Military Review

Aircraft carrier cruisers and Yak-38: retrospective analysis and lessons

260

Around the aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143, many copies were broken, and the name of their aircraft - Yak-38, has become synonymous with helplessness far beyond the borders of our country. The critics are right in many ways. The Gyrfalcons (project code 1143) were indeed strange ships. And the Yak-38 really was seriously inferior to normal aircraft.


However, in the ending stories these ships and their planes (actually completed) there are many "blank spots". And there were still many points that were simply not understood. And it is so now. Today our country is in some way at the bottom of its sea power. From fleet remained "horns and legs", sea aviation (including the ship one) is practically "killed". But that is what should force us to learn from the past - and they are there. Aircraft-carrying cruisers and their planes are exactly the case.

There is no point in retelling what is already known about the 1143 project and the Yak-38. What is the point of writing what you are looking for in two clicks? But little-known pages are worth opening, and it also makes sense to draw some conclusions that were not voiced out loud at the right time.

The first thing is the planes. A brief excursion into the history of the Yak-38


It is believed that the main weapons the aircraft carrier is aviation. And also that the main weapon of Project 1143 was still anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine helicopters. In order to understand how it could have developed in reality, one must first evaluate its aircraft.

This is what I must say right away. The Yak-38 really did not live up to expectations, like the VTOL aircraft, in principle. But at the same time, there is no more slandered aircraft in our history.

Aircraft carrier cruisers and Yak-38: retrospective analysis and lessons
Photo: RIA Novosti archive, Vladimir Rodionov / ru.wikipedia.org

The milestones in the creation and evolution of yaks were the following events.

1960 - the first project of the VTOL aircraft design bureau im. Yakovleva.

1960-1964 - research work, study of VTOL aircraft options, Yak-36 design, preparation for testing.

1964-1967 - Yak-36 test program. A decision was made to create another aircraft. Test flights of the Yak-36 continued until 1971.


Yak-36 (without "M") is more of a flying experimental stand than an airplane. The first Soviet "vertical".

Why does all this relate to the topic?

Because it was the creation of a scientific and technical groundwork. And without the Yak-36 errors, the next Yak-36M (which was later renamed Yak-38) simply would not have appeared.

1967 - the decision to create a light attack aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing. On December 27, 1967, the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 1166-413 was issued, which contained a decision to create first an attack aircraft, then a training "twin" and then a fighter. The attack aircraft, according to the Resolution, was intended:

“For air support of combat operations of ground forces in the tactical and immediate operational depth of the enemy's location (up to 150 km from the front line), as well as when basing the aircraft on ships of Project 1123 to destroy surface ships and coastal objects in naval operations and conduct visual aerial reconnaissance.

The main task of the aircraft is to destroy mobile, stationary ground and sea targets of the enemy in conditions of visual visibility. In addition, the aircraft should be used to combat air targets such as military transport aircraft and helicopters, as well as to combat AWACS aircraft and helicopters and anti-submarine aircraft.

With the support of the ground forces did not work.

It turned out that "verticals" are almost unsuitable as a base machine flying from ground airfields. The question was discussed in more detail in the article “Educational program. Airfieldless and dispersed basing of aviation "... But this will be revealed later.

1970 - the beginning of flight tests. The aircraft were immediately tested as taking off vertically.

November 18, 1972 - test pilot Mikhail Sergeevich Deksbakh performs the first in the history of our country landing of a jet aircraft on a ship - anti-submarine cruiser "Moscow". On this occasion, by decision of Aviation Marshal Ivan Ivanovich Borzov, an entry was made in the cruiser's logbook

"Birthday of carrier-based aviation".


Here it is, this landing. The first in our history.

May 18, 1975 - the first landing on the regular carrier of the TAVKR "Kiev".

July 1976 - first flights over the Mediterranean. At the same time, the first interception occurred - the American Orion began flying over the deck of the cruiser when flights were being made from it. The Yak was raised to intercept under the control of Colonel Feoktist Matkovsky, the future commander of the 279th OKSHAP, who died almost a year later on the MiG-21. The Orion was pushed back to a safe distance.

August 11, 1977 - the aircraft was put into service. Already like the Yak-38, not the Yak-36M. From the moment when the OKB im. Yakovleva began the creation of VTOL aircraft, more than 17 years have passed.

This is the first important lesson from the past - new "verticals" are created for a long time and it is not easy. Anyone who today hopes that Russia will be able to quickly create an aircraft with a short take-off / vertical landing should think about it. Of course, today we have experience. But this other experience, an attempt to create the F-35B "a la russe" will require completely different technologies than we have preserved. Both time and money.

But we should continue.

Since 1977, the aircraft had to be finished. The trip of the "Minsk" to the southern latitudes in 1979 required the alteration of the aircraft, the installation of the oxygen supply system to the engines in take-off mode. During operation, it turned out that during vertical take-off with a combat load, the combat radius is negligible, for which the aircraft received a dismissive nickname

"Mast guard aircraft".

The way out was a short takeoff run (WRC), which made it possible to increase this radius to a value that gave the existence of the aircraft at least some sense. The development of the SRS began in the same year, but it was still far from the implementation of this method in practice.

All of this was not enough. In 1980, four Yaks were sent to Afghanistan, where they flew 107 sorties in conditions of thin air, dust and real war. Basically "Yaks" worked at the training ground of the Afghan Air Force, but they were also sent for real combat missions.


"Yak" in Afghan camouflage, photo of 1980, in the background "spark" Yak-38U and "normal" attack aircraft.

A lot of issues related to swivel nozzle, dust protection and short-range takeoff have been resolved in Afghanistan. And it will not be an exaggeration to say that it was during this war that the Yak became precisely a combat aircraft. Just a bad, not a dangerous attraction for pilots.

However, its effectiveness was far from what was required. And in 1983, an improved version of the Yak-38M was created, which was put into service in 1985. This was already a real deck attack aircraft. The Yak-38M had engines with higher thrust. He could carry two outboard fuel tanks. And (depending on the combat load) during takeoff with a short takeoff run, its combat radius could reach 380 kilometers, which was already good.

And this aircraft, in fact, became our first fully combat-ready and more or less effective ship (deck) attack aircraft capable of operating as intended.

38 years have passed since the creation of the project of the first "vertical" of the Yakovlev Design Bureau until the adoption of the Yak-25M. Since the first flight of the Yak-36M / 38 - 15 years. Since the adoption of the Yak-38 into service - 8 years.

This is the time frame for such aircraft being created and brought to an operational state. In a normally operating aviation industry, there are practically no "effective managers", no organized crime groups seeking to "straddle" financial flows in the defense industry, with minimal restrictions on money and resources. With the simplest electronic equipment of the "Stone Age", if you call a spade a spade. A reason to think about all lovers of "vertical".

Well, now - to the unknown pages.

Interceptions and assessment of real opportunities


In 1980 "Minsk" with "Yaks" went to the South China Sea. With an absolutely "aircraft carrier" task - to put pressure on the daring natives with their presence. The reason was the aggravation of the situation on the border between Thailand and Kampuchea.

The activities of detachments of the Khmer Rouge and their allies sent from abroad continued with the active help of the Thai authorities and their direct participation.

For example, on June 27, 1980, the Maticon newspaper published in Bangkok told about a press conference by Thai Colonel Prachak Sawangjit, who said that “Thai troops destroyed the enemy's base in a village located on Cambodian territory five kilometers from the border”.

In September 1980, Thai aircraft and helicopters invaded NRK airspace 98 times on reconnaissance flights over the border provinces of Pousat, Battambang and Kahkong.

In October 1980, the Thai artillery 330 times subjected to rocket and artillery shelling the settlements of the Cambodian provinces bordering Thailand.

Our specialists also perished from the actions of the sent gangs.
Link.

The Vietnamese, who controlled Kampuchea then, did not remain in debt and carried out raids on Thai territory. Very bloody. And it was in the summer of 1980. But the death of Soviet citizens required a different reaction.

The response to the provocations of the Thais was the deployment in the Gulf of Thailand in October 1980 of a ship-based aircraft carrier group of the USSR Navy consisting of: TAVKR "Minsk", ICR "Letuchiy" pr. 1135, BPK "Petropavlovsk" pr. 1134B and MRZK "Deflector".

Naturally, the Americans, who have been playing their anti-Soviet and anti-Vietnamese game in Asia for a long time in an alliance with China, could not stand aside. The Soviet naval group was discovered 94 miles from the Thai naval base Sattahip. And it was impossible not to react to this.

The then commander of the "Minsk" Viktor Aleksandrovich Gokinaev (then-captain of the 1st rank) recalls:

The flights were planned and performed on schedule:

Monday and Tuesday - flights;
Wednesday - pre-flight preparation;
Thursday and Friday - flights;
Saturday - pre-flight preparation.

And so on for a month.

The flights were carried out for combat use at a breaker target with automatic cannon fire, NURS and bombing, both by single aircraft and as part of flights in the morning from 9.00 to 17.00. Then - from 18.00 to 02.00 flights of the second shift - helicopters. There were also mixed flights of airplanes and helicopters during one flight shift.

... The work of the aircraft carrier "Minsk" in the Gulf of Thailand was under the control of not only the command of the Soviet Navy, but also the intelligence services of the United States and Thailand.

Every day, a Yak-38 flight and a Ka-27 helicopter in the form of a rescuer were on alert in the technical position. The duty unit regularly went up on the combat alert into the air to check the combat readiness. And sometimes to intercept intruders - reconnaissance aircraft of the United States and Thailand, who were actively interested in our actions.

Twice, during the flight through the aircraft carrier, the B-52 and Orion, taken in "pincers", our attack aircraft carried out over the air defense positions of Vietnam.

The lesson went for the future. Tough measures were taken against the Thai reconnaissance aircraft.

As for the Ka-27PS, this is probably just a mistake. There should have been a Ka-25.

Harsh measures - displacement, similar to the actions of Colonel F. Matkovsky in Crete.

What's interesting here?

That the Yaks were able to do such things. In the photo below, a B-52 is flying past one of our 1143s, on the deck of which attack aircraft are clearly ready for takeoff. Most likely, it was filmed there, and the ship - this is "Minsk" and is. In any case, there is no other information about the meetings of American bombers with our aircraft carrier cruisers.


It's a pity, but the "continuation of the banquet" did not get into the public domain. Alas.

What else attracts attention?

The distance of 94 miles for the Yaks was too long to fly to strike a Thai naval base with a significant combat load. Alas, these were also the first planes without the "M" in the index.

However, reaching the range with which the Yak could have inflicted such a blow with a pair of bombs was a matter of a couple of hours for Minsk. In addition, the presence of radio-contrast targets on the naval base would make it possible to inflict a very tough combined missile-aviation (missile-assault) strike with Basalts and aircraft.

The missiles could have been struck first. Then the rapprochement, the second strike of the anti-ship missile system and the "cleansing" of the base with planes with bombs and unguided missiles. After that, the mobility of the aircraft carrier group would have made it possible to complete the withdrawal. Most likely unpunished.

The Thai aviation, which has no experience of naval warfare, apparently would not have had time to do anything. In the best case, some small reconnaissance and strike group would go to our ships, performing the task of additional reconnaissance of the target... Which would have to deal with a very serious naval air defense for those times.

The fact of raising the aircraft to strike would most likely have been revealed by a reconnaissance ship. And American bombers in those years did not yet carry anti-ship missiles. Although preparations for arming them with "Harpoons" were already underway.

And the most important thing.

If, when delivering a missile strike "Minsk", he was limited by the need to select radio contrast targets, then "Yaks" provided the ability to strike at any target - albeit at a short combat radius. And with a very low combat load.


Armament "Jacob" was varied. The photo shows the UPK-23-350 cannon container with a pair of 23-mm barrels under the wing.

Thailand had to consider all this.

Neither the Thais nor their American patrons took any action against our ships and aircraft. And the intensity of provocations along the border was reduced.

So, no matter how useless the "Yak" may seem then or today, this machine began to give results immediately.

In the future, the tradition of interceptions continued.

The USSR Navy did not have AWACS aircraft. There were no AWACS helicopters capable of operating against air targets either. But there were many ships. And there was someone to put on the radar patrol if necessary. And this made it technically possible to detect in advance the approaching American aircraft. And, relying on guidance from ships, go out to intercept.

In January 1983, the American press reported that the Yaks first intercepted aircraft from the Eisenhower, being armed with air-to-air missiles (it could be R-60 or R-60M).

According to the information available today, the described event first occurred on December 16, 1982 over the Arabian Sea.

This is what their press wrote then (link in english):

Washington. According to the Navy, two Soviet vertically taking off fighters armed with missiles intercepted two American planes from the aircraft carrier Eisenhower in the northern Arabian Sea.

Then, briefly, we intercepted Tomcat and Corsair 2. This is the first time that Soviet aircraft have operated with air-to-air missiles. Before that, interceptions were without missiles.
It must be understood that this happened more than once afterwards. Unfortunately, our Ministry of Defense does not please us with historical details. Americans, in general, are also reluctant to talk about these episodes.

However, at least one photo goes around the network.


March 25, 1986. This is the only thing we know about this case. And the fact that the photo was taken from an American plane.

"This Russian is on our tail, sir!"

The Yak-38 could be anything bad, but in the event of a real war, it would look like someone's death.

But was the Yak generally capable of fighting in the air?

It is known that the pilots of the naval assault aviation regiments practiced something in this regard. There is one interesting piece of evidence on this score. True, anonymous. And no confirmation. It was posted on one of the military history forums. Without a single proof. Just as part of the dialogue.

“I am telling a story told to me by the officers of the 33rd training center in the mid-80s. Unfortunately, not an anecdote:

A Yak-38 with a young pilot is making a training flight in the Vladivostok area.

Initial data: no weapons, normal refueling, identification system switch in the wrong position (it was on the side and behind the pilot's seat, very inconvenient, according to the reviews of pilots and instructors, and in this case it worked), weather conditions are average with a tendency to deteriorate ...

The pilot completes the mission. And, returning, crosses the border. Ground-based air defense radar detected. Does not respond to requests. Naturally, the signal "I am mine" does not transmit due to incorrect installation of the identification system.

A couple of interceptors are raised. Which go to the target area and not immediately, but briefly detect the Yak visually. The wingman did not recognize the type of aircraft and reported:

"I observe the target visually, the type is unknown."

Further, according to the instructions, it performs the necessary actions and, after the order, launches the rocket. Miss.

The attack was carried out from the tail, the distance is unknown.

The Yak-38 pilot was in the dark until the rocket flew past. Interceptors were not observed. Reflexively, he begins to maneuver, changing course and altitude, and energetically. Visually observes the second missile, finishes the maneuver. They managed to evade.

The interceptors enter the second attack. The Yak-38 pilot notices them, reduces the speed to the limit (he did not use lifting engines, did not hover) and descends to the sea surface.

Interceptors lose it, as do air defense radars.

On a low-level Yak-38 it returns home without hindrance.

On this occasion, there was a corresponding order and organizational conclusions. Unfortunately, the type of interceptors and missiles is unknown.

In Soviet times, this case was considered the only real air battle involving the Yak-38.

Training air battles were carried out, but I have no information on them. "

So maybe he wasn't that bad and bad, this Yak?


Yak-38 with UR VV R-60M. Since these missiles were part of the armament, it means that their use was being worked out. This was not an isolated incident.

Everything changes when we move from trying to use an attack aircraft without a radar as a fighter to strike missions.

Some time ago appeared article, dedicated to the comparison of "Yaks" and their British counterparts - "Harriers". We will not quote much, since there are many inaccuracies in it, but of secondary importance. But the conclusions that are made from the characteristics of the aircraft are not very challenging.

Briefly. As a fighter, the Harrier was superior to the Yak-38: both in terms of flight performance and in terms of the presence of a radar on board. Moreover, it was not so superior that a hypothetical battle between these machines would be a "one-sided game".

But in strike missions, everything is different - the combat radius of the Yak-38 is smaller, but on condition that the Harrier carries two PTBs. Our PTB plane did not carry (the first 38th, not "M") and, accordingly, carried more weapons than "Harrier". The latter, without a PTB, could fly at about the same combat radius as our aircraft, with a slightly higher combat load. (The example in the article about "2,5 tons versus 1,5" is inappropriate. Since it refers to a strike at a distance of a few tens of kilometers. Which is not very plausible in a real battle. Even a Yak during takeoff with a short takeoff run could fly further ).

One quote from there:

Further - about the implementation of this very strike potential: it is not enough to deliver one and a half tons of ammunition to the target, these ammunition must still be put on target. In reality, a typical load of British aircraft consisted of 2 PTBs and 1-3 bombs of 1000 lb (454 kg) caliber. The variant with 3 bombs required the abandonment of guns (3 * 453,6 = 1360kg, the plane would no longer lift cannon containers); with two bombs, you can hang containers of 30 mm cannons. Other load options included three 280 kg BL.755 cluster bombs or two blocks of 50 mm unguided rockets (NAR) plus cannon containers under the fuselage.

The Yak-38, which did not carry a PTB, retained all 4 points of suspension for combat load and could take 4 FAB-250 or NAR blocks of 57- or 80-mm caliber, as an option - two 504-kg RBK-500 cluster bombs or two cannon containers plus two FAB-250 - there can be many options. In general, in terms of the number and range of unguided weapons, the aircraft will not yield to each other either. As for the delivery accuracy, we can assume that the Yak-38 and the Sea Harrier are about equal, both have a minimum set of sighting means for attacking ground targets ...

Consider now a guided air-to-ground weapon. The Sea Harriers could not carry such in 1982 at all, and the Yak-38 had Kh-23 radio command-guided missiles. The British could only counter this 314-kg missile with a 454-kg laser-guided LGB-16 bomb, which could be carried by the ground Harrier.

During the entire war, these bombs were used by the British only once, "at the end" of the conflict, during the assault on Mount Tumbledown. Those four bombs were dropped by a pair of Harrier GR.3, of 4 bombs, only half hit their targets - the positions of heavy artillery of the Argentines. The target was illuminated with a laser from the ground, from the battle formations of the British marines - the planes "jumped out" over the terrain only to drop bombs, they did not have time to search and recognize targets. It would be too risky to carry out the illumination with an onboard designator - the Harrier should be too close to the target for this, on the order of 1-2 km (based on the planning range of the bomb), and would be just as vulnerable to anti-aircraft artillery as an aircraft armed with conventional bombs ...

"Yaks" can launch their Kh-23s at a distance of up to 10 km, and the missile covers this distance in 10000 m / 700 m / s = 14 s - approximately this is the time it takes to follow the missile, aiming it at the target. Let's take the launch range even 8 km and the flight time with all the maneuvers of the rocket in 15 s (0,25 min), then the Yak-38 with a speed of 900 km / h will approach the target to 8-900 * 0,25 / 60 = 4,25 , 16 km is the distance at which the target has already been hit and the roll can be started. When the LGB-500 is dropped at such a distance to the target and from a small (1000–XNUMX m) altitude, the bomb is unlikely to reach at all, but after the drop it must be accompanied by highlighting the target with a beam!

And let's add here the NAR S-24, which the Yak-38 could also carry, and which the Harrier had no analogues. Plus, the fact that the Yak-38 could strike at a very short range by launching vertically with a combat load of up to a ton - the situation is impossible for the Harrier.
Conclusions?

When performing strike missions, these aircraft must be evaluated at least as equal. Moreover, when hitting a surface target, the X-23 again brought the Yaki forward, and the naval aviation was ready to massively use this missile.

Moreover, the most important conclusion - after the appearance of the Yak-38M, the advantage went to us - with two PTBs ("Harriers" almost always flew from PTBs), our aircraft received an advantage in the range.

For two years from the moment the Yak-38M was put into service and until the Harrier 2 entered the British aviation, not they, but we had the world's best vertical takeoff and landing strike aircraft. Even if it was purely marine, but why such machines on earth?

Do not understand this as an excuse for "vertical" - a hypothetical MiG-23 in a ship version would be much better, like American aircraft. All of the above is written for something completely different - the Yak-38 (for all its shortcomings) cannot be considered either a mast guard aircraft or a useless attraction. In a real war, he was quite capable of inflicting losses on the enemy, like any normal combat aircraft. After all, no one demands from the same Su-25 the ability to conduct aerial combat against multi-role fighters? And the closest analogue of the "38" was this very machine, they were even tested in Afghanistan as part of one operation.

Pseudo-ironic remarks that, they say, the Ka-29 had more power is nothing more than stupidity.

It was just a weak aircraft, but he could definitely influence the course of hostilities. Moreover, we will see this a little later.

Understanding now the real capabilities of the aircraft, let us evaluate how a ship armed with them could prove itself in a real war with the United States. And at the same time, we will add to this assessment the information that the Soviet naval commanders during the Cold War did not possess and could not use.

"Gyrfalcons", "Basalts" and ship attack aircraft


Many of today's researchers consider anti-submarine operations to be the "canonical" purpose of these ships. On the one hand, this is true. These ships were widely used to search for foreign submarines. And successfully. And there were options for their combat use purely with anti-submarine helicopters.


Helicopters on the deck of "Kiev"

In the mid-80s, the Americans also finally realized what these strange ships were for these Russians — to guard the Bastions, as they called it.

However, here we get another lesson from the past - theory is one thing, and the situation, as Napoleon said, commands.

TAVKRs participated in combat services, especially in the Mediterranean Sea. And it was in the "hot 80s", when the USSR and the USA were really balancing on the brink of a hot war. It could easily have happened that no threatened period of more or less significant duration simply would not have turned out, and the Soviet naval formations would have had to take the battle at the place of their actual location. As, however, and the American.


Destroyer of project 956 "Desperate" and TAVKR "Kiev" in combat service in the Mediterranean, 1986

In theory, in this situation, the decisive factor would be the ability of the Navy to strike first. This should not be understood as the need to start a war first. Preempting the enemy is quite possible when he starts first. For example, a message comes from a direct tracking ship about the start of the recovery of aircraft from an aircraft carrier, then about an attack, then the connection is cut off. This is more than a clear signal. And with the appropriate orders from the commander of the TAVKR or a detachment of warships, the cruiser or the detachment could fire a missile salvo at the enemy, forestalling his attack. After that, with the successful defeat of the main target - the aircraft carrier, at best, the Americans could strike with part of their forces on our ships, after which their ability to conduct hostilities would sharply decrease.

Since the range of the Basalt anti-ship missile system significantly exceeded the combat radius of the Yaks, they were considered to be the means of delivering the first and main strike. And even when the command of the operational squadron, in the course of practicing a strike on a real aircraft carrier, demanded to approach the range of aircraft use and then deliver a "missile-assault" strike, it was often perceived "below" as a formality. Since there are planes, you have to do that. We are not to blame for the fact that they are what they are. But in a real war ...

Many in the navy denied the possibility of successfully using the Yaki. Here is what, for example, can be found in the article by Captain 1st Rank M. Monakov "On the Way to the Creation of Naval Aviation of the Russian Navy (1956-1989)" in "Marine Collection", No. 6, 2020. ( link to the pdf log file):

However, the performance characteristics of the Yak-38 did not allow them to be used in the first strike against enemy ship formations. Therefore, when planning naval operations to destroy the enemy's AUS, AUG, AMG and KUG, it was envisaged that the first strike on them would be made by anti-ship missile systems, and the Yak-38 attack aircraft would be used as a means of "developing success."

That is, in the event of the outbreak of war at the time the ships of Project 1143 were in combat service, they would be used as missile cruisers, and not as aircraft carriers. Calculations showed that the likelihood of a situation arising when, after the exchange of the first strikes, there would be an opportunity to lift the Yak-38 into the air, is such that it can be ignored.

And this is where the nuances begin.

The first problem that would prevent the use of TAVKRs as described by M. Monakov and as many commanders saw it, repelling the range of missile weapons, was this.

Ships do not fight on their own, but in groups - shock, search and strike, aircraft carrier. In missile combat, the key concept is the number of missiles in a salvo. A short excursion into salvo questions was made in the article "The reality of missile salvos: a little about military superiority"... And all this salvo had to be sent to the target, the number of this salvo (see "salvo model" in the article at the link) should have been sufficient to penetrate the air defense of the enemy's formation.

How many missiles were needed to "carry out" an aircraft carrier group "in one salvo"? This number grew steadily from the late seventies to the end of the Cold War. With the advent of mass ships with the AEGIS system, vertical missile launchers Mk.41, anti-aircraft missiles Standard SM-2, this number has approached three-digit value. But even earlier, in the early eighties, it was measured in tens.

Our missiles were superweapons in the 70s. And it was then that they made the US "sweat" and tense up properly. By the time the "Krechetov" appeared in the ranks, the Americans were already receiving the results of their efforts, the power of their naval air defense was constantly growing.

How many missiles could Kiev send to the target in one salvo? Eight. Would this be enough to break through the air defense of the US Navy formation in the conditions of a war that has already begun, when everyone is acting with maximum attention and exertion? Not a fact, so to speak. How could you increase the volley? Only at the expense of other ships.

Now let's imagine a situation when a naval carrier group with "Kiev" at the head in the Mediterranean Sea inflicts a strike on the US Navy AMG. What could be its composition, at least in theory? Well, for example, "Kiev", a couple of destroyers pr. 956, one of the first 1134, for example, "Vice-Admiral Drozd", three or four patrol boats, projects 1135 and / or 61. Maybe one of the "Bukari" "- BOD project 1134B, to strengthen the anti-submarine defense of the compound.


TAVKR "Kiev" (project 1143), tanker "Ivan Bubnov" (center), RRC "Vice-Admiral Drozd" (project 1134), BPK "Stroyny" (project 61-M). June 1985. Project 1134 and 1143 could easily have ended up in the same battle group - and ended up.

We count the salvo and range.

"Kiev" - 8 anti-ship missiles, supersonic, up to 550 km.

"Vice-Admiral Drozd", 4 anti-ship missiles in a salvo, let's assume that the realistic range in the non-nuclear version is 550 km, the speed is supersonic, but much slower than the "Basalt".

Destroyers, 8 anti-ship missiles in each salvo, 16 in total, supersonic, range up to 250 km, but only at high-altitude flight profile, at low-altitude - 100-120.

Already at this stage, we get the first consequence - in order to provide a strong strike, that is, a strike with a large number of missiles in a salvo, the ship's group will have to come very close. And, if we start from the flight characteristics of the Yak-38M, capable of carrying PTB, then the targets by this point would be deep within the combat radius of the attack aircraft. Or you would have to shoot from afar with "thin" volleys, with low chances of success and revealing your real location by enemy reconnaissance.

The second point is that in order to ensure the defeat of targets, it would be necessary to launch at different times. First, subsonic missiles. Then after a while "Basalts". And with a short delay - "Mosquitoes" from the destroyers.

And this deprived the shock of surprise even by itself, without other factors.

It was possible to act in different ways. But all the possible options for combat use had one thing in common - a purely long-range missile strike did not allow the enemy to be defeated.

And this meant the inevitable "inclusion" of aircraft from the ship in the strike. At the same time, the options for finding such ships as destroyers in the ship group (which had anti-ship missiles with a limited range) would simply push towards a scheme where at least the final attack of anti-ship missiles is delivered, precisely as an assault missile, with synchronized flight times of Mosquitoes from destroyers and attack aircraft Yak-38 or 38M with X-23, NAR S-24 guided missiles or bombs.

If he were successful - the question is open.

In theory, the ship group would need to disable or destroy the main target - the aircraft carrier with missiles, take on the strike of the aircraft, which he managed to raise, repulse it with some losses and then put into battle, firstly, ships with a shorter range of anti-ship missiles , and secondly, planes. And then, if after that there would still be aviation, then it would be necessary to operate by planes until the ships reached the range of using anti-aircraft missiles against surface targets. And then at the range of artillery use.

As far as can be judged from the information that got into the open press, the calculations showed a low probability that this sequence could be performed. But this does not negate the fact that it would not have been possible to solve the issue with purely missiles. Without aircraft, the defeat of the enemy was not achieved in principle (unless the enemy somewhere, by mistake, would have been put under attack). And in order to bring them into battle without losing them on the ship, a separate set of measures was required.

All these situations could be complicated by something else.

In the 70s and 80s, American submarines and combat swimmers actively operated at the naval ranges (especially in the Pacific Ocean), collecting fragments of guided missiles from the bottom immediately after firing before silting up. According to American sources, over several years of the operation, the US Navy had about two million fragments of the Basalt anti-ship missile alone. Based on intelligence data and using these fragments, the Americans were able to reverse engineer the seeker of our missile, which, according to them, allowed them to create effective electronic warfare systems against these missiles.

To what extent this is really so, now it is impossible to establish for sure. But if their electronic warfare means really turned out to be effective, then in addition to attack aircraft, the TAVKR would have no other tools for striking.

All this would overturn all the usual tactical approaches if the Soviet commanders had time to realize the sad reality before the death of their forces. However, the admirals, who immediately understood everything as they should, were there.

The well-known "Kiev" task of the oncoming battle with the AUG was solved against the background of the growing intensity of Yak-38 flights and the gradual delivery of the K-1 mission to the field headquarters. The detachment, meanwhile, slowly moved from the southeastern tip of Sicily in the direction of the island of Crete.

By the end of the fourth day of intense work of radio intelligence, it was finally possible to establish the coordinates of the Forrestal and several ships of the core of its escort.

By this time, the warrant of the aircraft carrier had entered the range of the TAKR Basalt. However, the squadron demanded the implementation of the conditional missile and assault strike option.

Due to the limited range of the Yak-38, the exercise was thus extended for at least another two days. Or more if the American aircraft carrier begins to drift eastward.

... On January 14, on the maximum scale of the Kiev navigation radar, blurred outlines of the western tip of the island of Crete were cut. With the TAKR reaching the target designation range of the URO complex from the Ka-25RTs helicopter, the naval aviation was ready to carry out an assault strike.

A report on this immediately went to the 5th squadron. There, comparing the data of the "Kiev" with the information of the ships of the direct tracking of the "Forrestal", they gave the command to end the exercise and the results of the aircraft carrier's work were credited with the mark "good".

There were still two days of Yak-38 flights for piloting technique and at full range ahead.

So, imperceptibly, the first month of the combat service of the ships of the Northern Fleet in the 5th squadron came to an end.
Link.

This cannot be considered a documentary source. It's full of lyrical digressions. But where did the author get it from somewhere?

It should be admitted that the command of the 5th squadron, if this case is true, was 100% right. And those who did not understand this were just as much mistaken.

Alas, the experience of the Navy clearly indicates that not everyone understood the clear understanding of the need for aviation to strike the enemy. And some, in general, did not understand how to use these ships.

Anti-example.

Beginning of 1981, Leningrad, organizational and methodological meeting "under the auspices" of the VMA. Admirals are losing a future war on the cards. Moreover, not with the actual ship composition, but with a promising one.

Admiral Emil Spiridonov, commander of the KTOF (who soon died tragically in the notorious crash of the "admiral's" Tu-104) "puts" his future aircraft-carrying cruisers "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk" in the air defense of the Fokino ("Tihas") base! And these are strike ships, the most powerful and expensive in the Soviet Navy.

Most likely, E.N. Spiridonov simply assessed these ships as

"Very bad aircraft carriers with very bad airplanes"

and just removed them from the sea out of harm's way.

But was this true?

The Americans unequivocally qualified the TAVKRs as a High Value Unit -

"High value unit".

And this, in turn, could lead to the fact that at each such HVU from the very beginning of the conflict, some kind of outfit of forces would be thrown, aimed only at its destruction.

Let's say it could be bombers with anti-ship missiles. An assessment of their capabilities was given in the article "American bombers against Soviet aircraft carriers"... It could have been other forces.

That is, the use of these ships in defense clearly transferred the initiative in carrying out an operation to destroy them into the hands of the enemy. Moreover, the enemy would be free to choose the method, the moment of time and the order of forces for this operation.

Taking into account the fact that the main enemy force was aviation, which the TAVKR air group could not resist in an open battle "aircraft against aircraft" in almost any form, this would actually be the withdrawal of the ship and the crew. In the best case, they would repeat the "feat" of the Kaiser's fleet. And they would have stood in the base for the entire war, on the course of which they could have had the maximum influence.

In contrast to this path, the advance deployment of surface forces outside the range of the enemy's base aviation, measures to mislead enemy reconnaissance about the real position of the aircraft-carrying cruiser and its covert withdrawal to strike the enemy gave some chances. Not the biggest, but never zero. And much higher than passive defense.

To check the correctness of all of the above constructions, the author conducted a small experiment.

Model


Why don't we know a lot of what Americans know?

Because we do not have their experience - we have never had a war comparable to that of the Pacific. There were not thousands of ships in the ranks, there were not many naval battles from which any lessons could be learned.

We are theorists.

In the Ground Forces, it is possible to turn to the combat experience of the past. And find answers to a lot of questions there. There has always been some episode similar to this one, the current one, from which you can understand something for yourself, adjusted for modern weapons and communications. In the case of the navy, we have nothing of the kind.

It is easy to assume that if admirals could conduct a couple of dozen wars using aircraft-carrying cruisers, then there would be no "white spots" in their use. But this was obviously impossible.

Nevertheless, it is not entirely complete, but still there is a real way out - modeling. It is desirable with the use of computer technology and appropriate (at least conditionally) software.

Some time ago the author got the technical opportunity to do it. True, with a very large "error" in relation to reality. Modeling by those means did not and could not provide comprehensive answers to all questions. But it showed something.

First, the indeed, in the absence of external target designation (and with the outbreak of hostilities it would not have become very quickly, if it had been there at all - the enemy perfectly understood the significance of the Tu-95RTs), the range from which missile ships in the formation strike at the enemy significantly decreases ... Since you have to detect the enemy by your own means - by combining the results of the work of reconnaissance ships, data from hydroacoustics of submarines, raids of light ships (MRK, project 61) with reconnaissance missions, flights of carrier-based attack aircraft for reconnaissance, and most importantly - Ka-25Ts helicopters, the presence of which was critical. Departure of the scout "from the shore" would rather be a rare "bonus" and luck than a system.

At the same time, technically, the TAVKR was still capable of delivering a missile strike long before the approach to the range of use of attack aircraft. But it would be very undesirable, since the chances of destroying something with such a blow are negligible.

Second, the undoubtedly, it is much better to inflict a powerful missile strike with all units than to attack in turn immediately, as soon as one or another ship is at the required distance from the enemy.

Third, it is necessary to maneuver ships in such a way that by the time of the first or retaliatory attack of the enemy the TAVKR would not be in the order. In principle, the possibility of such a maneuver is obvious. And in the exercises, it was carried out, with the substitution of a supply ship or a tanker with corner reflectors instead of TAVKR.

Fourthly, we must strive to ensure that the development of success by airplanes is really possible. And if TAVKR avoided defeat, it would have been possible.

Ultimately, an application model emerged that was not an aircraft carrier, although it had its features. And it was not a model for the use of a missile cruiser, although it had its features. This was a specific tactical scheme for an aircraft-carrying cruiser operating as part of a formation, but physically not in a common order with it for a significant part of the operation.

Such a ship turned out to be significantly weaker than an aircraft carrier, which is generally obvious. But she was getting much stronger than a missile cruiser with the same number of missiles. And it was more powerful precisely because of the aircraft, in the first place. And the fact that the enemy's defense would be "softened", as the Americans say, by a series of missile strikes, secondly.

At the same time (depending on whether it was possible to deceive the enemy's reconnaissance), the strike by the planes could be delivered synchronously with the missile. Just from different heights and courses. It could have been otherwise.

The pledge of victory, ultimately, consisted of the following sequence:

1. Replay enemy reconnaissance and reach the line of missile launch. One of the proven ways to implement this was the very tracking of weapons, which became the hallmark of the Navy in those years. That is, the launch line was reached before the start of hostilities. And then the ships kept at this distance for the enemy. It would be critical to maintain a distance at which all the ships in the formation could fire a salvo. And to get closer to the combat radius of the use of attack aircraft could be in a short period of time (several hours).

2. At the moment when the start of hostilities is already inevitable (shortly before a salvo or upon receipt of an order to strike, or immediately after a missile strike), the TAVKR had to get out of the enemy's air strike, having gone beyond the order in which the enemy was his last once seen by means of intelligence. The high speed of the aircraft-carrying cruisers made it possible. For example, the lifting of an air group from an aircraft carrier, its formation in battle formation, the flight to the launch line of the anti-ship missile system could take up to an hour. An aircraft-carrying cruiser traveling at maximum speed during the same time could be very far away.

In the extreme case, the TAVKR makes a 180-degree turn and moves at a 30-knot speed in the direction opposite to the previous course. If the order continues to move, for example, with a 27 nodal move to the enemy, then the enemy will be waiting for him 27 miles to his side from the last point where he observed our forces. And the order will be there. And the TAVKR will be 57 miles (105 km) in the opposite direction. This is an extreme case.

In reality, such a maneuver will be performed taking into account geography (islands or shores nearby, our own, enemy or neutral), weather (20 miles to the east, a low cloud front, we hide from aviation under it), trade traffic, time of day (at night you can pretend to be a tanker) and etc. This is just a figure for understanding the scale. He's a slow ship, of course. But this is how it all turns out in the end.

3. Then, when the rest of the ships take on the battle, the TAVKR was supposed to get close to the range of the use of aviation and provide, if possible, a combined missile-assault strike or their series. And so on until the withdrawal of the surviving ships to the range of the use of missiles against enemy ships. Naturally, the surviving ships would also have to "invest" in these attacks with the remaining anti-ship missiles.

This model did not guarantee anything. This sequence was not easy to follow. But she gave some chances even against a deployed and battle-ready US Navy aircraft carrier group.

All the simulation results also showed the extreme doubtfulness of the idea of ​​using this ship for anything other than an attack on enemy surface forces. Used as anti-submarine, it could. And with success. But in the absence of resistance from enemy aircraft and surface ships. In a real war, no one would have allowed this. But even if he did, then the use of TAVKRs as an attacking striking unit in any case provided more benefits than their use for any conceivable defensive purpose.

An important point - the enemy would have (with the right approach from our side) use really large forces in order to neutralize the TAVKR - and all this time these forces could not be used in other places, making the balance of forces in these other places more advantageous for the USSR. Well, or less unprofitable.

These are interesting conclusions that can be drawn today about the ships that we have built. And their possibilities were never fully tested. This is probably even for the best that they have not checked. But only if we draw the right conclusions from all this.

Lessons for Today


The era of aircraft-carrying cruisers is over.

At the moment, both the military-political leadership and the navy have a consensus that this page is closed forever. And that if someday our country lives to see the resumption of naval development "according to the mind", then "clean" aircraft carriers will be built as a more effective means.

But beyond this, the voluntarism of individual leaders still flourishes in our country. And there are no guarantees that soon we will not get some kind of missile-landing hybrid, another "unknown animal".

TAVKRs were just like that. And that is how they appeared. The Buyan-M missile gunboats were also born by the "willful decision" of army generals. So we have no money yet. And with stupidity - everything is in order so far. So, everything is possible. And with heavy ships.

What will need to be done if we "plunge into" again?

The aircraft carrier example teaches us the following.

For an atypical "hybrid" means of warfare, its own model of use should be created specifically for it. The model of the use of TAVKRs, for example, obtained from the results of modeling, was not reducible to that for missile ships or aircraft carriers. She had signs of both. As well as the ship itself.

Achievement of maximum destructive force in the strike (or strikes) delivered with the help of this ship directly depended on the ability of its commander or higher command to combine a missile strike with an attack air strike.

Even in the same Thai example - "Minsk" would have to act exactly as a "hybrid" - to approach each other to the range of use of "Yaks", deliver a combined missile and assault strike, then break away so as not to fall under a retaliatory air strike. And if it did not work out, then fight back mainly with the air defense systems of the ships included in the detachment, and not by aircraft. However, something "Yaki", as it turned out, could be in the air.

A hypothetical "hybrid" ship of the future, if it happens to be born in our Navy, will also need a model of application created "for it", taking into account its strengths and weaknesses.

The second important point is aviation.

The example of TAVKRs shows the importance of any aircraft, even the worst. Those very scolded "Yaks" made it possible to win a battle that could not have been won purely "on missiles" in any way.

In truth, the story of the Yak-38 and TAVKRs shows that it is almost impossible to make an aircraft so bad that it is useless at all.


This was the first Yak-36, but it was a "test of the pen", a flying experiment. The Yak-38 was no longer like that, the Yak-38M was not so much the more. And the continuation of the evolution of these machines could yield very interesting results. Up to the point that part of the TAVKRs would have remained in the Navy after the collapse of the USSR.

In reality, all the forces of the Yakovlev Design Bureau were sent to the Yak-41. And they did not have time to do it. But that is another story.

And the example of TAVKR shows well that aviation has decisive role even when there are other means. And formally, "on paper" are more powerful (anti-ship missiles "Basalt"). This conclusion will always be true in all cases.


On the deck of "Kiev". “Yaki” meant the difference between victory and defeat. Strange, but like that.

Another lesson is that even an unbalanced and bizarre ship with ample shock capabilities is a significant factor in the world's balance of power.

The Gyrfalcons were just that. They were seriously inferior in power to American aircraft carriers. But the point was they were giving in only American aircraft carriers and not in conditions where we would get the first strike. Even without fully understanding the capabilities of our ships (and we ourselves did not fully understand them then and do not understand them now), the Americans could not ignore their presence. And they were forced to go beyond the range of use by aircraft carriers and missiles "Basalt", and aviation.

They were also compelled to follow these ships. Just like we followed their aircraft carriers. Sometimes it took the grotesque guise of "reality the other way around" - when an American missile ship is directly tracking what they believed to be a Soviet aircraft carrier.


The USS Peterson, a USS Peterson, DD969, is tracking the Soviet aircraft carrier.

And there is no doubt that it was a significant deterrent for any adversary.

And there is still no doubt that a ship with serious strike weapons and good speed is much more useful in offensive actions than in defensive operations, as well as from a ship with strike aircraft on board. And none of his supposedly "value" justifies not sending him into battle when it is necessary - because otherwise there is simply no point in him.

These are the lessons today can be learned, for example, from the old, and seemingly irrelevant experience.
Author:
Photos used:
TASS, US Navy, US Air Force
260 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 28 January 2021 05: 19
    +8
    "Mast guard aircraft"
    Forev's naval wit!

    The exit was a short takeoff (WRC),
    There was also some takeoff with "slippage", but it is possible only for the Yak-141.

    Thanks for the great article!
    1. Civil
      Civil 28 January 2021 07: 21
      +8
      And now where are the powerful Soviet TAVKR, thanks to the Communists of the PRC, which some ships as museums.
      In the PRC "Kiev"

      The PRC managed to buy out Minsk from South Korea.

      For Novorossisk, the PRC did not manage to redeem it, the Koreans dismantled it for scrap.


      Gorshkov serves in India.
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 28 January 2021 10: 57
      +6
      I subscribe to your words. The material is very interesting. Once upon a time I had a chance to read a monograph on the Yak - 38, but some cases of the described application were not mentioned. Apparently, they were still under the bar.
      From myself I can add that from a neighbor, a cadet of the Vasilkovsky School of Flight Technicians, I heard that there negligent cadets were intimidated by being assigned to carrier-based aircraft on "yaks". With them it was troublesome to maintain.
      1. A1845
        A1845 29 January 2021 10: 58
        +3
        In truth, the story of the Yak-38 and TAVKRs shows that it is almost impossible to make an aircraft so bad that it is useless at all.

        more precisely, the most unsuccessful aircraft may find some use
        in this case, apparently, it meant counteraction to single anti-submarine aircraft, which does not raise questions
        At the same time, 8 SPKR could effectively work against enemy anti-submarine ships (without air cover)
        If we talk about the task of covering the area of ​​deployment of their SSBNs, then all this is better than nothing, although with such resources one could aim at something more
    3. Avior
      Avior 28 January 2021 11: 08
      +10
      Landing and takeoff with slippage
      This could also be used for the Yak-38.
      During landing and takeoff, the gases of the lift engines got into the air intakes of the lift-sustainer, which sharply reduced its power and did not allow hovering at a low altitude for an accurate landing, and created problems during takeoff. It is quite possible that the death of the Yak-141 was connected with this - the pilot just hurried to land the plane.
      Harrier and the F-35 do not have this problem.
      Forev's naval wit!

      There was another
      "Yak is flying proudly in the sky, Yak on the deck ....!"
      It was associated with a high accident rate.
    4. timokhin-aa
      30 January 2021 12: 40
      0
      There was a slip landing
      1. Alien From
        Alien From 31 January 2021 22: 40
        +1
        I learned a lot of interesting things, thank you, write more, success! hi
    5. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 3 February 2021 19: 44
      -3
      And what is “great” about this article? A different opinion from common sense? Not a word about the engines - on the Harrier there is a "cold" turbofan, on the Yak-38 there are "hot" turbojets, as many as three, which is why most of the problems did not start, and the high accident rate, about which the author preferred not to expand. The Yak-38 is two and a half meters longer than the Harrier, and the wingspan is half a meter less, and the wing of the Harrier is subsonic, while the Yak is, for some reason, supersonic. The empty weight of the Yak-38 is almost one and a half times greater. That's all - all this talk about a short takeoff of the Yak and landing with "slip" is meaningless. At this size and weight, a small wing with an ineffective airfoil will help very little. Everywhere they write that our intelligence felt at home in England, and especially in the Navy, and the simple conclusion that the British made after testing the Kestrel on the Arc Royal back in 1966, and which they did not particularly secret - By and large, it cannot perform a combat mission during vertical takeoff, either a catapult or a takeoff run is needed - it seems that either it did not reach our sailors and designers, or they simply did not understand it. As soon as it became clear that the Yak-38 was incapable of combat, and after receiving data on the methods of using the Harriers, it was necessary to change its wing to a new, almost straight one, with a subsonic profile and a large span (what the Americans did on the AV-8B and the British on GR.5), but nobody needed it. The fact that the Kh-23 and Kh-25mr missiles were outdated even before their creation was clear in the Air Force; during the modernization of fighter-bombers, the built-in Delta guidance equipment was removed, and left on the Yak-38M - it is incomprehensible to the mind. Back in the mid-70s, the British left the Harriers with laser rangefinders, which made it possible to dramatically increase the accuracy of bombing, which prevented the installation of the Maple on the Yak-38M instead of the stupid Delta? At the same time, the ridiculous X-23 would be replaced with a laser X-25ml. A normal cannon for the Yak-38 was created only towards the very end of his career. The fleet did not bother to order a PTB for the Yak-38M.
      It is very likely that the TAVRK and Yak-38 were not needed by the fleet, and the fleet did not even want to improve them.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 4 February 2021 03: 25
        0
        Have you read the article for sure? Something I did not notice that the author of the Yak-38 would praise.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 4 February 2021 20: 39
          0
          And what - scolded? He writes - oh, what an underrated plane. Why underestimate him, practically incapable of combat.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 03: 23
            0
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            And what - scolded? He writes - oh, what an underrated plane.

            Where is that written? That's about what to choose and work out tactics for a specific ship and a specific (shitty) aircraft is written.
  2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 January 2021 05: 44
    +13
    The author is definitely a plus for an interesting discussion topic!
    Thank you all good day, Kote!
  3. Mustachioed Georgian
    Mustachioed Georgian 28 January 2021 05: 53
    -2
    Tirpitz at the pier showed all his power
  4. Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 28 January 2021 06: 04
    0
    What will come out of the UDC under construction, we can only guess. While the constantly growing displacement is being announced, as you look, the term "landing" will drop out, and the universal ship will remain. And, what is bad about an arsenal ship, which has an air group, including for proper target designation?
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 28 January 2021 08: 18
      +16
      Nothing bad if:
      1) tasks are defined for him in the adopted maritime strategy;
      2) tactical application schemes have been worked out;
      3) a comparison was made of the effectiveness with other means of waging a naval war;
      4) the actual technical characteristics of the ship and its weapons correspond to the adopted tactical schemes.
      1. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 28 January 2021 09: 05
        -2
        All of the above for any system, the question remains open.
        1. Comrade I
          Comrade I 28 January 2021 12: 59
          +1
          Not to any, but to a new one (or a new one for the Navy of a particular country, which receives the system for the first time). TAVKRs were new systems. Modern UDC, which we are going to build, are also new (for us). And the fact that, most likely, significant changes will still be made to the project only complicates the development of a strategy and tactics of application. And determining the place of the future system in the general naval doctrine. Although, probably, there are times when old systems that have been in use for decades do not have a sufficiently developed tactics.
          1. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 28 January 2021 13: 23
            0
            Any system was once new, but these requirements are generalized and applicable to a ship of any class, that is, in other words - it seems not bad if everything is "smart".
            1. Comrade I
              Comrade I 28 January 2021 13: 30
              +1
              I agree. But it's one thing to adhere to proven tactics and systems with small and timely changes. Another thing is our multi-billion dollar projects, which are being pushed in the Navy almost every year.
        2. SVD68
          SVD68 29 January 2021 06: 32
          0
          Quote: Yuri V.A
          All of the above for any system, the question remains open.

          Yes, open. But not because the above is applicable to any system, but because there is no justification in this particular case.
          1. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 29 January 2021 09: 25
            0
            It is not known how Project 23 will appear in its final form, but there are justifications and grounds for a large rocket ship.
      2. Dmitry_6
        Dmitry_6 29 January 2021 10: 18
        +2
        I would also add an economic justification for this particular ship in terms of cost / operating cost / efficiency compared to other UDC / universal or light aircraft carrier options. Something tells me that the hybrid will eventually be more expensive
        1. timokhin-aa
          30 January 2021 11: 29
          +1
          One can argue here, but the fact that the cost-effectiveness ratio of the hybrid is worse is clearly the case. Even if it is cheaper than normal AB.
  5. CTABEP
    CTABEP 28 January 2021 07: 32
    +8

    And there is still no doubt that a ship with serious strike weapons and good speed is much more useful in offensive actions than in defensive operations, as well as from a ship with strike aircraft on board. And none of his supposedly "value" justifies not sending him into battle when it is necessary - because otherwise there is simply no point in him.


    It is logical. Ships must be built before the war, and during it - to fight. There is little sense with super-performance characteristics on paper, which have stood in the bases throughout the war.
    1. timokhin-aa
      30 January 2021 11: 30
      0
      This is not about the bases, but about the fact that the ship can, for example, hold an anti-submarine line.
      And we must throw him into the attack.
  6. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 28 January 2021 07: 46
    +7
    Quote: Yuri V.A
    And, what is bad about an arsenal ship that has an air group, including for proper target designation?


    It would not turn out to be a cross between a bulldog and a rhinoceros ... And not an aircraft carrier or UDC or a cruiser. Accordingly, the purpose is not entirely clear: in theory, it seems like it can do everything, but it really can't do anything in real life.
    1. Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A 28 January 2021 09: 35
      +2
      There will be more sense than from Nakhimov if air support is added to the sufficient number of launchers. Since there are not enough funds for full-fledged aircraft carriers, everything is better than a command ship.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 29 January 2021 06: 49
        0
        Quote: Yuri V.A
        There will be more sense than from Nakhimov if air support is added to the sufficient number of launchers. Since there are not enough funds for full-fledged aircraft carriers, everything is better than a command ship.

        Will there be? Nakhimov will be able to provide more missiles in one salvo anyway. "Nakhimov" will be able to provide air defense in the battle against the AB Queen Elizabeth or the "destroyer" Izumo with the F-35. But this cannot be said about the alleged light AB, since it is not known what it will be armed with.
        Well, and finally, there is another question, will it not be more efficient than two light AB of 45 thousand tons of steam from the Republic of Kazakhstan in 20 thousand tons and AB in 65 thousand tons?
        1. Yuri V.A
          Yuri V.A 29 January 2021 10: 31
          0
          If it is not an aircraft-carrying ship with missiles, but a missile ship with an air group, then having one and a half times more tonnage against Nakhimov and taking into account not the most rational revolving type of launcher for the Fort, then the missiles on the new ships may be more than on the Orlans.
          With the appropriate escort, a pair of an aircraft carrier of 65 kt with a cruiser of 15-20 kt will be more interesting.
    2. bayard
      bayard 28 January 2021 14: 46
      +10
      If our Fleet needs an arsenal ship, then there is nothing simpler and more reliable than using the Borei-class submarine for this as a SSGN. In its launch cups, it is capable of carrying up to 112 CR type "Caliber" \ "Onyx" \ "Zircon", while the secrecy of deployment and the possibility of a covert exit to the line of attack / salvo, and the ability to follow (covertly!) As part of the order of the KUG \ AUG , and there is no need to design a new, especially a surface ship ... yes, for a ship with such an arsenal of VI, it is necessary to inflate up to those 40 tons, provide air defense, anti-aircraft missiles ... it will cost like two "Admiral Nakhimov" ... "Borey-K" will be released at a price of 000 - 550 million dollars. , will be built relatively quickly and will not require special ROC.
      And for the UDC, there will be enough tasks in the classic look.

      ... And on the other hand ... what strength they had ... and did not save ...
      In fact, only by the 90s, these ships could fully reveal their potential - with the advent of the Yak-41, AWACS and Yak-38M helicopters. Supersonic fighters on board with a good combat radius, with radar missiles from the MiG-29, with normal explosive missiles, anti-ship missiles X-35, which also appeared only in the early 90s, and which both the Yak-41 and Yak-38M were capable of carrying ... "Admiral Kuznetsov" and "Varyag" with normal horizontal take-off and landing fighters ... And a series of four nuclear "Ulyanovsk" - with catapults, AWACS aircraft Yak-44 ...
      If you had lived the USSR for another 10 years, our Fleet could well catch up with the American one in terms of power and combat capabilities in the surface component. In any case, in the tonnage of new ships handed over for the year, we have been going almost head to head for the last 15 years.
      And at the same time they did not go bankrupt, no matter how the apologists of the liberal economy sang about the "overstrained economy".

      Anything is possible now, if the government stops eating and seriously engages in the economy and defense.
      1. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 29 January 2021 10: 53
        0
        Borei in this capacity will be good for everyone, except for the absence of the notorious external control center for working on moving targets, or it still needs AUG (as you noted), which also needs to be spent on. Whatever one may say, it will not work cheaply.
        Yes, with the preservation of the Union, by the first half of the 90s we would have had a very interesting fleet, but how not to untie the navel, this is a separate conversation.
        1. bayard
          bayard 29 January 2021 11: 12
          0
          Such an arsenal (Borey-K) alone is hardly worth sending. And target designation is also necessary for surface ships - the carrier of the CD. But the arsenal based on Borey will be much cheaper than a full-fledged surface ship with the same ammunition, and as part of the KUG it will receive cover from anti-submarine aircraft, and will support the KUG from under the water not only with the KR, but also with torpedoes, no worse than the regular MAPL.
          And, if necessary, to hit the enemy's territory, he will be able to secretly reach the range of a salvo (this time alone) and from a given line bring warmth and light to all those who suffer.
          Such a combination of surface ships and an underwater arsenal, and with an air defense aircraft carrier, looks much more interesting than a herd of surface nuclear missile cruisers "imperceptibly" entering the line of attack.
          1. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 29 January 2021 12: 04
            0
            The herds and schools of nuclear cruisers are a forced form of asymmetric response. Long-range aviation is lacking in "such a combination". And in general, when they sneeze at the latest restrictive treaties, low-orbit missile platforms will decide the issue.
            1. bayard
              bayard 29 January 2021 13: 36
              0
              Quote: Yuri V.A
              when they sneeze at the latest restrictive treaties, the issue will be decided by low-orbit missile platforms.

              They were ready for this already in the late 80s.
          2. timokhin-aa
            30 January 2021 11: 33
            +1
            And you can make and arm this Borei K with purely rockets for striking the coast.
            Take out basic aircraft, for example.
            And here you don't need to come up with anything at all, the boat is the quietest of what we can build, a strong salvo can be provided from it, there is a sense in such a boat in local conflicts somewhere unknown where, and in a global war, etc. etc.
            1. bayard
              bayard 31 January 2021 00: 09
              +3
              So that's what we're talking about!
              "Borei-K" is an ideal SSGN, which does not even need to be developed - everything is already there, worked out and under construction in series. The only innovation is to equip the launching cups with CD instead of the Bulava, and which ones - to choose the command personally for each case. From "Caliber" and "Caliber-M" to "Onyx" and "Zircon". Moreover, even in anti-ship, even in the usual version (for coastal / land targets).
              112 CR is power. In the event of a strike on the coast from a line, say, 500 km. from enemy terrorists, air defense / missile defense systems, as well as airbases, it is advisable to carry out "Zirconia" (so more reliable), and already for other military and civilian infrastructure - "Caliber" and "Caliber-M" (these are already completely deep into the territory) ...
              As part of the KUG, such a SSGN would also be very useful - for covert / implicit enhancement of the strike capabilities of ship groupings.
              And what is most interesting is that such a SSGN is half the price of the same "golden" "Ash" with almost three times more strike potential. And he has ten more torpedoes than Ash - 40 versus 30. And the mover is a water cannon.
              A contract has now been signed for the construction of 2 more new Yasen-M. I don’t know if they have already been pledged, or have not yet had time ... And if we didn’t have time, then it’s time to change the order and instead of two "Ash-M" pledge four (!!!) "Boreya-K" for the same money. There are only six of them - together with the existing and under construction "Ashes" these SSGNs will be quite enough, there will be a worthy (in the full sense of the word) replacement for the "Batons", which by the time the "Boreev-K" is put into operation will already go for write-off by age.
              And the funds saved on such a castling, it is more reasonable to send to the development and construction of normal (!) MAPLs - moderate VI with exclusively torpedo armament. Take the same 945 project as a basis.
              And they will fire off the CR from a torpedo tube if needed - even a PLUR, even a prosaic "Caliber", even a "Caliber" with a supersonic head ... That's why he and "Caliber" to start from the TA.

              Alexander, you and Maxim would shake this topic properly - about the advantages of building Borei-K over the absurdly expensive, complex and ineffective Ash.
              I will gladly support you in the comments. fellow yes
              And good luck in the fight for common sense. drinks
              hi
              1. timokhin-aa
                2 February 2021 15: 40
                +5
                And if they didn't manage to, then it's time to change the order and instead of two "Ash-M" pledges for the same money four (!!!) "Boreya-K".


                The level of squabbles for grandmothers in submarine shipbuilding has long been such that the faces have to use special forces so that some state contract is not canceled due to the murder of the employees responsible for the tender.

                Specifically for Ash - in order for the loot to pass through Malachite, a 3rd generation modernization project was nailed, in fact, only Leopard and Irkutsk will receive what from the beginning of the 10s they should (and could) receive and other boats.

                As a result, we have Kazan, which they cannot pass in any way, and according to rumors due to the noise.

                But the sawmill keeps turning.

                How can you push Borei-K instead of Ash - probably not even a question to Patrushev, but to the Commander-in-Chief of the Airborne Forces or the Russian Guard - the faces for these Augean stables will not have enough strength.

                And together with Ash - the economy will not survive. It is already crackling, the efficiency of spending money is zero, they simply flow into nowhere like a leaky pipe and that's it.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 3 February 2021 05: 33
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  How can you push Borei-K instead of Ash - probably not even a question to Patrushev, but to the Commander-in-Chief of the Airborne Forces or the Russian Guard - the faces for these Augean stables will not have enough strength.

                  Shoigu announced his intention to lay at least two such boats (Borey-K) a couple of years ago.
                  ... True, after that, for some reason, 2 more "Boreas" and two more "Ash" were ordered. Apparently, these intrigues affected.
                  But the Goal still justifies the effort required for resonance. The water wears away the stone, and the decision to resume the laying of corvettes 20380 \ 20385 is an example.
                  I think that critical materials on the Ash program should be accompanied by an alternative proposal. And there is no better proposal for a strike SSGN at the moment.
                  And, of course, the theme of MAPLs of moderate displacement requires continuation and development. Precisely because the project "Super-Ash" - "Husky-Likes" is now being prepared. A new monster that will finally kill the hopes for the revival of the Navy.
  7. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 08: 49
    -10%
    dug up the case of admirals ... and that's what I thought, admirals Geller Alafuzov Stepanov and Kuznetsov were convicted not only for transferring a secret torpedo and maps to the west, but mainly for their harmful aircraft carrier and battleship ideas, and Alafuzov was already involved in responsibility with a downgrade after the disastrous use of surface ships in the Crimea. The pre-war idea of ​​building a large fleet was promoted by Geller as the ideological inspirer and Kuznetsov by post. (The obvious inability of Kuznetsov to understand issues and arrange people and led to the shame of the Kuznetsov admirals and the death of the battleship Novorossiysk.) It is clear that the inspirer of the ideas of the large fleet was, first of all, Geller of the Chief of Staff of the Navy since 1938, and then the chief of the shipbuilding program. It was with his coming to the leadership of the General Staff that a mess of laying down battleships was brewed to the detriment of tanks and aviation that were so necessary for 1941.

    Former officers of the imperial navy who went to serve the Bolsheviks formed the basis of the so-called "old school". It included V.A. Belli (1887? 1981), E.A. Behrens (1876-1928), A.K. Weckman (1884-1955), L.M. Haller (1883-1950), L.G. Goncharov (1885-1948), A.V. Dombrovsky (1882-1954), B.B. Gervais (1878-1934), A.V. Nimitz (1879? 1967), N.N. Nesvitsky, E.S. Panzerzhansky (1887-1937), M.A. Petrov, Yu.F. Rall (1890-1948), E.E. Shvede, A.V. Stahl (1865-1950) and others.
    They believed that, first of all, it was necessary to build battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers and destroyers capable of operating on the high seas. For example, a well-known theoretician in those years, head of the Naval Academy M.A. Petrov believed that for the war with Great Britain the Baltic Fleet should have at least 8 battleships, 16 cruisers and 3 destroyer flotillas (15 × 18 units) in service. In other words, the "old school" advocated the creation of a huge fleet, the core of which is usually made up of large combat units.
    In contrast to these "military experts", the "revolutionary innovators" of the so-called "young school" proposed the theory of "small naval war". They were M.V. Viktorov (1894-1938), K.I. Dushenov (1895-1940), V.I. Zof (1889-1937), I.K. Kozhanov (1897-1938), S.V. Kurkov, I.M. Ludry (1895-1937), R.A. Muklevich (1890-1938), V.M. Orlov (1895-1938), F.E. Rodin and other naval authorities of "proletarian origin".
    Their concept was that in order to defeat the enemy's line, light and landing forces in the coastal zone, it would be sufficient to use forces and means of limited composition. The basis of these forces, in the opinion of the "innovator-proletarians", are torpedo boats (at that time they were often called "mosquitoes" - by analogy with midges that can bite a large animal to death), submarines and naval aviation; coastal artillery and stationary minefields are the main means of defense. They considered the main forms of combat operations of the "small fleet" to be "lightning-fast" strikes against enemy squadrons, counteraction to operations of enemy light forces near their own shores, and support for ground forces. All this - without a significant distance from their bases.
    It is the second of the mentioned concepts in the period 1927-1938. enjoyed official support "above". First, as already mentioned above, the main stake in future revolutionary wars was made by the military-political leadership of the USSR on the ground forces. Secondly, there was still no money and material and technical base to create a powerful "open sea" fleet. At the beginning of 1928, the country's top military leadership called on their wards to stop the discussion and fully determine the "meaning and tasks of the naval forces in the country's armed forces." The line under the disputes between the "old" and "young" schools was drawn by the resolution of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR:
    “In the development of the Naval Forces, strive for a combination of surface and submarine fleets, coastal and mine-positional defense and naval aviation, corresponding to the nature of conducting combat operations in our naval theaters in a possible war situation ... Consider the main tasks of the PKKA Naval Forces:
    A) assistance to the operations of the ground army in coastal areas;
    B) coastal defense in conditions of joint solution of this task by means of the naval forces and the ground army;
    C) actions on enemy sea lanes; D) performance of special marine operations.
    On the composition of the fleet, be guided by the following:
    A) battleships are the main factor imparting combat stability and activity to the operations of the fleet;
    B) the development of light forces (cruisers, destroyers, torpedo boats, patrol ships, gunboats) must meet the requirements of modern naval warfare and the appropriate organization of the fleet in our theaters, taking into account the peculiarities of the nature of the use of naval forces in a future war;
    C) pay special attention to the development of underwater navigation, taking into account the special operations of submarines and ensuring the possibility of their joint actions with the surface fleet. "
    This document is interesting in that it was an attempt to unite opposing views. Indeed, it says that the fleet should operate mainly near its shores, and its main force will be submarines. But at the same time, battleships were named as the main factor in the "stability" of the fleet (which, recall, there were only three hopelessly obsolete units).
    here it is obvious that the two schools had the same influence, and the concept was a compromise, but in 1937-38 the correct idea = reliance on mines and submarines, naval aviation all died as if by magic ...... were they denounced by their ideological opponents ? and then the orgy began cutting the dough into unnecessary battleships .... and then the war began and it turned out ..... that battleships are useless! as useless as in the Russian-Japanese and the First World War! The sailors were armed with rifles and sent to the infantry.
    And after the war, when all the lessons seemed to be learned, everything is clear with the uselessness of super large surface ships, when the country is destroyed, starving (and how many soldiers' lives would have been saved if there were more aircraft field artillery tanks?), When millions of widows raise orphans, fatherless .... Kuznetsov, at the suggestion of Geller, had the audacity to propose an even larger shipbuilding program, despite the fact that the Minister of Shipbuilding was even against proposing to build a series of small destroyers instead of several insane battleships of a long-obsolete concept. And Stalin was very smart and fair, but he could not bear such impudence, especially since the inability of the admirals to think, learn lessons, and therefore manage the fleet became obvious (proof of the inability of the leadership = the tragedy of the battleship Novossiysk). The famous Marshal Govorov was appointed chairman of the court of honor, why? he thoroughly learned the uselessness of the Baltic Fleet when Aurora was more useful than a pair of Battleships ... why? but because the battleships are unable to leave Kronstadt, and only once they shot aimlessly at the village of Porozhki, and the old woman Aurora has a smaller draft, she approached Oranienbaum and fired more often, and her guns were not so large, they were removed, they were used as coastal artillery ...
    but the judgment did not include accusations of collapse and mistakes in the shipbuilding program ... why? In the face of victory and mourning for the victims of the war, how to say that they were wrong? How to justify yourself before the people? therefore, only torpedoes merged to the west were included in the final accusation, Geller did not endure the prison, he went crazy and died (what is it like to understand that your false ideas killed many soldiers), By the way, Admiral Dombrovsky (a supporter of the big fleet) was also repressed, I visited that family that she received the apartment of the repressed admiral ...
    History teaches that it does not teach anything, large ships were useless in Tsushima and in both world wars, but their supporters do not diminish and dream of thousands of battleship destroyers and dozens of aircraft carriers plowing the universe with an incomprehensible goal and direction.
    1. Ivanchester
      Ivanchester 28 January 2021 09: 52
      +9
      Vladimir, good afternoon!

      Tell us, how could you have won the Battle of Tsushima without large ships?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 10: 23
        -19%
        Quote: Ivanchester
        how could you win Tsushima

        Well, first of all, they don't win a war, they win ...
        how could you have won the Russo-Japanese War? as did the Japanese, who built hundreds of destroyers instead of a pair of battleships. Since Admiral Makarov advised, that is, ships of no more than 3000 tons, according to the modern day, this is the combat power of a third rank ship ... if it were not for Witte's betrayal who built a fleet for the Japanese for Russian money, not the stupidity of the admiralty who invested in battleships to the detriment of minesweepers and destroyers, and the root cause of this admiration for the West is the elite's abandonment of Christianity in favor of liberalism ..... otherwise the Russo-Japanese War would have been victorious for Russia. The Japanese did not have an advantage in the battleships in Tsushima, the victory was brought by a hundred destroyers that destroyed the Russian ships with blows below the design waterline.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 10: 30
          -10%
          and the first Pacific squadron simply could not leave the port, there were no minesweepers, and now they are not there, now the entire navy is like the first Pacific squadron, a fool of a cardboard kite ... sad in this world gentlemen
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 29 January 2021 15: 49
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            sad in this world gentlemen

            "Do not leave, stay with me ..." (c) lol
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 11: 51
          +15
          Quote: vladimir1155
          how could you have won the Russo-Japanese War? as did the Japanese, who built hundreds of destroyers instead of a pair of battleships.

          And, well, yes, this 60 (many hundreds, yes) Japanese destroyers prevented the breakthrough of the 1TOE and defeated the main forces of the Russian fleet in Tsushima, it was they who defeated the Vladivostok detachment and drowned Rurik ... Four Japanese battleships and 8 armored cruisers so, applauded on the sidelines ...
          Vladimir, for the umpteenth time I already note your ability to ignore the obvious if it contradicts your views
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 14: 11
            -10%
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            contradicts your views

            Types of ships Russia Japan Squadron battleships 7 6 Armored cruisers 4 6 Light cruisers 7 14 Minelayers 2 - Mine cruisers 2 - Messenger ships (advice notes) - 4 Gunboats 7 11 Destroyers 25 19 Destroyers 10 82 Total 64 142 total for the Japanese in two times more ships 64/142 precisely at the expense of destroyers .... that's the reason for the victory of Japan along with gunpowder. It's my personal opinion
        3. Sergey Zhikharev
          Sergey Zhikharev 28 January 2021 13: 24
          +7
          Well, first of all, they don't win a war, they win ...
          how could you have won the Russo-Japanese War? as did the Japanese, who built hundreds of destroyers instead of a pair of battleships.

          Why then did the Japanese build 6 EBRs and 6 BRKs (and even bought a couple), they would have had under a thousand destroyers. Well, if you didn’t figure out the RYAW, then it would be, according to its results, not different "Sautsum" and "Katori", but destroyers would build ...
          Since Admiral Makarov advised, that is, ships of no more than 3000 tons, according to the modern day, this is the combat power of a ship of the third rank ..
          .
          Wait a minute, so we are discussing destroyers of 300-700 tons or light cruisers (after all, 3 thousand tons are rank 2 cruisers of the Novik-Zhemchug type).
          if not for the betrayal of Witte, who built a fleet for the Japanese for Russian money, not for the stupidity of the admiralty who invested in battleships to the detriment of minesweepers and destroyers,

          I wonder why other countries (Great Britain, France, USA) did not build a fleet of destroyers / light cruisers, but a full-fledged fleet with battleships and cruisers. Maybe the destroyers are missing something?
          and the root cause of this admiration for the West is the elite's rejection of Christianity in favor of liberalism ..... otherwise the Russo-Japanese War would have been victorious for Russia.

          Just wondering how exactly Christianity would have affected Russian ships - more priests and holy water on the ship? Icons as passive protection? "The Emperor Protects"? - at the exit, correctly consecrated shells fly right on target, and correctly consecrated armor +10 to durability?
          The Japanese did not have an advantage in the battleships in Tsushima, the victory was brought by a hundred destroyers that destroyed the Russian ships with blows below the design waterline
          .
          And how to explain the fact that they were sunk by artillery ("Alexander-3", "Borodino", "Oslyabya", "Ushakov", "Svetlana"), two shells and mines ("Suvorov" and "Sisoy the Great"), and with mines, only three ships - the battleship Navarin, the cruisers Nakhimov and Monomakh. At the same time, "Orel" and "Donskoy" were heavily damaged by shells, not mines.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 14: 16
            -7
            I am not a supporter of exclusively missile boats, ... light cruisers would be quite useful along with torpedo destroyers, that is, Makarov was right, and now nothing more than a frigate is needed from surface ships, but a certain number of frigates is needed. frigate in 1905 is just a cruiser. Although the main role now belongs to submarines and shore-based aviation
            1. Sergey Zhikharev
              Sergey Zhikharev 28 January 2021 20: 08
              +2
              I am not a supporter of exclusively missile boats, ... light cruisers would be quite useful along with torpedo-boat destroyers, that is, Makarov was right,

              Battle of Yalu, Japanese light cruisers (which Makarov admired), i.e. prototypes of modern frigates, who successfully fought against classmates, could not do anything to the Chinese battleships.
              Despite the favorable outcome, the Japanese are building full-fledged battleships and armored cruisers, and not about 50 additional light cruisers. Okay, there was a conspiracy against Russia and Makarov, but who then stopped Japan? (as well as why the USA, Germany, France, Great Britain made false conclusions - they say light cruisers do not rule)
              and now nothing more than a frigate is needed from surface ships, but a certain number of frigates is needed. frigate in 1905 is just a cruiser. Although the main role now belongs to submarines and shore-based aviation

              If you want passive close defense, then yes. The problem is that if you abandon the distant lines in favor of the near ones, then the near borders will begin to be made very close.
        4. Ivanchester
          Ivanchester 28 January 2021 15: 20
          +3
          Quote: vladimir1155
          victory was brought by a hundred destroyers that destroyed Russian ships with blows below the design waterline

          Vladimir, let's play a game: we will take turns to name the Russian ships that died during the RYA.
          I will name those who were sunk by artillery fire, and you - those who died from torpedoes fired by destroyers. Whoever of us calls more is right. Do you agree?
          1. The comment was deleted.
        5. Dart2027
          Dart2027 28 January 2021 19: 21
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          as the Japanese did, who built hundreds of destroyers instead of a pair of battleships.

          Didn't they have battleships? Really?
          Quote: vladimir1155
          in total, the Japanese have twice as many ships 64/142 precisely due to destroyers

          The destroyers of that time could attack ships of the 1st rank only with a very successful combination of circumstances. While he comes within the distance of the torpedo launch, a cloud of shells will be fired at him. It is now the MRK can carry enough weapons to drown the cruiser.
          1. Ivanchester
            Ivanchester 28 January 2021 21: 34
            0
            Quote: Dart2027
            It is now the MRK can carry weapons sufficient to drown the cruiser.


            So in those distant times, the destroyer carried weapons that could sink the battleship, but, as you rightly noted, in practice it could rarely realize this opportunity.

            If we imagine a duel between conditional RRC (for example, Project 1166) and MRK, we will find that the cruiser's more powerful radar, its advanced air defense and twice as large stock of missiles hardly leave at least some chance of victory for MRK.
            So, in the days of "Tsushima", and more than a hundred years later, nothing shines for "small" against "big" smile
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 00: 36
              -1
              Quote: Ivanchester
              "Small" versus "big" nothing shines

              it even shines very much, if we replace it with gunboats, they can carry the same artillery as the battleship, only less of it, and the crowd of gunboats will gnaw at the battleship ... below I wrote everything, read
              1. Ivanchester
                Ivanchester 29 January 2021 12: 29
                0
                Quote: vladimir1155
                a crowd of gunboats will gnaw at the battleship ...

                You, of course, will not be difficult to give historical examples of this kind of "gnawing"?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 12: 31
                  0
                  Quote: Ivanchester
                  historical examples of this kind of "gnawing"?
                  never before happens .. Gangut
                  1. Ivanchester
                    Ivanchester 29 January 2021 13: 00
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    never before happens .. Gangut

                    You would still remember the Salamis battle smile
                    We are discussing a specific situation: canon boats against the EBR, and not rowing and sailing vessels. Here is an example from this historical period.
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 01: 04
            -1
            Quote: Dart2027
            While he comes within the distance of the torpedo launch, a cloud of shells will be fired at him.

            unless the battleship is busy fighting another battleship, and does not already have the means for small fry, the fact of a daytime attack by destroyers at the height of the battle was recorded, but researchers pay little attention to it, being carried away by describing the struggle of the giants.
            1. Ivanchester
              Ivanchester 29 January 2021 12: 36
              +1
              Quote: vladimir1155
              unless the battleship is busy fighting another battleship

              Vladimir, you may have already forgotten, but you wrote just above that large ships are useless. And now you say that destroyers can be effective against an battleship only if it is connected in battle with another battleship. Don't you see some kind of contradiction in this?

              Quote: vladimir1155
              has no money for small fry

              The battleships could well fire the main and medium caliber at the enemy battleships and repel the attacks of the destroyers with 76 mm, 47 mm and 37 mm guns.

              Quote: vladimir1155
              the fact of the daytime attack by destroyers in the midst of the battle was recorded

              And by whom was this fact recorded? And what were the results of this day's attack?
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 12: 41
                0
                Quote: Ivanchester
                Don't you see some kind of contradiction in this?

                I specifically wrote about Tsushima, and instead of battleships, gunboats with one large-caliber long-range battleship gun could distract the artillery of the battleship, and they would approach him from all sides and beat all of them, and he with one gun, why one? peculiarities of aiming artillery pitching and recoil, the battleship shoots either with one cannon or in one volley, otherwise the sight will get confused by the random recoil of other guns, this complicates the organization of the battle and the sequence of loading / firing ... and the gunboat can forget about it. and getting into it is more difficult and the loss of a gunboat is not the loss of the entire battleship
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 29 January 2021 18: 41
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              unless the battleship is busy fighting another battleship,

              That is, without him anywhere.
        6. EvilLion
          EvilLion 29 January 2021 15: 30
          -1
          The Russo-Japanese was not lost at sea. Tsushima is just a natural outcome of the reign of Nicolas II.
        7. Eroma
          Eroma 30 January 2021 20: 58
          +1
          We lost in the Russo-Japanese War because of the cowardice and stupidity of the generals and admirals! Multiplied by the luck of the Japanese.
          On the way, Makarov was the only admiral in the Russian fleet striving for victory, but he died very quickly. The rest of the admirals did not believe in victory and therefore did not fight at all! 1 squadron decided to break through to Vladivostok, precisely because of the fear of losing the fleet in Port Arthur and even in this possibility, no one did not believe, the commander decided to break through because of the responsibility for the unconditional loss of the fleet to the Emperor! And the rest were forced to obey him, but during the breakthrough with literally the first shells, the commander died and the squadron actually immediately turned back, there, in general, everyone decided for himself, only the cruisers decided to break through at their own peril and risk. Those. 1 squadron did not even think about fighting the enemy!
          The general who commanded the Russian army in Manjuria was also afraid of responsibility and his main task was not to lose the general battle, but not to win the war! He always retreated if it was going to a general battle, so the Japanese had the initiative and they were attacking, so Port Arthur was not released!
          In Port Arthur, the commander did not believe in the ability to withstand the encirclement, he constantly tried to reduce the size of the defended lines, including giving the Japanese commanding heights. Only thanks to his deputy, who actually commanded the defense, Port Arthur held on, especially to the heights! But the deputy died and the commander gave the heights to the Japanese, where they placed artillery gunners and siege artillery sank the remnants (not a frail fleet in principle) of 1 squadron! After that, the commander of Port Arthur surrendered the fortress!
          2 squadron was unbalanced, there was a hodgepodge, ships with different speeds and firing range of the main battery. Rozhdestvensky did not have a plan for the battle, he had a plan to slip through in the dark, but the commander of the Hospital ship decided that, according to the conventions, he was not in danger and walked with the lights on, and the fact that he was trailing in the tail of a squadron trying to hide did not bother him ! This firefly also burned the squadron! During the battle, Rozhdestvensky did not really do anything, the Japanese fought the battle as they saw fit and no one interfered with them! Therefore, the defeat was complete and the destroyers had nothing to do with it, they could not attack during the day, tk. torpedoes had to be fired almost at close range, this one was the forces of finishing and night attacks, which they did, but we did not.
          And the Japanese also had a rather important military-technical advantage, this was Shimoza explosives, it was the newest ammunition at times superior in high-explosive effect to peroxylin used in the Russian army, in fact we had outdated landmines.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 30 January 2021 21: 33
            0
            that's right, the upper classes were rotten, admirals, officials, generals, merchants, rotten intelligentsia, liberals everywhere, they destroyed Russia in February 1905 and 1917, but if the squadron was from other ships, then victory would be possible
            "And look at our university youth and, in general, of all higher educational institutions! She is almost completely unbeliever. As long as the youth is like that, there can be no complete prosperity in Russia; can she be loyal to the Tsar?

            No, those who do not believe in God cannot be faithful to the Tsar and the Fatherland. From our unbelief and all our misfortunes ... Who is not faithful to God, he is not faithful to the Tsar and the Fatherland. Russia is strong only by faith in God, without faith it will not resist. "

            From the sermon of St. right. John of Kronstadt, May 15, 1908
            1. Eroma
              Eroma 31 January 2021 00: 36
              +1
              The Russian fleet had normal ships, except for the nuance with the shells, they were no worse than those of the Japanese. The number was also sufficient for victory, as they said the whole problem was in the command! Moreover, there were people devoted to the motherland and the tsar, as well as believers, but these were not military men, but corierists! They were out of place, this is the problem of a poorly functioning state system. In preparation for the war with Japan, shapkozakidatelstvo reigned, and then cowardice in bringing the matter to victory! Russia had every opportunity to throw the enemy back into the sea and without a fleet, but it took time, we could afford a war of attrition, and the Japanese economy was already on the brink! But nothing was done, the command did not have the spirit and the mind to change them from the king. crying
              The destroyers on which you are pinning your hopes are still a support ship! There are ships of the main classes, and the destroyers operate with them. Before World War II, these were battleships and cruisers, in World War II and to this day it is an aircraft carrier.
        8. Lynnot
          Lynnot 2 February 2021 15: 01
          0
          Since Admiral Makarov advised, that is, ships of no more than 3000 tons, according to the modern day, this is the combat power of a ship of the third rank ..

          Admiral Makarov proposed this in the last decades of the 19th century, referring to "Esmeralda", the so-called. "Elsvik cruiser", which he then considered the ideal combat vehicle. Then the combination of small displacement, high speed, powerful strike weapons from a pair of large and a dozen medium, but rapid-fire guns was really impressive. By the beginning of the RYAV "Esmeralda", which had long been the "Naniva", was very outdated, was rearmed and became just a rank 3 ship.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 2 February 2021 15: 42
            0
            Quote: Lynnot
            Admiral Makarov proposed this in the last decades of the 19th century, referring to "Esmeralda", the so-called. "Elsvik cruiser", which he then considered the ideal combat vehicle.

            thanks, by the way, I did not know this specifics ..... this is exactly what I had in mind, only I called it a gunboat, in my opinion it was necessary to remove 152 mm guns from it, and increase the caliber of the main caliber to a pair of 305x40 in one tower with a steering angle of 330 degrees. Imagine a Russian squadron of 16 Esmeralds firing in a salvo of 28 guns from 280 to 305 mm, plus 30-40 small gunboats of the Korets type for destroying destroyers, plus 40-50 destroyers, that would be a victory, not a defeat, Admiral Makarov was absolutely right, like those who invented Esmeralda
            1. Lynnot
              Lynnot 3 February 2021 15: 51
              0
              In general, these were "ships for the poor" - the countries of Latin America, etc., and were not built in such quantities for one country. As warships, due to their small displacement, they had limited seaworthiness, cruising range and practically no armor protection - everything was occupied by weapons, vehicles and fuel reserves, so the survivability was very low. Of the naval powers for themselves, only the Spaniards tried to build such, but the balance of characteristics turned out to be unsuccessful. By the way, as a prototype of the "Varyag", the Crump firm offered the Japanese "Kasagi", which was being built there, - the development of "Elzvik cruisers", but a fast ocean cruiser - the raider was required.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 3 February 2021 16: 09
                0
                Quote: Lynnot
                In general, these were "ships for the poor" - the countries of Latin America, etc., and were not built in such quantities for one country. As warships, due to their small displacement, they had limited seaworthiness, cruising range and practically no armor protection - everything was occupied by weapons, vehicles and fuel reserves, so the survivability was very low. Of the naval powers for themselves, only the Spaniards tried to build such, but the balance of characteristics turned out to be unsuccessful. By the way, as a prototype of the "Varyag", the Crump firm offered the Japanese "Kasagi", which was being built there, - the development of "Elzvik cruisers", but a fast ocean cruiser - the raider was required.

                Thanks, I understand, the great powers were so mired in their snobbery that they did not think to waste time on trifles ... meanwhile, in the end, everyone came to this idea only after 10-20 years, removed the armor protection and increased the speed of the ships, and now in general all countries have switched to frigates just not more than 3000-4000 tons, of his contemporaries, only Makarov appreciated the idea, the rest did not mature ... to understand this, it took the inglorious destruction of thousands of sailors on the lost battleships and cruisers in the Republic of Ya., WWII and WWII. only the simple truth came down to the descendants. It is better to have a lot of serial warships of medium and small displacement than a rare Wunderwaffe constrained by draft.
                1. Lynnot
                  Lynnot 4 February 2021 13: 03
                  +1
                  Technological progress and the development of technology are changing the priorities in weapons, strategy and tactics. When torpedoes appeared, it was also believed that the time of large artillery ships had passed, but with the advent of rapid-fire artillery capable of effectively destroying torpedo carriers, torpedo attacks became a risky business and battleships remained the main striking force. Then there were submarines, aircraft, aircraft carriers and missiles, which influenced the development and composition of the Navy.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 10: 04
      +21
      Quote: vladimir1155
      dug up the case of the admirals ... and that's what I thought, Admirals Geller Alafuzov Stepanov and Kuznetsov were convicted not only for transferring a secret torpedo and maps to the West, but mainly for their harmful aircraft carrier and battleship ideas

      The word "thought" is clearly unnecessary here.
      Quote: vladimir1155
      And now, after the war, when it would seem that all the lessons have been learned, everything is clear with the uselessness of super large surface ships, when the country is destroyed, starving (and how many soldiers' lives would have been saved if there were more aircraft field artillery tanks?), When millions of widows are raising orphans, fatherless .... Kuznetsov, at the suggestion of Geller, had the audacity to propose an even larger shipbuilding program

      And Stalin had even greater audacity to accept "On the ten-year plan for military shipbuilding for 1946-1955." - four heavy cruisers, 30 light cruisers, 188 destroyers, more than 300 submarines and numerous small ships and boats
      Quote: vladimir1155
      proof of leadership failure = tragedy of battleship Novoossiysk

      Oh yeah. Sure. It was the death of the battleship Novorossiysk, which happened in 1955 2 years after Stalin's death, that caused the attack on Kuznetsov in the "admirals case" in 1948 wassat
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 10: 07
        -13%
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The word "thought" is clearly superfluous here

        Thanks Andrey for the support from an experienced historian, it turns out that this is not my guess, but it's just the truth!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 10: 11
          +5
          Quote: vladimir1155
          thanks Andrey for the support from an experienced historian

          You're welcome!
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 30 January 2021 11: 49
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You're welcome!

            it is clear that the victory in Tsushima was ensured by the Japanese destroyers. The Japanese put them forward, under the coast, the Russian squadron had two options or 1 to attack the destroyers and shoot the ammunition and receive damage (the loss of two battleships from the attacks of the destroyers is not denied even by the captive Uryapatriots = supporters of super large surface ships) and then get a meeting with fresh battleships of the Japanese. 2 Rozhdestvensky chose the second and the worst went to the enemy battleships in wake columns, this was now a clear mistake, the Japanese shot our ships one by one and so sunk the entire fleet, why did Rozhdestvensky go in a column? due to the fact that on the flanks there were groups of destroyers of which he feared. The vicious idea of ​​slipping past the enemy fleet was proposed by some grief researchers to the Varyag, the result of Tsushima showed that the Varyag would not have slipped too. 3 Rozhdestvensky was forced to accept the battle in conditions that were obviously unfavorable for himself, why? Because otherwise the Japanese would just wait until nightfall and shoot and drown the entire squadron with destroyers.
            Withdrawal defeat in Tsushima and the war at sea was caused by the presence of the Japanese extra 60 destroyers.
            4 What should have been done? First, to abandon the vicious practice of building large battleships in favor of Makarov's idea about ships no more than 3000 tons. That is, a gunboat like Koreets carrying one gun of the main caliber 305x40, single-turret gunboats of 1500-2000 tons, or carrying a pair of such guns in one turret with a displacement of 3000 tons. it is quite possible to make the towers swivel 330 degrees. The problem with battleships is that it can only fire half of its guns right on the course, and a gunboat can fire all its guns anyway. To the gunboats of the main caliber, it was necessary to add destroyers, and small and medium-caliber gunboats of 400-500 tons of displacement (similar to the gunboat Tucha). In that case, 24 large-caliber gunboats (48 305x40 guns), 24 small and medium-caliber gunboats (destroyers of destroyers) and 30-60 destroyers would have come to Tsushima for the same money and even cheaper. Such a fleet would have an advantage over the Japanese in every way. would fire all his guns at the same time, would be able to withstand the threat of destruction. getting into a gunboat is more difficult than hitting a battleship. And if we also abandon the cruisers, then the number of available gunboats could be doubled. Andrey will not even try to argue with me, because my innocence is obvious.
            the viciousness and obsolescence and vulnerability of the idea of ​​super-large surface ships, battleships, cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers (and battleships disguised as destroyers) was fully proven back in 1905!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 January 2021 13: 46
              +2
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Andrey will not even try to argue with me because my innocence is obvious

              Dear readers of this nonsense, please tell me if I need to refute it, or is everything clear to you anyway? If it is not clear, then I will write a refutation without problems
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 30 January 2021 14: 40
                0
                Q.E.D! weak! to thoroughly consider such an important historical battle and learn the lessons ... it is understandable because it turns out that Admiral Makarov and my views are correct (well, think of Admiral Makarov, why should he discuss his ideas, Andrew the Great) and the ideas of Andrey and supporters of senseless surface monsters in all wars are inglorious drowned false .....
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 January 2021 17: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  Q.E.D! weak!

                  Pay attention, Vladimir - it is absolutely clear to everyone that what you have written is nonsense. Even despite your attempts to cling to Makarov :))))
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 30 January 2021 18: 38
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    absolutely everyone

                    why are you talking about yourself in the plural https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSSmLxYpyQU
                    number?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 January 2021 22: 20
                      0
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      why do you talk about yourself in plural

                      Alas, no one Vladimir supported you, and did not ask me for a refutation. And that you see anything - so I told you for a long time that you need qualified help
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 30 January 2021 22: 40
                        -1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        did not ask me for a refutation.

                        you perfectly understand that after two or three days the article is almost unreadable and it is useless to hope for a violent reaction, so your little trick has failed, Andrey, are you trying to hide behind the backs of others? Or do you understand deep down that I'm right? what is holding you back?
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 January 2021 23: 01
                        +2
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        you perfectly understand that after two or three days the article is almost unreadable and it is useless to hope for a violent reaction

                        Vladimir, your pearls have ALREADY caused a violent reaction. Not a single person supported your views. Those who know you a little - tried to explain to you the depth of your delusions, those who know a lot - laughed at you once again. What reaction are you still waiting for?
                        I have already explained to you for a long time that I am writing / answering you not for you, but for the readers, since you can mislead some of them. If there are no readers, then there is no need for me to talk to you.
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 30 January 2021 23: 13
                        -2
                        you fled from the battlefield by signing your impotence
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 January 2021 11: 21
                        +2
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        you fled the battlefield

                        As I said above, you are hopeless. When the father grabs the belt, he does not fight his offspring, Vladimir.
                        It's not hard for me to crush your fantasy once again, if you ask so. But what will I get for it? Interest me with something :))))) While I have no incentive to refute you 100500 times, the more that you will forget everything in a day, and you will carry all the same with the air of a prophet who has been rewarded with divine revelation
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 30 January 2021 14: 54
          -2
          in general, to call the idea of ​​the hero of Admiral Makarov nonsense ... this is a crime against truth and memory
      2. Sergey Zhikharev
        Sergey Zhikharev 31 January 2021 19: 05
        0
        The Russian squadron had two options or 1 to attack the destroyers and shoot the ammunition and receive damage (the loss of two battleships from the attacks of the destroyers is not denied even by the captive Uryapatriots = supporters of super large surface ships) and then get a meeting with the fresh battleships of the Japanese.

        Dear Vladimir, did I understand correctly that 2TE had two options
        1. We go to destroyers, shoot the ammunition (possibly the loss of 2 battleships) and remain defenseless against the battleships of Togo (the ammunition was spent on destroyers)
        2. We go to Togo's battleships with full ammunition, and look forward to a classic sea battle.
        why did Rozhdestvensky go in column? due to the fact that on the flanks there were groups of destroyers of which he feared.

        What is your preferred 2TE system in this case?
        Firstly, abandon the vicious practice of building large battleships in favor of Makarov's idea about ships no more than 3000 tons ...

        Wait a minute, do you suggest placing a bet on the fast cruisers offered by Makarov or on gunboats?
        Such a fleet would have an advantage over the Japanese in every way. would fire all his guns at the same time, would be able to withstand the threat of destruction. getting into a gunboat is more difficult than hitting a battleship. And if we also abandon the cruisers, then the number of available gunboats could be doubled.

        The battleship (which is easier to hit), somehow more tenacious of a gunboat, is unlikely that the same "Korean" will endure being hit by 3-4 305-mm suitcases.
        A small ship (500-3000 tons), as an artillery platform, loses to 9-12000 tons of ships. those. Japanese ships would have fired more accurately.
        And, it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the waves, and still go along them. How can this gunboat fleet handle the excitement?
        Andrey will not even try to argue with me, because my innocence is obvious.
        the viciousness and obsolescence and vulnerability of the idea of ​​super-large surface ships, battleships, battleships and aircraft carriers (and battleships disguised as destroyers), was fully proven back in 1905

        Apparently, colleague Andrei (and everyone who supports him) belongs to a certain secret society who organized a WORLD conspiracy in favor of large ships. For the reason why Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, Russia, as before (1905) built large ships (cruisers, battleships, battleships, aircraft carriers) cannot be explained by other reasons.

        PS
        The problem with battleships is that it can only fire half of its guns right on the course, and a gunboat can fire all its guns anyway.

        Brilliant! a gunboat of the "Koreets" or "Beaver" type can concentrate fire from 100% of its main battery guns on the bow. Not every battleship (they had, depending on the type, 20%, 30%, 50% and 66% fire on the bow) had such firepower!
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 31 January 2021 19: 55
          -1
          Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
          Brilliant! a gunboat of the "Koreets" or "Beaver" type can concentrate fire from 100% of its main battery guns on the bow.

          thanks for the detailed answer, the Korean gunboat is 1500 tons, and we consider 3000 tons as a carrier of 308x40, why do you think that 3000 tons is not enough for placing and firing such a weapon and for satisfactory seaworthiness. In addition to the waves, the shots of your ship interfere with aiming and they interfere more because they are not uniform, and the wave has a certain amplitude and frequency, it can be taken into account when aiming, so that the location on the ship of only one or a pair of guns firing alternately is convenient ...
          about tsustma how to win? firstly, go into battle not in a column, but in a line to bring in as many guns as possible, and not let the lead ship be shot one by one. First, destroy and disperse the destroyers so that they can line up. then proceed to the main forces, If we had torpedo boats in the required number, then the first stage could be entrusted to them, The use of main caliber gunboats instead of battleships doubles the number of guns used simultaneously because the battleship's rear tower is not capable of firing forward. Hitting a 308x40 gunboat does not necessarily sink it, just as hitting a battleship can disable it, but if it hits the gunboat, the second will remain, and the destruction of the battleship is fatal. It is larger and easier to target. The presence, along with the gunboats of the main caliber of small gunboats (Koreets), would have made it possible not to risk the main ones in the fight against destroyers and gunboats of the enemy ... ... , but actually 50 percent were used at the same time (one two ships), and a flock of 10 gunboats would be able to fire in volleys of 25 shots almost simultaneously and another 25 in a minute, so for 25 volleys of enemy battleships there would be no more ... and their gunpowder would not save ..
          1. Sergey Zhikharev
            Sergey Zhikharev 31 January 2021 21: 22
            0
            thanks for the detailed answer, the Korean gunboat is 1500 tons, and we consider 3000 tons as a carrier of 308x40, why do you think that 3000 tons is not enough for placing and firing such a weapon and for satisfactory seaworthiness. In addition to the waves, the shots of your ship interfere with aiming and they interfere more because they are not uniform, and the wave has a certain amplitude and frequency, it can be taken into account when aiming, so the location of only one or a pair of guns on the ship, firing alternately, is convenient

            Please.
            The sad experience of the armored cruiser "Unabi" ....
            about tsustma how to win? firstly, go into battle not in a column, but in a line to bring in as many guns as possible, and not let the lead ship be shot one by one.

            Front? And in what order is the 1-2-3 squad, or 2-1-3 or 3-1-2 (from Korea to Japan)? But moving in front, we leave one ship on the flank, and the enemy can attack us not in front, but in the flank.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 31 January 2021 21: 31
              -1
              well, they are not that quick to go to the flank, firstly ..... secondly on the flanks of the coast, thirdly yes ... but then we pass to Vladik with at least half of the squadron,
              note the flanking battleship can shoot with its side and will not be as easy as from the nose ...
              Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
              the enemy can attack us not in front, but in the flank.
              1. Sergey Zhikharev
                Sergey Zhikharev 1 February 2021 07: 23
                0
                It will not work, with the front line, the enemy arranges the same crossing T, only from the side.
                If the action takes place in the strait (where enemy battleships will not fit), then two of our end ships (on the very flanks) are subjected to a massive attack by destroyers - and we get 1 EBB against 10-30 destroyers.
                If the actions after the breakthrough, then 2TE goes front, the Japanese swim up from the flank, and the end battleship (firing with the side) is exposed to fire from the Japanese EBR and DBK, which also shoot with the entire side.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 1 February 2021 08: 28
                  -1
                  If you do not destroy the destroyers first, then everything is useless, but if you destroy them, then the enemy also does not easily move to the flank, especially since you can change your position according to the situation, strengthening the flank due to the enemy's movements. and the transports passing the other flank to Vladik
                2. Sergey Zhikharev
                  Sergey Zhikharev 1 February 2021 22: 18
                  0
                  then everything is useless

                  Yes.
                  It's really useless ...
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 31 January 2021 20: 08
        0
        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
        1. We go to destroyers, shoot the ammunition (possibly the loss of 2 battleships) and remain defenseless against the battleships of Togo (the ammunition was spent on destroyers)

        as an option, we shoot at enemy destroyers the ammunition not of the main caliber reserved for the enemy's battleships, but the medium and small caliber ammunition, but the loss of a pair of battleships in this case is still likely, in this case, the lack of large ships is more valuable than means of destruction, especially since Japanese destroyers it was 60 ... all cruisers could be launched against the destroyers. .... Try to save battleships for battle with enemy battleships ...
        1. Sergey Zhikharev
          Sergey Zhikharev 31 January 2021 21: 17
          0
          but the loss of a pair of battleships in this case is still likely, in this lack of large ships they are more valuable than means of defeat, especially since there were 60 Japanese destroyers ... all cruisers could be launched against the destroyers. .... Try to save battleships for battle with enemy battleships ...

          1. In RI, Russian ships pass destroyers without losses. Why lose two battleships here?
          2. Name a ship that is cheaper than means of destruction (atomic bombs against a boat's minesweeper do not count).
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 31 January 2021 21: 27
            -1
            Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
            a ship that is cheaper than weapons

            seiner
            1. Sergey Zhikharev
              Sergey Zhikharev 1 February 2021 07: 16
              +1
              and a lot of combat seiners?
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 10: 11
    -9
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And Stalin had even greater audacity to accept "On the ten-year plan for military shipbuilding for 1946-1955." - four heavy cruisers, 30 light cruisers, 188 destroyers, more than 300 submarines and numerous small ships and boats

    Notice not a single battleship and only 4 cruisers, small cruisers and destroyers are a modern corvette, the need for submarines and small PLO ships, neither I nor the great Stalin, nor everyone who knows the Navy at all, will not deny ... I and Stalin are strength!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 10: 53
      +15
      Quote: vladimir1155
      notice not a single battleship and only 4 cruisers

      You simply do not understand the essence of the work that Kuznetsov did. He first prescribed the TASKS that the fleet should solve, then he prescribed the COMPOSITION OF THE FLEET that is needed to solve these problems, and then went with this composition to Stalin and the NSCP. It is clear that the number was cut, but the question is that along with the number, the tasks of the USSR Navy for that period were also reduced.
      Everything is interconnected, Vadim. And Stalin did not expect at all that 4 TKR and 30 KRL would be able to solve the problems of 4LK, 12 AV, 30 TKR, etc. etc. Therefore, he limited the tasks of the USSR Navy to coastal defense.
      Quote: vladimir1155
      scarlet cruisers and destroyers is a modern corvette

      Yeah, KRL Sverdlov in 13 tons of standard is a corvette of project 250 in 22380 tons of standard :))) laughing
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 14: 22
        -10%
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        KRL Sverdlov in 13 250 t

        it was a hoax, the Aurora-Varyag-class patrol cruiser claimed 7000 tons, and in the process of juggling design and approval, they received a battleship of 13250 tons ... and now ... they are already trying to push the battleship under the guise of a destroyer ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 15: 34
          +6
          Quote: vladimir1155
          this was a deception, the Aurora-Varyag-class patrol cruiser claimed 7000 tons, and in the process of juggling the design and approval, the battleship 13250 tons were received

          True, you are lying without blushing. What you write has never happened.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 00: 33
        -3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        KRL Sverdlov in 13 tons of standard is a corvette of project 250 in 22380 tons of standard :)

        you are lying, I wrote not about the Sverdlov KRL, but about small cruisers and destroyers, Andrey is not good ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 January 2021 06: 56
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          you are lying, I wrote not about the Sverdlov KRL, but about small cruisers and destroyers, Andrey is not good ...

          Our shipbuilding program NEVER provided for "small" cruisers. There were projects of such cruisers, but it was the KRL a la 68 project that was going to be built. So I really don't know what to blame you for - illiteracy, or lying
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 10: 14
    -12%
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Oh yeah. Sure. It was the death of the battleship Novorossiysk, which happened in 1955 2 years after Stalin's death, that caused the attack on Kuznetsov in the "admirals case" in 1948

    Why do you think so? then argue your position! I personally did not write this, but illustrated Kuznetsov's inability to manage ... indicative facts are not only a scam of the aircraft carrier lobby, but also a complete collapse of the management, which subsequently led to the explosion of the battleship.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 11: 05
      +9
      Quote: vladimir1155
      but also the complete collapse of the control, which later led to the explosion of the battleship.

      The battleship was blown up by a bottom mine. What does the collapse of management have to do with it? There were indeed a number of cases of negligence there, and the admiral, who suspended the towing of the ship, made a mistake. But similar cases occur in all fleets. For example, the fire at Forrestal is a consequence of blatant negligence, and what, do we conclude that the Americans have a "complete collapse of the Navy"?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 14: 27
        -9
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the admiral, who suspended the towing of the ship, made a mistake.

        Are you a naval man? well, for example, every boatswain knows that towing a ship at anchor is stupid, ... the admiral did not know this, as well as whims and others ..... that if the ship is sinking, then you need not bring people onto it, but take people out of it .. . is this new for you? ... and finally, not the boatswain, but the admiral, does not realize that the port should be guarded and divers from italy should not be allowed there. and they rule under the hull of the battleship .. this is called bedlam in the management and heads of admirals and senior officers of the whole fleet ... a shame is cleaner than tsushima
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 15: 33
          +9
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Are you a naval man?

          I understand a little :)))
          Quote: vladimir1155
          well, for example, every boatswain knows that towing a ship at anchor is stupid

          Every boatswain knows that the ship may well be dragged from its place by the main turbines. Even if the anchor is given.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          what if the ship sinks, then you need not to get people on it, but to withdraw from it ... is this new to you?

          Refusal to take people out is a whim of ONE person (Parkhomenko). Hershudov gave the order - led the people upstairs. Nikolsky offered to remove people, etc.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          and finally, not the boatswain, but the admiral did not realize that the port should be guarded and divers from italy should not be allowed there

          Which you dreamed about. There were no swimmers there.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 21: 17
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            the ship may well be dragged from its place by the main turbines. Even if the anchor is given.

            ????? .... Andrey you disappointed me! read at your leisure https://lenta.ru/news/2013/08/21/sink/
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 January 2021 06: 57
              -1
              Quote: vladimir1155
              ????? .... Andrey you disappointed me! read at your leisure https://lenta.ru/news/2013/08/21/sink/

              I have known all this for a long time. In short - delirium. The boy is showing off
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 28 January 2021 11: 47
    +9
    Quote: vladimir1155
    dug up the case of the admirals ... and that's what I thought, Admirals Geller Alafuzov Stepanov and Kuznetsov were convicted not only for transferring a secret torpedo and maps to the West, but mainly for their harmful aircraft carrier and battleship ideas

    Everything would be fine, but only after the condemnation of the admirals, the design of the aircraft continued at the same pace. Moreover, under the personal supervision of the IVS, three "heavy cruisers" of pr. 82 were built with a standard displacement greater than that of the Washington aircraft.
    Quote: vladimir1155
    The famous Marshal Govorov was appointed chairman of the court of honor, why? he thoroughly learned the uselessness of the Baltic Fleet when Aurora was more useful than a pair of Battleships ... why? but because the battleships are unable to leave Kronstadt, and only once they shot aimlessly at the village of Porozhki, and the old woman Aurora has a smaller draft, she approached Oranienbaum and fired more often, and her guns were not so large, they were removed, they were used as coastal artillery ...

    "Aurora" did not go to war anywhere - in the second half of the 30s it became a non-self-propelled training base, and it was towed to Oranienbaum back in 1940. Moreover, the Navy's plans were to build a new training CD (from the corps of one of the "Svetlana" ), which was planned to be named "Aurora".
    The Aurora "hundred and thirty" did not shoot from the ship either - they went to the land front before the German was within their reach of Oranienbaum. The anti-aircraft artillery was thinned out even earlier - some of the guns were used to arm the ships of the Chud flotilla. When the Aurora first opened fire, all her weapons were a pair of anti-aircraft guns and a machine gun.
    So the combat value of "Aurora" in September 1941 was equal to the anti-aircraft half-battery.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 28 January 2021 13: 23
      +7
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Everything would be fine

      recourse Alexey, this is a clinical case and all your arguments are simply useless!
  • Serg65
    Serg65 28 January 2021 13: 09
    +8
    what No, well, I was skeptical about your knowledge before, Vladimir, but today ..... today is your finest hour !!!!! wassat laughing
    he thoroughly learned the uselessness of the Baltic Fleet when Aurora was more useful than a pair of Battleships ... why? but because the battleships are unable to leave Kronstadt, and only once shot aimlessly at the village of Porozhki, and old lady Aurora has a smaller draft, she approached Oranienbaum and shot more often, and its guns were not so large, they were removed, used as coastal artillery...

    This is generally a masterpiece !!! good drinks
  • bayard
    bayard 28 January 2021 15: 54
    +5
    Quote: vladimir1155
    the big ships were useless in Tsushima and in both world wars

    How is it?
    Was it not the absence of these very "big ships" that led to the shamefully lost RYAV? When the new ships were not built on time and the Pacific Fleet entered the war in parts?
    And not whether the lack of the proper number of ships of the main classes in the ranks led to the passive birth of the BF in WWI?
    Or was the role of the Black Sea Fleet in WWI not decisive in the Erzurum operation brilliantly conducted by Yudenich with the defeat of the Turkish army?
    In the 30s, the main enemy and future adversary was not at all seen as Germany, but just England, for the fight against which the Big Fleet was being built. But the same England managed to send Hitler to the East, again pitting Germany and Russia (USSR) against each other for the mutual extermination of their rivals.
    In hindsight, we are all strong. And the admirals really went too far with their ambitions - they were under the impression of the war in the Pacific, where the giant fleets of the USA and Japan fought ... But after WWII only the USA and England were our real opponents.
    And these were the maritime powers.
    And to fight them, again, it was at sea. For the European theater of operations for our tank armies was a task for several months, if not weeks ... But then further ...
    But Stalin judged correctly that the industry was not ready for such tasks, and our "naval commanders" had no experience. Therefore, it was decided to build a large series of light cruisers on which to train new naval commanders - for new wars.
    But Stalin did not forget about large ships either. Remember the story of the design and construction of battle cruisers. winked After all, if you look soberly, they were used to perfect the technologies of future heavy ships - a unique power plant, artillery, a reservation system and anti-torpedo protection of the underwater hull ... ...
    And the fact that these ships were cut on the orders of Kuznetsov and Khrushchev, isn't it barbarism? These ships were supposed to fire, incl. nuclear weapons for a record range ... and their power plant could become the basis for future heavy aircraft carriers.
    And after all, they were preparing for their construction - catapults and specialized aircraft for carrier-based aviation were being developed - an attack aircraft with a coaxial pulling propeller and an engine behind the cockpit (like the Aircobra ...
    no, Stalin did not abandon aircraft carriers in the future, he simply believed that this problem should be solved comprehensively, systematically ... and after the restoration of the country and the economy.
    By the mid-50s, the Union was already ready to take on this task.
    But after Stalin's death, the country was headed by his killer - a voluntarist and a blockhead ... and everything went the way it did.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 28 January 2021 21: 20
      -1
      Quote: bayard
      And not whether the lack of the proper number of ships of the main classes in the ranks led to the passive birth of the BF in WWI?

      there were ships, they stood in Port Arthur, they could not get out of = behind the threat mine, there they were all captured by the Japanese
      1. bayard
        bayard 28 January 2021 22: 31
        +1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        there were ships, they stood in Port Arthur, they could not get out of = behind a mine of threat

        Our first Pacific squadron was very seriously inferior to the Japanese fleet. In almost everything:
        - in the number of battleships - 5 of different types with a range of speeds from 15 to 18 knots (and the speed of the squadron is always the slowest) against 6 of the same type (in any case, the speeds of all six were 18-18,5 knots)
        - in armored cruisers - eight of the same type in speed (20 - 20,5 knots) against six of different types, some of which are outdated in weapons, with a speed range from 18,5 to 21,5 knots.
        - in armored cruisers and destroyers, the superiority of the Japanese was generally at times.
        Plus, the very fact of a surprise attack put out of action two of the best newest battleships and one armored cruiser.
        And in Chemulpo two more ships were lost in an unequal battle - the armored "Varyag" and the gunboat "Koreets".
        And the enemy's advantage immediately became radical.
        While the "Retvizan" and "Tsarevich" were being repaired, the battleship "Sevastopol" with the Commander of the Fleet on board was blown up and sank on a mine bank. The light cruiser Boyarin blew up on its own mine and sank. The armored cruiser "Bayan" was blown up by a mine.
        The 1st Squadron simply had nothing to go into the decisive battle with until the "Retvizan" and "Tsarevich" were repaired. And the attempt to break through to Vladivostok resulted in a battle in the Yellow Sea, when our squadron did not have enough speed to break away, after diverging with countercourses.
        At this time, the 2nd Pacific Squadron was being completed and formed in St. Petersburg and Kronstadt. It was her ships that the Pacific Fleet did not have enough to win that shameful war for us.
        Throughout the war, we fought not just in the minority, but with the overwhelming superiority of the enemy.
        And we just lacked the ships.
        "Big ships".
        Ships of the main classes.
        At the right time, in the right place.

        And the mine threat is a myth. On our mines, the Japanese generally lost two of their battleships in one day. In fact, it was the revenge of our miners for “Sevastopol” and Makarov.

        And in Tsushima there was just a planned rout of the 2nd squadron. Her fate was decided after the fall of Port Arthur, because she could not fight the Japanese fleet on her own.
        The Pacific Fleet of the Republic of Ingushetia was defeated in parts with a clear advantage of the enemy in forces in each episode of this drama.
        And the blame for this defeat lies entirely with the frivolous monarch who ruled at that time, the Naval Headquarters and the intrigues of agents of influence such as Witte and the like.
        The fleet was not built on time and was assembled into one fist.
        And Japan, on the contrary, preempted RI in the construction and combat deployment of its fleet, building ships at the best shipyards in Europe and the United States, gathering them into a single fist and striking a blow when even the obviously weaker 1st squadron of the Pacific Fleet was divided at three location points:
        - Port Arthur
        - Vladivostok
        - Chemulpo.
        Everything that could be done wrong, the leadership of the Republic of Ingushetia did.
        And the war was lost.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 00: 08
          -3
          Quote: bayard
          - in armored cruisers and destroyers, the superiority of the Japanese was generally at times.

          Q.E.D!
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 00: 25
          -3
          Admiral Makarov's idea was to have ships of up to 3000 tons of displacement ...

          On May 31, 1919, the destroyer Azard, which was engaged in reconnaissance under the cover of the battleship Petropavlovsk, came into contact with enemy ships. Pursued by seven British destroyers, Azard brought them directly under the guns of the battleship. [1] "Petropavlovsk" opened fire from 12-inch, and then from 120-mm guns. The British destroyers, having approached the enemy up to 47 cables, turned around and left. This battle was the only naval battle in history in which any of the 4 battleships of the Sevastopol class took part [1].

          so instead of the battleships Oslyabya we make four gunboats of the Koreets type, a pair of 203 mm op, we get the same combat power distributed over four gunboats of 1500 tons ... instead of the battleship Sevastopol, we will have to make 4 gunboats of 3000 tons each, with a 305 mm gun on each ... well and instead of the battleship Sevastopol, 12 gunboats of 3000 tons each will have to be made. We compensate for the small artillery of the battleship and battleships with hundreds of destroyers. we rivet them everywhere, even at river factories, then we win in the Russo-Japanese and actively use the fleet in world wars
          1. bayard
            bayard 29 January 2021 07: 19
            +1
            It’s ridiculous.
            The outcome of the war at sea in the RYaV was decided not at all by destroyers and pre-deck cruisers, but by ships of the main classes.
            Namely, battleships.
            And armored cruisers, which often operated in one formation with battleships.
            Only these ships determined the outcome of the battles. Other trifles only served the main forces - they acted as scouts, convoy forces to protect transports while supplying the ground army, and to control the water region (securing the blockade).
            All .

            Makarov spoke about the "light - three thousand ton cruiser" not as lol the main forces, but as the leader of the destroyers, the base guard ship (to combat enemy destroyers) and as an advice note to the squadron and ship detachments. Also as a messenger.

            Quote: vladimir1155
            so instead of the battleships Oslyabya we make four gunboats of the Koreets type, a pair of 203 mm op we get the same combat power distributed over four gunboats of 1500 tons each.

            Have you seen these "203 mm" guns?
            How long are they in calibers?
            What kind of gunpowder did they shoot?
            After the RYAV, they were replaced on the surviving gunboats with normal six-inches.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            ... instead of the battleship Sevastopol, it will be necessary to make 4 gunboats of 3000 tons each, with a 305 mm gun on each.

            laughing And with the recoil of this weapon it will blow your tub all over the Gulf of Finland.
            Gunboat is a support ship for land forces during coastal operations.
            No more .
            Look at their speed.

            Your "hundreds of destroyers" will be like an elephant being bitten by a mosquito for any enemy ships. Torpedo boats are purely auxiliary forces for operations at night, for during the day, they are legitimate targets of any normal ship.

            Well, mosquitoes will not eat an elephant.
            They won't even bite through his skin.
            And mines, torpedoes - only at night.

            At the end of 1903, we needed to have in Port Arthur the entire planned composition of the main forces of the Pacific Fleet. At least with regard to battleships.
            Namely, it was planned to have 10 battleships:
            - 5 pieces. type "Borodino"
            - 3 pcs. type "Poltava"
            - "Retvizan" - built in the USA
            - "Tsarevich" - French construction.

            Even only these ships, with others unchanged, would provide an absolute advantage of the Pacific Fleet over the Japanese fleet and would lead to victory in a matter of weeks, to several months with only one war at sea and without any Japanese landing in Korea and Manchuria.
            And all this mosquito riffraff in the form of destroyers and armored decks would be hiding in remote bays and only at night the most daring would crawl out to partisan.
            And even then not for long.
            RI lost in the timing of the deployment of the main forces in the theater of operations.
            And she lost the war.

            In general, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 - 1905. became a TRAINING for all fleets of the world.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 09: 20
              -2
              Quote: bayard
              And with the recoil of this weapon it will blow your tub all over the Gulf of Finland.

              did you consider her corpus according to Smirnov's sapromat? he was a railway worker, and platforms with a flange height of 10 cm, and on wooden sleepers did not spread, why would the ship's hull spread the recoil in your opinion? https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%9C-3-12 y?

              1. bayard
                bayard 29 January 2021 09: 56
                0
                Even funnier, I presented this fool at Novik or Koreyets.
                You can also think of artillery on rafts. yes bully
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 10: 04
                  -3
                  Quote: bayard
                  so I introduced this fool

                  Well, you are a lot of fantasies, but it's poor to count? Battleship Sevastopol Displacement: 31 tons - full, 275 tons - normal. 30 395 mm guns, we get a little less than 12 per gun, so it is quite possible to place a 305 mm battleship gun on a 3000 ton gunboat, we replace the battleship with 3000 gunboats. Learn that under Makarov there was not yet a battleship of Sevastopol, and a gun of 305 mm, 12 mm is generally put on a gunboat in light.
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 29 January 2021 11: 00
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    , and a gun of 280 mm, 250 mm in general are lightweight on gunboats.

                    These were short-barrels, almost mortars. Along the shore to support the infantry - it will do. But you want to fight at sea, don't you?
                    And what about such gunboats with booking?
                    Or is there no return fire?
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 11: 03
                      -3
                      The Korean carried a pair of meek 203/35 cannons, but if we put one 203/50? there may be a reservation why not? By the way, getting into the gunboat is more difficult ... all the more so during rangefinder posts, signalmen and other things ... by the way, the tanks were also multi-turreted at first, they refused, now there is one gun per tank.
                    2. bayard
                      bayard 29 January 2021 11: 39
                      0
                      Obviously, these will be sea tanks, but what about their speed?
                      And with seaworthiness?
                      Is the tower provided, or will the barrel just stick out of the body?
                      When shooting "on board" will not turn over from recoil?
                      Or will it be a raft like a river monitor?
                      lol
                    3. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 12: 04
                      0
                      Quote: bayard
                      Obviously, these will be sea tanks, but what about their speed?
                      And with seaworthiness?
                      Is the tower provided, or will the barrel just stick out of the body?
                      When shooting "on board" will not turn over from recoil?
                      Or will it be a raft like a river monitor?

                      3000 tons is not so little, the seaworthiness is decent, for example, a Korean called a seagoing boat is half the size. when firing on board, it should not roll over, the weight of the projectile is 100 kg, which is 1 \ 2000 of the weight of the ship ..... as for the tower and other things, here it is already necessary to design, it is clear that this was a long time ago and the story does not have a subjunctive mood, but itself you didn’t manage to smash the idea to smithereens.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 29 January 2021 11: 10
                0
                Quote: vladimir1155
                so it is quite possible to place a 3000 mm battleship cannon on a 305 ton gunboat

                381 mm is also possible. We get this:

                Seaworthiness - none. Range and speed - none.
                By the way, the Japanese had ships for your concept. Three of them. smile
                1. bayard
                  bayard 29 January 2021 11: 40
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  381 mm is also possible. We get this:

                  This is exactly what he dreams of. yes
                  bully
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 12: 09
                  -4
                  in general, the gunboats were not invented by me and were successfully exploited by many countries, there was even gunboat diplomacy .... and the fact that the Japanese did poorly is not an indicator. RI had gunboats and were successful, it was just that they needed more in series, and battleships were not made, only gunboats and cruisers with destroyers,
              3. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 12: 06
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                By the way, the Japanese had ships for your concept. Three of them.

                well, I would do better than the Japanese with both seaworthiness and range
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 29 January 2021 15: 40
    0
    Nafig need battleships if one miner fought more than them.
    1. bayard
      bayard 29 January 2021 23: 26
      0
      War miners do not win and act as a rule exclusively in defense.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 January 2021 10: 58
    0
    Quote: bayard
    For the European theater of operations for our tank armies was a task for several months, if not weeks ... But then further ...

    And what will happen next - one Austrian vegan artist showed us: we sit on the shore, bite our elbows, invent different ways - how to defeat Britain without a fleet (the artist thought of an attack on the USSR).
    1. bayard
      bayard 29 January 2021 11: 28
      0
      Yes, the artist did not want to fight with England.
      As he was not going to and was afraid even to allow such a possibility, Kaiser Wilhelm on the eve of WWI.
      But England would not be England if she did not know how so skillfully to play her enemies against each other.
      Europe and the French colonies would have been enough for Hitler to be happy. He could well get oil from Persia, which for the sake of such an alliance was renamed Iran, in order to emphasize its Aryan origin. But England understood that her turn would come anyway. Or the Empire itself will simply collapse, which was based on colonial trade (goods from the metropolis in exchange for resources and benefits) based on sea communications ... In addition, both enemies began to build a modern fleet, their new ships could be better than the old British ones, and Britain had no money for new ones - PMA drove it into such debts that the heart had no gold reserves ...
      And the way out, as always, was found in the WAR - Germany against the USSR.
      And England was saved.
      Now England must be saved again, so ...

      ... The fleet still needs to be built - both then and now.
      But with intelligence and taking into account previous mistakes.
      True, our drivers are such entertainers ... you can expect anything from them ... but a new paradox will emerge.
      And this is not a compliment.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 09: 18
    +15
    The example of TAVKRs shows the importance of any aircraft, even the worst. Those very scolded "Yaks" made it possible to win a battle that could not have been won purely "on missiles" in any way.

    A very tense conclusion. In fact, the conclusion is made "from the opposite"
    As far as can be judged from the information that got into the open press, the calculations showed a low probability that this sequence could be performed. But this does not negate the fact that it would not have been possible to resolve the issue with purely missiles.

    That is, since they could not have missiles, it means that attack aircraft remain. That the attack aircraft could not from the word "in general" are ignored.
    And in 1983, an improved version of the Yak-38M was created, which was put into service in 1985. This was already a real deck attack aircraft. The Yak-38M had engines with higher thrust. He could carry two outboard fuel tanks. And (depending on the combat load) during takeoff with a short takeoff, its combat radius could reach 380 kilometers, which was already good

    Generally speaking, 250-370 or 380 km are usually indicated. And, since the maximum combat radius, obviously, was assumed in the minimum load (2 PTB and 2 R-60 weighing 43,5-44 kg each), then in the shock version, with 2 PTB and 2 X-23 anti-ship missiles weighing 289 kg each, it , obviously, strove for 250 km rather than 380 km.
    It was possible to act in different ways. But all the possible options for combat use had one thing in common - a purely long-range missile strike did not allow to defeat the enemy.

    For one simple reason - the lack of missiles in a salvo. I will not remind you that surface ships are not the only carriers of anti-ship missiles, there were also MPA and submarines. But I'll just point out one simple fact. If, say, 16 VTOL aircraft were based on the TAVKR, then for the same cost, 16 more launchers for the Basalts could be put on the ship, to the 8 available. A salvo of 24 Basalts (not counting the escort ships) was quite enough in the 80th to disable the AV as part of the AUG.
    In the 70s and 80s, American submarines and combat swimmers actively operated at the naval ranges (especially in the Pacific Ocean), collecting fragments of guided missiles from the bottom immediately after firing before silting up. According to American sources, over several years of the operation, the US Navy had about two million fragments of the Basalt anti-ship missile alone. Based on intelligence data and using these fragments, the Americans were able to reverse engineer the seeker of our missile, which, according to them, allowed them to create effective electronic warfare systems against these missiles.
    To what extent this is really so, now it is impossible to establish for sure.

    Find a missile on the Pacific Ocean test range with its depths (!), Distinguish the wreckage from the mass of other ammunition used there (!!), secretly lift them aboard the nuclear submarine (!!!) ... MILLIONS (!!!!!) James Bond nervously smokes on the sidelines. About how a piece of cladding can help in the creation of electronic warfare - I'm even afraid to ask.
    In short. Or the Americans were near the missile crash site, and then they did not fall sideways to look for its wreckage - they would have copied the signature of the missile's AGSN, and that's it. Or the Americans were not close to the area where the rocket fell, and then trying to find something there at the bottom of the ocean is such a task, from which the aforementioned Bond will immediately hang himself on the nearest palm tree.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 09: 18
      +13
      By the way, "some American sources", are these, by any chance, forum posts of unknown authors?
      In fact, the combination "anti-ship missiles + attack aircraft" obviously loses to the combination "anti-ship missiles + anti-ship missiles instead of attack aircraft."
      In essence, there is one simple truth to be understood. With the light hand of Ustinov, the fleet received a VTOL aircraft with performance characteristics obviously unsuitable for modern naval warfare. And the fleet was painfully looking for a way to somehow use these VTOL aircraft.
      All the simulation results also showed the extreme doubtfulness of the idea of ​​using this ship for anything other than an attack on enemy surface forces.

      This is solely about the quality of modeling.
      In the extreme case, the TAVKR makes a 180-degree turn and moves at a 30-knot speed in the direction opposite to the previous course. If the order continues to move, for example, with a 27 nodal move to the enemy, then the enemy will be waiting for him 27 miles to his side from the last point where he observed our forces. And the order will be there. And the TAVKR will be 57 miles (105 km) in the opposite direction. This is an extreme case.

      This is not an extreme, but a fantasy case. Carrier aviation does not fly "just like that", first the location of the enemy is established and controlled by AWACS aircraft from a distance of about 250 km. Then the air group rises. In general, I, of course, apologize, but the modeling was carried out with some completely non-life assumptions.
      This model did not guarantee anything. This sequence was not easy to follow. But she gave some chances even against a deployed and battle-ready US Navy aircraft carrier group.

      Fight "one-on-one" gave chances only in one case - a surprise attack from the position of tracking the enemy during the BS. The second case is to stop simulating the actions of a spherical horse in a vacuum, and to make a model of a real operation of a fleet with its MRA, nuclear submarines and TAVKR against the enemy's AUS.
      And the example of TAVKR shows well that aviation has a decisive role even when there are other means. And formally, “on paper” they are more powerful (anti-ship missiles “Basalt”). This conclusion will always be true in all cases.

      Fundamentally erroneous and far-fetched conclusion made on the basis of rumors about VTOL aircraft, trillions of "Basalt" wreckage, and "modeling" performed for the required result in advance. And even in this case, the author still did not prove its correctness.
      Such a ship turned out to be significantly weaker than an aircraft carrier, which is generally obvious. But she was getting much stronger than a missile cruiser with the same number of missiles. And it was more powerful precisely because of the aircraft, in the first place.

      Well, yes, or 8 anti-ship missiles, or 8 anti-ship missiles plus two dozen VTOL aircraft. It is clear that the second option is more powerful; no modeling is needed for this. But the CORRECT modeling would have to answer the question - which is better, 28 anti-ship missiles (in reality - much more), or 8 anti-ship missiles + 20 VTOL aircraft.
      "This Russian is on our tail, sir!"
      The Yak-38 could be anything bad, but in the event of a real war, it would look like someone's death.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 09: 19
        +14
        In the event of a real war, American Orions would not have flown around our TAVKRs, so there would be no opportunity for someone to follow. Of course, the worst plane is better than none, and the yaks would still play some role in repelling the raid on our KUG, but ... Scanty. Alexander admits that the Harrier was better than the Yak as a fighter, the Harriers failed the air defense mission at the Falklands, and ours would not have had to fight with the Argentine Air Force.
        So maybe he wasn't that bad and bad, this Yak?

        As for air combat, Alexander cites an unknown maxim of an unknown author, but what about the reaction of the members of the forum?
        In my younger years, I spent all the time in the ACC at the Pier at the Yak-38 and I don't remember that. they had a landfill on Zheltukhin Island. and there won't be enough fuel from it to the border. BBB may remember. So it's more likely a bike

        Nonsense ... Yak has such small wings that with his wing load on it, even the bunks cannot dodge, let alone hover over the sea without PD - from the realm of fantasy ...

        The point in this issue can be put by the realization of the simple fact that the Yak-38 / 38M a priori could not have enough fuel to fly on a training flight (with a normal - not full!) Fuel supply, fly in the wrong place, return across the border, wait for the flight on duty to rise ... And the situation in which an unknown plane will be fired upon with rockets just like that, without approaching, without trying to take it into a box and other maneuvers - as for me - unscientific fantasy. And yes, a snide question - how could it happen that our ground-based radar first lost the plane (when it flew on a training flight, when it flew abroad) and then suddenly found it? What, we have a radio nontransparent border? And why did no one react to the fact that Yak disappeared from the radar screens (and he should have disappeared, otherwise he would not have been mistaken for an unknown plane)?
        In general, I will say this. The Yak-38M was indeed an extremely unsuccessful aircraft, but still something, in a certain situation, it could. Rather, it was useful in that it created a potential danger that should not be ignored, but as a weapon it was inferior to the same "Basalt" by the head. And yes, our carrier-based aviation began with him, for which we should remember about him, and especially about the pilots who flew on it with great gratitude.
        And in no case repeat the mistakes of the past and not go to the VTOL aircraft - this is almost the only point in which I fully agree with Alexander
        1. Avior
          Avior 28 January 2021 11: 30
          +4
          ... the harriers "failed the air defense mission at the Falklands

          I would like to put in a word for the Harriers absent here! smile
          The main problem was the lack of AWACS among the British. In the presence of AWACS in air defense, the results would be incomparably better, even though no one planned to use the Harriers for air defense. It will be difficult to provide air defense if you find out about the appearance of the enemy a couple of minutes before the bombs dropped on you.
          When intercepting on a collision course, the fact that the Harrier subsonic would have mattered much less than a retreat attack.
          And the Harriers, in any case, tied the Argentines and did not allow the English ships to attack freely and repeatedly.
          Of course, against the Americans, their air defense capabilities would be zero.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 11: 42
            +5
            Quote: Avior
            The main problem was the lack of AWACS among the British. In the presence of AWACS in air defense, the results would be incomparably better

            Of course :)))) But the point is that AWACS there was nowhere to take. Theoretically - a helicopter, but in practice it has a range and flight duration is not ice, although of course, with AWACS helicopters it would still be better than without them. And secondly, even without AWACS, ordinary phantoms would be much more effective than Harriers
            Quote: Avior
            And the Harriers, in any case, tied the Argentines and did not allow the English ships to attack freely and repeatedly.

            Freely and repeatedly did not allow the distance - the args flew at the limit of range. And so - well, of course, with the Harriers it was much better than without the Harriers, who can argue? Without harriers, the British shouldn't have pushed into the Falklands at all.
            1. Avior
              Avior 28 January 2021 12: 12
              -2
              Of course, phantoms would be much more efficient. But aircraft carriers for them are much more expensive, both in price and especially in terms of operation.
              And for some countries, it is also technically necessary to have competencies in their construction. Today, only one country in the world can make key equipment for them.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 12: 22
                +2
                Quote: Avior
                And for some countries, it is also technically necessary to have competencies in their construction.

                England knew how :))))))
                Quote: Avior
                But aircraft carriers for them are much more expensive, both in price and especially in terms of operation.

                More expensive, but which is better - to solve the problem expensively, or not to solve it cheaply? :))))
                1. Avior
                  Avior 28 January 2021 14: 38
                  +3
                  All problems in the world cannot be solved.
                  At the time when they removed the ejection carrier, they did not consider this problem to exist. It was not real - the adventure of the early dictator ended in failure.
                  So they solved the problem.
                  And I, by the way, am not sure that they did not use American catapults even then.
                  Now, in any case, there are no other options.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 28 January 2021 12: 43
                +3
                Quote: Avior
                Of course, phantoms would be much more efficient. But aircraft carriers for them are much more expensive, both in price and especially in terms of operation.

                And Royal Navy had an aircraft carrier for Phantoms. And even with a colleague - a source of spare parts. But luckily for the args, the only RN Phantom carrier was decommissioned on February 14, 1979.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 28 January 2021 14: 40
                  +3
                  Was, but written off several years before. They could have written off those that were, then there really would have been a problem.
                  The Args have dubious happiness - they lost the war.
                  hi
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 28 January 2021 15: 23
                    +2
                    Quote: Avior
                    They could have written off those that were, then there really would have been a problem.

                    Only Hermes could write off or sell. However, he was sold - after the war.
                    It would be difficult to write off the brand new Invincible - it was handed over to the Navy only in July 1980. Even Labor would not have tolerated that. smile
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      30 January 2021 11: 58
                      0
                      Hehe, but there were plans to sell it to Australia.
                2. timokhin-aa
                  30 January 2021 11: 58
                  0
                  It would be right to finish the spiney Needle under the Phantoms completely (they flew from him), after that put the Wreckage Ark Royal as a donor, and leave Hermes with the Bakaneers, and that's it. There was nothing to be done, the Argentines would simply not rock the boat, knowing that such forces could be sent to them.
        2. vvvjak
          vvvjak 28 January 2021 11: 32
          +2
          + 3. Worthy of propponing.
        3. timokhin-aa
          30 January 2021 11: 56
          0
          The point in this question can be put by the realization of the simple fact that the Yak-38 / 38M a priori could not have enough fuel to fly on a training flight


          Andrey, it was not in vain that I made a reservation that this is unconfirmed evidence, on the other hand, the Yak without weapons on the suspensions had enough fuel for a training flight with a length of much more than 100 km.

          Regarding the mess in the air defense / air force, etc. - You are from Chelyabinsk, and there is CHVVAKUSH, if there are acquaintances of the navigator or teachers from there, ask about the Tu-22, which left for Tehran in 1978, a legendary story, a lot of things will tell you about "how it could have happened that ..." ...

          In general, I will say this. The Yak-38M was indeed an extremely unsuccessful aircraft, but still something, in a certain situation, it could. Rather, it was useful in that it created a potential danger that should not be ignored, but as a weapon it was inferior to the same "Basalt" by the head.


          Am I saying the opposite? This is not the question at all.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 January 2021 13: 12
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Andrey, it was not in vain that I made a reservation that this is unconfirmed evidence, on the other hand, the Yak without weapons on the suspensions had enough fuel for a training flight with a length of much more than 100 km.

            So this is not enough. The radar coverage was God forbid then, and in order to go beyond it by depicting an unknown plane from abroad, it was necessary much more than "much more than 100 km."
            In addition, ours did not shoot down just like that in the 80s. They approached closely, even went to the ram (July 18, 1981), but did not land missiles at an unidentified target.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Regarding the mess in the air defense / air force, etc. - You are from Chelyabinsk, and there is CHVVAKUSH, if there are acquaintances of the navigator or teachers from there, ask about the Tu-22, which left for Tehran in 1978, a legendary story, a lot of things will tell you about "how it could have happened that ..." ...

            The plane could fly into foreign territory, no question. And fighters could raise to intercept it. But to shoot down as described - no
            1. timokhin-aa
              2 February 2021 15: 44
              0
              The plane could fly into foreign territory, no question. And fighters could raise to intercept it.


              After all, the Tu-22 was first released from the country ...
              Regarding the shelling of an unknown target - the aircraft is clearly combat, the times were nervous then, I am not ready to completely exclude this option.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2021 07: 54
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                After all, the Tu-22 was first released from the country ...

                As far as I understand, while launching over the Caspian Sea (as it was conceived in the exercises), the plane had to leave the radar coverage area, so no one was upset about this. Further - bungling, of course :)))
                This could well have happened with the Yak-38, if not for its deliberately short radius
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Regarding the shelling of an unknown target - the aircraft is clearly combat, the times were nervous then, I am not ready to completely exclude this option.

                I just read a lot of stories of our and NATO aircraft in the air. Visibility is standard practice.
                The same Boeing 707 in Kareplia first tried to "land", and only then they shot. With the South Korean Boeing, there was also a rapprochement at first on visual visibility
      2. timokhin-aa
        30 January 2021 11: 47
        0
        This is not an extreme, but a fantasy case. Carrier aviation does not fly "just like that", first the location of the enemy is established and controlled by AWACS aircraft from a distance of about 250 km.


        Well, draw the order of the Soviet OPESK (and there will be several KUG), estimate the depth of construction of each draw the surface coverage of the AWACS (its radar field is a toroid, it detects surface targets at a shorter distance than air targets), and you will see that the task for the Americans is where harder than you think - they can track the outermost ships in the order, but they cannot.

        Further, we take into account that in a combat situation, their decks NEVER used "Harpoons" further than 40 km, we take into account the fact that in places like Mediterranean the targets simply ripple without any LC and interference, this is an area of ​​intense navigation, well, then put yourself in your place the American commander and choose - a breakthrough to the main target, which you see only as a mark on the radar and cannot accurately identify (what if it is a tanker), or strikes on the outer ships, which gives the probability of success in each sortie, close to 1, but the enemy gets the chance of a successful hit.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 January 2021 13: 34
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Well, draw the order of the Soviet OPESK (and there will be several KUG), estimate the depth of construction of each draw the surface coating of the AWACS

          What does OPESK have to do with it? If we are talking about Mediterranean, then there is a huge superiority of NATO in forces, simply by the concentration of the Italian, French and other fleets and naval aviation, of which the 6th fleet is just the tip of a huge iceberg. The location of Soviet ships is relatively easy to control during an exacerbation.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          its radar field is a toroid, it detects surface targets at a shorter distance than air

          Not a "toroid", but "toroids", since the AUS could easily put 4-5 air patrols "in the sky", which is more than enough for complete control of an area of ​​500 km and a width across the entire width of the Mediterranean Sea, which has an EMNIP of 1600 km only in the widest part.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Further, we take into account that in a combat situation, their decks NEVER used "Harpoons" further than 40 km

          Why would they use them further? Opponents in a combat situation in the US Navy were completely toothless.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          we take into account the fact that in places like Mediterranean the targets are simply dazzled without any LC and interference,

          I took it into account.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          well, then put yourself in the place of the American commander and choose - a breakthrough to the main goal, which you see only as a mark on the radar and cannot accurately identify (what if it’s a tanker), or strikes on the outermost ships, which gives the probability of success in each sortie close to 1, but the opponent gets a chance of a successful hit.

          First, in a combat situation, Messrs. Argentines on the antediluvian "Neptune" of the Second World War era fully revealed the deployment of the British squadron near the Falklands, chose the most vulnerable link - three separately sailing ships and launched a missile attack on them. The most offensive thing is that the British, despite all their RTR stations, etc., learned about all this immediately at the moment of the attack.
          It is clear that the Soviet ships were more serious, but the Americans did not fly in "Neptune" either. So the ADR should not be overestimated, of course, but it should not be underestimated either.
          And secondly, the AUS no one bothers to knock out our ships consistently, providing themselves with a field of continuous radar control, through which the TAVKR simply will not pass. A thousand kilometers wide and five hundred in length, sorry, you can't get around, and a dozen AWACS on the AUS deck were capable of more.
          So - only a blow from the position of the BS, especially since it (Basalts on the control center from Liana) was practiced almost daily. And if it did not work out, then it is much easier for our ships to solve the problem of approaching the AUS by 500 km than by 250 km, that is, anti-ship missiles in any case have a preference
          1. timokhin-aa
            2 February 2021 16: 03
            0
            What does OPESK have to do with it? If we are talking about Mediterranean, then there is a huge NATO superiority


            OPESk despite the fact that with a more or less long threatened period, there would probably not have been any battles in Mediterranean, from such places ours would have pulled closer to the shores and ground theater of operations, but with a sharp and sudden exacerbation, a situation could arise, when it is necessary to fight right now and with what is.

            Why, in my example, there is a small detachment from our side and an aircraft carrier group (not a connection) with the American one.

            Not a "toroid", but "toroids", since the AUS could easily put 4-5 air patrols "in the sky",


            The ceiling that one aircraft carrier could provide in the late 70s is eight interceptors in the air, two pairs "about above you" and the same amount in the far zone, for them it is now 300-370 km, then probably the same.
            Do not forget that we are not dealing with an airfield, landing "on demand", and mass takeoff from AB is impossible.

            The second point is what the Americans themselves call a threat vector - that is, where the strike will come from. The same Hawkeye in those years, in a simple jamming environment, detected a surface target about 150-200 km away, I don't remember exactly the numbers, but no more than 200.

            Accordingly, from the point of view of the AUS commander, the situation looks like this:

            Here we have a map with 160 large and small contacts moving in different directions, of which 20 are Russian ships, and of these 3, 4-XNUMX have been accurately identified, which most likely work in the radar patrol.

            It is possible to clarify all this, or when the headquarters of the compound merges all the data of the electronic and radioactive sources, RTR, etc., correlates them with the available satellite intelligence data.

            Then it will be necessary to raise the air group to strike, and with additional reconnaissance of the target.
            It is necessary to make a decision - what to attack, or HVU or "light" targets in the outer guard, or to break through the corridor through the outer guard and with a small force break through to the TAVKr or cruiser.
            All options have a lot of disadvantages.

            And all this is time.

            Moreover, I depicted an ideal option for the Americans - there are no cloud fronts, under which part of the Soviet forces is hidden, etc.

            In general, from my point of view, you are somewhat simplifying the position of the Americans. I do not argue that they have both an overwhelming superiority in strength and a greater chance of winning.

            But it's not that simple for them either.

            Why would they use them further? Opponents in a combat situation in the US Navy were completely toothless.


            Because the depth of the enemy's combat formations could be even higher. That is, having made a decision to invest in a strike against, for example, the TAVKR, the American commander would have to come to terms with the idea of ​​finding his aircraft under rocket fire from other ships for a long time, and deciding to hit the "external" ships in the warrant would give TAVKR time to attack.

            Again, this fork is solvable. You can get out. But not the fact that it will work out.

            So - just a blow from the BS position


            I do not argue with this, and in my introduction it is written

            that is, RCCs in any case have a preference


            They just wouldn't be enough. And so yes.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2021 08: 56
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              OPESk despite the fact that with a more or less long threatened period, there would probably not have been any battles in Mediterranean

              I think, on the contrary, they would have followed with might and main the 6th fleet
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The ceiling that one aircraft carrier could provide in the late 70s is eight interceptors in the air, two pairs "about above you" and the same amount in the far zone, for them it is now 300-370 km, then probably the same.

              Now they have a standard patrol at a distance of up to 300 km as part of an AWACS aircraft, an electronic warfare aircraft and 2-4 fighters, but it is possible to organize a second patrol of the same number to remove up to 600 km in the direction of a potential threat
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The same Hawkai in those years, in a simple jamming environment, detected a surface target about 150-200 km away, I do not remember exactly the numbers, but no more than 200.

              If we are talking about the Hokai E-2A, then it is quite possible, but the 2C went to the EMNIP fleet since 1971. And they confidently controlled the sea and more than 250 km.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Here we have a map with 160 large and small contacts moving in different directions, of which 20 are Russian ships, and of these 3, 4-XNUMX have been accurately identified, which most likely work in the radar patrol.

              In a threatening period, a sea of ​​warships + NATO base aircraft will graze around OPESK, so they will have an information picture.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              It is possible to clarify all this, or when the headquarters of the compound merges all the data of the electronic and radioactive sources, RTR, etc., correlates them with the available satellite intelligence data.

              And all this will be done even before the conflict begins.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Then it will be necessary to raise the air group to strike, and with additional reconnaissance of the target.
              It is necessary to make a decision - what to attack, or HVU or "light" targets in the outer guard, or to break through the corridor through the outer guard and with a small force break through to the TAVKr or cruiser.

              Everything is simpler there - the number of strike aircraft on the KUG of a given strength is calculated. In the opinion of American military experts, up to 15 aircraft should be allocated to strike a group of four ships, and 25-30 aircraft for a group of eight or nine ships.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              And all this is time.

              Which the Americans have a wagon and a small cart, since they can hammer ours as much as they want, not allowing them to get close.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Moreover, I depicted an ideal option for the Americans - there are no cloud fronts, under which part of the Soviet forces is hidden, etc.

              What's the point? If we are talking about the late 70s, then for the use of VTOL aircraft ours need to approach 120 kilometers to the AUS. Further the first Yak-38 (not M) will not reach.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              In general, from my point of view, you are somewhat simplifying the position of the Americans.

              Difficulties, of course, will be, the defeat of a large naval group of the enemy - not a cat sneezed. But, if by the beginning of the conflict the AUS is 600 kilometers from the OPESK ships, I do not see a way to approach the Yak-38 range, and absolutely scanty - Yak-38M
    2. Comrade I
      Comrade I 28 January 2021 13: 21
      +1
      All this is true, but it seems to me that the author does not call for the creation, and does not even justify systems like TAVKR. It only analyzes and models their application. In the logic that yes, ships and planes came out unsuccessful, but they were still built. Those. analysis of what is already there in fact.
      In addition, the author's conclusions (as well as in his other articles) boil down, among other things, to the fact that even with unsuccessful systems and no matter what naval doctrine, one should strive for their most effective implementation. And also to the fact that it is not worth repeating mistakes not only on VTOL and TAVKR, but also on dubious projects in general, which even now breed in huge numbers.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 13: 31
        +3
        Quote: Comrade Y
        All this is true, but it seems to me that the author does not call for the creation, and does not even justify systems like TAVKR.

        Without a doubt. But the problem is that underneath all this, the author draws a number of intermediate and obviously incorrect conclusions. For example
        And the example of TAVKR shows well that aviation has a decisive role even when there are other means. And formally, “on paper” they are more powerful (anti-ship missiles “Basalt”). This conclusion will always be true in all cases.

        Just in this particular case, it was Basalts that played a decisive role, not VTOL.
        Quote: Comrade Y
        In addition, the author's conclusions (as well as in his other articles) boil down, among other things, to the fact that even with unsuccessful systems and no matter what naval doctrine, one should strive for their most effective implementation.

        And she, this realization, is very far from the postulated by the author
        All the simulation results also showed the extreme doubtfulness of the idea of ​​using this ship for anything other than an attack on enemy surface forces.

        Just for such an offensive, TAVKRs with VTOL aircraft were not good enough, their use as anti-submarine helicopter carriers looks at least no less interesting
        Quote: Comrade Y
        And also to the fact that it is not worth repeating mistakes not only on VTOL and TAVKR, but also on dubious projects in general, which even now breed in huge numbers.

        What I absolutely agreed with the author hi
    3. timokhin-aa
      30 January 2021 11: 41
      +1
      That is, since they could not have missiles, it means that attack aircraft remain. That the attack aircraft could not from the word "in general" are ignored.


      But the choice would have to be between "try missiles and attack aircraft" and "almost guaranteed to drain", you understand?

      Generally speaking, 250-370 or 380 km are usually indicated. And, since the maximum combat radius, obviously, was assumed in the minimum load (2 PTB and 2 R-60 weighing 43,5-44 kg each), then in the shock version, with 2 PTB and 2 X-23 anti-ship missiles weighing 289 kg each, it , obviously, was aiming rather for 250 km


      And this is much more than the target detection range without an external control center by its own means. It's just about that. Imagine that you have a pair of 956s and an air regiment.
      How will you plan the strike if I have ONLY these forces? What range, etc.?

      And is it rational to shoot the 1143 anti-ship missiles available on two (1134 and 12) ships in the first salvo before this strike? Or better to hit massively. It's about this.

      James Bond nervously smokes on the sidelines.


      I will somehow collect information, write about it.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 January 2021 13: 44
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But the choice would have to be between "try missiles and attack aircraft" and "almost guaranteed to drain", you understand?

        I understand that you have now brought together two different issues. Yes, having 8 anti-ship missiles on board, the TAVKR could not expect to defeat the AUG in a hypothetical one-on-one situation; This is one question and I have no objection to it. There is no understanding of what relation this issue has to modeling a possible confrontation between the USSR and the US Navy.
        But on this basis you postulate the superiority of VTOL aircraft over anti-ship missiles, which is erroneous, since for a correct comparison it is necessary to compare situations when available resources were "poured" either into anti-ship missiles or into VTOL + anti-ship missiles
        Roughly speaking, the TAVKR a la Kiev will not solve the defeat of the AUG with its missiles, but two RRC a la Atlant, approximately equal in price to the TAVKR with the VTOL, will have much more chances to solve the task than the TAVKR with the VTOL.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And this is much more than the target detection range without an external control center by its own means.

        Ka-25Ts will help you, and the range will be greater, and the performance will be better than from aircraft without radar, sent in a free search
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Imagine that you have a pair of 956s and an air regiment.
        How will you plan the strike if I have ONLY these forces?

        Let's not make impossible assumptions. The USSR Navy was not a pair of 956 and an air regiment.
        1. timokhin-aa
          2 February 2021 16: 14
          0
          I understand that you have now brought together two different issues. Yes, having on board 8 anti-ship missiles, the TAVKR could not expect to defeat the AUG in a hypothetical one-on-one situation, it was necessary to puzzle over how to bring the aircraft into battle. This is one question and I have no objection to it.


          But you object, Andrey, and this is precisely the main thesis of the article.

          Ka-25Ts to help you


          Not without this, but again there is such a nuance as RTR. The operation of the Ka-25Ts radar could well be detected. Further from this point, draw a circle, on the edge of which (or inside) the carrier ship is absolutely precisely located. We raise air reconnaissance. In an hour we will find out everything for sure.

          In the case of Yak at a low altitude, the picture is different, because it is not known where to send air reconnaissance.

          But here you misunderstood me, Andrey, I just listed all the available tools for the Soviet commander. Ka-25Ts is also on this list.

          Let's not make impossible assumptions. The USSR Navy was not a pair of 956 and an air regiment.


          And the US Navy has never AMG / AUS.

          But we're talking about a sudden start?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2021 12: 39
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            But you object, Andrey, and this is precisely the main thesis of the article.

            Because
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            There is also no understanding of what relation this issue has to modeling a possible confrontation between the USSR and the US Navy.

            My main objection is different.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But on this basis you postulate the superiority of VTOL aircraft over anti-ship missiles, which is erroneous, since for a correct comparison it is necessary to compare situations when available resources were "poured" either into anti-ship missiles or into VTOL + anti-ship missiles

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            In the case of Yak at a low altitude, the picture is different, because it is not known where to send air reconnaissance.

            Yes, the same, only the circle is smaller. It has a radius of about 200 km, and even 250 km of radar range (albeit lower, it is still significant). And this is obviously more than the radius of the Yak-38
    4. Lozovik
      Lozovik 9 February 2021 19: 44
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Generally speaking, 250-370 or 380 km are usually indicated. And, since the maximum combat radius, obviously, was assumed in the minimum load (2 PTB and 2 R-60 weighing 43,5-44 kg each), then in the shock version, with 2 PTB and 2 X-23 anti-ship missiles weighing 289 kg each, it , obviously, strove for 250 km rather than 380 km.

      On the Yak-38M there is no equipment for radio command guidance, how are you going to use them without a container? And what's the point of carrying 2 missiles with a range of up to 8 km, which are launched exclusively by PO1?
  • antivirus
    antivirus 28 January 2021 09: 29
    -1
    But beyond this, the voluntarism of individual leaders still flourishes in our country. And there is no guarantee that soon we will not get some kind of missile-landing hybrid,

    about "10 pieces of 100VI" - not me but Ustinov, Brezhnev (Khrushchev) and before the GDP should be studied. biographies, their peculiarities of the subconscious - mentality. did not believe in AB - protection of colonies.
    I learned to milk a cow before I rode a bicycle. and a conservative attitude towards the overseas animal - from the archaic of the 19th century.
    there will be an aircraft carrier, and how much will there be? import substituted milk? in other articles you water the aligarhs - they will be AB's customers. extremes will close. and since there will be no life in Russia (outside of megacities). is this your goal?
  • Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 28 January 2021 09: 45
    0
    Quote: Yuri V.A
    There will be more sense than from Nakhimov if air support is added to the sufficient number of launchers. Since there are not enough funds for full-fledged aircraft carriers, everything is better than a command ship.


    And "sufficient quantity" is how much ???
    So, to the "sufficient number of launchers" we add the hangar and the landing deck, some kind of air defense (exclusively for self-defense), we say the magic words "Eni! Beni! Ryaba !, mentally clicking tails" and ... we get ... we get and ... our beloved under-air carrier-under-cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" with launch and air support, but in one bottle !!!
    If we combine really "a sufficient number of launchers", "a sufficient air group", again some kind of air defense (well, at least the near zone, again for self-defense) in a single corps, I'm afraid that at the output we will get a ship with a displacement much larger than the American Nimitz ...
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 28 January 2021 10: 04
    +4
    These are the lessons today can be learned, for example, from the old, and seemingly irrelevant experience.

    AUTHOR:

    Any experience, even the old one, is EXPERIENCE. And, as you know, it cannot be irrelevant.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 28 January 2021 10: 19
    +3
    > As a fighter, the Harrier was superior to the Yak-38: both in terms of flight performance and in terms of the presence of radar on board.

    The Harrier modification FRS.1 (carrier-based fighter) was originally equipped with the Blue Fox monopulse radar, developed on the basis of the CSspray radar used by the naval versions of Lynx helicopters, and initially optimized for surface target detection. As a result, almost all air battles in the Falkland region were conducted during the day in conditions of visual target detection.

    The radar stations of the Sea Harriers themselves uncertainly detected air targets against the background of the underlying surface, and the enemy was able to break through fighter barriers at low altitudes. However, the British took advantage of the fact that Argentine pilots, after a long flight over the sea, sought to reach the north or south coast of the Falkland Islands to correct their onboard navigation systems. It was here that the patrolling "Harriers" were waiting for them, quite successfully conducting a visual search.


    Actually, this is what prompted in the future to set up a fully-fledged Sea Vixen radar, but that was since 1988.

    At the same time, work was underway to develop the Yak-38 with the adapted Sapfir-23 radar - Yak-39, but in view of the fact that the Yak-41 looked more promising, they apparently decided not to bother.



    Regarding the use of the Yak-38 as an interceptor, the aforementioned article "I emphasize: a good plane ..." has been on the AX for a long time already, in particular, some interesting nuances were mentioned:

    ... Yes, Harrier could fly away and patrol there, hoping to detect the target visually. =) And there was even some sense of this under the Falklands. Yes, it was possible to constantly keep a couple of fighters above the formation. It's also convenient. But the Yak took off from 100 m without a springboard. Those. - in any direction, as he stood, and went. And for the "Krechetov" a simultaneous "fan" take-off of 8 (it seems) machines with a short take-off from the parking places on the deck was worked out. Here's how to look ...

    ... To intercept anti-ship missile carriers at a distant line - yes, you need a patrol. But the adversary of the Krechetovs before NATO's "harpoonization" were not the anti-ship missiles, but the Skyhawks with the Bullpups. These broke through "point blank", but in a crowd. And they had to be brought down by the same crowd. Yak's ability to take off from a patch and without a springboard allowed the Gyrfalcon to lift a large number of aircraft very quickly. If something like the Harrier, which needs 170m + tramline, was based on the Krechet, its ability to repel a massive enemy air raid would plummet.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 11: 35
      +6
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      But the adversary of the Krechetovs before NATO's "harpoonization" were not the anti-ship missiles, but the Skyhawks with the Bullpup

      Should I remind you that the Harpoon was put into service in 1977 - exactly the same year that the Yak-38 was put into service? :))) Should I remind you that the US FMS has been receiving Intruders since 1963?
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      And for the "Krechetov" a simultaneous "fan" take-off of 8 (it seems) machines with a short take-off from the parking spaces on the deck was worked out

      When? :))) The first takeoff with a short takeoff was made in 1983. About the fan takeoff - I have no data that they were practiced on all TAVKR, although there seems to be one such attempt.
      That is, all of the above took place, but does not coincide in time. And ours learned to take off with a short range after the "harpooning" of the US Navy
      1. doktorkurgan
        doktorkurgan 28 January 2021 11: 59
        +1
        > Do I have to remind you that "Garpun" was put into service in 1977 - exactly in the year when the Yak-38 was put into service
        But the "harpoonization" still took some time, there was infa that the "Intruders" under the "harpoons" only reached combat readiness by 1981.
        > Do I have to remind you that the US Federal Migration Service has been receiving Intruders since 1963?
        Actually, there are also "Corsairs" appeared. But, again, before the "harpoonization", the main anti-ship means, EMNIP, were used on them, there were KAB "Wallay".
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 12: 21
          +3
          Quote: doktorkurgan
          But "harpoonization" still took some time

          So is the "yakization" of the USSR Navy - too :)))))
          Quote: doktorkurgan
          infa came across that "Intruders" under the "harpoons" only reached combat readiness by 1981.

          I agree, but by what year did our air groups reach combat readiness?
          Quote: doktorkurgan
          But, again, before the "harpoonization", the main anti-ship means, EMNIP, were used on them, there were KAB "Wallay".

          Maverick yet. And then, the firing range of such ammunition is from 25 km and further, Wallay could even 60 km, in some modification
  • smaug78
    smaug78 28 January 2021 11: 53
    +4
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Quote: Ivanchester
    how could you win Tsushima
    The Japanese did not have an advantage in the battleships in Tsushima, the victory was brought by a hundred destroyers that destroyed the Russian ships with blows below the design waterline.

    Will you please with the links or so? laughing
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 28 January 2021 13: 29
      +6
      Quote: smaug78
      Will you please with the links or so?

      Gentlemen take their word for it !!!! bully
      1. smaug78
        smaug78 28 January 2021 13: 31
        +2
        And then the suit went! hi
  • smaug78
    smaug78 28 January 2021 11: 54
    +2
    Quote: vladimir1155
    and the first Pacific squadron simply could not leave the port, there were no minesweepers, and now they are not there, now the entire navy is like the first Pacific squadron, a fool of a cardboard kite ... sad in this world gentlemen

    Cognac in the morning?
  • novel66
    novel66 28 January 2021 12: 15
    +3
    Monday and Tuesday - flights;
    Wednesday - pre-flight preparation;
    Thursday and Friday - flights;
    Saturday - pre-flight preparation

    pre-flight preparation is carried out immediately before flights, and the day before it is preliminary preparation
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 28 January 2021 13: 31
      +3
      Quote: novel xnumx
      Saturday - pre-flight preparation

      what what day is "masandra"?
      hi
      1. novel66
        novel66 28 January 2021 17: 18
        +2
        after flights, as a rule, but we do not have a massandra, but a sword, you need to understand
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 January 2021 12: 20
    0
    The vertical takeoff / landing idea was perfectly correct.
    The lack of automation of the transition from vertical flight let down
    to horizontal, and vice versa.
    Because of this, there were accidents, special training of pilots was required.
    The same problem was on Harriers, then there is a vertical / horizontal system
    was easier.
    On the F-35, which became the successor to the Yak-38, vertical take-off / landing was automated.
    And everything became simple.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 12: 30
      +5
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The F-35, which became the successor to the Yak-38, automated vertical take-off / landing

      Both the Air Force and the Navy received an extremely expensive aircraft with a huge development delay with performance characteristics much lower than it would be possible to get if the ILC was given a hand with their VTOL aircraft, which still does not solve the problems of air cover of the ILC.
      Yes, everything became simple
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 28 January 2021 12: 42
        +5
        The arch-dear F-35B cannot be called. Its price is comparable to Raphael and Typhoon.
        And the prospects for the F-35B are huge. Several countries are remaking for it at once
        their aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and landing ships.
        A whole class of ships is being revived - a light aircraft carrier.
        Without catapults, aerofinishers and other dregs.
        And for the conventional air force, it is very tempting: instead of equipped airfields
        with long runways (vulnerable to enemy strikes), short concrete pads or short sections of highway are sufficient.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 12: 52
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The arch-dear F-35B cannot be called. Its price is comparable to Raphael and Typhoon.

          Well yes. Or 10,4 billion for 50 F-35A (the simplest of the family) for the UAE (208 million for the plane) or 8,9 billion for 72 typhoons for the UAE (123 million for the plane). Of course, inflation - still 8,9 billion - is in 2013 prices, but not so much.
          In addition, you need to understand that the delivery price in this case will not reflect all the costs of creating the aircraft, and I spoke specifically about the costs of the United States itself
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 28 January 2021 12: 58
            +2
            The Pentagon (the main buyer) buys the F-35A at 78 million apiece.
            And the F-35B is 15-20 million more expensive.
            Israel, for example, buys / receives the F-35A at 110 million apiece.
            (But this subtracts the cost of the wings that produce
            in Israel smile , tricky accounting)
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 13: 20
              +2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              The Pentagon (the main buyer) buys the F-35A at 78 million apiece.

              And how much does the Pentagon buy Rafali and Typhoons? :)))))
              Alexey, stop playing with thimbles. The Pentagon buys at $ 78 million apiece for the simple reason that it ALREADY financed R&D in the amount of $ 55 billion for the F-35. And 78 million is the price of ONLY the plane. Accordingly, 78 million
              1) Do not reflect all the costs of creating the F-35
              2) Cannot be compared with the cost of export contracts for other fighters, since in the latter, in addition to the price for the aircraft itself, a lot of things are also provided
              I just gave you COMPARABLE figures for export contracts of the UAE. And they are not in favor of the F-35, whether you like it or not.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 28 January 2021 13: 28
                +2
                In my opinion, you are the one who plays thimbles. recourse
                The contracts for the sale of aircraft sometimes include, in addition to the price of the
                aircraft, a lot of additional services. Long-term maintenance, simulators
                etc.
                For example, Israel does not need all this. And for the Emirates it is critically important.
                Typhoons are hard to sell. They give big discounts to buyers.
                To keep the plant from closing.
                And on the F-35, on the contrary, there is a queue 6-8 years ahead.
                This is a "hot" product, they are fighting for it. Therefore, you can break the price.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 13: 33
                  0
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  The contracts for the sale of aircraft sometimes include, in addition to the price of the
                  aircraft, a lot of additional services. Long-term maintenance, simulators
                  etc.

                  Exactly. You take the cost of ONLY the plane and compare it to all-inclusive contracts. So who's the thimblegucker?
                  Actually, there are no problems. Please provide your figures for the cost of Raphals, Typhoons and F-35s. You said
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  The arch-dear F-35B cannot be called. Its price is comparable to Raphael and Typhoon.

                  Prove it
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 28 January 2021 13: 49
                    0
                    Poland has finally signed an agreement with the United States for the purchase of 32 fifth-generation F-35 fighter-bombers.
                    The contract value was $ 4,6 billion ($ 144 million per set), in addition to the supply of the aircraft themselves, each of which cost Poland $ 87 million, it includes training of Polish pilots, the supply of flight simulators, as well as logistic support. Pilot training will begin in 2024, it will take place in the United States, the first F-35 Poland will receive in 2026.

                    https://topwar.ru/167353-polsha-podpisala-kontrakt-na-postavku-32-istrebitelej-f-35a.html
                    The initial contract provides for the sale of 36 French fighters for the needs of the Indian Air Force. The total cost of this purchase for India will amount to 7,87 billion euros. Thus, the exact price of the Rafale fighter with weapons and services for India became known. She composes 218,6 million euros!

                    https://topwar.ru/161679-nazvana-ogromnaja-stoimost-istrebitelej-rafale-dlja-vvs-indii.html
                    According to the contract, by 2022 the UK has pledged to supply Qatar with 24 Typhoon fighters, weapons and spare parts for them, as well as to conduct training of crews. The deal is valued at £ 6 billion ($ 8 billion), of which about 5 billion will be spent on airplanes. (£ 208 million for a set of aircraft), almost 1 billion - for Brimstone and Meteor missiles, as well as Paveway IV smart bombs

                    https://topwar.ru/131833-katar-zakupaet-eurofighter-typhoon-na-8-mlrd.html


                    Total:
                    $ 144 million (119 million €) for the scope of delivery of the F35A
                    219 million € for Rafali's delivery set
                    £ 208 million ( 235 million €) for a set of Typhoons

                    All contracts are fresh, last blocks, together with sets of supplies, the comparison is role-based.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 14: 03
                      0
                      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                      All contracts are fresh, last blocks, together with sets of supplies, the comparison is role-based.

                      No. I will answer a little later
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 15: 17
                      +3
                      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                      $ 144 million (€ 119 million) for the F35A delivery set

                      That's how it is, but not quite. Here is what bmpd writes about this
                      The value of the signed agreement is $ 4,6 billion.This is $ 1,9 billion less than was indicated in the notification of the planned supply of 32 F-35A fighters to Poland, sent by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) to Congress USA in September 2019. In both cases (September notice and the current signed agreement), the weapons are not included in the planned delivery and must be purchased separately.
                      The signed contract includes training of only 24 Polish pilots and about 100 ground personnel. Training of the following will require the conclusion of additional paid contracts with the USA

                      It's even funnier that
                      In September 2019, the US government approved the sale of 32 F-35A fighters to Poland through FMS, and in a notification to the US Congress, the estimated cost of the supply was set at $ 6,5 billion.

                      That is, what actually happened? The real price for aircraft with the necessary minced meat and spare parts (usually the contract provides for the supply of a certain amount of weapons, engines, radar and other equipment in addition to those installed on the aircraft) was 6,5 billion, but this turned out to be too heavy for Poland. And so they conclude a contract in the "light" version, throwing out everything that is possible. Or maybe politics intervened here, and prices were reduced by order of the same Trump.
                      This is not a contract with which to compare purely commercial contracts. And if we take commerce, then we have a contract with the UAE - 10,4 billion for 50 F-35A
                      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                      The original contract provides for the sale for the needs of the Indian Air Force

                      The Indian contract is a separate dance, where the price tag is tied to the transfer of technology, which is provided if not now, then in the future, and all this is a bargaining chip. In general, the Indian contract can hardly be considered a standard one, because the prices in it are generally not clear for what.
                      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                      According to the contract, by 2022 the UK has pledged to supply Qatar with 24 Typhoon fighters, weapons and spare parts for them, as well as to conduct training of crews. The deal is valued at £ 6 billion ($ 8 billion), of which about 5 billion will be spent on airplanes.

                      Wrong. In the Russian-language primary source it sounds like this
                      BAE Systems is reported to have around £ 5bn of the contract value, with the bulk of the remainder coming from the UK with guided aircraft weapons, including MBDA Meteor air-to-air missiles, MBDA Brimstone air-to-surface and guided aerial bombs UK Raytheon Paveway IV.

                      That is, not aircraft will cost 5 billion pounds, but all the products that the manufacturer supplies under the contract (the same simulators, spare parts, maintenance, etc., etc.) will cost 5 billion pounds.
                      It seems to be expensive too, but ... read bmpd
                      In addition, in the annex to the contract for the purchase of Eurofighter Typhoon fighters, an additional agreement was signed to ensure the training of personnel. As previously reported, presumably, it also includes the acquisition of six BAE Systems Hawk AJT combat trainers by Qatar.

                      And you undertake to compare THIS with the Polish contract ...
                      1. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 28 January 2021 15: 56
                        0
                        Andrey, in all the examples I gave the delivery set (the plane, engines, service, weapons and Typhoon counted from £ 5 billion in complete set). Below is the Finnish proposal, with the entire list of "special stages". You can even calculate how much it will cost, if you're interested. Naturally, the Finns, like the Poles, will not buy all this and the final price will drop significantly. The weapons package, planned for sale to the UAE, includes 50 F-35 fighters worth $ 10,4 billion. This is $ 200 million or € 165 million, which roughly corresponds to the Finnish order, which is included in this contract I have already written. Total

                        $ 195 million (€ 161 million) F35A / B Finland
                        $ 200 million (€ 165 million) F35 A / B UAE
                        $ 144 million (€ 119 million) for the delivery set of F35A Poland
                        € 219 million for the Rafali delivery set
                        £ 208 million (€ 235 million) for a set of Typhoons

                        I repeat after the warrior, you are now playing with thimbles.
                        The F35 is cheaper to supply Raphales / Typhoons.
                        All the examples given are for a set, comparable blocks, close in dates, even the composition of the F35 (Finnish) set has given you.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 16: 25
                        +1
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        Andrey, in all the examples I gave a complete set of delivery (the plane, engines, service, weapons and Typhoon counted from £ 5 billion in total).

                        Sorry, but, in my opinion, you did not bother to read my answer to you at all
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 28 January 2021 16: 55
                        0
                        I read carefully, In all the examples given, there is a delivery of radar, weapons, engines, service. There is not a single example of a "clean" delivery Airplane + engine, everything is integrated.
                        I gave an example of delivery to Finland, where everything is scheduled, if you wish, you can calculate the cost of "special stages".
                        About HAWK, ok, let's just subtract them from the contract, it's not difficult
                        The Saudi Arabian Air Force ordered 2012 Hawk Mk 800 AJT combat trainers in August 22 under a $ 165 million contract from BAE Systems

                        $ 36 million per set, 6 pieces will be $ 218 million, for an even account we will take $ 250 million.
                        From $ 6,8 billion (£ 5 billion) subtract $ 250 million, we get $ 6,55 billion, which will be $ 273 million per typhoon
                        Total:
                        $ 195 million (€ 161 million) F35A / B kit Finland
                        $ 200M (€ 165M) F35 A / B kit UAE
                        $ 144 million (€ 119 million) F35A kit Poland
                        $ 265 million (€ 219 million) kit Rafali India
                        $ 317 million (€ 262 million) Rafali Qatar kit
                        $ 273 million (£ 199 million / € 225 million) Typhoon Qatar kit
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 January 2021 13: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        I gave an example of delivery to Finland, where everything is scheduled, if you wish, you can calculate the cost of "special stages".

                        Throughout Finland. But not for Qatar. But there - everything is very interesting.
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        ro HAWK, ok just deduct them from the contract, it's not difficult
                        Air Force of Saudi Arabia

                        The fact of the matter is that doing such things is just extremely difficult, and fraught with mistakes by tens of percent, or even doubled. Because the contract is the contract, and in order to correctly compare the cost of the kit, you need to know what went into it.
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        Total:

                        Let's start by calculating the "Total" for the F-35A:
                        $ 144 million (€ 119 million) for the delivery set of F35A Poland
                        $ 195 million (€ 161 million) F35A / B kit Finland
                        $ 208 million (10,4 billion for 50 pieces) F35 A kit UAE
                        Hi, this is a very interesting link to the notification about Arab planes
                        https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/united-arab-emirates-f-35-joint-strike-fighter
                        According to it, $ 10,4 billion is the price of ONLY AIRCRAFT, and weapons are purchased separately for them. Quote bmpd
                        In the notice of the planned sale of F-35A fighters to the UAE, it was reported that the total cost of their delivery would be $ 10,4 billion (excluding the cost of weapons purchased separately).

                        We see that, depending on the buyer, the contract value changes by more than 30% (if we take the UAE contract for 100%). But this is taking into account the fact that the MORE EXPENSIVE contract (UAE) has a LOWER complete set (weapons are not included).
                        Now let's compare the deliveries of Typhoons to Qatar and Saudi Arabia
                        Qatar - 24 aircraft, contract value - 6 billion pounds or 8,22 billion dollars.Total cost per plane - 342,5 million dollars.
                        CA - here I am just quoting bmpd -
                        “According to the initial agreement, the cost of the planes themselves was 4,43 billion pounds, and taking into account the cost of the supplied weapons and equipment - up to 10 billion pounds. The total cost of the Al Salam program for the delivery of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon fighters to Saudi Arabia, taking into account all additional payments and cost revisions, investments in infrastructure, personnel training, long-term technical support, etc. estimated at up to 20 billion pounds "

                        Well, now, there are already THREE figures for this contract. Depending on what "configuration" you take, the "typhoon" will cost 84,3, or 190,2 or 380,5 million dollars! Which of these figures will we compare with Rafal's $ 342 million?
                        It would seem that this is where you can finally compare the cost of manufacturing the F-35 and the same Typhoon. If the Americans buy the F-35 for about 80 million for their Air Force, and the cost of "pure aircraft" for Qatar is 84,3 million rubles, it turns out that the Typhoon is even more expensive than the F-35. So?
                        So, but not so. We take another contract from Qatar, with the United States, worth about $ 12 billion for the purchase of 36 Boeing F-15QA multifunctional fighters under the FMS line. Bmpd indicates
                        The cost of the agreement, which includes weapons, equipment and training, is $ 12 billion, while the cost of the 36 aircraft itself is $ 6,2 billion.

                        Thus, the cost of the "aircraft set" of one F-15QA is 333,3 million dollars, but of which the cost of the aircraft is only 172,2 million dollars. Everything seems to be clear. But in parallel with this, the US Department of the Air Force on July 13, 2020 issued a firm contract to Boeing Corporation worth $ 1,192 billion for the production and delivery of the US Air Force's first eight new multifunctional F-15EX fighters.
                        The trick is that the F-15EX, generally speaking, is more perfect than the F-15QA, but for some reason their cost for the US Air Force is lower - $ 149 million.That is, we see that not even the same, but the best aircraft costs The US Air Force is cheaper than the worst sold to Qatar.

                        Now, attention, a question. Which of us is closer to the truth - me, who is trying to deduce the comparative cost of aircraft from foreign contracts, or the warrior who takes the cost of a commercial contract without even separating the cost of an aircraft from it, and the cost of an aircraft for the US Air Force?
                      6. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 29 January 2021 14: 10
                        -1
                        According to the UAE, all credible sources say about the "package of weapons including the F35" this is the package, judging by the total amount and the general approach to the sale of equipment, it will be close to the Finnish one. In fact, the Finnish offer is a standard commercial offer.
                        The fact that the export of equipment is more expensive is the norm, so its own state has already invested in the creation of these machines. $ 78 million for the F35A for its Air Force and $ 87 million for Poland, the F-15QA for $ 172,2 million and the F-15EX for $ 149 million. The usual ± 10% markup on expensive equipment, on the service and extras is the main margin.
                        I am responsible for myself, I compare the delivery package to the package, Airplane to airplane.

                        In any case, it turns out that the F35 is the best deal on the market right now. It is cheaper than Raphael, Typhoon, F15; approximately equal in price to F / A-18 and F-16; Su-30/35 out of the market. Everything else is much lower class.
                        This is the main idea, you can give as many different statements as you like, different interested parties or not. But according to the completed and approved contracts, it turns out like this. Therefore, there are 600+ of them, so there are 6-8 years of contracts ahead, so they are struggling to get them. At the moment, the F35А / С is the best multirole fighter in terms of price / quality ratio, the F35В simply has no analogues in the world.
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 January 2021 19: 59
                        +1
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        In the UAE, all credible sources refer to the "weapons package including the F35"

                        I do not know what is a trustworthy source for you. I myself completely trust bmpd, especially when it refers to the text of the notification.
                        As for the package, yes, there is definitely a package. At a price ...
                        On November 10, 2020, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) of the US Department of Defense sent a notice to the US Congress of the planned upcoming sale to the United Arab Emirates through the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program of 50 fifth-generation fighters Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II, guided weapons for them, as well as 18 General Atomics MQ-9B long-range unmanned aerial vehicles with weapons. The shipments have been cleared by the US Department of State and will have a total estimated cost of $ 23,37 billion, including training and technical support packages.

                        You still want to say that 50 F-35s with weapons, blackjack and girls cost 10,4 billion, and 18 UAVs - 13 billion? :))))
            2. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 28 January 2021 16: 13
              +1
              Well, I don't like the Hindu contract, let's take the Qatari contract.
              According to the signed agreement, to which France and Qatar have been going for a long time, France will supply 24 fighters, and the deal is worth 6,3 billion euros.

              That is 262 million € for the delivery set. Which is close to the Typhoon supply contract. It is clear that the rate is jumping and inflation, if you want to recalculate at the time of the transaction, but the data is correct.
              Get:

              $ 195 million (€ 161 million) F35A / B Finland
              $ 200 million (€ 165 million) F35 A / B UAE
              $ 144 million (€ 119 million) for the delivery set of F35A Poland
              $ 265 million (€ 219 million) for the delivery set by Rafali India
              $ 317 million (€ 262 million) Rafali Qatar kit
              $ 284 million (£ 208 million / € 235 million) for a set of Typhoons Qatar
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 28 January 2021 14: 02
          0
          I can add a Finnish possible contract.
          The US State Department has approved the likely delivery of 64 F-35 aircraft to Finland for $ 12,5 billion, ($ 195 million / € 161 million]


          https://topwar.ru/175672-ssha-odobrili-vozmozhnuju-prodazhu-ne-imejuschej-vyhoda-k-morju-shvejcarii-80-istrebitelej-vkljuchaja-palubnye-f-a-18ef.html

          This is what is included in the Finnish offer besides the plane (this offer, no contract has been signed)

  • A1845
    A1845 29 January 2021 12: 55
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    And the prospects for the F-35B are huge. Several countries are remaking for it at once
    their aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and landing ships.
    A whole class of ships is being revived - a light aircraft carrier.
    Without catapults, aerofinishers and other dregs.

    The niche is really interesting. Many countries have acquired UDKs for reasons of prestige without being able to buy or build an aircraft carrier. At the same time, they themselves do not see the prospects for effectively using such ships. The landing of troops on the unequipped coast looks great in the chronicles of the WWII, but nothing more. Moreover, without air cover. And then there is a chance to give a second life to the ships of this class, you just need to buy verticals of the current level. Banal marketing, it seems to me. Plus invisibility ads and all that jazz.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 28 January 2021 12: 55
    +3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Both the Air Force and the Navy received an extremely expensive aircraft with a huge development delay with performance characteristics much lower than it would be possible to get if the ILC was given a hand with their VTOL aircraft, which still does not solve the problems of air cover of the ILC.

    It’s useless to give the ILC around - the Corps wanted, wants and will want its vehicles: independent of the fleet / air force and capable of being based on the decks of landing ships and on the remains of airfields on the coast. Because the Marines have no hopes for help from the fleet since the time of Guadalcanal, and the gap between "disembarkation"And"the coastal airfield has been built / restored and is ready to receive conventional KMP aircraft"remained. And it is extremely important to cover the airborne forces / provide them with air support during this period of time - at least with something.
    In WWII, this task was carried out by AVE with squadrons of the ILC. Now there is no AVE, but there is UDC.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 13: 20
      +2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      It's useless to give to the ILC - the Corps wanted, wants and will want its cars

      So let me want to continue, give it, why? :))))))))))
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 29 January 2021 00: 13
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    with performance characteristics much lower than it would be possible to get if the ILC were given hands with their VTOL aircraft


    Verbally.
  • Avior
    Avior 28 January 2021 14: 54
    +2
    The Yak-38 and Yak-141 had a landing problem - the gases of the lifting engines got into the air intakes during a vertical landing, which led to a loss of thrust. For them, landing with slippage was preferable.
  • moreman78
    moreman78 28 January 2021 12: 38
    +3
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Quote: Ivanchester
    how could you win Tsushima

    Well, first of all, they don't win a war, they win ...
    how could you have won the Russo-Japanese War? as did the Japanese, who built hundreds of destroyers instead of a pair of battleships. Since Admiral Makarov advised, that is, ships of no more than 3000 tons, according to the modern day, this is the combat power of a third rank ship ... if it were not for Witte's betrayal who built a fleet for the Japanese for Russian money, not the stupidity of the admiralty who invested in battleships to the detriment of minesweepers and destroyers, and the root cause of this admiration for the West is the elite's abandonment of Christianity in favor of liberalism ..... otherwise the Russo-Japanese War would have been victorious for Russia. The Japanese did not have an advantage in the battleships in Tsushima, the victory was brought by a hundred destroyers that destroyed the Russian ships with blows below the design waterline.

    A difficult clinical case - medicine is already powerless!
  • Serg65
    Serg65 28 January 2021 13: 02
    +11
    what Oh Sasha, Sasha ...
    In 1980, four Yaks were sent to Afghanistan, where they flew 107 sorties in conditions of thin air, dust and real war.

    After, in front of Marshal Sokolov, the Yak-38 under the control of Colonel Kozlov hit the concrete road from a height of 8 meters during takeoff, these perversions were immediately stopped!
    In the photo below, a B-52 is flying past one of our 1143s, on the deck of which attack aircraft are clearly ready for takeoff. Most likely, it was filmed there, and the ship is "Minsk" and is

    In the original, under the photo, the following inscription "While On a Routine Maritime Reconnaissance Mission Over International Waters, A US Air Force Strategic Air Command
    B-52D Stratofortress Heavy Bomber Flies Over the USSR Aircraft Carrier Kiev, March 11, 1983 ".... why exactly did you decide that this is Minsk ??
    "Vice-Admiral Drozd", 4 anti-ship missiles in a salvo, let's assume that the realistic range in the non-nuclear version is 550 km, the speed is subsonic.

    The P-35 had a speed of Mach 1,8 or 2200 km / h!
    in order to provide a strong blow, that is, a strike with a large number of missiles in a salvo, the ship group will have to come very close

    Those. is constantly under the influence of the American aircraft carrier patrol and the American tracking ship and the American nuclear submarine (which is very likely)! And how are you going to raise yaks in such a situation?
    the launch would have to be carried out at different times. First, subsonic missiles. Then after a while "Basalts". And with a short delay - "Mosquitoes" from the destroyers.

    what strange start sequence ... i.e. The P-35 and Mosquito are the same in range +/- (and both are supersonic), is it worth tying the Basalt range to them, reducing it by 2 times for this?
    options for finding such ships as destroyers in the ship group (which had anti-ship missiles with a limited range) would simply push towards a scheme where at least the final attack of anti-ship missiles is delivered, precisely as an assault missile, with synchronized flight times of Mosquitoes from destroyers and attack aircraft Yak-38 or 38M with X-23, NAR S-24 guided missiles or bombs.

    Those. Soviet sailors have to guess their blow by the time black stewarts on American ships start delivering coffee and ice cream to combat posts? Otherwise, Standards-2 and Sparrow will put a bold cross on your attack!
    ................................................................
    The rest is almost an interesting article for the average layman and fans of World of Warships games!
    1. timokhin-aa
      30 January 2021 12: 11
      +1
      After, in front of Marshal Sokolov, the Yak-38 under the control of Colonel Kozlov hit the concrete road from a height of 8 meters during takeoff, these perversions were immediately stopped!


      Sergei, I honestly don't know if Marshal Sokolov was there, but the fact that the engine settings that allowed the Yaks to take off from the WRC with a more or less digestible fuel consumption were selected in Afghanistan is a fact.
      An accident in this case does not change anything.

      The P-35 had a speed of Mach 1,8 or 2200 km / h!


      1,5. Yes, indeed, a mistake, but it's still slower than Basalt, to ensure a massive strike, you would have to fire P-35 and Basalt salvos at different times.

      Those. is constantly under the influence of the American aircraft carrier patrol and the American tracking ship and the American nuclear submarine (which is very likely)! And how are you going to raise yaks in such a situation?


      I was going to ensure that the TAVKR at this moment is not where the enemy is expecting it and to create the impression for the enemy that this TAVKR is a tanker occupying his position in the order.

      strange start sequence ... i.e. P-35 and Mosquito in range +/- are the same (both are supersonic),


      This time you are wrong - the ranges are very different.


      Those. Soviet sailors have to guess their blow by the time black stewarts on American ships start delivering coffee and ice cream to combat posts? Otherwise, Standards-2 and Sparrow will put a bold cross on your attack!


      No not like this. Soviet sailors have to guess the exit of Soviet naval aircraft to the range of using weapons against American ships when Standards-2 and Sarrow are busy repelling a missile strike by Soviet ships and cannot shoot at attack aircraft.
      Well, or in a bad way, they started shooting at attack aircraft, got Mosquitoes, it could also be.

      Do not forget that this is the 80s "Arleigh Burkes" in commercial quantities yet.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 1 February 2021 10: 12
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        to ensure a massive strike, it would be necessary to fire volleys of P-35 and Basalt at different times.

        Okay, we'll exclude the American tracking frigate from the scenario, but we can't exclude Hawkeye. Hawkeye is observing the launch of 8 P-35s, a minute later the launch of 8 more Basalts and 8 Mosquitoes. The US warrant has at its disposal 11 SAM Standard-2 launchers, i.e. 16 missiles in a salvo. The reaction speed of the air defense order after the Hokai signal is +/- 4 minutes. The total time for the arrival of Soviet missiles is 7 minutes ... the Americans have another minute to pee and poke ... launching missiles, meeting with a target at a distance of 70 km, after 8 seconds another launch of 16 missiles, meeting with a target at a distance of 64 km, after 8 seconds still start ... i.e. Standards in 16 seconds knock out all Soviet anti-ship missiles ... and then 30 Yak-38Ms appear on the stage (the guys are healthy, are there any seeds?), Which Hokai spotted half an hour before the launch of the Soviet anti-ship missiles. The commander of CVN-69 must be a curious type and, out of his curiosity, raised an additional patrol of phantoms .... look guys, why are the Russians stirring up there! Phantoms + Standards .... how long will the Yaks live before the launch of the X-23, Alexander?
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I was going to ensure that the TAVKR at this moment is not where the enemy is expecting it and to create the impression for the enemy that this TAVKR is a tanker occupying his position in the order.

        what Cool ... an acoustician of some Stejen is reporting, sir ... Russian Kiev (or Minsk) is moving away from the order ..., further options for the development of events ... we go after Kiev .... oh well, we follow order !? Well, or ... Hokai somehow missed the departure of the TAVKR ... let's say ... the Corsairs and Intruders flew in to fill the Russians with Shrikes and Gorpunami ... oh shit, but there is no TAVKR ... but where is he one la and without the ensemble disappeared ..... and who will now defend the TAVKR? Yaki? All this is sewn with white threads!
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Do not forget that this is the 80s "Arleigh Burkes" in commercial quantities yet.

        Sasha, Virginia, Legs, Spruence, Kidd and Perry were enough for the eyes even without the Burks!
        1. timokhin-aa
          1 February 2021 23: 43
          0
          Okay, we'll exclude the American tracking frigate from the scenario, but we can't exclude Hawkeye. Hawkeye is observing the launch of 8 P-35s, a minute later the launch of 8 more Basalts and 8 Mosquitoes. The US warrant has at its disposal 11 SAM Standard-2 launchers, i.e. 16 missiles in a salvo. The reaction speed of the air defense order after the Hokai signal is +/- 4 minutes. The total time of arrival of Soviet missiles is 7 minutes ... the Americans have another minute to pee and poop ..


          No, not eight P-35s, but we do not have the 58th project for the induction, although God is with him.

          So Sergey, you wrote everything correctly, but otherwise the simultaneous approach of missiles to the target will not work.
          You can do it differently - launch at the same time, and then the Americans need to recapture the Basalts, and AFTER them - the P-35. The small scope of the volley does not work in any way.

          The problem is not solved by missiles.

          . how long will the Yaks live before the launch of the X-23, Alexander?


          Well, here on the move and do not answer. Let's just say that with an undamaged aircraft carrier, they certainly won't be able to break through to it.

          They will be able to strike at the ships of the radar patrol.

          Then we start playing the battle in the comments, which is a thankless task.

          By the way, keep in mind - they do not catch Basalt in the deck though, and the aircraft carrier will perform a way out from under a potential strike. And at this time, he goes either with minimal security, or without it.
          And if you still get it in one gulp, then Yaki become a completely different value in battle.

          . and where is he one la and without the ensemble gone.


          And it doesn't matter, Sergei - the blow fell on the tanker, they had to break through the air defense order, with losses, with anti-aircraft maneuvers, with the departure to the aircraft carriers (see the course). Now, firstly, for at least an hour there will be NO massive takeoffs from an aircraft carrier, this time, before the return air group leaves, it is "tied" to a corridor in which they can find it two.
          In short, everything is not easy there.

          Cool ... some Stegen's acoustician is reporting, sir ... Russian Kiev (or Minsk) is heading off the order


          This can be solved by Sergei, and as an anti-submarine supervisor, you understand this well.
          Yes?
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 2 February 2021 12: 40
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            No, not eight P-35

            Sorry, why did I rearm Berkutov what
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            This can be solved by Sergey,

            what Optimistic, of course, the Titans, Vegas and Platins of that time wished, of course, the best results ... as I read in my memoirs about the K-284 tests in the Tatar Strait, I ensured these tests of the Sevastopol BOD. Acoustics of the nuclear submarine found an unidentified foreign boat right near Sevastopol ..... the boat was not seen on the BOD. The difference in the detection of our GAC and GAS compared to the AN / BQQ-2 is decent and 50/50 that you will be the first to spot the enemy!
            1. timokhin-aa
              2 February 2021 16: 20
              0
              Well, let's go like this. Even if we do not have a range at which Sturgeon does not hear the TAVKR - we saw at 30 knots and listen from anywhere.

              But at the same time, with an increase in the range, part of the signal is lost and at 120-130 km it is no longer possible to determine, for example, a course, and at 150 you can only take an approximate bearing and that's it.

              Chasing a target at 30 knots? Not. Crawl forward quietly to drown someone? And if there is a veil of IPC on the way? Lie in a drift with OGAS and that's it. What will happen then? Under the periscope to go so as not to run into them?

              Again, no one guarantees anything to anyone, but it would not be that simple for Sturgeon.

              Although it could have been, I do not deny.
              But this is already a probabilistic question.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 3 February 2021 11: 53
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Chasing a target at 30 knots? Not

                Quite right, Sash! Why chase? Dispatch to Big Brother so they say and so, the Elephant jerked at 30 knots, the course is so! Where you rushed, we do not know, you are our Big Brother, so figure it out yourself! We have our mouths full of worries!
                After all, the main thing is not to organize a race, the main thing is to report the disappearance!
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 28 January 2021 13: 32
    +3
    The roots of the failure of these projects lie not even in the dubiousness of their performance characteristics, but in the fact that economically we would not have pulled out the build-up of these products (not top-end characteristics) in quantities comparable to the American-NATO ones. Even in the case of equal-best performance characteristics, we would find ourselves in an unprofitable configuration in the medium-long term, given the quantitative and qualitative (in complex) superiority of the enemy, based on a more ramified network of bases and better delivered logistics - in the short-medium term, this would also put our forces into an unfavorable configuration.
    The United States had funds for numerous and ramified R&D, and its defense industry could afford some impromptu more than was allowed to us. Finally, the United States could buy some patents and developments from its allies, whose total scientific, industrial and technological potential could not be compared with the potential of the USSR's allies.

    All this seems to hint that the USSR, having acquired a nuclear umbrella and building it up, unfortunately, preferred to hit the zerg and megalomania, instead of a couple of decades of allocating these funds for R&D and dispersal-development of the industrial base (not to mention the standard of living of the population). If you look at the Russian Federation in its current form, in fact, the nuclear umbrella is still the main guarantee of our security, and from the fact that our TARKRs do not now nightmare Cambodian partisans, we are neither cold nor hot. So the question was, it was not necessary to build and have all this "because the Americans were afraid" for me is not worth it in principle - the Americans could calculate our capabilities and draw the correct conclusions that economically we will not pull a major war, therefore we will not start it , and therefore, since we are preparing so early, we are afraid that they will be the first to start. We should have understood in this situation that they would not be the first to start because of our overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons at that time. And that means that all these expenses were mostly not justified for the real situation. But unfortunately we did not understand this - our analyst was incomparably worse than theirs.
    Here, in my opinion, from what conclusions should be drawn. And the fact that we have been developing some ideas for 25 years and investing, and then throwing it into the archive, is already a consequence of what I ended up with.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 28 January 2021 14: 03
      +4
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      But unfortunately we did not understand this - our analyst was incomparably worse than theirs.

      what You already have an academic approach to this problem! Everything was much simpler, the "VPK" organized criminal group headed by Ustinov needed constant replenishment and there was no smell of analytics!
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 28 January 2021 14: 24
        +2
        I argue from the point of view that once in the digital era mathematics has permeated all the niches of our life, calculations, modeling, a mathematical approach to forecasting, etc., then you cannot look at the war itself as waving sticks, whoever has more and stronger.
        I consider such things purely historically - here we have an example of Japan before its entry into BB2. They had a "Zero" and was considered the best deckboat, and the crews were well trained, and the battleships were the best in the world, and so on and so forth. But the best does not mean invulnerable, and all this was gradually outdated and out of order. The bet on a quick war did not materialize - and in the medium-long term, the Japanese were carried forward with their feet, the price of their heroic efforts was a penny as a result. It is banal because of the greater economic and industrial strength of "Uncle Sam" and the insufficient strength of Japan. And the United States understood its strength perfectly, quite predictably, by pecking at Japan's plan, which was lining up on a reckless adventure. In general, a couple of defects in the planning horizon ruined a bunch of forces and resources and devalued some tactical, albeit major, victories.
        It may seem that what I am talking about is far from the topic of the article, maybe so. I just relate to this reasoning in the sense "under certain conditions the Yak-38 could set the heat, under certain conditions the TARKRs could set the heat" - with a great deal of skepticism. Unfortunately, certain conditions are calculated and taken into account, tactical victories in the absence of quantitative superiority can turn into empty heroics - looking for gold grains in the general mess of the hypertrophied military construction of the USSR in those years, unfortunately, will not teach us the main thing - how to win a hypothetical conflict with the USA-NATO and at the same time survive , as they say. There were no direct decisions like an arrow (in those days), bypass roads are needed here, and this is already the priority of the economy, construction and lawmaking. Without this, bad samples in insufficient numbers will not ensure our safety, good samples cannot be created in sufficient numbers. In general, it will be "understaffing" understandable to the enemy, predictability of planning and reflection of foreign policy, etc.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 28 January 2021 14: 32
          +3
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          how to win a hypothetical conflict with the US-NATO and at the same time survive

          what Do you have an answer to how to win?
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 28 January 2021 18: 34
            +3
            Right now - no way. From the word at all. For reasons of complete industrial unpreparedness, incomparable demography, etc., etc. In the short to medium term as well. Any of our military preparations will be blocked by a more developed economy, a more abundant and technologically advanced military-industrial complex, qualitatively better analytics and bureaucracy. At the moment, we as a state exist thanks to good strategic nuclear forces, numerous armored vehicles sufficient for defense tasks, a potentially protracted and costly military campaign against us, which is still a problem of strain for everyone except, probably, the PRC (in the foreseeable future). To a lesser extent because of our good and technologically advanced multi-level air defense missile defense. Everything, this is where the objective factors end in my opinion - beyond the boundaries of these issues, everything is sad, or very sad.

            In the 70s-80s, we could potentially start a war of attrition with an effective blitz and a less straightforward ending. If both sides used nuclear weapons on a limited scale, we could theoretically achieve what Hitler had planned in relation to England (only in our case it would have worked with a greater probability in relation to the union of Western and at that time unoccupied states - I mean knocking out of the war by terror). The best that we could get for this is a fundamentally destroyed Europe and peace "in fact". Even in the best case, an excessive price would have to be paid for this, since a number of our industries. objects and large cities would be destroyed / partially destroyed / would lose their former significance. This is in the best scenario, as they say. At the same time, we would absolutely not resolve issues in the East and in the world ocean - our resources would be enough to repulse Europe and some kind of Middle East operations. After all this, the world would become an unambiguously unenviable place in terms of the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, and in terms of formalizing the reasons for its use.
            And although in the very distant future this is possible and would be an acceptable option, just in the long run it would be the situation of the end of the Second World War multiplied by 5x. Many more decades.

            How could they have done (in my opinion) - first of all, it is worthwhile to understand that the time of the technological nuclear missile "umbrella" is gradually passing by. We have come close to the moment when SDI of the "diamond pebble" type may become an unpleasant reality, and this will be only one of the global elements, as they say. But even in non-military versions, our main problem now is the growing cultural and economic isolation of our country from the world and potential allies. The Americans also strategically very successfully used this feature of the USSR against us - in fact, we are still unraveling the failures of the Soviet planning meeting and foreign policy, repeating many of its mistakes. It seems to me that now we need to direct the available resources to building up modern industrial potential - and to build it taking into account our decaying demography, that is, relying as widely as possible on the robotization of production. This, in turn, will give a second wind to our engineering professions and the development of the electronic computing industry and technology cycles. Considering the potential of our power generation and resources, this is our natural advantage, where to dig or not to dig. In 20-30 years, we could potentially deploy a second industrialization, which would not only revive our Far East and the center of the country (the safest from the point of view of defense), but also disperse industrial production and capacity, making the derivatives of the Rapid Global Strike against us less efficient. ... In turn, this would require a re-forging of the west-east transport routes and would naturally increase our value as an intra-Eurasian transport hub (in addition to the North Sea Route). With the growth of our "value", Europe's attitude towards us will change, because politicians there think very pragmatically and while our economy is not even close to the US economy, their sympathies will not be on our side.
            You may notice that while there is not a word about war, etc., I am a supporter of the fact that at this stage we have much more diplomatic and economic leverage, I also believe that for another 20-25 years we will still be relatively safe under a nuclear umbrella. Relying on our resources, Europe is completely self-sufficient and, moreover, historically competitive in the global world (and even more so in Eurasia) - the United States. Through practical diplomacy and building up our own value in world trade relations, we would provoke a split in European NATO, just at the time when NATO's main fears would finally creep eastward. Since the conflict over Asia between China and the United States, in principle, repeats the races between Japan and the United States, neutralizing the European direction would take us out of the US focus, at least in the medium term.
            This time and the events occurring behind this would be enough to become the dominant force in Eurasia - precisely through the possibility of the peaceful organization of intra-Eurasian affairs in terms of a strong economic and industrial model and the fact that we would be the central link of trade flows. After these same events, we will finally have the need for protection and the choice of an action strategy. However, in my opinion, again, ousting the "US hand" from Europe by trade and diplomacy would bring to naught serious conflicts in the next hundred years (or rather, our participation in them).
            Sorry for the multi-letter.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 28 January 2021 18: 52
              -3
              Excellent analytics. There is only one real enemy now, the PRC, I think that not in the future, but now. NATO is pursuing a deterrent policy, although it can build up forces in a short time.
              The main reason for the absence of a war with us is that the current government is pursuing a policy in favor of the West and the PRC. We sell resources and leftover technologies, return money to them by buying industrial goods and services, by direct withdrawal of money, conditions have been created in the country for the emergence of a qualified labor force, engineers and scientific workers who freely leave for Asia and the West. We do not compete in the global market for goods and services. Foreign policy is in confrontation with the closest brotherly countries. We are fighting in the places needed by the West. Some pluses, which is why the current government has been holding on for so long.
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 28 January 2021 19: 03
                +6
                I believe our elites have fallen into cultural and intellectual assimilation by the Western consumer society. Creating something that already exists and is a multitude of super-developed brands for all occasions, backed by established global monopolies and a highly skilled and educated workforce, is not a task for the pygmy mind of yesterday's Komsomol plankton.
                The average intellectual level in the country, who is quite satisfied with the cultural product endlessly channeled on TV, will also hardly realize the depth of the omission of such opportunities. In fact, now (as far as I can see) we are playing the role of a devil with a trident for Western countries, which frightens its own population with this very West and endlessly appeals to some kind of mossy RedAlert-style patterns so that its own population can extract resources for this very thing with minimal costs west. In general, then, in fact, we so fought for the post-colonial countries that little by little we climbed into their niche. All this is undoubtedly bad, however, without a serious understanding of the public discussion of this issue (as far as possible from history and politotka, purely from the standpoint of ADVANTAGES OF OWN DEVELOPMENT) and without rewriting the entire existing legislative and legal framework for this task - even if we are ordered in the future, we will trousers and lick the past as we do it now.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 28 January 2021 19: 11
                  -1
                  I fully agree.
                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  I believe our elites have fallen into cultural and intellectual assimilation by the Western consumer society.

                  Brzezinki has already said everything about them. Their assets, relatives, real life are all in the "west". They are already Western elites, for them we are a source of income.
                  There is a good lyrics about this:

                  "The state is torn by oligarchs and thieves,
                  We will ask them soon, they will answer for everything
                  I'm ready to die for our unhappy homeland
                  But, unfortunately, there is a family and children "
                  Yes, thank God for democracy ...
                  Come on, so that Russia stood and faith sang
                  After the third, I grew bolder, asked:
                  "Whose work is the palace for?"
                  And he replied: "It's not your dog's business"
                  After the fifth, I grew bolder, asked:
                  "Whose work is the palace for?"
                  And he answered: Eh, sonny….
            2. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 29 January 2021 00: 06
              -1
              Nice plan, but this is

              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              become the dominant power in Eurasia


              Not sure it's going to happen. There are simply too many people in "old Europe" (more than in Russia). At its best, Russia will become one of the spirit-three leading powers.
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 29 January 2021 00: 24
                +1
                The demographic limit of old Europe has been practically reached quite a long time ago, I mean that a radical population explosion there is impossible without a deterioration in the living comfort of the existing population, and, in fact, is meaningless, since the employment of this population within the European model would be a problem. In our case, we have not even come close to the borders of overpopulation of regions, the use of water resources, the impossibility of covering our own population with food products, and actually even to the development of our territory at a more or less modern technical level. To at least double the population for the Russian Federation is a reality - and if we leave out of brackets the political mortgage on the way to this, this problem does not seem to me to be insoluble. If we succeed, all our "non-brothers" will instantly crawl back, voluntarily and with a song, which will add another hundred to us. The funny thing is that all these people can be occupied, because the development and improvement of 1 [7 sushi, as it were, hints that things are up to the neck and for a long time. The question why we still do not go to this does not find in me any rational or censorship explanation. The clock is ticking ..
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 29 January 2021 00: 28
                  -1
                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  The demographic limit of old Europe has been practically reached for quite some time


                  Russia too.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  In our case, we did not even come close to the borders of overpopulation of regions.


                  For a very long time, “demographic cap” has meant low fertility, not overpopulation. There is no problem ... yes, perhaps, that nowhere in the first world.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                2. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 29 January 2021 00: 53
                  -1
                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  To at least double the population for the Russian Federation is a reality


                  Only through cloning.
                  1. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart 29 January 2021 12: 44
                    +2
                    When our dynamics are compared with the birth rate dynamics of developed countries, this is not correct. The minimum salary of Russians is 10 times less than the minimum salary of developed Western countries. In terms of living standards, we are not so far from some Mexico, where everything is great with fertility.
                    In our case, the baby boom will naturally arise in an era of more or less stable and dynamic economic growth - while I note that such growth should be approximately the same dynamics throughout the country.
                    Many long-term projects, subsidized by the state (at least partially), qualitative transformation, packages of laws aimed at minimizing the mark-up for children's goods by retail chains, creating a less toxic information environment (in state-controlled media), state support for mortgage construction for young families, bonuses for the birth of children in in the form of repayment by the state of a part of mortgage obligations (which in turn can be done by reducing the tax burden on developers, capital and developer operations) - all these measures stimulate an increase in the birth rate in the medium term.
                    People breed in the first place if the threat that after N years they will not live like herring in a barrel is reduced, if life around does not wear the ubiquitous attributes of trash, stupidity and decline, if the laws of the state allow people to lead natural and not harmful activity, moderately regulate family relations (regulation is unreasonable and leads to unreasonable civil marriages), finally, for a long time and VERY acute is the issue of improving working conditions and labor productivity within our country - also a factor affecting fertility.
                    IMHO if we make a country for the people of this country, then until the standard of living creeps to the level of developed countries, doubling the population will not be some kind of fantasy.

                    You can consider the experience of the USSR in this regard - the USSR did a lot of reasonable things to improve the birth rate, but also did many indirect and direct unreasonable things that extinguished this birth rate. Total ideological control, instruments of pressure, restrictions on activities and over-contractual coercion, coupled with the desire to employ anyone at any cost, were a natural poison that killed freedom of activity and development, as well as labor productivity. The inability of the authorities to resettle communal apartments and barracks in 74 years also played a role. Finally, the steadily worsening moral and informational support of the population added its five kopecks. Among the advantages, one can note the massive housing development (however, the issue of "human beings" and standard projects is something that should be thoroughly reworked), preferential baby food and affordable (when they were not in short supply) goods for children, sanatoriums and children's camps, a fairly good level pediatrics.

                    What should be done in this way would be very vaguely reminiscent of the experience of the USSR, based on greater attention to digital technologies, long-term planning and discussion. The result would not be long in coming, IMHO.
                    1. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 29 January 2021 12: 55
                      -1
                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      When our dynamics are compared with the birth rate dynamics of developed countries, this is not correct


                      If anything, Russia is a developed country in all respects. However, if you want, you can compare it with developing countries - the picture there is about the same, just with a delay in relatively developed countries.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      You can consider the experience of the USSR in this regard


                      So consider. You will see a steady decline in the birth rate.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      People reproduce in the first place if the threat is reduced that after N years they will not live like herring in a barrel


                      This is for you proletarian flair prompts? Read something popular on demographics. For example, google "second demographic transition".
                      1. Knell wardenheart
                        Knell wardenheart 29 January 2021 13: 00
                        0
                        Okay okay, we will all die out with sadness at the granite letters of research and statistics. This is your future.
                        Mine I hope will be closer to what I wrote about.
                      2. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 29 January 2021 13: 02
                        -1
                        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                        Okay okay, we will all die out with sadness at the granite letters of research and statistics.


                        The forecast for the level "in London, the layer of manure will reach the second floor."

                        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                        This is your future.
                        Mine I hope will be closer to what I wrote about.


                        It will not.
                3. Knell wardenheart
                  Knell wardenheart 29 January 2021 12: 50
                  +1
                  In short, a toxic climate within the state stands in the way of our birth rate, an idiotic legislative base from the mishmash of the 80s and 90s, the absence of a clear line of socially oriented state projects (which must be shouted about from every window, just as Lenin did in his time) at GoElRo). The population of our country is intimidated, depressed, demotivated by the oppression of 100500 anti-human rules and their interpretations, finally, it is almost completely forgotten and left alone with the solution of its own problems, while the state is playing epic games somewhere outside. This dampens our fertility, among other things.
        2. Knell wardenheart
          Knell wardenheart 28 January 2021 18: 48
          0
          If you approach it from the point of view of a purely "military victory" - then most likely in the 21st century nothing. The absence of an attractive model that is superior / equal to the western one in terms of welfare / degree of freedom, etc. - makes any occupation of the desired goal a curse. Considering our weak democratic potential, large-scale operations and the occupation, for example, of the same Europe, would become a death sentence for us and not a coveted goal. Simply knocking out allies (military) from under the wing of the United States would not have an effect, because the United States itself, like Canada / Australia / Japan / Latin America, would be inaccessible and would regularly serve the interests of the United States. By the time our resources would have run out and a growing mess would have begun, they would have only come to the peak of their war economy. They know it. So, without total annihilation, precisely that "victory" is impossible, we need to consistently follow other paths and stop playing with the United States in a global cunning multi-move. Our interest is Eurasia.
        3. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 29 January 2021 00: 02
          -1
          Quote: Serg65
          Do you have an answer to how to win?


          Don't play. In fact, no one is threatening Russia now. There is time to focus on internal problems. And in the future, it's enough to make aggression too expensive.
        4. timokhin-aa
          30 January 2021 12: 13
          +1
          Bring a trophy American Tou ATGM from Syria, drive it around Biden and Harris, and make sure that the local Marinus van der Lubbe in a MAGA cap and a Trump T-shirt is found next to the PU. laughing
          Throw a match so to speak.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 28 January 2021 14: 11
    -7
    Even without reading the articles, I already knew who the author was))), who, as always, pleased with genital thoughts)))
    British "stubs" with "harriers" are relics))) Soviet ones, which are twice as large in displacement and in addition to aviation carried powerful missile weapons - this is fu-fu-fu)) the author has forgotten that the Yak will be replaced by 38, the Yak - 41 was already on its way, and if it had not been for the collapse of the Union, they would have flown, and that a second normal aircraft carrier was already under construction in Nikolaev, and the nuclear-powered Ulyanovsk was already "on the way" and a carrier-based AWACS aircraft was being developed.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 28 January 2021 14: 16
      +2
      Read no further you are good at it.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 28 January 2021 14: 34
      +3
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Without even reading the articles

      what In your case, you still had to read the entire article! laughing She will greatly surprise you! yes
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 28 January 2021 19: 04
        -2
        With great difficulty, but I finished reading, all genital thoughts could be put into three paragraphs)))
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 29 January 2021 07: 12
          +3
          Quote: TermNachTER
          all genital thoughts could be put into three paragraphs)))

          It doesn't matter, the main thing is that your thoughts coincide!
        2. timokhin-aa
          30 January 2021 12: 15
          +1
          I have always been amazed by people who are proud of the fact that they "do not master", "cannot", etc. You probably also proudly announce to your wife that today you cannot laughing
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 30 January 2021 14: 14
            0
            I, too, have always been amused by people who cannot, but demonstrate with all their might that everyone can))) unlike you, I am not trying to pass off an insane, but pseudo-scientific text as the ultimate truth))) but you write, and then unfortunately Zadornov died, but you are successfully replacing him)))
            1. timokhin-aa
              1 February 2021 23: 46
              +1
              I, too, have always been amused by people who cannot, but with all their might demonstrate that they can do everything)))


              Well, you have acquaintances, I will say. Although, on the other hand, this is not even surprising.

              I'm not trying to give out an insane, but pseudo-scientific text,


              But you have not mastered it! How can you rate him?
              Although this is a question for logic, which means you cannot answer it ...
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 2 February 2021 00: 16
                -2
                He mastered it, albeit with great difficulty. You can present to the Hero of Russia))), who also reads Damantsev - automatically, twice Hero. It is not given to me)))
                1. timokhin-aa
                  2 February 2021 16: 21
                  +1
                  Yes, you are not given anything at all, if you call things by their proper names. It is not clear how the bus doors have not killed you yet. In theory, these do not survive in our complex world.
                  1. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer 2 February 2021 21: 46
                    -1
                    And I walk to work, I don't need buses)))
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      2 February 2021 23: 19
                      +1
                      And all my life. The bus must be mastered.

                      Damn, if you understood how much worse you are than an ordinary person, you probably would not have resisted and committed suicide.

                      So it's even good for you that you are not able to understand anything. Probably.
                      1. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer 3 February 2021 01: 02
                        -2
                        Are you the deputy of the Lord God, for work with l / s?))) I do not presume to assess the mental and other abilities of people. Isn't it hard to be the ultimate truth?))) Can you find an easier job? drop another crazy article))))
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 28 January 2021 14: 58
    -2
    The most important advantage of these aircraft is that they can be based on small container ships, tankers, amphibious ships and so on ... including the appropriately re-equipped submarines. Ideal weapon for auxiliary raiders.
    Another example: in Syria, it was not necessary to drag Kuznetsov across the world and did not lose the plane due to damage to the landing system. From the tanker or container ship, the Yaks got up and struck and the ship left.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 January 2021 15: 41
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The most important advantage of these aircraft is that they can be based on small container ships, tankers, landing ships and so on.

      Not an advantage. Disadvantage. See the history of the Atlantic Conveyor
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 28 January 2021 15: 54
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    e advantage. Disadvantage. See the history of the Atlantic Conveyor

    The Atlantic conveyor was put under attack in the place of the aircraft carrier and the aircraft carrier was rescued. What is the disadvantage here?
    And what will be cheaper than several Atlantic conveyors or one aircraft carrier? Besides, who will be more invisible as a raider - an aircraft carrier or a container ship?
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 28 January 2021 15: 59
    +3
    I will offer alternative conclusions to those that the author deduces:
    1 It would be better if an article on this topic was written by Andrey from Chelyabinsk! hi
    2 As a positive result of the Fleet's experiment with heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers, one must recognize its rejection of VTOL aircraft and the evolutionary conclusion about the need for a separate aircraft carrier (albeit in the person of Kuznetsov at the present time), and a separate missile cruiser (upgraded by Nakhimov).
    3 To seek an excuse for the frankly bad Yak-38 and even the Yak-38M retroactively smacks of the order of "partners" in an attempt to rehabilitate his own craft in the face of the F-35.
    4 With the advent of the Ohio - Trident-2 combination, the use of anti-submarine aircraft in the fleet in the anti-submarine version lost its meaning, and the use in the strike version became meaningless due to the saturation of the US Navy with ships with the Aegis system. Nostalgia for a failed experiment will do no good in today's circumstances. As they say, she died so she died.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 28 January 2021 16: 05
    -1
    Well this! Pilots and operators are throwing it up. Moreover, on the topic! It is certainly more visible in the headquarters by the performance characteristics! And those who flew and contained have a completely different idea!
    I won't even be for not understanding the sea air! I will not even be for the inferiority and small resource of engines! In fact, 12 pilots could be sold from the wing of 12 aircraft. And a month later. 12 pilots and 5 airplanes!
    Yes! In the late 80s, the catapult was perfect. You didn’t have time to understand that you were falling. And you're already under the dome.
    In the late 90s, they were thankful for this. Slept a lot.
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 28 January 2021 17: 56
    +1
    1. For an atypical "hybrid" means of warfare, its own model of use should be created specifically for it.

    2. It is almost impossible to make an airplane so bad that it is useless at all.

    3. Aviation is critical even when other means are available.

    4.Even unbalanced and strange, but with wide striking capabilities, the ship is a significant factor in the global balance of power.


    The article draws a number of interesting conclusions, but in essence, these conclusions boil down to the following axioms:

    1. To use a product effectively, it must be applied correctly.

    2. Any plane is useful.

    3. Aviation has an advantage.

    4. The fleet is the main tool for projecting power.

    The question arises - weren't these axioms already known at the design and development stage of both Project 1143 ships and Yak-36/38 carrier-based aircraft?

    The Gyrfalcons were just that. They were seriously inferior in power to American aircraft carriers. But the point was they were giving in only American aircraft carriers and not in conditions where we would have received the first strike.


    The fact that the Gyrechets were inferior to the American aircraft carriers is a decisive moment. Practice has shown that peaceful coexistence of two diametrically opposite ideologies is impossible. Either the USSR had to destroy its opponent, or disappear, because the goal of the opponent was to destroy the USSR. Such a confrontation does not imply opportunities for the third option.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 28 January 2021 20: 55
    +1
    An interesting non-trivial article. As for the Yak-38, the good news is that there are several real aircraft left in the aviation museums. I saw this pair in the Kiev Aviation Museum.

    1. timokhin-aa
      30 January 2021 12: 17
      0
      Gray - "m".
  • Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 28 January 2021 21: 14
    +1
    > These are the lessons today can be learned, for example, from the old, and seemingly already irrelevant experience.
    That's about the lessons - golden words. And experience is always relevant, especially in this limited field for us.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 28 January 2021 22: 01
    +4
    Well, the first article in which an attempt was made to more or less objectively look at my "products". For which the author is a huge merci. (By the way, the photo with the "Afghan yak" was made just at our technical position in Saki (Novofyodorovka) and next to it there was a spark onboard 05 which I served at one time. on the topic of the Rhombus group.
    in fact, I can explain the following ...
    yak pilots practiced air combat quite regularly. In general, from the point of view of air defense, the Yak was initially considered, of course, not to counteract the shock Hornets, but could stand up for itself. Well, most importantly, his capabilities as a fighter with his head were enough to work against the base and deck anti-submarine aircraft. All the same, Project 1143, in particular, was seen as a cover for the deployment of our nuclear submarines - and in this regard it was quite adequate.
    The Yak, as a combat vehicle, was quite at the level of the Harrier - and for some reason no one considers him an underplane. Another question is that it is necessary to compare modifications comparable in time. The Yak still did not have such a long modernization - it was planned to replace it with the 41m - and that was a completely different machine ...
    In general, they roused the soul .... at least sit down and write.
    1. timokhin-aa
      30 January 2021 12: 16
      +2
      In general, they roused the soul .... at least sit down and write.


      So write. After all, there is no information about all this at all, no.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 30 January 2021 20: 11
        +1
        I'll try ... the truth is that lately I haven't been able to post a single article here ... the administration is blocking ... Or I have stepped on a sore corn from one of the modders ... or ... I don't know.
        1. timokhin-aa
          1 February 2021 23: 47
          0
          Write to admins, maybe this is a solvable problem.
    2. Pagis
      Pagis 10 February 2021 14: 11
      0
      Hello. Since childhood (since the release of "Case in the square 36-80") I have been interested in the Yak-38 theme. Apparently, you are aware of the details of Operation Rhombus, about which there are significant hints on the Internet that the plane did not officially participate in military operations, but unofficially it did take part. Can you clarify whether the 38th bombed the mujahideen or not?
  • DLord
    DLord 28 January 2021 22: 46
    0
    Serious work. The author is great!
  • Kushka
    Kushka 29 January 2021 00: 35
    -1
    Quote: Avior

    "Yak is flying proudly in the sky, Yak on the deck ....!"

    It reminded me of a meaningful conversation between two
    Ukrainians about the yak in the zoo:
    -Yak yak?
    -Yak yak - yak yak yak!
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 29 January 2021 09: 57
    0
    Quote: bayard
    "Korean"

    The Korean is too small, and 3000 tons will quite keep it
  • Dmitry_6
    Dmitry_6 29 January 2021 10: 11
    +1
    I have read the entire cycle of your articles, thanks for the work
    1. agond
      agond 31 January 2021 19: 37
      0
      Of course, the creation of a VTOL aircraft was a long and complicated matter, and mainly because they went the wrong way, then two engines will be supplied, then three, and therefore these aircraft have long been gone, and their peer Harier is in good health, and the F-35B flies and will fly ., (they have one engine each) designers should have long accepted it as a rule that two or more engines for vertical takeoff is stupid.
      Nevertheless, if we need a VTOL aircraft, we will not look at competitors, we have to go our own way,
      basic principles
      1 if there is only one engine, then its rotary lift nozzle should be located exactly in the center of gravity of the aircraft
      2 if the rotary nozzle is in the middle of the aircraft, then the engine itself will be in front, with some displacement down from the longitudinal axis of the airframe
      3 if the engine is in front, then obviously the cockpit should be behind, closer to the tail and somewhat raised above the glider
      4 if the rotary nozzle coincides with the center of gravity and the center of lift of the wings, then the variable part of the weight of the aircraft (fuel and ammunition) should be located around, in the wings
      If in this VTOL aircraft we use one engine with a thrust of 11t and 18t on afterburner, then the takeoff weight can be at the level of the Yak-141
  • Grossvater
    Grossvater 2 February 2021 10: 18
    0
    The aircraft are quite successful, they simply have not received development.
    The much-praised Harper had one lift-sustainer engine. This means that its thrust exceeded the takeoff weight of the airplane. Because a subsonic aircraft has a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 0.25, well, a maximum of 0.5 is not needed, it will simply fall apart in the air if you give "full throttle" in horizontal flight, it turns out that Harier carried a significant part of the engine mass without meaning and benefit.
    So the many times abused individual lifting engines Yak38 are not that heavy at all.
    But this is not the most important thing, turbojet and turbojet engines are the most economical at capacities close to maximum. It turns out that in spite of the turbojet engine, the fuel efficiency of Harier with its engine running "to the floor" did not surpass the Yak.
    Problem Yak38 in stupid ships, the British built the Invincible with a springboard under the VTOL aircraft. It is due to the possibility of taking off with a run and a springboard that the Hariera have shown themselves so successfully.
    If the ships were built at least with a springboard, if the topic developed normally, if the turbojet engine was replaced with a turbojet engine ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      2 February 2021 16: 26
      0
      The aircraft are quite successful, they simply have not received development.


      Let's just say - aircraft that could become quite successful if developed.

      If the ships were built at least with a springboard, if the topic developed normally, if the turbojet engine was replaced with a turbojet engine ...


      This is a big question - how would the Yak-38 take off from a springboard.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 5 February 2021 02: 44
    0
    a sensible article, an attempt to understand the nuances, not patterns.
    1. agond
      agond Today, 14: 55
      0
      If the designer had abandoned stereotypes, then an acceptable VTOL aircraft could have been built a long time ago, for example, on a Boeing 777 there are two engines of the Pratt & Whitney PW4000 family with a takeoff thrust from 23 to 470 kg each, and they are very economical, they began to be used already from the end of 45, that is, 000 years ago, if one such engine is vertically installed in the center of gravity of the aircraft, then the aircraft weighing 1983 tons will easily and naturally take off and land vertically, although for horizontal flight you will have to attach a rotary nozzle, but this is a justified solution for VTOL aircraft