The Navy flag is lowered at the Kerch BOD of the Black Sea Fleet

The Navy flag is lowered at the Kerch BOD of the Black Sea Fleet

The Black Sea Fleet lost the penultimate ship of the 1st rank. On February 15 of this year, the Naval flag was lowered on the large anti-submarine ship "Kerch" of project 1134B, the ship was transferred to the category of military equipment of the Ministry of Defense.


The Kerch BCP was the third in a series of seven ships of Project 1134B (the Berkut-B code, according to NATO codification - Kara class), built at the 61 Kommunar shipyard in Nikolaev. The main purpose is the action as part of the search and strike groups to search for and destroy nuclear missile submarines in remote areas of the ocean.

Laid down on April 30, 1971, launched on July 21, 1972. It was commissioned on December 25, 1974. He served in the Black Sea fleetFrom 1994 to 1997 was the flagship of the fleet.


Displacement full 8565 tons, standard 6700 tons. Length 173,4 meters, width 18,5 meters, draft 5,74 meters. Full speed 32 knots. Cruising range 5200 miles at 20 knots. Autonomy is 30 days for fuel and water reserves, 45 days for provisions. The crew of 429 people (51 officers; 63 midshipmen).

Powerplant: gas turbine, 92000 hp, 2 screws

Armament: 2 x 4 missile launchers "Metel", 2 launchers air defense systems "Storm", 2 launchers air defense systems "Osa-M", 2 x 2 76-mm gun mounts AK-726, 4 x 6 30-mm gun mounts AK-630, 2 x 5 533-mm torpedo tubes PTA-53, 2 x 12 RBU-6000, 2 x 6 RBU-1000, 1 Ka-25PL helicopter.

In 2014, the ship embarked on a planned rehabilitation, but the fire that broke out in November 2014 on the BOD caused too much damage to the ship. The Navy Commission, which conducted the survey of the ship, decided not to restore its ship, but to dispose of it. In 2015, the Kerch BPC was withdrawn from the combat fleet and began to withdraw weapons.

"Kerch" was the last BOD, which is part of the Black Sea Fleet, now the Black Sea Fleet has only one ship of the 1st rank - the Order of Nakhimov GRKR "Moscow", whose service life has been extended until 2030.
Photos used:
https://balabin-1712.livejournal.com/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

183 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. onix757 16 February 2020 11: 48 New
    • 59
    • 77
    -18
    Nothing wrong. USC to replace it, the boat will make the far sea zone at the fear of NATO
    1. seti 16 February 2020 11: 50 New
      • 28
      • 22
      +6
      Quote: onix757
      Nothing wrong. USC to replace it, the boat will make the far sea zone at the fear of NATO

      Everywhere you need to spit? The ship is quite old, the power plant has developed its armament resource, and the entire filling requires modernization. He is being replaced by new frigates of project 11356.
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 11: 54 New
        • 11
        • 17
        -6
        He is being replaced by new frigates of project 11356.


        No, he is replaced by ships of the project 22350M.

        11356 this was a temporary measure, while pr.22350 was not allowed into the series.
        1. seti 16 February 2020 11: 57 New
          • 9
          • 7
          +2
          Not yet. Those that are being completed / laid for the Pacific Fleet. But let's hope that in the future several more frigates, namely the 22350M, will go into service with the Black Sea Fleet.
          1. zloybond 16 February 2020 20: 40 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            Well, one hell, to look from any side ... the old ones are hung up on balance and made into museums - but you also need to allocate money for this. Although they say that they are supported in case the war suddenly - put it in operation - so by our standards they put in operation five years of repair, and before every repair there must be a fire for destruction. And new ones, of course, are under construction - but only shipyards are crammed with foreign orders, as well as tank factories and aircraft. It would be nice if they were clogged with good sense - so the calculation is also done with palm oil or some other bananas.
        2. onix757 16 February 2020 12: 00 New
          • 14
          • 14
          0
          An article on VO was "On frigates of project 22350M in the light of the latest news"
          May 15, 2019 about the "bright" prospects of the project
          1. Paranoid50 16 February 2020 12: 20 New
            • 6
            • 5
            +1
            Quote: onix757
            The article on VO was

            laughing laughing laughing
        3. FORCE 38GB 16 February 2020 17: 12 New
          • 22
          • 7
          +15
          Catamaran - a boat flotilla is replacing him !!! From Grachat, karakurt and raptors .... Ugh !!! It's a shame for the Power ...
          1. vladcub 16 February 2020 21: 14 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Of course, karakurt cannot be compared with a rank 1 ship, but under certain conditions it is very good.
            The media periodically flashed materials that ships of the 1st rank are already past. It would be great if a knowledgeable person prepares material on this topic.
        4. Sapsan136 17 February 2020 09: 12 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Gentlemen, there are too few 3 frigates 11356 for the Black Sea Fleet ... The fleet will not cost only 3 frigates, and the frigates 22350M did not even begin to build .. With the renewal of the fleet in the Russian Federation, it’s a big trouble, old ships go to salvage faster than new ones are built to replace them and this is a big problem ..
      2. alexmach 16 February 2020 12: 32 New
        • 15
        • 4
        +11
        11356 is not a change for him. Its anti-submarine capabilities are rudimentary. Another thing is that this ship is already quite outdated. And it is not entirely clear whether there are tasks for him in the Black Sea.
        1. Machito 16 February 2020 14: 25 New
          • 8
          • 4
          +4
          The sad news. Remember the box.
          Without clinking glasses. drinks
      3. Alexey from Perm 16 February 2020 15: 33 New
        • 2
        • 8
        -6
        Do you think it's better to lick?
    2. bondrostov 16 February 2020 11: 51 New
      • 35
      • 47
      -12
      It’s not regrettable that it’s better to start buying destroyers from China and putting up their weapons. Because we ourselves can no longer ..
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 11: 51 New
        • 23
        • 42
        -19
        Because we ourselves can no longer ..


        Troll speak for yourself.
        1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 11: 53 New
          • 24
          • 46
          -22
          Follow the bazaar. There is nothing bad if we don’t buy it, they buy equipment from us and do not mix on this.
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 12: 03 New
            • 20
            • 42
            -22
            Follow your vocabulary.

            The site made a mistake, whining and shouting "everything is gone" - go to another place.

            I would write more specifically, but I'm afraid that the moderator is blocking it.

            If you don’t know, Russia itself builds ships in the far sea zone and the Chinese ships still have to move forward and ours, no matter how much they riveted, the quantity does not turn into quality.
            1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 12: 11 New
              • 41
              • 26
              +15
              I’ve already thrown my hat on the roof. What are the ships of the far sea zone? wassat
              1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 12: 20 New
                • 17
                • 31
                -14
                I’ve already thrown my hat on the roof. What are the ships of the far sea zone Buyans chtoli wassat


                Project 22350 built and under construction 8 ships.

                5000 tons of displacement and 16 cruise missiles + PLO + air defense.

                About the multipurpose and strategic nuclear submarines of which 18 have been built and are under construction, for the cost of each more than 1 billion dollars, I do not even speak.
                1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 12: 29 New
                  • 21
                  • 9
                  +12
                  Premier League is another. Destroyers where I am about it.
                  1. JD1979 16 February 2020 12: 47 New
                    • 44
                    • 7
                    +37
                    Quote: bondrostov
                    Premier League is another. Destroyers where I am about it.

                    Somewhere in dreams and mock-ups transported from exhibition to exhibition. All that is now available - MRK, defenseless boats, but with the possibility of a little painful bite. 1st rank ... can be seen in the ranks except in a dream))). While the morons are neighing from Ukraine with their “mosquito fleet” of artillery boats, China is neighing from Russia with their RTOs, riveting like Type 55 pies, for a 12ct displacement and 112 UVP. How many UVP UVP are there? 8? And in a few years, China will have full-fledged AUGs (2 aviks already + destroyers URO 55e as air defense - 8 pieces + submarines) And what will Russia have? It was just the same - plans, layouts, announcements in the media.
                    The asymmetric answer is certainly great, but the main thing is not to become so asymmetrical that you would not be bare back against conventional means.
                    1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 12: 50 New
                      • 30
                      • 18
                      +12
                      And they call me trolls and bots for this. People do not like the truth
                      1. Alexey from Perm 16 February 2020 15: 36 New
                        • 13
                        • 8
                        +5
                        patriots who mostly don’t like a critical view of things gather here. What would it be like in a movie about Chapaev, only to the place where he drowned.
                      2. bukhach 16 February 2020 23: 25 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        It’s strange, but I have the opposite impression — just “all-crawlers.” I’m thinking, if everything is “bobik dead”, why do our “partners” bother, why should they be afraid of the cardboard power of Russia? After all, the fleet is in trouble, in aviation , in land khan and amba in all other directions. They, these "partners, what, the site does not read? winked
                      3. Alexey from Perm 17 February 2020 00: 35 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        There is a good saying I don’t remember anyone - Russia is not as weak as we would like, but not as strong as it seems. So in real life like that.
                  2. bayard 16 February 2020 22: 49 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    They will not buy anything from China, and one cannot risk it that way, they have already delivered diesel to us.
                    But really, it was a matter — our officers from the Pacific Fleet went to look at their frigates, and considered the possibility of purchasing 8 pieces. while its industry is swinging.
                    But.
                    The diesel that the Chinese delivered to us is an open marriage.
                    The way the Chinese authorities behaved with us joining the Western sanctions, taking a fair initiative - closing accounts for our companies, forcing them to close their offices in China.
                    China is not only not a friend or ally to us. He can’t even be considered a reliable partner.
                    And turn your back.
                    And of course, yes, they did, they suggested, they broke up in the press that they were ready 20 frigates and 2-4 UDC to deliver. Enclosures, for our retrofitting.
                    And rightly so, that they refused.
                    Have you heard that they refused to deliver electronic components to the military class for space? It seems that we agreed on counter deliveries - we give them the technology of rocket engines, and they give us electronic components of a special design ... and I'm not sure again.
                    So what you proposed could be relevant 5 years ago ... but the Chinese did not live up to our hopes in almost everything.
                    They are always like that.
                    This is Chinese ethics.
                  3. bondrostov 16 February 2020 22: 53 New
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    -2
                    Yes, I don’t argue with you, of course, not a friend! We only have two friends. In fact, we only need the hull and that’s it! You know that we have problems with the hulls and engines
                  4. bayard 17 February 2020 00: 06 New
                    • 7
                    • 1
                    +6
                    There are no problems with the buildings. Problems with the power plant.
                    There were no such productions in Russia, only in Ukraine. Now the veins and tear. And not without success. But time is running out. And there are not enough personnel - they did not prepare them ...
                    After all, how did it happen? They thought that money appeared - the industry will fulfill. But there was no one to carry out - almost all the shipyards were already in private hands, looted, understaffed, no personnel - everyone ran away ... Orders were received by such swindlers and failed ... I had to create a USC (in my opinion, it started in 2010), collect all shipbuilding enterprises enter into it, redeem, restore, equip, gather personnel, restore competencies ... re-establish cooperation ... With the air defense system ship how much fuss was, thank God brought, it turned out ...
                    But apparently nobody could even think of what happened with Ukraine, and it was believed that we would only be able to hold it by such cooperation. Economic benefit ...
                    The whole program because of the GEM got up.
                    And now, it seems the problem is being solved - the first set is already being installed on the 22350th project. If in the summer everything goes well, then it will only get better and more.
                    But there is no need to rivet the hulls (a lot of mind is needed (necessary, but this is far from the most difficult part in shipbuilding. It costs only 15% of the cost of the ship, everything else is saturation.
                    A GEM is being prepared now and for the 22350M it is a purely gas turbine one, and diesel ... the main thing is to wait.
                    And China will not help us not only, but at any opportunity, he will either give us a stick in the wheel or even worse - something in the back ...
                    You just have to wait for your engines to go, and the shipyards are already waiting. There is already civil shipbuilding out to the rhythm.
                    So by May 9, the ships will lay.
                    Big ones.
                    So with the engines everything is getting better.

                    And it's time to end the baiting MRK. Their weak point WAS not at all the absence of anti-aircraft defense (it is not necessary for boats and RTOs), not the absence of anti-aircraft defense (Karakurt has it, and what it is), but the problem of target designation. Now THIS is not a problem, the GOS would handle it. And for this, drones, AWACS and even naval reconnaissance satellites are not even necessary. Enough ZGRLS "Container" - at a distance of not less than 2000 km. from the borders of the Russian Federation in sufficient resolution even cruise missiles, not to mention aviation and surface ships, in full view. The plane is taken for escort even at the time of dispersal along the strip, where already there AUG with its warrant is lost. And missiles at long-range missile systems, disperse from different bays and skerries, give target designation and receive such an AUG volley of anti-ship missiles with a maximum range and different azimuths. It’s practically the All-Seeing Eye, and you’ll still have to get used to it ...
                    Now individual units are not fighting, complexes, systems are fighting. And these RTOs are the constituent elements of such a system. After all, it never occurred to anyone to call our "Lightning" useless? And their capabilities are orders of magnitude lower than those of RTOs.
                    And they also have problems with diesels so far - the bodies are in line for the engines. Once upon a time, this too must resolve.
                  5. Martin 17 February 2020 17: 26 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Now the veins and tear. And not without success. But time is running out. And there are not enough personnel - they did not prepare them ...
                    Hundreds of times in different comments I draw attention to how people complain that import substitution-re-equipment-development is too slow (emphasize the necessary, cross out the unnecessary). It’s just that none of these people can imagine how huge this process is: development, development and production. These are years and mountains of work, from the letter “E” to the letter “B”.
                    It is clear that you want one-two-three. Only this does not happen.
          2. Malyuta 16 February 2020 12: 57 New
            • 22
            • 13
            +9
            Quote: JD1979
            It was just the same - plans, layouts, announcements in the media. The asymmetric answer is certainly great, but the main thing is not to become so asymmetrical that you would not be bare back against conventional means.

            Great comment. Respect! hi
        2. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 13: 22 New
          • 14
          • 13
          +1
          If you don’t see the difference between the Buyan-M RTOs and the frigate with a URO of 5000 tons of displacement, which in terms of combat capabilities surpasses the Kerch BOD in all respects, then you should not write anything on this topic at all, do not disgrace yourself and do not introduce people astray.

          But I’m sure that the goal of this resource on you is not to discuss various weapons systems, but just the opposite - provocation, nonsense and nagging in the style of "everything is gone"
          1. JD1979 16 February 2020 15: 16 New
            • 9
            • 6
            +3
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            If you don’t see the difference between the Buyan-M RTOs and the frigate with a URO of 5000 tons of displacement, which in terms of combat capabilities surpasses the Kerch BOD in all respects, then you should not write anything on this topic at all, do not disgrace yourself and do not introduce people astray.

            Buyan-M surpasses BOD 1134B in everything ??? I certainly don’t need to disgrace myself, I understand that thinking is harder than knocking on the keys, but still try, you’ll suddenly like it.
            PS: “Kerch” in a hypothetical confrontation with Buyan-M, even against all 8 put into operation, at once, it will reheat everyone without even straining.
            1. Alexey RA 16 February 2020 17: 53 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              Quote: JD1979
              PS: “Kerch” in a hypothetical confrontation with Buyan-M, even against all 8 put into operation, at once, it will reheat everyone without even straining.

              I’m embarrassed to ask - what will “Kerch” do to sink the RTOs? Ancient PLUR? Or no less ancient missiles "Storm"?
              And I would also like to see how Kerch, with its pair of ancients, even during the Soviet era, medium-range single-channel air defense systems (minimum target height - 100 m) and a pair of the same short-range air defense systems will be beaten off from anti-ship missiles.
            2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 16 February 2020 19: 32 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              A single-channel storm for an air defense missile target with radio command guidance, total the entire ship can hit 2 targets simultaneously with 4 missiles. Air raid of several modern aircraft or several anti-ship missiles and arctic fox. The ship is 45 years old and he survived his time a long time ago. In any situation, “Kerch” would have lived a couple of years on the strength (cable routes, power shields, etc. have long been rotten), the constant fires on board and the final result was quite natural - it burned down due to slobs.
            3. JD1979 16 February 2020 22: 43 New
              • 2
              • 3
              -1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              I’m embarrassed to ask - what will “Kerch” do to sink the RTOs? Ancient PLUR? Or no less ancient missiles "Storm"?

              Do not hesitate to ask, as I understand it, the shyness to independently study this issue you, alas, could not overcome. So, there is such a thing, “Trumpet-B”, such short inclined launchers that are clearly visible in the picture))) So, the missile of this complex carries either a torpedo or a BG with an increased explosive content and homing head as a load, which actually a surface ship will be hit at a range of up to 90km. And due to the fact that the radar is higher, the horizon is farther, + the presence of a helicopter - the BOD will detect a surface target such as RTOs much earlier and issue a command center. And since the MRK is a defenseless ship with an air defense simulation (1! AK630 + MANPADS))), the BOD will figure out this nut with a maximum of 2 missiles.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And I would also like to see how Kerch, with its pair of ancients, even during the Soviet era, medium-range single-channel air defense systems (minimum target height - 100 m) and a pair of the same short-range air defense systems will be beaten off from anti-ship missiles.

              Um .. ma .. You decide either ancient now, or modern under the USSR, ancient and then, at the time of creation, and now the complexes cannot be)))
              And you wouldn’t like to, at least not be a little ... a balabol? Well, the information is now as accessible as possible, well, isn’t it so difficult to move your finger?
              The ship has an echeloned circular 3-zone missile defense system, provided by the following complexes:
              SAM "Storm" - 2 pieces - from 100m
              SAM OSA-MA - 2 pieces - from 25m
              AK-630 - 4 pieces
              And what is interesting to bring down?

              And what will bring down Buyan-M and at what distance? But nothing?))) Well, if you have time to detect:
              TTX radar:
              The maximum range of target detection in noise-free conditions, with
              normal radar observability:
              - an air target with an EPR> 1 m2 with a flight altitude of 1000 m - 110 km.
              - RCC with EPR> 0,03 m2 at a flight height of 15 m - 15 km !!!
              - surface targets with EPR = 10000 m2 - 0,9 ... 0,95 range of the radio horizon.
              Buyan-M air defense have almost the same range of destruction, that of MANPADS, that AK-630-2, and the firing sector is not very optimal, mainly aft and sides, and air defense systems, respectively, in heading and side.
              Buyan is just a platform for launching the Kyrgyz Republic, he cannot even give himself a control unit))), unlike the BOD, a boat for walking around the base under the protection of airborne aviation and air defense.
            4. Alexey RA 17 February 2020 02: 53 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Quote: JD1979
              So, there is such a thing, “Trumpet-B”, such short inclined launchers that are clearly visible in the picture))) So, the missile of this complex carries either a torpedo or a BG with an increased explosive content and homing head as a load, which actually a surface ship will be hit at a range of up to 90km.

              A maximum of two subsonic missiles in a salvo. Yes, and with RCTU (homing only at the final site).
              RTOs in response can release the entire BC. And the BOD itself will highlight the area of ​​its location with a hanging helicopter.
              Quote: JD1979
              Um .. ma .. You decide either ancient now, or modern under the USSR, ancient and then, at the time of creation, and now the complexes cannot be)))

              But what, the USSR after the 60s, when the Storm was created, no longer existed?
              This SAM was created in the USSR. And even during his lifetime he managed to become obsolete - in the 80s. When the adversary went to extremely low altitudes and began to plan massive raids.
              Modern in the USSR was the S-300F.
              Quote: JD1979
              The ship has an echeloned circular 3-zone missile defense system, provided by the following complexes:
              SAM "Storm" - 2 pieces - from 100m
              SAM OSA-MA - 2 pieces - from 25m
              AK-630 - 4 pieces
              And what is interesting to bring down?

              It is good that you brought the minimum height of the air defense system. Because for the main armament of RTOs, the flight height on the march is 20 m, in the final section - 10 m.
              So from the proud three air defense zones now on Kerch there are only four "blowtorches". Gorgeous, and - a ship of 9000 tons has an air defense like four missile defense systems. Or like two - if you take it on a one-side basis.
              I recall:
              Quote: JD1979
              PS: “Kerch” in a hypothetical confrontation with Buyan-M, even against all 8 put into operation, at once, it will reheat everyone without even straining.

              So, 8 “Buyanov” is 64 RCC. How many of them have time to bring down "blowtorches"?
            5. JD1979 17 February 2020 13: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              A maximum of two subsonic missiles in a salvo. Yes, and with RCTU (homing only at the final site).

              If you carefully read the beginning, you would not give the answer now about a spherical horse in a vacuum .... So BOD vs RTOs, one on one, so to speak ... We compare combat capabilities. Based on the tendencies of building ships in the USSR, the BOD was equipped with a full range of target detection tools for the independent use of any weapons on board without an external control system, i.e., radar, ASG, a helicopter with standard equipment. RTOs - the carrier of the KR database, using them only on the external control center. ALL. RTOs will not be able to detect the BOD before launching missiles, they will not be able to shoot them down, since there is practically nothing to shoot down the Needle or Verba with))).

              Quote: Alexey RA
              RTOs in response can release the entire BC.

              Riley?))) Where and why will he release if the detection range of a ship type target is 0,95 RG?))) How much does this RG have?
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And the BOD itself will highlight the area of ​​its location with a hanging helicopter.

              Once again, riley?)))) KA-25 visually))) detects a helicopter and keeps it within sight of being well ... about 6 km away, there’s nothing to bring it down with))). So, we look at the Ka-25 BR ... 200km, draw a circle with this radius, have you presented the area? Well, where is the ship illuminated?)))) Or do you think the wind should hang exclusively above the deck of your ship?))))
              Quote: Alexey RA
              But what, the USSR after the 60s, when the Storm was created, no longer existed?
              This SAM was created in the USSR. And even during his lifetime he managed to become obsolete - in the 80s. When the adversary went to extremely low altitudes and began to plan massive raids.

              And what about the modification of the Storm-N complex, created in the late 80s with V-611M missiles, specially modified, are we silent about working on low-altitude anti-ship missiles? or ChSV does not allow to normally study the characteristics of the ship?
              Quote: Alexey RA
              It is good that you brought the minimum height of the air defense system. Because for the main armament of RTOs, the flight height on the march is 20 m, in the final section - 10 m.

              It’s good that you brought the characteristics of 3M-54E))), only RTOs were created primarily under 3M14, oops))), whose performance characteristics did not allow them to be placed on ground launchers (limited by INF) and in 99,9% of RTOs bears them))). So again, what and where and on which control center will fly?

              Quote: Alexey RA
              I recall:
              Quote: JD1979
              PS: “Kerch” in a hypothetical confrontation with Buyan-M, even against all 8 put into operation, at once, it will reheat everyone without even straining.

              So, 8 “Buyanov” is 64 RCC. How many of them have time to bring down "blowtorches"?

              So, here's a good reminder. Remind yourself once again of the possibility of detecting a type of NK target by the RTOs themselves. Where will 64 missiles fly without an external control unit? and what will happen with 8 RTOs if the BOD starts to hit them from 90km, and God forbid they themselves will issue the TSOs with 35-40km TSU. How much will it reach the launch line? and how hard is it to shoot down subsonic 3M14? It’s also possible to add a helicopter)).

              If it’s not clear already, I’ll add. Do not look at the clean performance characteristics, also look at the tasks from which a ship was created. Yes RTOs are a newer cobal, a more modern filling, but ... but it surpasses the BOD and other ships of the 1st rank created during the USSR, only the ability to carry long-range missiles for striking coastal targets. ALL! He has no other tasks. He is defenseless against almost everything. Since not only does it not have the means of detection with sane TTX, it does not actually have countermeasures, except for electronic warfare, MZA and MANPADS, the latter are more for complacency, and just to be. Where are these ships based? For the most part in the Caspian Sea, an absolutely safe body of water)) and the Black Sea, which is sweeping through the coastal complexes of the Kyrgyz Republic, is covered by aviation and air defense, and a couple in the Baltic, again covered by everything than is possible. The performance characteristics of these boats with autonomy of 10 days do not allow them to go anywhere))), which once again confirms my idea that this is just a platform for launching the CD and circumventing the INF Treaty (which by the way is RIP, respectively, there is no need for these ships anymore)
            6. Alexey RA 17 February 2020 14: 26 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: JD1979
              RTOs will not be able to detect BOD until they launch rockets.

              Maybe - on the rising helicopter.
              Quote: JD1979
              RTOs will not be able to bring them down, since there’s practically nothing to bring down the Igloo or Verba))).

              What about the Duet with the MP-123? wink
              Quote: JD1979
              And what about the modification of the Storm-N complex, created in the late 80s with V-611M missiles, specially modified, are we silent about working on low-altitude anti-ship missiles?

              Well, you yourself wrote about 100 m of minimum height.
              And as an S-125 low-altitude air defense officer, I have certain doubts about the 5 meters of the minimum target height for Storm-N.
              Quote: JD1979
              It’s good that you brought the characteristics of 3M-54E))), only RTOs were created primarily under 3M14, oops))), whose performance characteristics did not allow them to be placed on ground launchers (limited by INF) and in 99,9% of RTOs bears them))).

              Yes, yes, yes ... if there are BODs in the sea, RTOs will leave the base exclusively from the Kyrgyz Republic. Let’s then BOD arm the PLUR exclusively in the anti-submarine version.
              And even cooler - let's arrange a classic artillery battle. Eight hundred parts against one AK-726. smile
              Quote: JD1979
              Remind yourself once again of the possibility of detecting a type of NK target by the RTOs themselves. Where will 64 missiles fly without an external control unit?

              In the area of ​​a helicopter hanging next to the BOD. For without it, no ZGTsU and no RKTU for "bells" would not exist.
              Quote: JD1979
              The performance characteristics of these boats with an autonomy of 10 days do not allow them to go anywhere))), which once again confirms my idea that this is just a platform for launching the CD and circumventing the INF Treaty

              So nobody argues with that. Buyanov-M is being built purely by inertia - because production has been established.
              But in the situation of “four RTOs pr.22800 (the third building and beyond) against the BOD pr.1134B” I would definitely put on “karakurt”. For:
        3. Ratmir_Ryazan 17 February 2020 08: 26 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Really look at things and do not fantasize, cutting the result to your desires.

          RTOs themselves will not detect targets, but aim at a target with AWACS, UAVs or radars of long-range radar detection.

          So, they will see a target of the BOD type and will be able to hit missiles at a maximum range of 375 km that fly at the final trajectory at a speed of 2,9 Mach, and even with a helicopter at that distance, the BOD will not detect and will not hit RTOs.
    3. Ratmir_Ryazan 17 February 2020 08: 14 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Wipe your eyes and chat what is written -
      frigate with URO under 5000 tons of displacement, which in terms of combat capabilities in all respects surpasses BPC Kerch


      Comparison goes frigate pr.22350 with 16 KR on board with the BOD Kerch.

      Where did you see that I compared MRK with BOD?

      The second point is that you indicated that even 8 Buyan-M RTOs have no chance against the Kerch BOD ?! There’s no chance right ?!)))

      Now tell me how a BOD with a maximum range of 90 km for launching an anti-ship missile, MAXIMUM, can withstand 8 RTGs with Caliber-NK on board with a range of fire on surface ships of 375 km ?!
  2. Alex 2020 16 February 2020 16: 23 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    RTO Buyan-M in its combat capabilities in all respects surpasses the BOD Kerch? What is your opinion just interesting? Even in terms of construction and commissioning of MRK Buyan-M loses BOD. MRC Orekhovo-Zuevo (serial number 637) was built under contract No. Z / 1/1/0005 / GK-14-DGOZ for the construction of four next ships of project 21631 with serial numbers 636, 637, 638 and 639, concluded by JSC Zelenodolsk plant named after A.M. Gorky ”with the Russian Ministry of Defense on December 25, 2013. The ship was laid down on May 29, 2014, launched in 2017, and entered the factory sea trials on October 30, 2018. The BOD Kerch was laid down on April 30, 1971, launched on July 21, 1972. It was commissioned on December 25, 1974.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 February 2020 12: 57 New
    • 31
    • 8
    +23
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    Project 22350 built and under construction 8 ships.

    Minuscule, which does not cover anything. Especially in terms of anti-submarine capabilities
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    About 18 multipurpose and strategic nuclear submarines that were built and under construction

    Of which as many as 4 were built - (three Boreas and one Ash-tree) another 11 (6 Ash-trees and 5 Boreans) at different stages of construction. 4 + 11 = 18?
    1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 13: 12 New
      • 11
      • 12
      -1
      You can see not only the hats are thrown to the top ...
    2. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 13: 27 New
      • 15
      • 24
      -9
      8 frigates with URO, each worth under $ 500 million - is it a miser?

      And you yourself, how many taxes have been paid per year, take a look to begin with, and then wake up, about the minuscule.

      And on the Premier League follow the news. 10 Boreev and 8 Ash-trees - built, at the ZHI and are being built.
      1. Grits 16 February 2020 15: 58 New
        • 7
        • 4
        +3
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        And on the Premier League follow the news. 10 Boreev and 8 Ash-trees - built, at the ZHI and are being built.

        Can you tell me where these built 8 Ash-trees are based?
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 February 2020 18: 16 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        8 frigates with URO, each worth under $ 500 million - is it a miser?

        This is a minuscule. Suffice it to recall that according to the GPV 2011-2020 until the end of 2020, there should have been 35 corvettes and 14 frigates in the STRUCTURE. In fact, we have as many as 6 corvettes and 4 frigates. And 7 corvettes and 5 frigates in varying degrees of construction. By calling 8 project 22350 frigates, you even took into account ships that were not yet laid down.
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        And you yourself, how many taxes have you paid per year? Take a look

        In a month I pay taxes and fees to budgets and extra-budgetary funds with my salary of 60 rubles or more. Feel better? :))))
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        and then be whining, about the minuscule.

        Well, don’t be so upset when you are caught on a banal ignorance of materiel. Teach her and you won’t have to blush.
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        And on the Premier League follow the news. 10 Boreev and 8 Ash-trees - built, at the ZHI and are being built.

        You're lying without blushing. Ashes built exactly 1 (ONE) - this is Severodvinsk. Ash-tree M under construction 6 (Kazan, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Arkhangelsk, Perm, Ulyanovsk). Total - 7 (SEVEN) units, another 2 plan to lay in 2020, but have not yet been laid.
        Boreev in the system and not 10 but only 8 are under construction - you “mistakenly” added to them Marshal Zhukov and Rokossovsky who have not yet been laid.
        1. New Year day 16 February 2020 18: 37 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          GPV 2011-2020 until the end of 2020 IN THE STRUCTURE there should have been 35 corvettes and 14 frigates

          hi
          Well, we are not China! A discount must be made for us. laughing
  • bondrostov 16 February 2020 13: 34 New
    • 8
    • 14
    -6
    Now compare with arly burke
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 13: 58 New
      • 15
      • 19
      -4
      Now compare with arly burke


      Russia has other tasks at sea and other opportunities !!!

      Under the USSR, which ship could compare with Arly Burke ?! And with Ticonderoga ?!

      And nothing, somehow lived without them.

      And today, Russia is rebuilding the fleet again, the country that was previously destroyed under the leadership of the CPSU and the main shipbuilding facilities remained in Ukraine, do not forget about this.

      Today, Russia is building corvettes and frigates, and tomorrow there will be destroyers and cruisers.

      And whine, go to another place.
      1. Grits 16 February 2020 16: 05 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        Today, Russia is building corvettes and frigates, and tomorrow there will be destroyers and cruisers.

        Do not flatter yourself. In the near future, the frigate is our maximum and our EVERYTHING. Project destroyer "Leader" stopped. Nobody even thought about cruisers.
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 18: 50 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          Do not flatter yourself. In the near future, the frigate is our maximum and our EVERYTHING.


          So where did you get that?

          Now Russia is building 20 nuclear-powered submarines, a diesel-electric submarine series, 8 frigates, more than 15 corvettes, minesweepers, a BDK, and an MRK of a support vessel.

          It's in the money - about 30-40 billion dollars !!!

          The destroyer is being designed - Project 22350M under 7000-8000 tons of displacement and 48 guided high-precision missiles. It is this ship that will become our main multi-purpose ship for all fleets with a gas turbine engine, as opposed to Arly Burke of the USA and their analogues.

          Project 23560 of the nuclear cruiser Leader has not been stopped, since no one has ordered this project, and its development is still an independent initiative of the Design Bureau. And they will be engaged in it when they build a sufficient number of destroyers pr.22350M.
        2. vladcub 16 February 2020 21: 28 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          "the design of the destroyer 22350 M is in progress. In fact, a dozen years can pass from design to construction.
        3. Ratmir_Ryazan 17 February 2020 08: 49 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          "the design of the destroyer 22350 M is in progress. In fact, a dozen years can pass from design to construction.


          Actually, pr.22350M has grown from pr.22350 which is already being implemented. The main difference between these ships is only in the amount of weapons.

          Project 22350M will be more effective in striking at ground targets, but to hit 16 or 48 missiles at a target is a big difference.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 February 2020 18: 24 New
    • 11
    • 3
    +8
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    Under the USSR, which ship could compare with Arly Burke ?! And with Ticonderoga ?!

    With Ticonderoga - any RKR, and with Arly Burke - BOD. For example, the BOD of project 1155, losing to Arly Burke in the part of the far air defense zone, almost exceeded the latter in terms of the air defense and air defense of the near zone, including low-flying targets.
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    And nothing, somehow lived without them.

    No, they lived without a know-it-all, Ratmir, who didn’t have a kicking foot about the USSR Navy
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    And whine, go to another place.

    Baby, your parcel still hasn’t fled to send people to another place.
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan 17 February 2020 09: 03 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      With Ticonderoga - any RKR, and with Arly Burke - BOD.


      And how many Soviet RKR and BOD were cruise missiles capable of hitting targets on land?

      Why am I asking about cruise missiles ?! Yes, because Tikanderog and Arly Burke are primarily ships with URO !!!

      NONE!!! So how do you compare them? By displacement?

      An American destroyer such as Arly Burke while in the Red Sea in 2018 struck about 60 missiles at targets on the territory of Syria - these are the capabilities of the US destroyer and not a single ship in the USSR could do anything like that.

      Soviet ships carried only anti-ship missiles as their main weapon.

      No, they lived without a know-it-all, Ratmir, who didn’t have a kicking foot about the USSR Navy


      This is said by a person who compares the destroyer and the cruiser with a URO with Soviet ships in anti-aircraft defense and air defense))).

      Baby, your parcel still hasn’t fled to send people to another place.


      I have a seniority pension, a veteran B / D.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 February 2020 17: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      I have a seniority pension, a veteran B / D.

      And then what do you communicate like a stupid 6th grade student?
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      And how many Soviet RKR and BOD were cruise missiles capable of hitting targets on land?

      No one. And how many American RRC and EM had anti-ship supersonic missiles capable of hitting surface targets? Not on one. And what's the problem?
      The Americans sharpened their RKR and Burke for certain tasks, we for our own. Our surface ships were not tasked with attacking land targets with missiles, but only landing support, for which there were AU and RBU. It was posed to the Americans, here they were stronger, but with a bang lost in anti-ship capabilities, etc. In general, ships, and RKR, and EM with BOD were quite comparable.
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      Why am I asking about cruise missiles ?! Yes, because Tikanderog and Arly Burke are primarily ships with URO !!!
      NONE!!! So how do you compare them? By displacement?

      M-da ... Do you even know what URO is? This is a guided missile weapon. So ALL Soviet ships that are armed with anti-ship missiles, SAM or PLUR are URO ships.
      And I compare them quite easily. For example, take Burke and BOD 1155 as of the end of the 90s, when both were built
      Air defense - the American has the advantage in the "long arm" - the presence of SAM-2 missiles. Otherwise, he loses the BOD 1155 with a bang. First, according to the canal, 3 SAM targets can fire at the same time; 8 BODs can fire at the same time. In this case, Burke has very few chances to hit a low-flying target, one might say no, because Aegis's decimeter "junction" is bad near the water. The BOD has a specialized Tackle radar, with the help of which it can see everything and is very good. They have already abandoned the Phalanxes on the berks, the BOD has four AK-630 metal-cutting machines.
      anti-ship capabilities.
      Almost equally bad, as the Americans from the series 2A removed the "Harpoons". As a result, anti-aircraft "standards" could be fired at their ships, for us - a "bell" PLUR.
      Land Opportunities
      here the American is in the black, due to the ability to use Tomahawks
      PLO
      Here the American is in the global minus, since the BOD has the most powerful SAC "Polinom", and the PLUR "Trump", whose missiles fly 90 km. The American ASROK, which at that time had a range of 10 km, and now has somehow reached 28 km, is crying nervously on the sidelines. On the Soviet BOD - 533 mm torpedoes, on the American - 324 mm, of which only shoot themselves if they detect the enemy’s nuclear submarines. 2 helicopters both on the BOD and on Burke, but ours are heavier.
      TOTAL - we see that the ships are quite comparable, anti-ship capabilities are the same, air defense is stronger in the far zone Burke, in the near - ours, the BOD can hardly work along the coast. Burke is extremely weak in PLO. That is, comparative advantages were bought at the price of comparative weakness (Burke is weakened in the submarine for the sake of working along the coast), but in general the ships are quite comparable.
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      This is said by a person who compares the destroyer and the cruiser with a URO with Soviet ships in anti-aircraft defense and air defense))).

      You at least learn the most common abbreviations before teaching me :)))))
  • New Year day 16 February 2020 18: 38 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    and tomorrow there will be destroyers and cruisers.

    hard to believe. Where? How long?
  • vladcub 16 February 2020 21: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Ratmir, at least somewhat agree with you, but for the sake of justice for the nuclear submarines and the ship of the far sea zone is not one of the same
  • shark 17 February 2020 09: 48 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    He did not throw his cap high. A critical approach to problems is the only correct one. And throwing hats is a dead end
  • ccsr 16 February 2020 14: 01 New
    • 10
    • 5
    +5
    Quote: bondrostov
    There is nothing bad if we don’t buy it, they buy equipment from us and do not mix on this.

    Apparently, the example of the Swiss company Crypto did not teach you anything, although they knew about it in Soviet times. And then we wonder where the fools come from, what the Mistrals were ordered in France ...
    1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 18: 12 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Stop, I was talking about China, not about France. And if they build us a bare ship that we will equip with their BIOS and weapons, that is, we will actually complete the radars at our shipyard, then this is not bad at all if we cannot build destroyers at the moment
      1. ccsr 16 February 2020 18: 31 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: bondrostov
        Stop, I was talking about China, not about France. And if they build us a bare ship that we will equip with their BIOS and weapons,

        Torment the hull of the ship for bookmarks to explore ....
        Quote: bondrostov
        that is, we’ll actually finish it at our shipyard

        And what prevents the entire construction cycle at our shipyards from being carried out without the Chinese?
        Quote: bondrostov
        then it’s not bad at all if we cannot build destroyers at the moment

        I don’t know where you got the information that we cannot build if a helicopter carrier, for example, will be laid down at the Zaliv plant in May this year, and later the second?
        1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 18: 46 New
          • 0
          • 5
          -5
          My opinion is taken from the fact that not one was not built. They are going to lay ... well, to promise does not mean to marry ...
  • g1v2 16 February 2020 14: 17 New
    • 11
    • 5
    +6
    The main task of our shipbuilding program now is not to get the ships right now, but to bring the shipbuilding industry in such a state that it can provide our fleet and industry with ships and ships for decades. For this, the shipyards are being modernized and brought back to normal, people are being recruited, financial problems are being solved, etc. Next, projects of ships and ships are created, which will be built in series, again about 20 years. But in order to bring shipbuilding enterprises back to normal, you just need to build and build in series. This is now being done. From simple to complex. We started with auxiliary boats, which, incidentally, we needed desperately. Stupidly, because we had them from the 50s-60s. For the layman, this may not be clear, but the fleet is not made up of destroyers alone. This is a large mechanism in which for the normal operation of auxiliary vessels no less than the military.
    In general, about a hundred ships, ships and submarines are currently being built for the Navy. Only one apl of all projects on our stocks and tests of 13 pieces. Those ships that are now being built are enough for the whole fleet. And the bookmarks will continue. request
    So these tantrums are absolutely incomprehensible. To get started, sort out the question. What is being built, why. How are others doing and so on. Well, the purchase of ships and ships from China is generally stupid. Orders are needed by our own shipbuilding, not Chinese. And secondly, the Chinese cannot build what we need. They do not have the technology of systems and weapons that we design at home. But to give up free technology for free - why? request Moreover, we do not need Chinese destroyers even for nothing. Even if you suddenly decide to give.
    1. Genry 16 February 2020 18: 24 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Fleet construction:

      Results of 2019: new warships
      https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/129282/

      Results of 2019: launch of new ships
      https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/129234/

      The results of 2019: the laying of new ships
      https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/129205/

    2. vladcub 16 February 2020 21: 34 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      "Chinese destroyers we do not need even for nothing" is desirable in more detail: what are they bad?
  • Paranoid50 16 February 2020 12: 22 New
    • 6
    • 16
    -10
    Quote: bondrostov
    we ourselves can no longer ..

    You yourself couldn’t do anything - something doesn’t recall any major GCC in Rostov. yes
    1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 12: 32 New
      • 13
      • 12
      +1
      What does the city have to do with.!? Not in yourself chtoli?
  • Voyager 16 February 2020 12: 22 New
    • 10
    • 12
    -2
    better? He also set Stalin on his own, disgrace.
    1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 12: 33 New
      • 19
      • 15
      +4
      Stalin didn’t throw hats but did the thing, and you only know how to fight with hats
  • Krasnoyarsk 16 February 2020 13: 10 New
    • 7
    • 11
    -4
    Quote: bondrostov
    Because we ourselves can no longer ..

    What kind of nonsense? We can, simply - "there is no money, but you hold on"
    1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 13: 13 New
      • 15
      • 12
      +3
      This is almost the same. But over time, we lose power and personnel, and then we really have to start all over again
  • Ros 56 16 February 2020 14: 45 New
    • 4
    • 8
    -4
    Grammar for a start to learn, fezaushnik.
  • Sapsan136 17 February 2020 09: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Then the Chinese will have to buy weapons, because repairs and weapons in the Russian Federation also last too long ... Allegedly effective managers who receive exorbitantly high salaries work badly in the Russian Federation ...
  • alekc75 17 February 2020 09: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    better ????? go to literacy school !!!
  • smart ass 16 February 2020 11: 54 New
    • 4
    • 9
    -5
    Who knows the thread bpk Moscow in what condition?
    1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 11: 56 New
      • 8
      • 17
      -9
      No one will not tell you this
    2. seti 16 February 2020 11: 59 New
      • 12
      • 7
      +5
      Prepares for sea trials.
    3. UAZ 452 16 February 2020 12: 02 New
      • 12
      • 17
      -5
      Soon it will be repaired, where it will burn safely.
    4. alexmach 16 February 2020 12: 38 New
      • 12
      • 6
      +6
      This does not exist.
    5. Doctor 16 February 2020 12: 51 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Who knows the thread bpk Moscow in what condition?


      SEVASTOPOL, January 4. / TASS /. "In November-December, the objects that received particular attention were the flagship of the fleet of the GRKR" Moscow ", large landing ships" Saratov "," Novocherkassk "," Orsk "," Caesar Kunikov ", the patrol ship" Pytlivy ", small anti-submarine ship" Muromets ", the sea minesweeper" Ivan Golubets ". Responsible work was carried out at Moscow - the ship is on the move, the work is nearing completion, director of the 13th Shipyard of the Black Sea Fleet, Alexander Yuryev, told TASS.
  • Sergey Averchenkov 16 February 2020 12: 41 New
    • 6
    • 13
    -7
    You're right, it's okay - we’ll build even better. The fleet is not ships (although they are very sorry) this is the state of mind of a Russian person.
    1. Krasnoyarsk 16 February 2020 13: 13 New
      • 16
      • 4
      +12
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      The fleet is not ships

      Yes, in which case, we will drown the adversary "state of mind"
      1. Sergey Averchenkov 16 February 2020 13: 25 New
        • 13
        • 6
        +7
        You do not understand me ... Countryman, your leg ... You, personally, how much did you give to support the Donbass? I'm about a million. And you? It will also be with the Navy. My state of mind allows me to give money to the fleet. I know a little, but I'm not rich.
  • Yury Siritsky 16 February 2020 13: 48 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Nerd fucking.
  • Vladi_S 16 February 2020 17: 13 New
    • 0
    • 5
    -5
    With Zircons ... having no analogues
  • bulbash70 16 February 2020 17: 52 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    and only the project will do it! and it’ll feed 20-30 years of construction. the project will be "out of date" and will be improved under the "requirements of the RF Ministry of Defense"!
  • Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 11: 48 New
    • 12
    • 16
    -4
    Something often fires happen on our ships during repairs. Guilty punished ?! Something is not heard.

    The FSB doesn’t catch mice at all.

    After the first fire, the guilty parties had to be punished so that from now on this never happened.

    A ship with a displacement of 8000 tons is a destroyer, its price is about 1 in dollars !!! Once written off, as if it was necessary.
    1. lucul 16 February 2020 12: 03 New
      • 2
      • 8
      -6
      After the first fire, the guilty parties had to be punished so that from now on this never happened.

      Well, until you start liquidating the CUSTOMERS, then there will be no result - after all, finding artists is not a problem.
    2. Piramidon 16 February 2020 12: 06 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      price of about 1 in dollars

      After nearly half a century of operation and fire, the price is ... How much is scrap metal now?
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 12: 21 New
        • 1
        • 8
        -7
        price of about 1 in dollars

        After nearly half a century of operation and fire, the price is ... How much scrap is now worth


        A billion dollars is needed to build a new ship, comparable in size and function.
        1. Piramidon 16 February 2020 12: 27 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          A billion dollars is needed to build a new ship similar in function.

          Restoring the old one will cost no less. Moreover, it no longer meets modern requirements. Probably those who counted and decided to write it off are also familiar with mathematics.
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 13: 31 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            It was considered before the fire, and after the calculation it became completely different.
            1. Piramidon 16 February 2020 13: 43 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              It was considered before the fire, and after the calculation it became completely different.

              Before the fire, it was not written off, but repaired.
              In 2014, the ship embarked on a planned restoration, but the fire that broke out in November 2014 on the BOD caused too much damage to the ship. The Navy Commission, which conducted the survey of the ship, decided not to restore its ship, but to dispose of it.
          2. ccsr 16 February 2020 14: 09 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            Quote: Piramidon
            Restoring the old one will cost no less.

            Absolutely correct remark, because even in Soviet times, our experts calculated that if modernization goes beyond 40% of the cost, it is more profitable to do a completely new development, and this applies to almost all types of weapons and equipment. This ship is already so ancient that it does not lend itself to any reasonable modernization, and they did the right thing to write off - more money will remain for the new project.
            Quote: Piramidon
            Probably those who counted and decided to write it off are also familiar with mathematics.

            At least the naval institutes conducted low-budget research to understand what to do with such a ship - for some reason I am sure of this, because I know how all this was in the past, and it is unlikely that it has changed now.
            1. vladcub 17 February 2020 09: 37 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              It’s good if the person, what’s called in the subject, otherwise most of the "couch" specialists
              1. ccsr 17 February 2020 11: 23 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: vladcub
                It’s good if the person, what’s called in the subject, otherwise most of the "couch" specialists

                It just so happened that it was equipment and weapons that were the work of my service. That's why when you read some of the "experts", you are surprised - they at least once encountered the operation of serious weapons, or only draw conclusions based on journalistic articles. Ships is certainly not mine, but the principles of creating and operating serious weapons are the same in all types and branches of the armed forces of our country, which is why it becomes clear at least for the duration of its service that it will be utilized.
    3. Titus 16 February 2020 12: 25 New
      • 1
      • 6
      -5
      Probably minus those who do not want to bear responsibility for anything .... there are simply too many not-so-clear precedents and no one has been punished ... much less damage is paid ..
  • lucul 16 February 2020 12: 01 New
    • 5
    • 12
    -7
    but the fire that broke out in November 2014 on the BOD caused too much damage to the ship. The Navy Commission, which conducted a survey of the ship, decided not to restore its ship, but to dispose of

    Definitely helped our
    "partners", do not even go to the grandmother.
    Too mysterious steel fires on our ships.
    1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 12: 03 New
      • 15
      • 9
      +6
      Maybe so. Or maybe the fact that our gouging multiplied by the indifference of workers who work for a penny.
      1. lucul 16 February 2020 12: 07 New
        • 6
        • 12
        -6
        Or maybe the fact that our gouging


        Yeah, only we have the most gouging slavery in the world, right? If the problem was of a systemic nature, then it would also affect merchant ships. But in our country, after all, it is precisely ships of the 1st rank that burn, in 2014 the BPC Kerch, and last year Kuznetsov. Coincidence? I don’t think so ...
        1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 12: 09 New
          • 5
          • 8
          -3
          Then something is wrong in our coral power
        2. mvg
          mvg 16 February 2020 12: 43 New
          • 8
          • 3
          +5
          it is precisely ships of the 1st rank that burn, in 2014 BOD Kerch, last year Kuznetsov. Coincidence? I don’t think so ...

          Well, for some, one diesel-electric submarine drowned at the pier, for others it left Germany, but it didn’t reach the God-chosen ones. The states also had a fire in Ohio. At the People's Republic of China, the Varangian, when towing, came off and restless for a couple of days. Disasters at sea are not few.
          And no 1134 already had any combat value. Project Sarych 956 was already departing, and there were 17 summer ships, and this one is 48 years old, so many aircraft carriers do not live.
          And Moscow should be written off, or turned into a training ship. More money for maintenance goes and endless repairs. Yes, and to upgrade it is useless.
          PS: And for the Chinese destroyers to hear the reasoning sofa experts, at least ugly. 054D and 055, at least not inferior to 22350, but really surpass, At least in air defense and civil defense, plus the local version of Aegis. Well, 055 is not worse than Orly Berkov, at least in the earlier episodes. And tikanderog. We simply do not have ships of this class. Maybe that will come out of Nakhimov.
    2. dvina71 16 February 2020 12: 08 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: lucul
      "partners", do not even go to the grandmother.

      Yeah .. partners .. scared PLUR Snowstorm and RBU ... For good from this building you need to rake everything out and put a new one .. New in the old building .. an ingenious solution ...
    3. Andrei Nikolaevich 16 February 2020 12: 09 New
      • 9
      • 3
      +6
      "Fire on our ships" is also the result of sloppiness. You do not have to blame "otherworldly forces and NATO"
      1. PSih2097 16 February 2020 15: 43 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich
        sloppiness

        it’s not sloppiness - it’s irresponsibility and impunity - it used to be called wrecking and was punished up to the Navy ...
        1. Andrei Nikolaevich 16 February 2020 17: 20 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Exactly! And how to plant, so they have mothers, fathers, wives, children, diseases, etc ...
          1. PSih2097 16 February 2020 18: 15 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich
            Exactly! And how to plant, so they have mothers, fathers, wives, children, diseases, etc ...

            put it together, and it’s better to bring it to the wall, but only with complete confiscation from all those associated with them, and targeted - they stole it from the army - into the army, stolen from the fleet - into the fleet ...
  • UAZ 452 16 February 2020 12: 01 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    And this burned out during the repair ?!
    1. alexmach 16 February 2020 12: 48 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      So he was just the first and burned back in 2014.
  • rudolff 16 February 2020 12: 02 New
    • 17
    • 3
    +14
    The sad trend. Put in repair, and from repair to scrap ...
  • Professor Preobrazhensky 16 February 2020 12: 03 New
    • 22
    • 8
    +14
    Gradually incapacitating the remaining backlog from the USSR, we are turning from a country proudly carrying its naval flag in the ocean, into a country with a purely coastal fleet.
    From the mistress of the seas, without external efforts, we transformed into a coast guard ....
    It is regrettable all this.
    1. lucul 16 February 2020 12: 10 New
      • 13
      • 8
      +5
      From the mistress of the seas, without external efforts, we transformed into a coast guard ....

      But the National Welfare Fund is full ....
      And what else to expect from people with "banking" thinking.
    2. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 12: 13 New
      • 5
      • 20
      -15
      From the mistress of the seas, without external efforts, we transformed into a coast guard ....


      No need to carry nonsense.

      In Russia today, 8 frigates of the far sea zone, 8 multipurpose nuclear submarines, and 10 strategic nuclear submarines have been built and are being built.

      Can many countries afford this? USA, China, is there anyone else?

      At the same time, work is underway on a full-fledged destroyer pr.22350M, and in the future there will be an atomic cruiser pr.23560 with a missile defense system based on the S-500.

      Good whining, got it.
      1. bondrostov 16 February 2020 13: 21 New
        • 12
        • 8
        +4
        How many countries are govarish? Japan, England, France, Turkey. The nuclear cruiser is you about Nakhimov so it was built in the USSR. And if about projects, so I have a project on a starship and what wassat
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 14: 49 New
          • 3
          • 8
          -5
          England and France have ships like Arly Burke? What kind of projects are these?

          Neither Britain nor France has ships comparable to American destroyers such as Arly Burke.

          How many missiles on Project 1144 were capable of hitting objects on land? None!!!

          And on Arly Burke and such under 60 or more with a range of 2500 km, and on Tikanderog even more !!!

          You understand the ships like a pig in oranges, but climb with your comments, clever how and what to do.

          Now Russia is systematically and without tensions developing its fleet, bringing each type of ship to perfection and I see no reason for panic.

          Enormous amounts of money are being spent on the fleet, only about 20 billion dollars have been spent on the submarines! Surface ships are also being built.
          1. PSih2097 16 February 2020 15: 47 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            How many missiles on pr. 1144 were capable of hitting objects on land

            in principle, all P-700/800/1000 can work along the shore - only target designation ...
            Accordingly, pr. 1144 - 20 missiles, pr. 1164 16 missiles, pr. 949A 24 missiles ...
          2. voyaka uh 16 February 2020 16: 00 New
            • 9
            • 1
            +8
            "England and France have ships like Arly Burke" ///
            ----
            England has 6 of the latest Type 45 air defense / missile destroyers. They have stronger radars than Berks. And the power plant is more modern.
      2. 2 Level Advisor 16 February 2020 14: 14 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        And let's consider already built? since it’s more logical .. the "partners" are also built, so what? We are not discussing the situation in 10 years, as soon as possible, in theory, we are discussing how right now the ships with crews are serving ..
    3. Professor Preobrazhensky 16 February 2020 12: 16 New
      • 16
      • 6
      +10
      Gentlemen, tell me honestly, it became easier for you because you put the minuses under the statement by me, an obvious fact?
      I don’t give a damn, actually, I’m interested in what drives you in this case?
      After your cons, will we live better or will the fleet rise?
      Well, after all, are you guided by something, do some mental processes go on in your head or is everything just at the level of reflexes?
      1. Pereira 16 February 2020 13: 07 New
        • 15
        • 1
        +14
        Centuries have passed, socio-economic formations are changing, but cap-throwers and aggressive bonnet-throwers to the glory of power are born regularly.
        The most interesting thing is that all propaganda is tailored precisely to this category, so that they crush all those who doubt the genius of those in power ..
  • Xambo 16 February 2020 12: 05 New
    • 5
    • 7
    -2
    He served his old man to see .. Well, his change will be worthy!
    The Russian Fleet of Peter the Great was and will be! Hayatelm to evil .. soldier
    1. PSih2097 16 February 2020 16: 01 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Xambo
      He served his old man to see ..Well, his change will be worthy !

      When it will be? In terms of PLO ships, and aircraft thereof, we (the Russian Federation), if not at the bottom, then very close to this. There were many articles on VO explaining the position of the PLO in the fleet and they all did not give positive, because they themselves do not know what they need under the spitz.
  • Andrei Nikolaevich 16 February 2020 12: 06 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    There is nothing eternal. Well done! He served.
  • Alexga 16 February 2020 12: 09 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Be that as it may, but the descent of the flag on a warship, although very old, which is already impossible to restore, is a very sad event. And especially for his crew. I would like that the name and flag of the ship would be transferred to a new one. As has always been the tradition of the Russian and Soviet Navy.
  • Orkraider 16 February 2020 12: 09 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    A ship under 50 was a lot ... sorry. Although real, most of the equipment is for replacement, but it entails replacing the remaining.
    Apparently not a cheap repair came out, plus a fire ... and fires from gouging and non-compliance with safety measures during work.

    The photo is strong, all experiences are visible:


    Right at the very cheekbones compressed. crying
    1. mark1 16 February 2020 12: 30 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Orkraider
      and fires from gouging and non-compliance with safety measures during work.

      Not too much gouging in the fleet and gathered around?
    2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 16 February 2020 12: 36 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Under the event, the stern was painted on the ship. In a fire in 2014, 4 compartments burned out, including the aft engine room. Blame for the fire on conscripts from БЧ-5 - clothes were dried on a diesel generator. Then they went to bed. Everything smoldered all night. Then a young sailor saw smoke on rags and without telling anyone - he covered the whole thing with an overcoat (apparently, he blocked the fire with oxygen). After about 40 minutes it blazed and off we go. At "Kerch" were gas turbines of Ukrainian production.

      1. From Siberia we 16 February 2020 13: 33 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Blame for the fire on conscripts from БЧ-5 - clothes were dried on a diesel generator. Then they went to bed. Everything smoldered all night. Then a young sailor saw smoke on rags and without telling anyone - he covered the whole thing with an overcoat (apparently, he blocked the fire with oxygen). After about 40 minutes it blazed and off we go.

        You respected RBJ NK - 72 read? I have not read more nonsense.
        1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 16 February 2020 19: 35 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          I read the informational message. He who discovered the fire did not report to anyone and for an hour no one knew anything. Air flowed through the technological cuts. The crew did not actually fight the fire, the emergency compartment did not deenergize, then, due to a short circuit in the emergency compartment, the power supply disconnected from the shore, the ship turned off and everything disappeared until it came from the shore and extinguished.
          1. From Siberia we 17 February 2020 13: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
            He who discovered the fire did not report to anyone and for an hour no one knew anything.

            And then he told the investigation and reporters how he scored on instructions and actions without an order.
            Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
            the power supply disconnected from the shore, the ship was de-energized and everything was gone

            Well, of course, and none of the internal combustion engines knew how to remove power from the compartment and re-enable power from the shore.
            I can ASSUME how it was.
            The ship is under repair, l / s on the coastal housing. On board left the top watch. (Factories, as a rule, always themselves must ensure survivability) There are one PPPI posts instead of 4 (let it go that happens). The commander of the watch post, together with the ship's duty officer, sat in the cabin of the officer on duty (coastal telephones are there), possibly together with the sentinel for survivability. And he didn’t let the sentinel go around, because there is no light on half of the ship (saving), and if the sentinel thunders somewhere in the dark and breaks his neck, then the prison on duty. (lanterns give out only parades) When we felt the smell of smoke and rushed to search for a fire in the car, there was no ... nothing was visible. Because of the “technological cut-outs”, it makes no sense to start the СО-4 or ОХТ system (is the system intact and is there air) The instruction required to seal, turn off ventilation, remove power, and start to extinguish. Sealing is pointless. ventilation already doesn’t work, click a dozen machines looking for power to the compartment mechanisms for a long time, but there is no single automaton on the compartment. So someone lit up the coastal gun, since nothing is visible from the smoke anyway. From respiratory protection, only IP. But who said that they were not submitted for verification, or the deadlines of the RP didn’t come out, Or maybe they didn’t, but one jester doesn’t work. And then .... While the teams, reports, decisions were taken by people who did not own the situation .... Then they most likely took and stupidly filled the compartment with water. We found a piece of rags and since someone should be to blame .....
            PS I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth, but something like that was.
      2. ccsr 16 February 2020 14: 18 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Blame for the fire on conscripts from БЧ-5 - clothes were dried on a diesel generator.

        I remembered something familiar - the order for a serious incident in the GSVG, where the conscript with a gasoline machine washed his uniform in the control room, also hung it and wanted to dry it faster. In general, he himself burned down, the hardware was decommissioned, and to whom should he make claims, except for the father-commanders? My fighter on duty at night after washing the uniform climbed to dry it on a heating radiator, but only broke his arm slipping, in the morning he had to be taken to the Podolsky hospital, in general, they got off easily ....
  • Mountain shooter 16 February 2020 12: 11 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Well, an old ship, an old one ... of the 72nd year ... It is not known what is better - to invest in maintaining a decrepit "organism" with outdated weapons and electronics, worn out power plants or build new ones. Let the sailors speak it out. Our AT ground equipment has been updated quickly and clearly. And no one on ATGMs "Baby" or "Bassoon" will not cry.
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 12: 42 New
      • 2
      • 10
      -8
      Well, an old ship, an old one ... of the 72nd year ... It is not known what is better - to invest in maintaining a decrepit "organism" with outdated weapons and electronics, worn out power plants or build new ones.


      Once they decided to upgrade, it means it was better, but the fire caused the decommissioning of the ship. And this is very bad.

      There must be a serious check on this fact and the perpetrators must be punished.
  • kepmor 16 February 2020 12: 16 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    almost half a century to the ship ... respectable age ... worthy fate ...
    and the project 1134 itself was very successful ... and seaworthiness is excellent, and weapons above the roof ...
    a little off topic, BUT ... I look at the current form and get fucked up ... well, why did the naval officers pend on the collar of the skin of "tattered cats" ??? ... it looks like old ladies' down jackets ...
    1. PSih2097 16 February 2020 16: 04 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: kepmor
      Well, why did naval officers pend on the collar of the skin of "tattered cats" ??? ... it looks like women’s down jackets ...

      like "alaska", the whole MO has this, it differs only in color, we thank Shoigu for this ...
  • Graz 16 February 2020 12: 28 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    A ship can be written off only when a ship of a similar class was built for the crew and not earlier, but now they will write everything as under Yeltsin, there is no money for maintenance, they are happy to try to write off the ship
  • Dimy4 16 February 2020 12: 35 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Something suspiciously occurs on ships sent for repair fires.
  • From Siberia we 16 February 2020 12: 39 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    The last bukar. Perhaps 1134 and 1135 are the best projects. Sorry. Now these can not be done. In NATO, he generally passed as a light cruiser.
    1. kepmor 16 February 2020 13: 24 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      and the glorious take-off of Soviet shipbuilding began with the 61 gas turbine project ... at the time, the 61st standard was generally in the frigate class ...
      By the way, it was the BOD pr.61 that NATO called the "singing frigates" ...
      1. From Siberia we 16 February 2020 13: 29 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        PR 61 is the first gas turbine, and hence the first singing. Fully singing it is 1125. They have 5 lobed low noise screws. Provide high frequency sound.
        1. kepmor 16 February 2020 13: 41 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          I will not argue ... not sonar ...
          but I had a chance to go on the “Model” (61) under 31 knots and on the “Strong” (1135) on 28 knots ... both sing so that the spleen vibrates ......
          1. From Siberia we 16 February 2020 14: 02 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            And how do they keep the ox !!!! IEC is excellent !!!
      2. From Siberia we 16 February 2020 13: 39 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        1135 I am in love with this building as a boy. better for me no laughing
      3. Lexus 16 February 2020 18: 08 New
        • 6
        • 5
        +1
        By the way, it was the BOD pr.61 that NATO called the "singing frigates"

        And now, in favor of “communication boats”, “trills” of numerous “vocal” assistants with hands of leaders of all ranks who, according to the results of the “campaigns”, go on maternity leave in “us microfiltered” general / admiral ranks at a fairly young age. request
    2. Alexey RA 16 February 2020 18: 04 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: From Siberia we
      The last bukar.

      So this is the Black Sea Fleet. There, the brigade of surface ships before the arrival of 11356 was a "floating museum" - it served as the last ships of the projects, whose classmates had been decommissioned in other fleets for a long time. The last 1134B (more precisely the last two - “Kerch” and “Ochakov”, decommissioned in 2011), the last 1135M “Inquisitive” (still in service), the last 1135 “Okay” (clean 1135, still in operation) , last 61 “Shrewd” (yes, yes, project 61, still in operation).
      By the way, they write that after the fire, Kerch was cannibalized for the repair of Okay.
      1. Alexey RA 16 February 2020 18: 23 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Alexey RA
        the last 61 is “sharp-witted” (yes, yes, yes, project 61, still in service).

        Amendment - last year it was withdrawn from the current Black Sea Fleet.
  • Whalebone 16 February 2020 12: 53 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Thank you to the veteran and let him rest in peace. Almost 50 years to the ship, served, it’s time and peace. You can remember. I do not share far-reaching conclusions about polymers. There is some leapfrog with the Navy (as in the whole country), but 22350 are being built, which means the fleet will be! The doctrine would be dealt with, but sooner or later this will happen. Everything does not happen right away.
    1. Arberes 16 February 2020 13: 01 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Whalebone
      Thank you to the veteran and let him rest in peace. Almost 50 years to the ship, served, it’s time and peace.

      I also wanted to speak on this topic. You beat me, dear Whalebone hi
      The old man served. Honor and glory to him! I would like that his name would not go away with him on the needles, but was given to the new ship of the Russian Navy. drinks
  • Victor March 47 16 February 2020 12: 56 New
    • 1
    • 8
    -7
    Quote: alexmach
    11356 is not a change for him. Its anti-submarine capabilities are rudimentary. Another thing is that this ship is already quite outdated. And it is not entirely clear whether there are tasks for him in the Black Sea.

    And what, there are a lot of potential enemy submarines in the Black Sea? And a lot is expected? For this fleet, missiles are needed that are not large in displacement, with naval capabilities, in large numbers, with calibers and more powerful pieces of iron. In order to lock any fleet in the bases. And do not let others through the straits. Subtle, and constantly replacing each other. Since there are no glands with a resource in months. Distances here are such that seafaring are small. The assault here is not what to do. We do not need foreign shores. It is enough to be able to burn them there at home.
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan 16 February 2020 13: 12 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      The Black Sea Fleet has to operate not only in the Black Sea, but also in the Mediterranean and anywhere in the world’s oceans, and for this we need ships.

      In our unit there was a division: "A soldier take care of equipment and weapons, there may not be a new one."

      In this case, amazing sloppiness. Conscript and dried clothes and burned down the destroyer ?! Yes, it's just rubbish !!!
      1. From Siberia we 16 February 2020 13: 37 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Ratmir, I completely agree with you. Dried laundry, blah blah blah. Nonsense is complete. In my opinion, they all had to go to the Pacific Fleet. Left in the Black Sea Fleet only because of the Atlantic. Great ships. But they did not go to the KKE. 1124 on seaworthiness did not stretch. And with 35 I haven’t met.
    2. PSih2097 16 February 2020 16: 13 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Victor March 47
      And what, there are a lot of potential enemy submarines in the Black Sea?

      13 pieces of type 209 + 6 pieces of type 214 (212A) among the Turks, do you think this is not enough?
      And I’m generally silent about Middle-earth, there is a passage yard - moose, virgins, wolves, etc.
  • Lamata 16 February 2020 12: 58 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Glorious ship left !!!!! And what is this USC, where are the results of labor and injections? Washes there a couple of top menagers need to slap?
    1. author-words 16 February 2020 14: 01 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      It is high time. From anti-aircraft guns!
  • Dazdranagon 16 February 2020 12: 59 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Surprisingly, very often fires break out something. And what’s convenient - he said 100500 yards were spent on repairs, but the fire destroyed the results ... laughing
    1. author-words 16 February 2020 13: 59 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Yes, that’s exactly how the stolen ammunition depots burn in Ukraine
  • Grigory_45 16 February 2020 13: 30 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    The crew of 429 people (51 officers; 63 midshipmen).
    and where are three hundred more people ???
    The crew of the BOD pr.1134B consisted of 49-52 officers, 62-64 midshipmen and 311-319 members of the senior and ordinary staff
  • Maks-80 16 February 2020 13: 56 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    NATO doesn’t even have to fight. "Effective managers" themselves will write everything off, sell it, cut it up
  • author-words 16 February 2020 13: 58 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In a place with ave. 1134, the Golden Eagles are the most beautiful ships in the history of post-artillery fleets! It is amazing how the land power built the best ships in the world. Glory to the Soviet marine engineers! ⭐
  • xomaNN 16 February 2020 14: 06 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    I worked at BOD 1134 A. “Kronstadt” was my first repair order at the Morzavod in Kronstadt. The era of these good ships has passed.
    (I did not immediately find my BOD photo. I took it on the network)
  • Old26 16 February 2020 14: 29 New
    • 14
    • 3
    +11
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    No need to carry nonsense.

    You're right. Nonsense should not be carried. And this primarily concerns you.

    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    In Russia today, 8 frigates of the far sea zone have been built and are being built,

    Yeah. One in the ranks - "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" plus 1 in state tests "Fleet Admiral Kasatonov". Another one getting ready for the descent - Admiral Golovko. At one - "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Isakov". Two more - Admiral Amelko и Admiral Chichagov laid 23.04.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX. Total SIX buildings. SIXAnd not EIGHT In the ranks - ONE.

    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    In Russia today, 8 multipurpose nuclear submarines and 10 strategic nuclear submarines have been built and are under construction.

    Multipurpose built and under construction only seven.
    K-560 Severodvinsk - in service
    K-561 "Kazan" - undergoing factory sea trials
    K-573 "Novosibirsk" - launched
    K-571 "Krasnoyarsk" - under construction
    K-564 "Arkhangelsk" - under construction
    K-xxx "Perm" - under construction
    K-xxx "Ulyanovsk" - under construction
    In fact, one boat is in operation

    Strategists. 10 strategic boats built and are under construction
    K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky" - in service
    K-550 "Alexander Nevsky" - in service
    K-551 "Vladimir Monomakh" - in service
    K-549 "Prince Vladimir" - completed state tests. Not yet in service
    "Prince Oleg" - getting ready for the descent
    "Generalissimus Suvorov" - under construction
    "Emperor Alexander III" - under construction
    "Prince Pozharsky" - under construction
    Total EIGHT STRATEGS BUILT AND BUILT.
    Two more boats, presumably the "Marshal Zhukov" and the "Marshal Rokossovsky" are preparing for the bookmark.

    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    In parallel, work is underway on a full-fledged destroyer pr.22350M, in the future there will be a nuclear cruiser pr.23560 with a missile defense system based on the S-500.

    In parallel, work can go on and 20 years. About as much talk is about Russian aircraft carriers. So far, and 22350M in the distant future. And when the nuclear cruiser of project 23560 appears and it’s not worth talking. Especially with the S-500, which is not even in the land version ...

    And we are really building a “fleet” of “Buyans” and “Karakurt”. And the "bright prospects" are already quite tired. "Tomorrow after tomorrow". We will soon have 6 AUGs with atomic icebreaking aircraft carriers. 4 at the Pacific Fleet and 2 at the SF. And they will have 7th generation fighters that will be able to go into outer space .... It will also be ....

    Quote: Professor Preobrazhensky
    Gentlemen, tell me honestly, it became easier for you because you put the minuses under the statement by me, an obvious fact?
    I don’t give a damn, actually, I’m interested in what drives you in this case?

    Disregard the cons. There is a category that considers itself “the ultimate truth” and if you write something that does not correspond to their view of the problem, there will be minuses. Moreover, the arguments for which put a minus you will not wait. Therefore, hammer in the cons ...

    Quote: AlexGa
    Be that as it may, but the descent of the flag on a warship, although very old, which is already impossible to restore, is a very sad event. And especially for his crew. I would like that the name and flag of the ship would be transferred to a new one. As has always been the tradition of the Russian and Soviet Navy.

    It would be nice. But while the new ship "Kerch" is not visible on the horizon. Maybe from time to time it will appear.

    Quote: From Siberia we
    In NATO, he generally passed as a light cruiser.

    That's for sure. First met with this classification in the early 70's. In the English journal "Space Flights" there was an article about our "Bora". With a photo. And the article said that in the landing area (Australia-New Zealand region) a detachment of Soviet ships was noticed, which, in addition to the research vessel, also included a cruiser of the KARA type and a destroyer of the KASHIN type. And only after some time in "Jane" he read that a cruiser of the type "KARA" is a project 1134B BOD, and a destroyer of the type "KASHIN" is a project 61 BOD

    Quote: Victor March 47
    And what, there are a lot of potential enemy submarines in the Black Sea? And a lot is expected? For this fleet, missiles are needed that are not large in displacement, with naval capabilities, in large numbers, with calibers and more powerful pieces of iron. In order to lock any fleet in the bases. And do not let others through the straits. Subtle, and constantly replacing each other. Since there are no glands with a resource in months. Distances here are such that seafaring are small. The assault here is not what to do. We do not need foreign shores. It is enough to be able to burn them there at home.

    Exclusively in Turkey. In the future, it will probably appear (or not) in Bulgaria and Romania. In a very distant future (towards the end of the 21st century laughing ) in Ukraine and Georgia.
    Not large in terms of displacement and with marine capabilities - mutually conflicting conditions. Small displacement - this is usually a small autonomy and seaworthiness. Often without anti-aircraft defense and anti-aircraft defense (like our Buyan-M). You can’t forbid any fleet in such bases, especially if you are opposed by full-fledged frigates or destroyers. As in the straits, we won’t be able to let ....
    1. vladcub 16 February 2020 21: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Old, you are a smart person, but a villain: how can one speak of the Navy like this: Georgia and Ukraine?
  • Lamata 16 February 2020 14: 53 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    It would be turned into a museum.
  • Looking for 16 February 2020 17: 24 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    the Americans won the collapsed battleships after Pearl Harbor put them into operation. and in Putin’s Russia, good ships are written off after a “fire”. This cannot be called treason and wrecking.
    1. Alexey RA 17 February 2020 03: 13 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Seeker
      Americans won the collapsed battleships after Pearl Harbor put into operation

      Purely from the principle. And having spent a lot of resources and working hours on this junk, which could have found the best application.
      For by the time the return of the living dead the base of the fleet was already made up of new “post-Washington” high-speed LCs of the SoDak and NorKa types. And on the way were “Iowa”.
      And to support the landing, they would have had enough of the seven old LCs afloat — surviving in the Pennsylvania dock, which was being repaired on the West Coast of Colorado, three New Mexico and a couple of Texas (the last five were from the Atlantic).
      But no, they even the dead destroyers "Cassin" and "Downs" (completely burned out in the dock, after which the dock was filled with water), rebuilt under the old side numbers.
      Twice dumb! © smile
      Quote: Seeker
      and in Putin’s Russia, good ships are written off after a “fire”

      45 years in service. The main armament was outdated even before the collapse of the USSR. The same air defense systems by today's standards can only threateningly move launchers with missiles - the minimum altitude of their work is greater than the standard flight altitude of modern anti-ship missiles.
  • Lexus 16 February 2020 18: 14 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Eeeh. Now there will be a monument to the undefeated, but "defeated" by the traitors of the Great Soviet Fleet. Weak consolation that at least not "on the needle." recourse
  • cosmospetrovich 16 February 2020 18: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Beautiful ship. I saw him in 1990, in the summer. He was moored in Odessa, at the seaport. From the Potemkin Stairs Pts looked spectacular.
  • Petrol cutter 16 February 2020 19: 14 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    You look at the photo (if it is from there). The man almost cries.
    Forgive us father. What is coming out so now ... hi
  • Adimius38 16 February 2020 21: 34 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    a rook boat is already being built to replace
  • Adimius38 16 February 2020 21: 36 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The sad thing is that we cannot build ships of rank 1, but because of negligence and stupidity we destroy what we have. Strange as it may seem, but ridiculously suspiciously often absurd accidents occur with our main strike ships.
  • vladcub 16 February 2020 21: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: UAZ 452
    Soon it will be repaired, where it will burn safely.

    Silly joke
  • bukhach 16 February 2020 23: 56 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Pereira
    Centuries pass, socio-economic changes

    Come on, you’re talking nonsense, blasphemers of power in Russia are always held in high esteem, the whole history of the state is an example to you with all the riots and revolutions, and how our "simple" people favor power and you don’t need to speak, and any, regardless of color. So "cheers-patriots" are always the losers, however, everyone has their own opinion.
  • dirk182 17 February 2020 09: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    And you yourself, how many taxes have been paid per year, take a look to begin with, and then wake up, about the minuscule.

    maybe it’s enough to quote your training manual?
  • Nazaroff 17 February 2020 12: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Some kind of bad trend, like a scheduled repair - so immediately a fire ("Kerch", now "Kuzya" .... In general, the ships of this project, in my subjective opinion, were the most beautiful in the USSR Navy. Yes, and in terms of displacement and composition weapons, it would be fair to call them anti-submarine cruisers. The USSR knew how to build beautiful and powerful ships, knew how.
  • Old26 17 February 2020 14: 28 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Seeker
    the Americans won the collapsed battleships after Pearl Harbor put them into operation. and in Putin’s Russia, good ships are written off after a “fire”. This cannot be called treason and wrecking.

    Battleships were quite combat-ready. , And after a fire - after a fire it is sometimes financially more profitable to write off than to restore.

    Quote: bayard
    And it's time to end the baiting MRK

    And no one is poisoning them. But also to make of them a "wunderwaffe" is also not worth it. And then immediately after the use of Caliber from the Caspian, some very "advanced" wrote: "Now with these weapons we will sweep the American fleet from the oceans"

    Quote: bayard
    Their weak point WAS not at all the absence of PLO (it is not necessary for boats and RTOs), not the absence of air defense (Karakurt has it, and what is), but the problem of target designation. Now THIS is no problem, the GOS would handle

    This is a weak spot and remains. And you think in vain that neither the PLO nor the air defense are needed by such ships. Do you prefer the boat to be deaf and blind with respect to underwater targets? Gus no. On the "Karakurt" put "Shell". At least something. Not MANPADS. Especially “air defense” and anti-aircraft defense “will not be needed” when the “Karakurt” and “Buyany-M” go out (will go out) into the Mediterranean Sea, or into the Pacific Ocean.
    As far as I remember the “Shell” missiles, the radio command system, and not the GOS

    Quote: bayard
    And for this, drones, AWACS and even naval reconnaissance satellites are not even necessary. Enough ZGRLS "Container" - at a distance of not less than 2000 km. from the borders of the Russian Federation in sufficient resolution even cruise missiles, not to mention aviation and surface ships, in full view

    Kamrad! I repeat. It’s not worthwhile to make another “child prodigy” from the most frequently voiced weapon systems.
    "Container" - over-the-horizon radar DETECTIONS Air defense. Detection, not target designation. In addition, this radar belongs to the air defense, and not to the Navy. Therefore, you should not rely on it as a means of target designation, which sees something beyond 2000 km. She, by the way, has a dead zone of 900 km.

    Quote: bayard
    The plane is taken for escort even at the time of acceleration in the strip

    AND? Well, the station recorded that in Italy it took off from an airplane. What's next? Targeting the ship pass, which in the SPM? And if the plane took off from the territory of Britain, what will you do with this very “Container” ??? In addition, the “Container” is just a fragment of the detection and guidance system. One of. The main work will be done by radars with a closer range. And in the “Container” area of ​​operation there will be so many goals for him that they will have to be selected in order to understand what threatens and what does not threaten us ...

    Quote: bayard
    And missiles at long-range missiles, disperse from different bays and skerries, give target designation and receive such an AUG volley of anti-ship missiles with a maximum range and different azimuths. It’s practically the All-Seeing Eye, and you’ll still have to get used to it ...

    How are you brained with another "wunderwaffe". Long-range "Caliber" is just a rocket
    3M14, designed for firing at stationary targets with previously known coordinates. The range of anti-ship "Caliber" is about 400-600 km. About the same amount (600 km) - on "Onyx". So forget about thousands of kilometers of range. And to the raid from different azimuths ....

    Quote: bayard
    Now individual units are not fighting, complexes, systems are fighting. And these RTOs are the constituent elements of such a system. After all, it never occurred to anyone to call our "Lightning" useless? And their capabilities are orders of magnitude lower than those of RTOs

    System system. But is she there? The system for the fleet is a balanced fleet, including MRK, and MPK, and BOD, and destroyer frigates, and cruisers. And so it turns out not a balanced fleet, but a shipboard pulled from a pine forest. What can the same "Buyan-M" or "Karakurt" do in the Mediterranean, away from air defense means, without any means of anti-aircraft defense? What?

    Quote: JD1979
    BOD much earlier will detect a surface target such as RTOs and issue a control unit. And since the MRK is a defenseless ship with an air defense simulation (1! AK630 + MANPADS))), the BOD will figure out this nut with a maximum of 2 missiles.

    We can agree with the lack of anti-aircraft defense on the IPC.
    But the radar stationed at Karakurt for a destroyer type target has a detection range of 250 km in active mode and 450 in passive mode. The range of anti-ship missiles on the MRK is from 400 to 600 km. And there are options: either a subsonic “Caliber” with a supersonic third stage, or a supersonic “Onyx” with a firing range of 600 km along a combined trajectory, and about 150-200 km along a low-altitude trajectory. So, “Kerch” can easily “grind its teeth” about RTOs. He will drown him before the "Kerch" fired a salvo "Bell"
    1. vladcub 17 February 2020 14: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I apologize, but: "has a detection range of 250 in active mode and 450 in passive", perhaps you need to rearrange the numbers?
      1. Alexey RA 17 February 2020 16: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: vladcub
        I apologize, but: "has a detection range of 250 in active mode and 450 in passive", perhaps you need to rearrange the numbers?

        Purely theoretically - everything is correct. For the radiation of a working radar is received by the RTR system installed on the target (which is, in particular, the same radar in the passive mode) at a much greater distance than this radar itself begins to receive a reflected signal from the target with sufficient power to distinguish it from noise. It was due to this that “diesels” escaped from PLO aircraft: the RTR submarine detected the signal of the radar of the patrol aircraft before a clear mark from the target appeared on the screen of the radar and the submarine managed to sink.
        Simply put - the light of a flashlight in the field we will see much further than the owner of the flashlight will notice us in the beam. smile
        1. vladcub 17 February 2020 17: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I’ll know, otherwise for me all these radars, BIUS, or whatever they are, Terra incognito
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Geniuses 17 February 2020 17: 55 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: vladcub
          I apologize, but: "has a detection range of 250 in active mode and 450 in passive", perhaps you need to rearrange the numbers?

          Purely theoretically - everything is correct. For the radiation of a working radar is received by the RTR system installed on the target (which is, in particular, the same radar in the passive mode) at a much greater distance than this radar itself begins to receive a reflected signal from the target with sufficient power to distinguish it from noise.
          Simply put - the light of a flashlight in the field we will see much further than the owner of the flashlight will notice us in the beam.

          Dear! Do not forget the difference between the root of the fourth degree and the root of the second degree, when receiving a reflected signal from the target and radiated by the target. Mineral-M is actually an over-the-horizon radar.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Old26 17 February 2020 16: 27 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: vladcub
    I apologize, but: "has a detection range of 250 in active mode and 450 in passive", perhaps you need to rearrange the numbers?

    It is in the passive when it captures radio-emitting objects that have a detection range of 450 km. With the active mode - 250
  • lvov_aleksey 17 February 2020 22: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I don’t understand the chat, the ships leave, and even more so we will leave one day! Our Black Sea Fleet has already shown its superiority, we farted in the Mediterranean Sea so much that they are still looking for us somewhere there. Do you remember about the Caspian and the Baltic ?!
  • Николаев 5 May 2020 18: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It would be better if a couple of 1155 were cut, and 1134b was repaired with the proceeds.