Military Review

Experiment Ship

66


One of the disadvantages of domestic fleet sometimes called the original system of replenishment of the ship’s composition, according to which the lead ship of each series is a test platform for testing and refinement of new weapons systems and radio electronics. Even after successful testing and mass introduction of new systems on the Navy ships, work continues on their improvement and modernization, as a result, ships of the same type significantly differ from each other in the composition of the equipment, which complicates their supply, repair and operation.

A vivid example of such an approach is the heavy nuclear missile cruisers of the 1144 Orlan Ave. Despite the modest series, all 4 cruisers actually belong to three different projects, and the head TARKR Kirov and the last TARKR Peter the Great are so different from each other that it’s time to talk about completely different ships:

The bow of the TARKR "Kirov" - the first ship built on the project "Orlan"


- On the cruiser "Kirov" to launch anti-submarine missiles "Metel" used a separate bow PU. The rest of the cruisers are armed with the Waterfall PLUR, launched through torpedo tubes.
- Kirov artillery - two mm 100 installations, on the remaining ships a new AK-130 was installed.
- The head "Kirov" differed from the other three cruisers of the series in the design of the C-300F launchers, due to the smaller dimensions of the first version of anti-aircraft missiles.
- On Peter the Great, one of the anti-aircraft complexes was replaced with C-300FM, a new command post was installed: the total load was reduced to 94 missiles, but it became possible to hit targets at a distance of 200 km
- Anti-aircraft defense systems: the first three ships were installed two SAM "Osa-M"; on “Peter the Great” - the multichannel complex “Dagger” (16 underdeck launchers, 128 SAM).
- The anti-aircraft artillery has changed: on the first two cruisers there were four AK-630 batteries, on the Admiral Nakhimov and Peter the Great - 6 Kortik complexes.
- For self-defense from torpedoes on cruisers originally installed RBU-6000; on "Nakhimov" and "Petre" they are replaced by RBU-12000 "Boa".
- Starting from the second building, a new CWS “Lumberjack-44” was installed at TARKR, the old EW “Gurzuf” complex was replaced with “Cantata-M”, the space communications complex “Tsunami-BM” - with “Crystal-BK”. From the third hull the ships were completed with an improved three-coordinate radar "Fregat-MA" with headlights, as well as navigation radar "Vaigach-U". Additionally, in order to enhance the capabilities of the Peter the Great Air Defense System, a radar for detecting low-flying targets “Tackle” was installed on its focus-mast on the right and left.

The bow of the TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov", the third ship of the type "Orlan"

The flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva Guards missile cruiser - the only one of the three existing cruisers of the 1164 "Atalant" project, equipped with the anti-ship missile system П-1000 "Vulkan", is truly unique. The main caliber of the two other cruisers, the Varyag and the Marshal Ustinov, is still the P-500 Basalt. If suddenly the Ukraine-launched missile cruiser (fourth ship, 1164), which has been quietly rusting near the extension wall in Nikolaev, has already been completed for 20 years, it is hard to even imagine what new and unusual systems will appear on its decks (however, it already has little to do with competent modernization).

No less interesting история the evolution of large anti-submarine ships of the 1155 project (cipher “Take away”), from which the Admiral Chabanenko BPC (1155.1 Ave.) miraculously was born: the Moskit supersonic anti-ship missiles, 130 mm caliber artillery, the Kortik anti-aircraft missile system and the anti-submarine missiles “Waterfall” -NK ". Instead of a hydroacoustic complex “Polynom”, the more advanced SJSC Zvezda-2 was placed on Chabanenko.
At the same time, "Admiral Chabanenko" was not supposed to turn into a unique ship; according to the improved 1155.1 project, at least 4 of new BOD should have been laid, but “dashing 90-e” struck and “Shepherd” remained in splendid isolation. At present, Admiral Chabanenko is serving for the protection of the Motherland, along with his “elder brothers” BOD pr. 1155, differing favorably from them in his article and the more powerful weapons.

Russian modernized Japanese TV and as a result got a vacuum cleaner.

There were several reasons for the current situation: first, the constant lag of high-tech industries from the shipbuilding industry; As a result, when the hull of the new ship was already swaying in the water, most of the weapons and radio electronics were not yet ready. To saturate the hull volumes, it was necessary to install systems of the previous generation, which over time were sometimes replaced with the promised new ones.

The second reason is the lack of a clear doctrine of the Navy, when the priorities of the Navy were completely changed with every redeployment of personnel in the Admiralty and the shipbuilding industry. The ships were laid, dismantled on the stocks, re-laid. The atomic destroyer through the 10 years of "modernization" on the board of designers turned into the monstrous nuclear cruiser "Orlan" ...

And the third reason is the lack of a tradition of “test-ship laboratories”. Here we mean the test benches for ballistic missile submarines that are not filled with water, but the presence of real test ships on which any prospective system can be installed. The “test ship” can go out to sea and make a thorough “run-in” of the system in real sea conditions.

The rich and strong Soviet Union did not feel any inconvenience from such metamorphoses — every time sufficient funds were allocated to service and modernize the entire vast fleet of different types in time.

The real problem came with the collapse of the USSR - funding was cut to a critical value, and new ships are built too rarely to use them as "test sites" - you need to quickly replenish the current fleet.
In modern Russia, the question is often asked: is it not wasteful to use a ship worth half a billion dollars to run in promising systems? After all, it is no secret that most of the weapons planned to be installed on the new frigate 22350 Ave. Admiral Gorshkov did not undergo any testing on the Navy ships, therefore numerous "childhood diseases" and "inconsistencies" of the most complex and expensive equipment are not excluded, will require major changes in subsequent ships of the series. What is very expensive. At the same time, the head Admiral Gorshkov himself risks remaining a “experimental ship” for a long time.

Fears of the author are not in vain, the head corvette “Steregushchy” did not escape the fate of the “test site” - the first two units of the series were built according to 20380 Ave., the third “Boky” corvette (released on October 10 2012 sea trials) was already built on the modified 20381 project , with the installation of a new version of the X-35U Uran-U missile system and vertical launchers of the Redut air defense system. You will laugh, but the sixth ship of the series is being built according to an even more modified 20385 project: the number of cells in the Redut system is increased to 16, instead of the Uran-U anti-ship missiles, the Caliber cruise missiles will appear!

It's just great that the capabilities of Russian corvettes will increase many times, but two questions remain: 1. Why these changes could not be implemented in the original project? 2. “Steregushchy” type corvettes are the most up-to-date type of warships of the Russian Navy and the only one of all new projects already adopted for service. It is these ships that will have to protect the sea lines of our Fatherland in the near future and such experiments with their design are completely useless. Perhaps, for a start it is worth practicing on less valuable ships?

Here's what you can drastically upgrade ??

And what about them?

In foreign fleets, it looks a little different. Since 2003, the Royal Navy of Her Majesty has received six completely identical "fighting dragons" - destroyers of the Dairing type. But where things are more serious in the US Navy - laying the ships in large series, the Americans have no right to make mistakes. If any critical flaw suddenly emerges, dozens of destroyers will have to be rebuilt again.

USS Oldendorf (DD-972) - a destroyer of the Spruence type

However, everything is also very conditional here: for example, the destroyers of the Spruens type initially had a strange margin of strength and stability, about a quarter of the hull volumes were reserved for the installation of advanced weapons systems. At first, a huge empty ship was a lot of fun for foreign experts - it’s a big one and can’t do anything! In this mode, half of the series of 30 destroyers was built, the decks of the ships gradually “overgrown” with new systems - the Garpun missiles, the Phalanx anti-aircraft guns, etc., when in the middle of the 80's the Navy unexpectedly happened. The United States has adopted a new Mk.41 VLS universal launcher and a Tomahawk cruise missile. Volumes in the bow of the ship were reserved for this weapon - the modular design allowed, with minimal changes, to install an OHM on the 61 launching cell, in which Tomahawks' predatory bodies froze in anticipation (looking ahead a bit, I’ll say that the situation was calculated by American engineers in advance - in the midst of the construction of the “Spryuans” Mk.41 has already passed extensive tests on the “test ship”).

USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) - Ticonderoga type missile cruiser

Subsequently, the Ticonderoga missile cruisers and the Arly Burk destroyers grew from the Spryuans. “Ticonderoga” and “Spruense” are so close in design that they can easily be confused from some angles. Modern “Arly Berki”, in spite of the appearance that has changed beyond recognition, is internally also in many respects similar to the “Spruans”. On the other hand, it is not correct to speak here about any deep modernization - changes in the design of Ajis cruisers are so significant that Spryens, Ticonderoga and Arly Burk are three different projects with the most standardized equipment.

Where is the blurred line between literate evolution and the construction of ships in a "discord"? Probably, specialized ships-laboratories can give an answer; test ships, used now in all fleets of the world.

A boat that does not fit in the ocean

29 in October 2010 of the year in 05: 30 Moscow time the successful launch of the Bulava ballistic missile from the board of the Dmitry Donskoy submarine located in the White Sea. Warheads delivered to a given area of ​​the Kura test site in Kamchatka ...
You probably had to read a similar chronicle of events more than once. Test launches of the Bulava submarine-launched missile submarine are carried out from the onboard of the TK-208 “Dmitry Donskoy” heavy strategic missile cruiser, the last remaining submarine of the 941 “Shark” project.
Experiment Ship

Currently, the submarine cruiser is disarmed, a special launch cup designed for a light Mace (20 tons instead of the standard Р-37 rocket weighing 39 tons) is inserted into one of its 90 launchers. In 2008, Dmitry Donskoy turned into a multifunctional launch stand, the engineers had the opportunity to conduct test launches in real conditions far from the coast, from a surface or underwater position.

It was on this ship that the fate of the Bulava was decided, and the crew of the “test cruiser” showed a lot of effort to ensure successful launches of the new Russian wonder-rocket. From the point of view of the Russian Navy, the upgrading of the last “Shark” to the test bench looks quite reasonable - vseravno TK-208 could not use its standard weapons - the huge outdated P-39 rocket was removed from service. And you see, it would be strange to build underwater strategic missile carriers of the 4 generation Borey, having a raw Bulava rocket in their hands. Only numerous test launches from the onboard test bench "Dmitry Donskoy" allowed to bring the capricious rocket to the required state of reliability.

The further fate of the Dmitry Donskoy submarine is unknown: it does not make sense to leave such an extremely large boat in the fleet's combat fleet — the Borey, like any modern foreign SSBN, with a three-fold submerged displacement, carries the same number of ballistic missiles. On the other hand, an “extra” submarine may for a long time become a stand for testing new Russian underwater-based ballistic missiles.

American "Orlan"

Having entered service in March 1945 of the year, the Norton Sound hydro-avian carrier for several months was senselessly plowing the expanses of the Pacific Ocean - all the hot naval battles had been completed by that time and the ship was doing the routine work of patrolling the Katalin patrols, in the fall it arrived in China, where it took place service in the occupying forces in Japan and China. A year later, Norton Sound completed its inglorious cruise and returned to the United States, where fate had prepared him a generous gift. Unlike its sisterships, the Norton Sound turned into a ship-laboratory and then probably no one imagined, this quickly outdated vessel will last even long 40 years, fulfilling the most sophisticated and responsible tasks.

Canvases of phased antenna arrays are clearly visible. In the stern - launcher Mk.26

After the first reconstruction, the Norton Sound became the first US Navy bomber carrying a regular test launch of Lark anti-aircraft missiles and Aerobee meteorological rockets to study the upper atmosphere and radiation belts of the Earth in near space. The program ended in 1950 with the enchanting launch of a five-ton Viking rocket, which delivered a container with scientific equipment to an altitude of 170 km.

1950 year. Launch of the Viking suborbital rocket

And then the paranormal began: it was no coincidence that I compared the “Norton Sound” with the Soviet “Orlan” in the title of the chapter - the entire range of naval armaments and radio-technical systems was installed on the ship in 40 years. It was the “Norton Sound” that tested the Terrier, Tartarus, Sea Sparrow anti-aircraft missiles, the Mk.26 universal beam launcher, the Mk.45 x-mmX lightweight artillery launcher mm ... In addition to testing conventional weapons, “ Norton Sound "in 127 had three times to fire into space the Argus missiles with nuclear warheads: the whole world enjoyed the kinds of giant fireballs at an altitude of 1958 km ... Reconstruction ..." Norton Sound "received a Typhoon BIUS and advanced radars ... A year later result is obtained T: CIU "Typhoon" turned out to be useless "wunderwafl" ... To hell CIU, again reconstruction ... "Norton Sound" tests gyroscopes and EW systems, the results are positive ... reconstruction ... In 750, the first prototype of the Ejis system was installed there were radars with PAR. The story ended in the 1971 year, when two modules of the vertical launcher Mk.1981 VLS were installed on the ship that was stupefied with such a “modernization”.

Photo 1975. Radars AN / SPY-1 not yet installed, but visible nasal 127 mm naval gun Mk.45


USS Norton Sound was withdrawn from the fleet at the end of 1986, and dismantled for metal. It's a pity. From the ship would have been a great maritime museum of the Cold War.

Japan has too much money?

The Japanese went the furthest in the development of test ships. Before massively building warships, the Land of the Rising Sun built a moving model of promising destroyers of the Murasame type on the scale of 1: 1. Simply put, the Japanese built a real ship, which, being deprived of armaments, can perform only research and experimental tasks in the interests of the technical center of the Naval Self-Defense Forces of Japan.

Asuka Auxiliary Ship Experimental (ASE-6102)

On the one hand, this approach to business inspires respect for Japanese shipbuilders. This is real quality and attention to detail! On the prototype of the destroyer, complex tests of samples of naval weapons, ship systems and technologies are carried out. A comprehensive assessment of stealth technologies and hull lines is being carried out at Aske, and the Canadian exhaust gas cooling system is installed to reduce thermal visibility. The ship has an original power plant, to reduce acoustic noise, propellers are driven by electric motors - there is no need for long shafts and support bearings.

From the "high-tech systems" on a strange destroyer, an automated survival control system was installed: all spaces of the ship are equipped with sensors, from which information about damage, hot spots, water flow and other malfunctions goes to a central command center. The system allows operators to assess the development of an emergency situation and take adequate measures in a timely manner. Aska is also equipped with OYQ-7 BIUS, which is the Japanese equivalent of Aegis.

A good full-size layout?

On the other hand, no one has yet thought of building a specialized experimental ship — too irrational and wasteful. Usually, ships and vessels that have served their time and have become unnecessary turn into an “experimental stand”. It is all the more strange that ultramodern Japan, already living in the XXII century, could not test all the necessary systems by computer simulation. As a graphic illustration, the Boeing-787 wide-body airliner was completely designed and tested on a computer. Although, of course, the Japanese know better - perhaps in the truth, it is impossible to determine the ship's EPR in real conditions or the noise of the ship power plant on a computer. In the end, the ASE-6102 "Asuka" is a complete copy of the modern destroyer URO-type destroyer of the type "Murasame" (the capabilities of the "test ship" even surpass the combat destroyers due to the presence of the Idzhis BIUS) Mk.48 to launch the ESSM 32 anti-aircraft missiles.

During natural disasters, the ship is periodically involved in search and rescue operations, and when the sun shines brightly on the horizon, Asuka is often open to visiting by curious Japanese and guests of the country.
Author:
66 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. altman
    altman 12 October 2012 08: 15
    +4
    There is not enough pragmatism for our people ... Although this flaw is a continuation of our virtues ..
    And the construction or alteration of an old ship for experimental purposes is obvious, as well as the unification of weapons and various units ..
    1. Armata
      Armata 12 October 2012 08: 36
      +3
      Quote: altman
      And the construction or alteration of an old ship for experimental purposes is obvious, as well as the unification of weapons and various units ..
      Unification is not always good. For different classes of ships must have their own components and assemblies. Otherwise, we get a whole line of very mediocre ships.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 12 October 2012 08: 44
        -1
        Quote: Mechanic
        Mechanic

        Hi Zhenya, but that the avatar did not change, the rating was reset, it was necessary to change the whole image. Well, that corporal is now a plus to you nd PM, not for a long time you walk with clean shoulder straps and will not wait months ........ wink drinks
        1. Armata
          Armata 12 October 2012 08: 53
          +5
          Hi Sanya. Did not have time laughing And Sergey VAF split me yesterday. So there you go. But the rating was canceled and the nickname changed purely because I was tired of walking in marshals. Everything has changed on the site and I want to start from the beginning. Yes, and work has increased. Ships dragged a large package of orders by autumn. They have plans to bookmark 11 ships (unfortunately 2 / 3 are civilian). Now I’ll sit here less often.
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 12 October 2012 08: 58
            +2
            Quote: Mechanic
            Everything has changed on the site and I want to start from the beginning.

            Well, not all, but your business is already a junior sergeant laughing Zhenya, and from which shipyards do orders come, is the Far East listed?
            1. Armata
              Armata 12 October 2012 09: 08
              +2
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              Zhenya, and from which shipyards do orders come, is the Far East listed?
              Khabarovsk is in the first place. Vlad is there too. JSC "Vostochnaya Verf" for 3 years 4 passenger ships. But there are troubles with catamarans and only after the closing of this contract will there be new orders.
          2. Vito
            Vito 12 October 2012 11: 02
            +2
            Mechanic (3). Good day, dear!
            I want to add an avatar. You have a sea soul, and should you put a cruiser or a destroyer? drinks
            1. Armata
              Armata 12 October 2012 11: 25
              +1
              Quote: Vito
              You have a marine soul, and should you put a cruiser or destroyer?
              The soul is sea, and the profession is purely land. drinks laughing And I really like steam engines.
    2. Civil
      Civil 12 October 2012 10: 47
      +2
      and the old will not be given, for they have already been sold
  2. Larus
    Larus 12 October 2012 10: 37
    +4
    There, the only difference is the large series of ships, but they also differ from each other with the installation of new systems.
    1. Nuar
      Nuar 12 October 2012 18: 52
      +3
      Quote: Larus
      There, the only difference is the large series of ships, but they also differ from each other with the installation of new systems
      fully support.

      And how could it be otherwise if seven years pass from bookmark to launching the ship on the water. yes plus, the series is being built for about 15 years. That takes 22 years from the time of laying the head (first) coral for the series until the last one is launched. Do you really believe that nothing has changed during this time, and if it has changed, ships are being built according to an outdated project? belay
  3. understudy
    understudy 12 October 2012 10: 41
    +2
    For all my remoteness from the problem, what a handsome man in the first photo! good

    A question for the experts ... The leader "Tashkent" (late 40s) - speed over 40 knots, modern corvette - less than 30. Speed ​​no longer plays a significant role for surface ships? Or are these ships incomparable?
    1. Santa Fe
      12 October 2012 11: 32
      +3
      Quote: Understudy
      Does speed no longer play a significant role for surface ships?


      Yes, with the development of rocket weapons and radars, high speed became unnecessary
      1. Armata
        Armata 12 October 2012 11: 55
        +4
        good afternoon
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yes, with the development of rocket weapons and radars, high speed became unnecessary
        Well, here you can argue. High speed makes it possible to reduce maneuver time, more quickly come to the work area, and get away from pursuit. But there is no reduction in speeds. You just need to look at the configuration of the case, running gears. Yes, and for the tasks that this ship should perform.
        1. Santa Fe
          12 October 2012 17: 12
          +2
          Quote: Mechanic
          High speed makes it possible to reduce maneuver time, more quickly come to the work area, get away from pursuit

          Priority is now given to other qualities. The catch-up games are over - you won’t get far from missiles and radars ...
          For example, for a modern destroyer, an increase in speed over 30 knots. too costly exercise, without effective returns
          Quote: Mechanic
          Yes, and for the tasks that this ship should perform.

          LCS issues 40-50 nodes, its main task is to catch high-speed boats of drug dealers and illegal migrants
          1. Armata
            Armata 13 October 2012 12: 32
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Priority is now given to other qualities. The catch-up games are over - you won’t get far from missiles and radars ...
            For example, for a modern destroyer, an increase in speed over 30 knots. too costly exercise, without effective returns

            Well, what do you know about the requirements for avoiding a torpedo attack? And missile evasion also requires top speeds.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            LCS issues 40-50 nodes, its main task is to catch high-speed boats of drug dealers and illegal migrants
            Good example. Why didn't we accept the "Harpoon" at a speed of 60+? Maybe we have no one to drive? Or that Russia has its own way again? (For spawning. The Baltic and Zelenodolsk conclude a contract with NATO countries for the supply of 200 of these boats) and how can they catch them with small displacement ships?
            1. Santa Fe
              13 October 2012 14: 56
              +2
              Quote: Mechanic
              Well, what do you know about the requirements for avoiding a torpedo attack?

              A rare combination of circumstances.
              Currently, there is not a single large warship with a speed above 30 knots.
              Quote: Mechanic
              Why didn't we accept the "Harpoon" at a speed of 60+?

              Some corporate interests and possibly technical flaws
              Quote: Mechanic
              and how to catch them with ships of small displacement?

              And what else to do with them if they take and take cocokin ...
  4. Dedream
    Dedream 12 October 2012 12: 04
    0
    As we do not have a doctrine ... We always built ships on the principle that there was one warrior in the field. The same Peter I is able to withstand whole AUGs.
    1. Armata
      Armata 12 October 2012 12: 08
      +1
      You're right. But now the doctrine has changed. Now we are building on the principles of the Yankees. The more the better, and all are the same.
    2. Delta
      Delta 12 October 2012 12: 55
      +1
      I wonder how Peter will confront the AUG ....
      1. Dedream
        Dedream 12 October 2012 13: 10
        0
        P-700 "Granite", 20 PU
        1. Delta
          Delta 12 October 2012 13: 15
          +1
          Their range, EMNIP 450-500 km. The Hornet's combat range is over a thousand kilometers. Who will notice whom earlier (we don't even take satellites now, let's imagine that they are not there) and amaze?
      2. MURANO
        MURANO 12 October 2012 22: 18
        0
        Quote: Delta
        I wonder how Peter will confront the AUG ....

        But why even oppose the AUG? smile
        It sounds seditious? Maybe, but it does not make any sense.
        1. Armata
          Armata 13 October 2012 12: 34
          +1
          Quote: MURANO
          But why even oppose the AUG?
          Well, by and large, you need to confront the escort of the aircraft carrier, and he himself has no problem letting the sea gods. Yes, and planes without a base themselves sprinkle without fuel.
          1. MURANO
            MURANO 13 October 2012 12: 40
            +1
            Quote: Mechanic
            Well, by and large, you need to confront the escort of the aircraft carrier, and he himself has no problem letting the sea gods.

            The USSR Navy could not fully solve this problem. Russia (and any other country) will not solve it in any foreseeable future.
            And most importantly, as long as Russia has and develops nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles, there will be no "battles" with the US Navy. The Russian fleet is not needed to counter the AUG.
  5. NAV-STAR
    NAV-STAR 12 October 2012 12: 22
    0
    Nenad with oppression to look into the past, you need to build the future, taking into account the mistakes of the past. We will live in the future.
  6. Delta
    Delta 12 October 2012 12: 58
    +1
    Yeah, the problem. And not new. Even before the Russo-Japanese War, many armadillos and armored cruisers were built, but this “multitude” was only a collection of individual ships, not a fleet. So, the armored cruisers “Vladimir Monomakh” and “Dmitry Donskoy” were simultaneously laid down of the same type. At the end of the construction, it turned out: one was a corvette, the other was a frigate, one was a twin-screw, the other was a single-screw, and so on. Admiral Nakhimov was a strong but unique ship. “Memory of Azov” is a weak cruiser, both in armament and in armor. Even greater variety reigned between the battleships “Alexander II” and “Nicholas I”; although they should have been exactly the same, they came out different; “Gangut”, “Sisoy the Great” and “Navarin” also turned out to be completely heterogeneous. The Japanese defeated such a fleet very quickly.
  7. altman
    altman 12 October 2012 13: 51
    +1
    And if you try to combine an experimental ship with a training ship? Would cadets go through practice and at the same time master the latest weapons developments? In principle, one does not even have to go far. Novik would be quite suitable for such purposes, they say it has good prospects for modernization.
    1. bddrus
      bddrus 13 October 2012 08: 56
      +1
      how is it possible on an experimental ship - where are new types of weapons being tested to keep cadets? there, in my opinion, only experienced sailors should
  8. Kars
    Kars 12 October 2012 14: 01
    0
    Just the other day I mentioned that Kirov is not quite Peter the Great --- and now the article.
    So by the way do the units following the Kirov armor protection of the reactor zone?
    1. Santa Fe
      12 October 2012 17: 25
      0
      Quote: Kars
      Just the other day I mentioned that Kirov is not quite Peter the Great --- and now the article.

      Just a coincidence

      Quote: Kars
      So by the way do the units following the Kirov armor protection of the reactor zone?

      I don’t like big prodigies, because I’m not very interested in this topic. Here is what I managed to find, I probably read it already:

      board in the reactor compartment - 100 mm,
      at the ends - 35 mm,
      steering compartment: side - 70 mm,
      deck - 50 mm,
      traverses - 75 mm,
      cabin - 80 mm. ....... "
      +
      "......... Finally, after a break on the ship of Project 1144, constructive protection appeared. Of course, it does not repeat the schemes of the past and is intended to protect only the most important objects from the impact of missile weapons. This protection scheme became known as" local " , in contrast to the "citadel" protection used on battleships, aircraft carriers and artillery cruisers of the past. Most of the cruiser weapons for this purpose were hidden under the deck ..... "
      1. Kars
        Kars 13 October 2012 09: 24
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Just a coincidence

        It is fair to say --- too frequent coincidences, and not from you alone))))))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I don't like big wunderwaffles

        Aircraft carriers even more))))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        board in the reactor compartment - 100 mm,
        at the ends - 35 mm

        Is it Peter the Great?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        from the effects of rocket weapons

        ))))))
        It’s a pity Frostik was banned, he would have been choked by this quote)))))
        1. Santa Fe
          13 October 2012 15: 07
          0
          Quote: Kars
          It is fair to say --- too frequent coincidences, and not from you alone))))))

          No, the topic of battleships was no coincidence.
          Quote: Kars
          Aircraft carriers even more))))

          You are mistaken)))
          Quote: Kars
          Is it Peter the Great?

          Does it even differ in booking?
          Quote: Kars
          from the effects of rocket weapons

          There is no other for the last 50 years
          1. Kars
            Kars 13 October 2012 15: 24
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            No, the topic of battleships was no coincidence.

            otherwise I didn’t understand --- but all the same, except for battleships it’s also not uncommon - but it doesn’t matter.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You are mistaken)))

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I don't like big wunderwaffles

            Aircraft carrier is smaller than Orlan? And the fact that he is a Yankesian vandervaflya is understandable. The weapon of retaliation))))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Does it even differ in booking?

            I heard so --- that's why I ask
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There is no other for the last 50 years

            How is it? And the armor on aircraft carriers? Although of course it’s from anything, but not from anti-ship missiles. The flight deck was told to me this way solely because of the jet exhaust of the aircraft)))))))))
            But the fact that the armor 35-100 mm was considered suitable for protection against anti-ship missiles pleases me.
            1. Santa Fe
              13 October 2012 15: 32
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              Aircraft carrier smaller than Orlan?

              Av big, but not a child prodigy
              Quote: Kars
              Like this ?

              Most ships in the last 50 years have died from bombs and missiles, you yourself know that
              Quote: Kars
              But the fact that the armor 35-100 mm was considered suitable for protection against anti-ship missiles pleases me.

              35 - definitely not
              100 - it is possible to protect against light missiles
              1. Kars
                Kars 13 October 2012 15: 44
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                but not a child prodigy

                waffle-waffle, one price is worth it))) a couple of days AUG in the Persian Gulf is more expensive than to buy Hussein generals))))))))
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Most ships in the last 50 years have died from bombs and missiles, you yourself know that

                And what does it have to do with it? Were they armored? (- We think 50 for 1962 years)) God can be with him from Korean)
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                35 - definitely not

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                35 - definitely not

                Exoset and Harpoon will vryatli will be punched, especially at an angle other than 90 degrees. There is even less chance that they will be able to explode after breaking through. Just then Frosty touched it. Although there are fairy tales about exoset in 70 mm armor penetration, but it’s a fairy tale. (Threat Comet in the Red Caucasus in the armored belt did not fall)
                1. Santa Fe
                  13 October 2012 16: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  a couple of days AUG in the Persian Gulf is more expensive than to buy Hussein generals

                  The appreciated AUG from 10 ships and 80 aircraft costs 500 million per year.
                  Quote: Kars
                  And what does this have to do with it?

                  At the beginning of the conversation:
                  Quote: Kars
                  from the effects of rocket weapons

                  Quote: Kars
                  Were they armored?

                  These are personal problems for cruisers. Aviation will find an effective solution to any threat
                  Quote: Kars
                  Exoset and Harpoon vryatli will be punched, especially at an angle other than 90 degrees

                  Armored Deck HMS Cornwall 35 mm. Drowned in 8 minutes
                  Quote: Kars
                  Comet in the Red Caucasus in the armored belt did not fall

                  But nobody knows this
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 13 October 2012 16: 25
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The appreciated AUG from 10 ships and 80 aircraft costs 500 million per year.

                    Are you sure that this will be enough even for the salary of the crews?)))))
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    At the beginning of the conversation:

                    Not even that
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Of course, it does not repeat the schemes of the past and is intended to protect only the most important objects from the effects of missile weapons

                    And then what did you want to say, I still didn’t understand, were the Eagles drowning in rockets or was there a similar reservation at Sheffield?
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    These are personal problems for cruisers.

                    In this case, yours personally, about air bombs and battleships, you personally can’t justify anything, the same Teslenko (I threw you a link) quite reasonably justifies that bombs up to 500 pounds (armor-piercing) did not actually penetrate the 35 mm armored deck of heavy TKR of Japan using examples Kinugussi, Mikumy and Mogami. (By the way, over 50 planes bombed him in Midway, and he swam up to the metropolis with his nose off from a collision with Mikuma)
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Armored Deck HMS Cornwall 35 mm. Drowned in 8 minutes

                    when at about 13.40 they were attacked by Japanese planes, which entered from the direction of the sun. The ships opened frantic anti-aircraft fire from 16 102-mm guns and small-caliber weapons. In the first minutes of the air raid, Cornwall walked in the frame of close explosions of bombs, but did not receive hits, the Japanese pilots attacked as in an exercise, going at an altitude of about 300 meters. This gave good results and soon a series of explosions shook the hulls of the cruisers. Cornwall was hit by 9 110-250 kg bombs, causing all the boilers and turbines to fail. At 14.00 the ship commander ordered to leave the cruiser and soon Cornwall turned over and sank at the point with coordinates 01 ° 55 'N. and 77 ° 56 'E.

                    And by the way his net is not rocket fired
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    But nobody knows this

                    We know, we know. The main armored belt is 2 meters above the waterline .. the comet fell into the unarmored side.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      13 October 2012 16: 36
                      +2
                      Quote: Kars
                      Are you sure that this will be enough even for the salary of the crews?

                      Yes, already considered
                      Quote: Kars
                      in reality, they did not pierce the 35 mm armored deck of the heavy TKR of Japan using the examples of Kinugussa, Mikuma and Mogami.

                      Understood, read on:
                      Quote: Kars
                      going at an altitude of about xnumx meters. This yielded good results, and soon a series of explosions shocked the cruiser corps.

                      Those. bombs flew 2-3 times slower than Exocet and ...
                      Quote: Kars
                      due to which all boilers and turbines are out of order

                      So how was Mikuma different from Cornwall?
                      Quote: Kars
                      And by the way his net is not rocket fired

                      Missiles could finish work earlier
                      Quote: Kars
                      We know, we know. The main armored belt is 2 meters above the waterline .. the comet fell into the unarmored side.

                      This is a guess.
                      The Caucasus was old and rotten, and the comet carried a ton of explosives


                      PS Besides heavy cruisers, do you take any other ships into account?
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 13 October 2012 16: 50
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Yes, already considered

                        And you count again, starting with 500 divided by 12))))))))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Those. bombs flew 2-3 times slower than Exocet and ...

                        Are you sure that they from a height of 300 meters and at high speed fell into the armored deck? And there were no explosions of the BC, either.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        So how was Mikuma different from Cornwall?

                        Year of construction, and more advanced architecture
                        Englishman
                        armoring in the area of ​​engine rooms - 25 mm - a;

                        armored deck over engine rooms - 35 mm - a;

                        armored deck over the steering device 38 mm - a;

                        armored bulkheads in the engine room area - 25 mm (12.5 + 12.5);

                        side armor and roofs of GK towers - 25 mm - b;

                        the armored floors of the towers GK - 19 mm - a;

                        barbette towers GK - 25 mm - b;

                        front, rear and upper traverses of battle cellars of towers "B" and "X" - 76 mm (63-b + 13-a);

                        lateral traverses of the cellars of the towers "B" and "X" - 111 mm (101-b + 10-a):

                        front, rear and upper traverses of the cellars of the towers "A" and "Y" - 25 mm - a (12,5 + 12,5);

                        side traverses of the battle cellars of the guns of 102 mm - 86 mm (76-b + 10-a).


                        At the same time, he had errors in the power installation, which led to a general failure - while the fire pumps were turned off.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Missiles could finish work earlier

                        Against Cornwall? Maybe, even if they would explode as often as the Exosytes then this is another question.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The Caucasus was old and rotten, and Arrow carried a ton of explosives

                        Comet.
                        And before the combat launch there were several training courses, where she was pierced right through clay, leaving holes from the hull and wing tips. It was hidden in the armor.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        13 October 2012 17: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        And you count again, starting with 500 divided by 12))))))))

                        Considered already.
                        http://topwar.ru/12712-sravnenie-stoimosti-avianoscev-i-raketno-kosmicheskih-sis

                        tem-protivodeystviya.html
                        Quote: Kars
                        Are you sure that they from a height of 300 meters and at high speed fell into the armored deck?

                        They fell into the armored belt at a large angle to the normal?)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Year of construction, and more advanced architecture

                        Has this somehow affected the final result?
                        Quote: Kars
                        At the same time, he had errors in the power installation, which led to a general failure - while the fire pumps were turned off.

                        These are his personal problems. The pilots completed the work went to drink sake
                        Quote: Kars
                        even if they would explode as often as the Exosytes then this is another question.

                        During the tanker war, 56 exploded from the 55 Exosets. Pure statistics are
                        (And why didn’t that big German shell explode in the Marat cellar? Can you not answer, this is a rhetorical question)
                        Quote: Kars
                        where she equipped with clay punched through, leaving holes from the hull and wingtips. it was hidden in the armor.

                        How many mm did he have a board outside the armored belt?
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 13 October 2012 17: 49
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        http://topwar.ru/12712-sravnenie-stoimosti-avianoscev-i-raketno-kosmicheskih-sis


                        tem-protivodeystviya.html


                        I don’t know what you thought there. Could I copy it. How much is the general crew? And does the high-class pilot have a salary in wound 5000 dollars?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        They fell into the armored belt at a large angle to the normal?)))

                        At 25 mm, this is not particularly important, especially when they were detonating. It is hinted at by a strong trimmer, and even the possibility of destruction of the hull below the waterline by close explosions, and not by direct hits from above, where they still need a lot of things to the armored deck at the waterline level it was to break through.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Has this somehow affected the final result?

                        The Mogami returned after the attack, Mikumo sank for more than 8 hours and was beaten after detonating his torpedoes located ABOVE the armored decks.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        These are his personal problems.

                        Namely personal TKR type County.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        During the tanker war, 56 of the 55 exosets exploded XNUMX

                        And in the Falklands, for some reason, they didn’t explode more often, and is it really that one that didn’t explode that Stark got? And since we are about Exocets, how many tankers drowned? 55?)))))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        ? You can not answer, this is a rhetorical question)

                        I somehow missed this moment, what is it and when?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        How many mm did he have a board outside the armored belt?

                        As it is not mentioned, most likely from 6-10 mm ordinary structural steel.
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 13 October 2012 18: 17
                        0
                        Another interesting point with Dorkscher and Cornwall
                        there are too many who survived with such a number of bomb hits. And it’s even scary to imagine bombing in a boiler room or turbine compartment inside an armored citator - steam, overpressure, fragments.
                      5. Santa Fe
                        13 October 2012 18: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        I don’t know what you thought there. Could I copy it. How much is the general crew? And does the high-class pilot have a salary in wound 5000 dollars?

                        In that article, the number of ships and official expenses for the maintenance of each were indicated. + I calculated fuel and ammunition consumption
                        Quote: Kars
                        In 25 mm, this is not particularly important, especially when they were detaning. This is as if hinted at by a strong trimmer

                        We look at the photo of Mikuma. Edrena ###
                        Quote: Kars
                        And in the Falklands, for some reason, they didn’t explode more often, and is it really that one that didn’t explode that Stark got? And since we are about Exocets, how many tankers drowned? 55?)))))

                        The “tanker war” acquired a particularly large scale between April 1984 and December 1987. Every 3 day, there were reports of another victim of the “tanker war”. In total, an 451 attack was registered, of which 283 fell on the Iraqi Navy and Air Force, the rest on 168 - on the Iranian. Most often tankers were hit. Of the 340 damaged vessels, losses amounted to only 3%. In 1984, the loss of 3 ships was recorded, in 1986, 2, and in 1987, 6. Significant losses were the personnel of the crews of the attacked ships: according to far incomplete data - more than 300 people. Both sides were attracted by diverse forces to conduct a “tanker war”: surface ships, aviation, coastal missile and artillery installations. In separate periods, sea mines were placed at the sea communications nodes.
                        Quote: Kars
                        I somehow missed this moment, what is it and when?

                        During one of the shelling in Marat (by that time already lifted from the bottom) the EMNIP 254 mm projectile hit - pierced through the hull and hit the GK cellar. But did not explode.
                        Quote: Kars
                        As it is not mentioned, most likely from 6-10 mm ordinary structural steel.

                        In any case, 1000 kg BB would destroy the cruiser
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 13 October 2012 18: 47
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And there were even holes from stabilizers .... from a subsonic rocket

                        KS-1 series shells had a starting weight of 2760 kg, an empty shell weight of 1651 kg. Missile length 8,3 m, maximum body diameter 1,2 m, wingspan 4,7
                        S. L. Beria subsequently compared the first tests of the atomic bomb, which he witnessed, with the action of the "Comet" projectile: <The impression is certainly strong, but not amazing. For example, I was much more impressed by the tests of our shell, which literally pierced the cruiser Krasny Kavkaz. He entered one side of the ship, exited the other>.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        We look at the photo of Mikuma. Edrena ###

                        Well, undermining the minimum 12 of the world's largest (then at least) oxygen torpedoes with warheads above 500 kg of explosives is not a blow to anyone.
                        And vet even after that how many drowned, unlike the British)))
                        The first wave of 26 bombers from the squadrons of VB-8 and VS-8 (respectively the bomber and reconnaissance from the Hornet) made two hits in the Mogami: in the GK tower # 5 (the bomb penetrated inside and interrupted the entire staff) and the airplane deck in the middle of the ship, which caused a fire in the torpedo compartment. Fortunately, the torpedoes were thrown overboard after the collision with the Mikuma, so the fire was extinguished in just an hour. Both cruisers, along with the destroyers who joined them, were ordered to go south, under the protection of Japanese aircraft operating from Wake Atoll.

                        The second wave of 31 dive pilots (11 from the squadrons of VB-6 and VS-6 from the aircraft carrier Enterprise and 20 from the squadrons of VB-3 and VS-5 that flew from Yorktown, but VB-3 was originally on the Saratoga ") Attacked at 9.30, achieving hits in both cruisers. The Mogami received a bomb in front of the bow superstructure and another one on the aircraft deck, but the damage was moderate. At least five bombs fell into the Mikum: the first - to tower number 3, causing damage to the nose superstructure, where several people, including the commander of Captain 1st Rank Sakao Sakiyama, were killed and wounded; two bombs then hit the bow of the starboard MO and two more bombs into the aft of the left side, forcing the cruiser to stop. The same bombs caused a big fire in the torpedo compartment, as a result of which torpedoes exploded at 10.55. This explosion completely destroyed the ship. The senior officer, Captain 2nd Rank Takashima, who took command, ordered the cruiser to remain. The destroyer "Arachio" tried to approach to remove the crew.

                      7. Kars
                        Kars 13 October 2012 18: 48
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In that article, the number of ships and official expenses for the maintenance of each were indicated. + I calculated fuel and ammunition consumption

                        500 million dollars a year, maybe it’s not even enough for a salary. And I’m really hard to write how many people are in the AUG order? 100? 1000? If you know.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In 1984, the death of 3 ships was recorded, in 1986 - 2, and in 1987 - 6.

                        11 on 55 Exosets, and not the fact that they died because of them, rather on mines.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        EMNIP 254 mm - punched through the case through and hit the GK cellar. But did not explode.

                        Well, Marat has never been particularly thick-armored, and Exozet in armor penetration is up to 10 inches of shell, like walking to the moon. And I'll look for a case.
                      8. Santa Fe
                        13 October 2012 19: 11
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        write how many people are in the AUG order? 100? 1000?

                        I proceeded from the calculation: 5500 Av + ​​380 on each of the 5 Berks + on 100 on two boats. Total: 7,5 thousand.
                        Burke, for example, costs the US state 20 million per year.
                        Quote: Kars
                        11 on 55 Exosets, and not the fact that they died because of them, rather on mines.

                        The mines didn’t sink anyone:
                        Captain “Bridgton” Frank Sites at a meeting with reporters said:
                        “I realized that it was a mine. It felt like the 600-ton hammer hit us from below. First, there was a blow from metal to metal, then the vibrations of the hull were felt, as during a severe storm. The wave rolled down the body, many objects flew from their places. I stopped the car, but the ship continued to move for another 30 minutes and 3 miles passed even with injuries in the bow. But after only 5 minutes, we realized that in reality the danger is not so great and we can continue further. By the force of the explosion, some pieces of the skin were thrown up. Most of the navigation aids from the concussion failed. ”

                        The tanker reached Kuwait at the smallest speed, where a diving survey of the vessel was carried out and minor damage was repaired. According to estimates by US Navy intelligence, the tanker hit a mine of the 1906 model. Having a skin thickness of 27 mm, Bridgton received a hole 10 m long and 5 m wide.



                        Many ships were severely damaged by the small Italian anti-ship missiles Sea Killer. Subsonic anti-ship missiles weighing 300 kg, Mach 0,8, warhead 70 kg.

                        Especially effective were the boats armed with anti-ship missiles of Italian manufacture “Sea Killer”. These missiles hit more than 50 ships. For example, on 17 on October 1967, the Hong Kong tanker Live Brooks was damaged by a Sea Killer missile. With great difficulty, the tanker team managed to put out the fire. In this case, 5 crew members were killed, and 13 people were missing. And this despite the fact that the weight of the warhead of the Sea Killer rocket was only 70 kg, which is more than 2-3 times less than the exoset and harpoon rockets, respectively.

                        As a rule, ships were damaged in places of superstructures. More often, crews were able to eliminate the fire on their own. In case of serious damage, the vessel was towed to the nearest port, where it was put on a joke.
                      9. Kars
                        Kars 13 October 2012 20: 47
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I proceeded from the calculation: 5500 Av + ​​380 on each of 5 Berks + 100 on two boats. Total: 7,5 thousand

                        In total, 5546 dollars a month per person. Doesn’t it seem that it’s not enough? Let there be a lot of sailors --- but they are not quality guys, there is an admiral, pilots, captains of submarines. Something is not enough.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        As a rule, ships were damaged in places of superstructures. More often, crews were able to eliminate the fire on their own.

                        Simply put, the RCC could literally do NOTHING)))) TANKER. But is it not a cardboard ship where there are not many combustible materials?
                        So in the course of the RCC, no one was drowned in the Tanker War.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        This is a consequence

                        The fact is that torpedoes weren’t openly installed. Mikuma would have come to the base.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And the GK tower, as you can see, was turned into a jar of meat.)))

                        Well, there’s a pretty cheap armor - 25 mm
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Sheffield's little cardboard generally smoldered for a week.

                        Exactly - smoldering, surrounded by its ships from the UNEXPLETED Exocet.
                        I can imagine what would happen to him from ONE Japanese torpedo ---

                        93 model 1
                        61 см
                        9.0
                        2700
                        490
                        20000 / 48 - 32000 / 40
                        225

                        93 model 3
                        61 см
                        9,0
                        2800
                        780
                        15000 / 48-25000 / 40
                        225

                        93 model A
                        61 см
                        8,55
                        2550
                        470
                        15000 / 50-30000 / 40
                        225

                        93 model B
                        61 см
                        8,55
                        2500
                        500
                        8000 / 60-12000 / 52
                        225

                        95 model 1
                        53 см
                        7,15
                        1665
                        405
                        9000 / 49-12000 / 45
                        220


                        Mikum's exoset very likely would not even have noticed))))))))))))
                      10. Kars
                        Kars 13 October 2012 21: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Comprehensive AUG of 10 ships and 80 aircraft costs 500 million a year

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I proceeded from the calculation: 5500 Av + ​​380 on each of 5 Berks + 100 on two boats. Total: 7,5 thousand

                        1 Aircraft carrier + 5 berks + 2 submarines = 8 where are two more?
                      11. Per se.
                        Per se. 13 October 2012 21: 21
                        +2
                        Kars, I read with interest the dialogue with SWEET SIXTEEN. There is a "Military-Industrial Courier", in No. 39 of October 3, an article by N. Novikov and V. Nikolsky "Our admirals against aircraft carriers." (this newspaper has a website with an electronic version). I recommend it if the information has not been read yet.
                      12. Kars
                        Kars 13 October 2012 21: 38
                        +2
                        Quote: Per se.
                        N. Novikov and V. Nikolsky "Our admirals against aircraft carriers."

                        I didn’t read it. But here along the way the article was similar. But all right.
                        By the way, I’m not against aircraft carriers - they just got that they make a super-duper out of it, as if nobody could do without it. At the same time, poking at the Yankees.
                        And I’m more interested if you take two countries to give each the same limited amount of money and see who wins --- the one who builds an aircraft carrier or the one who submarines or cruisers.
                      13. Per se.
                        Per se. 13 October 2012 22: 11
                        +1
                        Well, there are also factors such as fortune and the admiral's talent. Personally, I perceive the fleet as a single and harmonious organism, which should be complete. Simply put, in addition to pawns and minor pieces, there should be heavy pieces, including such as the queen. I am doubly "sinful", I have a weakness for battleships and believe in their revival in a new capacity, I consider the presence of 3-4 aircraft carriers in our fleet a necessity.
                      14. upasika1918
                        upasika1918 14 October 2012 08: 01
                        0
                        The winner will be the one who uses this money to "elect" the president and take control of the largest media outlets. In another country.
                      15. Santa Fe
                        14 October 2012 00: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        1 Aircraft carrier + 5 berks + 2 submarines = 8 where are two more?

                        Integrated supply ships.

                        You still haven't answered the question: is there anything else floating in the ocean in your fantasy world besides battleships and heavy cruisers "Kronstadt"?
                      16. Kars
                        Kars 14 October 2012 00: 43
                        +1
                        Everything swims there. Including aircraft carriers - my boys need to drown something. Although it would be better if there was no aviation, I would have liked it better.
                      17. Santa Fe
                        14 October 2012 15: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Everything swims there

                        When sinking ordinary targets, an aircraft carrier has a tenfold advantage over a battleship.

                        We are still here arguing about highly defended targets, such as "Kronstadt". And so far the result is 10: 1 in favor of aviation.
                      18. Kars
                        Kars 14 October 2012 16: 02
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        When sinking ordinary targets, an aircraft carrier has a tenfold advantage over a battleship.

                        Vryatli. And what are ordinary goals.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And while the result is 10: 1 in favor of aviation

                        Yes, at least 20. Compared to submarines, aircraft carriers are bullshit. And now what?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And while the result is 10: 1 in favor of aviation.

                        Although it would be very interesting how you calculated this.
                      19. Santa Fe
                        14 October 2012 18: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Vryatli. And what are ordinary goals.

                        All without heavy armor
                        Quote: Kars
                        Compared to submarines aircraft carriers bullshit.

                        statistics say otherwise
                        Quote: Kars
                        Although it would be very interesting how you calculated this.

                        Losses in the last 70 years
                      20. Kars
                        Kars 14 October 2012 20: 04
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        All without heavy armor

                        such as transparencies, etc.? Well, it’s cheaper to heat their submarines and boats, but if the Yankees do not mind the money.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        statistics say otherwise

                        Can an aircraft carrier destroy a country? Will we recalculate the aircraft carrier’s BC and the atomic submarine carrier in kilotons?

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Losses in the last 70 years

                        Really?
                      21. Santa Fe
                        14 October 2012 00: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Total 5546 dollars per month per person. Doesn’t that seem like enough?

                        The normal amount. According to official figures, an aircraft carrier costs 10 million per month (excluding aircraft flights). As far as I know, a US Navy sailor receives around 30 thousand per year + surcharge of $ 200-300 per month. for separation from the family, if on the campaign, rear admiral - 160 thousand a year.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Simply put, the RCC could literally do NOTHING)))) TANKER.

                        You’re mistaken, tankers drowned even from the 105 mm recoilless tanks. Who is lucky. Do you remember the case of Bengal tigers - the Japanese could not sink the tiny tanker Ondin (his advantage was that he walked empty, their shortcomings: the japas threw 2 torpedoes and two dozen six-inch shells into it). How do you look at this case?
                        Quote: Kars
                        The fact is that torpedoes weren’t openly installed. Mikuma would have come to the base.

                        Mikuma - open torpedoes, Cornwell - unsuccessful construction of a power plant. This is called excuses
                        But in fact, both ships were sunk by deck aircraft
                        Quote: Kars
                        Exactly - smoldering, surrounded by its ships from the UNEXPLETED Exocet.

                        Sheffield is four times smaller than Mikuma. And, despite the unsuccessful design, the complete lack of armor and an aluminum superstructure, only 18 people died.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, there’s a pretty cheap armor - 25 mm

                        So there is a cheap bomb)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        I can imagine what would happen to him from ONE Japanese torpedo ---

                        Who is lucky. Ondine had nothing from TWO.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Mikum's exoset would very likely not even have noticed

                        Single is possible. Five to ten deaths.
                      22. Kars
                        Kars 14 October 2012 00: 57
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Normal amount

                        But to me it’s funny, and even it exhausts your declared 0.5 billion a year for one monetary allowance.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        According to official figures, an aircraft carrier costs 10 million per month

                        Most likely it's a lie. (Not yours)
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        You are mistaken, tankers drowned even from 105 mm recoilless tanks.

                        With one shell? And bring back then the sinking of the tanker with anti-ship missiles.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        How do you look at this case?

                        Nothing. It's all about Bengal
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Mikuma - open torpedoes, Cornwell - unsuccessful construction of a power plant. This is called excuses

                        This is called a cause.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But in fact, both ships were sunk by deck aircraft

                        the submarines coped with it even better. And you can let it out - decked.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        only 18 people died

                        from an unexploded missile - what do you want to prove? Sheffield still went to the bottom.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        So there is a cheap bomb)))

                        But the exoset is not capy, and with acute angle it will not break even 25 mm.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Who is lucky. Ondine had nothing from TWO.

                        yes - there was nothing))))))
                        The tanker got a 30-degree roll almost immediately

                        empty. without ammunition - underwater explosion.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Single is possible. Five to ten deaths.

                        Stark and Sheffield had one.
                      23. Santa Fe
                        14 October 2012 17: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Most likely it's a lie. (Not yours)

                        13 million is spent on the salary crew of Burke annually. A quite adequate amount.
                        Crew - 32 officers, the rest 300 privates and sergeants
                        http://rfdesign.com/military_defense_electronics/news/navy_destroyers_upgraded_0


                        827 /
                        Fourth paragraph below.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And bring back then the sinking of the tanker with anti-ship missiles.

                        According to the developer of the anti-ship missile system, Aerospatiae, during the war between Iran and Iraq in the Persian Gulf, 39 ships and vessels were damaged by Exocet AM.112 missiles launched from Iraqi Air Force aircraft (60 hit accurately, 52 is possible). 57 ships and vessels were seriously damaged, only one incident without an explosion was noted.
                        14 ships (430,173 t) and 60 ships (4,404,261 t) were considered to be irretrievable losses by missiles, although only the only supertanker (North Korean Son Bong 224,841 t) was sunk immediately at the time of the attack on Fr. Hark 19.09.1985.

                        Quote: Kars
                        Nothing. It's all about Bengal

                        It has nothing to do with it. Ondina dealt with the damage on her own and hobbled 1500 miles. Two torpedoes and 20 6 'rounds.
                        Quote: Kars
                        This is called a cause.

                        There was one reason - they were discovered by deck reconnaissance aircraft.
                        Quote: Kars
                        submarines coped with it even better

                        Results can be written as 50: 50. At the same time, the Germans lost 783 U-bot and 32 thousands of submariners
                        Quote: Kars
                        from an unexploded rocket - what do you want to prove?

                        That the drowning of Sheffield is given too much importance. With all Sheffield's shortcomings (small size, design errors, combustible materials, synthetic finishes, fire), only 18 people died.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Stark and Sheffield had one.

                        Stark did not have two.
                      24. Kars
                        Kars 14 October 2012 17: 54
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        13 million spent on salary crew of Burke

                        3200 dollars per month on snout AVERAGE? they lie.
                        14 ships (430,173 t) and 60 ships (4,404,261 t) were considered to be irretrievable losses by missiles, although only the only supertanker (North Korean Son Bong 224,841 t) was sunk immediately at the time of the attack on Fr. Hark 19.09.1985.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In 1984, the loss of 3 ships was recorded, in 1986 - 2, and in 1987 - 6. Significant losses were the personnel of the crews of the attacked

                        digits do not match

                        In total, 451 attacks were recorded, of which 283 were on the Iraqi Navy and Air Force, the remaining 168 were on the Iranian. Most often tankers were hit. Of the 340 damaged vessels, losses accounted for only 3%
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        He’s just nothing to do with

                        Really? Nothing to do with? Didn’t distract the fire? Not set fire to one of the auxiliary cruisers?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        There was one reason - they were discovered by deck reconnaissance aircraft.

                        Are you sure that the deck? Maybe submarines? And why did Mogami reach the base with his nose torn off? After the attack of dozens of deck aircraft? He did not notice the deck scouts?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Results can be written as 50:50

                        Why only German? Japanese, American submariners. The Yankesovskys were sunk by one submarine in general, and for Yamato hundreds of aircraft and a dozen aircraft carriers))))) was required.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        That the drowning of Sheffield is given too much importance

                        Did he drown a vet?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Stark did not have two

                        Only for pharmacists. But in reality, HE is a corpse from one rocket, in battle they would have finished off their own.
                      25. Santa Fe
                        14 October 2012 18: 18
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        3200 dollars per month on snout AVERAGE? they lie.

                        Why? Private receives 1000 per month. + 200-300 bucks surcharge. Officers of all 30.
                        Quote: Kars
                        digits do not match

                        I know. The numbers differ in different sources. Someone calls 135 damaged tankers. But the overall picture is clear - the missiles made a rustle (most of the losses were from missiles!). Although the Exosets were small, and the tankers were huge.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really? Nothing to do with? Didn't distract the fire?

                        Nevertheless, Ondina received 2 torpedoes and 20 six-inch blanks. And stayed alive!
                        Quote: Kars
                        Are you sure that the deck? Maybe submarines? And why did Mogami reach the base with his nose torn off? After the attack of dozens of deck aircraft? He did not notice the deck scouts?

                        Aircraft AWACS were not then, night fell, probably slipped away.
                        Quote: Kars
                        and for Yamato, hundreds of aircraft and a dozen aircraft carriers

                        Amer sent excessive forces. The losses of the Jankers turned out to be vanishingly small.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Why only German? Japanese, American submariners

                        aviation killed even more aircraft carriers and battleships
                        Quote: Kars
                        Did he drown a vet?

                        And who was he before?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Only for pharmacists. But in reality, HE is a corpse from one rocket, in battle they would have finished off their own.

                        He didn’t drown?
                      26. Kars
                        Kars 14 October 2012 20: 01
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        why would Private receives 1000 per month

                        a piece of bucks a month? and what is someone going there? in general I tell you again ----
                        all that you wrote and counted nonsense, at 500 mil a year AUG is not enough even for a salary, about havchik and fuel and there is nothing to say.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But the overall picture is clear - the missiles made a rustle (most of the losses were from missiles!). Although the Exosets were small, and the tankers were huge.

                        105 mm recoilless shell as you said they even drowned them)))) and to do it - well, maybe it’s done something, but there even makes RPG against the tanker rustling it)))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Nevertheless, Ondina received 2 torpedoes and 20 six-inch blanks. And stayed alive

                        An empty tanker, what can I take from it, a bulk carrier with logs can withstand more - will we disassemble it?

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Aircraft DRLO was not then, night fell, probably slipped away

                        So death is not a deck-based reconnaissance? By the way, there were still some 40 fighting Japanese ships there.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        aviation killed even more aircraft carriers and battleships

                        Maybe the aircraft carriers finished it off, but they vryatli battleships. The aircraft carriers used to be and one torpedo was small enough)))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And who was he before?

                        Her Majesty's Floto warship.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        He didn’t drown?

                        It sometimes happens that there was no current war. But one small rocket + no explosion, and how many? 150 lemons of losses?
                      27. Santa Fe
                        14 October 2012 23: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        a piece of bucks a month? and what is someone going there?

                        Yes of course. Plus free food, shelter, clothes, a lot of benefits. (for example, a bus from Atlantic City to NY costs 25 bucks, a soldier rides for 15. Cigarettes for 1,5 dollars (in a regular store - 7, etc., etc.)) Someone goes there to go to college , someone for reputation, someone for citizenship (they go to the US army only when absolutely necessary - in the US there are many ways to get better).
                        Quote: Kars
                        all that you wrote and counted nonsense

                        You didn’t give any figures. Think as you wish.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Tanker is empty what to take

                        Then what do you want from a single hit of RCC?
                        Quote: Kars
                        So death is not a deck-based reconnaissance? By the way, there were still some 40 fighting Japanese ships there.

                        Amers have 2 aircraft carrier with a practically knocked out wing.
                        The battle is over - the main goals are destroyed, what other questions?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Maybe the aircraft carriers and finished off, but vryatli battleships

                        Europe: aviation finished off "Cavour", "Tirpitz", "Roma" and "Marat" (old and weak, on the other hand the Germans killed him with 1 bomb without loss)
                        Pacific Ocean: 4 battleship at Pearl Harbor, Yamato, Musashi.
                        Aviation also carried out 50% of the destruction of Bismarck, a raid on the Taranto naval base - 20 old biplanes, almost no losses damaged the Littorio and Dulio (pictured), the Germans seriously damaged the Worspeight ...

                        These are only battleships ...
                        Quote: Kars
                        Her Majesty's Floto warship.

                        No, he was a small frigate with limited air defense and a fire hazard design. So the moaning around Sheffield is too bloated - they drowned a tiny trough, and only 18 people died. During WWII, dozens of such were drowned.
                      28. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 00: 56
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Yes, of course

                        12 thousand a year? Go tell someone no other.
                        give a link to recruiters. I want to read brochures. I'm not sure if this is more than unemployment benefits.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        You didn’t give any figures. Think as you wish

                        How could this not be done? And the average salary? But you just couldn’t prove anything.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Then what do you want from a single hit of RCC?

                        For an empty tanker or a bulk carrier with firewood? And for Stark and Sheffield I was quite satisfied)))))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Amers have 2 aircraft carrier with a practically knocked out wing.
                        The battle is over - the main goals are destroyed, what other questions?

                        This is a type of excuse? TWO SUPER SUPER aircraft carriers)))))))) Ah, they have knocked out krulya, what a pity,
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Europe: aircraft finish off Cavour, Tirpitz, Roma and Marat

                        Only Cavour carrier aircraft.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        "Marat" (old and weak, on the other side the Germans nailed him with 1 bomb without loss)

                        He continued to fire even after his destruction, causing those losses which you say no.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        These are only battleships ...

                        And so what? Give me a list of destroyed aircraft carriers? There will be more than battleships.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        No

                        But you that he was not a warship of Her Majesty sent across the world to war?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        . So the moaning around Sheffield is too inflated - they drowned a tiny trough, while only 18 people died. During WWII, dozens of them were drowned

                        And what about the WWII by 1982? Not one chief was drowned there ---- this time, but there were no larger warships --- The cruiser was drowned for some reason by a submarine, and not by Dart))))))) "About" times of WWII less than Sheffil would have continued the battle)))
                      29. Santa Fe
                        15 October 2012 01: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        12 thousand a year? Go tell someone no other.

                        http://rus.delfi.ee/daily/abroad/skolko-poluchaet-amerikanskij-soldat.d?id=50334

                        33
                        Do not forget, only officers are really paid, but there are few of them - less than 10%.
                        Quote: Kars
                        As many as TWO SUPER SUPER aircraft carrier))))))) Ah they got crucibles, what a pity,

                        They won the battle with four Japanese, Yorktown seriously damaged
                        Quote: Kars
                        Only Cavour carrier aircraft.

                        What can I do if in Europe the ships stomped off the coast, and the old suorfishes were only among the British
                        Quote: Kars
                        He continued to fire even after his destruction

                        He was fatally injured. In the open sea he would instantly perish
                        Quote: Kars
                        And so what? Give me a list of destroyed aircraft carriers?

                        Better bring them indicating the cause of death))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Destroyer type "O" WWII times smaller than Sheffil still the battle would have continued

                        Nobody would waste a missile on an O-class destroyer. He would have been bombarded with conventional low-level bombs.
                      30. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 11: 05
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        http://rus.delfi.ee/daily/abroad/skolko-poluchaet-amerikanskij-soldat.d?id=50334


                        33


                        for example, a rookie’s starting salary is just under $ 965 a month

                        rookie on an aircraft carrier? it's about those who are in training camps.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        They won the battle with four Japanese, Yorktown seriously damaged

                        strikes on the cruisers were in a day - and how you saw the planes were, and the Japanese super-carriers carried out drowning badly.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        What can I do if in Europe the ships stomped off the coast, and the old suorfishes were only among the British

                        And what can you do with total American superiority in the second half of the war, which is also connected not with military successes, but with the industrial superiority of the United States.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Nobody would waste a missile on an O-class destroyer. He would have been bombarded with conventional low-level bombs.

                        Why are you really? Like Sheffield’s rocket was used up because it’s cool? They drowned Coventry with bombs. And they even shot boats at the boats - I brought tables for someone. The ancient Eilat got 4 termites while drowned. But you’re lamenting that Sheffield is small and useless) )))))))
                      31. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 11: 13
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        According to official figures, an aircraft carrier costs 10 million per month

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        13 million are spent on the s / n crew of Burke. A quite adequate amount

                        Quote: Kars
                        3200 dollars a month on a snout AVERAGE?

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I proceeded from the calculation: 5500 Av

                        By a simple mathematical calculation
                        The average salary on Burke is 3200 dollars a month, are they in no way inferior to the crew of an aircraft carrier? Or are they much cooler?
                        We consider 3200 to be multiplied by 5500 (the crew of an aircraft carrier) and for 12 months comes out 211 million dollars ONLY for a salary, and in the previous post a quote from which I quoted you Approve about 10 million per month the contents of an aircraft carrier - which gives 120 million. As you can see, you are building their calculations on false information. And this does not take into account that the aircraft carrier has more expensive military personnel.
                        Draw a conclusion.
                      32. Santa Fe
                        15 October 2012 16: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Coventry drowned with bombs

                        In a narrow bay framed by steep hills.
                        Out of self-defense, he had only SiDart and useless 114 mm gun
                        But attempts to attack the British in the open sea with a small group of subsonic Skyhawks ended in failure - SiDart was on the spot insolent Latinos
                        Quote: Kars
                        Ancient Eilat got 4 termite while drowned

                        And Sheffield drowned from one unexploded exoset laughing
                      33. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 18: 54
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Out of self-defense, he had only SiDart and useless 114 mm gun

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        CiDart was on the spot insolent Latinos

                        Well, yes.

                        also my kronstad itself will bring down the American deck aviators attacking it tongue

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And Sheffield drowned from one unexploded exoset

                        What can I say shitty modern cardboard-aluminum boats)
                        the ancient destroyers of class O are even more reliable.
                      34. Santa Fe
                        15 October 2012 19: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        also my kronstad itself will bring down the American deck aviators attacking it

                        Did he have a Sea Dart? wink
                      35. Santa Fe
                        13 October 2012 19: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, undermining the minimum 12 of the world's largest (then at least) oxygen torpedoes with warheads above 500 kg of explosives is not a blow to anyone.

                        This is already a consequence. Fact: planes destroyed another ship.
                        And the GK tower, as you can see, was turned into a jar of meat.)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        And vet even after that how many drowned, unlike the British

                        It's not the same for everybody. A small cardboard Sheffield smoldered for a week. There, by the way, all 18 people died, and on the armored Mikum - 650.
                      36. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 11: 18
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        what can I do if ships stomped offshore in Europe

                        here is europe
                        England
                        Aircraft carriers
                        Korejes 17 September 1939 torpedoed and sunk by the German submarine U-29 in 150 miles southwest of Cape Misen Head. 518 people died.

                        Glories 8 June 1940 sunk by the artillery of the German battle cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, 300 miles from Tromsø. 1472 people died.

                        Ark Royal on 13 on November 1941 was torpedoed by a German U-81 submarine 150 miles east of Gibraltar. November 14 sank while towing 25 miles from Gibraltar. Killed 1 people.

                        Hermes 9 on April 1942 was sunk by diving Val bomber from the Japanese aircraft carriers Hiru, Shokaku and Zuikaku near Ceylon. 302 people died.

                        Eagles 11 August 1942 torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine U-73, 65 miles south of the island of Mallorca. 263 people were killed.

                        Odessa 21 1941 in December was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine U-751 in 500 miles west of Cape Finisterre. 72 people died.

                        The 15 Avenger on November 1942 was torpedoed and sunk by the German U-155 submarine, 100 miles west of Gibraltar.

                        On March 27, the 1943 dasher sank as a result of a gas explosion at the mouth of the Clyde River. 378 people died. Severely damaged, not restored

                        Nabob 22 on August 1944 was torpedoed by a German submarine U-354, 120 miles from Cape Nordkapp.

                        Khan 15 January 1945 was torpedoed by a German submarine U-482 at the mouth of the Clyde River.


                        somehow the Germans did without aircraft carriers
                      37. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 11: 22
                        0
                        U.S.
                        Aircraft carriers
                        Lexington 8 May 1942 in the Coral Sea is heavily damaged by diving bombers and torpedo bombers from the Japanese aircraft carriers "Shokaku" and "Zuikaku". After a series of explosions of gasoline vapors and ammunition left by the team, about 19.00 sunk by torpedoes of the American destroyer Phelps. 216 people died.

                        Yorktown 4 June 1942 g. Seriously damaged by the aircraft of the Japanese aircraft carrier "Hiru" near the atoll Midway. 6 June torpedoed by the Japanese submarine I-168. Sank 7 June.

                        Wasp 15 September 1942 year torpedoed by a Japanese submarine I-19 near the island of Espiritu Santo. Sunk by torpedoes of the American destroyer Lansdowne. 193 people died.

                        Hornet 26 October 1942 in the area of ​​the Santa Cruz Islands is heavily damaged by diving bombers and torpedo bombers from the Japanese aircraft carriers "Shokaku", "Zuikaku", "Zunyo". Left by the crew, torpedoed by the American destroyers Anderson and Mastin. On the night of October 26 / 27, the Japanese destroyers Akigumo and Makigumo finished off.

                        Princeton 24 October 1944 east of Luzon Island was damaged by a single Judy dive bomber from a coastal airfield. After a series of explosions of ammunition, it was sunk by torpedoes of the American light cruiser Renault. 298 people died.

                        Escort aircraft carriers
                        Lisk Bay 24 on November 1943 was torpedoed and sunk by the Japanese submarine I-175 near the island of Makin. Killed 591 people.

                        The Island Block 29 on May 1944 was sunk by the German U-549 submarine 450 miles south of the Azores. 6 people died.

                        Gambir Bay on 25 October 1944 was sunk by the artillery of the Japanese heavy cruisers Chokai, Haguro, Tone near the island of Samar. 100 people died.

                        Sen Lo 25 October 1944 g. Sunk kamikaze near the island of Samar. 46 people died.

                        Omani Bay 4 January 1945 g. Near the island of Mindoro severely damaged kamikaze, sunk by torpedoes of the American destroyer Barnes

                        Bismarck Si 21 February 1945 year sunk kamikaze near the island of Iwo Jima. 119 people died. Severely damaged, not restored

                        Sengamon of 4 on May 1945 was severely damaged by a kamikaze near Okinawa Island. Restored after the war as a merchant ship.

                        The Langley of 27 on February 1942 was severely damaged by the Japanese Betty base bombers, 75 miles south of Java. Sunk by artillery of the American destroyer Whipple.
                      38. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 11: 23
                        0
                        Japan
                        Aircraft carriers
                        Seho 7 May 1942 in the Coral Sea was sunk by the aircraft of the American aircraft carriers Lexington and Yorktown. About 550 people died.

                        Akagi of 4 On June 1942 near the Midway Atoll, it was severely damaged by the diving bomber of the Dountless aircraft carrier Enterprise. 5 of June was sunk by the torpedoes of the Japanese destroyers Arashi and Novake. 283 people died

                        Litter 4 June 1942 near the Midway Atoll sunk by dive bombers "Dountless" aircraft carrier "Yorktown". 718 people died.

                        Kaga 4 On June 1942 near the Midway Atoll, it was sunk by diving bombers of the Dountless aircraft carrier Enterprise. About 800 people died.

                        Weighing 4 on June 1942 near the Midway Atoll, it was severely damaged by the diving bomber of the Dountless aircraft carrier Enterprise. Left by the crew, 5 of June was sunk by torpedoes of the Japanese destroyers Kajegumo and Makigumo. 416 people died.

                        Ryujo 24 August 1942 in the area of ​​the Eastern Solomon Islands was sunk by aircraft carriers "Saratoga" and "Enterprise". More than 600 people died.

                        Shokaku 19 June 1944 in the Philippine Sea was torpedoed and sunk by the American submarine Cavella. 1263 people died.

                        Taiho 19 June 1944 g. Damaged by a torpedo of the American submarine Albacore. After 8 hours, gasoline vapors exploded, the ship sank. 1650 people died.

                        Hiyo 20 June 1944 in the Philippine Sea was sunk by torpedo bombers Avenger of the light aircraft carrier Bello Wood.

                        Chitose 25 on October 1944 was sunk by aircraft of the Essex and Lexington aircraft carriers, 235 miles east of Cape Enganyo.

                        Zuijo 25 October 1944 in 215 miles east of Cape Enganyo sunk by aircraft carriers Essex and Langley.

                        Zuikaku 25 October 1944 220 miles east of Cape Enganyo sunk by the aircraft of the American aircraft carriers Kaupens, Intrepid, Lexington, San Jacinto.

                        Chiyoda 25 on October 1944, 260 miles east of Cape Enganyo, was severely damaged by the aircraft of the Franklin and Lexington aircraft carriers. Later sunk by artillery of American cruisers.

                        XINUMX 29 November 1944 torpedoed and sunk by the American submarine Archerfish off the coast of Japan. 1435 people died.

                        Unryu 19 December 1944 in the East China Sea was torpedoed and sunk by the American Redfish submarine.

                        Amagi 24 and 28 of July 1945 were severely damaged by aircraft of the 38 Operational Connection in Kura. 29 of June capsized on the starboard side and sank in shallow water.

                        Severely damaged, not restored
                        Zunyu 9 December 1944 torpedoed by American submarines "Redfish" and "Sea Devil" in the East China Sea. Brought in Sasebo, not repaired.

                        Escort aircraft carriers
                        Thuyo 4 December 1943 was sunk by an American submarine "Sailfish" in 260 miles southeast of Yokosuki.

                        Tayo 18 on August 1944 was sunk by the US submarine Recher northwest of Luzon Island.

                        Unyo 15 September 1944 was sunk by the American submarine Barb in the South China Sea.

                        Xinyum 17 November 1944 sunk by the American submarine "Speedfish" in the Yellow Sea.

                        Severely damaged, not restored
                        Kayo 24 on July 1944 was severely damaged by the aircraft of the British aircraft carriers Formidadebl, Indefetigable, Viktories in Beppu Bay, was not repaired.
                      39. Santa Fe
                        15 October 2012 17: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        there you go europe england

                        6 aircraft carriers were killed by submarines, while 1 under exceptional circumstances somehow drowned two battlecruisers
                        Quote: Kars
                        somehow the Germans did without aircraft carriers

                        A thousand German U-bots drowned already 5 escort.))))) Disgrace ... One escort boat Baugh killed 13 German submarines laughing
                        Quote: Kars
                        United States Aircraft Carriers

                        Of the 5 lost heavy aircraft carriers, 3 was sunk by deck aircraft, 1 submarine, Yorktown 50: 50 aircraft and boat
                        And don't forget the 2 badly damaged Essexes - greetings from the kamikaze

                        7 escort: 2 submarines, 1 with great difficulty sunk a squadron of battleships, the remaining 4 - kamikaze and aircraft.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Japan Aircraft Carriers

                        Submarines: 5
                        Deck Aviation: 11
                        Another 50: 50 cruisers and carrier-based aircraft
                        Japanese escorts: 4 - submarines, 1 - carrier-based aircraft.

                        Total:
                        On the account of 20 carrier-based aviation (excluding Bunker Hill and his associates), the submarines killed 24 aircraft carriers (while the Germans lost the 783 U-bot: to fight an aircraft carrier is not to sink unarmed ships in 1940), cruisers and battleships - XNUMN regular and escort).

                        So why do you always say that "submarines are even more efficient" ??
                      40. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 19: 09
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        6 aircraft carriers killed submarines

                        I told the submarines are cool)))))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        A thousand German U-bots drowned as many as 5 escorts

                        it didn’t really prevent the sinking of 13 million tons of tonnage. But again, the US economic power and its industrial base were not destroyed
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Total:

                        Total who sank more? Aircraft carriers or battleships?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        (at the same time, the Germans lost 783 U-bots: to fight with an aircraft carrier

                        Are they all sunk in attacks on an aircraft carrier? Do you want to say that?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        that "submarines are even more effective" ??

                        Naturally, they are more economically efficient. And modern submarines are ten times more effective than modern aircraft carriers

                        Aircraft carriers are a loss-making factor, helpless alone against malomalsky saturated air defense. Only the trillion-dollar state debt of the United States allows them to bolt on the seas.
                      41. Santa Fe
                        15 October 2012 19: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        I told the submarines are cool

                        The aircraft carriers sank as much ... Where is the advantage of the boats over Av you are talking about?
                        Quote: Kars
                        it didn’t really prevent the drown of 13 millions of tons of trade tonnage.

                        Millions of tons were drowned until air cover appeared and decent means of PLO were more or less ... read about Kriegsmarine’s actions somewhere in March 1944 - they sank 15 ships, while losing 12 boats. Such fortifications and bases were built for boats that the Egyptian pyramids seem garbage
                        Quote: Kars
                        Total who sank more? Aircraft carriers or battleships?

                        And you yourself count. In% ratio of built.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Are they sunk in attacks on an aircraft carrier? Do you want to say that?

                        At least half of them are sunk by aircraft. Here is a laugh. 700 steel coffins
                        Quote: Kars
                        And modern submarines are ten times more effective than modern aircraft carriers

                        Well, we take Hermes and Invincible to the base, in return for the 317 OG we give two nuclear submarines. How would the number of losses of the British change?
                        Quote: Kars
                        against malomalski saturated air defense

                        Are you talking about Yamato Squadron? laughing
                        In the end, Kronstadt did not have Sea Dart and could not be close to the end of 60's. What would they shoot down the greyhounds of American ice?
                      42. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 20: 21
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Aircraft carriers sank as much ...

                        How much?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Millions of tons were drowned until air cover appeared and decent means of PLO were more or less ... read about Kriegsmarine’s actions somewhere in March 1944 - they sank 15 ships, while losing 12 boats. Such fortifications and bases were built for boats that the Egyptian pyramids seem garbage


                        They drowned until May 1945, and if the Yankees can build armada of 4 motor bombers, and Germany fights with the USSR and gets a pill, then what can you do. But I see, you don’t want to take into account the real story - German submarines without aircraft carriers sank 13 mil tons a tonnage, a bunch of aircraft carriers.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And you yourself count. In% ratio of built

                        Why? The Yankees built them dimensionlessly. Without resource limitations.
                        So let's count by the piece,
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        At least half of them are sunk by aircraft. Here is a laugh. 700 steel coffins

                        just 700 against millions of tonnage of a dozen aircraft carriers, a pair of battleships
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Well, we take Hermes and Invincible to the base, in return for the 317 OG we give two nuclear submarines. How would the number of losses of the British change?

                        And why two? Give on the price, on the displacement. And where exactly are the losses?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Are you talking about Yamato Squadron?

                        No, I'm talking about the shore. And one aircraft carrier could not do anything with the Yamato squadron. Even one Yamato, and against South Dakota there’s no chance at all.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        after all, Kronstadt didn’t have Sea Dart and couldn’t be close until the end of the 60s

                        And where did you get 60. You wailed Coventry to the sunken in 1982.
                      43. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 20: 25
                        0
                        The dialogue, as usual, has shifted to an unknown destination.
                        can summarize.
                        A modern armored ship with similar air defense systems is ten times more stable than cardboard-aluminum formations on warships.

                        an attack rocket ship - even remade under the Ohio KR, is more efficient, cheaper and more self-sufficient against the coast than an aircraft carrier.
                      44. Santa Fe
                        15 October 2012 21: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        They drowned until May 1945,

                        EMNIP 90% of the tonnage they sank at the beginning of the war, when they did not know how to provide serious resistance. After a couple of years, the situation has changed - victories became single, and dozens of escorters drowned them
                        Quote: Kars
                        Why? The Yankees built them dimensionlessly. Without resource limitations. So let's count by the piece,

                        There were ten times more aircraft carriers, and they were used much more actively than rusty armored vessels.
                        And as a result ... amers from 35 heavy aircraft carriers lost 5 (actually 7), and from their 20 battleships they lost 2 (actually 4) the ratio 7: 35 = 4: 20. At the same time, the battleships drowned like puppies and did not differ anywhere, the aircraft carriers did all the work.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And why two? Give on the price, on the displacement.

                        Two nuclear submarines of pr. 949 "Granit" cost more than TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov"
                        Quote: Kars
                        And one aircraft carrier couldn’t do anything with the Yamato squadron. Even one Yamato

                        Three Essexes (at the price of Yamato, an escort does not count) would send the Japanese wunderwafle to the bottom in a couple of hours.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And where did you get 60.

                        There was no RCC at this time (although it could have appeared if necessary)
                      45. Kars
                        Kars 15 October 2012 22: 06
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        EMNIP 90% of the tonnage they sank at the beginning of the war

                        Give statistics, see the growth of destroyers, escort ships, costs and losses with the escort method of overcoming the Atlantic. And what really were there no aircraft in 1939-43))))))

                        30 sailors
                        3500 merchant ships
                        175 warships (main classes) [1]
                        28 sailors
                        783 submarines

                        And the Germans did this without aircraft carriers, the British aircraft carriers would not have done anything without the economic power of the United States.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        There were ten times more aircraft carriers, and they were used much more actively than rusty armored vessels

                        Well, the latter, Americans and the British, were rusty. And the fact is that even with the overwhelming air superiority, the battleships participated in all major battles including Overlord.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Two nuclear submarines of pr. 949 "Granit" cost more than TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov"

                        Are you trying to jump like that? Why would I take Granites? Although there is a big chance that he can destroy the AUG which is much more expensive than him (just don’t start about pointing and the rest of the crap, AUG came closer and closer than 20 km to the submarine.
                        I'm talking about the 667BDRM Dolphin at least.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Three Essexes

                        well three maybe
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        There was no RCC at this time (although it could have appeared if necessary)

                        Does it explain that you jumped to 60 instead of the 80s?
                      46. Kars
                        Kars 16 October 2012 13: 57
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Somewhere the advantage of boats over Av about
  9. viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus 12 October 2012 15: 25
    +1
    Here, if you think about the Orlans and adventurism in the Navy, it’s worth remembering about the air defense missile system SSV-33 "Ural" http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/3330352/post173995562/ and K-278 "Komsomolets".
    1. Delta
      Delta 12 October 2012 18: 43
      -2
      But what about K-278? explain
      1. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 13 October 2012 00: 15
        +1
        And it's simple, a boat capable of diving 1027 meters, standing like 3, with a high coefficient of novelty served as the basis for experiments in the field of deep diving and, along with participation in the experiments, the boat was simultaneously intensively used for naval exercises and military service, in particular, it participated in anti-submarine protection of the SSBN from submarines of a potential enemy (If the experiments have not yet been completed, it is not clear where childhood illnesses will come out ... and it turned out that the military says that the designers are to blame, and the military designers ...)
        It was part of the 6th division of the 1th Northern Fleet flotilla, which also included submarines with titanium hulls: submarines of the 705 project and multipurpose submarines of the 945 and 945A projects. Total performed 3 combat service. And the same 705 project, not an adventure? Yes, they gave great advantages, but for example, an industrial fast neutron reactor with a liquid metal coolant normally worked only by now, and how long did the boats serve? In general, I say that they were not shy to apply radically new solutions, took risks, put in huge amounts of money, and then these projects were easily abandoned without bringing them to mind ...
        1. Delta
          Delta 13 October 2012 10: 11
          0
          I agree completely. Although according to Lear, for the sake of justice, it is worth mentioning that after all, the Americans also created in their time the nuclear submarines with the MMT. There was a time of searching. Although they ended up somehow faster and more rational
  10. toguns
    toguns 12 October 2012 15: 32
    +1
    Thanks to the author for the article.
    what to do is the problem of the Russian and Soviet military-industrial complex historically because often when choosing between a good and very good solution the choice is not always obvious, the optimal ratio of new products in the construction of ships and submarines seems to me to be 30 percent of innovative ideas, which unfortunately leads to long-term construction above this bar .
    1. upasika1918
      upasika1918 14 October 2012 08: 15
      0
      It seems to me that something similar happened in our aviation. But maybe just a little information? Or too much? It is difficult to form an opinion without being inside the "kitchen". Designers, manufacturers, military, politicians, all talk about "theirs". And after defeats they blame everyone except themselves, loved ones.
  11. maxiv1979
    maxiv1979 12 October 2012 19: 40
    0
    such a problem, it is a problem of small series and a weak shipbuilding industry, look how the submarines of Sevmash were lowered, not? all of the same type, and if you build each ship for 7-10 years, then such a modernization, the natural way of ships
  12. delakelv124
    delakelv124 12 October 2012 19: 46
    -2
    call girls ------ http://rlu.ru/a8z
    -
    order by phone in the form ----- http://rlu.ru/a8z
    -
    No SMS! No registration!
    -
    low prices, checked license plates --- http://rlu.ru/a8z
    -
    if all numbers are visible
    girl WORKS today
    if the last two digits are replaced by "xx"
    busy or day off
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 12 October 2012 19: 53
      +1
      moderators! where are you looking? Is it a brothel or is it still a military review?
      1. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 13 October 2012 23: 23
        +1
        I want to ask those who set the minuses -you did not have time to write off the link for calling girls from a remote post?
  13. Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 12 October 2012 19: 57
    +4
    you can say a lot of good things about unification, but thanks to the variety, the Soviet design school could give out any project, and industry could be put into production and brought to mind, and you can’t measure such experience with any money. We still live through it.
  14. Karmin
    Karmin 13 October 2012 04: 37
    +3
    If we began to build such a ship - a model, like the Japanese, I can imagine which would raise a howl about, drank dough! And so howl about and without!
    And the fact that the ships are being improved during the construction of the series is normal. And the story of Orlanes speaks of the great modernization potential of these ships. Efficiency, by the way, is not cheap.
    1. Santa Fe
      13 October 2012 15: 04
      -2
      Quote: karmin
      If we began to build such a ship - a model, like the Japanese, I can imagine which would raise a howl about

      There are many outdated equipment suitable for the role of a test bench
      Quote: karmin
      And the story of the Orlanes speaks of the great modernization potential of these ships.

      The story with the Eagles is very revealing - ships built on average at least 7 years
      Quote: karmin
      Efficiency, by the way, is not cheap.

      But there is a limit to everything
  15. bddrus
    bddrus 13 October 2012 08: 48
    +1
    Of course I’m not special absolutely, but I look at 20380 and I understand the helicopter is an important element of the weaponry of the ship, but how much space the hangar + landing pad takes !!! It’s horrible, but could there be as many different PU missiles there
    1. Santa Fe
      13 October 2012 14: 59
      +1
      Quote: bddrus
      the helicopter is an important element of the ship’s weapons, but how much space the hangar + landing pad takes !!! !!! horror, but could there be as many PU missiles of different sizes there

      You cannot refuse a helicopter - too flexible and universal system that extends the capabilities of the ship
  16. maxiv1979
    maxiv1979 13 October 2012 17: 21
    -1
    Quote: Ruslan67
    you can say a lot of good things about unification, but thanks to the variety, the Soviet design school could give out any project, and industry could be put into production and brought to mind, and you can’t measure such experience with any money. We still live through it.


    erroneous opinion, and the Americans, Japanese, Germans ... also a Soviet school of thought? the Soviet gave out what was demanded of her and not otherwise, if the fat-bellied fools are sitting in the main headquarters of the navy and they have no conscience, not a penny, not a pound, not a ruble, and my daughter requires an Audi Q5, then at least make it, we’ll already bought, in bulk)

    want a joke? look at what our naval commanders and generals own, do you think they will make a decision? the most important question, can you produce ships and planes at least quickly, who makes the decision? they will not accept it, it is more convenient collective irresponsibility than individual responsibility, well, look at the admirals))
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 13 October 2012 19: 28
      +1
      we seem to have a little bit misunderstanding each other, I wrote about the Soviet school that could create any ship for new tasks, and you about audi now
      1. upasika1918
        upasika1918 14 October 2012 08: 22
        0
        He perfectly understood you.