In the Western press: the largest ships of the Russian Navy have become a "headache" for Russia

102
In the Western press: the largest ships of the Russian Navy have become a "headache" for Russia

The largest ships of the Russian Navy have become a "headache" for Russia. They bring too many problems to their country, which still do not stop.

This opinion was expressed by a columnist for the foreign edition of Insider Benjamin Brimelow.



Speaking about the largest surface warships in Russia, the Western press means the nuclear-powered battlecruisers of the Kirov class - Admiral Nakhimov and Peter the Great, as well as the only Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, officially referred to as a heavy aircraft carrier cruiser (TAKR). All of them could be the most combat-ready ships of the Russian surface fleet. But a combination of maintenance difficulties, funding problems and poor performance have turned them, the author argues, into the biggest headache for the Russian Navy.

The Kirov-class battlecruisers, with a hull length of 252 meters and a total displacement of 28 tons, are the largest surface warships in the world, not counting aircraft carriers. They are also considered the most heavily armed in the entire history. But their size and complexity mean they needed, and need, constant and intensive maintenance that the USSR, and later the Russian Federation, Brimelow notes, could hardly afford.


Despite this, it was decided not to withdraw them from the fleet, but, on the contrary, they began to repair and modernize them. Repair "Admiral Nakhimov" is close to completion, and it turned out to be very costly. There were suggestions that because of this, the leadership might abandon the plans for the modernization of Peter the Great, but this did not happen. Work on it is planned to begin immediately after the transfer of the Nakhimov fleet.


There is also a modernization of the TAKR "Admiral Kuznetsov". The date for the return to service of him and Nakhimov has already been postponed several times, now it is scheduled for next year. Since Russia is now spending a lot of money on a special operation in Ukraine, the foreign author doubts that the repair of these two ships will ever be completed.

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Well, yes, large ships for the Russian Navy are a headache, there’s no point even arguing about this, all that’s left is to agree
    1. +14
      25 May 2023
      The foreign author doubts that the repair of these two ships will ever be completed.

      And how surprised he will be when this repair is completed. Because of the big ships, all the admirals of the world have a headache and there is no need to transfer arrows to our fleet. Everyone has read and knows what are the problems with the British aircraft carriers and how many problems the French have with their De Gaulle and the Americans have not gone far
      1. +2
        26 May 2023
        If they return to duty, all three, I will also be very surprised.
  2. +12
    25 May 2023
    Campaign they read a recent article on VO there and translated it into English.
    1. +7
      25 May 2023
      This is what you want so much, Western defenders))) perhaps the terms of repairs will be shifted, but the ships will return to service.
      1. +7
        25 May 2023
        Quote: TermNachTER
        but the ships will return to service

        And they will become a headache already for n-owls.
    2. +8
      25 May 2023
      Well, when such a "large" ship of the Russian Navy "ships" in a salvo up to a hundred hypersonic carriers to one side or the other of the Atlantic, then they will, the so-called. "Western analysts", "pain" to talk about ...

      And not at all about the "head" ... In short, - all the way through. The Russian fleet must be full-fledged and multifunctional. both in its overhead, and in the underwater and "aerospace" components ...
      1. -1
        25 May 2023
        Well, when such a "large" ship of the Russian Navy "ships" in a salvo up to a hundred hypersonic carriers to one side or the other of the Atlantic, then they will, the so-called. "Western analysts", "pain" to talk about ...

        And not at all about the "head" ... In short, - all the way through. The Russian fleet must be full-fledged and multifunctional. As in its surface, the same in underwater and "aerospace" ...

        And if you "relax" or / and underestimate the enemy, then not only a "large" ship, but also any other "headache" can become. And quite naturally...
      2. +2
        25 May 2023
        Only trouble is, there are thousands of thousands of those volleys needed. Simultaneously.
        That's why the problems - suitcases without a handle ...
        Or another hundred to rivet, or
  3. +2
    25 May 2023
    Large ships are a headache for all the fleets of the world.
    Huge ships will become a thing of the past along with dreadnoughts, battleships and other battleships. Now they are just becoming good big targets for the Coast Guard, small missile ships and submarines.
    1. +5
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Rumata
      Huge ships will become a thing of the past

      Yes, yes, 1869 years have already passed since 154, as they say, but the big ships, shit, they don’t all leave :)))
      1. +8
        25 May 2023
        Dear admirals, in what war did the Republic of Ingushetia, the USSR, the Russian Federation successfully use these large ships?
        And then we build everything, we build ... Like nada ...
        And then either Tsushima, or the whole war from the bays, we carry out the order, now in the NVO the Black Sea Fleet is of no use ...
        1. +6
          25 May 2023
          Quote: Neo-9947
          Dear admirals, in what war did the Republic of Ingushetia, the USSR, the Russian Federation successfully use these large ships?

          Russian-Japanese, World War I, they couldn’t in World War II, for the most part for reasons unrelated to the fleet. It is difficult to fight from besieged Leningrad, or having lost the main base of the fleet (Sevastopol).
          Quote: Neo-9947
          And then we build, we build ...

          Where?:)))
          1. +3
            26 May 2023
            In addition to the squadron of F.F. Ushakov, perhaps never again ... And yes, big ships are a pain, I say as a naval officer. But this pain is in the absence of iron discipline and commanding authority. The best crews in our fleets have always been on the TFR, MPK, minesweepers ... Submariners are a separate caste, it's different here.
            1. Quote: Submariner971
              In addition to the squadron of F.F. Ushakov, perhaps never again ...

              Come on :))) Even in the devastating for us, the RYAV VOK acted well. In WWI, heavy ships at the World Cup worked extremely efficiently, the fleet generally solved almost all of its tasks. In the Baltic in WWI, we have "Glory", which in one person covered the coastal flank of the army. You can arbitrarily scold the passivity of the Baltic Fleet, but the fact is that the Germans, having a total superiority in strength, could not support the coastal flank of their army (Moonzund).
              Quote: Submariner971
              And yes - big ships are a pain, I speak as a naval officer

              They need to be managed, yes.
        2. +1
          25 May 2023
          The war will be one - shot to the bottom.
        3. +3
          25 May 2023
          Of course, there is no sense in the Black Sea Fleet, though the Ukrainians are watching this same Black Sea Fleet with all their eyes, and as soon as someone goes out, they immediately turn on the wind alarm and run to the basements
      2. -1
        26 May 2023
        The battleships are gone, the aircraft carriers are in thought. And the number of drones: underwater, surface, air is growing. And the quality is growing.
        1. +3
          26 May 2023
          Quote: Ksyusha Oleneva
          Battleships are gone, aircraft carriers are in thought

          What thoughts? :))) They are being built by the Americans, the British have commissioned two, the Chinese are building, the Japanese, the French are preparing to lay a new one, the Turks are even trying ... It's time to talk about an aircraft carrier boom.
    2. +4
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Rumata
      Huge ships will become a thing of the past along with dreadnoughts, battleships and other battleships. Now they are just becoming good big targets for the Coast Guard, small missile ships and submarines.

      And everything will be repeated as old. ©
      How many of them have already been, these gravediggers - Jeune École, small fleet, etc.
  4. +5
    25 May 2023
    The military value of these old ships is very doubtful, and the costs of repairs and maintenance are excessive. We need a new meaningful concept for the development of the surface part of the fleet, based on modern solutions (global target designation, long-range precision weapons, etc.). In any case, the fleet can be effective only with a large serial construction of ships.
    1. +1
      25 May 2023
      50 S300f missiles and 50 anti-ship missiles with the ability to carry nuclear weapons, and a couple of hundred smaller anti-aircraft missiles. Indeed, what is the military value here
      1. +2
        26 May 2023
        And what's the point? Where is the flagship Moscow?? Loved for the sniff of tobacco ...
  5. 0
    25 May 2023
    Another "libel" from the Westerners.
    There is information that Severodvinsk shipbuilders work at Nakhimov in three shifts. They want to hand over the cruiser on time. Time will tell who is right. I wonder which ship will be the first to be taken out of repair? Nakhimov or Kuznetsov.
    On Peter the Great, there will not be such a deep modernization as on Nakhimov.
    I would like to note that the competence of Western experts on the Russian Federation has greatly decreased and their predictions often do not come true.
    1. Probably the expensive and huge analogous "Moscow" will knock you from the bottom that "Large ships in the modern world are a must-have"? Or are you like Hitler, a fan of the "Floating Mastodons", and do not listen to the conditional Dönitz, which tells you "for the same money that you spend on the Bismarck, we can increase the submarine fleet by 3 times!"
      1. +11
        25 May 2023
        Quote: Magos_Adeptus_Mechanicus
        for the same money that you spend on the Bismarck, we can increase the submarine fleet by 3 times!"

        Increased, and not even 3 times, but much more. And the Allies carried this entire submarine fleet forward with their feet literally in one gate, investing in inexpensive corvettes, frigates, and escort aircraft carriers. Already in 1943, the battle for the Atlantic was lost by the Germans with a deafening crash.
        And you need to understand that if the Germans had not built Bismarck, then the British would not have built the five Kings, but a smaller number of them. And the released money would be sent to the PLO
        1. +6
          25 May 2023
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And the Allies carried this entire submarine fleet forward with their feet literally in one gate, investing in inexpensive corvettes, frigates, and escort aircraft carriers.

          Moreover, in contrast to the submarines sharpened for one task, counteracting them inexpensive corvettes, frigates, escort aircraft carriers were multifunctional. The same AVEs in the Atlantic solved the tasks of anti-aircraft defense, and in the Pacific theater of operations they provided air defense for landing zones and support for ground forces. Frigates - provided DESO air defense.
          1. +3
            25 May 2023
            Quote: Alexey RA
            were multifunctional.

            Undoubtedly.
        2. +2
          26 May 2023
          You can't argue ... Although, if the war had lasted for another couple of years, Dönitz could have counted on revenge. Series XXI, built in commercial quantities (and there was already a backlog), could significantly change the alignment for the next few years, according to the estimates of the allies themselves.
          1. Quote: Submariner971
            Although the war lasted for another couple of years, Dönitz could count on revenge

            Hardly. Firstly, submarines achieved great success against Atlantic convoys in conjunction with reconnaissance aircraft, which, in fact, found convoys and merged them with submarines, which was no longer possible. And secondly, although XXI was a revolution, the development of the fetus also did not stand still
          2. +3
            26 May 2023
            Quote: Submariner971
            Although the war lasted for another couple of years, Dönitz could have counted on revenge. The XXI series, built in commercial quantities (and there was already a backlog), could significantly change the alignment for the next few years, according to the estimates of the allies themselves.

            Even with the XXI series, the Kriegsmarine submarine had little chance. With all its advantages, this submarine remained diesel-electric, which means that it had to regularly run a diesel engine to recharge the battery. And there, whether on the surface or through the RDP, by 1945 there was no longer any difference: the air over the Atlantic was blocked by base patrolmen. Together with them, separate search and anti-submarine groups with AVE work. The convoy drags with it a cover group, also from the AVE, which grazes with its air group a 100-mile zone at the convoy's course and side sectors. Base and deck patrols are equipped with radar, carry RGAB and FIDO - homing anti-submarine torpedoes.
            And against them - deaf and blind submarines, which can only rely on radio intelligence data or on data on the detection of KOH by other submarines. Moreover, it is necessary to go on the air very carefully - HF / DF does not sleep. With the advent of the AVE, the "Condors", which previously inspired fear and horror at the KOH, themselves turned into game - and the submarines lost data from aerial reconnaissance.
            In fact, the NATO ASW system against the nuclear submarines of our Navy is a creative development of the 1945 system.
      2. +1
        25 May 2023
        Moscow is just a small boat, and this is what ruined her. Overload with offensive weapons left no room for reliable air defense. We learn materiel.
        German submarines COULD NOT stop shipping in the Atlantic. But Bismarck did just that. Until he was drowned, by the way, quite by accident, the classic "Golden Bullet", transportation insurance rates rose in England to 25%. This means a complete cessation of maritime trade. We learn materiel two.
        We add the problems of autonomy and seaworthiness of small ships and get the minimum reasonable displacement of a ship in the far sea zone, not to mention ocean ships of ten thousand tons. More is better.
        And no coastal missile launchers will replace the surface fleet.
        1. +1
          26 May 2023
          The armament of Moscow's air defense cannot be called weak in any way, this is definitely not the subject of "savings".
          1. 0
            26 May 2023
            The subject of savings, judging at least by the result. Rearmament with offensive weapons, in general, is an old misfortune of our fleet. Alas.
          2. +1
            26 May 2023
            Quote: Submariner971
            The armament of Moscow's air defense cannot be called weak in any way, this is definitely not the subject of "savings".

            It is not weak, it is unbalanced for solo sailing. 1164 were the flagships of ship formations, their "long arm" - carrying long-range anti-ship missiles and air defense systems DD. For the sake of their placement, they had to sacrifice the rest of the air defense lines, limiting themselves to the ancient and ineffective "Osa-M" (see "Monsoon") and "blowtorches" of ZAK self-defense.
            For the formation ship, this was fully justified - the "hole" in the air defense at short ranges and low altitudes was closed by other ships of the formation carrying the corresponding air defense systems. But when acting alone, there was no one to cover these holes.

            Of course, it is good to have a ship that carries protection for all frontiers. But as a result of such universalization, a TAVKR has a displacement of over 25 kt. smile
            1. 0
              26 May 2023
              Quote: Alexey RA
              But as a result of such universalization, a TAVKR has a displacement of over 25 kt.

              Oops .. correction: not TAVKR, but TAРKR - heavy atomic missile cruiser.
        2. +1
          26 May 2023
          Small boat? So the sea is not very big. Yes, and not only Moscow drowned as far as I remember. For a year and a half already a lot of losses.
  6. +8
    25 May 2023
    Big ships - always big costs! Look at (Zumwalt), the cost of one Zamwalt ($4,4 billion) is almost equal to half the cost of an aircraft carrier. And its use is also being discussed, it simply did not find a place in the US Navy.
    1. +2
      25 May 2023
      Two guns were installed on it, taking into account all the components of the shot, one shot from a gun costs about $ 2 million. They are thinking of installing a missile launcher on it, but today it is cheaper to convert Ohio SSBNs to carry missile carriers. Nuclear submarines are being modernized, and Zimvolts are rusting.
      1. +2
        25 May 2023
        Quote: Sergey39
        Two guns were installed on it, taking into account all the components of the shot, one shot from a gun costs about $ 2 million.

        Well, the main caliber of "Zamvolta" was designed based on a series of 32 units. With such a volume of orders, the cost of one shell was quite acceptable. And when the series was cut to three ships, then for a batch of only 2000 LRLAP-type shells, the fleet rolled out a price tag of 2 billion.
      2. -2
        25 May 2023
        Oh! And this super-duper long-range gun fires as much as a 5 "projectile. Let's take, let's say 30 kg of total weight, five kilograms for a jet engine, a couple of kilos for a control system. From the rest, we calculate the prescribed five percent for explosives and we get that for crazy money, this fart, let it very accurately throw a little more than a kilogram of explosives into the HZ.
        Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid!
    2. +1
      25 May 2023
      In vain they scoff at the zumvolt. So many new systems and technologies have been tested on it that the next project, taking into account all the jambs of the Zumvolt, can be very surprising
      1. +1
        26 May 2023
        Given the fact that the new project is a modernized Arly - what? :))
      2. 0
        26 May 2023
        Quote from Krivobokoff
        In vain they scoff at the zumvolt. So many new systems and technologies have been tested on it that the next project, taking into account all the jambs of the Zumvolt, can be very surprising

        It can’t in principle. It’s not about technology, it’s about price. The more bells and whistles are implied (and here the Americans understand a lot), the price rises into space. They don’t make cheap and reliable weapons.
  7. +3
    25 May 2023
    In principle, he voiced what a normal person has long understood, as they say - “If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser ...” - Sir Winston Churchill. And the big one is an aircraft carrier laughing Only a country that prints grandmas can afford the luxury of maintaining a bunch of huge troughs, and half of them are constantly in the repair docks of cruise companies. All the more incomprehensible are the periodic jerks about the need for the Russian Federation to have these monsters. And who will deal with a bunch of problems in the event of damage to an aircraft carrier, for example, somewhere in the Atlantic ..? And why is it needed? Project power off the coast of Papua? Modern weapons already make it possible not to be afraid of aircraft carrier groups, the Patriot is partly an example of this, the owner of an aircraft carrier or a large ship should be afraid, but hide it away)).
    1. 0
      25 May 2023
      Thank God that no one takes you seriously among the Chinese experts like you, and the country is quietly building a combat-ready fleet for itself
      1. +2
        26 May 2023
        China has a completely different situation. They have a huge coastline of the warm sea on which half of the population lives.
  8. +7
    25 May 2023
    A different author is trying to pass off his "wet girlish dreams" as problems of the Russian Federation, Suggests, (benefactor,), stupid Russians, that they are like an absolutely land nation. And they don’t need anything but coast guard boats. And for some reason, the authors of such articles always turn out to be either arrogant Saxons, or, at the very least, the Japanese. What would we poor orphans do without their advice? /sheds crocodile tears/

    And how to get the PLAB out of the base and to the open ocean is not important. I'm already silent about the independent value of "fleet in being".
  9. +5
    25 May 2023
    If Western "analysts" write such nonsense, then not everything is so bad with our ships.
  10. +4
    25 May 2023
    The main trend of this site was the citation of Western "expert opinions", Ukrainian misinformation and the publication of hysterical and alarmist articles. Apparently not without reason the site was transferred from a Russian hoster to an American one Cloudflare, although it may be cheaper and safer in the USA, they are not subject to Roskomnadzor. Too bad it was a good site.
    1. You are probably mistaken, on the contrary, this site has become more "cotton"
      1. -4
        25 May 2023
        He became the mouthpiece of Russian propaganda
    2. 0
      25 May 2023
      Cloudflare is a DDOS protection system. American hosting is much cheaper and more reliable than ours, alas. And the goal of any site is to make a profit, preferably the maximum possible.
  11. +1
    25 May 2023
    Remember the recent discussions about aircraft carriers and their "vital necessity" for Russia?
    Before dealing with the oceans, one must learn to control rivers, like the Dnieper, and inland seas, like the Black Sea. And for this you need a lot, hundreds and thousands, of small and nimble river and sea boats - missile, artillery, torpedo, minesweepers, hunters, etc.
    1. +2
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Kostadinov
      we must learn to control rivers like the Dnieper, and inland seas like the Black Sea. And for this you need a lot, hundreds and thousands, small and nimble river and sea boats -

      Absolutely not necessary
    2. +3
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Kostadinov
      And for this you need a lot, hundreds and thousands, of small and nimble river and sea boats - missile, artillery, torpedo, minesweepers, hunters, etc.

      Yeah ... and then build hundreds of aircraft to provide air defense for this armada. And suddenly see that these aircraft can perform most of its tasks, making some of the boats unnecessary. smile
      I'm not talking about the problems of placing weapons and electronic equipment on small and brisk ship - out, the IPC has already evolved to corvettes of one and a half thousand tons.
    3. 0
      26 May 2023
      You may have heard something about the Northern Sea Route? Even without taking into account the current situation with the SVO, if Nakhimov does not shy away from it with air cover for Kuzi's wing, the American AUG will shy away there. Open the primer on history and read about the role of the fleet in the formation of the British Empire or the States.
  12. +1
    25 May 2023
    everything is known in comparison - if, instead of modernizing the "eagles", several frigates with modern weapons, or an army of naval drones, are built for the same money and terms, then this is the way out ... and if, as the enemies advise, simply do not spend money on modernization (and money, as usual invest in paper or another amount) - then the solution is obvious!
  13. +1
    25 May 2023
    Why not consider collaborating with Chinese and Russian ship design experts. Chinese specialists are in charge of designing the cases, such as the 054A case or the 052B/C/D/DL case and internal power; Russian specialists are engaged in the analysis of the dynamics of ships and, depending on the circumstances, the installation of weapons and electronics for Russian systems. Considering the delivery options and speed of production from Chinese shipyards, I think this is a very worthy issue to consider.
    The maintenance of these old vessels misleads the crew about the current operations of the vessel and the impact of outdated equipment on the living conditions and combat operations of the crew, which is very harmful. Boldly get rid of the bloated past and embrace a new future.
    1. +2
      25 May 2023
      Why not consider collaborating with Chinese and Russian ship design experts.

      Are you writing this to the admirals sitting on the VO? smile Plus, although I do not believe in it.
    2. +2
      25 May 2023
      Quote: flying_shark
      Why not consider collaborating with Chinese and Russian ship design experts. Chinese specialists are in charge of designing the cases, such as the 054A case or the 052B/C/D/DL case and internal power; Russian specialists are engaged in the analysis of the dynamics of ships and, depending on the circumstances, the installation of weapons and electronics for Russian systems. Considering the delivery options and speed of production from Chinese shipyards, I think this is a very worthy issue to consider.

      The Chinese don't need it at all. They have long since learned everything and rivet ships like hot cakes. We cannot even build motor boats at such a pace. Therefore, we are not interested in them at all and will only interfere and slow down.
    3. +1
      25 May 2023
      And you can ask, why all this? :))) What problem are you trying to solve with your rationalization proposal?
    4. +2
      25 May 2023
      Quote: flying_shark
      Why not consider collaborating with Chinese and Russian ship design experts. Chinese specialists are in charge of designing the cases, such as the 054A case or the 052B/C/D/DL case and internal power; Russian specialists are engaged in the analysis of the dynamics of ships and, depending on the circumstances, the installation of weapons and electronics for Russian systems. Considering the delivery options and speed of production from Chinese shipyards, I think this is a very worthy issue to consider.

      This is all very noble, but what about women GEM? smile
      The Chinese will never sell us a hull with installed ship gas turbine engines. Simply because the Chinese production of gas turbine engines is tied to the Ukrainian "Zorya-Mashproekt" with all sorts of end-user certificates and so on. And Zorya's attitude towards us is no different from the attitude of the two remaining gas turbine engine manufacturers - RR and GE. And no one in China will risk the supply of gas turbine engines for their fleet for us.
      And without a gas turbine engine, there is no difference between the body of project 052D hanging at the wall without engines and the body of project 22350 hanging at the wall without engines.
      1. 0
        26 May 2023
        China has sold 20 civilian gas turbines to Russia to transport gas. This gas turbine is all China GT25000, and China is fully aware of this gas turbine model and can guarantee its production. The 052DL/055 has already produced so many emissions, which is one of the strongest evidence that performance stability can confirm the maturity of gas turbines in China. With this popular example and the higher level of military cooperation achieved by the defense ministers of China and Russia, why not fantasize? Compared to the complete ban on the sale of Rolls-Royce and General Electric, Chinese gas turbines can still be negotiated.
  14. +5
    25 May 2023
    To avoid headaches, ships should be built in a series of 7-10 pieces. So under the USSR they planned. And with the collapse of the USSR, they received piece huge ships, instead of which smaller ships in a series would now look more optimal. But what is, is.
  15. 0
    25 May 2023
    "Battlecruisers")))))) the author drink poison ...
    1. +4
      25 May 2023
      They are sometimes called that in the West, so no need for poisons :))
  16. -1
    25 May 2023
    Yeah ... and then build hundreds of aircraft to provide air defense for this armada. And suddenly see that these aircraft can perform most of its tasks, making some of the boats unnecessary. smile

    If the aviation of all the tasks of the fleet is capable of fulfilling all the more large ships are not needed. Small, nimble boats are much harder to hit, and they also have their own air defense.
    I'm not talking about the problems of placing weapons and electronic equipment on a small and nimble ship - there, the IPC has already evolved to corvettes of one and a half thousand tons.

    ICBMs cannot be placed on them, but for the Dnieper and the Black Sea coast for a 300-400 ton boat or landing barge, the armament and armor of the BMP 3, or a tank turret, all ATGMs and MANPADS, Pantsir, MLRS, most torpedo mines and anti-ship missiles Caliber for armament will suffice Navy. It is not necessary and I will not list everything.
    1. +4
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Small, nimble boats are much harder to hit.

      Don't run from the sniper - you'll die tired. ©
      Remind you of fate little nimble domestic versions of the SV-90 at the Snake? Look, the Yankees even made a UAB from Mark 82-84 with the ability to work on moving targets.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      and they also have their own air defense

      Uh-huh ... MANPADS on a pedestal to calm the crew. The maximum possible - an incoming missile is clearly visible in the sight.
      The sane air defense system MD displays the displacement of the boat under 700-800 tons.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      but for the Dnieper and the Black Sea coast for a 300-400 ton boat or a landing barge, the armament and armor of the BMP 3, or a tank turret, all ATGMs and MANPADS will be enough

      And then an UAV with URO / UAB will fly to us - and the calculation of MANPADS will be able to threaten it with their fists at most. Therefore, even for ATGMs, the operating range is greater than the range of MANPADS missiles.
      On land, MANPADS justify their presence by the possibility of covert placement - the plane / helicopter simply does not see the calculation and enters the launch zone. But it is impossible to hide on the sea.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Carapace, MLRS, most mines of torpedoes and anti-ship missiles Caliber in service with the Navy.

      Small and nimble ship with "Shell" and "Caliber" - these are RTOs under 1000 tons of displacement.
      Without air supremacy, it is a floating target, which the Libyans proved in the 80s: their RTOs were discovered and classified after the first broadcast of the radar station, after which a "harpoon" flew to visit him.
      And a ship with a "Caliber" and more or less sane air defense grows to 2500 tons and goes into corvettes.
  17. +1
    25 May 2023
    This foreigner contradicts himself and cannot decide. Either Russia can neither support nor service, let alone modernize these giants, or it can because it immediately admitted below that all the same, Russia already has Admiral Nakhimov on extradition ... the modernized one is about to enter service.
  18. 0
    25 May 2023
    It's almost 25 years of the 21st century in the yard. The age of transition to unmanned systems.
    And what about process automation on these ships? On Kuza and on Petra with Nakhimov? How many crew are there? The technology of the women is still giving birth, it is no longer rolling.
    Peter crew of 744 people. Kuznetsov almost 2000 people. That is, these 3 ships are almost 4 thousand people, with personnel on the shore.
    In addition to money, these ships require a large human resource. And well-prepared. And what will happen if they don’t recruit a team, they say they say they will go down in half, they say, where will we find people. To what extent will the ship be combat-ready and ready to perform combat missions?
    Let me remind you that 135 people were called up in Russia during the season, and this is 270 a year. But besides the fleet, we have many other military branches that require many trained fighters. Especially now.
    The crew of the mentioned Zumwalt is 78 people. Frigate Gorshkov approximately 200 people. Moscow had about 500.
    But besides the army, there is the national economy, including the defense industry, where qualified personnel should also work. Well, power units, border guards, faces, police, the National Guard, the Federal Penitentiary Service, customs officers, bailiffs, prosecutors, investigators. And these are all people of fighting age.
    1. +6
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      Kuznetsov almost 2000 people.

      Of which more than 600 people - air wing
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      The crew of the mentioned Zumwalt is 78 people.

      And the crew of Gerald Ford - 2500 crew members plus the same number of air groups. Total 5000 people
    2. +3
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      The crew of the mentioned Zumwalt is 78 people. Frigate Gorshkov approximately 200 people. Moscow had about 500.

      We take a modern serial EM URO USN of the "Arleigh Burke" type. The regular crew is 337-380 people, depending on the modification.
  19. -1
    25 May 2023
    funny western press
    Russian budget revenues over 50 trillion rubles
    and the expenditure is about 37 trillion rubles.
    this is not counting the hidden revenues of the budget of the Russian Federation
    The city of Moscow deposits 1-2 trillion rubles every month
  20. -1
    25 May 2023
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Of which more than 600 people - air wing

    600 people for 20 planes (although there are probably a dozen of them left)?
    And what do 1400 more people do? Fuel oil is thrown into the boiler? Is the snow cleared on the deck?
    1. +2
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      600 people for 20 planes (although there are probably a dozen of them left)?

      Yes, but not by a dozen, but by an air regiment + helicopters. And yes, it's really not enough. Just a modern aircraft for 1 flight hour requires 25-50 man-hours of maintenance. A bunch of diversified specialists. And it does not matter at all where this plane takes off from - from a land airfield or deck.
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      And what do 1400 more people do?

      Take an interest in the composition of the ship's equipment. All its radars, communication systems, flight control, weapons, energy, and so on and so forth.
      In the Americans, I repeat, 2500 people are engaged in this.
      And one and a half hundred people of Zamvolta are nonsense, in fact, the ship is generally unable to fight for survivability.
      After all, we, too, at one time did automate nuclear submarines to complete amazement, okay, at least they changed their minds in time.
  21. +1
    25 May 2023
    Quote: Romario_Argo
    funny western press
    Russian budget revenues over 50 trillion rubles
    and the expenditure is about 37 trillion rubles.
    this is not counting the hidden revenues of the budget of the Russian Federation
    The city of Moscow deposits 1-2 trillion rubles every month

    According to the budget law, federal budget revenues in 2023 are planned in the amount of 26 trillion 130,3 billion rubles, expenses - 29 trillion 55,6 billion rubles, deficit - 2 trillion 925,3 billion rubles.
  22. 0
    25 May 2023
    If the yachts of the oligarchs had been sold in time, a dozen Peter the Greats could have been built with the proceeds!
    1. 0
      25 May 2023
      If grandma had a penis, it wouldn't be grandma, it would be grandpa.
      But in order to build a dozen eagles, it was necessary to nationalize all the oligarchs, down to the last factory. And a couple of decades. Yachts would not help here. The problem is much deeper than it is represented by the jingoists from the sofas.
  23. 0
    25 May 2023
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yes, but not by a dozen, but by an air regiment + helicopters. And yes, it's really not enough. Just a modern aircraft for 1 flight hour requires 25-50 man-hours of maintenance. A bunch of diversified specialists. And it does not matter at all where this plane takes off from - from a land airfield or deck.
    Quote: Oleg Ogorod
    And what do 1400 more people do?

    Take an interest in the composition of the ship's equipment. All its radars, communication systems, flight control, weapons, energy, and so on and so forth.
    In the Americans, I repeat, 2500 people are engaged in this.
    And one and a half hundred people of Zamvolta are nonsense, in fact, the ship is generally unable to fight for survivability.
    After all, we, too, at one time did automate nuclear submarines to complete amazement, okay, at least they changed their minds in time.


    I can count normal hours.
    500 servants, I removed 100 pilots for 10 aircraft and 6 helicopters per day (three watches of 170 people each give 4000 man-hours. Divide by 25, by 24 hours, in short, 7 aircraft should be in the air around the clock. Around the clock!
    Kuzya has been a training simulator for a long time, and I suppose there is not even close to the number of crew / crew that they write about.
    And this is a ship of an outdated ideology, when the human resource of the USSR was large, and the degree of automation was small.
    An automatic compartment locking system must fight for the survivability of the ship. And an automatic fire extinguishing system.
    1. +2
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      I can count hours

      Yes, you are not very good at it. Firstly, 25 hours is a minimum, but rather more, especially on the old Su-33s. Secondly, you have people working at 100% load, but this does not happen, downtimes happen necessarily due to uneven work.
      And finally, yes, Kuznetsov was designed to provide 6 aircraft in the air constantly + 12 in full readiness for takeoff.


      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      Kuzya has been a training simulator for a long time, and I suppose there is not even close to the number of crew / crew that they write about.

      Maybe not in terms of the air wing, but why is this said?
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      And this is a ship of outdated ideology

      Tell this to the Americans who are building their newest ABs in the same ideology
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      when the human resource of the USSR was large, and the degree of automation was small

      Then, in a strange way, the USSR created a nuclear submarine with half the crew than in the United States.
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      An automatic compartment locking system must fight for the survivability of the ship. And an automatic fire extinguishing system.

      And which of the above will fix, say, broken FCS cables?
      1. +2
        26 May 2023
        By the way, and those who serve the arresters, gas fenders, aircraft lifts, auxiliary equipment of the air regiment - is it BC-6 or BC-5?
        Plus, the BC-6 should also have "multi-colored vests" that provide the entire take-off and landing circus on the flight deck.
        In fact, the AB air group is a mixed air regiment with a TEC, BAO and additional specialists who must ensure the combat operation of the regiment in the limited spaces and volumes of the hangar and the flight deck.
  24. +4
    25 May 2023
    The problem in the country is not big ships.
    And a large number of traitors of agreements and humanistic snot from our country's leadership. Only for some reason these snot do not apply to our guys
  25. 0
    25 May 2023
    Quote: Oleg Ogorod
    Take an interest in the composition of the ship's equipment. All its radars, communication systems, flight control, weapons, energy, and so on and so forth.

    And what kind of weapons do Kuzi have? Well, except for a few AK-650s and daggers. Granites are long gone. Radar, flight control system, aren't these the functions of an air wing, where there are 600 people?
    1. +1
      25 May 2023
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      And what kind of weapons do Kuzi have? Well, except for a few AK-650s and daggers.

      Only 4 Daggers is about 60 people.
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      They say there are no granites for a long time

      So there are no personnel serving it, but you are telling everything about 2000 people
      Quote: Oleg Ogorod
      Radar, flight control system, aren't these the functions of an air wing, where there are 600 people?

      Is it okay that Kuznetsov has 9 radars, of which two are involved in flight control?
  26. 0
    25 May 2023
    Let's turn to practice.
    What is the role of the so-called. "big ships" in the new Russian history? The role is passive. What does Kuznetsov have, what does Moscow have. Causes? Available. Excuses? Likewise.
    Do they need these excuses? Everyone will give an answer to this.
    Output.
    If you need "checkers" - yes, we will glue a patch on a patch and an excuse on an excuse.
    Must go? Then with the previous "group of comrades" we are not on the way.
  27. +1
    26 May 2023
    It's just that this type of "observer" was told what kind of article to write, and he gave the heat. Stupidity of course. Large ships are expensive, but they also solve big problems. You can’t send a corvette against the AUG, they will spot and sink it. A battleship or cruiser is another matter. Of course, they will detect it, but it may not happen with drowning. And will fly back.
  28. -1
    26 May 2023
    Actually, over the past period, since February 24, it is completely clear why this problem takes place, as well as all the others in the Moscow Region.
  29. -2
    26 May 2023
    and all because they did not build an aircraft carrier!
    By the way, how is the local aircraft carrier sect doing? hushed up something
  30. 0
    26 May 2023
    If all resources are exported and the proceeds are sent abroad, then the whole country is one big headache for the Kremlinites. Nabiulina and Siluanov directly dream of putting neither the people, nor the army, nor the navy, but the entire budget into Western banks for interest.
  31. 0
    26 May 2023
    Explain to me how the USSR could support the fleet, army, aviation, but now there is no money
    ? I know that the budget of Russia is being plundered, and this is not a secret. The point is that they catch, imprison, but you can’t return the money, they are abroad. And yet, the finances in the USSR were spent on the maintenance of the Baltic republics, the maintenance of Poland, Hungary, Vietnam, China and others. And enough. Can you imagine the amount of theft in modern Russia? That's it.
    1. 0
      26 May 2023
      Any large ship is a headache, and from the moment of laying down to decommissioning, it takes a long time to design, take a long time to build, time goes by and it is still on the stocks, and small ships have been in service for a long time. Serious modernization of a large ship is practically impossible, it is cheaper to build a new one, and then, the number of dry docks of a suitable size is limited, and the disposal of a large ship is costly, for example, the disposal of the Nimitz aircraft carrier is estimated at a billion dollars. . By the way, the service life of ships does not depend on their size (with the exception of aircraft carriers)
  32. 0
    26 May 2023
    We need big ships for the oceans.
  33. 0
    26 May 2023
    With modern missile (other) weapons on ships of ranks 1-2 (up to and including the destroyer), there is no need for ships of ranks 3 and 4 (cruisers and battleships-aircraft carriers) of rank.
    1. 0
      29 May 2023
      Actually, aircraft carriers, battleships and cruisers, these are ships of the 1st rank (up to and including destroyers) ...
  34. 0
    26 May 2023
    Quote: agond
    Any large ship is a headache, and from the moment of laying down to decommissioning, it takes a long time to design, take a long time to build, time goes by and it is still on the stocks, and small ships have been in service for a long time. Serious modernization of a large ship is practically impossible, it is cheaper to build a new one, and then, the number of dry docks of a suitable size is limited, and the disposal of a large ship is costly, for example, the disposal of the Nimitz aircraft carrier is estimated at a billion dollars. . By the way, the service life of ships does not depend on their size (with the exception of aircraft carriers)

    I agree, but it is strange that in the context of the article and the comments they forgot about unmanned boats-killers of ships, especially since there is a fresh example of the Ivan Khurs ship.
    1. 0
      29 May 2023
      But such unmanned boats do not require a control and guidance ship?
  35. -1
    26 May 2023
    I agree with "Kuznetsov" - a headache, spending and a dead end. About TAKRs, I cannot agree that this is a useless product - although, alas, the question of their vulnerability to modern missile defense systems, and even more so to massive and well-thought-out raids, does take place. "Peter the Great" can fulfill its combat mission, but "Kuznetsov" cannot - it can be modernized for an arbitrarily long time, it will not cease to be problematic. Wrong size and shape, wrong concept, wrong power plant, and so on.
  36. 0
    26 May 2023
    And maintaining a horde of aircraft carriers is not a headache. Note that during the repair, ships receive new weapons. That's when foreign admirals will have a headache.
  37. 0
    26 May 2023
    "Rule Britannia by the seas..."
    https://www.ixbt.com/news/2022/08/29/novejshij-britanskij-avianosec-slomalsja-vskore-posle-otplytija.html
    https://dzen.ru/a/ZEpPRlvPyAKVo8VX
    1. 0
      27 May 2023
      Kuznetsov is too small as an aircraft carrier, for aircraft with the size of Su or Mig, he would have a plane with the dimensions of the Yak-130, but better VTOL aircraft, but they are not
  38. 0
    29 May 2023
    Large ships are always a big headache for any fleet of any country ... But what the author wanted to say with this article is not clear ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"