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.

Comments

[Erich]

Not really there is no money for the flagship?

[FORCE 38GB]

They probably scattered the loot on the management and defective managers, that's why the Guards Missile Cruiser didn't get any money ... If the staff of the Defense Ministry is cut down on the staff of incomprehensible parasites, useless deputies of unknown who and what other cabinet workers, then the budget will be enough to modernize the "Moscow" Launch the atomic high-powered aircraft carrier into the water ..

[Erich]

"But whoever puts him in prison, he's a monument" - whoever will cut them down will, sooner than midshipmen and officers will be cut (well, or the money allowance will be reduced) and everything will be "optimized". As a result, we will lose Moscow ...

[FORCE 38GB]

That is our problem throughout the country .. How to receive awards and praise, so all the bosses climb into the lists of heroes !!! 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!

[Erich]

What is true is true

[Malyuta]

Quote: Erich

"But whoever puts him in prison, he's a monument" - whoever will cut them down will, sooner than midshipmen and officers will be cut (well, or the money allowance will be reduced) and everything will be "optimized". As a result, we will lose Moscow ...

"Kerch" has already been lost, we will build a mosquito-cabotage fleet.

[Erich]

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))

[vladcub]

It will be the smartest to ask the guys who are "in the subject".
The fact that: "the power plant has been repaired" is already pleasing: we have a little bit of dvigunam.

[bayard]

How long can you cry for "Glory" \ "Moscow" to listen?
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. The laying of the first buildings is expected in a year or two, the construction cycle is about 5 years. So before the "Moscow" is written off, the first of them (22350M) will already be in service.
Most likely, even the Pacific "Varyag" will not be driven for 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 it takes a long time, perhaps, too, will be limited to only major repairs without cardinal 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.

And the Black Sea Fleet is already in service with Moskva.
Now.
In the ranks.
And not in repair / modernization for 5 years.

[vladcub]

Boyard, you seem to be "in the subject", otherwise we are dominated by "sofa experts"

[Grits]

Quote: bayard

And the Black Sea Fleet is already in service now

On the Black Sea, the smell of fried ...

[Grigory_45]

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

[Oleg kubanoid]

we definitely won’t build cruisers, but the same 22350M by the name of course are frigates, but in fact destroyers ..

[Malyuta]

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 ...

Tons of money are stored in the apartments of "Zakharchenko" and different offshore companies.

[Erich]

Well, like "If the stars light up, then someone needs it ...")) And then they puff out their cheeks and catch the "keepers of money")) They still understand that this is a circus with horses (and possibly with mares)))

[1976AG]

A new ship is needed as much as the old can be patched.

[Erich]

Can such ships be built now?

[1976AG]

Class frigate for example project 22350M why not? Modern technology blurs the boundaries between the usual classification of ships

[Erich]

Are they building at least one now?

[1976AG]

So to him until 2030 the resource was extended, if you do not chew the snot, then it is quite possible to catch it.

[Erich]

We will see. Well, at least there is a replacement

[Tiksi-3]

Quote: 1976AG

So he extended the resource until 2030, if you do not chew the snot, then it is quite possible

The project 1164 Moskva guards missile cruiser, Atlant code, will serve for at least another ten years: the service life of the Black Sea Fleet flagship has been extended. It is planned to complete the repair and restore the 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 main gas turbine engines and other elements of the power plant.

[1976AG]

Quote: Tiksi-3

Quote: 1976AG

So he extended the resource until 2030, if you do not chew the snot, then it is quite possible

The project 1164 Moskva guards missile cruiser, Atlant code, will serve for at least another ten years: the service life of the Black Sea Fleet flagship has been extended. It is planned to complete the repair and restore the 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 main gas turbine engines and other elements of the power plant.

So it’s kind of like me about the same ...

[donavi49]

22350M - no.
Sketch design "Super-Gorshkov" 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.

[Erich]

I get it. Thank you Movement in this area is commendable, so not all is lost.

[Tiksi-3]

Quote: donavi49

it is still possible laid while 22350M in designing.

like in May they promised to lay 2

[1976AG]

Well, at 10 years, if you wish, you can meet, and if a maximum of 2 years and shift the deadline, well, another two years "Moscow" will serve, not critical

[vladcub]

Is there any point in building such ones? Since 1983 a lot of time has passed and the technology is already completely different

[Erich]

Perhaps I asked for fun. If everything leaped forward, then I agree that we need to build new ones))

[alexmach]

Can such ships be built now?

There are no similar ones, but in general, the 22350 in its most basic configuration surpasses the "Moscow" in its combat value. At the same time, he can sail around the world.

[Serg65]

Quote: Erich

Can such ships be built now?

frigate pr. 22350 what does not suit you?

[Erich]

I don’t know anything about him if he is superior. (as written above) then excellent))

[Grigory_45]

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)

[Erich]

Is there no money and personnel in the country? If you wish, after all, everything is

[Pup1]

My friend, take a rest ... don’t dust .... don’t wave your tongue .. is your holiday tea not my 8?

[Erich]

Well, how can I qualify for your rightful holiday)) Before my little less than a week left))

[alexmach]

This is literally in the article and written, in addition, there are questions on the appropriateness.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Not really there is no money for the flagship?

If there were no money, the 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:

- MRK "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.

[Tiksi-3]

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!

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Are you talking about the RK "Marshal Ustinov"?

And what did the upgraded cruiser get from the new?

[Tiksi-3]

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?

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

I have not seen anything essentially new in the combat capabilities of the Marshal Ustinov RK.

There was more repair than modernization.

[Tiksi-3]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

I have not seen anything essentially new in the combat capabilities of the Marshal Ustinov RK.

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))

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Write for yourself that you saw something essentially new in the RK "Marshal Ustinov" and for the sake of which it is necessary to do the same with "Moscow", but you should not think out 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.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

pr.1164 remains a rather formidable weapon - Granites with a launch range of 700 km

the production of "Granites" is not closed?

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 Atlantis. Priority in their creation was given to shock weapons.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

I was mistaken there, on the project 1164 P-1000 "Volcanoes", not the P-700, and as they say, they have not been produced 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 we do modernization of the ship, then approximately as it is now done with the TARK "Admiral Nakhimov" - the old hull, 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.

[alexmach]

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.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

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.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

If we do modernization of the ship, then approximately as it is now done with the TARK "Admiral Nakhimov" - the old hull, and everything else is new.

So 1144 is easier to upgrade - it initially has VPU (more precisely, not very vertical PU ) 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 - practically lying oblique outer PU. The Navy, for some reason, really does not like the inclined launchers of the "Caliber".

[alexmach]

The Navy, for some reason, really does not like the inclined launchers of the "Caliber".

By the way, a good question, why?

[sanches-nk]

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.

[mark1]

I think Moscow should remember the glorious tradition and provide patronage assistance in the modernization of the "namesake".

[kjhg]

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.

[mark1]

Well, if you spend as a stealth coating ...

[kjhg]

Quote: mark1

Well, if you spend as a stealth coating ...

You undoubtedly have a talent for promoting projects ... And also imagine that if the Moscow government was allowed to carry out repairs and below-deck premises, then Sobyanin would definitely have died for permission to finance the repair of Moscow, but he would not have missed such a "patriotic" project.

[mark1]

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.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: kjhg

And imagine that if the Moscow government will be allowed to carry out repairs and underdecks

And renovation of the add-in.

[avia12005]

Bravo! And to build a couple of metro stations.

[Erich]

Who should provide patronage assistance in Moscow? Businessmen, politicians?

[mark1]

Quote: Erich

Who should provide patronage assistance in Moscow?

Luzhkov, the kingdom of heaven to him, knew who should ...

[Erich]

Let the state and provide patronage assistance, enough money. But not businessmen and other entrepreneurs))

[RideMaster]

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.

[Erich]

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

[mark1]

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 ...

[Erich]

Yes, I just in case 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 straight "hard" but "you can live")) Just when they start talking about " We need to raise money for a good cause "- you need to put your wallet in your breast pocket right away))

[mark1]

Quote: Erich

Yes, just in case, I grabbed something)) It's just that when they start talking about "We need to raise money for a good cause" - you need to put your wallet in your breast pocket right away))

The reaction is in principle correct - every initiative has its own economic background in favor of the initiator. But alas, not in my case.

[Erich]

I think that the interested person should always pay directly)) I don’t believe that there is no money in the navy for such "Wishlist"))

[mark1]

I do not agree with you about the fleet, army and other vital formations. We are all "directly" interested. In this case, we are talking about a patriotic political step of the Moscow government (but for him it is probably difficult, the scale of the personality is not the same)

[Erich]

We pay all "Wishlist" taxes, and then there is an additional "extortion". No, well, if your soul wants and your pocket allows, then why not)) If we collect SMS for children for treatment, then the ships are worse (not banter)

[Piramidon]

Quote: Erich

Let the state and provide patronage assistance, enough money. But not businessmen and other entrepreneurs))

Do you protect yours?

[Paranoid50]

Quote: Piramidon

Do you protect yours?

Duc, huckster huckster eyes will not peck.

[Erich]

I am a software developer, so I make money. And about the "huckster", you are probably wrong, it would be nice to first be interested in who is doing what to conduct research. They say this is normal in an old age.

[Paranoid50]

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. Especially after that:

Social responsibility - this is for you to the state. The business has already paid taxes,

Here it is, it turns out ... Well, there is no more doubt, thanks.

[Erich]

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))

[Paranoid50]

Quote: Erich

a lot of who and what should))

So, it's already warmer ...(c) There you go, thanks again.

[Erich]

Yes, not at all))

[Piramidon]

Quote: Erich

And the business let the money bucks up and manages at its discretion

And why a hangover, I have to unbuckle taxes from my salary, taxes to the treasury, and you, "businessmen" should only work for your own pocket? The sign (mordulence) won't crack?

[Erich]

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))

[Piramidon]

Quote: Erich

Still think that you personally pay more than IP or LLC?

I pay the same 13%. But revenues are not commensurate.

[Erich]

The company pays more taxes, first of all from a higher turnover, and secondly, a higher tax burden. As if you used the phrase "the same" which proves that "business pays too" - how is the problem then?))

[Piramidon]

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.

[Erich]

Let's redo. Does a businessman pay taxes? Paying! Does it carry risks? Carries! Paying more than the average person? More! Investing money, time and effort? Invests! After all the taxes have been paid, all that remains is the property of the businessman (beneficiary) and then he will decide for himself whether he will invest in projects or not. This is his own business. It is strange to hear the word "works for your pocket" - but for whose pocket should it work? On your chtoli? Someone won't let you run your own business? Please earn disproportionately more and invest in the state)))

[Erich]

As for the income,, who studied what))

[Erich]

They are not mine ... they are mine

[Grits]

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!

[Erich]

The business must make a profit. Social responsibility is for you to the state. The business has already paid taxes, you can buy what you want within the state))

[Lamata]

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?

[Erich]

You can immediately see what is more important for the country ...

[Volder]

The cruiser "Moskva" will be replaced by a Project 22350 frigate. First, 4 pcs. "Gorshkovs" will be built for the Northern Fleet (already under construction), then 4 units. for the Pacific Fleet (2 have already been laid down, +2 will be laid down this year). For the Black Sea Fleet, the frigate will be laid in 2021, and in 2028 it should enter service. Perhaps "Moscow" will not make it until 2030 if it will be driven to Syria. In this sense, upgrading the cruiser is not economically profitable, and it is not advisable from a practical point of view.

[Lamata]

Yeah, they’ll make a floating battery.

[Escobar]

What then is the point in general of extending the service life without modernization? Don't you need to prepare for new threats.

[Volder]

What are the "new threats" ?? No new technological air defense systems have been created in the West. Consequently, our old missiles will completely overcome their old air defense.

[Grigory_45]

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 it is not only about air defense. New offensive weapons have also been created in the west - they are rapidly catching up with us in the sphere of anti-ship missiles. New versions of "Harpoon", supersonic anti-ship missiles "Standard-ARM", the latest intelligent stealth missile AGM-158 LRASM. "Moscow" in its current form may not fight them off. Especially considering that our fleet does not have air cover

[Volder]

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 "Harpoon", supersonic anti-ship missiles "Standard-ARM", the latest intelligent stealth missile AGM-158 LRASM. "Moscow" in its current form may not fight them off. Especially considering that our fleet does not have air cover

1. The new harpoon is an old harpoon that will surely shoot down the Moscow air defense and electronic warfare systems. 2. CR "Standard ARM" does not threaten the cruiser, because designed for ground-based radar. 3. KR AGM-158 Jassm does not threaten the cruiser, because it is for stationary purposes on the ground. 4. "Moscow" is capable of repelling any Western weapons, if there is no massive attack by dozens of missiles. But even here, electronic warfare can help out ... 5. In a wartime threatened period, our ships will not be left without air support, you can be sure! 6. Stop babbling.

[Grigory_45]

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 surely shoot down the air defense and electronic warfare of the "Moscow"

is not a fact. With a massive attack with Harpoons, the cruiser's BIUS will be overloaded, moreover. the ship is equipped with only one missile guidance radar, "Fort" can repel attacks from only one direction at a time, and in the event of a single radar failure, 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

The "ARM standard" does not threaten the cruiser. designed for ground-based radar

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 your brain and at least a little enlightened about the weapons of "incredible friends" and the capabilities of domestic technology

[Alexey RA]

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 have forgotten about the main air defense missiles - those that hang under the belly and wings of the deck ships. Who was there for the main purposes of the anti-ship missiles "Moscow"? Here is his air defense and will have to overcome. And since Soviet times, the AIM-120 seeker 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.

[Volder]

Quote: Gregory_45

As an example - Standard SM-6

The novelty of this missile is anything but target destruction technology. The maximum it 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 angles of rotation up to 60 degrees. and overload more than 10 g. During trials, the SM-6 knocked down a training target, only similar to the Mosquito and not maneuvering when approaching the target. Do I need to remind you that only small ships of the coastal zone 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. Remind you how many Harpoon missiles are on American destroyers and cruisers? In addition, the range of these missiles is significantly inferior to those of the Vulcan. Who will attack whom first, 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. The novelty is only in the filling. 2. GPS is jammed by the standard electronic warfare system on the cruiser. 3. To launch this missile, the carrier plane is forced to enter the air defense zone, and only then launch it, otherwise the missile's range will not be enough to reach the target. The aircraft will be shot down before launching a rocket. 4. The missile you specified is not an air defense missile, but an attack attack missile. I, as you have already forgotten, said: "There are no new technological 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 it won't work with me. Wash yourself!

Quote: Gregory_45

The Americans made supersonic anti-ship missiles based on the Standard.

Is it already in service? What is the exact name? If it is LRASM, then it is subsonic, which means it easily gets lost. It also winds for a very long time, looking for a target (a needle in a haystack), so its range is inflated (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.

[alexmach]

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 the Harpoon's range in your opinion and what is the air defense coverage area around the "Moscow"?

[Volder]

The Harpoon Block II + missile with a range of 220 km has not yet been adopted for service, so I will not talk about it. The operating range of "standard" ship harpoons is 150 km. The range of the "Moscow" air defense missile system is 150 km.

[alexmach]

The range of the "Moscow" air defense system is 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 kill zone (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.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: alexmach

And we haven’t said anything about the non-competitiveness of the complex.

And about the radio horizon.
Because of which, the RCC carrier can launch with impunity without entering the air defense zone 1164.

[Volder]

Wikipedia has a feature that information is often not updated for a long time, and details and "irrelevant" details are also omitted. And journalists from each other rewrite the same thing as butts. As for "Moscow" and its anti-aircraft missiles, they write the following:
https://dfnc.ru/c106-technika/vmf-rossii-sostoyanie-i-perspektivy-chast-4/

[Volder]

Here is another note:
https://dfnc.ru/c106-technika/krejser-moskva-otpravitsya-na-remont-v-sleduyushhem-godu/

[alexmach]

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 through some kind of modernization imperceptibly? Skimmed through the link, I see only the mention of Admiral Nakhimov. Or is it not outdated data in Wikipedia, but your data is "newer" than in reality?

[alexmach]

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?

[Volder]

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.

[alexmach]

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.

[Volder]

SAM "Marshal Ustinov" has not undergone modernization. In any case, whatever the range of the air defense missile system may be, it is primarily designed to shoot down missiles. If the enemy uses planes, then we will not leave our ships alone with them. We also have planes.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Volder

The Harpoon Block II + missile with a range of 220 km has not yet been adopted for service, so I will not talk about it. The operating range of "standard" ship harpoons is 150 km. The range of the "Moscow" air defense missile system is 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.

[Volder]

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. "Moskva" with its weapons is still an effective combat unit. The missiles of our cruiser will be better than the western ones ...

[Grigory_45]

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

[Volder]

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 ...

[Grigory_45]

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

[Volder]

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?

[Grigory_45]

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)

[Volder]

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.

Isn't it invented in the other parts? :)) If the Su-24 were equipped with Khibiny, then yes, the plane could not drown out the enemy destroyer's radar. But I think that there was still a commotion on board, because The Khibiny made it difficult to find, capture and track a target - a Soviet "museum exhibit". In a real combat situation, anti-aircraft missiles launched at the aircraft would miss.

[Grigory_45]

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

Remind you 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)

[Volder]

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.

This tactic is possible in the presence of several NATO destroyers and taking into account the fact that these destroyers will operate against our ships equipped with the Kh-35U. Will our Navy allow the enemy to come so close? Hardly. The western fleet, approaching our borders, will first of all be drowned by long-range hypersonic "Daggers", "Volcanoes", "Caliber", "Onyx", torpedoes from submarines, and only then - the Kh-35U. That is why I said that it would not come to a massive attack with Harpoons.

Quote: Gregory_45

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

It is enough to fire one Dagger missile from one MiG-31K at an aircraft carrier so that no aircraft from the aircraft carrier takes off.

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]

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

[Volder]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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

[Volder]

I poked you too, and not only with my nose :) American weapons are outdated in the sense that they are inferior to Russian models (I'm talking about missiles). And Aegis is capable of not only launching missiles, but also controlling 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 ...

[2 Level Advisor]

After mentioning the Cook stifled by Khibiny, interest in what you wrote earlier disappeared ...

[Grigory_45]

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, quite recently on VO there was an article about electronic warfare - "What can electronic warfare systems do: from facts to exaggeration of possibilities." I recommend reading
https://topwar.ru/168025-chto-mogut-sistemy-rjeb-ot-faktov-do-preuvelichenija-vozmozhnostej.html

[Volder]

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 - the opposite (our rockets are better). So 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 badly read the answers to your scribbles, I already understood that. I will not justify again why these "modern" missiles were outdated 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, quite recently on VO there was an article about electronic warfare - "What can electronic warfare systems do: from facts to exaggeration of possibilities." 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 is no coincidence that even the American military admits that it is very difficult to counter Russian electronic warfare. Sidney Friedberg, for example, concludes that in the United States forgot basic lessons in electronic warfare, and this oversight can be very costly for the US military. After all, Russia and China, meanwhile, are improving their electronic warfare systems. "

[Grigory_45]

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 - the opposite (our rockets are better). So 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, quite recently on VO there was an article about electronic warfare - "What can electronic warfare systems do: from facts to exaggeration of possibilities." 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))

[Volder]

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 you mean by a miracle. The properties possessed by electronic warfare systems are quite enough to make our foes nervous and reckon with this invisible force. Once again, I recommend looking at the doc on YouTube. film "Electronic Wars. Military Acceptance".

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Volder]

LRASM is a subsonic missile, which means it can be shot down. It also winds for a very long time, looking for a target (a needle in a haystack), so its range is blown (fuel will be spent on these maneuvers). While the rocket reaches the given point, this "point" (the ship) will have time to move a considerable distance. It may be that LRASM stupidly does not find the target, winding kilometers in space. One thing is clear: the LRASM missile cannot be compared with our Volcanoes, Kh-32, P-800 Onyx and future Zircons in terms of overcoming air defense!

[tlauicol]

And the missiles will also be extended? Volcanoes / Basalts have not been produced for a hundred years. Or will he walk with "rags in a holster"?

[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, since even on exercises they spend a little.

[tlauicol]

so the shelf life is also not rubber. usually 30 years

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Volder]

What is the hint ?? Do you really think that Soviet ships go without missiles? Evidence in the studio!
Well, here are the opposite evidence:

[Grigory_45]

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).

[Volder]

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 :)

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Volder]

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.

[Alexey RA]

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.

[Volder]

After the modernization on the "Admiral Kuznetsov" should install "Caliber" instead of "Basalt".

[gig334]

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.

[georggy]

The flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, the guards missile cruiser Moskva, will serve for about ten more years, the ship's service life has been extended until 2030

Until it falls apart and sank somewhere in the middle of the sea.

[Archivist Vasya]

After the news about "Kerch" it is already pleasing that at least "Moscow" is cherished. It is clear that in 50 years without modernization, the efficiency is far from the same, but this is better than none.

[vladcub]

Quote: Serg65

Quote: Erich

Can such ships be built now?

frigate pr. 22350 what does not suit you?

For us, "frigate" or "corvette" does not sound familiar and somehow not serious, but a cruiser or destroyer sounds solid

[rusboris]

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]

Everything is fine.
The cruiser is being commissioned. Not the Chinese needles tea.
This is a positive point.

[Escobar]

Let's look at the problem more broadly. Much discussion began about air threats. And from under the water? What about our neighbors on the Black Sea? Correct me, if I'm wrong, the ship would not be prevented by the "package" and plur caliber counter-torpedoes (can they be launched from the cruiser's torpedo tubes?) They save first, but when the thunder breaks out, they grab their heads.

[Volder]

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.

[Escobar]

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)

[Volder]

You probably think that there is no military science in Russia, all our generals do not understand the tactics of fighting, and all their confidence in the success of combat missions is based on "speculation" and "blind faith in the best." Another sofa analyst ... I repeat once again: the cruiser will not be sent to fight alone against the AUG and the submarines accompanying it! During a threatened period, the cruiser is compulsorily accompanied by frigates, corvettes, APCs, submarines, anti-submarine aircraft. Our modern ships have the "Packet-NK" and "Caliber-NK" systems.