TARK "Peter the Great" - who said it's time to landfill?

249
TARK "Peter the Great" - who said it's time to landfill?

There was quite a noise around our heavy nuclear missile cruisers. Indeed, it is worth considering what is behind all this, because there is simply no smoke without fire, if it is not a smoke generator.

The situation is contradictory, because it is not entirely clear who is lying. TASS "sources" reported that they were allegedly working on the issue of withdrawing the Peter the Great TARK from the fleet, "sources" RIA "News' reported the exact opposite. RBC gathered its experts, who instantly calculated the benefits and lack thereof from the withdrawal of "Peter the Great" towards recycling.



At the same time, somehow the views focused on the "Peter the Great", which, we admit, is breathing its last and requires a major overhaul, which should, in theory, begin when the repair of the "Admiral Nakhimov" is completed. Meanwhile, it is worth considering both cruisers of project 1144 together, because in their nuclear reactors money will burn in billions of rubles

Many experts are right about one thing - the maintenance of two project 1144 monsters will cost the state much more than their real use.

Even on our pages, we often talked about how these ships can be of real benefit in the event of a conflict. Moreover, at one time, when analyzing the repair of the Nakhimov, I spoke out in the sense that it would be nice to reinforce the frankly poor capabilities of the Pacific Fleet with a ship whose salvo power would be about 50% of all the capabilities of the Pacific Fleet.

Apparently, everything is much worse, since the former commander of the fleet was sent to command the Yunarmiya, the value of which, apparently, is comparable to the capabilities of the Pacific Fleet.

The presence of a huge, albeit heavily armed ship in the fleet, of course, is better than its absence, but ... Let's see how much the same Admiral Nakhimov can do in a hypothetical battle between the Pacific Fleet and the Japanese navy. We have already done a similar analysis, from which one thing followed: the cruiser would simply pull missiles from Japanese ships onto itself, and this would be the end of its combat merits. The negative side of the moment lies in the fact that the ships of the Pacific Fleet that survived due to this will be able to portray something meaningful.

The value of "Varyag" after stories with the "Moscow" is more than doubtful, the "Atlantes" (however, like the "Orlans") are too old ships to demand something real from them. Former project 1155 BODs converted into two project 1155M frigates - not God knows what. Everything else - corvettes, small missile ships and missile boats - is only close to their shores. That is, the defense of the last frontier.

In general, when everything is so bad, then the modernized Admiral Nakhimov looks quite good. The whole problem is that the Admiral Nakhimov has not gone to sea since 1997, its repairs and modernization have been going on in Severodvinsk for 24 years. Here, after repair and modernization, it is just right to start a new repair, since in 30 years a lot of things can wear out by themselves.


Why so about 30 years? Yes, because the deadlines for the completion of repairs are constantly postponed. At first it was 2021, but then they announced 2023, but August 2022 brought a new date - 2024. So, at least, said Vladimir Korolev, Deputy General Director of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) for military shipbuilding.

More than 200 billion rubles have already been spent on the repair of Nakhimov. This is a huge amount for which 4-5 new frigates of project 22350 of the Admiral Gorshkov type could be built. The ships are smaller in size, but in the aggregate of weapons they are in no way inferior to the Orlan, and in some ways even superior to it.

In what ways can frigates outperform a cruiser? In many ways. 32 launchers is a salvo of 32 missiles, whatever one may say. It is clear that the cells are clogged with all types of missiles, but even 16 anti-ship missiles are serious. 20 "Granites" at the cruiser of project 1144 - this, of course, looks significant, but ... the P-700 missile, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year, has been studied in the West and there are countermeasures for it. The rocket is completely outdated, both physically and mentally, and is unlikely to frighten anyone.

And frigates that have at least 16 missiles in a salvo (out of 32 cells), if there are five of them, will issue 80 missiles. That is, more than the Nakhimov after modernization, since it will have only 80 cells.

However, all these calculations have already been made for the hypothetical battle of "Admiral Nakhimov" and two formations of Japanese URO destroyers at one time. And we have nothing to catch there.

In addition, there is also the human factor.


The crew of "Peter the Great", as our TV channels proudly declared, is about 1500 people. The crew of the frigate type "Admiral Gorshkov" - 210 people. That is, at the expense of "Peter the Great" it is possible to equip 7 frigates with crews.

So it turns out that on one side of the scale there is an old huge cruiser, armed not to say that with the latest technology, and on the other - 5 newest ships of a smaller class, but with no worse capabilities.


Two modernized cruisers - respectively, 10 frigates.

Plus, it should be understood that the maintenance and maintenance of the monsters of the 1144 project costs at least huge sums. And what is the "exhaust" from them - an open question. At least, the Orlans did not take part in any combat operation. Their entire service was reduced to exercises and parties abroad, where the cruisers showed the power of Russia to all sorts of Venezuelas and Syrias.


These ships also did not take part in the war in Syria. There was nothing; in general, small missile ships with cruise missiles worked on objects.

Why, then, in general, these huge, glowing half the world in all ranges, ships? It's clearly too expensive to "show the flag", especially given the upcoming budgetary problems associated with the cost of the war and the lack of income from the sale of resources.

Even the completely rabid patriots of Runet, in dozens of articles telling about some completed combat missions of "Peter the Great" as part of the Syrian campaign and (oh my God!) To disarm Syria

“And the role of the flagship of the Northern Fleet fell on the shoulders of“ Peter ”- hence the huge number of tasks, the highest combat readiness and its use in the hottest issues for the country. A vivid example of this is the Syrian campaign of the RF Armed Forces, as well as the assistance that preceded it in the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons - and there are many such episodes. Well, there is nothing to say about hundreds of exercises, exacerbations with the West and other nuances ... " is a quote from one such Zen masterpiece.

I dug specifically, I wanted to find these very applications in “hot issues for the country”. Have not found. As well as about the participation of the cruiser in the disarmament of Syria from chemical weapons. Parade and exhibition service, which costs a lot of money. But for our patriots, who are not very interested in particulars, what is enough.

It is clear that such a weapon as the Project 1144 TARK will be very needed when the US Navy AUGs suddenly go to the coast of Russia. And then the cruisers will come out and ...


However, we still have to live up to this, but in general a topic for a separate discussion. But I repeat - "Granites" - this is not what ships of the US Navy will be afraid of today. The effectiveness of the P-700 today is more than doubtful.

With "Admiral Nakhimov" everything is more or less clear. Having spent so many years in time and billions in money, he will obviously be dragged to the end of the repair. Well, if only simply because these 200 billion somehow need to be justified. And really because the Pacific Fleet is a very dull sight from any angle.

That's why I talked about "Nakhimov" for so long, although it seemed like it was necessary to talk about "Peter the Great". "Nakhimov" - here it is, roughly speaking, 9 years of service, the remaining 26 are under repair. There is still a resource, unless something that was not affected by the repair fell apart and rotted during the repair.


In any case, "Nakhimov" will serve as a stuffed animal or a carcass, but they will lead. It's just that there is no one else to be a scarecrow for the West. Maybe this West shouldn't be so scared, but that's the concept.

As for the "Peter the Great", the ship was clearly out of luck. The resource was indeed wasted on God knows what. Teachings, visits, demonstrations... Of course, we have many representatives of the sect of the need to demonstrate the Russian flag to Venezuela, Vanuatu, Papua and other old and new Guineas, but we admit that there is zero sense in this.

Approximately the same sense will be from "Peter the Great" together with "Admiral Nakhimov" in the event of a war with NATO.

Two large and even very heavy cruisers will not be able to do anything, and not to some kind of joint NATO forces, everything is getting worse.

In order to destroy the Baltic Flotilla, the German fleet and Norwegian submarines will be enough. And that's it, DCBF will cease to exist.


The remnants of the Black Sea Fleet will not be able to do anything to the Turkish frigates.


Japanese destroyers (yes, Japan is not a NATO member, but really wants the islands) will effortlessly brush off the Pacific Fleet.


All this has been calculated for a long time and more than once. The Northern Fleet will remain, but it is even more interesting with it. It will remain there, in the harbors, it is simply blocked. Yes, nuclear submarines will be able to leave and do something like that, but surface ships, alas, will not show anything to anyone. And there will be no one to show it to, NATO will not put anything in there, except for submarines.

The combat value of Project 1144 cruisers is scanty today.

If we are talking about some hypothetical operations “on distant shores”, about which some of our politicians were cheerfully talking about two or three years earlier, then for such operations, and even in the light of at least a theoretical confrontation with NATO, this requires a little more than two old, albeit nuclear, cruisers and a half-dead aircraft carrier.

How such a campaign will end, you can study in detail in history. The clash between the Orlans and the US AUG will end in the same way as the story of the battleship Yamato ended in confrontation with the American aviation, except that our ships are cramming more planes.


Today, it’s not even stupid at all, but criminal to talk about some kind of naval battles with NATO on the other side of the world. Just look at the list of combat-ready ships of the oceanic zone of the Russian Navy, and you will understand what feelings Admiral Seiichi Ito experienced when he set off on his last trip to the Yamato.


If we talk about protecting our coast and operations not against the fleets of maritime powers such as China, Japan and NATO, then huge coffins of Project 1144 are not needed for this. Well, if only, again, like floating fortresses that will divert the attention of the enemy. It is much more convenient to defend your waters with the same corvettes and frigates.

Speaking about the “Trishkin caftan” of the Russian fleet, that is, about the endlessly repaired ships inherited from the Soviet fleet, it’s really worth considering whether these huge cruisers are needed, and if needed, then why.

In our case, yes, the fleet seems to need a flagship. To remove the constantly breaking cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" from this role is generally a charitable matter. Poseidon would have approved, and Kuznetsov from the other world too. I would breathe a sigh of relief, looking at how this tub is being deprived of the title of the flagship of the Russian fleet. For as the flagship is, so is the entire fleet.

It's ridiculous to talk about some kind of ambition, about "protecting the interests of Russia" on distant shores with the help of a pair of old Orlans.

Therefore, the question of whether it is worth further patching up “Peter the Great” and modernizing it so that it poses a threat to someone (the question is for whom) is no longer an issue for many today.

Definitely - no. The cruiser is not needed, not needed in the first place, because in order to fulfill its main combat mission, the destruction of the US AUG, it does not have escort ships, without which they will make a sieve out of the ship.

And yes, instead of another upgrade for 200-300 (prices are rising with import substitution!) billion rubles, it makes sense to build very good modern frigates of project 22350M.


That is, if there are still these billions. They trivially may not exist. The command of the fleet will not collect donations for the repair of ships, after all ... Although this can easily happen in our country, they buy Drones and thermal imagers of anyone except army supplies?

So the story, although it seems to have received a refutation, makes one think about the fact that the headquarters can think the same way. And send the worn-out "Peter the Great" not for repairs, but for scrap. And there will be a certain sense in this, because if the Nakhimov is being repaired for another two or three years, then the Peter the Great will be brought in to replace it, until everything necessary for repair and modernization is made, until the money is allocated ...


In general, somewhere in the region of 2040, something like this can happen. But here it will be a completely different story. And whether there will be a place for such ships in it is an open question.
249 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. -29
      April 25 2023 04: 08
      Yes, the result is better. The noise level of Petka is such that the convoy of boats will hide under it. As for anti-submarine weapons, there are bad rumors that they launched a torpedo missile from Petka, the result is known ....
      1. -25
        April 25 2023 06: 37
        Quote: Maxim Zhuravlev_2
        there are bad rumors that they launched a torpedo missile from Petka, the result is known ....

        APRK "Kursk" as well as the cruiser "Moskva" drowned themselves. In the case of the Kursk, a torpedo exploded in the torpedo tube; everything is complicated with the Moscow. By the way, the same type of "Peter the Great" "Admiral Lazarev" in the Far East is successfully disposed of, and in the North, after the flooding of the PD-50, the cruiser has nowhere to dock and dispose of.


        1. +7
          April 25 2023 09: 12
          and in the North, after the flooding of the PD-50, the cruiser has nowhere to dock and dispose of.
          It seems that they wrote that they were completing the dry dock at 35 SRZ, which includes both Kuzya and Peter the Great with a margin.
          1. -19
            April 25 2023 09: 36
            Quote: Saburov_Alexander53
            It seems that they wrote that they were completing the dry dock at 35 SRZ, which includes both Kuzya and Peter the Great with a margin.

            The horse has not yet been lying there, years will pass until the batoport is installed, the pumps are mounted, the walls of the dry dock are completed and the cranes are installed. The Communists have not built a large dry dock in the North in 70 years. As an option, there is a royal dry dock at the Kronstadt Marine Plant, where the "Peter the Great" was docked, but it gets right up there.

            The photo shows the dry dock of Tsarevich Alexei, built under Tsar Nicholas II. Paradoxically, the tsar, shot by drunken Bolsheviks, left behind a dry dock, into which an atomic cruiser breaks.
            1. +10
              April 25 2023 12: 59
              The horse has not yet been lying there, years will pass until the batoport is installed, the pumps are mounted,
              Thanks for the info. And then they write in our media that the batoport will be made this year ... and there the horse did not roll. But "Kuzya" seemed to be driven into the dock at SRZ-35, even with a temporary jumper instead of a batoport, which means they pumped out the water, otherwise what's the point of putting it ...
              1. +14
                April 25 2023 15: 16
                Quote: Saburov_Alexander53
                But "Kuzya" seemed to be driven into the dock at SRZ-35, even with a temporary jumper instead of a batoport, which means they pumped out the water, otherwise what's the point of putting it ...

                The water was pumped out. But the dock continued to be completed even during the repair.


                However, in the North, this is no stranger. One can recall at least plant No. 402, where the construction of two LCs was started even before reaching 50% of the plant's construction readiness.
                1. +6
                  April 28 2023 08: 30
                  A custom article aimed at destroying the cruiser Peter the Great is sabotage and betrayal.
                  The author is well aware that the main armament of the Nakhimov cruiser after modernization will not be 20 Granite anti-ship missiles, but several hundred UKKS cells, into which Caliber, Onyx and even hypersonic Zircons can be placed, the air defense of the ship instead of the S-300 Fort will be occupied by the S-300 Fort M and the ship with such weapons and an unlimited range, it becomes a formidable weapon in capable hands.
                  At the same time, unlike Kalinin (Nakhimov), the cruiser Peter the Great did not stand at the pier for 20 years and did not rust, and therefore does not need an almost complete replacement of everything except the hull. Peter just needs to go through a medium repair, with the replacement of Granites with UKS, measure one of the two S-300 Fort complexes at Fort M and install the NK Package.

                  About the fact that you can build many excellent frigates instead of repairing two nuclear cruisers, this is generally a lie and a betrayal. Because, firstly, it is unlikely that it will be possible to build new 22350 frigates under sanctions due to imported diesel components, and secondly, the 22350 frigate will not be able to operate as freely in the DMZ, unlike a nuclear cruiser, it needs tankers, and to build an ocean-class ship is modern Russia unable.

                  The upgraded Petya and Nakhimov can become the basis of both the KUG and the AUG and being somewhere off the east coast of the United States (namely, for this they are needed) and having the KUG or AUG MAPL and SSBNs, as well as several Zircons with nuclear warheads in the UKKS they will be able to create a real threat to the enemy. Even one Nakhimov with powerful air defense and anti-aircraft defense will be able to create a reliable shield and not allow the main enemy of our SSBNs and MAPLs, Poseidon PLO aircraft, to detect our submarines and attack them with impunity, before starting to search and attack our boats, the enemy will have to destroy our cruiser, which will take time and will give our boats the opportunity to complete their task and be sure to fire all the missiles. And that's unacceptable damage.

                  If our Petya went to Venezuela to demonstrate the flag, this does not mean at all that our SSBNs carrying missiles with nuclear warheads did not go underwater with him.
                  1. -2
                    April 30 2023 11: 10
                    "About the fact that you can build many excellent frigates instead of repairing two nuclear cruisers, this is generally a lie and a betrayal" - Oh, that is, the import substitution of Saturn for turbines failed, in your opinion? You can build, at least according to a simplified project.
                    1. 0
                      4 May 2023 17: 03
                      Quote: d4rkmesa
                      And, that is, the import substitution of turbines by Saturn failed, in your opinion?

                      If about the complete replacement of Zori-Mashproekt, then it did not take place. Therefore, Chabanenko has been under repair for so many years, and therefore Kharlamov was written off. It is not possible to make such power plants from scratch, we do not make such gearboxes, and in the near future we will not be able to. 1155(1) as well as 1135(6) if there is a breakdown of the power plant or the exhaustion of a resource, then only wait for the repair of the gas turbine engine, do not replace it with new ones. Maybe even immediately to the scrap. Well, or take Nikolaev with all the factories and specialists))))
                  2. +1
                    1 May 2023 16: 57
                    It all depends on WHAT WEAPONS will be installed. This decides everything, a cruiser with "zircons2" and other new weapons is the Pentagon's worst dream. By the way, the author completely forgot about the submarine forces of the fleet.
                  3. 0
                    3 May 2023 15: 18
                    Agree with you completely. The writer of this opus is either completely unaware of what is happening with the ship, or deliberately deceiving readers. Those who are not in the subject. There is no other name for this writing.
                  4. -1
                    3 May 2023 23: 46
                    Similar thoughts swirled around. As far as I remember, Peter the Great has one more advantage, the ability to launch missiles by a hard-to-detect and shoot down "flock", controlled by a "leader", a rocket that sends signals to the rest. In the event of her being shot down, her role is taken over by another. Of course, this is a feature of the Granites, and the Zircons may not need it, but still, even now I think the "flock" of Granites will give the enemy a good hit. And of course autonomy. As you noticed, Peter is an ocean-going ship, which cannot be said about frigates with their 30 days ...
                  5. 0
                    15 July 2023 00: 44
                    This was clearly answered by the buffoon. Some idiot. Either Nakhimov has been modernized for 24 years, then the crew of 150 people ...
            2. +11
              April 25 2023 15: 12
              Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
              The horse has not yet been lying there, years will pass until the batoport is installed, the pumps are mounted, the walls of the dry dock are completed and the cranes are installed.

              Last year, they promised that the installation of the batoport would begin in mid-2023. The deadlines were shifted due to the fact that the dock until 21.02.2023/11435/XNUMX was occupied by XNUMX.
              Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
              The Communists have not built a large dry dock in the North in 70 years.

              Duc ... if the construction program of Project 23 had not been curtailed, then on about. Yagry would have been a base point for LCs with dry docks.
              However, the basing of the fleet is a tragedy that has been going on since the days of the Empire. Clinical cases - Port Arthur, Vladivostok and Libava. And even if there were repair capacities, then there were complete seams with finances.
              Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
              Paradoxically, the tsar, shot by drunken Bolsheviks, left behind a dry dock, into which an atomic cruiser breaks.

              It's all the same to blame - he didn't build it there! smile
              1. -10
                April 25 2023 18: 17
                Quote: Alexey RA
                It's all the same to blame - he didn't build it there!

                You need to think strategically, like the communists, after 40 years of operation, the Swedish floating dock PD-50 could be sawn up and scrapped! And from the royal dry dock, only a batoport is.
            3. +14
              April 25 2023 16: 40
              The Communists have not built a large dry dock in the North in 70 years.

              Yes, in general, nits also left nuclear cruisers behind, not like the wonderful Nikolashka laughing
              1. +6
                April 26 2023 10: 22
                Quote: spektr9
                Yes, in general, nits also left nuclear cruisers behind, not like the wonderful Nikolashka

                In fairness, by the beginning of the Second World War, three LK out of three and three KR out of seven (well, nine - if you take the Pacific Fleet long-term construction) - this is just legacy of the damned tsarist regime. I'm not talking about the numerous Noviki.
                1. 0
                  April 26 2023 15: 53
                  In fairness, by the beginning of the Second World War, three LK out of three and three KR out of seven (well, nine - if you take the Pacific Fleet long-term construction) - this is just the legacy of the damned tsarist regime.

                  then, if in fairness, then it must be said that all the LKs, and the old KRs in the Second World War, were essentially not used as ships. These first-rank ships were outdated even on the stocks, lagged behind their European counterparts by the time they were put into operation by two generations. Compare the Empresses of the Black Sea Fleet and the battleships of the Baltic Fleet with the Bayerns or the Queen Elizabeth of the same years of construction. This "powerful shipbuilding industry" went to the damned scoop. Only by the 60s were the scoops able to master the construction of large ships, but if the empire had survived, it would hardly have even mastered such things. We would also become a raw material appendage of the West, only 70 years earlier.
                  1. 0
                    April 26 2023 16: 07
                    Quote: andybuts
                    then, if in fairness, then it must be said that all the LKs, and the old KRs in the Second World War, were essentially not used as ships.

                    Come on. In the fleets in which they served, imperial ships were used in exactly the same way as Soviet ones.
                    In the Baltic, "Seva" worked in the same way as floating batteries.
                    At the Black Sea Fleet, "Parizhanka" with its trips to the Crimean coast already by 1942 knocked out the life of the barrels and was forced to stand up for repairs. And the old cruisers not only worked along the coast, they also landed troops - at the same time, the KyrKav was almost lost in Feodosia, when charges caught fire in the BSh GK after breaking through the armor. And then he was almost drowned by backlashes right in the port - he had to crawl to Poti and dock on weight in half-dock.
                    Quote: andybuts
                    This "powerful shipbuilding industry" went to the damned scoop.

                    Uh-huh ... who joyfully wrote off almost the entire unfinished building (including Izmailov) and could not even restore the Poltava, built by the same industry, damaged by fire - the LK was disarmed and eventually sent for disassembly. But what is there to restore - it was not even possible to increase the vertical guidance angles of the Poltava towers sent to the 981st battery. So the coastal towers stood with native 25 degrees, and all those involved spread misinformation about 45 for the Japanese.
                    1. +3
                      April 27 2023 13: 50
                      In the Baltic, "Seva" worked in the same way as floating batteries.

                      A floating battery is not a ship operating at sea. In the sea in the North or in the Baltic, Sevastopol would simply become a target for aviation or submarines, and in artillery combat with the same pocket battleships or heavy cruisers of the Reich, nothing shone for them. As floating batteries, they certainly made a worthy contribution to the defense of Leningrad. But a floating battery clearly does not require such resources as a battleship for construction.
                      At the Black Sea Fleet, "Parizhanka" with its trips to the Crimean coast already by 1942 knocked out the life of the barrels and was forced to stand up for repairs.

                      I agree, but here the Black Sea Fleet still had no enemy, except for aviation.
                      Uh-huh ... who joyfully wrote off almost the entire unfinished building (including Izmailov) and could not even restore the Poltava, built by the same industry, damaged by fire

                      For a country devastated by the First World War and surviving the Civil War, this entire fleet was too expensive. And when the economy got stronger by the 30s, these projects simply became completely obsolete, and therefore they did not find a use for this unfinished building, despite numerous attempts to build them, there was no point.
                  2. -1
                    April 26 2023 17: 49
                    Quote: andybuts
                    Compare the Empresses of the Black Sea Fleet and the battleships of the Baltic Fleet with the Bayerns or the Queen Elizabeth of the same years of construction.

                    Where are they "of the same construction vest"?
                    1. +3
                      April 26 2023 19: 46
                      Quote: Senior Sailor
                      Where are they "of the same construction vest"?

                      So, this is ... the lead "Lisa" was handed over to RN on December 22, 1914 - in one month with "Poltava", "Petropavlovsk" and "Gangut". wink
                      However, if you don't like Liza, then you can remember the first generation of superdreadnoughts. All Kings were commissioned from November 1912 to August 1913. All Iron Dukes - from March to November 1914.
                      The slowness of financing, design and construction (together with constant changes in projects, even if the structures were already "in iron") were the scourge of RIF shipbuilding. Specifically, in terms of the LC, this led to the fact that, before the delivery of the Russian dreadnoughts of the first generation to the fleet, some people had already jumped through three generations and began to hand over the second generation superdreadnoughts to the fleet. sad
                      1. 0
                        April 27 2023 19: 46
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        in one month with "Poltava", "Petropavlovsk" and "Gangut"

                        Did they put them in one month too?
                        You already know that performance characteristics are determined before laying, and not after.
                      2. 0
                        April 28 2023 11: 21
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        Did they put them in one month too?
                        You already know that performance characteristics are determined before laying, and not after.

                        Or maybe then it was not worth designing ships, knowing full well that:
                        - in the next couple of years there will be no money for their construction;
                        - the development of a new class of ships is going very fast, and "a couple of years" is a generational change?

                        And yes, the Sevs were laid down in June 1909. And in November of the same year, the first superdreadnought, the Orion, was laid down. Which went into operation in January 1912 - almost 3 (three!) Years before "Sev".
                    2. +1
                      April 27 2023 13: 20
                      Where are they "of the same construction vest"?

                      What year were they built then?
                      Baltic Sevastopol 1914, British Queens 1914-1916, Black Sea Empresses 1915-1917, Bayern and Baden 1916.
                      Of course, one can say that a difference of two years is a colossal leap in technology and marine thought, but the fact of the matter is that RI had nothing but these ships, and competitors at the same time riveted new types of ships in series. Moreover, those that later fought the entire Second World War. Russian battleships would not have been able to do this. So Russia is hopelessly behind any Bolsheviks.
                      1. +1
                        April 27 2023 20: 00
                        Quote: andybuts
                        What year were they built then?
                        Sevastopol Baltic 1914

                        The Baltic Sevastopols were laid down in 1909 simultaneously with the British Kolosus and the last Ostristflands. Here with them and compare.
                        Quote: andybuts
                        but the fact of the matter is that RI had nothing but these ships

                        If you don't know something, it doesn't mean it never happened. Google "Ishmael"
                        Quote: andybuts
                        competitors at the same time riveted new types of ships in series.

                        Well, let's look at the competitors. By the beginning of WWI, the Franks built a four of the Courbet type. Strongly they "Seva" superior?
                        You understand what's the matter, on the one hand, you seem to be aware of the rest of tsarist Russia, and on the other, for some reason, you compare it with the leaders of the dreadnought race. But we never claimed this, but on the contrary, we went in the second wave and it cannot be said that we were far behind, despite the fact that the possibilities of the same France were many times higher. request
                      2. 0
                        April 28 2023 11: 24
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        The Baltic Sevastopols were laid down in 1909 simultaneously with the British Kolosus and the last Ostristflands. Here with them and compare.

                        He-he-he ... and if you look at what was laid in the same year, five months after the laying of "Sev"? This ship was still commissioned almost three years before the acceptance of "Sevastopol" by the fleet. wink
                        Quote: Senior Sailor
                        If you don't know something, it doesn't mean it never happened. Google "Ishmael"

                        With British main battery and German turret parts? wink
                      3. -1
                        April 28 2023 20: 33
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Heh heh heh ...

                        Are you coughing?
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        and if you look at what was laid

                        Come on!
                        type "Courbet" - 4 units. Bookmarks from September 1, 1910 to November 10, 1911 ("Pari")
                        type "Viribus Unitis" - 4 units. Bookmarks from July 24, 1910 to January 29, 1912 ("Saint Istvan")
                        type "Conte di Cavour" - 4 units All laid down in 1910.
                        Type "Andrea Doria" - 4 units. All laid down in 1912.
                        Type "Wyoming" - 2 units. Laid down in 1910.
                        Is it enough?
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        With British main battery and German turret parts?

                        Regarding the "British" I would argue, but ... the person wrote
                        Quote: andybuts
                        the fact is that RI had nothing but these ships

                        It's like a little more than nothing, don't you think?
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Or maybe then it was not worth designing ships, knowing full well that:
                        - in the next couple of years there will be no money for their construction;

                        They wouldn't build anything at all. And the Germans could well have broken through the CMP without diverting the main forces of the Kaiserlichmarine and without risking them in a deeply secondary maritime theater.
                        Who benefits from this?
                      4. 0
                        2 May 2023 14: 38
                        You seem to be aware of the rest of tsarist Russia, but on the other hand, for some reason, you compare it with the leaders of the dreadnought race. But we never claimed this, but on the contrary, we went in the second wave and it cannot be said that we were far behind, despite the fact that the possibilities of the same France were many times higher.

                        Is there anything to compare with Haiti, Ethiopia or Morocco?
                        I compare the positions of the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR in the world ranking table.
                      5. -1
                        2 May 2023 19: 28
                        Quote: andybuts
                        I compare the positions of the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR in the world ranking table.

                        Nothing like it!
                        I listed above in an answer to my colleague Alexei which battleships were laid at the same time in other technically developed powers. As if everything is quite on the level ...
            4. +2
              April 26 2023 05: 11
              Where "the horse did not roll"? Have you been to the 35th, sick?
              Doc has been around for a long time. Yes, there will be improvements, but the ships can already be repaired. Why lie?
            5. +1
              April 28 2023 07: 51
              The Communists have not built a large dry dock in the North in 70 years.

              In fact, the communists, and specifically under Stalin, built an ice-free port and the city of Murmansk and created the Northern Fleet there. And your king in the North did not build anything. By the way, the Northern Sea Route, including the construction of ports along its entire length, was also built under Stalin.
        2. +11
          April 25 2023 12: 23
          in Moscow everything is complicated
          Can you open your mind? Drowned herself but is it difficult? Did the cruiser hit an iceberg? Or was there smoking in the wrong place?
          1. +1
            4 May 2023 17: 10
            Quote from: Alex_mech
            Drowned herself but is it difficult?

            Everything is really difficult there, to tell everything - to fall under the article on the disclosure of state secrets)))
        3. +3
          April 25 2023 13: 27
          ..this is a sad sight - a warship on the cut ....
        4. +4
          April 25 2023 14: 49
          I hardly believe in the version of the peroxide leak. Because at 08 or later (long ago) the morflot ammunition depot burned down so well. In the village 12 km from the glass depot, there was nowhere to survive. , melted !!! but they didn’t detonate. Censorship was rampant, it overpowered everything, but our Internet was too dead, it didn’t go to the mainland, it was discussed very much on the forums. they threw these torpedoes and did not detonate.
          1. +4
            April 25 2023 15: 25
            Quote: Maxim Zhuravlev_2
            And they flew around Kamchatka 2 photos - a pair of broken torpedoes and a pair with fragments, melted !!! but not detonated.

            On the other hand, on the Northern Fleet, the B-37 submarine died just as a result of the detonation of torpedoes (11 pieces). And it seems to me that during the tests the torpedoes were recognized as reliable.
            1. 0
              1 May 2023 14: 01
              On the other hand, on the Northern Fleet, the B-37 submarine died just as a result of the detonation of torpedoes (11 pieces). And it seems to me that during the tests the torpedoes were recognized as reliable.

              in fact, the B-37 has a very complicated picture there. at the torpedo it exploded with air from heating, and from this the torpedo-loading hatch was torn out, which flew through the air and fell directly on the torpedo workshop and hit the fuse of one torpedo.
              and the B-37 itself even remained afloat for the first time, and only a torpedo boat that passed at high speed spread a large wave and drowned it.
          2. 0
            1 May 2023 13: 55
            I hardly believe in the peroxide leak version.

            You are absolutely right - it was not a hydrogen peroxide, but a purely electric silver-zinc torpedo that exploded there, which the admirals tried to convert into a training lead-acid one. But the foolish admirals entrusted this work not to engineers, but to ordinary sailors, and they forgot that there is a hole in the silver-zinc torpedoes for activating the battery with sea water. and therefore there was a powerful electrical short circuit like an explosion. moreover, there was no explosion of torpedo explosives at all ...
      2. -2
        April 26 2023 12: 02
        I liked the crew. I already wrote here in one article that some have an opinion (and quite "serious" at that) that 10 Uzbek-Tajiks still replace one German engineer ..
    2. +4
      April 25 2023 05: 15
      When the main fragment left after the collapse of the USSR had no allies left, propagandists and agitators began to state in a businesslike manner that our main allies were the army and navy.
      I wonder what they will say now?
      1. -12
        April 25 2023 09: 01
        Quote: Stas157
        our main allies are the army and navy.

        The beginning of the NWO - on the Russian side, almost everyone is fighting in the statutory figure. On the other hand, a complete variety in colors and quality is clearly higher. The current moment is a significant part of the APU in their regular pixel, multicams are already much less common. More often monophonic different moderate degree of tactility. From our side - well, there are people in the figure, but basically in the figure only bulletproof vests and helmets. The Russian army has massively got off the warrior and numbers, the soldiers are dressed in whatever they want, this is an occasion to think for the leadership, it means that something is wrong with the statutory equipment and uniform, unfortunately .... Russia is a poor country that is forced to save on those things, on which cannot be saved. What is more important, to modernize the Soviet nuclear cruiser or to dress the soldiers? Under the tsar, battleships were built, breeding grounds for revolutionary sailors. Then these drunken sailors, decomposed by the propaganda of the Bolsheviks, shot the officers.
        1. +13
          April 25 2023 10: 11
          Russia is a poor country that is forced to save on those things that cannot be saved. What is more important, to modernize the Soviet nuclear cruiser or to dress the soldiers?

          According to the country's leadership, it is more important to have Status-6, the cost of which, according to M. Klimov (and here I readily believe him), exceeded all the costs of armored vehicles combined. And this despite the fact that its nuclear submarine carrier Belgorod, as it was a submarine of the 3rd generation, remained so, with all the ensuing disadvantages.

          In order for Status-6 to at least hypothetically complete its task, it needs surface cover in the form of a powerful ship order, which in turn needs a powerful strike and defense center. We do not have aircraft carriers, nor do we have coastal aviation capable of operating at a considerable distance. All that remains is TAKR pr. 1144, which we do not want not only to modernize, but even to service on time. At the same time, it is enough to exclude from the above equation at least one element that all the funds spent on the Status-6 program or the Borey RPSN went to feed the fish. The "drunken Bolsheviks" understood this very well, therefore they built such ships, and unlike the Romanov fleet, the sailors of the Soviet Navy did not change their oath and were not involved in the treasury of the USSR, which cannot be said about the army and special services.
          1. -12
            April 25 2023 11: 04
            Quote: Dante
            "Drunken Bolsheviks" understood this very well, so they built such ships

            Stalin disposed of the Bolsheviks in the 30s, they did not build anything. And the communists built a fleet without infrastructure, the ships stood in the roadstead, killing the resource. And then admirals also sold ships and vessels in the 90s.
          2. +7
            April 25 2023 15: 38
            Quote: Dante
            In order for Status-6 to at least hypothetically complete its task, it needs surface cover in the form of a powerful ship order, which in turn needs a powerful strike and defense center. We do not have aircraft carriers, nor do we have coastal aviation capable of operating at a considerable distance. All that remains is TAKR pr. 1144, which we do not want not only to modernize, but even to service on time.

            And which without aviation is of little use. sad
            For our Earth is round - and the visible horizon with radio visibility on MV and PMV cut the range of all air defense systems to 35-40 km. And the adversary, such a bastard, works just at these heights.
            Actually, the impossibility of providing air defense to a ship formation by forces exclusively of air defense systems was clear to admirals already by the 70s. Hence all the requirements for the construction and inclusion in the cover of a full-fledged AB, which would cover the MV and WWI. And at the same time, I would take out the air defense line by 100-150 miles, which would make it possible to deal not with the consequences, but with the causes - that is, work on carriers before they launch anti-ship missiles. Not to mention the fact that the number of these carriers would be a multiple less - because of the need for the enemy to allocate part of the forces to gain air supremacy.
            Quote: Dante
            At the same time, it is enough to exclude from the above equation at least one element that all the funds spent on the Status-6 program or the Borey RPSN went to feed the fish.

            And they are there. For in order to successfully use the AUV of this program, they need cover along the entire route to the point of detonation. What our fleet will never be able to provide.
            In general, we again stepped on the rake of project 627 (clean) and T-15. But if last time the admirals gave hands to the developers at the stage of the technical project, now it's a miracle ... it has come to iron.
            1. +4
              April 26 2023 06: 03
              And which without aviation is of little use. sad
              For our Earth is round - and the visible horizon with radio visibility on MV and PMV cut the range of all air defense systems to 35-40 km. And the adversary, such a bastard, works just at these heights.

              Well, if you delve into the wilds, then the range in height and range in distance are slightly different things, although, I admit, there is a certain dependence here. And there is precisely in terms of the minimum target detection height, which for a radio horizon of 30-40 km can be conditional from 5 to 10 m. -50 km can already vary from 100 to 15 m. And all just because of the notorious effect of the curvature of the Earth. In general, I understand your idea, Alexey, and even agree with it, but with the proviso that when we talk about the fact that 25 is of little use without aviation in modern conditions, then we are talking not so much about fighter aircraft (although it would be nice to have them ), how much about AWACS aircraft, which, even being in the rear of the warrant, could provide it with a much larger radio horizon (and at the same time minimize the electromagnetic radiation of the squadron itself, which would complicate the guidance of missiles at it). One problem: we, God forbid, have 1144 pieces of A-50, A-9 - drowned in production hell, and we don’t seem to see an analogue of Hokai at all. Of course, part of the functions of radar reconnaissance aircraft could be taken over by satellites (for example, the same Liana), but here we should not forget that all satellites of this type are located at a low altitude (100-250 km), which is quite within reach for air defense missiles, therefore, in case of conflict, they will be destroyed first. There are still GPS / Glonass satellites located much higher (at an altitude of about 800 thousand km) and which (unless, of course, no one detonates nuclear weapons in orbit) are likely to survive, but which can only carry out visual observation and tracking, which is applicable to high-speed targets is clearly not enough.

              In general, in my opinion, the main task today is how to make hypersonic missiles fit into the form factor of an air defense system or even air-to-air missiles. As soon as this happens, it will be possible to put an end to guided aviation. Which, again, in my opinion, cannot be said about the fleet, whose role, as a carrier of such products, on the contrary, should increase. True, for greater stability and protection of ships, most likely, it will be necessary to return to analogues of body armor, at least in the likeness of the one that was just implemented on the cruisers pr.1144, but this, as they say, is already a matter of the future.
              1. +5
                April 26 2023 09: 53
                GPS / Glonass, located much higher (at an altitude of about 20 thousand km) and which (unless, of course, no one detonates nuclear weapons in orbit) is likely to survive, but which can only carry out visual observation and tracking,

                GLONASS satellites do not conduct any visual observation. They don't have that kind of equipment.
              2. +4
                April 26 2023 10: 57
                Quote: Dante
                In general, I understand your idea, Alexey, and even agree with it, but with the proviso that when we talk about the fact that 1144 is of little use without aviation in modern conditions, then we are talking not so much about fighter aircraft (although it would be nice to have them ), how much about AWACS aircraft, which, even being in the rear of the warrant, could provide it with a much larger radio horizon (and at the same time minimize the electromagnetic radiation of the squadron itself, which would complicate the guidance of missiles at it).

                In this case, you will also need a missile defense system with an ARL GOS and a reliable connection for transmitting data from AWACS to the ship's CIC.
                For without ARL GOS, firing missiles at an invisible (for SAM radar) target is either impossible (for PARL GOS), or turns into an exciting attraction "manually launch missiles exactly at the meeting point with the target based on data of insufficient accuracy with AWACS"(for RKTU). smile
                Quote: Dante
                One problem: we, God forbid, have 50 pieces of A-9, A-100 - drowned in production hell, and we don’t seem to see an analogue of Hokai at all.

                And in any case, first of all, the Air Force will solve the problems of its own and the ground forces.
                I already wrote that the PMSM one of the tasks of the admirals who knocked out the AB for the fleet was to acquire their own naval AWACS - and not temporarily attached, which could be taken away at any moment without prior notice. smile
                Quote: Dante
                True, for greater stability and protection of ships, most likely, it will be necessary to return to analogues of body armor, at least in the likeness of the one that was just implemented on the cruisers pr.1144, but this, as they say, is already a matter of the future.

                Will not help. As soon as booking starts, warheads will immediately change from semi-armor-piercing to armor-piercing. You get an analogue of a 10 "-12" projectile, which at the same time does not lose speed depending on the range. Even at a speed slightly higher than the speed of sound, it will take at least 8 "of armor to stop such a warhead. And if an accelerating stage is screwed to it ...
              3. 0
                1 May 2023 14: 28
                In general, in my opinion, the main task today is how to make hypersonic missiles fit into the form factor of an air defense system or even air-to-air missiles.

                In this you are right. and this is quite easy to do if the admirals understood that it is not at all necessary to put on missiles not super-powerful warheads weighing 500 kg each to completely drown the ship, but warheads weighing 100 kg and even 20-30 kg - just to hit any ship. This is approximately the weight of shimosa in Japanese shells at Tsushima.
              4. -1
                1 May 2023 14: 33
                . As soon as this happens, it will be possible to put an end to guided aviation.

                No, I hope this never happens, because guided aircraft are capable of dropping cheap unguided and glide bombs that are very effective
              5. 0
                1 May 2023 14: 37
                say about the fleet, whose role, as a carrier of such products, on the contrary, should increase. True, for greater stability and protection of ships, most likely, it will be necessary to return to analogues of body armor, then, as they say, is already a matter of the future.

                Yes, I'm trying to invent a special ELASTIC ARMOR, which could delay missile warheads.
                1. -2
                  1 May 2023 14: 40
                  Quote: geniy
                  Yes, I'm trying to invent a special ELASTIC ARMOR

                  Rubber bomb - didn't you invent?
            2. +2
              April 26 2023 08: 59
              Hence all the requirements for the construction and inclusion in the cover of a full-fledged AB, which would cover the MV and WWI. And at the same time, I would take out the air defense line by 100-150 miles, which would make it possible to deal not with the consequences, but with the causes - that is, work on carriers before they launch anti-ship missiles. Not to mention the fact that the number of these carriers would be a multiple less - because of the need for the enemy to allocate part of the forces to gain air supremacy.

              Fu on you laughing Don't you know that AB is a tool of aggression? lol That we don’t need a surface fleet at all, do we need many, many submarines? lol What, in general, was it exactly the sailors who spoiled the Fatherland all their lives, what in the REV, what in the WWII, what later? lol And now - so generally extinguish the photons, drain the liquid and, God forgive me, dry the oars? laughing At the same time, however, other successes of other ... commanders are somehow forgotten ... well, there is a profaned number of tanks (both in 1941, and in much closer periods feel But you understand - this is different, right here is another?) We won’t talk about our titanic successes in AWACS of any bottling, out of modesty ....
              In general, we again stepped on the rake of project 627 (clean) and T-15. But if last time the admirals gave hands to the developers at the stage of the technical project, now it's a miracle ... it has come to iron.

              Duc, in those totalitarian times, efficiency was sometimes required, what to take from them, administrative-command? But now the market has come and decided everything. Topics arise for the purpose of well-known arithmetic operations and woodworking gestures. What the fuck is efficiency? That is, of course, it exists, only it’s not quite the same, about which some ... morph here ... Yes, and physics and other nonsense sciences they studied at school, but did not study, so it’s useless to try to reach out here, in this place, down to logic. Which one was even thrown out of the law school course. In some places, that's right.
              We still can’t understand where and for what reason the “Excitement” has gone (we’ll just not talk about caftans)), and you are here ..... Fleet, you understand ....
            3. +5
              April 26 2023 12: 17
              In general, we again stepped on the rake of project 627 (clean) and T-15. But if last time the admirals gave hands to the developers at the stage of the technical project, now it's a miracle ... it has come to iron.

              Do you think they know there that in order for the Poseidon to work, it must be launched 50 kilometers from the coast of the United States? I talked with some here, they think that they can let him out of Murmansk, and then he will find his own way. bully
              1. +2
                April 26 2023 15: 05
                here I talked with some, they think that they can let him out of Murmansk, and then he will find the way himself.

                And what for then to him the carrier? They would have brought it on a trailer straight from the GUGI, they would have launched it and alga!
              2. +3
                April 26 2023 19: 37
                Quote: Arzt
                I talked with some here, they think that they can let him out of Murmansk, and then he will find his own way.

                Yep... find it. It will trample across the Faroe-Icelandic border according to a given program, depicting a self-propelled target for enemy PLO. In those parts, even normal ICAPLs with all the means of countermeasures and experienced crews that quickly respond to changes in the situation rarely passed without detection - and every effort had to be made to break away from escort.
                And they will not stand on ceremony with AUVs: its launch is the beginning of a war. Therefore, no round dances with accompaniment - a blow immediately after detection.
          3. +4
            April 26 2023 12: 22
            The sailors may not have anything to do with it, but the command of the Pacific Fleet sold the entire fleet on the cheap for metal, including 3 aircraft carriers and reconnaissance "Ural".
            1. +2
              April 26 2023 15: 58
              The sailors may not have anything to do with it, but the command of the Pacific Fleet sold the entire fleet on the cheap for metal, including 3 aircraft carriers and reconnaissance "Ural".

              You can add to this list all 4 Sharks pr. 941 and Admiral Lazarev, ex. Frunze. There is just a moment. When they were written off and disposed of, the Union had already ordered a long life, the country was renamed, and instead of communism, society began to build capitalism with all the attendant
              1. +3
                April 26 2023 19: 51
                Quote: Dante
                You can add all 4 Sharks pr. 941 to this list

                "Sharks" killed the collapse of the Union. There was no solid fuel for reloading SLBMs, which was previously produced in the Ukrainian SSR. The same reason killed the BZHRK.
                And to re-equip them for new SLBMs meant to kill the rearmament program for new SSBNs. For either we are modernizing project 941 (receiving SSBNs with a service life of 15 years), or we are building project 955. Either-or - there is no money and capacity for both programs.
            2. 0
              April 30 2023 11: 13
              "Ural" was actually never functional.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. +2
              April 26 2023 15: 03
              Yeah - how they won the First World War

              And thanks to whom the First World War was brought to such a finale, and dear cheers, "patriot"? And now, another Nikolashka with thick NWO officers is leading according to her canon, and the whole world is freaking out with gestures of goodwill, and how the 2nd army of the world has not been able to destroy the logistics and the mobile reserve of the 22nd army of the world for a year already ...
              And at the same time we will restore order in the country - as in Civil.

              But it’s high time that you, like your grandfather, broadcast somewhere from the slums of Western Europe, while our country was a superpower
              1. +2
                April 26 2023 16: 16
                Quote: spektr9
                And thanks to whom the First World War was brought to such a finale, and dear cheers, "patriot"?

                So I don't argue. But is it possible to engage in social transformations in peacetime? And not once again turn the imperialist war into a civil war, and even with intervention and reparations?
                Lovers of social justice have had 30 years to do this.
                Quote: spektr9
                But it’s high time that you, like your grandfather, broadcast somewhere from the slums of Western Europe, while our country was a superpower

                So the true face of the new commies came out, who, for the sake of coming to power and illusory social justice, are always happy during put tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
    3. +2
      April 25 2023 06: 21
      Quote: SergioPetrov

      Definitely - no. The cruiser is not needed, not needed in the first place, because in order to fulfill its main combat mission, the destruction of the US AUG, it has no escort ships, without which a sieve will be made from the ship.


      Obviously assumed that availability escort ships of Peter the Great, without Peter the Great himself will give the best result in the context of the fight against aug ?? This buffoon is broken, carry the next one.

      What are you talking about availability write and where did you get that "obviously assumed"? The author specifically points out that there is no such availability escort ships. As it was not near the drowned Moscow.
      1. 0
        April 26 2023 03: 26
        The TC offers to cut Peter, stating that he is just as incapable of self-defense as the ancient, never modernized Moscow, which is an absolute lie.
        Based on this lie, he declares its uselessness. To build 22350m in any quantity is to build exactly the same Moscow as the deceased. We don't need Moscow 2.0, we don't need it in principle, it's an absolutely dead-end solution.
        1. +3
          April 26 2023 18: 11
          a vigorous baton is also not needed anyway, they won’t use it on the pampas, which have become native to part of our elite, today I learned that Lavrov’s predecessor, a certain Kozyrev, is a US citizen and lives happily ever after, maybe the Horse rummaged here)))?
          1. 0
            April 26 2023 19: 55
            Quote from Mazunga
            a vigorous baton is also not needed anyway, they won’t use it on the pampas that have become family for part of our elite

            So everything is already. Our Western partners have done everything possible to show our "elite" that even Bad Boys are not welcome in the West. At best, they will simply be thrown and robbed, at worst, they will be robbed and sent back to court in "renewed Russia" (where the new "democratic government" will happily drag them to a speedy trial for all their sins, and they will also blame their own perednikov).
            That's it, there are no more safe western harbors. Rome does not pay traitors.
            1. 0
              April 27 2023 08: 57
              Quote: Alexey RA
              So everything is already. Our Western partners have done everything possible to show our "elite" that even Bad Boys are not welcome in the West.

              Come on. The good old hunt for Jews. Age-old European traditions.

              Usually people are fine. A good Russian is a rich Russian.
              1. +3
                April 27 2023 10: 59
                Quote: Negro
                Usually people are fine. A good Russian is a rich Russian.

                Aven and Friedman also thought so. smile
                1. -1
                  April 27 2023 19: 51
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Aven and Friedman also thought so

                  Quote: Negro
                  The good old hunt for Jews. Age-old European traditions.
        2. 0
          April 30 2023 11: 17
          Just the frigates (11356) showed themselves well, repelling all attacks, but 22350 are much more "biting".
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. +15
      April 25 2023 07: 10
      Quote: SergioPetrov
      This buffoon is broken, carry the next one.

      An article for the sake of exciting "slightly asleep commentators." It makes no sense to write to refute every line of this pearl.
      1. +12
        April 25 2023 09: 49
        It makes no sense to write to refute every line of this pearl.

        Alexander, it’s good for you, but apparently I’ll have to - after all, I’m still one of the authors of the article, which proposed the option of saving the same type of Admiral Lazarev. And even though the idea that I and my co-author Yuri proposed remained the voice of one crying in the desert, but it still obliges to something. But I don’t see the point in doing this within the framework of a comment, something more “voluminous” is required here. So Roman, challenge accepted.
        1. +3
          April 25 2023 12: 03
          Quote: Dante
          But I don’t see the point in doing this within the framework of a comment, something more “voluminous” is required here ...

          We look forward to your article.
          hi
      2. +1
        April 25 2023 18: 38
        Quote: Doccor18
        It makes no sense to write to refute every line of this pearl.

        good
    6. +2
      April 25 2023 10: 03
      Stupid rudeness is not the most effective method of discussion. The author knows the topic well, gave weighty arguments, and you can’t refuse him the logic. He has not yet mentioned the problems with target designation for the use of Granites, as well as with the collective control system for air defense and anti-aircraft defense orders. I served in 10 OPESK, in the 80-90s, where at that time they unsuccessfully tried to work out the combat use of such monsters as Frunze, Minsk and Novorossiysk. They were provided by two brigades of anti-submarine ships, one brigade of missile ships, and I don't know how many submarines. And all this was more than problematic. Very problematic. And in the short term for 20-30 years it is completely impossible. Alone in the sea is not a warrior.
      "Frunze" in his entire life did not perform a single combat service. "Minsk" once went to the Indian Ocean, after which all the admirals in practice became convinced of its uselessness there, and "Novorossisk" also did not go anywhere further than the Sea of ​​Japan. So we had aircraft carriers and nuclear coastal defense cruisers.
      "Peter the Great" did not demonstrate anything except the flag in its voyages and did not pose any threat to anyone.
      Beautiful ships, powerful. But useless.
      1. +14
        April 25 2023 10: 20
        Beautiful ships, powerful. But useless.

        This can be said about the fleet as a whole, because not one of our ships participated in a clash with at least the same type of enemy.
        1. -1
          April 25 2023 13: 01
          It is possible and necessary. Not a single ship of the Black Sea Fleet in the Second World War participated in a clash with the same type of enemy. Not a single ship of the Baltic Fleet took part in a clash with the same type of enemy. Not a single ship of the Northern Fleet took part in a clash with an enemy of the same type. The same picture was in the Pacific Ocean. The last time we fought with the same type of enemy was in the Russo-Japanese war in the Yellow Sea and in the Tsushima Strait.
          1. +8
            April 25 2023 16: 41
            Quote: Silhouette
            The last time we fought with the same type of enemy was in the Russo-Japanese war in the Yellow Sea and in the Tsushima Strait.

            Come on!
            What do you think happened in World War I?
            Sarych; Gotland; Defense of the Gulf of Riga....
            1. +6
              April 26 2023 10: 40
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              What do you think happened in World War I?

              Small fights of local importance. The largest of which are four battleships against one battlecruiser.
              But the PR around them is through the roof. Just remember how the Novik's battle with a pair of German EMs was inflated - in fact, an ordinary event by the standards of the fleet.
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              Gotland

              This is where, having complete superiority in strength, our cruising group managed only to drive a minzag to the Swedes - while shooting almost 2/3 of the BC? wink About the actions of "Rurik" in the same battle, I generally keep quiet.
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              Defense of the Gulf of Riga....

              The only, perhaps, battle of the same type of forces is Slava against a pair of Brunswicks. However, the Germans did not repeat the mistake again - and for the second time they rolled out a couple of LCs at once. After that, the defense was broken through, the Germans entered the Gulf of Riga ... and began to painfully think about what to do next, because our defense forces refused to heroically kill themselves against superior enemy forces and took refuge in Moonsund.
              1. +1
                April 26 2023 13: 05
                That's who I did not expect)))
                The question was about the battles of "similar forces", and not their influence on the world revolution.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                four battleships against one battlecruiser.

                Covering them according to performance characteristics like a bull to a sheep.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Just remember how the Novik's battle with a pair of German EMs was inflated - in fact, an ordinary event by the standards of the fleet.

                Does the Novik crew look worse because of this?
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The only, perhaps, battle of the same type of forces is Slava against a pair of Brunswicks.

                well, was that it?
                1. +1
                  April 26 2023 16: 22
                  Quote: Senior Sailor
                  That's who I did not expect)))

                  It's so boring. smile
                  Quote: Senior Sailor
                  Covering them according to performance characteristics like a bull to a sheep.

                  One by one, yes. But in the squadron - no longer.
                  However, both squadron Battle of the Black Sea Fleet leaked. Each time everything was decided by individual skill, and not by the concentrated fire of the squadron.
                  Quote: Senior Sailor
                  Does the Novik crew look worse because of this?

                  So there were no comparable forces in the battle either - both Germans carried 88-mm.
                  1. +1
                    April 26 2023 17: 47
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    It's so boring.

                    Well, only if... lol
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    So there were no comparable forces in the battle either - both Germans carried 88-mm.

                    Yes, but the Germans had eight against four ... Yes
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Each time everything was decided by individual skill

                    At least it was feel
          2. 0
            April 25 2023 21: 35
            oh well .. about the SF, I remember reading somewhere that EM Thundering had fire contact with the Deutsche Z .. exchanged volleys (according to our info) even hit the Z-ke a couple of times .. dispersed in the fog ..
            py.sy and in mind the author has only surface ships because our submariners rkal drowned U-boat, both in the Baltic Fleet and in the Northern Fleet ...
      2. +13
        April 25 2023 10: 25
        And yet it is strange to solve the problems of organization and interaction by utilizing what we still have left. Of course, it is clear that there are no ships - there are no problems, but the fact that we do not know how to properly use the existing ships is not a basis for cutting them. We must learn to fight with what we have here and now, because another more or less equivalent one will not appear in the near future.

        The statement "Peter the Great" did not pose a threat to anyone "is rather controversial. For some reason, even the appearance of the" Varyag "in the area of ​​​​joint operations of the US Navy forced them to make adjustments and stay out of reach of the anti-ship missiles.
        1. 0
          April 25 2023 12: 10
          Quote: Vsevolod Primorsky
          For some reason, even the appearance of the "Varyag" in the area of ​​​​joint operations of the US Navy forced them to make adjustments and stay out of reach of the anti-ship missiles.

          Nothing surprising. Why give in? It's called tactics. They practiced air strikes and the use of submarines.
      3. -2
        April 26 2023 03: 40
        Does TS know the subject well? It already sounds like a joke. He was caught on all sorts of nonsense so many times that I even forgot when he really wrote about what he understood
    7. -3
      April 25 2023 16: 05
      And what did you expect from Roman "Everything is lost" Skomorokhov? I haven't seen a single positive article from him. Continuous lamentations, strewing heads with ashes and cries of "everything is lost." Moreover, he talks about any technology in general, whether it be: aircraft, ships, tanks or air defense systems - it does not matter. Everything has an expert opinion.
  2. +13
    April 25 2023 04: 02
    The value of "Varyag" after the story with "Moscow" is more than doubtful

    here from which side you don’t come - you won’t dig, because Moscow drowned. But what did the author mean?

    What is the reason if, falling on the left side, Moscow did not have damage from anti-ship missiles in it ...

    Just in case, I’ll leave an example of an anti-ship missile hitting a ship, if anyone forgot. Now find the same damage on the port side of Moscow.

    1. +14
      April 25 2023 04: 23
      Quote: Sergey Venediktov
      here from which side you don’t come - you won’t dig, because Moscow drowned. But what did the author mean?
      What is the reason if, falling on the left side, Moscow did not have damage from anti-ship missiles in it ...
      Just in case, I’ll leave an example of an anti-ship missile hitting a ship, if anyone forgot. Now find the same damage on the port side of Moscow.

      Here's another hit, an Exocet missile, the weight of the warhead is almost like that of the Neptune.


      That's right, there are no traces of missile hits at "Moskva".
      But on the site there were quite a few people who, in all seriousness, claimed that there were hits, they just hit on the starboard side.
      True, they could not explain why the cruiser began to roll to the port side at the same time.
      Trying to argue by pointing photos under their noses is useless, it's like arguing between an atheist and a believer.
      He doesn't need proof, he just believes there were missiles. That's what Ukrainian propaganda said, but it won't lie.
      1. ban
        +2
        April 25 2023 05: 15
        Open your eyes yourself, don't you see the resemblance point-blank? It happens, and not infrequently, when the anti-ship missile warhead does not explode, but the result is still something like this:



        It doesn’t look like Moscow from the word at all, yeah

        1. +1
          April 25 2023 16: 44
          Quote: ban
          It happens, and not infrequently, when the anti-ship missile warhead does not explode

          It happens, of course, but not in our case.
          According to reports fromUkrainian sources, including the general designer of the Neptune missile, two missiles hit Moscow, and both, I emphasize, both exploded.
          So the question is, where, in this case, are the traces of explosions in the sides of the "Moscow"?
        2. +1
          15 July 2023 00: 50
          Hello, garage! Sink a cruiser of 2 thousand tons with two subsonic non-exploded anti-ship missiles. ?? Yes, you are a fucking storyteller!
      2. +10
        April 25 2023 10: 33
        Quote: Comrade
        That's right, there are no traces of missile hits at "Moskva".

        A lot of people served in Moscow, have you seen at least one interview with crew members? Somehow I didn't get it. Why such secrecy? All over the results of the investigation should be, and where? It's none of our business, let's speculate.
        1. +1
          April 25 2023 16: 33
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          A lot of people served in Moscow, have you seen at least one interview with crew members?

          Do you remember, dear colleague, how Komsomolets died in 1989? Crew - 69 people, of which 27 survived. There were no interviews with these guys, as far as I remember.
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          Why such secrecy? All over the results of the investigation should be, and where?

          After the death of Komsomolets, a joint expert commission was formed, the results of which appeared three years later. And this at that time! I doubt that it is now possible to form a competent group of experts capable of finding out the reasons for the death of the Moscow, since here it is necessary to attract both designers and builders, but where are they today?
          By the way, the true causes of the death of "Komsomolets" remained unclear, there is only the most probable hypothesis.
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          It's none of our business, let's speculate.

          They have already been built and discussed on forums, including this one.
          1. +4
            April 25 2023 17: 00
            Quote: Comrade
            Crew - 69 people, of which 27 survived. There were no interviews with these guys, as far as I remember.

            27 people were saved there, here - 396. Not very comparable numbers. According to the testimonies of the survivors (almost the entire crew), it would be possible to draw conclusions.
            Quote: Comrade
            They have already been built and discussed on forums, including this one.

            Yeah, and the last article was yours, if I'm not mistaken. And I don't agree with your conclusions.
            1. +3
              April 25 2023 17: 41
              Quote: Mordvin 3
              According to the testimonies of the survivors (almost the entire crew), it would be possible to draw conclusions.

              Only assumptions, no one owns the fullness of the picture there. Although, of course, exactly where the fire broke out can be established by questioning the crew members.
              However, in our case, it is not so important which event caused the fire. But what is really important today is to establish whether Ukrainian propaganda is lying or telling the truth.
              It was revealed to me that both Ukrainian propaganda, and behind it Western propaganda, are lying - no missiles to "Moscow" not hit.
              Quote: Mordvin 3
              Yeah, and the last article was yours, if I'm not mistaken.

              Exactly smile
              Quote: Mordvin 3
              And I don't agree with your conclusions.

              That's good. And then if everyone agrees with each other in everything, it will become boring to communicate on the forum.
          2. 0
            April 26 2023 08: 47
            There were no interviews with these guys, as far as I remember.
            By the way, the true causes of the death of "Komsomolets" remained unclear, there is only the most probable hypothesis.
            Interviews were forbidden to give and rightly so. Although over time, information has flowed, albeit not from direct interviews, but during the investigation and interrogation of survivors. And it turned out that in the struggle for the survivability of the nuclear submarine, they did everything in order to quickly drown it, and not save it. I believe the conclusion of Romanov (the author of "The Tragedy of PL Komsomolets"), where he claims that if the crew had not done anything, the boat would have remained afloat and the fire in the compartment would have gone out by itself. But it was inflated by supplying VVD to the tanks of the main ballast, from where air blew into the compartment through burned-out glands.
      3. -7
        April 25 2023 12: 27
        And if the traces of the hit did not get into the photo because they were under water at the time of the photo?
        1. +3
          April 25 2023 16: 41
          Quote from: Alex_mech
          And if the traces of the hit did not get into the photo because they were under water at the time of the photo?

          The missiles are not torpedoes, they had to hit the side at a height of at least four meters from the waterline. Approximate dimensions of the hole can be seen in the photographs above.
          1. -4
            April 26 2023 16: 02
            So how then did the cruiser end up at the bottom? A fire cannot cause a roll, as far as I understand
            1. -1
              3 May 2023 09: 36
              So how then did the cruiser end up at the bottom? A fire can't cause a roll

              The cruiser is not an empty tin, it is packed to capacity with missiles, torpedoes and fuel, a fire will cause an explosive detonation, the ship will sink.
    2. 0
      April 25 2023 04: 43
      Do you have any confirmed information about what happened to Moscow?
      The meaning was voiced correctly instead of 300 billion for the modernization of a dubious ship, it is better to make combat-ready new frigates.
      Given the number of combat-ready ships and their age, this is an absolutely right decision.
      Next comes the implementation deadlines and the availability of a general budget in the current conditions for such ships and their real purpose in the current situation.
      1. +22
        April 25 2023 05: 17
        Frigate hulls are most likely not a problem to make. The problem is in the propulsion systems. So most likely Peter the Great will be able to modernize faster than build 5 frigates.
        1. -1
          April 26 2023 03: 43
          Therefore, they are in a hurry to write it off, so as not to interfere
        2. 0
          4 May 2023 17: 27
          Quote: pin_code
          Frigate hulls are most likely not a problem to make. The problem is in the propulsion systems. So most likely Peter the Great will be able to modernize faster than build 5 frigates.

          I completely agree with you, now the deadlines for the delivery of ships depend on the supply of power plants. We cannot build full-fledged first ranks for the same reason.
        3. 0
          5 May 2023 23: 00
          Quote: pin_code
          So most likely Peter the Great will be able to modernize faster than build 5 frigates.
          not a fact (!), judging by the modernization of "Nakhimov" ... !!! wink
          or for example "Kuznetsova" .....
          both are like - "unchangeable ruble" (Leskova), for USC ... !!!!
    3. 0
      April 25 2023 05: 24
      We need detailed pictures of the damage to the side of the "Moscow" in order to draw any conclusions. smile
      And so gigantomania is not always good for the fleet ... an example from history is complete ... remember at least the drowned Bismarck.
      So it’s still time to analyze what is better to build at this stage ... large ships of the ocean zone or destroyers with corvettes ... after all, they have different tasks.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +12
        April 25 2023 07: 28
        What's wrong with Bismarck? If even a torpedo boat was in place of the battleship, if the entire Atlantic fleet of Britain is chasing you, then in principle the outcome will be clear. At the same time, Bismarck sank the battlecruiser Hood and damaged the battleship Prince of Wales. Other giants, the same Iowas, served until 2012, and they are generally not small at all. Gigantomania is not about Bismarck at all, and it’s not about Yamato either, it’s more about the specifics of the application.
        1. +14
          April 25 2023 08: 08
          Quote: Parabelum
          What's wrong with Bismarck?

          Yes, it's the same with Bismarck. Bismarck's problem was only that there were few of them and there were no Zeppelin Counts nearby ...
          1. +6
            April 25 2023 13: 29
            Quote: Doccor18
            Bismarck's problem was only that there were few of them.

            Yeah ... A muddy story. How much was left there until the Tirpitz was recognized as combat-ready? 3-4 months?
            And the appearance on the west coast of France of a squadron of 2 LK, 2 LKR and 2 TRK would make the entire Admiralty turn gray.
        2. +6
          April 25 2023 16: 08
          Quote: Parabelum
          At the same time, Bismarck sank the battlecruiser Hood and damaged the battleship Prince of Wales.

          The Prince of Wales mostly damaged itself. This "crossbow" began the day before the battle, when, when loading at gun No. 1 of turret A, the breaker jammed - because of which the gun could fire only once the next day. In combat, problems with breaker bars on other guns continued, although not as severe (crews had to regularly help the mechanics manually), fire doors also began to deform and safety circuit switches (which also had to be closed manually) began to fail.
          But the crowning achievement of the crossbow's career was a failure for 2 hours all aft tower Y. On the second volley after the turn (according to the general score - Volley 20), a projectile that fell in the reloading compartment damaged the folding tray and jammed the rotating table. That is, the stern sector of the "Prince" remained "naked" just when he broke away from the "Bismarck". belay
      3. -1
        April 26 2023 03: 45
        Yes, yes, Hood completely agrees with you, this Bismarck is shit, not a ship, a solid target and nothing more
    4. ban
      -2
      April 25 2023 05: 37
      I wonder what caused the desire to sell disinformation?
      Here is a polygon hit by anti-ship missiles with a regular operation of warheads, with which there were always problems during live firing. Above are a couple of pics for comparison.
  3. +32
    April 25 2023 04: 32
    Break not build. First build something that can replace the TARK, and then talk about decommissioning.

    In general, it is strange that with modern technology, someone suggests decommissioning ships.

    I know the story of 2 unfinished Mosquito carriers that rotted for 20 years, then they were made into X-35 sweets. Much more complex and delicate gliders of the same MiG-31s ​​are being restored and new aircraft are being made. The T-90 hulls are used for the T-90M Proryv. There is also a huge platform - sculpt whatever your heart desires, because computers used to be on 2 floors, and now they fit in a matchbox. There should be 2-4 times more space after replacing old systems with new ones.

    Now about Granites.

    These are the most advanced anti-ship missiles in the world. Probable friends do not have such and are not expected. To say indiscriminately that they can be stopped, and even in a salvo, is to lie.



    Look at the Granite warhead in its normal version - it is armored and indestructible. If ordinary explosives are replaced by special warheads, then the armor of Granite's warheads increases by a multiple. This means that the nuclear warhead is so protected from all types of impact by its armor that it is impossible to prevent a nuclear explosion with conventional warhead missiles.
    1. +4
      April 25 2023 07: 03
      At least someone wrote about the case, but if there was a range of Granites, like Zircon, no one would even think to change them. 500 thousand tons of pure thermonuclear fire in one anti-ship missile, which can be more pleasant for any aircraft carrier
    2. +14
      April 25 2023 07: 21
      Quote: Sergey Venediktov
      To say indiscriminately that they can be stopped, and even in a salvo, is to lie.

      And why not lie, I don’t want to lie ... It’s fashionable now. The main thing is to call yourself an "expert" and make a serious face.
      An aircraft carrier is a "trough", a nuclear cruiser is a "coffin", the opinion of an "expert" is immediately visible. Give three hundred thousand missile boats!!! Oh yes, more frigates are needed, but the trouble is, they have been built for a long time not for 3-4 years, but for 9-12 years ...
    3. +7
      April 25 2023 07: 34
      Quote: Sergey Venediktov
      it is impossible to prevent a nuclear explosion with conventional warhead missiles.

      "Granites" will most likely be replaced by UKKS. And there are a lot of interesting things to cram. Let's add here the almost unlimited range of the carrier and, if I'm not mistaken, it has 3 air defense circuits.
    4. +6
      April 25 2023 16: 16
      Quote: Sergey Venediktov
      Look at the Granite warhead in its normal version - it is armored and indestructible. If ordinary explosives are replaced by special warheads, then the armor of Granite's warheads increases by a multiple. This means that the nuclear warhead is so protected from all types of impact by its armor that it is impossible to prevent a nuclear explosion with conventional warhead missiles.

      And why should missiles hit warhead anti-ship missiles? This is not a self-defense ZAK, in which, if the RCC warhead did not detonate, then it flew into the side.
      SAMs operate at multiples of long ranges, and there you can safely work on the glider, after which the warhead will go to the bottom.
      And most importantly - we are not at war with the enemy, who is building the defense of ship formations on the basis of air defense systems. Our "Granites" will have to break through the 500-kilometer zone of operation of fighter aircraft, induced according to data from AWACS. Where, in a straight line, huge anti-ship missiles, even on MV, will be shot as at a training ground.
      1. +3
        April 25 2023 19: 40
        Our "Granites" will have to break through the 500-kilometer zone of operation of fighter aircraft,

        Does CBO teach anyone anything? Aviation cannot resist an anti-aircraft missile, so neither they nor we won air superiority. And further aviation - the traditional jet will only be more difficult.

        280 km is the already proven range of destruction of aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in this conflict by our air defense systems.

        And the fact that we regularly miss flights of low-flying targets? It’s good that the enemy doesn’t have terrain-following missiles, otherwise it would have been tough in general.

        What did the events show when their unmanned boats hit our Black Sea Fleet base?

        We cannot even see them from afar, although we have at our disposal an unsinkable aircraft carrier - Crimea. Their aircraft carriers will have the same problems.
        1. +2
          April 26 2023 11: 15
          Quote: Sergey Venediktov
          Does CBO teach anyone anything? Aviation cannot resist an anti-aircraft missile, so neither they nor we won air superiority.

          Where will you find the density of air defense over the sea as in the NWO zone? Or will the missiles also tow boats with sailors armed with MANPADS?
          Quote: Sergey Venediktov
          280 km is the already proven range of destruction of aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in this conflict by our air defense systems.

          Well, if the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will fly from the AB decks - without AWACS, EW, TsU - then yes ...
          And how to suppress enemy air defenses was shown to us in 1991.
          Quote: Sergey Venediktov
          And the fact that we regularly miss flights of low-flying targets?

          Once again, you will have to fight at sea with an enemy who has both basic and deck-based AWACS vehicles in commercial quantities. Which in the same AUG work 24/7.
          And not a dozen A-50s in an arc from Brest to Crimea.
          Quote: Sergey Venediktov
          We cannot even see them from afar, although we have at our disposal an unsinkable aircraft carrier - Crimea.

          These are exclusively our own problems.
          Caused, by the way, also by the fact that one Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in 2014, with his decision to abandon OVR corvettes and build patrolmen instead, actually killed the defense of bases in the near zone. The OVR will detect a normal person (GAS, radar, OEC) and intercept unmanned boats even outside the base.
        2. 0
          April 26 2023 20: 21
          Quote: Sergey Venediktov
          What did the events show when their unmanned boats hit our Black Sea Fleet base?

          We can't even see them from a distance.

          Not only to see, but also to hear. The entire OVR and all the PDSS are powerless to detect them when approaching the main base.
          1. +1
            April 27 2023 11: 03
            Quote: Silhouette
            Not only to see, but also to hear. The entire OVR and all the PDSS are powerless to detect them when approaching the main base.

            So the Navy's OVR remained only on paper. In fact, ancient MPKs, built during the Soviet era and not modernized since those times, serve in it. And this is in all bases, including those on which SSBNs are based.
    5. 0
      15 June 2023 16: 05
      105% agree!
      A well-thought-out modernization project is a great power!!!
      It's a pity that you can't put a plus.
  4. +4
    April 25 2023 04: 46
    The negative side of the moment lies in the fact that the ships of the Pacific Fleet that survived due to this will be able to portray something meaningful.

    Could it still be positive? Or am I sleepy did not delve into the text?
    1. -1
      April 26 2023 03: 49
      This is a classic Freudian slip.
  5. +31
    April 25 2023 05: 05
    The author of the article forgot that you can't just come to the store and buy 200 "pot" ones there for a conditional amount of 5 billion rubles. Ships have been built for at least 3 years, this time. They are built not in a garage, but at a shipyard, this is the second. And they are not built at any shipyard, but at a military one. It's three. So just exchanging "Peter" for 5 ships will not work. All stocks are occupied. And yes, the Orlan project is not in vain considered a battlecruiser in the West. At least googled its booking scheme, which the current ultra-modern ships are simply deprived of. "Eggshells armed with hammers" (like Admiral Fisher said).
    1. -19
      April 25 2023 05: 57
      The author is right. Old ships must be written off. The freed up resources should be spent on minesweepers, PLO, MA ships, and so on. As I see it, the repair and modernization of Peter and Nakhimov were started with only one goal - so that the political and naval leadership would be "proud" that they have the "longest" and "thickest" cruiser in the world. All in all, it's a crazy waste of money.
      1. +4
        April 25 2023 19: 46
        That's funny. Nuclear icebreakers are not a crazy waste of funds? Do not forget, when the TARK was building every penny, they counted and chose the most economical option for projecting power outside the nat. borders.
  6. ban
    +10
    April 25 2023 05: 07
    In order to destroy the Baltic Flotilla, the German fleet and Norwegian submarines will be enough


    Strongly said, however. Norway is a great Baltic power?
  7. +20
    April 25 2023 05: 15
    The author has a strange logic: "let's fuck what's left without first building what we are going to replace the fucked up")) (as it were, we have already optimized further)
    And this is without going into the controversial issue of the effectiveness of these ships (we can scrape together on the KUG and, with skillful use, it’s quite strong), the USC’s ability to saturate the Fleet with a sufficient number of ships, at least of the frigate class, not to mention ships of the 1st rank. (We are building corvettes decades)
    And yes: "Moscow" was lost not because it was old, but due to criminal negligence / incompetence, rather. (Personally, my humble opinion)
  8. -4
    April 25 2023 05: 32
    And yes, instead of another upgrade for 200-300 (prices are rising with import substitution!) billion rubles, it makes sense to build very good modern frigates of project 22350M.

    Golden words, but with a delay of 10 years ......
    1. 0
      April 25 2023 09: 25
      The modernization of Nakhimov began in 2013. Just 10 years ago. That's when you should have thought about it.
    2. 0
      4 May 2023 17: 45
      Quote: assault
      Golden words, but with a delay of 10 years .....

      There is not even a ready-made project for the power plant pr. 22350M, I am already silent about the stand for this installation, on which it is required to drive the working power plant to a full resource, the resource cannot be confirmed in figures)))
  9. +10
    April 25 2023 05: 33
    From the first lines of the article I understood - Skomorokhov! Well, who, who else besides Roman will shake hands with our defense industry like that ...! I even put a bucket under the monitor so that tears don't spill by... Heh..
  10. +3
    April 25 2023 05: 41
    the author immediately dislike for a sprinkled article
  11. +8
    April 25 2023 05: 50
    The only thing I understood from the article was that I didn’t understand shit in the Navy, and I still don’t understand)))
    I see no reason to discuss which is better, a cruiser or 5-6-7 frigates, if there is a cruiser, but there are no frigates. And abruptly come from nowhere because the cruiser will be sawn - they will not be able to.
    In short, some kind of alternative logic.
    The only thing I notice is that it is so among the Mormans of the whole world. Here the other day they tried to push the last LCS off the slipway, they didn’t have time - he himself fell into a tugboat))) The conclusion was amazing - the sawmill’s Navy stated that
    According to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), any future ships "plan to be launched using a ship's lift system"

    Somewhere, the cut is warming up))) Have you imagined a lift for an aircraft carrier? wassat It’s also the same logic - due to the fact that someone has crooked hands, you don’t have to straighten your arms, but cut the budget)))
    1. -1
      April 25 2023 07: 51
      There is no cruiser. The ship is in the same condition as Moscow at the time of the disaster.
  12. +22
    April 25 2023 05: 52
    because in their nuclear reactors money will burn in billions of rubles

    Another "gaidarism" about the economy. Where will they burn? In the form of salaries for Russian sailors and workers in the nuclear industry? So it's good. Or does the author think that fuel rods for reactors will be bought in the USA, and African guest workers will sail on them?
    Why does no one bang their heads against the wall when the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation place Russian money "over the hill" and they work for their economy, but for some reason they start counting money when it comes to the Russian economy and the incomes of Russian citizens.
  13. +8
    April 25 2023 05: 59
    And let's cut everything to China into needles and nails, and buy rubber boats for ourselves, Chinese by the way. Imagine the savings!
  14. +1
    April 25 2023 06: 05
    Lots of pictures and blah blah blah. ... detected laughing
  15. +9
    April 25 2023 06: 15
    It's great, at first they told for 20 years what a cool cruiser and in one fell swoop 10 AUG beats, and now when the world is tense and there is a real threat of a big war, suddenly it was necessary to write off the ship for scrap ...
    1. 0
      April 25 2023 11: 00
      Quote: Mikhail Krivopalov
      the threat of a big war is real, suddenly it was necessary to write off the ship for scrap ...

      So why are they pulling a bagpipe with repairs?
    2. +2
      April 26 2023 03: 51
      Quote: Mikhail Krivopalov
      It's great, at first they told for 20 years what a cool cruiser and in one fell swoop 10 AUG beats, and now when the world is tense and there is a real threat of a big war, suddenly it was necessary to write off the ship for scrap ...

      The Party and the government do not want any big war. Once it does nothing. But whatever it doesn't want, it will get in the end. And the country will not be up to Peter the Great until he waits for a place in the dock.
  16. +7
    April 25 2023 06: 20
    The author, probably a schizo, destroyed all the ships of Russia without getting up from the couch.
    How can such nonsense be published by a solid media resource (or not a solid one)
  17. +7
    April 25 2023 06: 30
    In Russia, there is no developed policy in relation to the navy. Distributed the fleet to the military districts, but what's the point? "Moscow" was sent and drowned by a land general, and the commander of the Black Sea Fleet was unable to object to him. Now they are trying to recreate again a single whole from the navy.
    It is necessary that scientists, shipbuilders, the military think everything over, calculate and declare what fleet they need, what ships they need.
    All ships older than 30-40 years, in theory, should be written off as obsolete and worn out.
    If the state of affairs in the navy is so bad, then it might be worth declaring an emergency and creating at least a temporary Ministry of the Navy.
    The main thing in the ship is the hull. Everything else can be cut and put and welded on a new one.
    And control, cost control. For such a long period of construction and repair of ships, you can safely shoot those responsible without trial and investigation, and they will know why. soldier
    1. +8
      April 25 2023 09: 11
      Quote: V.
      In Russia, there is no developed policy in relation to the navy

      You seem to be a smart person and, as I understand it, a former military man .... but why write such nonsense, I don’t understand?
      The development of the fleet does not depend on the military and all sorts of scientists, shipbuilders, development directly depends on the political maturation of the state to which this fleet belongs !!!
      And yes .. you contradict yourself!
      Quote: V.
      All ships older than 30-40 years, in theory, should be written off as obsolete and worn out

      And then ..
      Quote: V.
      The main thing in the ship is the hull. Everything else can be cut and put and welded on a new one.

      what it's like?
      Quote: V.
      For such a long period of construction and repair of ships, you can safely shoot those responsible without trial and investigation, and they will know why

      Old folk wisdom .. if they publicly started talking about the fight against corruption, then they will rob!
      1. +4
        April 25 2023 12: 10
        Forgive me, of course, but listen to yourself. "political maturation of the state" - what kind of abstraction is this ??? Where is a certain "scale" on which you can find the current level of "maturity" of the country? You named some kind of ephemeral criterion that is arranged only in your head.
        But scientists, engineers, sailors who are directly involved in the process of creating the theory, technology and technology of the fleet - for some reason "nonsense"!

        Just the same, the officers and theorists of the fleet are developing the doctrine of the use of the fleet. Based on the doctrine, requirements for courts are developed based on their role in the doctrine. According to these requirements, technical specifications are formed that are transferred to shipbuilding engineers and gunsmiths. Shipbuilders and gunsmiths create ships and their weapons. Ships with weapons are transferred to the officers who manage them and conduct training with sailors, practicing those techniques, concepts and maneuvers - which were developed by theorists and the highest command staff of the fleet.

        And according to your logic, the country just hasn't "grown up" yet?
        The problem of the modern Russian fleet is directly related to the fact that the leadership of the fleet was politically unable to defend its importance and value to the leadership of the country (almost like aviators, but they retained some of their important competencies). While the landlords were able to draw the attention of the country's leadership to themselves in politics (including through the creation of general corruption schemes). As a result, "their own" people sit for leadership in the RF NE, with whom they always easily and quickly agree on all issues. And in the fleet there are "some kind of sailors" who are always dissatisfied with something, they only prevent serious people from doing their work (well, in the leadership itself they think, based on how they treat the fleet). As a result, we have naval schools, but their graduates are somehow forced in the course of their work (at the highest officer level) to obey the ground officers for some reason.
        1. +4
          April 26 2023 10: 16
          Quote: Mustachioed Kok
          Forgive me, of course, but listen to yourself.

          As I understand it, only emotions connect you with the fleet?
          Quote: Mustachioed Kok
          The problem of the modern Russian fleet is directly related to the fact that the leadership of the fleet was politically unable to defend its importance and value to the leadership of the country

          Let me explain to you better what the doctrine is, what it is based on and what the development of the fleet is, what affects it!
          The doctrine depends on three possibilities;
          1. the ability of the country's leadership to assess the prospects for internal and external development of the state.
          2. the possibility of economic support for the conclusions of the assessment of prospects.
          3. the ability of industry and the scientific sector to ensure that the findings are translated into tangible programs.
          Those. it is the political leadership of the state, based on the future prospects for the development of the state, expresses its requirements, on the basis of which scientists, engineers and the military develop the doctrine!!!
          So it was, is and will always be!
          The development of the fleet depends on foreign policy factors and the ability of the political leadership of the country to influence changes in these factors in their favor!
          Already after the First World Navy, the fleet gradually began to turn from a military tool into a military-political tool!
          As an example, I will give you the development of the Soviet Navy.
          20s, the country after military devastation and famine, the economy is weak. the fleet, like the army, is in the pen. The country's leadership puts forward the thesis "We need a fleet that is not expensive, but strong!". Comrade scientists, engineers and sailors, we are waiting for your proposals! The aforementioned comrades, through much thought, squabbles and scandals, came to a consensus, we need a mosquito fleet .... namely, submarines will operate in the far sea zone, torpedo boats led by patrol ships will finish off the enemy in the near sea zone! The proposal was accepted, scientists and engineers issued torpedo boats, the submarine Dekabrist and the TFR Uragan to the mountain. Everything would be fine, but in 1927 there was a premiere of the foreign policy influence of the Soviet leadership, later called the "Military Alert of 1927". Britain categorically did not like this premiere and our response to Chamberlain was a deep rethinking of the principles of the country's naval defense! The result of this rethinking was the almost complete rejection by the leaders of the state of the recently adopted maritime doctrine and the requirement to create a new doctrine based on newly emerging foreign policy factors. As a result of the new doctrine, the Soviet fleet is already receiving an almost combined fleet of near and middle sea zones, namely, light cruisers, project 26, destroyers, project 7, submarine type C, submarine type Shch. Everything seems to be fine, but in 1936 the Spanish revolution takes place , by this year the USSR was already considered a politically strengthened state and had the opportunity to influence foreign policy factors not only by political but also by military-economic methods. The Spanish revolution, and then the civil war, influenced another change in the development of the Soviet Navy. It suddenly turned out that there was no one to protect Soviet transports with weapons and food in the far sea zone. As a result, we see the first attempt by the Soviet state to create an ocean fleet in the form of Project 68 cruisers and Project 23 battleships, but the war prevented this attempt!
          The war is over and on a wave of euphoria, the Soviet leadership demands territorial concessions from Turkey and a naval base in the Dardanelles, but this is prevented by the Americans by the appearance of the Missouri battleship on the roads of Istanbul. This battleship influenced the desire of the Soviet leadership to return to the idea of ​​​​an ocean fleet again, as a result, Soviet scientists and engineers issued a heavy cruiser, project 82, a light cruiser, project 68 bis and destroyers 30 bis, to the mountain.
          But another attempt to create an open sea fleet dies with the death of Stalin.
          The new head of the USSR decides that "We do not need such a fleet!" and throws the slogan "Rockets, our everything!" at the people. The slogan is of course correct, but the Soviet industry was only able to give the fleet really rocket ships by the end of the 70s, i.e. for almost 20 years, Soviet naval doctrine relied on the remnants of the Stalinist fleet! The most interesting thing is that it was Khrushchev who owed the appearance of the ocean fleet of the USSR Navy, such a mockery of history!
          The most interesting thing in the fleet began with the arrival of Comrade Ustinov in the USSR Ministry of Defense! The doctrine of not only the fleet, but also the army was written on the basis of the military-industrial complex wishes, the opinion of the military was of no interest to anyone at all! So TAVKRs, TARKs, BOD pr. 1155, destroyers pr. 956 appeared in the fleet. RTOs pr.
          The development of the Russian Navy follows the same principle. Yeltsin needed the fleet like a fifth leg to a dog. The Russian leadership changed its views on the army and navy in 1999, after the bombing of Yugoslavia. At the end of 2001, the first corvette, project 20380, was laid down. In 2002, work began on the project of a new frigate. A tender for the construction was announced in 2005, this year there was a premiere of a new Russia in the foreign policy arena, this premiere was not liked by the Americans now! It was 2005 that became the year of the political decision of the leadership to restore the role of the fleet and the request for a new naval doctrine!
          Well, here is a brief history of the development of the fleet and the creation of naval doctrines based on the political decisions of the leadership!
          hi
          1. +2
            April 26 2023 11: 34
            Quote: Serg65
            But another attempt to create an open sea fleet dies with the death of Stalin.

            And glory to the Party! For what was built according to the post-war program is often outdated already at the time of laying. And even before it - for the same pr. 68-bis and pr. 30-bis were inferior in terms of air defense to the ships of a potential enemy, commissioned in the last couple of years of WWII. But the enemy of our Navy focused precisely on aviation ...
            The most interesting thing is that they began to cut the program even under Stalin - for example, the series of Project 68-bis was reduced to 21 units back in 1952, exchanging cruisers for tankers.
            Quote: Serg65
            The new head of the USSR decides that "We do not need such a fleet!" and throws the slogan "Rockets, our everything!" at the people.

            Well, it even dawned on Khrushchev that building purely artillery ships with pre-war air defense in the late 50s was a little bit different from what the USSR needed at sea.
            Quote: Serg65
            The most interesting thing is that it was Khrushchev who owed the appearance of the ocean fleet of the USSR Navy, such a mockery of history!

            Yeah ... under the "destroyer of the fleet" the same BOD pr. 61 was developed and launched in a series. smile
            Yes, and so on. 68-bis could be kept in construction - projects for their modernization in the KR air defense were developed, and the SME (surprisingly) was ready to start work. But the naval forces delayed the approval of the project ... and lasted until the unfinished ships began to be cut.

            At the same time, during the NSH, the naval doctrine was surprisingly sane - for that time period. The fleet had two main tasks - to ensure the launch of its own SLBMs and prevent the enemy from doing so. The solution of the second task was facilitated by the fact that the 1st generation enemy SLBMs had a range at the level of the RSD, so that the SSBN position areas then there was no need to chapat across the Atlantic - everything was nearby. Therefore, such a bias in the BOD has gone.

            Unfortunately, the first task of our current Navy somehow fell out. But the Navy accounts for 40% of strategic SBCs.
            1. +2
              April 26 2023 13: 48
              hi Welcome Alex!
              Quote: Alexey RA
              For what was built according to the post-war program is often outdated already at the time of laying.

              lol This is already a question for the theorists of scientific thought and the ever-fronting shipbuilding industry wink
              Quote: Alexey RA
              it dawned on Khrushchev that building purely artillery ships with pre-war air defense at the end of the 50s was a little different from what the USSR needed at sea.

              In this, I completely agree and even wrote that missiles are good ... but why rid the fleet of ships without being able to provide new ones? Do not explain?
              But the naval forces delayed the approval of the project ... and lasted until the unfinished ships began to be cut.

              Why was it delayed? There must be reasons?
              Quote: Alexey RA
              was developed and launched by a series of the same BOD pr. 61

              Which is also outdated before it entered service ....
              Quote: Alexey RA
              The fleet had two main tasks - to ensure the launch of its own SLBMs and prevent the enemy from doing so.

              Those. on the one hand, he became the guard of the naval component of the Strategic Missile Forces, on the other hand, the fleet was charged with the duty to become a kamikaze in the fight against a more powerful enemy! But at the same time, they did not remove the obligation to fulfill the third task, namely, actions to protect fisheries, protect transports with food and political influence on their allies and their enemies. By the way, with the start of the food program, the fleet needed a new universal destroyer-type ship, since project 56 no longer met modern requirements, and the BOD was not very suitable for new functions, but such a ship never appeared.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Unfortunately, the first task of our current Navy somehow fell out.

              Maybe the problem is not in the fleet, but in industry?
              1. +2
                April 26 2023 19: 23
                Quote: Serg65
                This is already a question for the theorists of scientific thought and the ever-fronting shipbuilding industry

                More like a miss. You remember how the shipbuilding industry at the IVS ate Kuznetsov, who dared to demand the construction of ships that meet post-war requirements - instead of pre-war self-propelled targets.
                Quote: Serg65
                In this, I completely agree and even wrote that missiles are good ... but why rid the fleet of ships without being able to provide new ones? Do not explain?

                No money left. And free stocks too. Especially for the continuation of the construction of ships, the combat value of which has become near zero.
                If the Navy had agreed on the "rocketization" project of Project 68 bis in time, then the series would have been saved. Fortunately, there is an example of this - Project 56, which mutated into DBK with KSSh. Moreover, even the imperfection of the complex did not become a hindrance - later, instead of the KSShch, they shoved new anti-ship missiles.
                Quote: Serg65
                Why was it delayed? There must be reasons?

                Project 70 (replacing 4 BSh GK with PU SAMs) was hacked to death due to the lack of specialized strike weapons (although the "flying telegraph poles" of the air defense system could also work on surface targets). And project 71 was ruined by the slowness of work in the style of the Empire's MTK - PMSM, the Navy simply did not understand that there was no time for approval and re-approval, and it was necessary to approve the existing technical project, making further adjustments already in the process of working design.
                Quote: Serg65
                Those. on the one hand, he became the guard of the naval component of the Strategic Missile Forces, on the other hand, the fleet was charged with the duty to become a kamikaze in the fight against a more powerful enemy!

                In the 60s, there was still less "kamikaze" in the actions of the fleet. Firstly, the enemy was also weaker - perhaps only the USSR had massive anti-ship missiles of the VB. And the areas of operation were closer to home waters - enemy SSBNs with Polaris would literally have to work from the corner, where our MRA could work effectively for their cover forces.
                Quote: Serg65
                Maybe the problem is not in the fleet, but in industry?

                And who ordered the 22160 series for this industry instead of the IPC or KOR OVR? wink
                1. +2
                  April 27 2023 08: 50
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  flying telegraph poles "air defense systems could also work on surface targets

                  The problem, as far as I know, was in refueling these missiles, and hence the low rate of fire of the complex.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  If the Navy had agreed on the "rocketization" project of pr. 68 bis in time, then the series would have been saved

                  Again, from what I know ... "rocketization" ran into a fire hazard and the imperfection of rocket firing control ... at that time.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Fortunately, there is an example of this - pr. 56

                  Well actually yes! Although already in the 80s the same DBK "Uncaught" .... i.e. "Elusive", very rarely shot with his Termites.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  In the 60s, there was still less "kamikaze" in the actions of the fleet

                  Well, you’re in vain, the Forrestals looked solid in the 80s!
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  areas of operation were closer to home waters

                  For the Black Sea Fleet, the Mediterranean is amicable, and given the weakness of one fleet to resist NATO SSBNs and their cover ships, reinforcement by other fleets of the USSR was simply necessary on that theater!
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And who ordered the 22160 series for this industry instead of the IPC or KOR OVR?

                  Oh my friend, first let's figure out why the head of state needed project 22160, and then we'll throw rotten eggs! wink
                  what What role can the IPC play now?
                  1. +1
                    April 27 2023 11: 15
                    Quote: Serg65
                    The problem, as far as I know, was in refueling these missiles, and hence the low rate of fire of the complex.

                    Yes, the M-2 had this problem. But after all, there was already a normal M-1 air defense system (at pr. 58), and on the way - M-11.
                    Quote: Serg65
                    What role can the IPC play now?

                    The same as before - OVR. Because 30-35 year old "Albatrosses" are already putting absenteeism in the sludge.
                    It would be better, of course, in those days to get new OVR corvettes - with a hangar or a runway for a helicopter ... but if their design and construction were delayed, then it was necessary to order a "tit in hand" - MPK.
                    1. +2
                      April 27 2023 13: 10
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      It would be better, of course, in those days to get new OVR corvettes - with a hangar or a runway for a helicopter ... but if their design and construction were delayed, then it was necessary to order a "tit in hand" - MPK.

                      As far as I know, active work is underway to create hydroacoustic fields based on PGAK, SGAK, AGAK ... i.e. went a little different way. Yes, and the 20380/20385 series, I think, will be increased.
                      1. 0
                        April 28 2023 11: 10
                        Quote: Serg65
                        As far as I know, active work is underway to create hydroacoustic fields based on PGAK, SGAK, AGAK ... i.e. went a little different way.

                        So this is discovery. And he needs more reconnaissance and defeat.
                        It's like in air defense to focus on the development of RTV, scoring on ZRV and IA. smile

                        By the way, Chirkov at one time killed the work on the OVR OVR just under the pretext of solving OVR tasks
                        coastal surveillance equipment, stationary sonar stations and coastal rocket and artillery troops armed with anti-ship missiles of various ranges, as well as anti-submarine and attack aircraft.

                        That's just the trouble, sadness - for our industry it is easier to make a corvette than a basic anti-submarine aircraft or helicopter.
            2. +5
              April 26 2023 13: 56
              Quote: Alexey RA
              30-bis were inferior in terms of air defense to the ships of a potential enemy

              On the last thirty of the Black Sea Fleet, I had to lodge for 2 years! Former Merciless, and in those days PKZ-36. He served right up to 1994!
    2. +4
      April 25 2023 10: 06
      What is it? We have a VKS tanker in command and it’s fine.
  18. +9
    April 25 2023 06: 48
    Skomorokhov again has a spherical horse in a vacuum, a conflict with Japan or NATO is a nuclear conflict
    1. 0
      April 25 2023 08: 32
      Apparently "non-nuclear", the use of nuclear weapons is possible only by sovereign states
    2. +1
      April 25 2023 09: 38
      Why should the conflict with Japan go nuclear? In principle, Japan does not have many allies, and the United States is unlikely to intervene directly. Why is it for them? Japan wins - good, Russia wins - not bad either. For any outcome
      they are on the winning side.
      1. +2
        April 25 2023 14: 36
        because the Japanese attack is a threat to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, and we do not have to use nuclear weapons - how many Fukushima are there on their islands?
  19. +7
    April 25 2023 07: 04
    The idea of ​​1144 was that they would be the basis of the air defense order with Ulyanovsk and the subsequent nuclear aircraft carriers of the USSR Navy in the center in this series, and anti-ship missiles "just in case" if carrier-based aircraft could not cope. And the order would have included at least one more BOD, a nuclear submarine, and, well, several frigates, and even destroyers. But alas, the USSR was gone, and the Soviet Navy, too. "Ulyanovsk" was cut by the non-brothers on the slipway, and on that the series of aircraft carriers ended. And how much a cruiser, outstanding in the 1980s, or even a battlecruiser (battlecruiser), as it is classified in the West, can solve the problems of the 2020s and further into the future outside the AUG, let the experts think, they are given big furry stars for shoulder straps and paid money. True, there is such a pattern: the more ships of the 1st rank in the fleet, the more furry stars are distributed.
    1. +6
      April 25 2023 09: 14
      Quote: Nagan
      the more ships of the 1st rank in the fleet, the more furry stars are distributed.

      But I couldn’t understand everything, from where there are so many whims among 35-year-old submariners, but it’s about that !!!
      Thank you sir good enlightened!!!
  20. Eug
    +3
    April 25 2023 07: 08
    The West can only be frightened by realities. Something he (the "collective" West) was not particularly afraid of the predicted super-cold winters
    without Russian gas and "red lines" for the supply of weapons to Ukraine. According to the article - as for me, five frigates are clearly preferable to such a monster. And it’s clearly not worth breaking away from your shores in the current state (judging by the media and communication with former naval officers) during a serious conflict, even if the littoral zone (300 km.) is “closed” ... unless nuclear submarines can make a rustle - if they will be allowed to leave the bvz ... sad.
    And in Moscow - as I understand it, considerable funds were poured into its repair (well, you understand) and they reported that the ship was combat ready. Accordingly, a combat-ready (according to reports and reports) ship was sent to complete the task. And no one dared to tell the authorities about reality - maybe it will do ... it didn’t work out
  21. +5
    April 25 2023 07: 28
    We really have one potential fleet left - the Pacific.
    All the rest are locked in the base area.
    So frigate corvettes are not particularly needed for this fleet. Only to provide bases and the exit of the RKPSN.
    But attack ships with an unlimited navigation area are desperate. And it does not matter if it is a remake, built according to the Orlan modernization project. If you build them in series, then the time and cost will come in adequately. As well as the size of the crew.
    And the excess displacement can be used for additional protection against conventional weapons. Also about Kuznetsov - he asks for a combat training for the training of carrier-based aviation pilots.
    As for those who like to "cut". You shouldn't stress. With an ostrich policy on the seas, our fleet will be disposed of even without us.
    1. +6
      April 25 2023 08: 05
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      We really have one potential fleet left - the Pacific.
      All the rest are locked in the base area.

      So the Pacific, in the current scenario, will also be locked within the Sea of ​​Japan, preventing the Pacific Fleet from going beyond it will be the number one task for our potential adversaries in the Far East, especially since it will not be so difficult to implement it.
  22. +12
    April 25 2023 07: 46
    Thank God that in our MO they did not have time to take the logic of the article into service. Imagine the situation in 2020, the T-14, T-15 and Kurgan are already riding, the SU 57 and the rest of the PAKs are flying. But they are few and need a lot of gold reserves for their production. And at the storage bases and in the troops, millions of money are buried in hundreds and thousands of T-54, T-62, T-72, BMP-1,2, SU-25,24. It is urgent to sell everything that is older than 25 years to the Chinese in mega-wholesale for scrap. And then with this money to build modern technology, then, later.
  23. -3
    April 25 2023 07: 55
    "There is no smoke without fire", since rumors spread, then they will cut. Eh...
  24. +16
    April 25 2023 08: 38
    The very idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbdisposing a cruiser under these conditions is the most natural madness, and here an article was also rolled out in its defense. The author of the article does not understand at all what he is writing about. How, with such reflections, he did not come to the conclusion that all ships should be sent for cutting, because we do not need to go out into the ocean, and near the coast it is possible to cope with coastal complexes with aviation.
    And the comparison "one cruiser against five frigates" does not stand up to criticism at all, only because as soon as the choice is made in favor of frigates, after a couple of years everyone will understand that in the current conditions of our shipbuilding, the choice actually was "one cruiser against zero frigates", and the fleet once again became a victim of populist idiots.
    And again "Moskva"... Her death will now justify any negative decisions regarding the fleet, of which there were quite a few before. Why did everyone see in what happened only that some ships were useless, on the basis of which such conclusions were drawn? The problem is not the ships, the problem is the people who control them at different levels. You even give Orly Burke into the hands of idiots, they will ruin it ineptly too.
    1. +5
      April 25 2023 09: 51
      The problem is not the ships, the problem is the people who control them at different levels.

      partly true, but taking into account the fact that all the same ones rule (including in the navy), the situation is not optimistic ... the modernization of the "eagles" is a forced compromise option, apparently there is no technical possibility to quickly make propulsion systems for frigates ...
    2. PPD
      +7
      April 25 2023 10: 54
      How, with such reflections, he did not come to the conclusion that all ships should be sent for cutting

      And what then in the next article to write?
  25. +7
    April 25 2023 08: 41
    Until the country has real financial sovereignty, we will for the 10th time chew on the topic "what is more profitable to maintain an outdated cruiser or build 5 frigates" in the logic of traders and speculators. (and in their logic, it is most profitable to get rid of the majority of the population and leave 20 million on oil and gas pipes)
  26. -8
    April 25 2023 09: 16
    Well, finally, an adequate article about the fleet! the harsh truth of which is that in our time our country is not at all up to the fleet - there is no need to climb overseas while there is Ukraine, and now ships are not needed to defend their coast - enough aviation and coastal missiles. the maximum possible, it is worth building ships of the corvette-frigate class to escort the same tankers. well, pl - the traditional weapon of a weak fleet against a strong and continental powers against sea
    1. -10
      April 25 2023 10: 12
      This is not the first time the novel has written about the fleet and, as always, it is difficult to object to him. My opinion coincides almost 100%. He has balanced and reasoned articles that are rejected only by the uninformed public, which is full on this site. There were also sensible Tmokhin and Klimov, but after the start of the NWO, they disappeared somewhere. Maybe they turned their fins, or maybe they switched to other resources.
      It is sad to realize that Russia does not have a combat-ready surface fleet, but this is the bitter truth.
    2. +8
      April 25 2023 10: 30
      The hard truth is that such a line of thinking will lead to nothing but knocking out one of the components of our nuclear triad and significantly worsening our strategic position. It may seem non-obvious, but the same RPLSN needs to provide at least some kind of cover from the surface forces so that they can complete the task as intended
      1. -6
        April 25 2023 10: 49
        That's it! And the waste of funds on such a ship directly harms the PLO forces that could ensure the operation of the SSBNs. Enormous resources were spent on sweats like Nakhimov, and the management did not have any money or attention left for the PLO.
        1. +8
          April 25 2023 10: 57
          The PLO forces are only a part of all the forces that are necessary for this, and it is not the fact that the most important one. Do you really think that only other submarines can threaten submarines?
      2. -1
        April 27 2023 17: 35
        Quote: Vsevolod Primorsky
        RPLSN needs to be provided


        Well, flotophiles again for their own. I remember some still "to cover the SSBNs" demanded to keep an aircraft carrier over them) a kind of inexchangeable argument - SSBNs and the nuclear triad. despite the fact that you don’t overwhelm yourself with ships, but this still won’t give a guarantee - the enemy is an order of magnitude superior at sea both qualitatively and quantitatively. with these SSBNs there will always be risk and uncertainty - well, how they track down, get picked up, especially now underwater drones, captor-type bottom torpedo mines, satellite detection systems, and much more are possible. so instead of getting drawn into an absolutely unnecessary and hopeless sea race, there is an obvious way out - but let's just write off all these "rpksn" and not puzzle over their "cover". with more spending on the fleet than on the land army, with still insufficient results. it is more than logical for the Russian Federation, within the framework of strategic offensive arms, to replace sea carriers with land ones - in the depths of its territory, away from the borders, under the protection of air defense and ground forces.
        1. 0
          23 September 2023 21: 43
          The Northern and Pacific fleets are serious and something needs to be done there, but the Black Sea and Baltic fleets are a different matter. Both are being shot from the shore. Crimea could well be made an unsinkable aircraft carrier with radars on the tops of the mountains. The entire Black Sea is shot through and through by operational-tactical missiles. Dig caves in the mountains, build launch pads there, including air defenses, including numerous false ones, and fill them with weapons. And no British missiles will reach them just like that. And for the sea itself, huge ships are not needed, especially if Odessa were Russian. This is along the Black Sea. In other seas the situation is different, of course.
  27. +7
    April 25 2023 09: 59
    I read the comments and looked at who the minuses put, how indestructible is the faith in the infallibility of our leadership, despite all that has happened. "Don't change the Constitution (2003, 2005, 2007)". "There will be no increase in the retirement age." "By 2015-2020, bring Russia into the top five countries in terms of GDP in terms of purchasing power parity; make Russia the most attractive country for life; ensure the independence of the economy from oil prices; increase the share of the middle class to 60-70% of the population (2008) ". "70% of new equipment in the armed forces", where is it all? And you don’t believe that Peter will be written off, I really wouldn’t want to. but usually gloomy forecasts come true in our country.
  28. 0
    April 25 2023 10: 21
    Quote: ban
    Open your eyes yourself, don't you see the resemblance point-blank? It happens, and not infrequently, when the anti-ship missile warhead does not explode, but the result is still something like this:

    For the Ezoset anti-ship missiles, one of the conclusions was that the missile found its target in most cases. But they had problems with the warhead. It explodes 50% of the time. The destroyer Sheffield was not sunk by an explosion, because there was none, but by a fire caused by a missile.
    It is not necessary that there was an explosion in Moscow.
  29. -7
    April 25 2023 10: 24
    Correct and relevant statement of the question by the author. These useless monsters, like Kuznetsov, are not needed. We need a number of unified ships with control systems based on Kolomna diesel engines, VD 5000 .... 2500 ... 800 tons. And that's it.
    1. -1
      April 25 2023 10: 51
      yes, this is understandable, it’s just that many people propose to solve the problem like this “while we are trying to build 5 frigates, let the eagles still serve”
      1. +7
        April 25 2023 11: 13
        What's wrong with this solution? For some reason, in other types of aircraft, it does not raise any questions, and for everyone this seems to be the only correct one. But when it comes to the Navy, then it is necessary to break everything here, and then hope that there will be something in return someday.
        1. +3
          April 25 2023 12: 04
          Quote: Vsevolod Primorsky
          when it comes to the Navy, then it is necessary to break everything here, and then hope that there will be something in return someday.

          When it comes to the Navy, there is nothing to break here. Everything has long been broken or out of order or obsolete. And there is nothing to hope for. In the short term, Russia will not have a surface fleet adequate to the threats. Not a single ship of the first rank of the destroyer or missile cruiser class will be built. Don't be fooled and don't hope.
          1. +2
            April 25 2023 12: 38
            Everything has long been broken or out of order or obsolete

            This is your opinion, my experience gives reason to hope that so far not everything is so bad. In certain areas there is development, although we would like more.
            In the short term, Russia will not have a surface fleet adequate to the threats.

            In this form, our fleet, although not able to win in a direct confrontation, can still perform at least some tasks until the next optimizers get to it.
            Not a single ship of the first rank of the destroyer or missile cruiser class will be built.

            And that is why now it is necessary to put under the knife what is
            1. -1
              April 25 2023 12: 53
              Quote: Vsevolod Primorsky
              my experience gives reason to hope that so far not everything is so bad

              Well then share your experience. Maybe then I will understand where these bright hopes of yours come from. So far, the entire Black Sea Fleet has not been able to protect its main base from penetrating small surface boats (I'm not talking about underwater drones) for a year now, and you are rejoicing at something, hoping for something.
          2. -1
            April 27 2023 17: 40
            Quote: Silhouette
            Russia will not have a surface fleet adequate to the threats. No ships of the first rank of the class destroyer or missile cruiser will be built


            and what threats require a destroyer and a cruiser? and how many of them are needed in order to fend off these threats (by the way, the NATO and Japanese navies are meant)? and what will happen to the rest of the Armed Forces, with such a redistribution of funds in favor of the Great Fleet? however, for marine sectarians, the questions are rhetorical.
            will not be - and thank God. NK larger than the frigate-corvette of Russia is not needed. and in the coming years there will be no time for ships at all
  30. +11
    April 25 2023 10: 30
    Another sawyer showed up. Sawed already in the 90s and zero years 3/4 of the fleet. Let's exchange a cruiser for frigates, it's cheaper, then let's exchange frigates for boats, even cheaper, then boats for boats, and boats for combat dolphins? Damn optimizers...
    1. -8
      April 25 2023 10: 52
      Have you ever wondered why no country in the world has such ships? And no one even plans to build them
      1. +4
        April 25 2023 11: 09
        When these ships were built, it happened in completely different realities, and no one is now proposing to build the same ones. The point is to save those few available ships that were not reached in more crazy times. Especially when you consider that the emergence of new ones in the current conditions is still written with a pitchfork on the water
        1. -4
          April 25 2023 11: 29
          So is there any point in saving something that is not useful. The Navy is in trouble with the PLO forces and minesweeping forces, there is no sane satellite clustering, there is little aviation. In the event of a conflict, Nakhimov has two fates, either to die at sea without causing significant harm to the enemy, or to stand at the pier without going out to sea (and it is likely to die there at the pier). Do you have any other options in mind?
          1. +4
            April 25 2023 12: 00
            Cleverly you buried these ships in advance. There is an offhand option - to timely withdraw these ships from under attack and, with their help, ensure the deployment of strategic forces, at least. Sending ships under the knife now, having no others in return, is stupidity bordering on insanity.
            1. -1
              April 25 2023 12: 19
              How will you get the ships out of attack with the deplorable state of anti-mine and anti-submarine forces? And the deployment of strategists should be provided by these very anti-mine and anti-submarine forces
      2. +3
        April 25 2023 12: 34
        Good day! hi The point is not that no one plans to build them. And the fact that there is a nuclear cruiser today, and the author would like to change it to non-existent (today and in the foreseeable future) frigates feel
        1. -2
          April 25 2023 12: 41
          Well, let's say there is no nuclear cruiser yet. Nakhimov has been on modernization since 2013 (10 years), more than 200 billion have been spent. I think in 10 years and for such funds it was possible to solve the issue of building frigates.
          1. +4
            April 25 2023 16: 45
            Quote from: Derbes19
            I think in 10 years and for such funds it was possible to solve the issue of building frigates.

            "Gorshkov" was built 14 ...
            1. +1
              April 26 2023 05: 56
              Well, Peter will be modernized at such a pace for 10 years. After modernization, there will already be an old man.
            2. +2
              April 26 2023 11: 41
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              "Gorshkov" was built 14 ...

              "Gorshkov" was built for 9 years. And all the subsequent time they fought with "Polyment-Redoubt", which worked only as a "Redoubt".
              In the USSR, it was easier: the industries handed over to the Navy partially incompetent ships - either without part of the weapons, or with unfinished systems. And they finalized everything later, after the delivery.

              If you build a FR based on already finished serial systems, then it is better to take 11356 as an example.
              1. +4
                April 26 2023 13: 09
                Quote: Alexey RA
                If you build a FR based on already finished serial systems, then it is better to take 11356 as an example.

                OK. We have five sets of engines? feel
                The question is that it is proposed to change the cruiser for five frigates, but there is a cruiser, but there are no frigates and it’s not a fact that there will be. request
                1. +1
                  April 26 2023 19: 26
                  Quote: Senior Sailor
                  OK. We have five sets of engines?

                  After 9 years? It is necessary to ask Saturn. And look at the pace of construction of 22350 already under construction.
  31. +6
    April 25 2023 10: 31
    No matter how beloved Roman Skomorokhov sets out his arguments, which are sometimes dubious and far-fetched, and sometimes corresponding to this problem.
    The cruiser Admiral Nakhimov will come out of repair and modernization in 2024 and will be the flagship of the Northern Fleet, and the cruiser Peter the Great will take its place for modernization, but it seems not so deep.
  32. +7
    April 25 2023 10: 35
    You should not try to shrink to the ball so that it is not empty, but you need to pump up the ball so that it expands. In other words, you should not try to optimize everything in a row so that there is enough money, but you need to recreate production so that there is more money.
    1. +5
      April 25 2023 12: 27
      Certainly you are right. First of all, it is necessary to deal with science and industry. A country with a powerful economy automatically has a strong army and a powerful navy. And not vice versa.
  33. +4
    April 25 2023 11: 03
    While I would like to keep both ships. The displacement is huge - it is possible to fit hundreds of effective missiles of various types, both anti-ship, and anti-aircraft, and anti-submarine ... There is a lot of space for radars, helicopters, drones ...
  34. -4
    April 25 2023 11: 12
    The larger and more complex the ship, the faster it will sink on its own, especially the old one. This is an ancient mosquito, as it shot - it shoots. Not so with old ships.
  35. -3
    April 25 2023 11: 29
    there is another option: the cruiser is needed for the museum on the forts of Kronstadt, where the minister's family turned around with public money
  36. +4
    April 25 2023 11: 46
    too much water and equivocation (half-text - cycles of the same arguments, but different words), either the author has a spring aggravation, or did he unsuccessfully set up chatgpt so that the neural network would write articles for him?
  37. +4
    April 25 2023 12: 20
    many representatives of the sect need to demonstrate the Russian flag
    To display the flag, you can build sailing frigates. Beautiful. Eco-friendly. Inexpensive.
  38. +2
    April 25 2023 13: 15
    Cruisers, in principle, should go to a landfill, a huge target, and Peter the Great also has a nuclear engine. As much as spending on the maintenance of these monsters is enough to make small ships that actually perform a combat mission, and will not make the Americans laugh. We have no tasks for cruisers, given the power of our fleet.
    1. +2
      April 25 2023 16: 45
      Now tell it to the Y. Koreans with the project arsenal cruisers, designed to carry more than 80 ballistic missiles of medium or shorter range /BYSpRGs-vNo or Japanese with escort super destroyers (cruisers) URO https://topwar.ru/201694-japonija-planiruet-postrojku-gigantskih-korablej-protivoraketnoj-oborony.html
      Korean will be 14-15 thousand tons (a series of 3 ships is planned), Japanese 19-20 thousand tons (a series of 2 ships)
      Do not forget that the ill-fated Zumvolts, count cruisers, for 14 tons, are de facto re-equipped for hypersound -v-564-godu.html
      1. 0
        April 30 2023 11: 30
        Koreans have a unique situation. By the way, they make RSD with 10-ton conventional heads. Do we have these?
  39. -1
    April 25 2023 14: 53
    especially given the upcoming budgetary problems

    revenues to the budget only from domestic VAT for 2022 amounted to 27 trillion rubles
    excluding any mineral extraction tax, export duties
    although budget expenditures under the condition of SVO 31 trillion rubles
    what kind of upanic tales (?)
    yes, there was talk about a budget deficit in the 1st quarter of 2023, BEFORE VAT was paid to the budget
    eventually in the 1st quarter of 2023, the budget collected more dough than in almost all of 2022
  40. +3
    April 25 2023 14: 58
    You can endlessly repeat the mantra that cruisers are not needed, let's build frigates and large corvettes. We are building them. How can we, how can we. But absolutely large ships, new ones, we cannot build today. The leader with his budget of 100 billion has calmed down, but it’s generally dark about cruisers. So it is necessary to modernize Peter. One cruiser will be in the Pacific Fleet, the second in the north, escort ships and multi-purpose nuclear submarines will catch up. A large sledgehammer covered with a warrant is needed. If a big sledgehammer still has nuclear weapons on board, then even more so. And she will have it. Our partners will think more often whether it is worth climbing.
  41. +3
    April 25 2023 16: 41
    The modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov" took about 90 billion rubles, which is significantly less - 200 billion rubles, which the author of the article writes about. The author rightly notes that the "Admiral Nakhimov" will be better armed than 5 frigates 22350 of the "Admiral Gorshkov" type, but it will cost only as TWO FRIGATES. The benefit is obvious. Meanwhile, such complex calculations, counting the number of missiles here and there, are, in fact, redundant: everyone understands that if an apartment needs to be renovated, then it needs to be repaired, and not throw away the old apartment and not buy a new one. Any layman understands this obvious logic.
    [/ Quote]
    Modernization of the heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARK) "Admiral Nakhimov", according to experts, has exceeded 1999 billion rubles since 90, Alexei Zhuravlev, First Deputy Head of the State Duma Defense Committee, told NEWS.ru. The parliamentarian became interested in the estimate for the repair of the TARK, "to understand if this is not just a black hole."

    Modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov" has shown how long and costly such activities can be. The ship has been under repair since 1999 and is still not in service. Experts calculated that it cost about 90 billion rubles, the amount is enough for 10 new corvettes. It would be nice to see the estimate in order to understand if this is not just a black hole into which budget money has flowed for years, Zhuravlev emphasized.[quote]
  42. +4
    April 25 2023 18: 17
    You're talking apolitically, author. The maritime doctrine, signed by the country's president and adopted a year ago, explicitly states that Russia's zone of vital interests is the entire world's oceans. It also talks about the construction of ships in the ocean zone and aircraft carriers. Your article does not coincide with the line of the party and government. It sees sabotage in strengthening the country's Navy and discrediting the armed forces. This is subject to criminal penalties.
    But seriously, why do you oppose the cruiser and frigates to each other? What does it mean to build five frigates with the same money than a cruiser? It is produced at different production facilities. Where a cruiser is being repaired, frigates are not being built and vice versa. All nodes and components are different. It does not interfere.
    Second. Four frigates have been standing on the stocks of the Severnaya Verf plant for a long time, waiting for the main engines. Here is the problem with them. Two more frigates are planned to be laid down this year, as well as two frigates at NEA. All this will be built by 2040, not earlier, but the ships are needed now.
    Third. The problem is not money, but the possibilities of our industry. As for money, only in the last military year of 2022, 261 billion North American dollars were withdrawn from the country. At today's exchange rate, this is about 21 trillion rubles, or about 50 frigates. This is where you need to look for reserves.
    The cruiser ,, Peter the Great ,, needs to be modernized without a doubt, but maybe in smaller volumes. And of course you need to build other modern ships.
    And the cruiser ,, Moscow ,, was lost as a result of a fire. The cause of the fire is technical, independent of the crew. The ship was quite combat-ready and could still serve. It's a pity.
  43. 0
    April 25 2023 19: 35
    Large ships and aircraft carriers are for rich countries that have interests in different parts of the globe. Does Russia have such interests? Russia is a rich country.
    1. +1
      April 26 2023 06: 02
      Yes, Russia is a rich country, but many poor people still live in it.
  44. +6
    April 25 2023 19: 49
    The value of the Varyag after the story with the Moscow is more than doubtful, the Atlantes (however, like the Orlans) are too old ships to require something real from them.

    The combat value of Project 1144 cruisers is scanty today.
    Therefore, they are being modernized.
    More than 200 billion rubles have already been spent on the repair of Nakhimov. This is a huge amount for which 4-5 new frigates of project 22350 of the Admiral Gorshkov type could be built.

    So it turns out that on one side of the scale there is an old huge cruiser, armed not to say that with the latest technology, and on the other - 5 newest ships of a smaller class, but with no worse capabilities.
    It is forbidden. We had problems (were?) not with money, but with industry. If money is not allocated for repairs, then it will not be possible to build heels 22350 - the industry will not pull out. And this money will not go to landmen, but will be spent on a new Bentley and cocaine for the children of those who "save" this money for themselves.
    The ships are smaller in size, but in the aggregate of weapons they are in no way inferior to the Orlan, and in some ways even superior to it.
    That's why no one suggests replacing the Tu-160 with five Su-34s, but this happens all the time with TARKr? The cruiser can be such that the frigates do not shine.
    Why, then, in general, these huge, glowing half the world in all ranges, ships? It's clearly too expensive to "show the flag", especially given the upcoming budgetary problems associated with the cost of the war and the lack of income from the sale of resources.
    Tell the states about these unnecessary expenses, let them laugh.
    As for the "Peter the Great", the ship was clearly out of luck. The resource was indeed wasted on God knows what. Teachings, visits, demonstrations…
    It's called "Fleet in beeing". The fleet influences politics and economics by the mere fact of its existence. What is "lucky"? Now, if he was drowned - lucky?
    But I repeat - "Granites" - this is not what ships of the US Navy will be afraid of today. The effectiveness of the P-700 today is more than doubtful.
    There are no more granites - they are rotten. They are being replaced by UKKS.
    Definitely - no. The cruiser is not needed, not needed in the first place, because in order to fulfill its main combat mission, the destruction of the US AUG, it does not have escort ships, without which they will make a sieve out of the ship.
    UKKS will make the ship universal. This cruiser is itself an escort ship, it will cover other ships, not they. His radar is high - he sees far. It carries 2 zonal air defense systems and was an anti-aircraft defense ship from birth. He himself will protect our little things from the enemy, and they will not protect him.
  45. +4
    April 25 2023 20: 29
    Apparently, everything is much worse, since the former commander of the fleet was sent to command the Yunarmiya, the value of which, apparently, is comparable to the capabilities of the Pacific Fleet.

    Skomorokhov, do you know what Article 49 of the Federal Law "On military duty and military service" says? Or that S.I. Avakyants turned 6 on April 65. You do not have an article, but miserable fiction, a blunder on a blunder and a blunder drives. Its value "not hypothetically" but really - is equal to ZERO. Maybe it’s enough to puff out your cheeks with a serious look and build smart, it doesn’t work, Roman, nope.
    1. +2
      April 26 2023 11: 44
      Quote: MinskFox
      Skomorokhov, do you know what Article 49 of the Federal Law "On military duty and military service" says? Or that S.I. Avakyants turned 6 on April 65.

      And how old are Shoigu and Gerasimov? wink
      1. +2
        April 26 2023 19: 12
        67 and 67 respectively, what is the question? Why was it extended for them and Avakyants not? Because the citizens you named are the minister of defense and his first deputy, the mechanism for extending their contracts is all spelled out in the same49 article of the Federal Law "On military duty and military service." And now attention to the question: do you have any complaints about Avakyants? Skomorokhov writes that they were so big that they kicked him out almost in disgrace, so, is Skomorokhov lying or telling the truth?
  46. +3
    April 26 2023 00: 20
    Read to:
    "What then are these huge, glowing half the world in all ranges, ships for? For a" flag display "- obviously a little expensive pleasure, especially given the upcoming budgetary problems associated with the costs of the war and the lack of income from the sale of resources."
    And he suspected R. Skomorokhov as the author of the article. I quickly scrolled through the article to the end and was not mistaken)
    Previously, E. Damantsev guessed this way.
  47. -2
    April 26 2023 05: 40
    I agree with Roman Skomorokhov. 5 frigates are better than one Peter the Great. 5 frigates can be in five different places, but he is not. They can escort our ships, 5 small ones are better than one bulk. But you will say, but there are no frigates, but Peter is. There is no Peter, there is a trough in need of expensive and lengthy repairs and modernization. Nakhimov is being repaired for 24 years. Those. Petra will be repaired for 15-20 years. Is it possible to build 5 frigates during this time? On one slipway, maybe not, but on two, three? And we will have, for the same money, brand new ships even earlier than Peter. However, I think until Peter waits for a place in the dock in 2-3 years, our country will not be up to nuclear cruisers and maybe not even up to frigates. If we have to fight with the NATO fleets, the result in all cases will be even sadder than in Ukraine. The build-up of the fleet will ruin us, but the balance of forces will not change. Therefore, we must stop puffing out our cheeks and stretching our legs along the clothes. There was a great power, but the whole came out. It is necessary to agree. We agree to negotiations without preconditions.
    1. -2
      April 26 2023 19: 51
      Tsipso in action. The voice of Ukraine got here too
  48. +3
    April 26 2023 07: 28
    I ask all adherents of the Frigates to think deeply about the fuel supply of this combat unit in the ocean. Without a tanker, all this "relatively cheap product" will turn into a drifting ghost without any enemy influence.
    The ocean fleet must be nuclear, which means that the connection of ships must include aircraft carriers and cruisers. Moreover, the latter must correspond to the Burks for their intended purpose and surpass them in capabilities.
    The only relatively safe location for the open ocean fleet is the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, protected from the ocean by a chain of the Kuril Islands - natural forts. Hokkaido is a small gap in the cover zone, but the threat can be fended off by controlling the water area with patrol ships and coastal complexes.
    Also, in order to strengthen the Pacific Fleet, it is necessary to write off ALL available strategic aviation with appropriate support, including AWACS aircraft and tankers. The re-equipment of aircraft in the interests of the fleet will require a radical modernization, or better, the release of the next modification of aircraft capable of carrying more versatile weapons. By the way - the best frigate is a pair of strategic missile carriers.
    You will also need a fleet of the sea zone, which ensures the security of bases and passages. This is where the golden time comes for small ships, and neither a record speed, nor an oceanic navigation area, nor a solid combat load are critical for these ships.
    Of course, for a country living according to the budget rule approved by the IMF, such a task is not within the power, however, in the transition to project development (remember the Stalin five-year plans) - this is more than doable. At the same time, a huge military-industrial structure will be created and the real development of the Far East will take place.
  49. +2
    April 26 2023 09: 43
    And all that written by a Russian
  50. +1
    April 26 2023 11: 08
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    By the way - the best frigate is a pair of strategic missile carriers

    Do you know that the "white swan" carries 12 missiles mounted on two drum mounts; these X-101 missiles of the tomahawk-subsonic type are not anti-ship and you cannot attach any others to these drums. For example, Onyx or Zircon are anti-ship supersonic missiles, which alone can pose a danger to enemy ships. On the "Admiral Golovko" Onyxes and zircons - 16, anti-ship PKR3M54 - 16 pieces (anti-missile version of the caliber).
    1. 0
      April 26 2023 19: 04
      It carries both Zircons and X-22B and much more. When dismantling the drums and installing the frame beam, it is capable of carrying up to 70 tons of combat load, though due to a shortage of fuel.
      I wrote:
      or better, the release of the next modification of machines capable of carrying more versatile weapons
      .
      Yes, and that's not the point. The main thing is personnel who have mastered modern technology (how can I not remember I.V. Stalin here!). Instead of hanging around gay bars and tik-tok, today's youth will be motivated to acquire knowledge, serve in a fleet that has grown many times over, design and build new ships and means of support, new factories and cities.
      The main thing is to renounce the external management of the IMF once and for all, driving the self-proclaimed world government under the bunk and returning real sovereignty to Russia.
      1. 0
        April 26 2023 22: 51
        Yes, we need a Navy, not the IMF! You are right ...
      2. 0
        April 27 2023 18: 10
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        It carries both Zircons and X-22B and much more. When dismantling the drums and installing the frame beam, it is capable of carrying up to 70 tons of combat load, though due to a shortage of fuel.
        I wrote:
        or better, the release of the next modification of machines capable of carrying more versatile weapons

        It can carry Tu-160 and bombs, there on the walls of the attachment compartment for cluster holders. Upgrade? You understand that the dimensions of the weapons bay cannot be upgraded, but they are: 1920x11350! X-22 has a length of 12m and a wingspan of 3m. You can hang onyxes on a beam. The aviation version of the onyx, which was planned but not accepted for service, has a size of 720x6100. The compartment will include 2 pieces. Only 4 pieces of 3 tons = 12 tons, with a carrying capacity of 45 tons, and you dream of 70 tons. But there is a dagger rocket with a size of 920x7000. 1920--2x920=80(mm). But the walls there are not clean: tubes, boxes, cylinders for opening the valves, and here for three gaps of 80mm! No, you can't stuff two daggers into the compartment, only one! In total, the Tu-160 carries two daggers of 5 tons in two compartments, a total of 10 tons. MiG-31 carries 1 dagger. That's the whole upgrade for you. Nobody will be doing this. Nobody knows anything about zircon, and who knows is silent. And you tell me about the aviation version of zircon.
  51. -1
    April 26 2023 12: 24
    The fleet clearly lacks two Mistrals, but the way they were washed was a dream.
  52. +1
    April 26 2023 12: 58
    I don’t agree with the author about the complete uselessness of granites; the Americans even conducted practice shooting to shoot down a vaguely similar missile without a warhead. Shot down! But the debris ricocheted off the surface of the water and turned the ship that hit them right through into just debris. The holes were simply huge.
  53. The comment was deleted.
  54. +1
    April 26 2023 19: 29
    It became very painful to read this article, to what extent 30 years of oligarchy could turn a space power, the country builds only 1 ship per year, and all those remaining from the times of the union barely float and in real combat conditions will go to the bottom, construction of 1 frigate-destroyer - a corvette per year for the whole country is like an achievement; during the union, such ships were produced 1 per month
  55. The comment was deleted.
  56. +2
    April 26 2023 22: 46
    God, what nonsense! Everything needs to be repaired and new things need to be built, too. Russia needs a powerful ocean fleet. Why are you rubbing 200 billion in repairs in our faces?! These are pennies of 2,5 billion dollars - they stole 25 times more from us after the start of the Northern Military District .It would be better if they built a fleet and factories...Why are you pissing on these pieces of paper?!But the punishment for deadlines must be severe.5 years for repairs, no more.There is no owner in the country, that’s all..And the Russian navy is necessary .
    1. 0
      April 30 2023 11: 38
      "Russia needs a powerful ocean fleet"
      You can puff out your cheeks as much as you like, it won’t change reality. No, it’s unlikely that the “Peter” will be scrapped immediately, it’s just that as the “Nakhimov” is tested, the entire crew will go there, and the “Peter” will remain in the crap.
  57. -1
    April 30 2023 12: 20
    Now the Russian Federation cannot make a modern first-rank missile cruiser. They could do this in the USSR. We need to modernize and repair what we have. The cruiser Moscow was sunk and forgotten, although it can be raised, the damage assessed and repaired, the hull is intact. There is no particular need to break and destroy brains.
  58. -1
    April 30 2023 19: 11
    Quote: Alexey RA
    So the true face of the new commies has emerged, who, for the sake of coming to power and illusory social justice, are always happy to sacrifice tens of millions of their fellow citizens in the process.

    ...In fact, the face of the new “whites” has emerged, who, in order to prevent the coming of social justice, are always happy to kill several tens of millions of their citizens in the process.
  59. +1
    April 30 2023 19: 50
    Our great Commander-in-Chief of the Navy S.G. has passed away. Gorshkov and everything went wrong. One thing I can safely say is that without a nuclear fleet, including a surface fleet, an ocean-going fleet cannot exist in Russia! Our admirals were given a head not only to wear a cap, but also to think.

    30 years of overhaul of a nuclear cruiser are certainly amazing. For such carelessness, the officials responsible for this should be fired.

    The course of events in the Northern Military District showed new trends in modern military tactics. It is possible to equip our nuclear cruisers with Caliber missiles, the latest long-range hypersonic missiles of the Zircon type, reconnaissance and attack air and underwater drones, Poseidons, etc. With the help of drones and extended-range cruise missiles, the capabilities of our TAKRs will increase many times over.

    During major repairs, the noise level of cruisers can be significantly reduced. And a lot more good things have been done in 30 years of overhaul!
  60. 0
    2 May 2023 01: 27
    Somehow I read the comments .. a lot of them and different thoughts .. there are good ones and there are bad ones.
    I want to add my two cents.
    I will make a reservation right away - I am not a sailor and not a military man.
    Purely my opinion.
    The development of the fleet must be consistent and comprehensive.
    And everything should be based on the economic and industrial capabilities of the country.
    Modernization of technology also requires a balanced approach.

    And now the reasoning.
    Modernization of the TARK Admiral Nakhimov - no one will say right now what and when the fleet will receive in the end !!!!!
    With such terms of modernization, what was the latest and most advanced at the time of the start of work becomes obsolete. This is where the problem lies.
    We are modernizing, modernizing, the budget is being mastered, but there is no combat-ready ship !!!!!
    Therefore, thoughts begin to appear - and why do we need this old trough, maybe it’s better to rivet the heels of new ships ...
    Here it is necessary that the naval ones themselves decide to tell the truth - they need such ships or it is better to give them others !!
    Let the navy still decide what they need better ..
    But then again - you look at the fleet, and you think, well, what the hell is with us !!!! No matter how the exercises are, so is the constant window dressing of firing bombers and landing.
    And that's all our fleet is capable of!!
    And all sorts of not joyful thoughts come up - "yes, it's not like we have only baranoids in the fleet ???"
    Many thoughts, even more problems!
    And yet we must admit - modernization will give only a short-term effect !!!
    And this is - why the hell do we need TARKs if there is no support for them ???
    Here we have a TARK, and there is nothing to make up the KUG with him at the head !!! So maybe we will first provide this very filling of the KUG without a flagship, and then we will pull up the flagship ourselves ???
    Let's first build corvettes, frigates, destroyers, submarines, supply ships and tankers, and after that we'll take on the TAKR ???? And unfortunately, he's completely rotten by that time ...
    Here is the paradox - the old TAKR turns out like a suitcase without a handle !!!! It seems to be, it creates problems, but the benefits from it are not visible. And it sucks money from the budget ... and requires 1500 highly qualified specialists ... And what is the return, what is the raisin of the old TAKR ????
    Maybe the truth is easier to pin it, and the reactor for disposal?
    And the reactor is also a smut, which is forgotten, or rather, they remember that it rarely needs to be refueled.
    But the lifetime of the reactor is limited!!!!!!!!!!
    Everything with regards to the reactor - everything has a limited service life !!
    For some reason this is not mentioned.
    REACTOR - this is still that smut.
    1. 0
      3 May 2023 15: 38
      It would have been possible to speak more briefly in support of the author.
      I want to add my two cents.
      I will make a reservation right away - I am not a sailor and not a military man.

      If you are not in the know, then it is better to keep your pennies to yourself, so over time the ruble will accumulate.
  61. Jyt
    0
    2 May 2023 12: 01
    Or maybe a kick from the bourgeoisie will be enough for everything! And the whole point of smearing the ships of the far sea zone is so that there is no opportunity to approach the adversary. This is how the United Russia Kai 5th column works against our homeland
  62. 0
    21 June 2023 15: 57
    And what about tactical nuclear weapons???????????????????????????????
  63. -1
    25 June 2023 18: 37
    Before your ass burns, you need to throw out all this junk.
  64. 0
    1 July 2023 23: 37
    How sick and tired of these tales about huge amounts of money going nowhere and tales about how it should have been spent...
    Firstly: we cannot build more ships than we build (with the current system of management and fleet management)!!!! This fact is known to everyone except the sect of those who like to count money and measure everything with it.
    Secondly: the cruiser "Moscow" was destroyed by the enemy due to the inability to use it and the unprepared crew! This fact, as well as the antenna posts in the stowed position, is known to everyone who wants to know it, as well as those who know how to read and work with information.
    Thirdly: the above-mentioned cruiser would probably now be safe and sound if it had received modernization, like the Ushakov of the same type.
    Fourthly: we can, but we do not, strike at the enemy’s control, transport and networks (all) in Ukraine; with such conduct of any military operations, with any number of ships, we are doomed to defeat in a war with any enemy.
    And most importantly: we have a ship (!) and we don’t need to help the enemy sink it!!! Nobody knows (except God) what we will build or not build there. Stop breaking already! First build at least slipways for 4,5,6 frigates 22350. And then talk about it.
  65. The comment was deleted.
  66. 0
    13 July 2023 10: 38
    No, well, comparison with Yamato is top notch, of course.
    An artillery ship really doesn’t dance against aircraft carriers. And the rocket one is just fine.
    A rocket ship with unlimited range - even more so.

    The question of target designation at long distances remains open. If we can guarantee it, then nuclear cruisers with a large number of universal launchers for calibers/zircons are a necessity.

    The second point is that such a ship must have a good cover group. We need effective air defense/missile defense ships to protect it.
  67. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      15 July 2023 00: 54
      How can one agree with steam idiocy????
  68. 0
    15 July 2023 00: 39
    Skomorokhov is simply a buffoon!

    What nonsense is he talking about???

    What is it: its repair and modernization has been going on in Severodvinsk for 24 years. ???

    The author is absolutely???


    Where did he get the 1500 crew? There are 750 of them.

    In short, I finished reading this nonsense and closed it. You are talking nonsense.

    I can copy:

    60 Arley Berks of the USA will simply pull down the enemy anti-ship missiles.

    Chinese destroyers 055d, weighing 13 thousand tons, will simply pull the enemy anti-ship missiles onto themselves.

    Author, you cretin!
  69. The comment was deleted.
  70. +1
    7 September 2023 20: 23
    Since they didn’t start to cut them up, then let them do it
  71. 0
    23 September 2023 10: 34
    Ask the commander of the cruiser "Moscow" whether such ships are needed or not.
  72. The comment was deleted.