Venezuela or Cuba, then yes. Will go. The rest is doubtful.

As for combat use, everything is also sad here. The presence of the TARK project 11442 is only half an orange. Yes, our ministry officials have said more than once that “Peter the Great” is able to fight alone with a whole AUG of Americans. But to fight - it does not mean to win.

The fact that the Orlan is a strong combat unit even today is indisputable. But there is a nuance. It is well worth thinking about what is better in a modern sea battle: 50 RCC on one ship or scattered in five 10 pieces? Who is more likely to run them all and get into?

Difficult question, I agree.

But the fact that "Peter the Great" does not otmashsya from everything that can be launched into it from the side of the classic US Navy AUG (1 aircraft carrier, 1-2 Ticonderox-type cruiser, 4-6 EM of the Arly Berk type), I do not doubt it at all.

And we have problems with the organization of the UG of the Russian Navy. Because it is simply not something to make. And this is also a fact.

No, it is possible, of course, theoretically, in which case, to assemble from three fleets the vigorous team of pensioners that we have. 2 "Orlan", 2 "Atlanta", a dozen BOD and the same ancient destroyers.

But why?

Well, actually it's funny. We can’t even collect them from three fleets. Do not have time. But even if we collect that, these goners will be able to beat the American fleet a lot? 10 aircraft carriers, 22 Ticonderoga type cruisers, 67 destroyers?

If not, why all this?

In the far ocean zone, the USSR Navy could solve some of its tasks. In order for the Russian Navy to demonstrate something to the Papuans, one “Peter the Great” is enough. But let there be two ships. Let it be the same in the Pacific.

These ships may well make a visit somewhere, show off in front of American aircraft carriers (so that the Americans would be photographed for memory against the backdrop of). Fortunately, carrying tankers with fuel, thank God, Orlans is not required.

We just need to remember that this entire demonstration is nothing more than puffing out the cheeks. Costly inflating cheeks, if that. Two of these ships in the content will be very expensive, and their combat value today is more than doubtful. Tomorrow - all the more.

In any case, they should be replaced by new ships with new equipment and weapons. And now it is worth spending money on this, and not on maintaining the appearance of defensiveness by shamanism over ships that have been waiting for 20 for years to be cut into metal.

Let them wait. Of course, we are completely guilty of the fact that the “Orlans” did not realize their potential. But also to drag on their shoulders two more ancient cruisers in order to make them show off a couple of times a year ...



It is better to let the money to build several "Boreev". Obviously there will be more benefits.
Author:
347 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tlauicol
    tlauicol April 19 2019 05: 31
    +14
    "It is better to spend money on the construction of several Boreis. Obviously, there will be more benefits."

    perhaps. this and Kuznetsova, unfortunately, concerns
    1. YOUR
      YOUR April 19 2019 05: 44
      +1
      What are the benefits?
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat April 19 2019 06: 58
        -32
        Quote: YOUR
        What are the benefits?

        Well, for example, in that submarines, unlike eagles, are applicable in a real war.
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        Yes, please, the calculation algorithm
        1.1) TARKR "Peter the Great" height 59m, draft 10,3m => radar height above sea level no more than 59-10,3 = 48,7m, round up to 50m
        1.2) I google "radio horizon calculator", I enter the radar height of 50m, the target height is 10m, I get the target's line-of-sight range of 42,18km, round up to 43km
        1.3) At the deck-mounted AWACS Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, the combat radius is ~ 320 km; therefore, the detection radius is guaranteed at least 320 km.
        Conclusion: our ship can shoot a maximum of 43km, an American minimum of 320km, because the range of the rocket itself without the possibility of detecting a target is insignificant.
        Now take protection
        2.1) TARKR "Peter the Great" height 59m, draft 10,3m => radar height above sea level no more than 59-10,3 = 48,7m, round up to 50m
        2.2) I google "radio horizon calculator", I enter the radar height of 50m, the target height is 50m (the missile flight altitude during a combat approach is not more), I get the target's direct line of sight of 58,29km, rounding up to 59km
        2.3) At the deck-mounted AWACS Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, the combat radius is ~ 320 km; therefore, the detection radius is guaranteed at least 320 km.
        Conclusion: Our ship will detect a rocket maximum 59km away from itself, an American minimum 320km away.

        So why then need this TAKR?
        1. SETSET
          SETSET April 19 2019 07: 45
          +18
          ProkletyiPirat, completely illiterate calculation! This is ignorance of the subject. And what - for airplanes there is no radio horizon from the height of flight? First, for an airplane, count the radio horizon when you find our ships and from this determine the radio horizon for the detection of our ships. Secondly, when installing pre-warped versions of new air defense systems - the deck-mounted AWACS Grumman E-2 Hawkeye has a combat radius of ~ 320 km - there is practically no chance of finding our ships, it will be destroyed at a distance of 320 km. A new long-range missile with a range of 400 km is launched at the Poliment-Redut air defense missile system.
          A completely incorrect illiterate comparison - it is now possible to just refuse the fleet if we do not have long-range air defense systems in service.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 19 2019 14: 30
            -9
            Quote: SETSET
            ProkletyiPirat, completely illiterate calculation!

            It is you who are illiterate in terms of the ability to analyze information, read carefully I indicated the MINIMUM parameters for aviation. And I specifically explain for a sofa thinker like you in these 320 km, the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye will be protected by AUG guarding ships, because they will not be able to shoot it down with redoubts. For our anti-aircraft missiles will be destroyed by their anti-aircraft missiles, YES damn it can be the same hi
            1. SETSET
              SETSET April 19 2019 14: 56
              +3
              ProkletyiPirat, you are mistaken. That you do not know how to analyze information. To begin with, learn to count the radio horizon without a calculator and do not forget about Polement - Redoubt. And about what will be shot down - this is your assumption - a hypersonic anti-aircraft missile is not so easy to bring down guard ships, they are tormented. And one must not forget that during the hostilities the AUG ships will be hit by all means of destruction available in the arsenal of Russia. You are not a couch, but an illiterate thinker. To begin with, calculate the altitude of the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, when it can detect our ships and will be detected by itself - and this is in the best case. laughing
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat April 19 2019 15: 17
                -12
                SETSET, in addition to verbal diarrhea and cheers-patriotic slogans, do you have anything to say? if not, it’s better to shut up and pass as clever. Because it turns out that our ships launch hundreds of kilometers of hypersonic missiles shooting down the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, while the entire AUG of the US Navy just sits and watches this process. They apparently religion does not allow to shoot down our anti-aircraft missile? fool
                1. SETSET
                  SETSET April 19 2019 15: 29
                  +1
                  ProkletyiPirat, this is verbal ... and cheers are illiterate slogans. Weakly began to shoot down a hypersonic missile. Learn to count the radio horizon for E-2.
                  The range of the new Polyment-Redut missile is 400 km.
                  bully fool
                  1. 2 Level Advisor
                    2 Level Advisor April 19 2019 16: 58
                    +1
                    Do you know that a missile’s missile range doesn’t mean the range of the complex?
                    1. YOUR
                      YOUR April 20 2019 11: 35
                      +2
                      You don’t argue with him. The man is firmly convinced that at the declared maximum range of missiles, the target will hit at any height. He proved to me that the missiles of this air defense system are equipped with radar seeker. They shoot in the direction of the target and then the rocket itself searches for the target. Well, let him believe. Convincing is not possible and there is nothing.
                      1. 2 Level Advisor
                        2 Level Advisor April 20 2019 12: 33
                        +1
                        Well, if a person believes that since the AK-74 has a 3km bullet range, then they can fight for 3 km, then of course it's useless)
                      2. YOUR
                        YOUR April 20 2019 13: 49
                        -2
                        The way it is. It remains to believe that there are no such cool people in GS.
                      3. SETSET
                        SETSET April 24 2019 13: 06
                        -2
                        YOUR, it’s ugly to lie and spit, not knowing radar, probability theory, etc. ... You probably don’t know yourself that detecting and hitting a target depends on the radio horizon, which I write above, that is, on the height of the target’s flight. You probably do not know that there are radars that see beyond the horizon, but are not beyond the horizon, can you tell me why they do this? New developments in the development of GOS anti-aircraft missiles, allow you to hit targets over the horizon - at a certain distance. Learn not to exaggerate and not give out your sayings for the statements of others. Judging by your monosyllabic answers - you do not have much knowledge.
                      4. YOUR
                        YOUR April 24 2019 13: 08
                        +2
                        Well, a little about myself MVIZRU air defense and 27 years in the army. Apparently we were poorly taught. Whether it's you. Coryphaeus.
                      5. 2 Level Advisor
                        2 Level Advisor April 24 2019 14: 13
                        -1
                        in principle, proceeding from the fact that the rocket which you are ready to fire has just begun to develop and the numbers you voiced is the terms of reference, and you called the rocket a hypersonic one with a speed of less than 2x MAX, you can already end the conversation .. and the misunderstanding that over-the-horizon radars are not installed on ships and for targeting anti-ship missiles are not used at all touches .. if it were possible b - why bother the radar for the ship - from the shore, you can see everything) so I tell you, with your words, "You have to be able to distinguish the range from the range of the rocket." Or what exactly did I mean from the comment about the AK-74 is not clear? if not for the third time I see no reason to continue the discussion.
                      6. SETSET
                        SETSET April 24 2019 16: 22
                        -3
                        Level 2 adviser, I did not expect such your denseness and dishonesty.
                        Quote: SETSET
                        You probably do not know that there are radars that see beyond the horizon, but are not over-the-horizon, and this is addressed to your user, but not to you on another topic. An example of a radar mineral-ME.

                        The rocket for Poliment - Redoubt with a range of D = 400 km passes the test and is hypersonic (40N6 operating time is used).
                        It’s also ugly to lie about anti-ship missiles - I didn’t say anything about them and pointing them out with over-the-horizon radars is your ugly fiction. The conversation was about an anti-aircraft missile with a range of 400 km and a Grumman E-2 aircraft with a range of 320 km, which will be shot down by this missile when our ships are detected. And if you and your user do not know that the radio horizon will be the same as for our ships and that for E2 at high altitude, if detected, the E-2 plane will be shot down by a long-range missile of the Polyment-Redoubt complex. See the formula for the horizon. Learn materiel and do not lie. Read carefully what I wrote. And learn to distinguish between range and missile range. I always wrote above about the range - read carefully.
                      7. SETSET
                        SETSET April 24 2019 16: 43
                        -1
                        Among other things, RNK Mineral-ME is a marine complex and is installed on ships.
                      8. SETSET
                        SETSET April 24 2019 20: 13
                        -1
                        Opposition - correct RLC Mineral-ME.
                      9. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat April 24 2019 22: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: SETSET
                        The conversation was about an anti-aircraft missile with a range of 400 km and a Grumman E-2 aircraft with a range of 320 km, which will be shot down by this missile when our ships are detected.

                        Why our anti-aircraft missile will not be shot down by an American anti-aircraft missile if an American rocket fly 320 / 9,3 = 32 times closer? If we estimate the flight time of our hypersonic 320km / (10M * 331m / s) = 96s, the American 9,3km / (1,5M * 331m / s) = 18s, the American air defense ship has 78 seconds to react. You can still remember about air defense, about the air defense self-defense air defense system, but I'm too lazy to consider.
                        In general, I’m a programmer by training, I collected information about the radar, but not much, but since I can’t write the ADC software for the radar, I don’t understand the radar, but I doubt very much that you are such a guru specialist in this field (I judge by your comments) .
                      10. SETSET
                        SETSET 4 May 2019 02: 23
                        0
                        ProkletyiPirat, I’m just a specialist in the field of radar, which can’t be said about you, judging by the technical language in this area. You can tell how are you going to shoot down a hypersonic missile flying at a speed of about 10M, maneuvering with an overload of about 50 g? You will not find the answer. And besides this, this missile has an ARGSN, with the help of which it has the ability to hit targets beyond the radio horizon.
                        Sorry, I answered with a delay - I do not have a notification about receiving messages, I saw your answer by accident. Not expected.
                    2. SETSET
                      SETSET April 24 2019 12: 45
                      -2
                      Level 2 Expert Advisor, to begin with, to ask questions - learn the parameters of the air defense system. It is necessary to be able to distinguish the range from the range of the missile. And it’s ugly, with your illiterate user, to discuss topics that you don’t quite understand! At the same time, your illiterate user writes an outright lie about others - not knowing the basics of radar, probability theory, etc., deliberately distorting my expressions.
                      The target detection range has always been determined by the flight altitude of the targets, that is, the radio horizon - apparently your user does not know this and apparently does not know about new achievements in the development of GOS? I always write about the use of A-50U and A-100 AWACS aircraft for target designation in combat operations, although there are other target designation systems.
                      1. merkava-2bet
                        merkava-2bet 4 May 2019 15: 11
                        0
                        That is, you are a specialist, after this statement, bravo: [bCarapace-ME can easily with high probability P = 0,999 destroy air targets with a range of 20 km, both surface and ground targets.] [/ b]
                        Your words?
                        You can tell how are you going to shoot down a hypersonic missile flying at a speed of about 10M, maneuvering with an overload of about 50 g? You will not find the answer.
                        And here is your answerSoon it will be in service with Russia Pantsir-SM with a hypersonic missile - there will be no way to intercept it. And also the notorious "nails".
                      2. SETSET
                        SETSET 4 May 2019 17: 14
                        0
                        merkava-2bet, "you hear the ringing - but you don't know where it is." First, understand the speed of NATO missiles and other delivery and attack vehicles, then you may understand the incomplete meaning of my statements. But you still need to know the materiel. Examples are given about new Russian anti-aircraft missiles. And all this is just for now.
                      3. Cormorants
                        Cormorants 4 June 2019 08: 51
                        0
                        Well, if two Eagles are left, then it’s advisable, then they have an application, then why not find the money for the remaining two, well, well, even one can be pulled out. Russia in the near future is not able to build ships of a similar displacement.
            2. Reklastik
              Reklastik April 19 2019 14: 58
              -5
              because no polymet with redoubts can bring him down.
              - Polymet can not - a thing in itself)))
            3. Mitek
              Mitek April 20 2019 09: 12
              +8
              Pirate, tell me, why do you think that our ship will operate in one person? For what reason do you refuse to support him with other forces of the fleet and aviation? Now about a hundred smiling ones have been ordered, many of them will replenish the fleet of AWACS aircraft, tankers, etc. There are helicopters on Orlan and escort ships that can not only search for boats. Target designation can be obtained from satellites, from submariners. It is enough for our anti-ship missiles to know the approximate area of ​​the AUG location, then when the flock enters the area of ​​the alleged target location, it rises from the missiles and searches for the target .. You could even find all this from open sources. But you are apparently lazy to do this. For you, there is one your opinion that you continue to uphold without argumentation, with attempts to transfer to the persons of those who disagree. Stubbornness is the dignity of donkeys, my friend. And if you are preparing material, take the trouble to study the materiel, or rather the technical characteristics of the systems that you so selflessly hait.
              1. Cyrus
                Cyrus April 20 2019 09: 44
                +2
                Why should he study something? The purpose of the article is completely different, a hostile, dirty goal, to form public opinion and "prepare the population" for the complete destruction of the fleet first, then and further will find something "superfluous and too expensive" that we cannot afford and hiding behind a false concern for well-being will be so try to harm my country.
                1. Nemchinov Vl
                  Nemchinov Vl April 22 2019 00: 53
                  +1
                  Quote: Cyrus
                  Why should he study something? The purpose of the article is completely different, a hostile, dirty goal, to form public opinion and "prepare the population" for the complete destruction of the fleet first, then and further will find something "superfluous and too expensive" that we cannot afford and hiding behind a false concern for well-being will be so try to harm my country.

                  Forgive me Kirill, I understand that you (as I admit, I too) liked to be proud of the "legacy of the Union" in the form of the great "Eagles", but unfortunately, they (these two), objectively, have already really fallen into disrepair. Trying to revive them (given their age and current condition) is really super expensive and impractical... The operational tactical possibilities of using one "Orlan" are hardly more than 5-6 frigates 22350, and I think the amounts for their maintenance are comparable. Therefore, I would probably vote for the creation of a brigade of 6 units. 22350 at the Pacific Fleet and the same at the Northern Fleet instead of these two "outdated giants" ...
              2. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat April 20 2019 16: 39
                -2
                Mitek, I didn’t get personal, this was done by another author (SETSET), I just laid out my analytical analysis and asked a question, most haters don't give a damn about the analysis, and if I could arrange a shit out of a question. Personally, I always adhere to one rule (_1 _) "weapons should give a tactical and / or strategic advantage on the battlefield, if this is not present or too little, then this weapon is harmful by taking resources away from the one that gives such an advantage" further I will refer to the highlighted statement by the anchor _1_.
                Further on your objections
                Quote: Mitek
                Why do you think our ship will operate in one person? For what reason do you refuse him support by other forces of the fleet and aviation? ...

                helicopter AWACS) Compared to aircraft-like AWACS, they have a limitation in flight altitude (radio horizon limitation), limitations on weather conditions, disadvantages in the form of increased fuel consumption and the MOST IMPORTANT limitation on the key parameter "duration of combat patrols". Therefore, referring to the above stated statement (_1_), I say that they are useless, therefore unnecessary, therefore it is better to spend the freed up resources on aircraft-like AWACS.
                ships of the project "Orlan") Compared with aircraft carriers \ UDC \ DKVD have a smaller supply of air grouping and its support (jet fuel). Compared to security ships, they are overpriced (a smaller number in the troops with a given budget). And while doing not give any advantage, then read _1_.
                satellite target designation) Compared with anti-ship missiles launched from submarines and strategic bombers, there is no advantage, further _1_.

                Do you understand the logic of my reasoning?
        2. just exp
          just exp April 19 2019 08: 05
          +1
          you have a bearing in your calculations, the subsonic anti-ship missile flies along the entire length of the trajectory at an altitude of about 5 meters, not 50.
          1. SETSET
            SETSET April 19 2019 08: 46
            +5
            It's just an exploit, he has continuous errors. ProkletyiPirat writes about target designation, and compares the radio horizon for some reason for our ships, while completely forgetting about the AWACS radio horizon Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, which will be the same for our ships. With the use of the Poliment-Redut air defense system, the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye AWACS aircraft will be shot down far to a range of 320 km by a new missile from our air defense system, with a range of 400 km. No one denies that our ships need deep modernization, but this is better than cutting ships into metal. And people like the author of the article apparently adhere to a different point of view, while not seeing "a log in their own eye" - Russia in its state cannot build modern ships of large displacement - there are too many thieves and crooks of all stripes in the country's leadership and all the money resources are in the hands of the oligarchs, who in the 90s appropriated them from the hands of Yeltsin. Putin refused to return them and did not revise the results of the predatory privatization.
          2. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer April 19 2019 12: 16
            +1
            Here's the catch, that the subsonic - they were shot down by the British in 1982. How does the current "Exocet" differ fundamentally from the one that the Britons piled up near the Falklands? So the radio horizon is enough. And in response will fly 2,3 M. How to shoot him down?
            1. 1Alexey
              1Alexey April 19 2019 14: 25
              -2
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Here's the catch, that the subsonic - they were shot down by the British in 1982. How does the current "Exocet" differ fundamentally from the one that the Britons piled up near the Falklands? So the radio horizon is enough. And in response will fly 2,3 M. How to shoot him down?

              And moreover, from a much greater distance - 700 km., And a wolf pack with the dismantling of targets.
              1. radiootdel4
                radiootdel4 April 19 2019 15: 44
                0
                And if Zircons are installed on the TARK, then, in the presence of target designation (which ProkletyiPirat for some reason denies the presence of), an inevitable Kayuk (or Kirdyk depends on the warhead) will fly into their AOG from a distance of 1000 km at a speed of 9M), which is deeply parallel to all of them Aegis combined.
                BUT the question is - isn’t it enough for this to be a frigate (corvette ...).?. And if for the repair with modernization of 1 Orlan it is possible to build and equip, for example, 4 frigates (and judging by the dimensions of 1144, somewhere it is so) - then maybe 4 new ships are better? .
                Again, the Leader seems to be promised ...
                1. 1Alexey
                  1Alexey April 19 2019 16: 01
                  +3
                  Quote: radiootdel4
                  And if for the repair with modernization of 1 Orlan it is possible to build and equip, for example, 4 frigates (and judging by the dimensions of 1144, somewhere it is so) - then maybe 4 new ships are better?

                  I doubt that your calculation is fair. Please note that we are talking about ships of the "ocean" zone, not the "sea". So you need to compare with the cost of at least project 22350M.

                  At the same time, add how much they will burn money for fuel during long-distance crossings + add additional vulnerability in the form of tankers that will need to be sent along with them + add how much these tankers will burn money for fuel for their turn + add money for building the tankers themselves for these frigates .

                  So compare the cost of all this, multiplied by 4 with the cost of modernization of the 1st Orlan.

                  As for the Leader, so give a calculation on the cost and the actual terms of admission to service.
                  1. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer April 20 2019 11: 13
                    0
                    Breaking is not building, bad business is not tricky. It’s always possible to break, I think it’s still better to upgrade.
            2. Sasha_rulevoy
              Sasha_rulevoy April 20 2019 07: 45
              +6
              Quote: TermNachTER
              subsonic - they were still shot down by the British in 1982


              Strictly speaking, they just didn't shoot down. All the Argentine Air Force had exactly five Exocet missiles in service. Two hit their targets and sank the ship. Two are led away by passive interference. One fell from a malfunction.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh April 20 2019 09: 56
                0
                All right. RCC when it flies low above the surface of the sea, even
                subsonic and non-maneuvering, not easy to spot and hard to knock down.
                But RCC, hitting the side of the ship above the waterline, rather
                damage the ship than drown (the British were not lucky
                the Eminem, though tattered, was supposed to stay afloat).
                Therefore, RCC usually make a hill at the last moment and hit the ship
                from top to bottom at an angle. And at that moment they are caught
                ship missile defense (if any).
                1. just exp
                  just exp April 20 2019 16: 28
                  0
                  vice versa. at the time of the slide it’s more difficult to bring down, it’s already been discussed even with the X-35 developers.
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat April 20 2019 23: 54
                    -1
                    Quote: just EXPL
                    vice versa. at the time of the slide it’s more difficult to bring down, it’s already been discussed even with the X-35 developers.

                    And where did they discuss it? Give a link to explain why this is so or explain yourself.
                    1. just exp
                      just exp April 21 2019 19: 14
                      0
                      vpk.name has a visitor ash. To you to him.
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat April 21 2019 20: 06
                        -1
                        I found the user, he doesn’t have articles on this topic, a search for comments both inside the site and through an external search engine did not find the requested information. So please drop the direct link or explain the essence of the phenomenon yourself or specify the search parameters, because from my point of view it’s easier to knock it down (the rocket) before hitting it.
            3. militarist63
              militarist63 April 23 2019 03: 10
              +1
              Yes, the British shot down subsonic anti-ship missiles in 1982, but only shot down just two Exocet missiles laughing ... at the same time, these same subsonic anti-ship missiles Exocet successfully sunk the British destroyer URO Sheffield and the transport Atlantic Conveyor ... and the British did not manage to shoot them down! And in 1987, two Iraqi Exocet missiles very successfully hit the American frigate Stark in the Persian Gulf ...
          3. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 19 2019 14: 35
            -3
            Quote: just explo
            you have a bearing in your calculations, the subsonic anti-ship missile flies along the entire length of the trajectory at an altitude of about 5 meters, not 50.

            This is not a mistake, this is an intentional correction, because I calculated the MAXIMUM parameters, because real and even approximate calculations are impossible without access to classified information. And the essence of my post is not in the flight paths of missiles.
          4. Genry
            Genry April 20 2019 14: 23
            +3
            Quote: just explo
            subsonic anti-ship missiles fly along the entire length of the trajectory at an altitude of about 5 meters, not 50

            You are wrong here.
            5m is the final trajectory. On the main part of the route - above the masts of random ships.
            1. just exp
              just exp April 20 2019 16: 30
              0
              the last 40km is exactly 5m. further depends on the launch range. at maximum range (260 km harness at harpoon), the flight altitude is quite high due to air resistance (it saves fuel since it’s easier to fly at a height of 100 m than at 10 km altitude). and the fact that there will be no ships on the flight path RCC already knows
        3. fsb_buzuk
          fsb_buzuk April 19 2019 09: 14
          +1
          Mineral-ME radar, detection range of surface targets - up to 250 km.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 19 2019 15: 09
            -1
            Quote: fsb_buzuk
            Mineral-ME radar, detection range of surface targets - up to 250 km.

            Thanks for the comment, you are probably the only commentator who really knows how to read and analyze information. This radar is over-the-horizon, therefore, it depends on weather conditions and is subject to electronic warfare. Therefore, in a real war with an equal enemy, it can only be used to determine the "direction" where to "fire" the missile where it (the missile) must "itself" find the target. In view of this method of work, the probability of hitting the REQUIRED target tends to zero. Moreover, at the current level of development of the satellite constellation, satellites can perform the same work, while at a much higher level. This is why I was considering line-of-sight radar. As for protection, such a radar is applicable only against ballistic targets, again due to its poor resistance to background noise and electronic warfare equipment. And there is no point in using ballistic missiles at sea.
            1. SETSET
              SETSET April 19 2019 16: 03
              -1
              ProkletyiPirat, and how is it?
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              This radar is beyond the horizon, therefore, it depends on weather conditions and is subject to electronic warfare.

              False. But is the dependence on weather conditions not determined by the wavelength of the emitted oscillations - cm range? To do this, change the polarization of the emitted oscillations from linear to circular polarizers.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat April 19 2019 17: 47
                -1
                Quote: SETSET
                Wrong

                WHAT IS NOT TRUE? it NOT weather-sensitive? it NOT susceptible to electronic warfare?
                As I wrote above, it’s enough for the enemy to take the LA RER to determine the scanning parameters and apply noise. But in the case of LA DRLOiU there is direct radio visibility so you can scan from different points at different angles and due to this, minimize the work of the enemy electronic warfare.
                1. SETSET
                  SETSET April 24 2019 13: 19
                  -3
                  ProkletyiPirat, you do not understand the meaning of the above or pretend to be a fool? Learn radar. Yes, in what area are you a specialist?
        4. YOUR
          YOUR April 19 2019 09: 50
          -5
          I'm bastard with you. The real war where SSBNs of the Borey type will be used is the end of humanity. The fact that there is 10 times enough to destroy the whole ball.
          And TAKR is a formidable force in local wars.
          1. ser56
            ser56 April 19 2019 13: 07
            +1
            Quote: YOUR
            And TAKR is a formidable force in local wars.

            and what can he do in a local war? bully At the same time, this is a single ship - it’s a horror of logistics to maintain it ... they’ll work out a resource and need to be cut, but let the Gorshkovs build in series ...
            1. YOUR
              YOUR April 19 2019 13: 09
              -1
              So I'm talking about the same just one ship
            2. Every
              Every April 19 2019 17: 34
              0
              Quote: ser56
              Quote: YOUR
              And TAKR is a formidable force in local wars.

              and what can he do in a local war? bully

              In a local war, he will do the same as the aircraft carriers. To scare those who do not have good anti-ship missiles and an air defense system.
              In a war with the enemy with developed defense systems, both the TAKR and the aircraft carrier are nothing more than targets.
              I’m silent about nuclear war.
              1. ser56
                ser56 April 19 2019 17: 46
                0
                Quote: Every
                In a local war, he will do the same as the aircraft carriers.

                Do you offer to shoot PRK overland? Not expensive? bully And Gorshkov has calibers ... request
                Quote: Every
                with an adversary with well-developed defense systems, both the TAKR and the aircraft carrier are nothing more than targets.

                there were only 2 such opponents - the USSR and the USA ... hi
        5. A1845
          A1845 April 19 2019 10: 12
          +3
          So why then need this TAKR?

          the article is a complete substitution
          building Boreas without adequate cover is just criminal waste of money!
          to build a modern destroyer - is it "Leader" or what?
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer April 19 2019 12: 18
            +2
            The fleet must be balanced, admirals were convinced of this back in World War II.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat April 19 2019 14: 49
              -1
              Only now, this balance changes over time and as a rule is VERY EXPENSIVE, especially if you realize all the uncle's Wishlist in large uniforms. But in any case, in modern warfare at sea without aircraft AWACS, electronic warfare, electronic warfare, and electric warfare, real military operations can be forgotten. At the same time, I’m talking specifically about aircraft-like aviation, since the key parameter is the duration of combat duty in the air. Moreover, when there is such an aviation need for mastadons with a bunch of missiles and nuclear weapons disappears.
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer April 20 2019 11: 08
                +2
                A balanced fleet includes not only ships and auxiliary vessels, but also naval aviation, and coastal anti-ship missiles and air defense systems. When it is all interconnected and acts as a whole. In such an organism, there is a place for mastodons.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat April 20 2019 16: 45
                  -1
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  In such an organism, there is a place for mastodons.

                  what's the point of spending extra resources on the development \ production \ maintenance of another type of ship if it does not give tactical and / or strategic advantages on the battlefield?
                  1. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer April 20 2019 17: 44
                    +1
                    And here you do not need to develop or build anything, you just need to use it wisely. For sworn friends, mattresses, ships - planes serve for 40 - 50 years and this is considered the norm.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat April 20 2019 23: 49
                      -1
                      So I said "to serve". And you haven't answered the question, what's the point?
                      1. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer April 21 2019 12: 09
                        +1
                        And what's the point of disassembling them? Disposal will not be cheap, but it will also serve. To build a ship of such complexity now - Russia cannot do it. Do you know what will happen tomorrow?
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat April 21 2019 18: 31
                        0
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And what's the point of disassembling them?

                        The main question is not this, but in "What are they for?", And if you formulate it very precisely, you get the following question:
                        What are the tactical and / or strategic advantages of having the "eagles" on the battlefield?
                        I myself could neither find nor come up with an answer to this question; everyone I ask leaves the topic or is bombarded with verbal diarrhea, trolling and the substitution of easily verified facts. And yes, pay attention, I ask you to name exactly the advantages, not the possibilities!
                      3. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer April 21 2019 18: 34
                        +1
                        I repeat the question - do you know what tomorrow will be like? Tomorrow they may oh come in handy, but they are already gone.
                      4. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat April 21 2019 18: 42
                        0
                        I also know how to evade an answer wink
                        option 1) I repeat the question - do you know what the situation will be tomorrow? Tomorrow they (resources) may come in handy, but they are already gone.
                        option 2) I repeat the question - do you know what the situation will be tomorrow? what if the resources spent on eagles will be needed to build a submarine, and you have already spent them!
                        option 3) I repeat the question - do you know what the situation will be tomorrow? what if the resources spent on eagles will be needed to build an aircraft carrier, and you have already spent them!
                        option 4) I repeat the question - do you know what the situation will be tomorrow? and suddenly the resources spent on the eagles will be needed to build the AWACS aircraft, and you have already spent them!
                      5. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer April 21 2019 18: 45
                        +1
                        I do not leave the answer. I repeat, the fleet must be balanced, as well as other types of troops. You propose to develop one at the expense of the other, while it is necessary to develop all kinds, but reasonably, balanced and based on the financial capabilities of the state.
                      6. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat April 21 2019 19: 02
                        -1
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        You propose to develop one at the expense of the other

                        A fundamentally wrong understanding of my point of view! my point of view (_1 _) "weapons should give a tactical and / or strategic advantage on the battlefield, if this is not present or too little, then this weapon is harmful by taking resources away from the one that gives such an advantage" The saved resources can be used either to increase the number of employees (with the same budget) or to improve performance characteristics (with the same budget), or for other needs.
                        For example, eagles take resources from naval aircraft DRLOiU \ RER \ EW, from aircraft carriers, from UDC, from water infrastructure.
          2. NEXUS
            NEXUS April 19 2019 16: 02
            +6
            Quote: A1845
            building Boreas without adequate cover is just criminal waste of money!

            And to keep PIKES-B in sumps, in order to ever make repairs, is that what you think? We created the Ash project. Now they say that it’s very expensive. And excuse me, at the time of designing this was not clear? That is, knowing that this multi-purpose vehicle will be expensive, laid the 5 buildings.
            What are we essentially building from nuclear submarines. Strategists and, trying to build multi-purpose. Let's look at the submarine fleet of the USSR. There were a lot of projects that went into the series, in a limited edition, which were considered as concepts and the probable future of our submarine fleet ... There is not enough money for a full-fledged multipurpose, why not build the same modernized Lira with a steel case?
            Boreas are being transferred to the fleet faster than Ash trees ... there is no cover for strategists. Here, some wise men say that Varshavyanka will also cope with the cover of a strategist ... dear, well, before you make such rubbish, at least take a look at the performance characteristics of Varshavyanka. With its maximum depth of 300 meters and speed at 24 knots and a power reserve of 30 days, today it is only capable of sealing straits and acting as an ambush submarine.
            Quote: A1845
            to build a modern destroyer - is it "Leader" or what?

            The leader is today profanation of pure water. We have neither resources, nor technologies, nor an arsenal for it. God grant that they finally begin to build Super-Gorshkov and that will be, given our realities, good. But here there are pitfalls ... everything, without exception, new projects are turning into long-term construction with us.
            We are discussing the construction of multipurpose nuclear submarines, destroyers ... guys, we are Karakurts, with a displacement of 800 tons, we are building two years each! And while we are discussing the construction of serious ships? Are you seriously?
        6. silver_roman
          silver_roman April 19 2019 14: 50
          +2
          in many ways you are right. Initially, as far as I remember, the Eagles had to be an escort for Ulyanovsk. 2 per aircraft carrier, and there is already at least ka-29 in the form of target designation.
          It is unfortunate, but spending money on the restoration of TARKRs is not cost-effective and wasteful. It is sad to admit it, but it is a fact. recourse
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 19 2019 17: 31
            -1
            Quote: silver_roman
            , and there is at least ka-29 in the form of target designation.

            Not good, I mentioned above that the key parameter is the duration of combat duty, therefore only and only an aircraft-like scheme, otherwise the increased fuel consumption of both the aircraft itself and the reserves on the ship. There is also a theoretical possibility to use a "tethered aircraft" such as all sorts of quadcopters, thermoplanes, airships, heliostats, but all of them do not have the ability to change their position in space to increase the security zone and to scan at different angles.
            If we talk about a radar station based on the ka-29 for the purpose of a "one-time" launch of anti-ship missiles, then it is more efficient to use a satellite, submarines and strategic aviation, especially the Tu-95 + A-50 bundle, that is, again, there is no point in eagles.
        7. ism_ek
          ism_ek April 20 2019 11: 12
          0
          our ship can shoot a maximum of 43km,
          Russian space intelligence satellites are launched regularly. Finding enemy ships around the world is known.

          With Borey, everything is more complicated. Suppose he succeeds in escaping American custody. How does he, when underwater, learn that it is time to launch nuclear missiles? Suppose a start signal can still be transmitted, but current target designation is not possible.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 20 2019 16: 55
            0
            Quote: ism_ek
            With Borey, everything is more complicated. Suppose he succeeds in escaping American custody. How does he, when underwater, learn that it is time to launch nuclear missiles?

            When launching nuclear ICBMs, this is not essential at all; the submarine can launch its presents in a month and in a year.
            When launching the Kyrgyz Republic, it is possible to release a communication buoy and its analogues for satellite data
            Quote: ism_ek
            Finding enemy ships around the world is known.

            It is true, and just confirms the pointlessness of the development \ production \ service of eagles and their analogues, because they do not give advantages over other weapons.
            1. ism_ek
              ism_ek April 23 2019 11: 12
              +2
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              A submarine can launch its presents in a month and a year later.

              There the score will go for minutes. A submarine is a defective ship.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat April 24 2019 06: 47
                -3
                Quote: ism_ek
                A submarine is a defective ship.

                This is a very controversial statement. Yes, most designed and developed submarines can only be used as a replacement for ships. BUT this does not apply to all promising submarines. There are options for submarines in which instead of the classic buoy-connection, a robotic special platform is used that implements constant communication.
        8. Genry
          Genry April 20 2019 14: 16
          0
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          Conclusion: our ship can shoot a maximum of 43km, an American minimum of 320km,

          Superbly pulled an owl on the globe.
          Why in the age of helicopters and UAVs are not taken into account their ability to search and track targets? With such small dragonflies, any large ship can be equipped.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 20 2019 17: 00
            -1
            Quote: Genry
            Why in the age of helicopters and UAVs are not taken into account their ability to search and track targets? With such small dragonflies, any large ship can be equipped.

            already answered above, here is a link to koment https://topwar.ru/157029-orlany-idut-na-razborku.html#comment-id-9300728
        9. CentDo
          CentDo April 22 2019 14: 40
          0
          Add a DRLO helicopter to your calculation, and everything will not be so hopeless. We have problems with them, of course, but in case of aggravation of the situation, I won’t be surprised if one is on Orlan.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 22 2019 23: 11
            0
            a helicopter does not replace a plane, it doesn’t even lie nearby, I analyzed this moment above
        10. militarist63
          militarist63 April 23 2019 01: 47
          0
          Complete bullshit in calculations and "0" knowledge of the materiel! Go, sir, play computer games and keep googling ... porn! laughing
      2. Cyrus
        Cyrus April 20 2019 09: 23
        0
        It’s a pity you can’t ask Doenitz, the Grand Admiral told you how and why the most powerful submarine fleet was defeated.
        1. dauria
          dauria April 20 2019 22: 02
          +1
          how and why the most powerful submarine fleet was defeated


          There is an even stronger question. Do not have a fleet of Hitler, none. No boats, no destroyers, no battleships (pocket and large) - would it prevent him from forcing the British to scramble from Dunkirk? France would not capitulate? Would that prevent him from walking in North Africa even to Suez? Or the British would suddenly have landed as much as 41 in Normandy and how they would have piled on .... Yes, do not care about these galoshes. There they are, they are not. Hitler was ruined by a land war with the USSR, then his ridge was broken. So we need to think about how and what we will fight. Not to brag about "pennants", but to fight until the ridge breaks. It's good when the money is full. And if they are scarce? There are strategic missiles, a triad - that's it. They were afraid to even think about the war.
    2. Deck
      Deck April 19 2019 06: 40
      +23
      "Better to spend money on building several Boreis. Obviously, there will be more benefits."


      There are no problems with "spending money" in our country. There are problems with "build": https://www.interfax.ru/russia/253770
      Moreover, these problems are also in the aircraft industry https://topwar.ru/157031-krutoe-pike-rossijskoe-aviastroenie-sokraschaet-obemy-vypuska.html. And in space. And another mngo where.
      All this collapse over the past ten to fifteen years. In an era of unprecedented prosperity and under the brilliant leadership of leadership. What will we leave for our grandchildren? A crushed industry and a gang of billionaire friends?
      1. kotik77713
        kotik77713 April 19 2019 07: 19
        +11
        I completely agree! Comrades moneybags will breed, the fleet will wait!
      2. SETSET
        SETSET April 19 2019 08: 48
        0
        Deck, I completely agree with you!
      3. Bambusho
        Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 27
        -3
        Why leave? Already left!
    3. donavi49
      donavi49 April 19 2019 08: 13
      +13
      Not. There will be no more Boreev. Yesterday the article was. Yes, and START-3 has not yet been canceled. It makes no sense to build boats that cannot be armed (for START-3).

      It is better to build ICAPL if so. For Boreas and living Dolphins will shoot from the water. For to go to the dagger volley / pole = death, unaccompanied. Escort will remove 3 boats until the 22 year is guaranteed. Condors = +/- conditional, they may well ignore them further and, by 20, raise the question of cutting up an 5 summer plan. Only ShchukiB are left (1 at the Pacific Fleet now + Bratsk will return from the north in a year, two, three, and 6 in the north, taking into account the repair ones) and Severodvinsk / 885М (total 5 from the foreseeable future) = to 8 borei (again, the foreseeable future) and 6 Dolphins. Even 1 escort boats on SSBN does not go.
    4. Civil
      Civil April 19 2019 08: 13
      -2
      No, it is possible, of course, theoretically, in which case, to assemble from three fleets the vigorous team of pensioners that we have. 2 "Orlan", 2 "Atlanta", a dozen BOD and the same ancient destroyers.

      But why on scrap metal ?! What can still be modernized, the rest as it should be done by the museum, how much can you destroy your past? There is not a single live battleship of the royal construction. You can continue this list of losses for a long time.
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 April 19 2019 08: 32
        +11
        I wrote in the last topic. Nobody needs a museum. Well, that is - if what kind of oligarch (here you can cite Paul Allen as an example) will finance, then why not? Or the regional budget will find funds (as again in the USA).

        Hang it on the neck of the army - that's where the Temples are built, Patriot and Biathlon. So misuse of budgets has nowhere else to go. Moreover, money will be needed significantly, and even this will not go to zero! Why? Because it does not even go to zero with other, same Americans.

        A relatively successful example is Kiev. But we must not forget the concept of the MUSEUM - failed there. Why is Kiev successful? Because he is standing in Behai Park. It has a huge influx of people, more than 40mln people in the 150km zone (on high-speed trains) - moreover, with Beijing. And this is not just a ship in the open field. This is a Disneyland-style complex. Only military. With shows and performances.


        Minsk - already bankrupt 2 owners, no one needs it and quite realistically will go to metal for the foreseeable future.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 April 19 2019 09: 26
            +12
            Museums, if not to fight off the enemy. And why exactly are these ships needed in the museum? Do they have a heroic story? Especially with Lazarev! Made 1 transition. 3-5 trips in the Asia-Pacific region. And he died at the age of 9 years. After standing rotten 25 years. Well, what should Lazarev convey? What was built by the whole country and left to rot? So this is some kind of liberal museum coming out. Epic scientific advances? So somehow also +/-. If you expose the crown of the Soviet project - Peter. Or Nakhimov after the end of the service.

            I repeat - they cut and forgot. If you create a museum where 100 people will go to six months (and in Severodvinsk no longer comes, in Vladik 1000 people six months well), then this will be a lot of money. It’s better to build one more frigate or paratrooper on what is saved. The existing BDKs are already dying. Vaughn Caesar died right in the passage, the Syrian express does not spare BDK:
            The large landing craft "Caesar Kunikov" of project 775/2 from the 197th brigade of the Crimean naval base, which was heading to the Feodosia region, lost its speed for technical reasons. The rescue tug SB-5 and the fire-fighting vessel PZhS-123 were sent to his aid. Subsequently, the BDK was tugged by the SB-5 vessel and brought to the area of ​​the Karantinnaya Bay, after which it was towed to a regular place by 4 Black Sea Fleet harbor tugs.
            1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
              Aristarkh Lyudvigovich April 19 2019 12: 42
              +2
              In 2014, the cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" was docked in order to maintain buoyancy, so that the hull would last for another 10 years and it would not sink before disposal began. The Ministry of Defense is disappointed with the results of the modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov" - the actual cost of the work turned out to be more than originally planned, and the deadline for their completion is constantly shifting to the right.
              The 2019 year is already underway, and the head of the USC carefully talks about the 2022 year. It is not yet clear what to do with Peter the Great, but you can definitely forget about Admiral Lazarev. For the disposal of Admiral Lazarev, the PD-41 is quite suitable, where the Ural Large Nuclear Reconnaissance Ship completed its journey last year.
              1. 1Alexey
                1Alexey April 19 2019 14: 32
                +1
                As for the timing of the modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov": so you do not forget that they want to arm him with Zircons and the ship's S-500, but they have not yet been adopted for service. So the terms are shifting.

                The same thing happened with "Admiral Gorshkov": until the Polyment-Redoubt was finalized, the terms of its acceptance were constantly shifted.
              2. Povelitel_buri
                Povelitel_buri April 19 2019 18: 16
                0
                Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                Ministry of Defense disappointed with modernization results

                Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                the actual cost of the work turned out to be more than originally planned, and the deadline all the time shifted to the right.

                Such a picture is observed throughout shipbuilding, no matter what project you take, RTOs, corvette, frigate, RPKSN. And what is now disappointed in shipbuilding and generally refuse to build?
                Quote: = Aristarkh Ludwigovich
                the purpose of maintaining buoyancy, so that the hull is enough for another 10 years

                Do you imagine what the bodies of the Eagles are made of to claim that they barely keep afloat? It seems to me that no
              3. Cyrus
                Cyrus April 20 2019 09: 24
                -1
                That's right, the atomic navy is purposefully destroyed.
        2. Civil
          Civil April 19 2019 09: 14
          +4
          Why is Kiev successful? Because he is standing in Behai Park.

          This is generally our shame.
        3. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer April 19 2019 12: 31
          0
          Quote: donavi49
          A relatively successful example is Kiev. But we must not forget the concept of the MUSEUM - failed there. Why is Kiev successful? Because he is standing in Behai Park.


          Well, do not tell me - I was there in November 2016 - there are very few people - the price goes off scale for visiting the park at 360 yuan - which is even expensive for China (about 3100 rubles a ticket for an adult), which makes it inaccessible for 80% of ordinary Chinese.

          Just the entrance to the ship should be symbolic (that would be accessible to the majority of the population), and a park with paid entertainments should be built around it - this is another matter.
          The ship should be the "icing on the cake" - the main exhibit.
          And in China there are many such military-patriotic parks with a symbolic price of 60-120 yuan per entry - for example, in Shanghai:



    5. Kent0001
      Kent0001 April 19 2019 09: 00
      -1
      In this context, I agree.
    6. The Siberian barber
      The Siberian barber April 19 2019 11: 36
      +1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      "It is better to spend money on the construction of several Boreis. Obviously, there will be more benefits."

      perhaps. this and Kuznetsova, unfortunately, concerns

      Did it ever occur to you that SSBNs, just the same, of all naval problems, is the least?)) And they, alone, without other components, will be destroyed "once or twice" .. Then, as a matter of urgency, development of Shchuk B, since about the submarine fleet .. OVR problems ... Aviation ..
      ..And Kuzyu can’t be cut!
      In general, articles about the Fleet cause "mental nagging". Practically, we don't build nifiga, we only saw (((
      But the yachts of the "elite" amaze the imagination ((
      1. The comment was deleted.
    7. silver_roman
      silver_roman April 19 2019 14: 47
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      this and Kuznetsova, unfortunately, concerns

      not really. Of course, there is a similarity in the fact that there are not many benefits, but Kuzya is essentially an educational desk for our wing of the decks. Losing Kuzyu will be expensive in terms of pilot training and no thread will produce such an effect.
    8. tuts
      tuts April 20 2019 17: 44
      +1
      The presence of a nuclear submarine fleet does not solve the problem of demonstrating the flag. Our submariners were ordered to emerge during the Caribbean crisis to indicate their presence. The fleet should be universal and balanced, but let specialists decide this.
    9. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 26
      -1
      Yeah, especially Ukrainian turbines, the only shipyard is in Nikolaev, and this is the country with which Russia is fighting! Soon, and let him on the needles?
  2. polar fox
    polar fox April 19 2019 05: 35
    +19
    Well, if you close the State Duma, then it will be enough for the modernization of these and the construction of new ones. How much did they write off for "European-quality repair"? A couple of lards?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 19 2019 05: 49
      +19
      I think the State Duma can be quietly halved without loss of efficiency simply without bothering to select candidates. For the rest, to reduce the salary by half and make it work - accrual of the salary ONLY upon the fact of coming to work and ONLY with active participation in the process.
      1. polar fox
        polar fox April 19 2019 05: 51
        +16
        and you taste that the TC does not apply to them? No way ... at all ... how the judges of the Russian Federation are not subject to the laws by which they judge.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak April 19 2019 06: 11
          +9
          and you vkurse that TK does not apply to them?

          That is a pity. Sometimes what they carry even to the head does not come to an adequate person.
      2. siberalt
        siberalt April 19 2019 06: 13
        +11
        In the Duma, you can leave the Presidium on a permanent basis, and invite the rest of the people's deputies a couple of times a year to vote with the payment of travel allowances and preservation of earnings at the place of work for the duration of participation in the session. Let them work from where they were elected in their previous positions before the election. With the same "benefit" from them, the savings in money will be colossal, and the harm is much less. winked
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 06: 26
          +2
          An interesting proposal, but it turns out that the Presidium will single-handedly prepare all the bills? Recently I had a chance to listen to a speech of one people's choice live. So he said that over the previous period, more than 1000 bills were adopted, almost 1 a day. But they still need to be prepared, preliminary hearings in committees, etc. And you propose to lay all this "crazy printer" in general on 5 people? In principle, given the representatives of which party they occupy in the presidium, nothing would have changed, but then the opposition will have no chance at all to push through at least some bill, which will mean only one thing - even the supposed democracy can be officially put an end to. In general, the scheme is interesting.
          1. siberalt
            siberalt April 19 2019 06: 30
            +14
            I don’t offer anything, but in the USSR they somehow calmly dealt with it without hundreds of thousands of salaries for loafers who, for the most part, don’t even go to work. Now tell us what laws were invented by deputies in addition to increases in salaries for their loved ones and fines for citizens - not deputies? If they are servants of the people, then with what fright did they unanimously vote for the destruction of the elderly as a class who did not live to a new retirement age?winked
            1. Dante Alighieri
              Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 06: 43
              +5
              I realized that this was a reference to the Council of People’s Deputies (Supreme Council of the USSR), but in the USSR, if my memory serves me, there was no system of separation of powers - this is an exclusively bourgeois principle. The Soviets were both the executive and the legislative branch, into which the representatives of the CPSU got the people's representatives. He was the only legal limiter of power.
          2. ALARI
            ALARI April 19 2019 09: 28
            -2
            You just need to make the opposition a veto on the law, but collective. If all opposition parties (the Communist Party, the CP, the Liberal Democratic Party, and others that have passed into the Duma that do not have a majority together) vote against, then the law is not adopted. Then the Duma can easily be reduced to the podium.
            1. Sergej1972
              Sergej1972 April 20 2019 15: 11
              0
              On what basis? To influence laws, the opposition simply has to win the election, that is, it must cease to be the opposition.
      3. Kerensky
        Kerensky April 19 2019 08: 24
        +3
        For the rest, to reduce the salary by half and make it work - accrual of the salary ONLY upon the fact of coming to work and ONLY with active participation in the process.

        Denis. Generally translate into piecework. Rename the fractions into artels, introduce KTU, and things will go!
      4. max702
        max702 April 19 2019 14: 07
        +1
        The Duma should be dispersed altogether, ALL bills that really affect the state of affairs in the country come from the presidential administration and without his approval no laws are adopted, both de jure and de facto .. Therefore, this feeder is not needed! But what to do with so many "necessary" people?
        This appearance of democracy is too expensive .. the same applies to all federal legislative bodies of power, these are prohibitively expensive services for technical voting .. You can do well without them .. Moreover, people will be responsible for the work not chosen by the "type" by the people, but specifically appointed by one or another state official , and therefore responsible for their decisions ..
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 19 2019 15: 22
          0
          Quote: max702
          and therefore responsible for their decisions ..

          Before whom? Mr. Medvedev - a lot of responsibility?
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall April 19 2019 15: 33
            0
            The prosecution of the President of the Russian Federation, who has terminated his powers, is more than troublesome. Yes and a precedent ...
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 19 2019 17: 22
              0
              Quote: Town Hall
              President of the Russian Federation, terminated his powers

              For crimes committed during the period of post correction. Mr. Medvedev has few questions as a prime minister? Also
              Quote: max702
              and specifically appointed by one or another state official, and therefore responsible for their decisions ..

              As I understand it, responsibility up to the highest measure was still not meant.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall April 19 2019 17: 28
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Mr. Medvedev has few questions as a prime minister?


                Am I mistaken or in the presidential republic the head of the executive branch is the president, not the prime minister ?. And all the decisions of the prime minister are essentially the decisions of the President?
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine April 19 2019 17: 57
                  0
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Am I mistaken or in the presidential republic the head of the executive branch is the president, not the prime minister?

                  Wrong.
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  And all the decisions of the prime minister are essentially the decisions of the President?

                  No. At least on the menu. In nature, somewhat different.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall April 19 2019 18: 08
                    +1
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    on the menu.


                    Executive power

                    The President of the Russian Federation defines the main directions of the country's domestic policy. According to the Constitution, he has the right to chair government meetings. The head of state is directly subordinate to 19 departments (out of 72 included in the government structure), including the ministries of the power block, justice, foreign affairs, the Federal Service for Financial Monitoring, the Federal Archival Agency, etc.

                    The president plays a decisive role in the formation of the new cabinet. With the consent of the State Duma, he appoints the chairman of the government. At the suggestion of the prime minister, the head of state approves the structure of the cabinet, appoints deputy prime ministers and federal ministers. Makes decisions on the appointment of heads of law enforcement agencies, as well as on the resignation of heads of ministries. In addition, according to the Constitution, the president has the right to dismiss the entire government, on the basis of political necessity.

                    In addition to the cabinet of ministers, the President of the Russian Federation forms his own Administration, which ensures the activities of the head of state and monitors the implementation of his decisions.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine April 19 2019 19: 59
                      0
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      The president plays a decisive role in the formation of the new cabinet. With the consent of the State Duma, he appoints the chairman of the government.

                      You forget that in our case, the president is some strange person from the mountain, and the prime minister is the leader of a political party that has a constitutional majority in parliament. Thus, Mr. Medvedev may tomorrow stop the activities of the Presidential Administration and all structures directly subordinate to the president (including law enforcement agencies) by elementarily freezing their accounts in the treasury. The budget is formed by Mr. Medvedev and his party, the states of all federal structures, including subordinates to the president, are formed by Mr. Medvedev and his party, impeachment to the president is initiated by Mr. Medvedev and his party. Mr. Putin does not carry out operational functions; in a situation of a fundamental conflict with the government and parliament, he can only disperse the government and parliament by calling early parliamentary elections.

                      In theory.
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall April 19 2019 20: 12
                        0
                        But in practice, all the orders of Mr. Medvedev are not fixed by the possibility of a polite person visiting with a gun if they are not executed, there are less paper on which they are written. And the entire power block is directly subordinate to Mr. Putin. The only one who can disperse the government and appoint a new one . And if the Duma refuses, it seems 3 times, to approve this government (or just the government), has the right to disperse the Duma.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine April 19 2019 20: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        It seems 3 times to approve this government (or only)

                        Only the premiere. The government is appointed entirely by the president without the participation of parliament, both the power and non-power blocs.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        It has the right to disperse the Duma.

                        The father of peoples, Mr. Medvedev, can cancel the 4th chapter of the constitution as a whole, having 2/3 of the Duma and 3/4 of the Federation Council.
                        I recall that the head of the Soviet state was Comrade Kalinin, then comrade Shvernik, then comrade Voroshilov, and so on Lenin, Stalin, Malenkov, Khrushchev, Brezhnev were some kind of muddy personalities without specific occupations. They disposed of in some NGO there, speaking the current language. The first secretary of some party there, at the same time the head of the USSR, was L.I. Brezhnev in 1977.

                        What are we arguing about at all? About some alternative Russia in alternative reality? I’m kind of aware that constitutional reform is unlikely to be expected in Medvedev’s way.

                        Although, on the other hand, there was one organization in Italy, it also seemed to be doing nothing. Until 24.07.1943
                      3. Town Hall
                        Town Hall April 19 2019 21: 17
                        -2
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        cancel the 4th chapter of the constitution as a whole, having 2/3 of the Duma and 3/4 of the Federation Council.

                        I doubt that without the signature of the President the laws of the Duma are gaining legal force.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        What are we arguing about at all?

                        Pure academician. She is intellectual masturbation)
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Until Mr. 24.07.1943


                        Rumors are a little exaggerated. At that meeting, there was just a vote on the Grandi agenda, in which Duce was in the minority. Nothing epochal. Just an alarming bell. He dismissed him and sent him under arrest. King. To whom the carabinieros obeyed. Without a man with a gun, nothing .
                      4. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine April 19 2019 22: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        I doubt that without the signature of the President the laws of the Duma are gaining legal force.

                        With constitutional amendments, the Preza has no veto.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        To which the Carabinieri obeyed. Without a man with a gun, no way.

                        On the 23rd they did not obey, but on the 25th they obeyed. It’s a living thing.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Without a man with a gun, no way.

                        I won’t argue.
        2. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 April 20 2019 15: 17
          +1
          Parliament in any country in the world is not only the supreme legislative body, it is also a body of control over the executive branch, and an instrument of the influence of civil society on state policy. In the case of the implementation of your proposal, the executive branch will become absolutely uncontrolled. she will lose at least some, but a counterbalance. And, by the way, the number of deputies of the State Duma, together with the assistants of deputies, together in the apparatus of the parliament is simply scanty compared to the number of apparatus of the federal executive bodies, coupled with the apparatus of the Presidential Administration.
          People who propose to pass all laws through online voting or endless referenda simply do not understand that this is in the hands of the executive branch, it will be the new Bonapartism of the 21st century.
          1. Bambusho
            Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 32
            -2
            Go down from heaven to earth, the AP already controls everything, all branches of power!
      5. Bambusho
        Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 30
        -4
        The State Duma is under the control of the presidential administration, like everything in Russia!
  3. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 April 19 2019 05: 40
    +5
    This is a type of acquittal, but the government made the right decision to cut the cruiser! Recovery is not possible, because it will be an overwhelming burden on taxpayers, in short, they have taken care of the people.
    1. Bull Terrier
      Bull Terrier April 19 2019 06: 11
      -5
      Judging by the fact that the cost of modernizing Nakhimov, even the most iron people are already putting into a stupor the resuscitation of these will generally lead to hysteria. You must understand that in addition to the money itself, there are also terms that, whatever one may say, are years for each. The game is not worth the candle. This money is even better for the ones that Shoigu will go the other day. There’s more sense at times.
      1. Povelitel_buri
        Povelitel_buri April 19 2019 18: 20
        +1
        Quote: Bull Terrier
        Judging by the fact that the cost of modernizing Nakhimov

        Of course, the modernization of Nakhimov for 80 billion is much more expensive than building one Leader-class cruiser-destroyer for 200 billion rubles. Sure
        1. Bambusho
          Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 35
          -3
          Is redecorating so expensive?
    2. Obi-Wan Kenobi
      Obi-Wan Kenobi April 19 2019 06: 57
      +3
      I read the article to:
      But let's think about it.
      And let's think about this. Is this resuscitation necessary at all?

      After that I realized that the article was so-so - the stupid third-rate libel, so to speak, "Serdyukov's precepts."
      It smacks of frank betrayal, to say the least - it stinks!
      Author, write better about "Russian pop stars" or scripts for the program "Health with Elena Malysheva".
      And forget about the Russian fleet - it's not yours!
  4. Graz
    Graz April 19 2019 06: 06
    0
    I don’t know, I don’t know, perhaps some auxiliary ships of the fleet could be made of these ships, of course, the costs and need of such ships should be considered here, the question is whether our shipbuilders will be able to make such large ships in the future again, if necessary, but they’ll cut it, and a mustache, and then they can catch it.
    Or maybe they’ll be used as caliber carriers, even if they will be standing near the mooring wall, but all the same it will be one of NATO’s nerves to act on
    1. Kerensky
      Kerensky April 19 2019 08: 27
      +3
      make any auxiliary fleet vessels,

      Yeah! Tug boat or raid boat. lol
    2. 1Alexey
      1Alexey April 19 2019 19: 31
      0
      Quote: Graz
      Or maybe they’ll be used as caliber carriers, even if they will be standing near the mooring wall, but all the same it will be one of NATO’s nerves to act on

      Yes, you can not rearm on the Caliber (so as not to splurge). They would have put them near Murmansk, and with their Granites they would have kept part of NATO Norway at gunpoint and controlled the entrance to the Northern Sea Route.

      700 km is not a little, besides the same Granites can be used both for ground and surface targets, again - supersonic.
  5. Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 06: 12
    +18
    In any case, they should be replaced by new ships with new equipment and weapons. And now it is worth spending money on this, and not on maintaining the appearance of defensiveness by shamanism over ships that have been waiting for 20 for years to be cut into metal.

    Do not come, info 100%. The claimed bookmark of 2's frigates, etc. 22350, touched the decommissioning of 1155. And the Eagles simply will not replace anything. Atomic Leader? Don’t tell my slippers. Roman, you know no worse than others about the situation in the Russian economy and society in order to make such statements.
    In general, it’s not sad to say this, but Kirov’s fate was predetermined a long time ago, but Lazarev’s cutting, in my understanding, is a crime. How much money was spent on repairs in 2014? And for what? To just cut into metal? Apparently I don’t understand something.
    Recently, in a discussion of similar news about the unnecessaryness of Kuznetsov, again, the authorship of Roman (https://topwar.ru/156521-perspektivy-admirala-kuznecova-doka-net-no-vy-tam-derzhites.html) Lord of the storm We discussed in detail the options for upgrading the cruiser, and he still managed to convince me that even with the updated Zvezdochka, things will not be so simple and it will be possible to find a place on the slipway for our giant 1144. In the end, the combat effectiveness of these ships is not higher than our highly controversial aircraft carrier, which means there is a reason to reanimate at least one more unit. Moreover, as I said:
    "For only in the presence of Lazarev (that is, with 3 ships of pr. 1144 in the fleet) we can extend the operation of these wonderful ships for another 30 years: without much damage to defense, sending one or another unit for repair, while always having 2 ships on duty, which will have an extremely favorable effect on the resource of metal structures and propulsion mechanisms.Now, the exploitation of the Soviet legacy is merciless - without any rotation and replacement, in fact, to complete wear, the example of Peter, cruisers 1164, BPK 1155 and already the practically deceased destroyers 956 are an excellent confirmation of this. "
    Or what do we not think for the future at all, we live here and now, and after us even a flood? Putin will leave and we together with him in one common paradise? Some kind of chrono-chauvinism.
    I will answer those who doubt the military expediency of Lazarev: all talk about allegedly 1144 is not comparable to a likely enemy is nothing more than a very tricky move to argue your position. No one argues that it is necessary to appraise oneself soundly, that a critical analysis is needed and useful. But if we proceed from the assumptions that Roman allows himself, we can never, in principle (even with the Leaders and the SSBN, even without them), put anything at sea against America with its 68 Berks and 15 aircraft carriers. So what? Cover yourself with a blanket and wait for the inevitable end? Or do it like China, which for some reason is in no hurry to send 956 destroyers to the landfill, and this despite the fact that the number of new full-fledged warships in the Chinese fleet has long exceeded all the indicators of the Russian Federation?
    Nevertheless, I continue to hope that the point in the Lazarev question is precisely seemingly set - as the author indicated at the very beginning.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 07: 00
        +8
        You do not understand me. I myself stand on the positions of a critical attitude to reality and do not believe that the opening of socio-economic ills is alarmism. Just in this particular case, I do not agree with the argument in view of its inferiority. It’s not that the ship of the 1144 Ave cannot stand alone against one AUG, the fact is that the combined potential of the 4 ex fleets cannot do this. And the refusal to modernize Lazarev will only increase this gap.
        According to Borey, I think that more is not necessary. There are 7 units, etc. 667 BDRM Dolphin with their unsurpassed P-29, which for me always is and will be a much better alternative to a very controversial Mace. So there is something to answer. The aspect needs to be shifted to the construction of the ICL, surface fleet, and naval aviation. And so far leave the SSBN alone.
        1. Esso
          Esso April 19 2019 07: 25
          +1
          I understood perfectly. I have a complaint not to you, but to the author of the article. But I think that sores need to be opened and it is necessary to solve, and not write about them every time and go into panic. Everything is gradually building and developing, of course we are not from the USA with a huge budget and developed factories, although the United States has more other problems, but not about that now. About Project 1144, we have something to answer. The task of our armed forces is not to defeat the United States in everything, but to be a deterrent, to which the other side may be irreparably damaged, but it seems to me that they are trying to clutch at everything where to shift the aspect, perhaps you are right. May God grant that at least what is laid down is completed.
          1. Dante Alighieri
            Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 07: 47
            +7
            The task of our armed forces is not to defeat the United States in everything, but to be a deterrent on which the other side can be irreparably damaged.

            Totally agree with you.
            Roman gets good articles on socio-political issues, Donbass. But it is better to leave the ships to Andrei from Chelyabinsk, Alexander Timokhin, Oleg Kaptsov. I understand that the soul hurts and I want to speak, I want to convey the information that I received from insiders, but I do not need to add my argument to this. Let it come out briefly, but for me it is better for society to determine for itself whether this event is good or bad. And then at such a pace, you can quickly turn into a full-time rehearsal of the television media, which in the case of Roman really would not want ...
            1. Esso
              Esso April 19 2019 20: 38
              0
              Roman gets good articles on socio-political issues, Donbass. But it is better to leave the ships to Andrei from Chelyabinsk, Alexander Timokhin, Oleg Kaptsov.
              I think the administration needs to reflect on your words, I could not put it more accurately.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 19 2019 08: 28
          -4
          Quote: Dante
          The aspect needs to be shifted to the construction of the ICL, surface fleet, and naval aviation. And so far leave the SSBN alone.

          I don’t agree, the SSBN is the basis of world security, it’s better to write off Peter the Great as well, but to release Sevmash’s power on all types of nuclear submarines, the surface fleet is secondary.
          1. Dante Alighieri
            Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 08: 40
            +12
            Vladimir, how many people have written to you more literally than me, but you stubbornly do not want to accept simple things. PL is not a spherical horse in a vacuum, they are not effective without reliable air and surface cover. The history of the last Reich is an example of this. But modern means of objective control and detection are no match for the primitive that the Allies used during the Second World War. But you don’t have one sacred cow and you blindly worship it.
  6. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich April 19 2019 06: 32
    +13
    what better can demonstrate the flag of Russia, the latest destroyer with great capabilities or a huge ship of the second half of the last century?

    "Dilbar" Usmanova or "Eclipse" Romanovich fellow Here is who can demonstrate if not the flag, then the Russians are definitely abroad yes
    A grandiose country that could build and maintain a Navy, a profucan, folk wealth of the oligarchy, a people-jeans and cookies ...
    But everything is known in comparison. therefore, it remains only to look for reasons to justify one's weakness and reassure oneself that it will be better and cheaper ...
    And let the flag be shown by those who, with the money of which the yacht will be built, and not the destroyer .....
    Sadly all this .... request
    1. Ugolek
      Ugolek April 19 2019 06: 43
      +16
      If you think about the fact that the same people have been in power for 24 years, and basically no problems have been resolved either in the economy, in the housing and communal services, or in the idea of ​​developing the state, then it becomes really very sad.
  7. plotnikov561956
    plotnikov561956 April 19 2019 06: 32
    +5
    Traitors at the very top ... "Enemies of the people" ... now this phrase does not really need to be deciphered
    1. Corn
      Corn April 19 2019 13: 40
      -4
      Traitors at the very top ... "Enemies of the people" ... now this phrase does not really need to be deciphered
      in Stalin's times, even for hints of kind extremist statements, people were simply destroyed, in a later union they were simply turned into vegetables.
      And now people take the kindness of Vladimir Vladimirovich and his associates for weakness, abuse the freedom of speech by scolding the one who gave them freedom and the opportunity to live in our wonderful country
      1. Michman
        Michman April 19 2019 17: 10
        -2
        Golden words. I already wrote like that in a zealous way ...
      2. antique
        antique April 19 2019 22: 33
        +2
        Quote: Corn
        And now people take the kindness of Vladimir Vladimirovich and his associates for weakness, abuse the freedom of speech by scolding the one who gave them freedom and the opportunity to live in our wonderful country

        We are very, very glad that Vladimir Vladimirovich is infinitely kind to his people, loyal to his friends and does not give them offense, he tirelessly cares for us such crappy little people, pass him many thanks, pray on his knees for his health. May he live a hundred years and rule us for two hundred years. Lord, when Vladimir Vladimirovich nevertheless dies, appoint him also some sort of president. Forever and ever. Amen.
      3. Greenwood
        Greenwood April 20 2019 13: 53
        +2
        Quote: Corn
        scolding the one who gave them freedom and the opportunity to live in our wonderful country
        And what freedom did you give? And then, I already lived in our country when VV briefcases for Sobchak dragged in the St. Petersburg administration.
    2. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 38
      -1
      Specify surnames for example. Or one, the most responsible.
  8. goscha
    goscha April 19 2019 07: 23
    +2
    In the near future, Russia is unlikely to build ships of this rank (and in the distant one it is doubtful) Maybe it’s worth keeping what it is, enough to cut it thoughtlessly. After the Russian-Japanese war, the fleet was restored by the whole country, for a pretty penny. Maybe we will throw off the whole world, if our state is so poor ... Three "Orlans" in the ranks - which is not a reason for pride. And there is something to be proud of. There is still ...
  9. Pecheneg
    Pecheneg April 19 2019 07: 34
    0
    Russia needs a fleet. But just what? Goals and objectives correctly determine and build a fleet for these goals and objectives. Look at Russia’s Arctic, how many riches there, the future fleet of Russia should fight for it.
    1. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 41
      -2
      But do you care? !! All the same, the whole profit will be received not by the people, but by the friends of the Moon! Look, for the population of Alaska, for example, last year, more than $ 2000 came out for everyone! Maybe well, this Arctic? !!
  10. Earthshaker
    Earthshaker April 19 2019 07: 35
    -2
    But what about the main naval parade? So at least go in turns. But the author is right, it can and would make sense to keep them in the ranks if there were enough funds for them and for the ships under construction to replace them. Now is not up to fat.
  11. D16
    D16 April 19 2019 07: 38
    +3
    Two such ships in maintenance will be very expensive, and their combat value today is more than doubtful. Tomorrow - even more so.

    On the contrary. Today their value is doubtful. Tomorrow will carry out modernization, replace weapons and REV. From the old ship there will be only a hull with EU. After that, we get steamboats that influence opponents much stronger than Tirpitz and Bismarck from the Second World War. Ocean cruisers with unlimited seaworthiness and the latest armament with zircons will also dream of amers in nightmares. When we build new ships of this class is unknown, therefore, it is best to work out new weapons systems on them. It is a pity that the two buildings have decayed and cannot be restored. This means that the funds released must begin the development of ships that will replace them.
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 08: 43
      +4
      Amendment. Lazarev did not rot, they just do not want to mess with him. And yes, that's right.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 19 2019 09: 31
        +4
        No, there everything was very bad with Lazarev, and there were leaks to the hull, and at the beginning of the 2000's EMNIP he lay on the ground ...
        It was already impossible to revive Lazarev for reasonable money, alas. If you only cut out everything except the hull and build the ship in a new way, but this is irrational, it would be better to build a dozen "Gorshkovs".

        Article on the contrary should be understood - if it was possible to technically restore Ushakov and Lazarev, and to replace missiles with modern ones, this would be very good and useful, but the problem is that this is not done, time and opportunities are missed.

        Therefore, only cut, alas. Now the main thing is that they remove everything useful from them without damage that is still there in a "living" form, to serve Peter and Nakhimov for a very long time, the buildings there have a resource of 50 years more, if they are not drowned under some Tsushima, but spare parts and components for them are no longer produced.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 10: 35
          +5
          Alexander, I welcome you hi . Well, in comparison with Kirov / Ushakov, who keeps afloat exclusively at the expense of pontoons, Lazarev is not very bad. Again, repair 14-15 gg. according to the photo, concerned not only painting, but also work on the restoration of the hull. By the way, we do not really know how much the previous failures affected the condition of the corps; it may well turn out that everything was not so sad. In any case, the repair was completed and the ship was not in a hurry to visit the depths of the waters. That’s why it’s not clear to me why investing in repair an n-amount, which, given the size and complexity of the ship, was not small, so that then I could again pay comparable funds to dismantle it?
          Let's assume that repairs in 2015 cost the same amount as required for a complete dismantling of the ship, i.e. 350 million rubles (it’s hard to believe that the amount was less, our roads are more expensive), they ask for another 350 million for analysis. In total, according to the most optimistic estimates, it turns out to be 700 million rubles, or even more. How much is the cost of Nakhimov's renovation to date? According to estimates for 2012, 50 billion rubles, taking into account inflation 70-80 billion. So, can it still make sense to restore the ship's combat capability, taking into account the funds already invested in it? And the restoration technology worked out at Nokhimov should significantly reduce the cost of similar "procedures" for Lazarev and Peter, at the same time bringing their long-awaited unification with each other. Of course, as it was rightly noted above, the issue is not only about money, but also about timing ... What can you say, the level of performance discipline needs to be increased, possibly by introducing criminal punishment to contractors and subcontractors, although there is a risk that then our factories do not will take not a single order, even though you want to eat and not only bread and butter ...
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 19 2019 12: 06
            +2
            Lazarev faked just so that he no longer sinking and tint, so that he did not rot so quickly. As for Nakhimov, he was still in the best condition.
            And then for him a lot of people flew over the cap, several careers broke down because of the final assessment of this project, it is being pulled just because it was nemeryanno money, throwing late, in itself such repair is already recognized as inappropriate, the same Peter will be rebuilt.

            With Lazerov, everything would have been burdened by a much larger amount of restoration work on the hull and the NPI, and therefore decided that this was enough.

            I also feel sorry for these ships, but in this case we have to admit that there was no other way out. If Lazarev and Nakhimov were to be put in the pool at the same time, then it would have been possible, but by the middle of the tenth year the time would have been lost.

            As for Ushkov, then there was total darkness, he had not restored in principle for many years.
            1. Dante Alighieri
              Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 12: 55
              +3
              All this is sad ... Orlans, Ural, Ulyanovsk, destroyers 956 and the list goes on. But the country was building, the country needed, until the powers that be decided to warm their hands on the people's property, redrawing the borders and destroying the country, and the new Russia did not need these remnants of the Soviet legacy. You know, I'm one of those who grew up on the ruins of a great empire, but my parents taught me to say "I serve the Soviet Union!" and I received a birth certificate with a coat of arms and a hammer in a wreath of wheat. This makes me especially painful that from MY country, the one that I have never seen, there is nothing left but memories, memories of great accomplishments and great projects, of a great dream and labor feat after achieving it. And how long does memory last? Generation two at most. Those who come after us will have nothing to remember, nothing to reflect on. They didn’t find it and they won’t find it anymore.
              As for Peter, he is somewhat surprised at the refusal of his modernization, his condition is the best of all the listed units, he is the newest and most promising in terms of survival. Well, we’ll bury him to death as 1155 anti-submariners and also send him for scrapping, so what?
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 19 2019 14: 18
                0
                Peter will be modified, just by abbreviated program. It seems there is a consensus on updating the offensive missile weapons and a bit of air defense.
                While such plans were voiced.
                After Nakhimov.
              2. 1Alexey
                1Alexey April 19 2019 14: 52
                0
                Quote: Dante
                As for Peter, he is somewhat surprised at the refusal of his modernization, his condition is the best of all the listed units, he is the newest and most promising in terms of survival.

                And when and who made the decision not to modernize Peter the Great?

                He is waiting in line, after Admiral Nakhimov.
              3. Michman
                Michman April 19 2019 17: 18
                +1
                Well, the Urals is a Utopian project of the Cold War. Now it is completely unnecessary. Take my word for it. Moreover, it was originally defective. And so the impressive ship was. I saw it live, even was on it.
                1. Dante Alighieri
                  Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 19: 52
                  0
                  So what? Built after all? You probably invested money? Not for free. So I had to work out the investment. Did he work them out in the form of ferrous metal? I doubt it very much. In general, you could come up with a lot of things. Up to the autonomous heating system of distant Kamchatka villages. Rosatom is currently implementing something similar. And then, after all, people were freezing in their homes, I remember it very well, although I walked under the table.
            2. Povelitel_buri
              Povelitel_buri April 19 2019 18: 38
              +4
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Lazarev was simply faked so that he would no longer sink and tinted so that he would not rot so quickly.

              What are you talking about, there is high-alloy steel AK-25 and AK-27 with a thickness of 30-40 mm, this demolition case is not. Corrosion is not a threat to him at all. But this does not mean that you do not need to monitor the case.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              in the early 2000s, he laid down on the ground ...

              You are mistaken, it was "Kirov" that plunged into the bottom with its bulb, and then there were some peculiar reasons.
              that already messed up a lot of money

              Those. to squeeze money for 20386 (how much they are going to build there, well, huh?) they somehow do not cause fear. Three of these miracles will be quite comparable with the modernization of one Orlan. That's just not equivalent in their capabilities even close.
              And because of the cruiser-destroyer "Leader", no one else has broken their career there?
              1. Dante Alighieri
                Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 19: 27
                0
                Anton, welcome. That's how much we broke your spears last time over whether or not they can place Lazarev in the future dry dock of the Star. And you see: everyone decided for us. Expensive pounding. 5 years of life were taken from people, what is asked if they can’t bring the finished thing to mind.
                1. Povelitel_buri
                  Povelitel_buri April 19 2019 19: 49
                  +3
                  hi Rumors about Lazarev have long been bad. And it becomes even more vile on the soul from the realization that if they firmly wanted to, they could save him. The possibility of repair on the Star can once again paint wink
                  Of course, this plan is not without its weaknesses (personnel and equipment). But who can say where these weak points are not? Maybe the plan to build icebreakers "Leader" at SSK "Zvezda" has no weak points? Only here the whole point is that these "Leaders" except for "Stars" have nowhere to build at all, there is absolutely, absolutely nowhere. This means that they will carry out any events but WILL STRIVE to recruit the required number of workers (by 2024, more than 7000 people) and obtain a license for nuclear construction.
                  1. Dante Alighieri
                    Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 20: 25
                    +3
                    Yes, no desire. From the word at all. Even the frames could be found, there would be a will. But here another question arises, which has recently seriously bothered me so much, namely, why the ships have been clamoring for so long, delaying the time, dragging the descent, etc., and factories doing it that are not so bad with personnel . It is clear that part of the blame lies with subcontractors, but besides this, it seems to me that the point is trivial that the longer the ship is on the slipway, the more stable the financing. Who will consciously let go of a chicken laying golden eggs? In addition, the state has no particular choice, for who else will undertake this work. So it will not go anywhere, it will continue to pay, and the ships will continue to stand. And it’s good if the dock under any supervision of specialists, and not just rot in the coastal water, like their less fortunate comrades who are waiting for repair / modernization. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is precisely this feeling that develops from the side.

                    But if you plan ahead, then the modernization of Lazarev could begin even then, in 2015: it was trite during docking, dismantling old weapons, guidance systems, and installing temporary stubs from scratch. But what was then passed. Time is lost. Below donavi49 brought a screen from the state website. procurement that to 2021 ship must be cut. Maybe they won’t find a contractor right away, and the dock has not yet been freed from the Urals (judging by the Yandex-cards there is still a lot left), so this year Lazarev will still live, but he may think better of it. After all, these are essentially the only modern ships that have not only cyclopean size, but also quite adequate armor, which means they need to be sunk something more powerful than the Tomahawk. Can we repeat something like this today? I doubt it very much.
                    1. Povelitel_buri
                      Povelitel_buri April 19 2019 20: 35
                      0
                      Judging by this screen, it is still necessary to dismantle at least three nuclear submarines in the Far East and the deadlines are until 2021 - this is absolutely unrealizable. Lazarev will definitely live until 2021.
                      1. Dante Alighieri
                        Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 20: 46
                        0
                        We will believe and hope, and there they can finish the Star and in order to recapture part of the costs, they will nevertheless take on Lazarev. It is a pity to lose such a ship so mediocre. We have them and so on.
      2. D16
        D16 April 19 2019 17: 32
        0
        The fact that during the dock repair Lazarev’s building was whipped up and painted quickly does not mean that he did not rot. This is not at all surprising, considering how many years he stood without maintenance. I don’t remember where I came across pictures of holds. There is a fur-bearing animal in the form of rotten bulkheads through and through. Then I was still surprised at the possibility of repairing the cruiser in principle. You have to be very hardworking to fix this. laughing .
    2. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 42
      -1
      You hope that China will build these ships? Does China agree?))
  12. mixail sherbakov
    mixail sherbakov April 19 2019 07: 50
    0
    They knew how to do it before! 4 years-cruiser. Yes, what a handsome man! Yes, but of course you need to give money to pensioners
    1. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 43
      -2
      Then there was a country, although it was a prison of peoples ....
  13. parusnik
    parusnik April 19 2019 08: 00
    +2
    Foreign investment will help revive the fleet ... laughing We invite foreign specialists, workers, purchase equipment ... smile As under Peter I ... South Koreans, good shipbuilders, are quickly building, you can place a military order there ... wink
    1. boathouse
      boathouse April 19 2019 09: 35
      0
      By the way, an option.
    2. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 45
      -5
      A country that does not adhere to the signed agreements should rely only on itself! And now there are problems with this in Russia!
  14. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 19 2019 08: 23
    -4
    I fully support Roman, a balanced analysis, the time of the battleships has gone a long time, and pride is of little use in battle. We need submarines, minesweepers, MPC, coastal aviation, a small number of small frigates = patrol escort ships to escort convoys, protect fishing, demonstrate flogs, etc. If eagles are written off, then all the more it makes no sense to build superlinkor destroyers and superlinkrofrigates. The experience of operating eagles clearly shows that super surface ships are simply not needed, but are very expensive. Why a battleship with a real life of 12 years?
    1. shahor
      shahor April 19 2019 20: 31
      +1
      Quote: vladimir1155
      The experience of operating eagles clearly shows that super surface ships are simply not needed, but very expensive.

      I myself have never been a sailor — can any of the experienced pirates explain — what combat mission can Peter accomplish in a special period? He has nowhere to go, one way around the corner. But there is naval aviation with Swedish Republic of Belarus, Norwegian Kongsbergs ... But is there Russian naval aviation? Do we even know how to fly over the northern seas? I’m not talking about enemy ships ... already 300 miles from Peter's base, there are good chances of getting heels of missile hits onboard and in superstructures, swallowing sea water and losing some onboard systems. Well, to unload the cellar with ammunition. The question is, to go back to the base, if they let go, of course, or break through further, where the AUG is already eagerly fidgeting? And who can go with Peter? Kulakov? Well, probably Gorshkov, if he has time to return from the next Chinese parade. I do not understand.
  15. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 19 2019 08: 28
    +3
    Plundered. I agree, not without it, not to steal today, when billions are allocated, it is not to respect yourself. Mdaaa .. "do not steal, do not respect yourself"! The author should have said this to Pavel Artemyevich Vereshchagin! Who was offended for the state! You involuntarily begin to think: 1. Does a state "have the right" to exist in which "everyone steals"? 2. Is it worth believing in Russia's "bright future"? Or is the "character" right: "a bright future" is ...
    [Approximate estimates: the disposal of "Admiral Lazarev" will cost the country 350 million rubles, and "Kirov" - 400 million rubles. Penny ... Krasava, Author! Neither add nor subtract! And sho here to subtract, if today you read how an "ordinary" official from the Federal Air Transport Agency did not bother grabbing billion ? Obviously he "respected" himself!
    The fact that today Russia degraded so much in comparison with the Soviet Union that it demonstrates only the ability to keep afloat the forty-year ships inherited from the USSR. In general, and in short, one could say: a chicken is not a bird ... the Russian Federation is not the USSR! The desire to preserve the "Eagles" ... In this case, it is said: to preserve "imperial ambitions"! Is this correct or not? I have no "straight off" answer to this! On the one hand ...: the remaining "imperial ambitions" did not allow Russia to be "put cancer", despite all the efforts of the liberal group ... On the other hand ...: maybe "Enough, Dunya, to cry and sob! -that's not to remember! " ? And take your place ... No place for the USSR! (this place is no longer!) Also worthy (!) ... but to match yourself! A place corresponding to the potential of Russia in the "near" future, but real ... Not to be like a ruined master, with a shirt front on his naked body! Maybe then "Eagles" are not needed? What are they for? "Dominate" the Atlantic (Indian) Ocean, crossing the road to the states? Like a pug barking from a Doberman booth? Or maybe it's better to have real opportunities to declare: we don't need someone else's, but we won't give up ours either! "We will not give up" the Baltic Sea .... Black .... We will not give up the Arctic! And for this we will need atomic "Leaders" (!) ... without "Orlans"?
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 19 2019 08: 58
      +1
      PS "The movie did not work" ... YouTube failed, infection! angry
    2. antique
      antique April 19 2019 14: 09
      +4
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Let's not give up the Arctic! And for this we will need atomic "Leaders" (!) ... without "Orlans"?

      Yes, they will not build anything, Putinoids. There aren’t enough welders, the drowned drowned, the metal is exported along with coal, design schools have turned into nursing homes. High school has degraded and will continue to fall apart, fundamental science has become depopulated. People \ scientists \ flee the country. Peskov is happy, and does not see this as a problem. He and Navka are doing well.
      1. Michman
        Michman April 19 2019 17: 29
        -3
        But I’m working at a shipyard. In 3 shifts, the work is in full swing. And as for your ambitions, so what are you looking for others to blame for? Or Sobachak and your oral country will be raised to unprecedented heights for a year ???? your mouth and be glad for our wonderful president. God grant him health, longevity and at least 3 more terms for the presidency. Everything will be built, only all the Judas will be gathered in places not so remote that the authorities are pouring mud, and build everything in a bowl . ADMINISTS WHERE TO LOOK ???. WHAT THE PUBLIC IS TURNING ON, CONTINUOUS POLICY AND ANTI-STATE ADVANCE !!! liberalists have occupied.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 19: 40
          +7
          Something we do not see the results of your work in the Navy. Bad work apparently.
          At the expense of Judah-this is from your chief and you need to start, where was he when his country was partly derbanil, stood aside looking down at the floor? Or worked as an assistant for those personalities that you listed not sparing your stomach?
          And administrators do not indicate what they will do better than you understand. We got lizoblyudy, no urine. As if they would write out personal thanks. Although not surprised if so. Or the laurels of Kholmanskie do not give rest? So you try better, they may notice. I’ll only tell you a secret: it’s not necessary to do this on the Internet. Your idols do not go to the Internet and do not read, so you need a personal clown on TV, Zhirinovsky is already old, maybe you will be put in his place.
        2. antique
          antique April 19 2019 21: 06
          +4
          Quote: Michman
          And here I am working at a shipyard. In 3 shifts, work is in full swing.

          What are you boiling over there, you are a shipbuilder computer. Letters of figs. He works in three shifts. Link to you.https: //aurora.network/articles/10-vlast-i-obshhestvo/66800-kadrovye-problemy-sudostroitel-nogo-kompleksa-zvezda
          There are not enough 8000 people on the Star. Need 10000. Can you count? Only 2000 employees work. And about the Kremlin gnome, keep quiet in a rag. When Serdyuk will put a pair with Serebryannikov and close the Yeltsin’s center, then we will write about him with a capital letter. Our president. In the meantime, he is not ours. He is their president. Hired.
          1. Michman
            Michman April 20 2019 00: 17
            0
            Here I work on the STAR. So it’s not necessary. The city is upset, people are coming. Everything is going systematically. They are building 2 microdistricts. And any of your fakes your liberals are better off. Or do you know better what is here and how?
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 April 20 2019 02: 51
              +1
              Quote: Michman
              Here on the STAR I work

              What are you building there, next platforms for pumping oil and transporting gas? You can be satisfied, we got into that stream, which will serve the golden billion.
              1. Michman
                Michman April 20 2019 07: 26
                -3
                I’m a military ex, and you write to me like that. Ugh. He’s satisfied, get out of the country. Why engage in lasciviousness? Toad and envy strangles you and everything. YOU ALREADY ALL !!! YOU ALL ALL PUBLICATIONS REDUCING ONE AND ONE SAME! !! yes now the most golden time is coming. live in dignity in a worthy country. and if you were at the helm, you would also steal. I don’t count other people's money. Thank God I have enough. But you can’t sleep, apparently, calmly, who how many stole there ....
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 April 20 2019 07: 34
                  +3
                  Quote: Michman
                  ge arranges, get out of the country. why engage in felony?

                  This is my country, and I'm not going to bring down anything.
                  Quote: Michman
                  toad and envy strangles you and that's it.

                  Or maybe a sense of justice?
                  Quote: Michman
                  .a if you were at the helm, you would also steal

                  I don’t need a couple of gold toilets in the house, because I have one ass.
                  Quote: Michman
                  here you can’t sleep apparently apparently calmly, whoever stole there.

                  Here you are right, I can’t. Enrage all these grabbers.
                  1. Michman
                    Michman April 20 2019 07: 42
                    +1
                    Then do not poke the buttons, but start acting. Even if at the level of local authorities, then become a deputy, regional, regional, federal, and there we may choose you as president. For centuries, experiments have been carried out on us, only recovered from the collapse of the Soviet empire, as like you, everything is bad again, power is not the same again .... forgot the 90s, how long has it been, or look what is happening in Ukraine. yes, a change of power will bring us all to the bottom again. is it really not clear? new the broom will begin in a new revenge. what does not suit you ???
                    1. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 April 20 2019 07: 55
                      0
                      Quote: Michman
                      and start acting. even if at the level of local government, then become a deputy, district, regional, federal

                      Filter out already at the initial level.
                      Quote: Michman
                      forgot 90

                      And 80 I remember, do not worry for my memory.
                      Quote: Michman
                      look what is happening in UKRAINE. yes the change of power will bring us all to the bottom again. is it really not clear? the new broom will start in a new revenge. what doesn’t suit you ???

                      Capitalism does not suit me, in a word. Lack of jobs in the country. And do not about the Star. There you have a contest. They’ll take one of the eight, and where the rest?
                      1. Michman
                        Michman April 20 2019 08: 23
                        +1
                        I’m taking sensible ones and taking resumes. After the service I decided to stay here. I’m from Smolensk region myself.
                      2. Michman
                        Michman April 20 2019 08: 23
                        +1
                        Come and you. How can I even help.
                      3. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 April 20 2019 08: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Michman
                        Come and you. How can I even help.

                        Yeah, with experience from laying bricks and digging ditches, to a car mechanic, puncher, milling machine operator, and God knows what else, including all sorts of nonsense, such as writing advertising articles. I’d better go to the Chinese to work, that we have opened a car factory here, although it’s disgusting to me, but I don’t have the strength to watch how our rulers scored on everything except oil and gas.
                      4. Michman
                        Michman April 20 2019 10: 52
                        0
                        And right now we need a milling machine operator.
                      5. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 April 20 2019 10: 57
                        +1
                        Quote: Michman
                        And right now we need a milling machine operator.

                        Yeah, but I don't have any category in this kind of "sport". And experience with gulkin's nose. So in the competition I will take the honorable last place.
                      6. Michman
                        Michman April 20 2019 11: 00
                        0
                        Just today the question arose: we are all fitters installers. The first workshop came and asked: “who worked on the milling machine? As a result, no one. As a result, he said that he would appoint, the local will train and have his own milling machine for the needs of the workshop. And installers are needed.
                      7. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 April 20 2019 11: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Michman
                        will appoint local trainers and will have their own milling machine for the needs of the workshop.

                        And you need to do something more complicated than usual, so again they will call the local Vasya. All of this is familiar. Then a friend of one friend worked at TOZ. More precisely, he worked 3 a month in a year, and the rest of the time he was at home on a salary, so that he would not disappear anywhere. A specialist of the highest category, I don’t remember, as he was called in German. Idiocy. My neighbor, a designer of cartridge factories, a student of Koshkin, threw skates back that year, living in retirement at 5 thousand rubles. Nobody needed it after disability was earned.
                      8. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 April 20 2019 08: 50
                        0
                        By the way, I noticed that the number of people rummaging through the trash has increased. A couple of days ago I was going home, along the 4 path there were trash, and they all dug. If in one of them there were obvious homeless people (also people), then in 3 of others there were quite neat retirement grandmothers.
                    2. antique
                      antique April 20 2019 08: 30
                      +4
                      Quote: Michman
                      Then do not poke the buttons, but start acting. Even if at the level of local authorities, then become a deputy, district, regional, federal, and there you can choose the president.

                      Not mine. Quote: "Zakhar Prilepin in one of his speeches quite aptly criticized this phenomenon:" Do you want the world to change? Begin with yourself. Do you want the country to change? Begin with yourself. Do you want the power to change? Begin with yourself. Let's continue this ridiculous list. Do you want sex? Begin with yourself. Do you want to punish the villain? Begin with yourself. Do you want to eat? Begin with yourself.

                      You know, no, I will eat bread, love my wife, and if I need to punish the villain, I will start with him, not myself. Because if I start with myself, he will run far. What can I do with myself so that ships do not sink and planes do not fall? I am specifically me, the physical body and spirit, which no one has seen in the eyes. The state around me is far from just me, and oddly enough, its existence does not in the least depend on how often I go to confession. "

                      "Start with yourself" is a reflex that manifests itself in a cancer-affected society in response to any attempt to change something, in response to any desire for vital changes. It is easy to guess that such moods are beneficial to the authorities, but the worst thing is that they completely suit the so-called common people. And the symbiosis of regressive forces (power, chauvinists, pseudo-liberal intellectuals and non-thinking masses) is a formidable weapon against any hypostases of dissent.https: //vk.com/@konceptologia-razoblachenie-koncepcii-nachni-s-sebya
          2. Michman
            Michman April 20 2019 00: 21
            -1
            Serebrennikov and others, I agree. Yeltsin, too. I will be happy to follow the news when he burns. As for our president, it is better that he was gone and there is no need to write heresy. I don’t need laurels. Thank God everyone has everything satisfied. and you fool crying ...
          3. Michman
            Michman April 20 2019 00: 24
            -1
            Yes, and still ....- they don’t just take a star for a star, they only take qualified personnel, and they provide housing. And you haven’t dreamed about. They’re coming from all over Russia.
            1. antique
              antique April 20 2019 21: 33
              0
              Quote: Michman
              Yes, and still ....- they don’t just take a star for a star, they only take qualified personnel, and they provide housing. And you haven’t dreamed about. They’re coming from all over Russia.

              Why, out of 10000 required 'personnel, "8000 are not enough? 2000 in total have arrived" from all over Russia. "All your letters are very similar to the Kremlin propaganda campaigns. Here just now in another thread, a figure who wrote in a very similar style, glorifying voluptuous power, as a result issued that he is from the Donbass fighting there, a Soviet officer. I probably wrote from the trench. I forgot to indicate my age. Do you seem to use new technologies there? To mimic a warrior, and beat my chest with a heel. I am from Smolensk region ... daughter of an officer ... I am a Soviet officer from Donetsk ...
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. antique
                  antique April 21 2019 08: 47
                  -1
                  Quote: Michman
                  What are you talking about? I’m just writing my opinion, it’s about 36 years old, it’s two, I’m three midshipmen of the reserve, I’m three, I live in the Far East, four, now I work at CCK STAR as a fitter, it’s five ... ..yes I was born and raised in the Smolensk region-six. I’m nowhere at war-seven. what are you writing nonsense here?

                  You do not get excited, read carefully. There are several of you. Each has its own version. One midshipman, another Soviet officer, and so on. I wrote it right, did not forget to lick the dear "Vladimir Vladimirovich", there is work and earnings too. We must thank him for the fact that: "... They are coming from all over Russia." There is work in Moscow and at Zvezda. There is no work in the Smolensk region. So I had to leave. Is that so? Thank you again, Vladimir Vladimirovich.
                  I always write the truth. For some, 2000 people. a lot, and the work is "in full swing", and does not want to understand that there are not enough 8000 people. And everyone knows about this except the midshipman.
                  If the midshipman is a liberal, like Putin, by the way, we are enemies.
                  1. Michman
                    Michman April 21 2019 14: 23
                    0
                    I served at the Pacific Fleet. Here it remained. 10 thousand is in the foreseeable future. The plant is only being built. What are you talking about.
            2. Bambusho
              Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 50
              -2
              Do not spread tales here
              1. Michman
                Michman April 21 2019 05: 31
                +1
                Are you all right with your head? I live here, work, write what I know and what I am sure of, but you are telling me the opposite.
      2. Bambusho
        Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 48
        -2
        And who is responsible for all this? Isn't that the one who built the power vertical on 20/1 of the land for 7 years?
        Or again Ukrainians, Obama and reptilians from the planet Nibiru are to blame? !!
  16. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 19 2019 08: 30
    -7
    Quote: Dante
    Cover yourself with a blanket and wait for the inevitable end?

    no, it’s better to hide under the water, and arrange the inevitable end to the adversary with missiles and torpedoes
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 19 2019 09: 35
      +9
      YES, do not hide you under water, forget, now the same evolutionary phase is going on in the underfloat, that in aviation with the mass introduction of the air defense system with radar, that is, the secrecy factor in the usual sense is gone, you need a transition to a new stage of development of the sub-alloy, but nobody does.
      I have already explained this to you.
      Without all types of support, submarines will survive even less than surface ships, Vysotsky still in 2013, gave all our submarines to SF NNXX hours before drowning.
      Calm down, Vladimir, it's not what you think, but exactly the opposite.
      1. Bambusho
        Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 51
        -4
        Cartoons from propagandists kisselTV seen enough?
  17. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 19 2019 08: 30
    -2
    Quote: Tlauicol
    "It is better to spend money on the construction of several Boreis. Obviously, there will be more benefits."

    perhaps. this and Kuznetsova, unfortunately, concerns

    all right
  18. boathouse
    boathouse April 19 2019 09: 27
    -3
    The states have already started to write off Ticonderogi. Why do we need to restore, in fact, scrap metal? We need to build modern ships from scratch.
  19. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx April 19 2019 09: 39
    +1
    No matter how sadly I am aware, I agree with the author.
    Here is the opinion of Andrei Nikolaevich from Chelyabinsk to find out about this)
  20. Galleon
    Galleon April 19 2019 09: 50
    +2
    I looked at the photo and remembered: yo-yo-yo, he also has a "Gurzuf" Reb station, almost 50 years old! I taught it in the 80s, it was already outdated, like a mammoth fossil. In those bands, the Americans have not worked for a long time. On the contrary, he does not have active protection against ... he does not, as well as ... keep quiet (!!)
    Not "I will say for the whole Odessa", but according to electronic warfare - the ship was not created for modern combat. Some things (plural) now he will not even find.
    Well, and how to put a thousand sailors into the sea on a shot?
    1. SETSET
      SETSET April 19 2019 10: 17
      +2
      Galleon, do not exaggerate!
      Quote: Galleon
      Well, and how to put a thousand sailors into the sea on a shot?

      Ships must go through modernization. Do you not know this as a sailor?
      1. Galleon
        Galleon April 19 2019 10: 42
        +5
        Of course we know. It is also known that for such a class of ships of the electronic warfare systems, we still have plenty to choose from ... do you understand me? request sad
    2. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 53
      -2
      According to the stools, women still give birth! The main thing is not to lose control over kisselTV!
  21. Meliodous
    Meliodous April 19 2019 10: 13
    +1
    Another story that 1144 will be cut. From the moment of putting on Nakhimov’s modernization, this idea has been steadily flooded to us every six months. And now, finally, everything, exactly everything, right after all finally. Is it really so? And who knows ... Then when these ships begin to be cut, then it will be safe to say - yes! In the meantime, this is another suction of the worn-out plate. So wait, sir
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 April 19 2019 10: 21
      +6
      True - for already on public procurement.
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri April 19 2019 10: 41
        +3
        Yes, yours .... Sad news, sad. Although before 2021 there is time to think again. I think this year nothing will start for Lazarev: in the only dock in the Far East capable of accepting it for the second year, the Urals are being finished, and judging by the cards there is still much left of it.
      2. Corn
        Corn April 19 2019 11: 08
        0
        Why does the disposal of warships cost SUCH a lot of money, if processing plants pay extra for old civilian ships ?! Cutting out the reactor and taking the container of radioactive waste to the polycon is clearly not worth it.
      3. Michman
        Michman April 19 2019 17: 38
        0
        For BDRs, this is nonsense. In the near future they will not be cut. They simply have no place to dispose of them.
      4. Meliodous
        Meliodous April 20 2019 10: 39
        0
        What is in state purchases is good. It's just that this topic has already been so overwhelmed by the brains that you don't even know what will end up drinking - ships or these dedicated grandmothers. Or, next year, they will loudly declare that the opinion of the management has once again turned 180 degrees. and they won't cut anything. That's why I say that the article is bullshit. That's when the photo "Lazarev is being towed for cutting", then it will be possible to discuss the essence of the issue. In the meantime, everything goes as usual, nothing new.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri April 20 2019 15: 59
          0
          Then it will be too late to discuss anything, to do something. The body must be saved while it is still breathing and showing signs of life. The dead are either good or nothing but the truth. Do not like the topic - do not read, do not participate in the discussion, no one captives you and does not force you. This is a free country. Every d ... t as he wants, I d ... u as I want.
  22. Lannan Shi
    Lannan Shi April 19 2019 10: 46
    +2
    Real money appeared only in the 2011-2020 state arms program.

    I remember we built one gas pipeline. Dzhugba - Sochi. And it cost 1.1 yards, with a length of 170 km. Or 6.5 million per 1 km. A couple of years earlier, a similar one was built between Nigeria and Togo. And he cost 1 yard. With a length of 600 km. Or 1.7 million per km. The difference in the price of construction is 4.8 million per km. Or simply put, the excess of world average prices is $ 800 million. That can shake from the arkashenka vrotenberg, who was in charge of construction, these 800 million. Plus a quarter of a yard of percent that have run over 25 years. And enough for the repair, and for the modernization will remain. Not? No way? A sparing partner, and in general, a walking wallet of the one you need? No way to touch? Yes?
    1. Corn
      Corn April 19 2019 11: 02
      -3
      What world average prices are you trying to soar to the average man, squandering a boat of stability, if Russia has a natural paid economy. State corporations have a common budget and therefore prices do not matter.
      1. Lannan Shi
        Lannan Shi April 19 2019 11: 13
        +6
        Quote: Corn
        floating boat stability

        Lounging laughing I am not a boat, but a yacht, and not stability but a Vorotenberg. However ... To develop this, the Vrotenberg

        the chances are only a little more than a 100 kiloton tanker.
        Quote: Corn
        State corporations have a common budget

        Stroygazmontazh, owned by Arkashenka, and having raped the country only on 1 gas pipeline almost a yard, is a purely private office. The profits of which are enough not only for the repair of two cruisers, but also for the construction of a nuclear aircraft carrier.
    2. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 55
      -3
      You can still remember the road that cost 1.5 million per meter
      1. Lannan Shi
        Lannan Shi April 21 2019 08: 24
        +1
        Quote: Bambusho
        You can still remember the road that cost 1.5 million per meter

        Well, actually building roads in the mountains is really not cheap. Fact. I do not presume to judge how much it can really cost, everything depends on the terrain. But from personal experience.
        Overhaul of four strips - 20.000 per linear meter. It includes - removing the old coating, concreting, laying a new one, dumping roadsides with gravel, leveling and strengthening slopes, cutting down bushes and young trees that have gone beyond the forest belt, replacing signs, arranging stops, marking out. That's for all this 20 thousand road workers get. But the installation of a barrier fence, often not even a profile, but just a cable, and this is a separate tender .... 14 thousand per meter. 140 rubles per centimeter of iron rope. Something like this....
  23. Corn
    Corn April 19 2019 10: 49
    -7
    Finally a sober look at what is happening with our fleet.
    While our country will continue to spend crazy amounts on maintaining the existence of masterpieces of gloomy teutonic Soviet genius, there can be no talk of any updating with modern technology.
    It is better to let the money to build several "Boreev". Obviously there will be more benefits.
    you won’t be full of boreas alone, with strategists with us, and so everything is pretty good. But a dozen or two frigates of the same 22350 would clearly not hurt instead of the atomic prodigy.
  24. bandabas
    bandabas April 19 2019 11: 04
    +5
    Let's not think. If in the richest country in the world the majority of the population lives starving ... Well, from advance to salary. This is not good. But we have Ren-TV with Igor Prokopenko request
    1. Corn
      Corn April 19 2019 12: 01
      -2
      Russia is a country of opportunity.
      People like RenTV with Prokopenko, what's wrong with that?
      Who wants to - he makes good money. If many of our citizens put spiritual values ​​in the first place, and material wealth is not relevant - this is their choice, and you have no right to condemn anyone.
      1. Michman
        Michman April 19 2019 17: 42
        0
        Here is someone who wants to, who normally earns money, enough to put their children aside.
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 April 20 2019 15: 32
      +2
      I have not seen a single person starving. There are many poor, but not hungry.
      1. Bambusho
        Bambusho April 20 2019 22: 58
        -3
        Here, in a country where valyachie is measured not by the standard of living of the population, but by the amount of scrap metal delivered from the scoop .....
  25. Per se.
    Per se. April 19 2019 11: 11
    +10
    It is better to let the money to build several "Boreev". Obviously there will be more benefits.
    Will there be a big question. Breaking is not building, in general, normal people first finish building a new house, and only after that they break the old one. It is different with us, we cut ships, having nothing in exchange, especially for 1 rank. The Orlans' hull is unique, with a large margin of safety, made of excellent steel, even for this alone it would be worth thinking about how to preserve and use the hull of the Lazarev or Kirov, for example, for a multipurpose helicopter carrier-aircraft carrier. There are many examples of such alterations in history that were used during the Second World War. We have hundreds of billions of money flowing out of Russia, here it just touches this economy of the people's penny on defense. Let the oligarchs save money, otherwise people like Melnichenko buy yachts for 400 million euros and "show the flag" of their steepness, and our fleet should rejoice at the Rooks.
    1. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 23: 01
      -5
      If even the Soviet empire could not master a full-fledged aircraft carrier, then what can we say about degrading Russia, which even frigates without Ukrainian turbines cannot master!
  26. san4es
    san4es April 19 2019 11: 15
    +7
    ... "Kuibyshev" (since 1992 - "Peter the Great"), entered service in 1998.

    ... He was originally "Andropov" soldier
    1. Forever so
      Forever so April 19 2019 14: 24
      -3
      To immortalize the name of the freak who prepared the bourgeois coup that destroyed the USSR with dignity. If drunk centers open, then Christ himself ordered.
      1. Michman
        Michman April 19 2019 17: 44
        +1
        Grow up to the level of a hundredth, as you put it "freak", and then you can cook ....
      2. Bambusho
        Bambusho April 20 2019 23: 03
        -2
        And who opened the drunk center? Incidentally not a great multi-guide?
  27. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer April 19 2019 12: 09
    +4
    I agree with the author - sometimes building a new one is faster and cheaper than restoring the old one.

    However, how to disassemble and pay 350 ml per piece - isn’t it better to make ships naval museums afloat? Having invested about the same amount, leaving the descendants pride in the fleet and for some, service in the Navy will become the meaning of serving the Motherland.

    While in China, specially with friends I went to Tianjin to visit TAVKR Kiev





    And now the aircraft-carrying cruiser is admired for its design solutions, huge size and power.
    The Chinese turned it into an attraction, but they did it with due respect and actually saved the ship from destruction.
    It is a pity that only local and rare tourists can see it.
    Our children also need such examples for education.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer April 19 2019 12: 12
      +5
      TAVKR Kiev in Tianjin


      art cellar 76 mm

      hangar deck (made assembly hall)

      on the hangar deck (layout)

      layout J-10 in the coloring of the Navy PLA on the deck lift TAVKR KIEV

      We need our Navy museums for patriotic education!
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri April 19 2019 16: 36
        +1
        Museum - that would be right, yes. At least one of the buildings.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 19 2019 15: 27
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Isn't it better to make ships naval museums afloat?

      No. It’s atomic, don’t forget.
    3. Povelitel_buri
      Povelitel_buri April 19 2019 18: 45
      +3
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      sometimes building a new one is faster and cheaper than rebuilding an old one.

      Are you seriously? Who is being built faster with us? One corvette with a VI of 2200 tons in 6-7 years or a modernization of a cruiser with a VI of 25000 tons in 7 years?
      1. Bambusho
        Bambusho April 20 2019 23: 05
        -3
        You do not confuse redecorating with modernization!
        1. Povelitel_buri
          Povelitel_buri April 21 2019 02: 05
          +1
          This is where you saw the redecoration? And why did they decide that I was confusing something?
  28. Nfl1.6
    Nfl1.6 April 19 2019 12: 56
    +4
    Good day to all. What I will write now is thoughts of an amateur out loud ..
    Cutting these ships is considered a crime.
    1) we can’t do it now.
    2) they can be used properly.
    Everyone says that we need an aircraft carrier .. so here's the solution - take two hulls, connect a jumper, on top of the flight deck + everything that is supposed to be avik with ramps. The right half is takeoff, the left one is landing .. A huge area and long starting strips, almost like two "Cousins", with a useful load is also a benefit.
    And to cut .. that breaking does not build.
    Now tear)
  29. ser56
    ser56 April 19 2019 13: 03
    -1
    Eagles were originally a waste of money - it would be better to build a few 1164 ... hi
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 19 2019 14: 33
      +5
      Quote: ser56
      Eagles were originally a waste of money - it would be better to build a few 1164 ...

      The 1164 has one drawback - only one "three hundred" radar, which works "electronically" only in the 90-degree sector (with a mechanical sector rotation: if you want to look at the stern, you will not see from the traverse) and does not see the bow control units at all due to the superstructure.
      1. ser56
        ser56 April 19 2019 16: 38
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        1164 has one drawback

        if they were building a large series (10-12 pcs), then m. fixed ... in any case, 2 Atlanta is better than 1 Orlan, both in a salvo of anti-ship missiles and in air defense ...
        1. scorpio
          scorpio April 19 2019 18: 22
          +2
          Only the "Eagles" did not use up the resource for half a term, but drove 1164. And the comparison on steel is not in favor of the "Atlants", their resource is 40-45 years in the hull, against 50-60 for the "Orlans". ABOUT POISON and the quantity and range in a volley after modernization, I think and say too much.
          1. ser56
            ser56 April 20 2019 15: 29
            0
            Quote: scorpio
            ABOUT POISON

            a nuclear installation on a surface ship is generally a controversial thing, except perhaps AB ... request
            Americans tried - refused - expensive, but no - we always get the bumps ourselves ...
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 19 2019 16: 44
        +1
        Well, this could have been solved during serial production, AFAR for ships in the USSR was completely mastered, and it was possible and necessary to design a new complex for 1164.
        Like it or not, and in 1144 there were just insane money. Unjustified.
        1. ser56
          ser56 April 20 2019 15: 30
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Like it or not, and in 1144 there were just insane money. Unjustified.

          exactly! and again they created 2 RRC projects - 1164/1144 - why ... orders / prizes? request
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 20 2019 18: 03
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Well, this could have been solved during serial production, AFAR for ships in the USSR was completely mastered, and it was possible and necessary to design a new complex for 1164.

          EMNIP, our fleet initially wanted its AN / SPY-1, and with the ability to target missiles. That is, four canvases of the PAR on the superstructure - and no "mugs" or "boobs" for you. But in the course of R&D, problems got out with work when swinging and transferring a target from one antenna to another - and I had to put a "boob" with electronic scanning of the sector and mechanical rotation of the sector.
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri April 19 2019 16: 35
      0
      Quite right. An attempt to "cram the unpushable" into 15000 tons of displacement led to its growth to 25000 ...
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 19 2019 21: 22
      +1
      and even better 1135, I say seriously, the century of large ships left in 1905, about which the great Admiral Makarov also wrote
      1. ser56
        ser56 April 20 2019 15: 31
        -1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        about which the great Admiral Makarov also wrote

        His writings were brilliantly refuted by the RJAV, 1MV and 2MV ... request By the way, how big is it, except for the icebreaker and other studies? As a naval commander, he had only defeats ... request
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 20 2019 18: 05
        0
        Quote: vladimir1155
        the century of large ships left in 1905, about which the great Admiral Makarov also wrote

        Admiral Makarov just developed the ideas of Jeune École. Refuted during all real wars at sea.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 20 2019 22: 57
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Disproved during all real wars

          just confirmed by all wars from Tsushima to the inglorious death of German, English and Japanese super battleships and the rejection of the very idea of ​​a super ship by all countries of the world except the USSR.
  30. Selevc
    Selevc April 19 2019 13: 04
    -1
    Any large surface combat ship (BC) has one not immediately obvious but really a huge minus !!! Disabling it during a combat operation or even serious damage (breakdown) means disrupting the entire operation !!! Naturally, any opponent will do just that in the first place !!!
    Compare the two tactical groups of BC:
    Group 1 - 1-2 large heavy heavy submarines (TARK, BDK class or aircraft carrier - in principle, it doesn’t matter) and several medium-sized frigate or light missile cruiser units ... The vulnerability of this compound is extremely high since there are large targets for damage or destruction which is a guarantee of the failure of the entire connection !!!
    2nd group - 5-10 medium units of the frigate class or light missile cruiser. - the survivability of this compound is much higher since the withdrawal of several units does not mean disruption of the operation or destruction of the command of the group !!!

    What I wrote is not new under the Moon, and has long been known to all the General Staffs of the developed maritime powers !!! And does it make sense to add that a large surface-based ammunition tank at the current level of development of missile weapons is just a major goal that is easier to hit ??? !!!
    1. 1Alexey
      1Alexey April 19 2019 15: 13
      0
      5-10 medium units of the class frigate or light missile cruiser (ocean zone) will cost more and take longer to build than 1-2 TARK. Not to mention how much money they will burn on fuel + additional vulnerability in the form of tankers + tankers, in turn, will also burn fuel for their turn (and these tankers also need to be built).

      According to the BDK, the comparison is generally not acceptable - they are designed for another and their frigates and light cruisers, in principle, cannot be replaced.

      The same applies to the AVs, their current main purpose is to support ground operations away from their shores (such as Venezuela), frigates and light cruisers cannot provide adequate support to the ground forces.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc April 19 2019 16: 19
        0
        5-10 medium units of the class frigate or light missile cruiser (ocean zone) will cost more and take longer to build than 1-2 TARK. Not to mention how much money they will burn on fuel + additional vulnerability in the form of tankers + tankers, in turn, will also burn fuel for their turn (and these tankers also need to be built).
        Do you yourself understand what nonsense you are talking about ??? What does it mean more expensive ??? And the fact that these large floating troughs can arrange on the sea - only Tsushima No. 2 and nothing else - does this bother you ???
        And the fact that Russia has more than once built a fleet — that is, a fleet of armadillos, then a fleet of battleships, then the USSR built TAVKRs after WWII — don’t you see what this leads to ??? There is no sense in the combat fleet - there is not really much, not much - but there is a revolution of 2 and a revolution of 1917 !!! And there is only a lot of rusty unsuitable scrap metal !!!
        What is the difference how much fuel costs ??? It costs the British even more since they don’t have such resources as Russia - and nevertheless they build a lot of frigate and corvette class BCs, but for some reason they don’t build TAVKRs !!!
        1. 1Alexey
          1Alexey April 19 2019 16: 26
          0
          Quote: Selevc
          And the fact that these large floating troughs can arrange on the sea - only Tsushima No. 2 and nothing else - does this bother you ???

          It is only in your imagination. These ships, armed with Zircons and S-500, will not let anyone near them.

          Not to mention the fact that a strong rival (such as the United States) will never attack them, because this will mean the beginning of the 3rd World War.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 19 2019 21: 27
            0
            Quote: 1Alexey
            a strong opponent (such as the United States) will never attack them, because this will mean the beginning of the 3rd World War.

            Well, if you don’t attack, then you don’t need a fleet at all, just like the army too? there are missiles ..... of course the main thing is strategic nuclear forces, but other types of weapons are needed, but not superlinkers, of course, and not super destroyers or super frigates, ships should be reasonably not large frigates are optimal for the ocean and IPC, RTOs for the sea
      2. Corn
        Corn April 19 2019 16: 30
        +1
        5-10 medium units of the class frigate or light missile cruiser (ocean zone) will cost more and take longer to build than 1-2 TARK.
        it's not so simple. Small (compared) ships are not only much easier to build and a lot more shipbuilders will come into competition with cooperation, but also a series and streaming production significantly reduce the cost of research and development and the establishment of this production itself. All this directly affects the cost.
        But even if the price is slightly higher, their combat value is simply not comparable, instead of a unitary prodigy with a dubious combat value, the fleet could receive a solid instrument for controlling the regional sea space for the same money.
        A nuclear power plant is a feature with its remarkable advantages and no less significant shortcomings, which limit their use in the fleet (icebreakers, ticonderogs, aircraft carriers, eagles - three dozen ships all over the planet).
        1. 1Alexey
          1Alexey April 19 2019 16: 39
          +3
          You do not take into account that small ships cannot be ships of the "ocean" zone.

          We will not be able to send small ships where we can send ships of the "ocean" zone (for example, to the shores of the same Venezuela). And this is not to mention the cost of the fuel burned (after all, they would not have been from the nuclear power plant) and the cost of tankers, because they also need to be built.

          Now Admiral Gorshkov set sail, so a tanker goes next to him. How much money will they burn fuel together?
          Not to mention the fact that the tanker is an additional vulnerability, the tanker was sunk and the ship was stuck in the sea (not the fact that they would let him refuel in the nearest port).
          1. Corn
            Corn April 19 2019 16: 54
            +1
            I meant "small" in comparison with the described super-ships. And so, frigates are ships of the ocean zone.

            We will not be able to send small ships where we can send ships of the "ocean" zone (for example, to the shores of the same Venezuela
            Yes, no problem, the autonomous voyage of the same Gorshkov is over 4500 miles, that's enough for the eyes.
            Now Admiral Gorshkov set sail, so a tanker goes next to him
            of course it’s coming, and probably not even with one, but along the way, probably some other supply carrier will take it to the convoy under the protection of the Syrian express. And this is normal. The frigate carries a really useful service here and now, and does not stand idle at the pier for decades waiting for an order that he cannot fulfill.
            1. 1Alexey
              1Alexey April 19 2019 17: 03
              +3
              Admiral Gorshkov is a ship of the "far sea" zone, not the "ocean" one. It's not about autonomy, but about seaworthiness.

              Here is the 22350M project - it will probably be an "ocean" zone.

              Of course it’s coming, and probably not even with one


              I'm talking about the money that he and the tanker will burn.
              And the cost of the tanker must be added to the cost of its construction.

              You started talking about the cost.
              1. Corn
                Corn April 19 2019 18: 35
                -3
                Tell seafarers to fishermen who literally live in the ocean on their vessels of modest displacement.
                22350M - this is the eternal desire of naval commanders to shove someone who needs it without a clear explanation, without a clear explanation, except for puffing out their cheeks about "has no analogues in the world."
                And the cost of the tanker must be added to the cost of its construction.
                but as you do not understand, the whole world has not just abandoned nuclear warheads on all ships where it is possible. First, the tankers go together with the squadron, and not one at a time on a ship. Secondly, these tankers are still needed, even in the worst imagination it is impossible to transfer the entire fleet to nuclear energy, it is dangerous, insanely expensive, minimizing the number of foreign ports that such vessels can accept.
                1. 1Alexey
                  1Alexey April 19 2019 19: 16
                  +3
                  You can communicate even with fishermen, even with divers, but from this Admiral Gorshkov will not cease to be a ship of only a "distant sea zone" and not an "ocean" one.

                  The fishermen then go to sea due to the weather and this is their own business (hunting to take risks - let them take risks), and the ship of the ocean zone should be able to serve in the open ocean in any weather (Admiral Gorshkov is not designed for this).

                  Nobody refused from YaSU, the Americans didn’t put on their cruisers and ABach.

                  As a rule, more than one tanker has to be put on a ship squadron, and with one frigate (such as Admiral Gorshkov) you have to send your tanker.

                  As for foreign ports, "Peter the Great" visited where it was required.

                  As for the cost of nuclear facilities, the construction is more expensive, but the operation is cheaper.
                  1. ser56
                    ser56 April 20 2019 15: 36
                    0
                    Quote: 1Alexey
                    then construction is more expensive, but operation is cheaper.

                    Seriously? taking into account dosimetry, fuel processing and waste disposal, incl. reactor? bully
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 20 2019 23: 16
                0
                about seaworthiness, ask Fyodor Konyukhov you are afraid of mine! It’s good that the other soldiers
                Completely different guys.
                They can stand on guard for a day ...
                Sail on a boat in the stormy sea ...
                Any target will hit
                And they never let you down.

                Everyone, like him, would be spoiled.
                To be conquered by us long ago.
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 19 2019 21: 29
            0
            Quote: 1Alexey
            the tanker was sunk and the ship was stuck in the sea (not the fact that they would let him refuel in the nearest port).

            they’ll rather sink the frigate itself, and then they will take up the tanker
    2. scorpio
      scorpio April 19 2019 18: 37
      0
      My dear, and you are familiar with the timing of the construction of new warships. And the cost. In ten years and a lard and a half of greens you will receive 2.5 frigates, which are now already weak for the fleet. Hence the dancing around 22350M. Enough already spherokonins. There is real power of the ship industry. And there is no alternative to the repair and modernization of everything that has the prospect of working for another 15-25 years. "Orlans" are in this category in the first place.
    3. Bambusho
      Bambusho April 20 2019 23: 08
      -2
      Hmm, but the Americans will not agree with you, like the Chinese!
  31. Selevc
    Selevc April 19 2019 13: 13
    -4
    Russia has always been a specific country - the Land of Power and grew lands exclusively neighboring and bordering !!! Therefore, Russia's powerful ocean fleet is always secondary, important but not vital, such as a powerful ground army !!! Stupid Tsar Nikolai the 2nd did not understand this and gave his country to be drawn into the world Dreadnought race !!! And in the end it turned out that by the beginning of the 1st World War - Russia swelled up enormous funds for the construction of huge battleships and the infantry lacked rifles, did not have enough machine guns, for every 3 volleys of German artillery, the Russian answered only one !!! Conclusion - World War I is an example of global mediocre planning of the country's top leadership and the 1 revolution is a natural finish and result for tsarist Russia !!!
    It was still necessary to manage - a country with huge industrial, human, scientific and resource potential is so stupid and inept to squander everything !!!
    So is it worth it to step on the old rake at the next round of Russian history ??? ???
    1. 1Alexey
      1Alexey April 19 2019 15: 19
      -11
      St. Tsar Nicholas II - was a brilliant and most devoted ruler of the country!

      If he remained to rule, the country would flourish!
      1. Selevc
        Selevc April 19 2019 16: 10
        +10
        St. Tsar Nicholas II - was a brilliant and most devoted ruler of the country!
        Well, well, his abdication from the throne at the height of the World War was especially brilliant !!! Incidentally, this led to the collapse of his country, famine, devastation, waves of emigration, the deaths of millions of Russians during the civil war and almost led to the collapse of Russia during the intervention !!! Kings, kings and shahs are chopped off and for lesser sins !!!

        Nikolai the 2nd is an insignificant little man - a woman's saint and a peacock in stripes at the helm of a great empire - we disentangle the results of his reign to this day !!!

        AND STOP CALLING THE SAINER OF THE TRADER !!!
        1. 1Alexey
          1Alexey April 19 2019 16: 15
          -10
          A traitor and insignificance are you and people like you!

          And Tsar Nicholas II is a holy and great man !!!
          1. ser56
            ser56 April 20 2019 15: 40
            +1
            Quote: 1Alexey
            Tsar Nicholas II - a holy and great man !!!

            saint, because a martyr ... but before the great, he didn’t have the will to stay and if necessary die the emperor, like Paul ...
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 20 2019 23: 20
          -1
          Quote: Selevc
          his abdication from the throne at the height of the World War was especially brilliant

          let not you climb with the abdication, there was none, the masons of the military box Ruzsky and Alekseev just meanly arrested the tsar and falsified the signature under the abdication, and rudely, plainly didn’t even bother to make it even look like, read it if you don’t know
        3. Qiman Kyrivo
          Qiman Kyrivo April 27 2019 11: 16
          0
          I fully support you!
      2. Bambusho
        Bambusho April 20 2019 23: 09
        0
        If yes, what for babble?
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 19 2019 21: 31
      0
      not a stupid king, but a court camarilla, saw cutters, amateurs of large surface ships for the sake of their inferiority complexes, and it’s just that sailors are afraid of rolling men .....
    3. ser56
      ser56 April 20 2019 15: 39
      0
      Quote: Selevc
      Therefore, Russia's powerful ocean fleet is always secondary,

      You are not a salary of the Anglo-Saxons? bully Peter the Great, too, what did the fleet build? Ekaterina? bully
      Quote: Selevc
      and the revolution of 1917 is a natural finish and result for tsarist Russia !!!

      this is an example of a color revolution funded by "allies"
      Quote: Selevc
      the infantry did not have enough guns, there were not enough machine guns

      it was a crisis of 15g, no more .... it was overcome and in 16g there was a Brusilovsky breakthrough ... because then a revolution happened that smelled of victory ... request
  32. Forever so
    Forever so April 19 2019 14: 20
    -1
    By all accounts of various analysts, in 1995-1996, the United States expected a systemic crisis after which the United States ended its life as a state and only the destruction and robbery of the USSR postponed the collapse. Which is expected again in the near future because the loot has already been eaten. Why am I? To the fact that if it were not for the Andropov with the humpbacked creature, the USSR would have gone badly or well for the self-destruction of the United States. Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, the naval thought will make an unimaginable feint and it seems that the Eagles, no longer needed by anyone, will become super in demand. And they are already oops, dismantled. Can't we rush to the rake ?? Or someone has "caught fire in a blatant" ???
  33. ziborov.vs
    ziborov.vs April 19 2019 14: 39
    0
    The author’s reasoning is constructed from general considerations and is therefore lightweight.
    You can only judge what to do with the "eagles" if you know:
    - strategic and tactical tasks of the fleet,
    - forecast changes in the strategic situation in the world,
    - Opportunities and dynamics of production potential for the Navy.
    Those. The optimization task of cost and time should be solved to reflect existing and future threats.
    This is a task for the General Staff and the State Planning Commission.
    Do we have it?
    Then enough "middle-ceiling" arguments about "show off".
    1. Andrei Nikolaevich
      Andrei Nikolaevich April 19 2019 14: 56
      0
      More precisely, you will not say.
  34. Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich April 19 2019 14: 55
    0
    Quite interestingly stated. But I am not special in such matters. I hope for the minds and firmness of our admirals and design engineers.
  35. DimaDima
    DimaDima April 19 2019 16: 22
    +2
    Only one conclusion can be drawn from the article: "They will give money to drink, they will not give to drink what they did not give." But the problems remained. Can turn them into "Mistrals", or into a military transport-floating base, let them go along the Northern Sea Route or drive to Venezuela. No country will dare to drown a nuclear reactor at sea. And the helicopter carrier will not hurt. The Japanese will have helicopter carriers of approximately the same size. And we will spend as much money as it will take to cut. The main thing is not to try to build a super ship. The Americans built their military transports from second-hand ships and did not cry for anything.
    1. scorpio
      scorpio April 19 2019 18: 12
      +2
      They would be useful in their original form. VTG and at sea. There will be enough sets of "GRANITA" for them from 949s going for modernization. And for another 20-30 years they would close the hole in the corps, which will be by the 30s due to the write-off of all 956 and 1155 in the near future. 30-35 year old buildings are serious and will not be massively modernized. Steel there is not the same. Yes, and 1164 have a limited resource of 40-45 years. And until the end of the twenties, they will replace only six 22350. And silence.
      1. 1Alexey
        1Alexey April 19 2019 19: 26
        0
        Quote: scorpio
        They would be useful in their original form.

        Correctly! They would have put them near Murmansk, and with their Granites they would have kept part of NATO Norway at gunpoint and controlled the entrance to the Northern Sea Route.
  36. Radikal
    Radikal April 19 2019 16: 32
    +3
    "Eagles" go for disassembly

    They do not know how to build, and do not want to, but they have learned how to cut into scrap metal - here the presence of a scientific and design school that has fallen into decay (and not only in shipbuilding) is not necessary .... sad
    1. scorpio
      scorpio April 19 2019 17: 48
      +4
      Everything is simpler. There are the interests of USC and SKB, and their friends in uniform. Cutting 200 lard for a destroyer that you don’t surely don’t be more interested than renting a ship for 60-80 in a reasonable time. And the ships we build are long and expensive, and there will be more expensive.
  37. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri April 19 2019 16: 33
    0
    Rotted housing. That's right, what’s coming.
    1. scorpio
      scorpio April 19 2019 17: 40
      +2
      Their cases are AK-25 double stainless steel.
    2. Shura Wii
      Shura Wii April 21 2019 02: 03
      0
      They cannot decay by definition))) Since they are made of stainless steel.
  38. scorpio
    scorpio April 19 2019 17: 35
    +1
    Everything is correct. Voyage is on the way. The fifth column deprives the fleet of the only ocean reserve of potential carriers of "Zircons" "Onyxes" and "Granites."
    1. scorpio
      scorpio April 19 2019 17: 52
      0
      And the sailors will fight what is. And not what will be.
  39. Denis Shevchenko
    Denis Shevchenko April 19 2019 18: 07
    +3
    country turns into a bermuda triangle
  40. Non-fighter
    Non-fighter April 19 2019 18: 13
    +1
    I already wrote here what they said about Kirov in the summer of 1992 - "There is no move and there will not be." And do not forget about the accident of the power plant, something like this in 1990, when the steam generator of the bow echelon leaked on the last BS :(
  41. LeonidL
    LeonidL April 19 2019 20: 21
    0
    Quite a prudent article.
  42. Looking for
    Looking for April 19 2019 20: 34
    +4
    Primitive Russian "patriots" are very fond of phrases about what they say Ukraine has missed ..... la vse.Maybe it's worth looking at yourself? Only for today two articles - about the fleet and about aviation. Where will Russia come in 10-15-20 years? And with what? Already now the surface fleet of the PRC is more powerful and more modern than the Russian one. Aviation and other types of troops are next. And you are "breaking spears" about the knightly "tin cans". It seems that such articles are deliberately "riveted" by a certain contingent. To distract readers from the discussion. real problems of Russian defense.
  43. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 19 2019 21: 14
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    everything is not what you think, but exactly the opposite.

    Dear Alexander, That's interesting, then the submarines have become noticeable and easily detectable? but did surface ships become inconspicuous and hard to detect? ..... explain to me gray ...
  44. LomKuvaldych
    LomKuvaldych April 20 2019 02: 11
    +2
    And why "Peter the Great" should fight alone against the AUG? Its aviation should not cover, the submarines should not accompany? Can't you build more ships to help him?
    Is it easier to cut and console yourself with fairy tales, that in 10 years we can build 2 "Leaders"?
    1. Dreamboat
      Dreamboat April 20 2019 16: 00
      +1
      Don't break the "picture" of the author :-). If you collect 2 Orlan (as an air defense stronghold and carrier of a large number of strike weapons), an aircraft carrier (albeit Kuznetsov), several BODs and frigates to create a "perimeter" and several submarines into a single group, then any of the 3 will die from "acute diarrhea" / 4 fleets of the world, if not 9/10. Therefore, it is urgent to cut everything and instead of tanks, aircraft and ships, start releasing pots (on the head).
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 20 2019 23: 01
      -1
      Quote: LomKuvaldych
      And why "Peter the Great" should fight alone against the AUG? Its aviation should not cover, the submarines should not accompany? Can't you build more ships to help him?

      question why? What kind of battleship is such that it needs to be guarded by a whole fleet by exposing all the coasts of its country?
      1. Shura Wii
        Shura Wii April 21 2019 02: 01
        +1
        Peter the Great class ships do not sail the seas alone, this is not a walking tram, they go flagships as part of a squadron or a group of auxiliary ships, and to understand this, you do not have to be a naval officer.
  45. Cyrus
    Cyrus April 20 2019 09: 20
    +2
    You know the author you can probably be envied, it’s probably so easy to live without conscience, "working" for the enemies of our country, forming public opinion in favor of the final destruction of the fleet, McCain and Lehman are probably happy with you.
  46. xomaNN
    xomaNN April 20 2019 11: 14
    +2
    If today the authorities and the Navy lack intelligence, money, ideas ... (choose what exactly) leave the question for tomorrow to other people with different headssmile Preservation, of course, is also not a free pleasure. BUT, remember how famously ebn + Comp. wrote off almost for nothing TAKR and the other still quite lively fleet of the USSR Navy
  47. Kaw
    Kaw April 20 2019 14: 55
    +1
    Russia can no longer build such ships, neither now nor in the foreseeable future. The ideal option would be to upgrade them to the maximum, but I'm afraid that we have no money for that either. And in their original form, even if they are repaired, they no longer have values, so it’s really better to write them off.
    1. ser56
      ser56 April 20 2019 15: 42
      0
      Quote: Kaw
      no longer build, neither now nor in the foreseeable future.

      they simply are not needed ...
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 20 2019 23: 06
      0
      Quote: Kaw
      The ideal option would be to upgrade them to the maximum, but I'm afraid that we have no money for that either.

      most likely, the experience of Nakhimov’s modernization turned out to be too costly, which I wrote about a long time ago, although I myself came up with the idea of ​​modernizing 1144 myself. ..but Lazarev is a pity, and most importantly, if I argue correctly, then they will write off Petya Toda to the scrap. After completing the repair, Nakhimova Pete will be 30 ....
  48. Dreamboat
    Dreamboat April 20 2019 15: 48
    +1
    The logic of the author is a little Wikipedia and a lot of panic ...
    Why is the fleet at all if it cannot defeat the US fleet (it is not worth exchanging for others), why is the ship if it alone cannot destroy the AUG.
    Apparently the author does not understand that a battleship is a combination of 2 elements: the ship itself and its weapons. The armament of the Orlan projects is of course outdated and requires modernization and replacement, but the ship carrying the armament may well be suitable for more than a decade. This, of course, can only be said by specialists after a detailed flaw detection. Building a new ship of this scale is a matter of several years and a lot of money, and not the ship as a whole, but only the "load-bearing" part.
    Why such ships are needed is not even a question, it is the core of naval grouping for the distant sea zone.
  49. Vladimir T
    Vladimir T April 20 2019 15: 59
    0
    To break something, you must first build. And then you can stay without the old and the new. And also, around the world, many decommissioned ships stand as museums, and moreover, in good condition or attractions. Even those that Russia sold for scrap metal abroad. And we, as always, will now count the pennies from the supply of those who sleep and see Russia to leave without a fleet. The United States even allocates money for the disposal of Russian submarines (the Zvezda plant in the Bolshoi - Kamen) for many years, and the sledges do not apply to this.
  50. Alexey B.
    Alexey B. April 20 2019 16: 44
    +2
    About "puffing up the cheeks". In the 80s, the Americans removed 4 Iowa-class battleships from the reserve, modernizing them. Using the platform, instead of universal-caliber guns, they installed Tomahawk missile systems, and also modernized electronic weapons. The experience was positive.
    Considering that the domestic shipbuilding has forgotten how to build large ships from the word "completely", to destroy the ships of 1144 seems barbaric.