The flagship of the Black Sea Fleet extended marching readiness without modernization

The flagship of the Black Sea Fleet extended marching readiness without modernization

ФлР° РіРјР ° РЅ Черноморского fleet - the guards missile cruiser Moskva will last another ten years, the life of the ship is extended to 2030. This was reported by Mil.Press FLOT, citing two informed industry sources.


As explained by the sources of the publication, the cruiser is currently undergoing repairs with the restoration of marching readiness, there is no talk of modernization yet. The power plant was repaired on the ship, focusing on the repair of gas turbine generators, gearboxes, fuel equipment, gas ducts of marching gas turbine engines and other plant components. The transfer of the cruiser to the Black Sea Fleet was scheduled for the second quarter of this year.

At the same time, sources claim that the modernization of the cruiser in the future is possible, but only with the allocation of funds for this. Currently, the Ministry of Defense has no money to modernize. At the same time, the modernization and further extension of the life of Moscow may not be practical, since Moscow will be 2030 years old by 47.

The cruiser "Moscow" has not gone to sea since 2016 in connection with the repair, the first voyage after the completion of the first stage of the repair took place on June 5, 2019.

The cruiser "Moscow" was laid on the stocks of the Nikolaev shipbuilding plant named after the 61 communard in the 1976 year as the Slava missile cruiser, is the leading missile in the series of missile cruisers. Launched 27 July 1979 g., Was put into operation in 1983 year. Displacement - 11380 tons. It is equipped with 16 launchers of Vulkan missiles, artillery, air defense systems, torpedo tubes and depth-fire bombs.

The last time the cruiser was at sea from September 2015 of the year to January 2016 of the year in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea for air defense from the sea direction of the Russian Hmeimim airbase in Syria.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 06 New
    • 11
    • 11
    0
    Not really there is no money for the flagship?
    1. FORCE 38GB 19 February 2020 09: 17 New
      • 21
      • 20
      +1
      Probably, the loot was scattered to the leadership and defective managers, so the Guards Rocket Cruiser didn’t get a lot of money ... If the staff of incomprehensible parasites, useless deputies is unclear to whom and what and other cabinet workers, the budget will be enough to modernize Moscow and the New Atomic Tavkr to lower the water ..
      1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 20 New
        • 15
        • 15
        0
        “Yes, whoever planted it, it’s a monument” - who will reduce it, then soon they will reduce the officers of the warrant officers and officers (well, they will reduce the money allowance) and “optimize” everything. As a result, we’ll lose Moscow ...
        1. FORCE 38GB 19 February 2020 09: 23 New
          • 19
          • 6
          +13
          That is our problem throughout the country .. How to receive awards and praise, so all the bosses climb into the lists of heroes !!! bully And as a problem or an emergency, the welder or the locksmith is to blame right away ... and the three floors of the office have nothing to do with it! laughing laughing
          1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 24 New
            • 8
            • 10
            -2
            What is true is true
        2. Malyuta 19 February 2020 09: 26 New
          • 20
          • 21
          -1
          Quote: Erich
          “Yes, whoever planted it, it’s a monument” - who will reduce it, then soon they will reduce the officers of the warrant officers and officers (well, they will reduce the money allowance) and “optimize” everything. As a result, we’ll lose Moscow ...

          We’ve already lost Kerch, we’ll build a mosquito-coasting fleet.
          1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 27 New
            • 6
            • 6
            0
            As they say that we are building all kinds of frigates there, do you think this is not enough? But what about submarines? I'm not a sailor, so I’m not climbing into this area much))
            1. vladcub 19 February 2020 10: 52 New
              • 6
              • 2
              +4
              It will be the smartest to ask the guys who are "in the subject."
              That: "repaired the power plant" is already pleasing: we have a little tough with dvigunam.
              1. bayard 19 February 2020 13: 29 New
                • 10
                • 1
                +9
                Well, how much can you cry for "Glory" \ "Moscow" to listen to?
                This is an old ship.
                The oldest in the series.
                It makes no sense to upgrade it - it has a resource for 10 years left. If modernization is carried out, maybe 15 years is enough. Not more . But modernization will last 4 - 5 years no less. The cost of such modernization is the construction of a new ship (for a maximum of 15 years of service!). Missiles on its main caliber are gone and no one will produce them.
                Therefore, only repairs to extend the service and maintain the technical condition.
                Prior to the change of NEW ships.
                They will be replaced by 22350M. In a year or two, the laying of the first buildings is expected, the construction cycle is about 5 years. So before the cancellation of “Moscow” the first of them (22350M) will already be in operation.
                Most likely, even the “Varyag” of the Pacific will not be driven into modernization, so as not to expose the Pacific Fleet - they will wait for a change and only maintain the technical condition.
                Now even about the modernization of Peter the Great, there are big doubts - it is too expensive (like building a new one) and takes a long time, perhaps it will also be limited only to a major overhaul without a radical modernization.
                The rate on new ships is 22350, 22350M and possibly a series of destroyers, but not nuclear, but on gas turbines (which is cheaper, faster and easier to operate).
                By May 9, two more 22350+ and two UDC / helicopter carriers will be laid, maybe some more bookmarks will please.

                But Moscow needs the Black Sea Fleet now in service.
                Now.
                In the ranks.
                And not in repair / modernization for 5 years.
                1. vladcub 19 February 2020 14: 59 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  Boyard, you’re kind of “in the subject”, otherwise “sofa experts” prevail here
                2. Grits 19 February 2020 16: 21 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  Quote: bayard
                  And Moscow needs Black Sea Fleet now in service

                  On the Black Sea, the smell of fried ...
            2. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 13: 49 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Erich
              we are building all kinds of frigates there, do you think this is not enough?

              not enough. These are not ocean ships, and they are obviously coolly limited in combat capabilities in comparison with destroyers and cruisers.
              Not to mention many other compelling reasons to have an ocean fleet, I’ll also say this: that in case of a conflict with conventional weapons, that even after exchanging nuclear strikes (the war may not end after that), we will need to cut off Europe from the USA - for the inability to deliver goods and reinforcements. This can only be done with a powerful fleet - both submarines and surface ships (and they must include aerial carriers)

              Also, do not forget about the Far East. There the Navy of China and Japan, and not far from American bases
              1. Oleg kubanoid 19 February 2020 14: 19 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                we definitely won’t build cruisers, but the same 22350M by the name of course are frigates, but in fact destroyers ..
      2. Malyuta 19 February 2020 09: 29 New
        • 20
        • 18
        +2
        Quote: FORCE 38RUS
        Probably, the loot was scattered on the leadership and defective managers, so the Guards Missile Cruiser did not get too much money ...

        Money tons are stored in apartments "Zakharchenko" and various offshore.
        1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 30 New
          • 6
          • 16
          -10
          Well, like "If the stars light up, then someone needs it ...")) And then they puff out their cheeks and catch the "keepers of money")) Nevertheless, they understand that this is a circus with horses (and possibly with mares)))
    2. 1976AG 19 February 2020 09: 34 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      A new ship is needed as much as the old can be patched.
      1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 35 New
        • 6
        • 10
        -4
        Can such ships be built now?
        1. 1976AG 19 February 2020 09: 37 New
          • 11
          • 2
          +9
          Class frigate for example project 22350M why not? Modern technology blurs the boundaries between the usual classification of ships
          1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 39 New
            • 7
            • 10
            -3
            Are they building at least one now?
            1. 1976AG 19 February 2020 09: 40 New
              • 7
              • 1
              +6
              So to him until 2030 the resource was extended, if you do not chew the snot, then it is quite possible to catch it.
              1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 42 New
                • 4
                • 4
                0
                We will see. Well, at least there is a replacement
              2. Tiksi-3 19 February 2020 09: 57 New
                • 5
                • 2
                +3
                Quote: 1976AG
                So he extended the resource until 2030, if you do not chew the snot, then it is quite possible

                Project 1164 guards missile cruiser "Moscow", code "Atlant", will last at least another ten years: the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet has been extended. They plan to complete the repair and restore technical readiness of the cruiser in the second quarter of 2020. The main attention was paid to the repair of the main power plant, including gas turbine generators, gearboxes, fuel equipment, gas ducts of marching gas turbine engines and other elements of the power plant.
                1. 1976AG 19 February 2020 10: 20 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Tiksi-3
                  Quote: 1976AG
                  So he extended the resource until 2030, if you do not chew the snot, then it is quite possible

                  Project 1164 guards missile cruiser "Moscow", code "Atlant", will last at least another ten years: the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet has been extended. They plan to complete the repair and restore technical readiness of the cruiser in the second quarter of 2020. The main attention was paid to the repair of the main power plant, including gas turbine generators, gearboxes, fuel equipment, gas ducts of marching gas turbine engines and other elements of the power plant.

                  So it’s kind of like me about the same ...
            2. donavi49 19 February 2020 09: 48 New
              • 10
              • 1
              +9
              22350M - no.
              The draft design of "Super-Gorshkov" is completed
              November 29 2019
              For completion of the design of the frigate project 22350Mnicknamed "Super-Pots" in the industry, necessary from 12 to 18 months. The construction of the lead ship of the new series will take 4-5 years.

              That is, it’s unlikely that this year they will even get laid.

              Ordinary people are building, here Golovko will even be let down this year. Plus build two with increased strike weapons. And it’s still possible, while the 22350M is in the design.
              1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 52 New
                • 4
                • 4
                0
                I get it. Thank you Movement in this area is commendable, so not all is lost.
              2. Tiksi-3 19 February 2020 09: 58 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                Quote: donavi49
                it is still possible laid while 22350M in designing.

                like in May they promised to lay 2
              3. 1976AG 19 February 2020 10: 23 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Well, at 10 years old, if you wish, you can meet it, but if the maximum is 2 years and the deadline is put off, well, Moscow will serve another two years, not critical
        2. vladcub 19 February 2020 10: 59 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Is there any point in building such ones? Since 1983 a lot of time has passed and the technology is already completely different
          1. Erich 19 February 2020 14: 03 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Perhaps I asked for fun. If everything leaped forward, then I agree that we need to build new ones))
        3. alexmach 19 February 2020 11: 18 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Can such ships be built now?

          There are no similar ones, but in general 22350 in its most basic configuration is superior to Moscow in its combat value. In this case, can go around the world swimming ..
        4. Serg65 19 February 2020 13: 14 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Erich
          Can such ships be built now?

          frigate pr. 22350 what does not suit you?
          1. Erich 19 February 2020 14: 04 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            I don’t know anything about him if he is superior. (as written above) then excellent))
        5. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 13: 53 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Erich
          Can such ships be built now?

          Quite. If you solve two main problems:
          1. Financial
          2. lack of the required number of qualified personnel (this is also money and time)
          1. Erich 19 February 2020 14: 04 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Is there no money and personnel in the country? If you wish, after all, everything is
    3. Pup1 19 February 2020 10: 16 New
      • 2
      • 8
      -6
      My friend, take a rest ... don’t dust .... don’t wave your tongue .. is your holiday tea not my 8?
      1. Erich 19 February 2020 10: 21 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Well, how can I qualify for your rightful holiday)) Before my little less than a week left))
    4. alexmach 19 February 2020 10: 16 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      This is literally in the article and written, in addition, there are questions on the appropriateness.
    5. Ratmir_Ryazan 19 February 2020 11: 33 New
      • 8
      • 5
      +3
      Not really there is no money for the flagship?


      If there were no money, RK "Moscow" would have stood at the pier.

      Money was allocated as much as needed to restore marching readiness and the ship will serve another 10 years. At the same time, the ship pr.1164 remains a rather formidable weapon - Granites with a launch range of 700 km + sea S-300.
      It is simply not advisable to upgrade pr.1164, since we have only 3 such ships, the series is small, and taking into account the development of the project (which also costs a lot of money), upgrading 3 of these cruisers will make them gold.

      Project 1164 will be replaced by destroyers of project 2350M, which now have thrown the main resources allocated to surface ships. And it is right.

      Russia is gradually building the fleet of the future, it will become more universal in purpose and more optimal -

      Near Sea Area:

      - RTO "Karakurt" and probably their PLO version;
      - Corvettes pr.20380 / 20385
      - DEPL

      Far sea zone:

      - Destroyers pr.22350M;
      - Cruiser missile defense project 23560;
      - UDC, helicopter carriers and aircraft carriers
      - Multipurpose nuclear submarines Yamen-M, strategic nuclear submarines Borey.
      1. Tiksi-3 19 February 2020 12: 59 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        we have only 3 such ships, the series is small, but taking into account the development of the project (which also costs a lot of money)

        you probably don’t know, but one of the three has already undergone modernization, so when you write, at least study the material for a start!
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan 19 February 2020 13: 28 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Are you talking about RK "Marshal Ustinov"?

          And what did the upgraded cruiser get from the new?
          1. Tiksi-3 19 February 2020 13: 33 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            And what did the upgraded cruiser get from the new?

            you do not know?
            you write - about the cruiser missile defense, are you aware that they are not going to build them in the foreseeable future?
            1. Ratmir_Ryazan 19 February 2020 13: 36 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              I did not see anything substantially new in the combat capabilities of the RK “Marshal Ustinov”.

              There was more repair than modernization.
              1. Tiksi-3 19 February 2020 13: 38 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                I did not see anything substantially new in the combat capabilities of the RK “Marshal Ustinov”.

                this is strange, you write about the fleet in all articles, but you don’t know much ....
                and what do you mean by combat capabilities? - I'm sure the main caliber))
                1. Ratmir_Ryazan 19 February 2020 13: 55 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  You write for yourself that you saw the “Marshal Ustinov”, which is absolutely new in the Republic of Kazakhstan, and for the sake of which you need to do the same with “Moscow”, but you should not think of it for me.

                  And don’t forget that Ustinov’s modernization was started almost 10 years ago, since then much has changed and I don’t see the point of putting the Moscow RK for a few more years to get the same ship, with the same armament, but an improved radar and replacing some equipment with digital.

                  The same P-1000 missiles have not been produced since 1992, and their shelf life is not endless.

                  After 5 years, the fleet will receive several new frigates of Project 22350 and construction of Project 22350M will begin - this is where resources should be concentrated.
      2. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 14: 02 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        pr.1164 remains a rather formidable weapon - Granites with a launch range of 700 km

        production of "Granites" is not curtailed?

        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        + sea S-300

        S-300F is already outdated, does not meet modern requirements and requires replacement.
        In general, air defense has never been a strong point of the Atlanteans. Priority in their creation was given to strike weapons.
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan 19 February 2020 14: 16 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          I made a mistake there, on pr.1164 P-1000 "Volcanoes", not P-700 and as they say they haven’t been manufactured since 1992.

          And with the P-700 most likely the same situation is approximately.

          Project 1164 is all outdated, now we need multifunctional ships to hit targets both on water and under water and in air and on land.

          If the ship is to be modernized, it’s approximately as it is now being done with the Admiral Nakhimov TARK - the old building, and everything else is new. But in the case of pr. 1164 this is not relevant, it is better to implement the new pr. 22350M.

          And the Eagles are being modernized in order to get something like the prototype pr.23560 and evaluate its capabilities and, based on that experience, create a new nuclear missile cruiser.
          1. alexmach 19 February 2020 15: 13 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Project 1164 is all outdated, now we need multifunctional ships to hit targets both on water and under water and in air and on land.

            So he is like that ... but yes, it is out of date.
            1. Ratmir_Ryazan 19 February 2020 16: 21 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              On land, what can pr.1164 hit besides artillery? Nothing.

              And take the same project 22350, also 16 cells for anti-ship missiles or missiles capable of hitting a ground object at a range of 2600 km or missile torpedoes.

              Anti-submarine defense is better, anti-torpedo protection.

              So I think that's why I decided not to upgrade it, but only to return the camp readiness.
          2. Alexey RA 19 February 2020 16: 35 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            If the ship is to be modernized, it’s approximately as it is now being done with the Admiral Nakhimov TARK - the old building, and everything else is new.

            So 1144 is easier to upgrade - it initially has VPU (more precisely, not very vertical PU smile ) So there are volumes in the case - you can either cut out the old launchers and put 3C14, or upgrade the old launchers according to the model of project 949.
            And in 1164 - almost lying oblique outer PU. For some reason, the Navy does not like the inclined launchers of Caliber very much.
            1. alexmach 19 February 2020 18: 07 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              For some reason, the Navy does not like the inclined launchers of Caliber very much.

              By the way, a good question, why?
    6. sanches-nk 20 February 2020 08: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Apparently, they decided not to invest huge resources on modernization, but to build frigates. So sorry for me. Such a cruiser after a complete modernization would be unrealistically formidable.
  2. mark1 19 February 2020 09: 08 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    I think Moscow should remember the glorious tradition and provide patronage assistance in the modernization of the namesake.
    1. kjhg 19 February 2020 09: 13 New
      • 12
      • 10
      +2
      Quote: mark1
      I think Moscow should remember the glorious tradition and provide patronage assistance in the modernization of the namesake.

      He will, provided that the Moscow government is allowed to lay the deck of the cruiser with marble tiles and change it to a new one at least three times a year.
      1. mark1 19 February 2020 09: 15 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        Well, if you spend as a stealth coating ...
        1. kjhg 19 February 2020 09: 21 New
          • 7
          • 4
          +3
          Quote: mark1
          Well, if you spend as a stealth coating ...

          You undoubtedly have a talent for promoting projects good. And imagine that if the Moscow government was allowed to carry out repairs on the below-deck premises, then Sobyanin would have laid down with bones for permission to finance the repair of Moscow, but would not have missed such a “patriotic” project.
          1. mark1 19 February 2020 09: 45 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: kjhg
            if the Moscow government will be allowed to carry out repairs and underdecks

            If 50% were allocated for Duty Free retail space, then of course they would have been laid ... with bones.
          2. Alexey RA 19 February 2020 16: 36 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: kjhg
            And imagine that if the Moscow government will be allowed to carry out repairs and underdecks

            And renovation of the add-in. laughing
      2. avia12005 19 February 2020 10: 05 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Bravo! And to build a couple of metro stations.
    2. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 18 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      Who should provide patronage assistance in Moscow? Businessmen, politicians?
      1. mark1 19 February 2020 09: 21 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Quote: Erich
        Who should provide patronage assistance in Moscow?

        Luzhkov, the kingdom of heaven to him, knew who should ...
        1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 23 New
          • 2
          • 10
          -8
          Let the state and provide patronage assistance, enough money. But not businessmen and other entrepreneurs))
          1. RideMaster 19 February 2020 09: 29 New
            • 3
            • 7
            -4
            How much money was there in Tregeris? They sold them, but where is the money? One cruiser could unfasten a pretty penny there.
            But the plus is that there is at least 300 on the cruiser, how air defense can stand in Tartus.
            1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 31 New
              • 4
              • 10
              -6
              There is a lot, but not in your honor, as they say. So this ship is not so important for the country. Tin is going on
          2. mark1 19 February 2020 09: 32 New
            • 3
            • 4
            -1
            Quote: Erich
            Let the state and provide sponsorship

            Yes, let it be!
            Quote: Erich
            But not businessmen and other entrepreneurs))

            Nah! No how! They, sirim and miserable, and so hard .. you need to think about yourself!
            But I, actually about the city budget, and you grabbed your pocket right away ...
            1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 34 New
              • 6
              • 7
              -1
              Yes, just in case, I grabbed something)) Entrepreneurs pay taxes (not small), I think this is possible and it becomes to rob them)) Well, not to say that it’s direct "hard" but "you can live")) Just when they start talking about " We need to raise money for a good cause "- you need to remove the wallet in your breast pocket immediately))
              1. mark1 19 February 2020 09: 55 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Erich
                Yes, just in case, I grabbed something)) Just when they start talking about "We need to collect money for a good deed" - you need to remove the wallet in your chest pocket immediately))

                The reaction is in principle correct - every initiative has its own economic background in favor of the initiator. But alas, not in my case.
                1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 57 New
                  • 3
                  • 5
                  -2
                  I think I should always pay interested directly)) I do not believe that the Navy has no money for such "Wishlist"))
                  1. mark1 19 February 2020 10: 48 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    At the expense of the fleet, army, and other vital formations, I do not agree with you. All of us are directly interested. In this case, we are talking about the patriotic political step of the Moscow government (but it is probably difficult for him, the scale of the personality is not the same)
                    1. Erich 19 February 2020 10: 50 New
                      • 3
                      • 4
                      -1
                      We all pay money for taxes, and there’s an additional “requisition”. No, well, if your soul wants it and allows it, then why not)) If we collect children for treatment with sms, then what is worse about ships (not banter)
          3. Piramidon 19 February 2020 11: 39 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: Erich
            Let the state and provide patronage assistance, enough money. But not businessmen and other entrepreneurs))

            Do you protect yours?
            1. Paranoid50 19 February 2020 16: 44 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Piramidon
              Do you protect yours?

              Duc, huckster huckster eyes will not peck. laughing
              1. Erich 19 February 2020 17: 04 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                I am a software developer, so I earn money. And about the "huckster", you are probably mistaken, It would be nice to first be interested in who does what to conduct research. They say it’s normal in a big age.
                1. Paranoid50 19 February 2020 17: 19 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Erich
                  It would be nice to be interested first

                  Well, what will you do here - for the hundredth time such a parsley with a rebound and a lot of doubts. laughing Especially after that:
                  Social responsibility - this is for you to the state. The business has already paid taxes,
                  Here it is, it turns out ... fellow Well, there is no more doubt, thanks. wassat hi
                  1. Erich 19 February 2020 17: 21 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Well, how do you finance in addition, who doesn’t give you?)) And let the business get money and manage it at its discretion)) And then there are a lot of people who owe you something))
                    1. Paranoid50 19 February 2020 17: 24 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      Quote: Erich
                      a lot of who and what should))

                      So, it's already warmer ...(c) There you go, thanks again. laughing laughing laughing
                      1. Erich 19 February 2020 17: 26 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Yes, not at all))
                    2. Piramidon 19 February 2020 18: 03 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Quote: Erich
                      And the business let the money bucks up and manages at its discretion

                      And with what hangover, I have to unfasten taxes from my salary taxes to the treasury, and you, "businessmen" should only work in your pocket? Signboard (muzzle) is not cracked?
                      1. Erich 19 February 2020 18: 10 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Businessmen, if an LLC, in addition to corporate tax, also pays personal income tax when withdrawing funds, if an individual entrepreneur also pays tax and provides himself with social benefits and a pension (in your case, this is the employer's concern). Still think that you personally pay more than IP or LLC? Or decided to take the mass? In your words, the business doesn’t pay taxes at all, it only displays incomes, but it’s not so))
                      2. Piramidon 19 February 2020 18: 17 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Erich
                        Still think that you personally pay more than IP or LLC?

                        I pay the same 13%. But revenues are not commensurate.
                      3. Erich 19 February 2020 18: 18 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        The company pays taxes more, firstly from a larger turnover, and secondly, more tax burden. As if you used the phrase "the same" which proves that "the business also pays" - how is the problem then?))
                      4. Piramidon 19 February 2020 18: 24 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Quote: Erich
                        What is the problem then?

                        Yes, that you are here trying to assure us that businessmen do not owe the state anything. They say they need to be released into free swimming so that they work only for their own pocket, and the state in which they live and earn money should be weaned from them .. in general, they do not get them with their requirements.
                      5. Erich 19 February 2020 18: 29 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Let's go again. Does businessman pay taxes? Pays! Is it risky? Carries! Pays more than the average person? More! Invests, time and effort? Invests! After payment of all taxes, all that remains is the property of the businessman (beneficiary) and then he will decide whether he will invest money or not in projects. This is his own business. It’s strange to hear the word “works for your pocket” - but whose pocket should it work on? To your chtoli? Someone does not allow you to conduct your own business? Please earn disproportionately more and invest in the state)))
                  2. Erich 19 February 2020 18: 23 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    As for the income,, who studied what))
    3. Erich 19 February 2020 17: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      They are not mine ... they are mine
  3. Grits 19 February 2020 16: 29 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Erich
    Let the state and provide patronage assistance, enough money. But not businessmen and other entrepreneurs

    Business must be socially responsible. money for a barrel, bastards!
    1. Erich 19 February 2020 17: 05 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      A business must make a profit. Social responsibility - this is for you to the state. The business has already paid taxes, you can "whatever you want" to buy within the state))
  • Lamata 19 February 2020 09: 28 New
    • 8
    • 8
    0
    That is, to allocate Pugachikhe 40 lyam for her concert at the state corporation there was a loot. can send her with Galkin to defend the borders of the motherland?
    1. Erich 19 February 2020 09: 32 New
      • 7
      • 9
      -2
      You can immediately see what is more important for the country ...
  • Volder 19 February 2020 10: 23 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    The cruiser Moscow will be replaced by a frigate of project 22350. First 4 pieces. The Gorshkovs will be built for the Northern Fleet (already under construction), then 4 units. for the Pacific Fleet (2 already laid, +2 laid this year). For the Black Sea Fleet, the frigate was laid in 2021, and in 2028 it should enter service. Perhaps, “Moscow” will not last until 2030 if it will be driven to Syria. In this sense, upgrading the cruiser is not economically profitable, and it is not practical from a practical point of view.
    1. Lamata 19 February 2020 10: 30 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Yeah, they’ll make a floating battery.
  • Eskobar 19 February 2020 10: 46 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    What then is the point in general of extending the service life without modernization? Don't you need to prepare for new threats.
    1. Volder 19 February 2020 10: 59 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      What are the "new threats" ?? New technologically advanced air defense systems in the West have not been created. Consequently, our old missiles will completely overcome their old air defense.
      1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 14: 11 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Volder
        New technologically advanced air defense systems in the West have not been created.

        new rockets are created, they constantly refine their Aegis

        Despite the fact that the matter is not only in air defense. In the West, new offensive weapons have also been created - they are rapidly catching up with us in the area of ​​anti-ship missiles. New versions of the "Harpoon", supersonic anti-ship missile system "Standard-ARM", the latest intelligent stealth missile AGM-158 LRASM. From them, "Moscow" in its current form may not be beaten off. Especially considering that our fleet does not have air cover
        1. Volder 19 February 2020 14: 43 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Quote: Gregory_45
          new rockets are created, they constantly refine their Aegis
          Troll, huh? They do not have new air defense missiles, and Aegis is a control system for controlling obsolete weapons.
          Quote: Gregory_45
          New versions of the "Harpoon", supersonic anti-ship missile system "Standard-ARM", the latest intelligent stealth missile AGM-158 LRASM. From them, "Moscow" in its current form may not be beaten off. Especially considering that our fleet does not have air cover
          1. The new harpoon is an old harpoon, which will necessarily bring down the air defense and electronic warfare of Moscow. 2. KR "Standard ARM" does not threaten the cruiser, because Designed for ground-based radars. 3. KR AGM-158 Jassm does not threaten the cruiser, because it is for stationary purposes on earth. 4. "Moscow" is able to fight off any Western weapons if there is no massive attack by dozens of missiles. But even here EW can help out ... 5. In the war threatened period, our ships will not be left without air support, you can be sure! 6. Stop talking.
          1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 14: 59 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Quote: Volder
            They don’t have new air defense missiles,

            if you don’t know anything about them, this does not mean that they are not). As an example - Standard SM-6

            Quote: Volder
            The new harpoon is an old harpoon, which will necessarily bring down the air defense and electronic warfare of Moscow

            is not a fact. With a massive attack by Harpoons, the cruiser's BIUS will overload, in addition. the ship is equipped with only one SAM radar, the Fort can only repel attacks from one direction at a time, and if a single radar fails, the ship’s long-range air defense will be completely paralyzed.

            Old Harpoon, you say ??? Oh well...
            RGM-84N (AGM-84N) - also known as Harpoon Block II +. The most modern version of the rocket. Uses a new guidance system on the marching section, including GPS navigation and an integrated two-way communication channel with the carrier aircraft, which allows you to adjust the course of the rocket, improve the selection of false targets (by comparing the GOS data of the rocket with the data of the carrier aircraft) and realize the possibility of simultaneous approach several missiles for the same target from different directions - the so-called. multi-vector attack - with the aim of disorienting the air defense system of the target.


            Quote: Volder
            "Standard ARM" does not threaten the cruiser, because designed for ground-based radars

            Can't you read? The Americans made supersonic anti-ship missiles based on the Standard. Learn the materiel.

            Quote: Volder
            KR AGM-158 Jassm cruiser is not threatened, because she is for stationary purposes on earth

            and again - learn the materiel. A missile is capable of hitting moving targets, including ships

            Quote: Volder
            In the war threatened period, our ships will not be left without air support, you can be sure!

            where will they get it in the ocean if we don’t have aircraft carriers?

            Quote: Volder
            Enough talk.

            that's it, stop already. First turn on the brain and at least a little enlighten about the weapons of "incredible friends" and the capabilities of domestic technology
            1. Alexey RA 19 February 2020 16: 50 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Gregory_45
              if you don’t know anything about them, this does not mean that they are not). As an example - Standard SM-6

              You still forgot about the main anti-aircraft missiles - those that hang under the belly and wings of the decks. Who did we have there for the main purposes of the RCC "Moscow"? Here is his air defense and have to overcome. And since Soviet times, the AIM-120 GOS has grown wiser, especially in terms of low-altitude targets.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              and again - learn the materiel. A missile is capable of hitting moving targets, including ships

              EMNIP, this is not quite JASSM, and the LRASM developed on its basis is a new long-range RCC. So far, it has been purchased only in the air-based version, but the missile has already passed tests from the Mark-41 UVP.
            2. Volder 19 February 2020 22: 44 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Gregory_45
              As an example - Standard SM-6
              The novelty of this rocket is in anything, but not in the technology of hitting targets. The maximum that she is capable of is to hit the Soviet P-270 Mosquito, and even then without any guarantee. For “Mosquito” to break through the air defense can perform anti-aircraft maneuver “snake” with rotation angles of up to 60 gr. and overload of more than 10 g. In tests, the SM-6 shot down a training target that was only similar to the Mosquito and did not maneuver when approaching the target. Is it necessary to remind us that only small coastal ships are armed with “mosquitoes”?
              Quote: Gregory_45
              With a massive attack by Harpoons, the cruiser's BIUS will overload,
              A massive attack is unlikely to happen. Do you recall how many Harpoon missiles are on American destroyers and cruisers? In addition, the range of these missiles is significantly inferior to the same "Volcanoes". Who will attack first whom, I think, is obvious.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              RGM-84N (AGM-84N) - also known as Harpoon Block II +. The most modern version of the rocket. Uses a new guidance system on the marching section, including GPS navigation and an integrated two-way communication channel with the carrier aircraft, which allows you to adjust the course of the rocket, improve the selection of false targets (by comparing the GOS data of the rocket with the data of the carrier aircraft) and realize the possibility of simultaneous approach several missiles for the same target from different directions - the so-called. multi-vector attack - with the aim of disorienting the air defense system of the target.
              1. Novelty is only in the filling. 2. GPS is jammed by the standard EW system on the cruiser. 3. To launch this missile, the carrier aircraft is forced to enter the air defense coverage area, and only then launch it, otherwise the missile range will not be enough to reach the target. The plane will be shot down before launching the rocket. 4. The missile you have indicated is not an air defense missile, but an attack missile. I, as you have already forgotten, said: "There are no new technologically advanced air defense systems in the West." And you, in contrast, began to list all the missiles in a row. A tricky move to chat, but this will not work with me. Wash yourself!
              Quote: Gregory_45
              The Americans made supersonic anti-ship missiles based on the Standard.
              Is it already adopted? What is the exact name? If this is LRASM, then it is subsonic, which means it can easily go astray. She also winds for a very long time, looking for a target (a needle in a haystack), so her range is exaggerated (it will be spent on these maneuvers). The rocket cannot be compared with our Volcanoes and future Zircons!
              Quote: Gregory_45
              The AGM-158 Jassm missile is capable of hitting moving targets, including ships
              No, it’s not capable of hitting ships. You are confused with LRASM.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Quote: Volder
              In the war threatened period, our ships will not be left without air support, you can be sure!
              where will they get it in the ocean if we don’t have aircraft carriers?
              Which ocean? What are you about?? :) The military doctrine of the Russian Federation is purely defensive (unlike the United States). Carriers are not needed for defense. We will defend ourselves in the near sea zone. And before our planes fly there and cover the ships from the air.
              1. alexmach 19 February 2020 23: 15 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                3. To launch this missile, the carrier aircraft is forced to enter the air defense coverage area, and only then launch it, otherwise the missile range will not be enough to reach the target.

                Seriously? And what is your range of Harpoon and what is the air defense coverage area around Moscow?
                1. Volder 20 February 2020 10: 10 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  The Harpoon Block II + missile with a range of 220 km has not been adopted yet, so I will not talk about it. The range of the "standard" ship Harpoons - 150 km. The range of the SAM "Moscow" - 150 km.
                  1. alexmach 20 February 2020 10: 27 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    The range of the SAM "Moscow" - 150 km.

                    Seriously? And with what missile does she have such a range?
                    But they write that only 5V55RM can be used from Moscow.
                    Range affected area (missile) 5-75 km
                    Moscow cannot use 48N6 because of its size, if it could,
                    The 48N6 missile has a maximum range of up to 150 km, but the control system that existed in 1993 allowed a range of only 93 km

                    And we haven’t said anything about the non-competitiveness of the complex.
                    1. Alexey RA 20 February 2020 12: 24 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: alexmach
                      And we haven’t said anything about the non-competitiveness of the complex.

                      And about the radio horizon. wink
                      Because of which, the RCC carrier can launch with impunity without entering the air defense zone 1164.
                    2. Volder 20 February 2020 13: 15 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Wikipedia has the peculiarity that information is often not updated for a long time, and details and "non-essential" details are also omitted. And journalists at each other rewrite the same thing as buttocks. As for the “Moscow” and its anti-aircraft missiles write the following:
                      https://dfnc.ru/c106-technika/vmf-rossii-sostoyanie-i-perspektivy-chast-4/
                      1. Volder 20 February 2020 13: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Here is another note:
                        https://dfnc.ru/c106-technika/krejser-moskva-otpravitsya-na-remont-v-sleduyushhem-godu/
                      2. alexmach 20 February 2020 15: 13 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Wikipedia has the peculiarity that information is often not updated for a long time,

                        What exactly do you mean? Wikipedia has not been updated since 1993?
                        Or has something changed since then and Moscow has gone unnoticed by some kind of modernization? Quickly looked at the link I see only the references of Admiral Nakhimov. Or is it not outdated data on Wikipedia, but you have it “newer” than in reality?
                      3. alexmach 20 February 2020 15: 19 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        And .. sorry, I read it, someone reports that 48N6 is installed in Moscow. Well, we go to the second point and the guidance system allows you to use them at maximum range?
                      4. Volder 20 February 2020 21: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        What do you think? You do not take the military for the idiots who installed PU for new missiles, but did not guess to update the guidance system? Of course, the radar responsible for guiding missiles was replaced - for this, in particular, modernization was carried out. In those years, militaristic themes were not very much talked about (unlike today), the information reached the general public very mean.
                      5. alexmach 20 February 2020 23: 32 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Listen to you, so it turns out he doesn’t need modernization at all, at least not according to the project of Marshal Ustinov. You can do by restoring the course.
                      6. Volder 24 February 2020 21: 24 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        SAM "Marshal Ustinov" has not undergone modernization. In any case, no matter what the range of the air defense system may be, it is primarily intended for shooting down missiles. If the enemy will use airplanes, we will not leave our ships alone with them. We also have airplanes.
            3. Grigory_45 20 February 2020 18: 47 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Volder
              The Harpoon Block II + missile with a range of 220 km has not been adopted yet, so I will not talk about it. The range of the "standard" ship Harpoons - 150 km. The range of the SAM "Moscow" - 150 km.

              Here you are pierced. The range of the Fort is up to 90 km for a target going at an altitude of more than 3 km, and up to 20 km for targets going at an ultra-low - with the same Harpoon type anti-ship missile (well, here it’s clear, it is limited by the radio horizon)
              As if nominally in Fort BC there is a missile system with a range of up to 150 km, but here ... Atlantov’s SLA does not allow firing from the Fort further than 90 km. And only the Fort-M complex (installed exclusively on Orlan, cruisers pr.1144 ) can realize the potential of missiles 48N6.

              Moscow is an old ship, with outdated weapons and electronic equipment. It is naive to expect miracles from a veteran. Especially in light of the fact that their air defense was initially sacrificed for strike weapons.
              1. Volder 20 February 2020 21: 47 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Here you are pierced. Fort range - up to 90 km on target. The OMS of Atlantes does not allow firing from the Fort beyond 90 km.
                I don’t think I got pierced. Why - explained the post above. Too lazy to read previous posts? :)
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Moscow is an old ship, with outdated weapons and electronic equipment. It is naive to expect miracles from a veteran.
                It's not about old age. “Moscow” with its weapons so far remains an effective military unit. The missiles of our cruiser will be better than the western ones ...
            4. Grigory_45 20 February 2020 18: 51 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Volder
              The Harpoon Block II + missile with a range of 220 km has not been adopted yet, so I will not talk about it

              the rocket passed the full test cycle in 2015, and is ready for use. Most likely, it will be equipped with deck and naval aviation (possibly UAVs), because Harpoon cannot be used from UVP, and the Yankees are not happy. On ships, Harpoon will be replaced by Standards and LRASM, which can be launched from MK.41
              1. Volder 20 February 2020 21: 58 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Harpoon Block II + is ready for use or not - it does not matter. The important thing is that it is not in service, which means they do not use it. I already spoke about the backwardness of the Standards and LRASM ...
                1. Grigory_45 20 February 2020 22: 11 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Volder
                  I already spoke about the backwardness of the Standards and LRASM ...

                  you can speak as much as you like, your words have nothing to do with reality.

                  Quote: Volder
                  I don’t think I got pierced. Why - explained the post above. Too lazy to read previous posts? :)

                  I read them. And you? Or read, but nifiga did not understand? For the gifted: in Moscow there is a Fort (not Fort-M, which is on the Orlans) air defense system, which, due to the limited capabilities of the old control system, allows shooting only at ranges up to 90 km at a target reaching an altitude of more than 3 km.
                  This is the official ship air defense data.
                  And the assumptions of foolish journalists are not interesting.

                  You should go to church to preach, or something. There they will take your word for it, and you don’t have to bother yourself - everything is written in books, read and faith, without evidence. Where there is FAITH, there is no room for reason and knowledge.
                  Do you believe in stories about Donald Cook and the team in diapers? Because it's nice to believe) Although all sober-minded people understand (and for a long time) that this is a terry fake
                2. Volder 20 February 2020 23: 32 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  your words have nothing to do with reality.
                  What are the specific words? What do you disagree with? I can say the same about your outpourings. I urge you to keep idle talk to yourself.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  This is the official ship air defense data.
                  Yes, these are official, but outdated ship data from 1984. After the modernization that ended in 1999, the control system was updated, and PUs were replaced for new 48N6 missiles. This, basically, was the modernization.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Do you believe in stories about Donald Cook and the team in diapers? Because it's nice to believe
                  The story, of course, is embellished, but there is some truth about the use of electronic warfare. Then even Putin made a remark to the admirals that they kind of misbehaved. Would he turn his attention to fake?
                3. Grigory_45 21 February 2020 16: 30 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Volder
                  What are the specific words? What do you disagree with?

                  yes here with this (for the gifted you have to write twice, or even three times):
                  Quote: Volder
                  About the backwardness of the Standards and LRASM

                  we would have such retarded rockets)


                  Quote: Volder
                  Yes, these are official, but outdated ship data from 1984. After the modernization that ended in 1999, the control system was updated, and PUs were replaced for new 48N6 missiles. This, basically, was the modernization.

                  in those years there was no modernization of the cruiser. He passed ремонт, and he (due to the actions of Ukraine) could not be taken from the Nikolaev plant right up to July 1999. Moreover, the repair was such that the ship in Sevastopol had to go in tow (for repair, wait a minute, the ship came under its own power!) Then it is being repaired in Sevastopol. Moscow did not go through modernization.
                  You should at least read the history of the ship before dumping your wild fabrications here

                  Quote: Volder
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Do you believe in stories about Donald Cook and the team in diapers? Because it's nice to believe
                  The story is of course embellished

                  in the part where the Su-24 supposedly jammed Burke tightly, it was invented from beginning to end. It is for people like you)
                4. Volder 24 February 2020 21: 53 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  About the backwardness of the Standards and LRASM.
                  we would have such retarded rockets)
                  We do not need such slag. Russia has more advanced and advanced missiles. Western does not mean the best!
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  in those years there was no modernization of the cruiser. Moscow did not go through modernization.
                  Everyone will remain in their opinion ...
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  in the part where the Su-24 supposedly jammed Burke tightly, it was invented from beginning to end.
                  But in the remaining parts is not invented? :)) If the Khibiny were installed on the Su-24, then yes, the plane could not jam the radar of the enemy destroyer. But I think that there was still a commotion on board, because "Khibiny" made it difficult to direction finding, capture and tracking targets - the Soviet "museum exhibit." In a real combat situation, anti-aircraft missiles launched by an airplane would miss.
  • Grigory_45 20 February 2020 18: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Volder
    A massive attack is unlikely to happen.

    The tactics used by Harpoons (exactly like the domestic counterpart - X-35) are built precisely on a massive attack, preferably from different angles.

    Quote: Volder
    Do you recall how many Harpoon missiles are on American destroyers and cruisers?

    and you recall how many such missiles can release an aircraft wing aircraft carrier ???

    Quote: Volder
    Novelty is only in the filling.

    so this is the most important thing!

    Quote: Volder
    2. GPS is jammed by the standard EW system on the cruiser. 3. To launch this missile, the carrier aircraft is forced to enter the air defense coverage area, and only then launch it, otherwise the missile range will not be enough to reach the target. The plane will be shot down before launching the rocket.

    utter nonsense.

    Quote: Volder
    The military doctrine of the Russian Federation is purely defensive. Carriers are not needed for defense. We will defend in the near sea zone

    ooooh .... how everything is running))) Yes, strategist !!! Thank God you will not be allowed to go to the headquarters for a cannon shot) With such strategists and tactics it is better to immediately open the kingstones)
    1. Volder 20 February 2020 22: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Gregory_45
      The tactics used by Harpoons (exactly like the domestic counterpart - X-35) are built precisely on a massive attack, preferably from different angles.
      Such tactics are possible in the presence of several NATO destroyers and taking into account the fact that these destroyers will act against our ships equipped with the X-35U. Does our Navy let the enemy so close? Hardly. The Western fleet, approaching our borders, will be primarily fired by long-range hypersonic “Daggers”, “Volcanoes”, “Caliber”, “Onyxes”, torpedoes from submarines, and only then - X-35U. Therefore, I said that things will not come to a massive attack by Harpoons.
      Quote: Gregory_45
      and you recall how many such missiles can release an aircraft wing aircraft carrier ???
      For an aircraft carrier, it is enough to launch one “Dagger” missile from one MiG-31K so that not a single aircraft takes off from an aircraft carrier.
      Quote: Gregory_45

      Quote: Volder
      2. GPS is jammed by the standard EW system on the cruiser. 3. To launch this missile, the carrier aircraft is forced to enter the air defense coverage area, and only then launch it, otherwise the missile range will not be enough to reach the target. The plane will be shot down before launching the rocket.

      utter nonsense.
      No, not bullshit. Accustom yourself to carefully read the previous comments.
      Quote: Gregory_45
      ooooh .... how everything is running))) Yes, strategist !!! Thank God you will not be allowed to go to the headquarters for a cannon shot) With such strategists and tactics it is better to immediately open the kingstones)
      I wanted to say the same thing about you. You absolutely do not understand anything in defense on the water.
  • Grigory_45 19 February 2020 15: 01 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Volder
    Aegis is a control system for managing obsolete weapons.

    rzhugnimagu from a terry amateur))) Aegis to this day - one of the most advanced CIUS and air defense / missile defense systems
    1. Volder 19 February 2020 21: 11 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: Gregory_45
      Aegis today - one of the most advanced CIUS and air defense / missile defense systems
      Can you read? Do I dispute the perfection of this system? Not at all.
      1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 21: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Volder
        Do I dispute the perfection of this system?

        what is that supposed to mean?
        Quote: Volder
        Aegis is a control system for managing obsolete weapons

        like, a system capable of only letting the ancient Tomahawks and Standard-2 ???
        Aegis herself is far from outdated, about a weapon (also supposedly outdated) you already bumped her nose
        1. Volder 20 February 2020 09: 25 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          I also bumped you, and not just my nose :) American weapons are outdated in the sense that they are inferior to Russian models (I'm talking about missiles). And Aegis is able not only to launch missiles, but also to control the radar. These radars are well jammed by our electronic warfare systems. Remember the story of 2014 with the destroyer "Donald Cook" in the Black Sea ...
          1. 2 Level Advisor 20 February 2020 17: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            After mentioning the Cook stifled by Khibiny, interest in what you wrote earlier disappeared ...
          2. Grigory_45 20 February 2020 17: 47 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Quote: Volder
            American weapons are obsolete in the sense that they are inferior to Russian models (I'm talking about missiles)

            yah?! The Americans had a lag only in the AKP - and now they are making up for that lag by leaps and bounds.
            The fact that they always made good rockets is indicated by at least a few facts:
            Russian UR BB R-3 copied (one to one) from the American Sidewinder
            Patriotic anti-ship missiles X-35 copied from Harpoon
            Patriotic UR BB R-33 - an analogue of the American Phoenix
            Grenade X-55 - almost a copy of the Tomahawk, created based on his motives. Just like Caliber
            Well, what did we copy outdated American weapons then ???
            And for modern missiles, which are already either standing, or will be put into service in the very near future, I already wrote to you.


            Quote: Volder
            These radars are well jammed by our electronic warfare systems.

            yeah, with the help of electronic warfare you can put out the sun)))

            Quote: Volder
            Remember the story of 2014 with the destroyer "Donald Cook" in the Black Sea ...

            The story of Donaldolm Cook - bike, fake. Only terry ignoramuses and sheer amateurs believe in him.
            By the way, more recently, there was an article on electronic warfare on EW - "What can electronic warfare systems: from facts to exaggerating opportunities." I recommend reading
            https://topwar.ru/168025-chto-mogut-sistemy-rjeb-ot-faktov-do-preuvelichenija-vozmozhnostej.html
            1. Volder 20 February 2020 23: 05 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Gregory_45
              The Americans had a lag only in the AKP - and now they are making up for that lag by leaps and bounds.
              Alas, they have a backlog in all classes of missiles. And attempts to catch up with the weather do not fundamentally change.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              The fact that they always made good rockets is indicated by at least a few facts:
              Russian UR BB R-3 copied (one to one) from the American Sidewinder
              Patriotic anti-ship missiles X-35 copied from Harpoon
              Patriotic UR BB R-33 - an analogue of the American Phoenix
              Grenade X-55 - almost a copy of the Tomahawk, created based on his motives. Just like Caliber
              Well, what did we copy outdated American weapons then ???
              What "serious sources" did you get this information from? Copies are usually always worse than the original. But in fact - vice versa (our missiles are better). Was there a boy? :)
              Quote: Gregory_45
              And for modern missiles, which are already either standing, or will be put into service in the very near future, I already wrote to you.
              Well, the fact that you do not read the answers to your letters well, I already understood. I will not justify again why these "modern" missiles are out of date yesterday.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              The story of Donaldolm Cook - bike, fake.
              It is not clear what your statement and belief is based on. Do not want to - do not believe it, your business.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              By the way, more recently, there was an article on electronic warfare on EW - "What can electronic warfare systems: from facts to exaggerating opportunities." I recommend reading
              I did not like the article. The topic is absolutely not disclosed, far from all available electronic warfare systems with their capabilities are mentioned. However, the author acknowledges Russia's successes in this area. Quote from there: “It’s no coincidence that even the US military admitted that it’s very difficult to counter Russian electronic warfare. Sydney Friedberg, for example, concludes that in the USA forgot the basic lessons of electronic warfare, and this omission can be very costly for the US military. After all, Russia and China, meanwhile, are improving their electronic warfare systems. "
              1. Grigory_45 21 February 2020 16: 57 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Volder
                Quote: Gregory_45
                The fact that they always made good rockets is indicated by at least a few facts:
                Russian UR BB R-3 copied (one to one) from the American Sidewinder
                Patriotic anti-ship missiles X-35 copied from Harpoon
                Patriotic UR BB R-33 - an analogue of the American Phoenix
                Grenade X-55 - almost a copy of the Tomahawk, created based on his motives. Just like Caliber
                Well, what did we copy outdated American weapons then ???
                What "serious sources" did you get this information from? Copies are usually always worse than the original. But in fact - vice versa (our missiles are better). Was there a boy? :)

                here, at least read about Sidewinder: https://www.rulit.me/books/tehnika-i-vooruzhenie-2005-09-read-251085-13.html
                But in general. the facts of copying that I have cited (and even not all of the most famous ones) are known to anyone who is even a little bit interested in military equipment)

                Quote: Volder
                The story of Donaldolm Cook - bike, fake.
                It’s not clear what your statement and belief are based on.

                on knowledge, boy, on knowledge))

                Quote: Volder
                By the way, more recently, there was an article on electronic warfare on EW - "What can electronic warfare systems: from facts to exaggerating opportunities." I recommend reading
                I did not like the article.

                who would doubt it))) But the article does not say about the miraculous abilities of electronic warfare))) Electronic warfare alone is capable of defeating everyone, we do not need tanks and planes - I set up the station, turned it on, and went home to drink Vitka for the victory over the evil adversary))
              2. Volder 24 February 2020 22: 39 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                I am not interested in missiles taken out of service. Therefore, I may not know who was copying from whom. However, I note that there is no evidence that the X-35 is copied from Harpoon. Despite the significant similarities in the characteristics of these missiles, the differences between them are clearly noticeable both in appearance and in layout.
                R-33 is exclusively domestic development, which was created by the best minds of military scientists. And the close external characteristics with the AIM-54 Phoenix are easy to explain - the same rocket requirements and very similar conditions of use.
                The S-10 Grenade and X-55 missiles are not copies of the Tomahawk. The development of these missiles on the initiative began in the Sverdlovsk engineering design bureau Novator back in 1969, while work on the Tomahawk began in the USA in 1971. I will say more: in the late 60s, a scientific study was conducted in the USSR under the code name “Echo” ”, Which established the possibility of overcoming the enemy’s air defense and missile defense subsonic cruise missiles with their massive use. The created missiles were adopted almost simultaneously with the Tomahawk (with a difference of 1,5 years). It is obvious that work on the Soviet and American missiles was carried out simultaneously and simultaneously, that is, the copying process is excluded.
                Quote: Gregory_45
                The article does not write about the miraculous abilities of electronic warfare
                It depends on what a miracle is. Those properties possessed by electronic warfare systems are quite enough to make our adversaries nervous and reckon with this invisible force. Once again, I recommend looking at the YouTube dock. film "Electronic war. Military acceptance."
  • Grigory_45 19 February 2020 15: 22 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    and there is also the latest AGM-158C LRASM
    long-range anti-ship missile, developed by order of the US Navy. It is considered as a promising anti-ship weaponry for ships and carrier-based aircraft of the US Navy. Range - 930 km
    LRASM represents the development of the invisible cruise missile JASSM.
    The LRASM control system should allow the rocket to carry out various target search schemes (movement with a "snake", a spiral, etc.), and its on-board equipment should identify detected objects in a difficult jamming environment. It is assumed that a rocket launched into the search area will be able to stay in the air for a long time, identifying detected objects until it detects a ship similar in characteristics to a given target, and then attacks it.

    When launching several, you need to exchange information, carry out an independent search and transmit to each other the coordinates of the detected target, form a general attack scheme taking into account various conditions. Missiles should also be capable of carrying out complex evasion maneuvers, the use of electronic warfare measures to break through the enemy’s air defense. The main goal of the development is to ensure that the missile can operate autonomously, without preliminary programming the reference points of the course, and to detect the target without external target designation.

    1. Volder 25 February 2020 17: 41 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      LRASM is a subsonic missile, which means it can be shot down. She also winds for a very long time, looking for a target (a needle in a haystack), so her range is exaggerated (fuel will be spent on these maneuvers). While the rocket reaches a given point, this "point" (ship) will have time to move a considerable distance. It may be that LRASM stupidly does not find a target, winding kilometers in space. One thing is clear: with our “Volcanoes”, X-32, P-800 Onyx and future Zircons, the LRASM missile cannot be compared in terms of overcoming air defense!
  • tlauicol 19 February 2020 10: 46 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    and missiles also extend the term? Volcanoes / Basalts have not been produced for a hundred years. Or will he walk with rags in a holster?
    1. Volder 19 February 2020 10: 56 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      Missiles are always produced in abundance in case of war, they are stored in warehouses. I think there is still a supply of Volcanoes / Basalts, since even on exercises they spend a little.
      1. tlauicol 19 February 2020 11: 13 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        so the shelf life is also not rubber. usually 30 years
      2. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 14: 45 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: Volder
        Missiles are always produced in abundance in case of war, they are stored in warehouses. I think there is still a supply of Volcanoes / Basalts

        When was the production of Granites / Volcanoes completed and what is the shelf life of the rockets? What prevents you from first thinking and then writing a comment?
        Most of the above missiles knocked out all storage periods.
        1. Volder 19 February 2020 20: 45 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          What is the hint ?? Do you really think that Soviet ships go without missiles? Evidence in the studio!
          Well, here are the opposite evidence:
          1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 21: 13 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Volder
            What is the hint ??

            where did you see the hint? In my opinion, it is clearly and clearly written that the storage periods of all missiles, if not out, are critical.

            Quote: Volder
            Do you really think that Soviet ships go without missiles?

            Russian. The Union has long been gone. That some ships without missiles - I do not exclude this possibility (there were precedents).
            1. Volder 19 February 2020 23: 56 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              That some ships without missiles - I do not exclude this possibility (there were precedents).
              I don’t know what kind of precedents, but the American destroyers are not 100% full of the Tomahawks - some of the launchers are empty. So, at least during normal duty at sea. By the way, the apocalypse cannot be ruled out next year either. And you can’t exclude the possibility that you will soon be banned :)
              1. Grigory_45 20 February 2020 18: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Volder
                I don't know what precedents

                so enlighten) What did grandfather Lenin teach us, remember ???

                Quote: Volder
                American destroyers are not 100% full of Tomahawks

                by itself. Because in the UVP is placed not only strike weapons. In the same place, next to the Axes - SAM and PLUR. The number of specific ammunition on board depends on the task. When escorting a convoy, for example, it makes sense to unload all the Axes and hammer the cells with a large number of missiles, giving the rest under PLUR.
                We have no net on old UVP ships

                Well, about the missile cruisers - for one you have already written.
                1. Volder 20 February 2020 23: 40 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  I talked about empty launchers, i.e. without any rockets. If you don’t know anything about this, then ... either enlighten as grandfather Lenin taught, or hammer.
          2. Alexey RA 20 February 2020 12: 25 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Volder
            What is the hint ?? Do you really think that Soviet ships go without missiles?

            One rocket cruiser we know for sure - 1143.5. smile
            1. Volder 25 February 2020 22: 49 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              After modernization, Admiral Kuznetsovo should install Caliber instead of Basalt.
  • gig334 19 February 2020 12: 52 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    It’s really interesting where all the money goes with raising prices for everything, new taxes, from the sale of resources. And also with savings on truncated free medicine, raising the retirement age, etc. Where is the money? Why do we still not have enough money for everything? Or does someone have big appetites because of personal gain? And it is interesting to read the comments above, they still think that in the current economy, we will soon have new destroyers, hundreds of Su-57 aircraft, etc. Maybe they will, but God forbid, by the year 27 one destroyer and a dozen Su-57 . This is in the best scenario. But if someone believes that such a rearmament is effective, then he is a naive little man.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • georggy 19 February 2020 13: 38 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    The flagship of the Black Sea Fleet - the guards missile cruiser "Moscow" will serve another ten years, the life of the ship is extended until 2030

    Until it falls apart and sank somewhere in the middle of the sea.
  • Archivist Vasya 19 February 2020 15: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    After the news about Kerch, it’s already pleasing that at least Moscow is being cherished. It is clear that in 50 years without modernization it is far from that efficiency, but it is better than none.
  • vladcub 19 February 2020 16: 08 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    Quote: Erich
    Can such ships be built now?

    frigate pr. 22350 what does not suit you?

    For us, a “frigate” or “corvette” doesn’t sound familiar and somehow not serious, and a cruiser or destroyer sounds solid
  • rusboris 19 February 2020 18: 28 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    We admit that the Russian Navy is going through difficult times. Turning to healthy naval humor, we can say that today sailors will have to die heroically. Bearing in mind our future inevitable victory over the enemy. Well in this subject lies the speech of the chief of staff of the Navy (naval forces) of the United States, Admiral D. Richardson. He openly threatens to deliver a preemptive strike on the Russian Navy. It is difficult to disagree with a competent, military admiral. He chose a good moment for the attack on the Russian Navy. Losses more than 20-30 ships of the ocean zone, the admiral does not plan. This is for the US Navy, like an elephant pellet. I propose to make only one forecast. After any clash with the Russian Navy, the admiral and his patron in the White House, the US Congress will point to the door. Therefore, the Russian fleet until 2021 will hold its ground firmly. After 2021, the US Navy during an interstate war with Russia will suffer unacceptable losses in the form of at least four aircraft carriers and up to 50 ships in the ocean zone. We are not considering a nuclear war strategy with the United States.
    Turning to a low-intensity war, it is quite appropriate to assert that the material part of the fleet will withstand it at a high level. The theater of low-intensity warfare at sea in 2020 is the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, adjacent to Russia, Japan and China, the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, especially the Arabian Sea. The full Pacific squadron, together with the VKS attached to the fleet, in the adjacent Far Eastern seas can count on maximum success. The Indian Ocean is inaccessible for operations of the Russian Navy. There is no Mediterranean squadron yet; you have to manage business trips.
    In the Black Sea, the forces of the Russian fleet are abundant. This refers to the cruiser "Moscow". The reasonable admirals of the Navy of Romania and Bulgaria may well agree in this assessment.
    The Baltic Fleet looks confident in the 2020 interstate war. Particularly impressive are its capabilities in the use of missile weapons at enemy bases. In the proximity of the coastal structure of the aerospace forces and the Northern Fleet, the fleets of Poland, Norway and Sweden are not able to prevent this. In the dry residue of this amateur opus, one thing remains, the sailors will not fail, if only the admirals did not disappoint.
  • ugol2 19 February 2020 22: 31 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Everything is fine.
    The cruiser is being commissioned. Not the Chinese needles tea.
    This is a positive point.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Eskobar 20 February 2020 07: 16 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Let's look at the problem more broadly. A big discussion started about air threats. And from under the water? How are our neighbors in the Black Sea? Correct me, if I’m wrong, the ship would not be prevented by the “package” anti-torpedoes and PUR calibers (can they be launched from the cruiser’s torpedo tubes?) Save at first, but how much thunder strikes, they grab onto their heads.
    1. Volder 20 February 2020 09: 30 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      I don’t think that in the threatened pre-war period our attack ships would be left without the protection of submarines, anti-submarine ships and aircraft.
      1. Eskobar 20 February 2020 11: 56 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        These are all speculations backed up by blind faith in the best. In 1941, they also did not think that thousands of tanks of the Red Army would become scrap metal in a couple of months (I apologize for deviating from the topic)
        1. Volder 25 February 2020 17: 16 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          You, apparently, think that in Russia there is no military science, all our generals do not understand the tactics of warfare, and all their confidence in the success of military missions is based on "speculation" and "blind faith in the best." Another couch analyst ... I repeat once again: the cruiser will not be sent to fight alone against the AUG and the submarines accompanying it! In the threatened period, the cruiser must be accompanied by frigates, corvettes, BOD, submarines, anti-submarine aircraft. On our modern ships, there is precisely the "Pack-NK" and "Caliber-NK" systems.