Soviet fleet by 1991
In August 1991, the State Emergency Committee lost, and the USSR collapsed, this historical a fact that cannot be changed, the past has already taken place. But in the light of the wild pogrom perpetrated the fleet in the 90s, the question remains: what was objective and what was subjective in what happened? What was done to please the interests of the West, and what was an objective process? What shortcomings did the fleet really have in the Soviet era?
Perhaps it's worth starting with the fact that the massive decommissioning of ships was inevitable. Not on such a scale, of course, as in reality, when they cut everything in a row, but still - inevitable. In Soviet times, it was postponed, they tried to avoid it with might and main. And the reasons, in principle, are clear - the Soviet Union was a social state, and as a social state it could not afford mass unemployment.
Remained in the ranks
And according to the main classes of ships for 1991, the following remained in service:
1. Two cruisers of project 68b.
2. Three cruisers of project 58.
3. One cruiser of project 1134.
4. Nine destroyers (30b, 56, 57b).
5. Nine first-generation nuclear submarines, plus dozens awaiting dismantlement.
6. Fifty-six diesel submarines of projects of the 50s (611, 613, 629, 641, 651).
Not even counting the little things - this is a huge number of ships that could not be upgraded, and the fleet simply did not need them and were only subject to write-off. And this is expensive. Nuclear submarines are especially expensive, because the issue of disposal and storage of reactor compartments is not cheap. Well, people - these are thousands and tens of thousands of people who needed to be attached, and given the fact that dozens of ships of the main classes were decommissioned before the collapse of the USSR, this is a very serious problem. Moreover, in the next decade, the service life of second-generation nuclear submarines was approaching, and this is neither more nor less, but 31 atomarines.
Well, modernization - a number of ships could still serve subject to modernization. A striking example - BOD project 61. Excellent ships, but requiring considerable investment. Or TFR (frigates) 1135, or anti-submarine cruisers 1123. There are a lot of examples, but not very powerful. So in any case, there would be a choice - what to do with them. And the choice is not obvious, the industry already had a replacement for young old people in the series, and we always knew how to build better than repair. Again - one new ship replaced a couple of old ones, and the terms of construction and modernization were not very different and did not differ much, as, by the way, and the cost.
So the massive decommissioning of ships built in the 50s and 60s was simply inevitable, and it was in full swing, for which Gorbachev and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were stupid to blame, the fleet was getting rid of junk that could become the graves of crews in war with no purpose or purpose. Moreover, the process was carried out quite smoothly, trying to preserve the jobs of the military and not ruin the infrastructure.
And to prevent this from happening in reality, for example, in the village of Rakushka in the Primorsky Territory, where the 29th submarine division was based, and half of the life from which has gone after it was liquidated in the 90s. As in dozens of other places.
It was definitely worth keeping
Another thing is what exactly was worth keeping.
1. Aircraft carrier cruisers. The head "Kiev" of project 1143 entered service in 1975 and could serve for a year until 2015, subject to medium repair and modernization for the already flying Yak-41. With money, of course, it could be up to the level of "Vikramaditya", but it is expensive and time-consuming. There were four in total 1143, if we add to them two "Kuznetsov" and "Ulyanovsk", then we get 7 aircraft carriers at the end of the XX century. Even if you write off / sell the top three (Minsk, Kiev, Novorossiysk), now there would be four aircraft carriers in service, one of them light and one nuclear. Even with the collapse - two "Kuznetsov" plus "Baku", plus "Novorossiysk".
2. Cruisers 1144 and 1164, even without new bookmarks, could have been 11: 5 nuclear projects 1144 and six - 1164. For four aircraft carriers more than, and as the basis of Soviet / Russian AUG too. It was already in the ranks or on the stocks or planned for construction, but the collapse of the country ruined everything, including the ships already built. And so, purely technically, there were no problems. The minimum could be kept 4 + 4, which is also a lot.
3. Destroyers (and BOD, never understood the thrust of the USSR to come up with new types of ships) - there could be 17 1134A / B in service, and the oldest of them would have served until 2004, if we take a service life of 35 years, the youngest - up to 2014 year. From the newer - 1155 in the amount of 12 units, and 11551, the ships are universal by the time of collapse, three units on the stocks. And of course 956 - 25 units. A total of 57 destroyers, even if nothing else was built at all, this would be enough for 20-30 years, that is, to this day.
4. Nuclear missile and underwater, even according to the projects in the series - these are 50 missile carriers in service and construction, which made it possible to unhurriedly write off the "Murena", rebuild the CD "Granat" and other different "Squids" into carriers, keeping 14 "Sharks" and Dolphins. AUG could fight 6 670M and 19 949 / A, which is more than, especially if you finish 670M under the "Onyx". Well, multipurpose - 28 "Pike", 21 "Pike B", and 6 945. One thing can be said here - there are even too many of them: 130 nuclear submarines of different types and classes are even redundant. Moreover, it is redundant for at least two decades, during which it would be possible, without haste, to experiment, loading the capacity with repairs and modernization of the existing one.
5. Diesel submarines - also complete order - project 877 24 boats, plus 641B - 18 boats, plus the possibility of their construction in any required quantities. Even without building a new one - more than enough for its goals and objectives, especially if upgraded for cruise missiles.
6. Frigates and corvettes. Only frigates 1135 32 units, and five 11540 were still under construction and were being prepared for construction, just right to arrange a sale ... With corvettes - project 1166 is already in the series, to build - not to rebuild, well, MPK and MRK - just a lot, a lot, plus then what else is on the stocks.
There is no question of the same landing ships - only three UDC, 28 - 775 and good old Tapirs, the same about minesweepers, boats and other things.
In short, by 1991 the situation was unique - we had a fleet equal to that of the United States.
They had a developed industry and a unique opportunity - to stop for at least ten years (or even 20), develop new concepts, optimize and modernize the existing one, avoiding a social catastrophe, which was the reduction of the Navy for sailors. At the same time, even a separately taken RF, subject to the presence of common sense, could preserve the core of the fleet and its submarine and aircraft carrier components. There would have been problems, but the same Ukraine proposed in the 90s, for example, the completion of Lobov and Varyag, the workers were eager to eat. Save the country - another option: the Soviet fleet in the 80s really changed, it became smaller in quantity, but much stronger and more efficient in quality.
It didn't work out, or rather - someone was interested in something else. As a result, we now have a shadow of what could have been. And the current shipbuilding programs aimed at the Navy, parity with England and France, can no longer pull.
Information