Source: The decision to write off the flagship of the Northern Fleet, the heavy nuclear missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky, was made

In the Russian press, information has again appeared about the possible decommissioning of the flagship of the Northern fleet heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great". This was reported by a source familiar with the situation.

TARKR "Peter the Great" will not be sent for overhaul, the cruiser will be decommissioned after the return to combat of the same type "Admiral Nakhimov", the modernization of which is being completed at Sevmash. The decision on this has allegedly already been made, the reason is too high costs for repairs with modernization. According to the source, to date, most of the crew of the Peter the Great cruiser has already switched to the Admiral Nakhimov, the remaining crew ensures its survivability.

The fundamental decision to decommission "Peter the Great" has been made. This should happen after the return to service "Admiral Nakhimov"

- leads TASS source words.

There is currently no official confirmation of this information. It is worth noting that rumors about the possible decommissioning of the Peter the Great TARKR appeared back in April of this year, although last year it was reported that the cruiser would go for repairs with modernization after the Admiral Nakhimov. In general, we will wait for statements from the Ministry of Defense, "Nakhimov" should go into operation in December of this year, so it won't be long.

TARKR "Peter the Great" was laid down at the Baltic shipyard on August 25, 1986, launched on April 25, 1989. In 1992 he received the name "Peter the Great". It entered the Northern Fleet on April 18, 1998. Today - the only "Orlan" project 1144, which is in service. It is the largest nuclear powered non-aircraft operating ship in the world.

Comments

[digger]

I am constantly looking for fresh new photos of Nakhimov ... but to no avail ... how cut off. Not a single photo .. everything is classified ... totally. And about Peter ... probably the most important argument is "what the hell is this absorber of billions for modernization to us, all the more it is too huge as a goal .... it's better to blind a few 22350 new ones for these funds" - that's all. There will be one symbol .. Nakhimov has already charged him and that's enough.
In short, they will leave one Soviet symbol each .. but modernized and that's it. I am sure that the Varyag will be written off without updating. Therefore, in the end, only one representative will remain from the most powerful legendary Atlantes and Orlans .... updated .. these are Marshal Ustinov and Admiral Nakhimov. Well, if in fact, sooner or later it had to happen .. time goes by. No one has canceled the new concepts for building ships, and there is no point in pulling the old ones by the ears. Although these two will remain with new fillings for now, and then bread .... although I think the main arguments are not in the concept, but in the cost of overhaul and modernization. Won 1155 BODs are being modernized and nothing ... but they also have the cost of modernization several times lower and simpler.

[Sergey39]

A photo of the cruiser in the forests, after being transferred from the dock to the outfitting wall at Sevmash, is available on the Internet. Looks like you didn't search well.

[digger]

Yes, this photo is about nothing .... of course it is .. I meant a ready-made painted beautiful as it should be. This is a photo of a carcass .. which was rolled out on the operating table under anesthesia

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

What are the new ship concepts?

[Mazunga]

Dilbar yachts somehow have enough money for them and the sailors are satisfied)

[Saburov_Alexander53]

It is clear that the current spending on the SVO determined the priorities in military construction with the abandonment of such giants. With all my love for the fleet, I see an objective necessity in such a decision.

[Warrior with machine gun]

And in return, as always, shish, it’s easier to shit the country’s gold reserves, defective managers only know how to cut and barry

[Plate]

Money from the fleet went to the ground forces and aviation, which, in general, is logical. Calibers with Zircons can also be launched from relatively small ships, they are cheaper, and we now need land battleships much more than sea ones: there is no money for this or that, alas.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

Dofiga and more money, just Antoga Siluanov, not only not well-mannered, but also greedy and does not know the main rule of the economy that money should work, and not lie in a piggy bank ...
I am still silent about the fact that it is possible to print money in the amount of assets frozen by the West ...
It's 300 lard bucks, enough for whatever you want.
For 300 lard bucks, you can even create a lithographic industry from scratch ...

[the Urals]

It seems like they have already begun to print money for gold, it’s just that it’s happening quietly somehow

[TermNachTer]

Priorities may have shifted, but this is not a reason to write off. It is possible to put it "to suck" for now, if the state of the ships is completely dead. You can reduce the amount of repairs, restore technical readiness. In general, the news seems to be sucked out of the finger)))

[kravch67k]

Dilbar yachts somehow have enough money for them and the sailors are satisfied)

[smart ass]

This is a frigate with 32 cells + normal air defense

[Silver99]

It is very sad, and this is at a time when the same China puts cruisers into operation every year. Now "Petra" will apparently be sold to the Indians I think from a moral and military point of view it was necessary to build and introduce the cruising flagship of the Russian Navy, give it the name of the Great Emperor, and only then cut something.

[marat2016]

If in the 90s, then India would have taken it, although the issue of violating the export regime for missiles with a range of 300 km .... And now, for many reasons, India does not need SUCH "Peter the Great". In theory, a modernized project 1164 would be more suitable (cheaper and without nuclear power plants).

[smart ass]

In battle, Peter would be exactly as useful as Moscow

[savage3000]

He is much more useful than 10 million people like you.

[zombirusrev]

The excavator dug badly ... I periodically throw out such news from the CIPSO and the like for 10 years into the world's trash.

[Beregovic_1]

Abandoning ocean-going ships means abandoning ocean ambition and protecting trade. The merchant fleet is growing and flies under our flags. The Navy will pay off for the first time. INSTEAD of a nuclear cruiser, nothing can be built. The slipways and engines are scheduled for 10 years ahead. If you want an ocean-going and autonomous fleet that does not drag tankers and tugs behind it, please repair the cruiser. By the way, about new concepts - the Americans and the Chinese have a growing displacement of new series of ships year after year, and this does not bother anyone. Arleigh Burke from the first series to the last recovered by 2000 tons and nothing. We build small ships from the lack of engines of the required power, but this does not negate their worse autonomy and seaworthiness, and as a result, restrictions on the use of weapons.

[Deck]

Please write just a couple of lines about the construction of the merchant fleet. More details. Terribly interesting. Otherwise, apart from the construction of tankers with Koreans, nothing is heard at the Zvezda Sports Complex

[Sumotori_380]

I join the request. As far as I understand, even existing ships under the flags of Liberia and Malta sail

[Sergei 777]

The ship, although legendary, has served its purpose. Even if it is modernized, it is 5-6 years. By the end of the modernization, he will be over forty. Apparently it doesn't make much sense. Let's look at further bookmarks ...

[Akuzenka]

There are simply no specialists left who can service the cruiser for the pennies that really reach the specialists. And there are no parts left for it. That's all. Full degradation. The rest is tinsel, excluding the thirst for profit for officials.

[Omskgasmyas]

It would be nice to make museums out of Eagles. So that young people can see and realize the power of the Navy.

[Sergei 777]

But of course this is good. Such unique projects should be preserved in metal.

[Maxim G]

Why then was it necessary to modernize the same type and not young "Nakhimov"?

Maybe it would be better to build a new frigate with modern weapons and equipment.

[digger]

they contracted for Nakhimov a very long time ago and have already invested effort and money immeasurably and taking back, that is, resetting all the work and means, is essentially a crime, so they decided to finish it to the end .. but with Peter everything is already ... even forbidden to start.

[Maxim G]

The vessel has been in operation since the end of 1988.
Since August 1999 under repair.
It's summer 2023...

All you need to know about the modernization of Nakhimov.

[kravch67k]

But denyushka is dripping somewhere. Everything you need to know about the modernization of Nakhimov.

[bayard]

Quote: Maxim G

Why then was it necessary to modernize the same type and not young "Nakhimov"?

In fact, initially there was an idea to modernize and return to service all three nuclear cruisers, fault detection and condition assessment were carried out. But the modernization of the Nakhimov has gone beyond all reasonable limits - more expensive than building a new ship of the same class from scratch - at least 200 billion rubles. in 2017 prices. And initially they expected to fit into 100 billion rubles. Plus, the time factor - such ships can only be modernized at one enterprise in the Russian Federation, i.e. in turn ... with such terms, this procedure will last until 2040. So the decision is correct, because for the cost of upgrading one "Orlan" you can build from 4 to 6 new frigates, project 22350.1 (32 cells for "Caliber" and "Zircons" on each) ... or from 3 to 4, project 22350M (from 48 to 64 cells for "Calibers" and "Zircons"). Simple arithmetic speaks for itself. Moreover, in the Russian Federation, the issue with the power plant for these ships has finally been resolved.
In addition, with a special desire, in the new boathouse it is possible to lay down and build the destroyer VI 15 - 000 tons with the armament and combat capabilities of the modernized "Nakhimov" for 17 - 000 billion dollars. , having spent no more time on this than it takes to modernize "Peter" and is cheaper in terms of money. And these will be new ships, in contrast to the modernized ones, which have a residual resource after repair of 1,5-2 years at the most.

Quote: Maxim G

The vessel has been in operation since the end of 1988.
Since August 1999 under repair.

Not under repair, but in the sludge - WAITING FOR REPAIR. No need to distort. In our "repairs" so many submarines and diesel-electric submarines did not live up to a real repair ... With these cruisers, they simply did not know what to do until the time.
"Nakhimov" in fact becomes the first ship with a new air defense system and BIUS, and if everything works out fine, then this weapon system can be used on our counterparts "Burke" and "Tikanderog" (analogous to IJIS with long-range missiles and an impenetrable near zone due to batteries "Pantsir-M").
The transfer of the crew of "Peter" to "Nakhimov" also solves the issue of training and maintaining another crew, from which there was no benefit during the entire period of modernization. So new technologies and weapons systems will be worked out at Nakhimov, and they will be installed on new ships.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

So new technologies and weapons systems will be worked out at Nakhimov, and they will be installed on new ships.

Agree. Paired with Kuznetsov, Nakhimov will be somehow understandable for use. Although, during its creation, it was planned to use it together with the atomic TAKR.
The second TARK, for the money and time it takes to modernize it, has no suitable tasks.
The quantity of 22350M is more important than the quality of 1144.2. Yes, cost of ownership matters.

[Maxim G]

Quote: bayard

Not under repair, but in the sludge - WAITING FOR REPAIR. No need to distort. In our "repairs" so many submarines and diesel-electric submarines did not live up to a real repair ... With these cruisers, they simply did not know what to do until the time.

Don't overdo it. The ship was not in service - whatever you call it.

As a result (judging by your text), our fleet will receive instead

So the decision is correct, because for the cost of upgrading one "Orlan" you can build from 4 to 6 new frigates pr. 22350.1 (32 cells for "Caliber" and "Zircons" on each) ... or from 3 to 4 pr. 22350M (from 48 to 64 cells for "Caliber" and "Zircons"). Simple arithmetic speaks for itself. Moreover, in the Russian Federation, the issue with the power plant for these ships has finally been resolved

One

Quote: bayard

"Nakhimov" in fact becomes the first ship with a new air defense system and BIUS, and if everything works out fine, then this weapon system can be used on our counterparts "Burke" * and "Tikanderog" ** (analogous to IJIS with long-range missiles and impenetrable close zone due to the Pantsir-M battery)

*, ** - both types of ships are older than the priest's dog.

[Alex777]

Quote: Maxim G

*, ** - both types of ships are older than the priest's dog.

And no one has come up with anything better than them.
Arleigh Burke Flight III (DDG-125), this is the most
modern destroyer today.

[Maxim G]

Quote: Alex777

And no one has come up with anything better than them.
Arleigh Burke Flight III (DDG-125), this is the most
modern destroyer today.

Is there any confirmation? Or another expert opinion of a professional, like the one below.

Quote: Alex777

Combat - ship. The ship is not combat.

[bayard]

Quote: Maxim G

Quote: Alex777
Combat - ship. The ship is not combat.

The news for you is that a warship is a SHIP, and a SHIP can only be civilian and unarmed.

Quote: Maxim G

Quote: Alex777
And no one has come up with anything better than them.
Arleigh Burke Flight III (DDG-125), this is the most
modern destroyer today.

Is there any confirmation? Or another expert opinion of a professional, like the one below.

Do you have any objections? Can you name a more advanced radar and, in general, shipborne air defense systems and CIUS?
And if not, then there is nothing to crush water in a mortar. Familiarize yourself with the composition and functionality of the AGES system and point out anything superior to this on existing ships of our time. At the same time, do not lose sight of the fact that this system has been refined and improved all these years.

[Maxim G]

Quote: bayard

The news for you is that a warship is a SHIP, and a SHIP can only be civilian and unarmed.

The rest of the text, as I understand it, is also at a similar "high" level.

[bayard]

Can't you find anything else more archaic?
It is because of such "literates" that wars are lost.
You are still on a military site, be careful.

[Maxim G]

Quote: bayard

Can't you find anything else more archaic?
It is because of such "literates" that wars are lost.
You are still on a military site, be careful.

But you must?
You have nothing to say, except for the next , giving out in you a local professional in everything .

[Boniface]

Read the Ship Charter for a start! Everything is written there - what is a "ship"

[Sumotori_380]

Can you add anything else from the time of Svyatoslav's campaign against Tsargrad?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bayard

The news for you is that a warship is a SHIP, and a SHIP can only be civilian and unarmed.

Ahem ... but here we will criticize you, my friend.
For in our native navy there is a whole class of ships carrying weapons. Here is one of his representatives:

Yes, that's right - it's one of the Charlie-Charlie-Bravo. Communication ships, they are reconnaissance ships. The tail number starting with CNE, as it were, hints to us that this vessel.

[bayard]

Quote: Alexey RA

Ahem ... but here we will criticize you, my friend.
For in our native navy there is a whole class of ships carrying weapons. Here is one of his representatives:

And in our Fleet there are integrated supply ships. And they, too, can, if necessary, place some kind of weapon on board. But these ships are NOT FOR BATTLE. These are auxiliary VESSELS of the Fleet. And this young man called the battle cruiser, which at the same time is missile and nuclear, called the VESSEL, and insists on this. check out his posts above.
And then he presented an illiterately compiled "Report on the case of the surrender on May 15, 1905 to the enemy of the VESSELS of the detachment of the former Admiral Nebogatov". And if this document only dealt with support vessels or, at worst, "auxiliary cruisers", which were simply armed steamers (and still had the status of cruisers!) ... but the report is about the delivery of BATTLE SHIPS! It's just that the RI clerks were so illiterate in naval affairs that ...

Quote: bayard

It is because of such "literates" that wars are lost.

So it's about what to call a BATTLE SHIP, especially a ROCKET CRUISER, a ship ... the height of illiteracy. Or deliberate clownery.
A combat warship is always and only a ship.

Quote: Alexey RA

Charlie-Charlie-Bravo. Communication ships, they are reconnaissance ships.

Workhorses of the Navy.

[Maxim G]

Quote: bayard

And then he presented an illiterately compiled "Report on the case of the surrender on May 15, 1905 to the enemy of the VESSELS of the detachment of the former Admiral Nebogatov". And if this document only dealt with support vessels or, at worst, "auxiliary cruisers", which were simply armed steamers (and still had the status of cruisers!) ... but the report is about the delivery of BATTLE SHIPS! It's just that the RI clerks were so illiterate in naval affairs that ...

Was Admiral Nebogatov an illiterate clerk, or what? Or other sailors on trial?

[bayard]

Quote: Maxim G

Was Admiral Nebogatov an illiterate clerk, or what? Or other sailors on trial?

Do you consider them "sea wolves" ??
They blew the naval war of the third-rate Japan at that time, which was just starting to build its fleet, the vast majority of whose ships were foreign-built? There, the entire period of preparation for the war, its beginning, course and final - all one continuous illiteracy, incompetence and wrecking of foreign agents, starting with Witte (from the Rothschild family through my grandmother). And not to mention the mental and strong-willed qualities of the last king, who asked ... R@L everything ... literally everything he took on. He lost two wars, lost everything in the political field, but in the economy ... he gave everything to foreign banks and companies ... he made a MONSTER amount of debt, squandered huge gold reserves ... and was overthrown not only by his Duma members and generals, but and just with their relatives ... This is generally SUCH a bottom ...
Oh yes, at the same time he is also appointed "saint".
All that stupidity presented by you only emphasizes the complete naval illiteracy of tsarist Russia and even its ... sailors.
But Nikola was VERY fond of PARADES.
Just like now.
But this did not help in wars.

Russian naval thought was then literally in its infancy. Therefore, it is not necessary ... to cite this as an example. You don't submit your preschool scribbles to the Nobel Committee for Physics, do you?
No offense .

[Petr_Koldunov]

Quote: Maxim G

Was Admiral Nebogatov an illiterate clerk, or what? Or other sailors on trial?

And in the transcript of Nebogatov's speech, the words are written through yat and ep. So what? The language is undergoing changes, professional terminology too.
Are you seriously arguing your position - in Old Testament terms? Yes, ships and ships have been separated for a long time, there is no need to delve into the old times, trying to prove the opposite :)) And the batalers turned into captains, and the conductors - into sergeants and foremen ... and in general, marshals, boatswains and midshipmen

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bayard

And in our Fleet there are integrated supply ships.

Well, these are clean courts.
And according to our classification, CERs are mutants: at the same time and vessels communications and intelligence ships.

Quote: bayard

But these ships are NOT FOR BATTLE. These are auxiliary VESSELS of the Fleet.

Who would explain this to the command of the KChF - otherwise this is already the third report on the naval battle of the SV and naval drones, plus an article on the rearmament of the SV.
Although the CERs in our country also carried out tasks in war zones in peacetime, it is enough to recall the CER "Priazovie", which, while performing anti-piracy tasks in the Gulf of Aden, was forced to go to war-torn Yemen and evacuate civilians.

[Boniface]

SSV is a medium reconnaissance SHIP

[TermNachTer]

Why not? And the super-destroyers "Zamvolt"?))) Isn't it super?

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

Why not? And the super-destroyers "Zamvolt"?))) Isn't it super?

And what are their littoral art worth? Now all these masterpieces are being written off, but what price tags were there!
Ours also got infected with this xReNyu - there was a project for a littoral trimaran ... a pretty one ... like a supersonic liner, if you look from above. But only "innovative and modular" 22160 embodied in metal.
But in the mid / late 90s, their fantasy raged not childishly. Just remember the projects of their semi-submersible arsenal ships ... And then they raved about hypersound for a "quick global strike", pioneering the documentation for our Cold program ...

[bayard]

Quote: Maxim G

Don't overdo it. The ship was not in service - whatever you call it.

Read carefully:

Quote: Maxim G

Not in repair, but in the sludge

Quote: Maxim G

PENDING REPAIR.

Quote: Maxim G

As a result (judging by your text), our fleet will receive instead
So the decision is correct, because for the cost of upgrading one "Orlan" you can build from 4 to 6 new frigates pr. 22350.1

This is arithmetic. If for the same money and even for the same time (if built at two shipyards) you can get 4-6 NEW frigates that will last 40 years. While the upgraded nuclear cruiser is unlikely to last more than 15 years after the upgrade.
The decision of the Ministry of Defense and the command of the Fleet is quite obvious.
- Why, then, in 2015, they wanted to modernize all these cruisers? - you ask .
- Because since 2014, power plants from Zarya-Mashproekt have become unavailable for Russian shipbuilding. These cruisers have nuclear power plants, so returning them to service seemed more rational at that time - while the industry is creating and mastering the production of gas turbines and gearboxes for them, nuclear Orlans will undergo modernization and a series of RTOs will be built. And then - the resumption of the construction of frigates, corvettes and destroyers.
But the price tag of the modernization of "Nakhimov" instead of 100 billion rubles. will pull at least 200 billion rubles. , but this is already beyond all common sense.
So the decision to write off "Peter the Great" is quite reasonable.

Quote: Maxim G

in the Russian Federation, the issue with the power plant for these ships has finally been resolved


One

In the middle of last year, at least two complete sets of power plants were delivered and they were installed. Now at least three of them have probably been delivered, and by the end of the year - four. This year they were going to hand over TWO frigates to the customer, but the deadlines were again somewhat postponed. As a result, one will be handed over this year, in the future and in 2025 - two each.

Quote: Maxim G

*, ** - both types of ships are older than the priest's dog.

But their radars and air defense in general are quite modern and we have not yet seen anything like this. "Nakhimov" will be the first, and then you see, others will appear. At Nakhimov, a powerful radar and the use of missiles with a range of 400 km will be rolled back.

[Scharnhorst]

more expensive than building a new ship of the same class from scratch - at least 200 billion rubles. in 2017 prices

If I'm not mistaken, eight new Boreevs can be built for such a price. Maybe the sturgeon should be cut after all?
Personally, I am for the modernization of Peter the Great, a good platform for the South Korean concept of an arsenal ship.

[Alex777]

Quote: Scharnhorst

Personally, I am for the modernization of Peter the Great, a good platform for the South Korean concept of an arsenal ship.

Do you propose to take South Korea as a model for the development of the fleet? So they built several series of serious destroyers, a fleet of submarines with VNEU and already swung at aircraft carriers. But thought about it...
At the same time, there is a specificity: their territory is small and almost all of it is shot through by the DPRK, right up to Seoul.
The states, unlike the RUK, considered the concept of arsenals and abandoned it. We decided that aircraft carriers are preferable.

[bayard]

Quote: Scharnhorst

If I'm not mistaken, eight new Boreevs can be built for such a price. Maybe the sturgeon should be cut after all?

Yes, the command of the Fleet and the Ministry of Defense themselves were shocked at how much this modernization got out ... and it was a pity to quit, and I did not want to cut down on modernization. A ship of equal combat capabilities can be built for less money. But rebuilding is always more difficult, longer and more expensive. Let's just say - for 2017 - 2018. 200 billion rubles equaled at least 3 billion dollars.

Quote: Scharnhorst

Personally, I am for the modernization of Peter the Great, a good platform for the South Korean concept of an arsenal ship.

Look AGAIN at the cost of such an upgrade. But "Peter", unlike "Nakhimov", has knocked out its resource almost to the limit, a large amount may be needed for its modernization. Are you sure it's worth it?
And if you need exactly the "arsenal", then there is a ready-made solution - "Borey-K" as the carrier of the KR and GZUR. Depending on the number of launch cups (from 16 to 20), he will be able to carry from 112 to 140 Caliber missiles or from 80 to 100 Zircons and Caliber-M in them alone. And besides - from 12 to 20 CR in ammo racks for firing through TA.
And all this pleasure (Borey-K) at the price of an ordinary frigate, pr. 22350.
This is exactly what an arsenal ship should look like.

[TermNachTer]

How much and what "knocked out" Petruha is not yet known. They'll put it in the dock, then we'll see.

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

How much and what "knocked out" Petruha is not yet known. They'll put it in the dock, then we'll see.

It has been in need of repair for five years now, it is all flowing and crumbling there, and precisely because of the failure to meet the deadlines for the overhaul. And they couldn’t put it in for repairs because the “Nakhimov” was standing in it, the terms of modernization of which were transferred “to the right” so many times that the condition of “Peter” became ... quite bad. That is why the team is being transferred from it to Nakhimov, and Peter himself is being decommissioned. I would like to get such a monument ship, but ... it will be too expensive (repair, bringing to full dress and the actual maintenance of such a grandiose monument).
And spend another 200 billion rubles. for the repair of "Peter" (and due to inflation and poor condition, more is possible) it is unlikely that anyone will decide again. For this money, you can build from 4 to 6 frigates 22350 - brand new ones, or simply build an equivalent nuclear cruiser from scratch, equivalent to the modernized Nakhimov. For reference, the cost of the nuclear destroyer "Leader" was estimated at 1,5 - 2 billion dollars. - one and a half to two times CHEAPER than the modernization of "Nakhimov" (THREE billion dollars). I think that SIX frigates pr. 22350.1 for our Fleet will be much more useful than the restoration of this well-deserved, but still disabled person.

[savage3000]

Nonsense! Peter is much younger and it is 5 times faster and cheaper to repair than Nakhimov. Moreover, the repair of Nakhimov has already stuffed his hand and everything will go even faster. We cannot build many frigates. In the ocean, he is not very good. Have they already replaced diesel imports for them?

Neither 6 22350 nor 4 22350m non-existent can be built.

Moreover, we can build cruisers. And here is a new ship that just needs updating.

We now have three such ships, instead of 4: Nakhimov and two 1164.

Amers have 60!

China is constantly introducing destroyers for 14 thousand tons each.

So don't be heresy. Writing off Peter is a crime

[bayard]

Quote from Savage3000

So don't be heresy. Writing off Peter is a crime

The decision to write off "Peter" was given long and painful. Half a year ago, the Ministry of Defense was still leaning towards its modernization, but according to a truncated program, but the results of the inspection carried out and the assessment of the technical condition and wear apparently affected. Peter's repair is very much overdue. Yes, and it makes no sense to do a truncated modernization, the ship will simply be inferior. And a complete modernization on the model of "Nakhimov" will cost no less than that of it - 200 billion rubles. in prices of 2017 - 2018 or 3 (THREE!) billion dollars.
You want to upgrade the OLD ship, which, after such an upgrade for 15 years, spent 3 billion dollars to serve. ?

Quote from Savage3000

Neither 6 22350 nor 4 22350m non-existent can be built.

Why so ?

Quote from Savage3000

Have they already replaced diesel imports for them?

These diesel engines are being built quite serially, import substitution has been made, and the most critical components have been accumulated for the entire program. And do not forget about parallel imports - what you need is extracted.

Quote from Savage3000

We cannot build many frigates.

Quote from Savage3000

Neither 6 22350 nor 4 22350m non-existent can be built.

What about corvettes? Can we build corvettes? After all, there are exactly the same diesel engines, only there are more pots and a capacity of not 5200 l / s, but 6000 l / s. Moreover, in the GEM 22350 there are two such diesel engines, and in the GEM of corvettes - four. So if there are problems with the production of such diesel engines, then you can simply stop building corvettes and give all diesel engines to frigates. As a result, instead of each canceled corvette, we get two frigates. Here is the solution to the issue.
And if you consider that the corvette 20385 costs 450 million dollars. , and the frigate 22350.1 550 million dollars. , then it becomes clear that it is GENERALLY preferable to build frigates, incl. for services and in BMZ. They will even be more economical in terms of fuel, because the frigate has diesel engines of 5200 l / s, and on corvettes 6000 l / s, with exactly the same piston groups (the number is different). But the maximum speed of the frigate 22350 is higher, and seriously higher.

Quote from Savage3000

neither 4 22350m of non-existent can be built.

And what is the problem with these in construction, if they only have gas turbines in the power plant? GTU of domestic production. And the gearbox is no more complicated than that of "Gorshkov".
In the Russian Federation, the production of power plants for 22350 has been established and organized, two sets of power plants are issued per year. And they are being installed on frigates under construction on the Admiralteisky. And an order for 6 such frigates was issued to the Amur Shipyard precisely because the industry is now able to provide the power plant ships under construction in full.
I repeat - if there are problems with the configuration of running diesel engines, you can SIMPLY stop building corvettes. And enough for everyone.

Quote from Savage3000

Moreover, we can build cruisers.

In fact, we can - the new boathouse of the Admiralteiskys allows you to build ships up to 200 m long, which was why they built it - for the "Leaders". We no longer have any problems with the configuration of such ships, the power plant can be built on four M90FR turbines with a capacity of 27 l / s, which will give a maximum power on the shafts of 500 l / s. Such power is quite enough for a VI 110 - 12 thousand tons ship. The radar has already been installed on the Nakhimov, as well as the naval version of the S-18 missile defense system. "Pantsir-M" for the near air defense zone has passed all the tests and is already being installed on ships. UKKS have long been installed on ships of various types, on the Nakhimov there are as many as 400 of them. (10 cells) . So what confuses you? That our shipbuilders will not be able to form a hull for such a ship?
Another thing is that we do not need piece samples of monsters that have no analogues in the world, but serial and fairly massive workhorses of the Fleet, capable of serving in DM and OZ.

Quote from Savage3000

Peter is much younger and repaired it 5 times

"Peter" plowed in the ranks and WITHOUT REPAIRS much more than "Nakhimov" (who simply stood in the sump waiting for his fate to be decided) and is in a much worse condition.

Quote from Savage3000

We cannot build many frigates. In the ocean, he is not very good.

We can build.
Now we can. and we can build them at three shipyards at once. moreover, we can build 22350M at the same shipyards.
If any of the fleet commanders is asked the question: "What would you like to get, one old nuclear cruiser after modernization, or SIX frigates, pr. 22350.1?" , I'm sure that everyone will answer the same way - "SIX new frigates!" . And they will certainly be right.

Quote from Savage3000

Writing off Peter is a crime

This is a hard-won solution. Moreover, the capacities of the repair plant are needed for the most efficient modernization of the remaining BOD pr. 1155. Now it has become possible.
otherwise they would have lost at least two such ships.
Think carefully about what I have stated, and then you will surely come to the same opinion yourself.

[Sumotori_380]

As a sofa specialist for a sofa specialist, tell us more about the analogues of Berkov and Ticonderoga

[22 dmdc]

What ship are you talking about? Clarify please.

[Sergei 777]

Well, the real work began only in 2013.

[dmi.pris1]

Notice how long it took to build a huge ship in the USSR - three years. Now they are building a corvette for so long ... If you put "Peter" in repair now, it will take at least five years .. Feel the difference

[faiver]

hey, show us at least one corvette built in three years ....

[Maxim G]

Quote: faiver

hey, show us at least one corvette built in three years ....

[faiver]

I asked about the Russians, the Chinese sculpted their yak pies

[Maxim G]

Quote: faiver

I asked about the Russians, the Chinese sculpted their yak pies

I don't have those pictures.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote from: dmi.pris1

that it will take at least five years.Feel the difference

We feel that at least fifty years ... At least five to ten years...
Just for starters, in 2024 we will meet the updated TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" ...

[sleeve]

It took six or seven years for the cruiser. Before commissioning. Before launching and now they are rapidly building ...

[Sergei 777]

Well, then the shipyards worked in 3 shifts. 24/7. And now ?

[Dimax-nemo]

I strongly doubt that we will ever shove 40N6 and a fire control system onto a frigate capable of using all its capabilities. Meanwhile, a new generation of anti-ship weapons, incl. hypersonic, ballistic anti-ship missiles, will require fundamentally new capabilities from ship-based air defense systems, which Polyment-Redut and 9M96, in principle, cannot possess. And we should not forget that Project 1144 is practically the only non-aircraft carrier ship today that has something noticeable in terms of constructive protection, even if only local. All other "escort" surface ships have long been cardboard, eggshells with a hammer. Even 1164 (which we recently had the opportunity to verify :-(

In short, building such new monsters is probably not worth it. But for those that have already been built, it was necessary to hold on to the last opportunity, modernizing them for the weapons that "normal" ships will never receive from us. By the way, I will say the same about project 941 and project 949. Only on the Shark one could try to shove something like the Sarmat-Avant-garde (and these are already fundamentally different possibilities), and on Antey - a huge crowd of cruise missiles or Zircons in a noticeable number.

[Maxim G]

Why on a modern combat ship S-400 air defense system and a warehouse of cruise missiles?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Weird question. The S-400 on a ship is archival and archival, as it makes the actions of the enemy AWACS extremely difficult - simply put, such an aircraft cannot, hanging at a safe distance (250-300 km), coordinate an air attack on a ship warrant.
And a large supply of CR is important as a way to break through AUS air defense with one salvo, which forces the latter to stay at a great distance. The combination of Nakhimov and Kuznetsov, with the right preparation, is a really big force

[Maxim G]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Weird question. The S-400 on a ship is archival and archival, as it makes the actions of the enemy AWACS extremely difficult - simply put, such an aircraft cannot, hanging at a safe distance (250-300 km), coordinate an air attack on a ship warrant.
And a large supply of CR is important as a way to break through AUS air defense with one salvo, which forces the latter to stay at a great distance. The combination of Nakhimov and Kuznetsov, with the right preparation, is a really big force

I would like to hear the opinion of professional sailors, shipbuilders.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Maxim G

I would like to hear the opinion of professional sailors, shipbuilders.

Well, maybe someone will answer, although in general the answers were given a long time ago, when creating the concept of atomic RRC. Only there was no "long arm" on the S-400 yet.

[Maxim G]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Well, maybe someone will answer, although in general the answers were given a long time ago, when creating the concept of atomic RRC. Only there was no "long arm" on the S-400 yet.

No one builds such ships.
And how much, the concept that was developed a long time ago is relevant now.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Maxim G

No one builds such ships.

Yes, and you know why. The same Americans assign long-range air defense formations to carrier-based aviation (which is correct), so for them long-range missiles are secondary. However, the SM-6 flies 240 km.

Quote: Maxim G

And how much, the concept that was developed a long time ago is relevant now.

There is no other concept. RRCs were built with air defense systems capable of providing (at least in theory) zonal air defense, since only an object fit on the esm / BOD. The alternative is carrier-based aviation (correct) or the absence of a surface fleet (incorrect). And you don't have to be an admiral of the fleet to understand that a regiment of fighters that can be pushed onto the Kuznetsov will only benefit if there is an S-400 in cover.
At the same time, "Kuznetsov" was created not as a strike, but as an air defense aircraft carrier, so there is nothing to deter the enemy, at the same time, the effectiveness of carrier-based aircraft drops sharply with increasing combat radius. In the same Iraq, the Americans tried not to work beyond 400 km (it is possible for 1000+ and not kilometers, but nautical miles, but this is more difficult). And 80 (or how many) Nakhimov's anti-ship missiles hint that it is not advisable for AUS to approach our AMG within their radius of action

[Maxim G]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The same Americans assign long-range air defense formations to carrier-based aviation (which is correct), so for them long-range missiles are secondary. However, the SM-6 flies 240 km.

Something many here have a quirk on the Americans, there is direct light in the window, which is alarming .
Well, France does not have such ships (nuclear RRC) and did not have, Italy, Germany, Japan also do not.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Maxim G

Something many here have a bzik on the Americans

Maxim, did I seem to have a civilized conversation with you?

Quote: Maxim G

Well, France does not have such ships (nuclear RRC) and did not have, Italy, Germany, Japan also do not

Is there news for you that the fleet is not a thing in itself, but is being built for specific tasks? Or is it news to you that not a single fleet you mentioned set itself the task of independently confronting the fleet of a superior first-class sea power?
Are you generally familiar with the concepts of using the same French Navy during the Cold War? Japanese, etc.? And it’s not clear to you that the tasks of the USSR / Russian Navy are fundamentally different from the same French one?

[Maxim G]

Look at the armament of surface ships of France (and the same type of Italian) - it is very modest, the reason is apparently that the ships are built for full-fledged service at sea (ocean), and not for idle in their native harbor, hence, habitability problems are solved due to less armament , seaworthiness, autonomy, etc.
Well, their surface ship (vessel) is only one of the pieces of equipment, operating in cooperation with others, including air and ground ones.
And not a warship capable of single-handedly repulsing a missile attack with the help of an air defense system and tearing apart an AUG.

[TermNachTer]

This was understood in the Union back in the 70s. A good example of the BOD "Azov".

[Alex777]

Quote: Maxim G

Why on a modern warship

Combat - ship. The ship is not combat.

[Maxim G]

Quote: Alex777

Combat - ship. The ship is not combat.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

cardboard, eggshell with a hammer. Even 1164 (which we recently had the opportunity to verify :-

... with Moscow, everything just turned out mediocre on the part of the ship's commander .... this idiot, instead of going to the Serpentine Shoal and running it aground and starting repair urgent work, he drowned him

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: Crimean partisan 1974

this idiot, instead of going to the Serpentine Shoal and running it aground and starting repair urgent work, he drowned him

on the Serpent's Shoal it would have been gouged completely.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

on the Serpent's Shoal it would have been gouged completely.

.... nothing of the sort, .. at that time the Serpentine was completely under the control of the RF Armed Forces and, in addition, a naval group of about 20 warships ... a couple of months would have been enough above the roof to repair damage to the hull ... but the commander is an idiot repeated one to one the tragedy of the 70s with the Otvazhny BOD, instead of going to the shallows 4 km away, they tried to rip him off in Sevas for a couple of days, as a result, he drowned at a depth ... and indeed it is a war crime to drag an emergency military a ship full of explosives in a city of thousands

[Sergei 777]

At least not on the shallows. From the combat strength of the fleet "Moscow" would have dropped out completely. For there is nowhere to repair it in the Black Sea. Too big.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Sorry, but your recipe is from the series "to shoot around the corner, put the gun on its side."

[bayard]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

I strongly doubt that we will ever shove 40N6 and a fire control system onto a frigate capable of using all its capabilities.

If we talk about the promising 22350M with a new radar, then there is a fundamental possibility of such. True, this is possible with the presence of such a radar and by reducing the ammunition load of strike weapons. 40N6 will fit into a standard UKKS cell. But at the first stage (in the first sub-series) I would have abandoned such an idea and placed on it the Poliment radar and doubled / tripled SAM missiles + 6 - 8 PIECES for 48 - 64 cells for strike weapons and PLUR.
The prototype of the new radar for the S-400 missile system will be the Nakhimov radar and the experience of its operation and use will show how applicable the new radar is on the VI 8000 t ship. Perhaps for 22350M2 it will be possible to use a slightly truncated version (antenna cloth area) of the Nakhimov radar. VI 22350M is limited by the size and carrying capacity of stocks at our CVDs (Amursky, Yantar and Admiralteysky). And a full-fledged radar with heavy and long-range missiles can only be installed on VI ships from 12 tons, which can only be built in the new Admiralteisky boathouse.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Only on the Shark one could try to shove something like the Sarmat-Vanguard

This is ridiculous and impractical - all "Sharks" went into recycling, do not forget about their age. And it is not advisable to make a new SLBM of cyclopean size.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

and on Antey - a huge crowd of cruise missiles or Zircons in a noticeable number.

I think these dreams are unrealizable - AGE. Such modernization can pull in cost for the construction of a new "Borea" and for many years will take the capacity of ship repair plants. And after such a modernization, "Baton" will serve for 15 years - a maximum. It is much more expedient to continue the further construction of the Boreev in the modification of the Borei-K SSGN, which in its 16-20 launch cups will be able to carry 112-140 Caliber or 80-100 Zircons and Caliber-M . The Borey-A SSBN construction program is being completed, and the capacities are freed up for a new modification of this carrier. And such SSGNs will last at least 40 years. And they will cost in construction as a frigate 22350 each ... Now one Borey-A costs even a little less than frigate 22350. And this arithmetic must also be taken into account.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: bayard

Now one "Borey-A" costs even a little less than the frigate 22350

This is still extremely doubtful, dear bayard

[bayard]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

This is still extremely doubtful, dear bayard

The last of the delivered "Borey-A" cost the treasury 487 or 489 million dollars. (at the current exchange rate at that time), and the lead "Gorshkov" cost 550 million dollars.
At the same time, the corvette pr. 20385 costs 450 million dollars.
It's just that the SSBNs do not have a radar, and in general an air defense complex, artillery systems, a helicopter, electronic warfare, and other surface attribution. And "Boreas" have long been serial.
You yourself know that about 40% of the cost of a warship is its air defense. PLA does not have it by definition. So the launch of the Borei-K SSGN is the optimal solution for building up the strike capabilities of our Fleet in DM and OZ with our current shipbuilding capabilities. Moreover, the Borey-A SSBN construction program is ending and the capacities are freed up. I think a series of 8 - 12 such SSGNs, 4 - 6 each, would be justified. for each fleet. This will in no way ruin the budget and load the released shipbuilding capacities.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: bayard

The last of the delivered "Borey-A" cost the treasury 487 or 489 million dollars. (at the current exchange rate at that time), and the lead "Gorshkov" cost 550 million dollars.

These are the numbers I have and cause huge doubts. Where are they from?

[bayard]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

These are the numbers I have and cause huge doubts. Where are they from?

The lead "Borey" cost, like the frigate "Gorshkov", 550 million dollars. at the rate of that time. The cost of the latter was thrown off to me with an excerpt from the State Procurement website. And this is not surprising, because a serial ship is always cheaper than the lead one.
Yes, these figures have been exaggerated for a long time, including a comparison of the cost of "Borea-A" and 2+ times more expensive "Ash-M" (over 1 billion dollars). These figures have long been heard, they have long been discussed on VO forums and are even on Wikipedia.
At first I was also struck by the cost of "Borea" in comparison with 22350 (already many years ago), after which I dealt with this for some time. It's simple - the most expensive part of the ship's cost is its air defense system (about 40% of the total cost). The surface ship also has artillery, a helicopter hangar and the entire infrastructure for basing a helicopter / helicopters, electronic warfare and a number of other systems that are not on the submarine ... Well, the use of already proven and serial systems for the construction of the Borea. Its development was carried out even under the USSR and the cost of most of the R&D was not included in the cost of the SSBN. A serial power plant (the same one is on the Pike-B) ... This is information that has been verified many times. It is somewhat unusual for other fleets in the world, but that's how it happened with us. In our country, the completion of the construction of the submarines remaining on the stocks began, as it were, not since 2001, therefore, it was in this area that our competencies were not lost. The rest of the CVDs were simply crushed and plundered to the ground, which is why everything is going so hard with the surface fleet.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Where are they from?

$550 million how the cost of the head "Borea" is even on Wikipedia.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: bayard

$550 million how the cost of the head "Borea" is even on Wikipedia

And this is where miracles begin. See the wiki link:

Construction costs amounted to about $713 million, including R&D work of $280 million. Two subsequent boats, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh, are at various stages of construction.

I willingly believe in 713 million of the cost of Dolgoruky - given that its ruble price was 23,2 billion rubles, and the exchange rate in 2011 ranged from 27.89 to 31.48, then just something like this should turn out . But here is another ambush - it has been built since 1996, and most likely, 23,2 billion - this is not in the prices of 2011, but the actual construction costs for all the years thereof. In this case, Dolgoruky costs more in 2010-11 prices both in ruble and dollar terms.
If you were dumped data from public procurement, then 550 million for "Gorshkov" is a realistic figure, of course. But "Gorshkov" is the lead ship, and it is by no means possible to compare it in price with the serial "Borey-A" - that is, the ratio should be 713 million dollars for Borey and 550 million for Gorshkov. At the same time, the Gorshkov is a very new frigate, its novelty coefficient is higher than that of the Borea. And if that is, in theory, the serial Gorshkov should cost less than $334 million.
But this is, of course, inaccurate.

[bayard]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Construction costs were about $713 million, including R&D work of $280 million.

I don’t think that the entire amount of R&D was put on the lead ship. In addition, when I was interested in the cost of the Borea, the third or fourth side was already being commissioned. So the cost of the first Boreevs, most likely for a circle, was just about 550 million dollars. At least, this figure was heard for a long time in articles on this topic.
According to "Gorshkov", the cost of 550 million was also called as an estimate, when he was the only one in the ranks. At the same time, it is clear that it was not completed for a long time, it took a long time to finish the radar and Reduta missiles. If you add up all the expenses for the lead frigate, then the amount will be more. And the price was most likely called, spreading the cost of R & D over the first four ships of the series.
Nevertheless, both Borea and Gorshkov were given approximately the same estimated cost - about $550 million. And it was with these figures that they operated for a long time.
As the Boreev series was built, and then Boreya-A, the price obviously decreased.
This does not happen with the "Gorshkov" for a simple reason - it's still normal, not a single ship has been built in a stable series. The hulls waited a very long time for their power plants on the slipway, the power plants themselves (domestic) were designed and created from scratch, but they also paid for the development and development work on the creation of the power plant at Zarya-Mashproekt ... Well, many years of downtime on the stocks of the plant too it cost something ... So they won’t get cheaper for some time. in addition, the second sub-series and subsequent frigates were already laid down under project 22350.1 (with 4 UKKS instead of two). And again, it's more expensive. Therefore, the cost of the first eight frigates will be exactly within the above 550 million dollars. And it's not such a big price, especially compared to Western classmates. But over time, the price tag may drop to 500 million, but not lower. Moreover, now they will be built at the Amur Shipyard, and this is a new product for them.
Therefore, in my assessments, I still mean that Borey and Gorshkov cost about the same. This is necessary to prioritize and better assess the price-quality criterion. In general, I believe that these two of our ships, in terms of price-quality, are the best that we have. "Ash-M" against their background looks like overly expensive and insufficiently armed, when compared with the potential "Borey-K". And the corvette pr. 20385 shows us an exorbitant price tag - 450 million dollars. (when only one RLC "Barrier" costs 8 billion rubles). It can be seen from the latter that such a ship, costing almost as much as a serial 22350 and having 2-4 times less combat capabilities ... is simply not economically feasible. Instead of them, it is much more profitable to build frigates for the same money, albeit a little less in number, but they will be much more useful both in the near and in the far sea zones.
If you have experience in paying for your desires and projects and calculating the effect obtained, then it will not be difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of certain investments, the deadline for completing the order and the final effect obtained.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

serial "Gorshkov" should cost less than 334 million dollars.

It will never cost that much. Especially with two "extra" UKKS. 500 - 480 million dollars. and not lower.
Based on this cost, the extrapolation of the price tag of 22350M (with "Polyment-Redut", doubled shock ammo and triple ammo missiles) is seen in the range of 650 - 700 million dollars. The head one may even pull up to 750 million. And if just such a version of the 22350M goes into the series, then this will be the best possible solution.
All of these are, of course, estimates, but as a rule, they are confirmed by practice. The error can fluctuate around 10 - 15%. And this is a little.
The ratio extrapolation forecast has almost never failed me. In a stable situation - never at all.

[Sergei 777]

Yasen-M will be built at the released capacities. And I think it's logical.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

If we talk about the promising 22350M with a new radar, then there is a fundamental possibility of such.

Confidence will come when the project is approved.
The constant growth of the discussed VI hints at this.

Quote: bayard

40N6 will fit into a standard UKKS cell.

As far as I know, it is not included. planned
development of a new rocket "based on solutions" 40N6.
This is another argument against the modernization of Peter.

Quote: bayard

It is much more expedient to continue the further construction of the Boreev in the modification of the Borei-K SSGN

I agree with you. The time of "white elephants" is running out.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

Quote: bayard
If we talk about the promising 22350M with a new radar, then there is a fundamental possibility of such.

Confidence will come when the project is approved.
The constant growth of the discussed VI hints at this.

Judging by the fact that they still want to build the 22350M in the future on the Amur Shipyard, which has a VI limit of 8000 tons, it will still be a "big frigate", and not a VI destroyer up to 8000 tons. And this is the most rational.
In this case, the first 22350M can and should be built with the Poliment radar, but with an increased ammo for strike weapons and missiles for two helicopters. and when the industry masters the construction of this project, and a new radar for heavy missiles is worked out at Nakhimov, or a radar with reduced area canvases is worked out on an experimental ship, then a new radar can already be installed in the second sub-series. But by no means immediately. For a "large frigate" and "Polyment" with "Redoubt" it is quite enough. Moreover, in the first sub-series, the maximum possible BCs for missiles and strike weapons will be much more important, and with the new radar, the number of missiles and strike weapons will most likely be reduced in favor of heavy missiles.

Quote: Alex777

As far as I know, it is not included. planned
development of a new rocket "based on solutions" 40N6.
This is another argument against the modernization of Peter.

But it is not included, is it like - in cross section or length? If in length, you can simply lengthen the cells, but in the case of a section ... or can they not make the plumage of the rudders foldable there?

Quote: Alex777

I agree with you. The time of "white elephants" is running out.

A small KUG on the surface and an SSGN under water is a wonderful and fairly stable group for operations in DM and OZ. Moreover, "Borey-K" at the price of a frigate with its BC will surpass "Nakhimov" with all its arsenal. Surface ships will cover it from above (from aviation and NK submarines), and from under the water, he himself will support them in anti-aircraft defense and strikes against surface and land targets.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

Judging by the fact that they still want to build the 22350M in the future on the Amur Shipyard, which has a VI limit of 8000 tons, it will still be a "big frigate", and not a VI destroyer up to 8000 tons. And this is the most rational.

Agree. Ordinary 22350 will be built there.
And for 22350M, different options are possible. After all
their number and timing of construction is still in the fog.

Quote: bayard

But it is not included, is it like - in cross section or length?

It wasn't discussed. Therefore, I will not answer.
It was said that a new development is needed.
With the same characteristics, but smaller.
To what extent is this possible in our current
conditions, it is also difficult for me to assess. Right
you need to know, but who knows for sure, he will not say.

[TermNachTer]

Everything rests on the length of the slipway. There are more than 170 meters of stocks, you can count on the fingers on your hand. And until there are more such slipways, it is impossible to write off such ships as the Petrukha, because there is simply nowhere to build a similar one in the coming years.

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

Everything rests on the length of the slipway. There are more than 170 meters of stocks, you can count on the fingers on your hand.

There are only two such slipways - in the new boathouse Admiralteisky. This is what they were built for.
In the future, it will be possible to use the stocks of the Zaliv (Kerch), but the Zaliv is only restoring its competencies so far and two UDCs are being built (0-0 very slowly) there.
Therefore, 22350M will apparently be built in VI up to 8000 tons, and larger ships will be laid down later - when the new radar and missile systems are tested at Nakhimov, a new more powerful power plant is prepared and the shipbuilding industry is generally shaken up. Now it is more important to complete the series of "small frigates" 22350.1 and start building "large frigates" 22350M - first in the new Admiralteisky boathouse, and then on Amursky, possibly on Yantar and after the modernization of the old Admiralteisky slipways, on them too. And only after that will the time come for the laying of the first two "large destroyers" in VI 12 - 18 thousand tons.

Quote: TermNachTER

it is impossible to write off such ships as the Petrukha, because there is simply nowhere to build a similar one in the coming years.

It is for the concentration of funds for the construction of new ships that "Peter" must be written off without any regrets. Its modernization to the level of "Nakhimov" will cost four or even six NEW frigates pr. 22350.1, and this is unacceptable.
In addition, the capacities of the shipyard are needed for the accelerated modernization of the remaining BODs of the Northern Fleet, the modernization of which is not so deep, complex and time-consuming, and these ships in a new look were needed yesterday. It is for this task that all available ship repair capacities should be concentrated. And new frigates and modernized BODs will more than block the capabilities of the retired cruiser. For 5 - 8 years, which are necessary for the modernization of "Peter", it is possible to modernize both of the BOD pr. 1155 that have not yet been modernized and spend several times less money on this.

[Beregovic_1]

There are boathouses. 50 and 55 workshops of Sevmash. The length of the Sukhona (floating dock) allows ships to be sailed over 180 meters. And there are at least 7 stocks, or even 10, if in the 50th you put 2 on a thread. There are no submarines of new projects, they do not plan to lay new hulls, the plant is half empty. There are crowds of workers, there are competencies. If Komsomolsk-on-Amur, which previously built a nuclear submarine and lost all its workers, has mastered corvettes, I don’t see why Sevmash shouldn’t master frigates.

[bayard]

Quote: Beregovyhok_1

There are no submarines of new projects, they do not plan to lay new hulls, the plant is half empty.

But this is not correct at all. I understand that the Borey-A SSBN series is being completed, but the Borey-K project is simply asking for a slipway - with KR and GZUR in launch cups. Shoyga spoke about the intention to lay such a foundation a few years ago. But then they decided to continue the Boreev-A series, which is certainly correct, I think there should be 12 such submarines. on both fleets (6 pieces each). But as soon as the slipways begin to be vacated, it is necessary to immediately lay down the "Borea-K" - to replace the "Batons", which have 10-15 years left to serve. For now, they are still serving and it is necessary to build a replacement for them so as not to undermine the combat capability of the Fleet. And build them in a series in the same way up to 12 pcs. There are no frame restrictions on them, and having 6 pcs. on each of the fleets we will have a colossal increase in our surface forces in missions in the DM and OZ. autonomous missions to the same shores of the United States are not excluded for them. When such a "cow" with 112 - 140 CR on board (and another 12 to 20 CR launched through a TA) creeps up "under" the enemy coast (and they are quite secretive in acoustics due to a water jet), this is more than a serious argument. Still, not 40 - 50 CR for "Ash-M", which is also 2+ times more expensive to build.
And if such beauties come to both coasts of the USA?
What if there are two for each?
Yes, plus one more "Ash-M" to them?
Yes, they will arrange Armageddon for the USA in one haRyu.
And for Japan, and one such, but with special warheads, it will be enough.
And how much more confident will our KUG (of two or three ships) feel if such a "Borey-K" will insure them from under the water? And from enemy submarines, and in the event of a strike on surface, coastal and ground targets? But each KUG can be provided with such support. After all, the issue price (purchase cost) will be no more than 550 million dollars. (without the cost of BC of course).
And how will it be possible to confuse the anti-submarine forces of the enemy when, by noise and the whole signature, he will not understand who it is - SSBNs or SSBNs. After all, both outwardly and in all characteristics (except for weapons), they will be completely identical. This means that it will be possible to arrange a certain game, bringing the SSBNs to combat patrols ...
So I would load your capacity to the full with this very order.
And our Fleet also needs MAPLs. Not "Ash-M", which was actually designed as a SSGN to replace the "Batons", namely multi-purpose hunters, lighter, cheaper. Let's say something similar to the 971 project. After all, we will soon have no MAPLs left at all, and "Ash trees" are being built in a limited series.
So it seems to me that you should have enough work ... if the towers do not go crazy and start acting weird.

Quote: Beregovyhok_1

Komsomolsk-on-Amur, which had previously built a nuclear submarine and lost all its workers, mastered corvettes

Speaking of Amursky ... Do you know that there on the slipway lies a project 70 built on at least 971% of the MAPL? And they don't know what to do with it. And in the Kremlin too ... So I have a question - is it possible to complete this MAPL and put it into operation with the help of specialists seconded from you? How realistic is this? And what could be the technical risks due to her lying on the slipway for such a long time?

Quote: Beregovyhok_1

I don’t see why Sevmash shouldn’t master frigates.

Frigates still have where to build. As many as three shipyards suitable for this. And there are enough slipways of 170 m each - 7 pcs. on each . But PLAs are now being built only with you. And these competencies cannot be lost and degraded. If the boathouse in which the "Boreas" are being sculpted is loaded with a program for "Boreas-K", and in the one that "Ash" is now building - with new MAPLs, you still have a lot of work to do.
Amur Shipyard is now completing the construction of a series of corvettes and will continue to build 6 frigates 22350.1, then most likely the 22350M series.
Admiralteisky is building frigates 22350.1 on five slipways, and is preparing 22350M (2 pcs.) for laying in a new boathouse.
Yantar is busy with civilian orders and is building frigates for India. But if necessary and with a firm intention, he could immediately take up the 22350M (after all, at one time the BOD was built there, the dimensions are the same). If all three shipyards are fully loaded, the question will arise about the ability of Rybinsk to provide all the power plant ships under construction in a timely and rhythmic manner. So it’s unlikely that it will be possible to load another shipyard with the surface theme of DM and OZ - it’s just that the power plant will not be enough and delays will begin. And the budget for all this luxury needs a lot. So if your cost of "Borea" comes out as a light frigate, then you need to build "Borea-K" to the delight of people and the fear of enemies.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

Agree. Ordinary 22350 will be built there.

This summer, the contract should be signed for 6 frigates, pr. 22350.1. And in the same summer, a contract for the first 2 frigates 22350M in the new St. Petersburg boathouse. By the way, in the latest statements about the laying of two 22350M this year, VI was called "up to 8000 tons." , which means that it will be possible to build such ones on the Amur, and on Yantar, and even on the former stocks of the Admiralty after some modernization.

Quote: Alex777

their number and timing of construction is still in the fog.

I think at the first two it is necessary to try out a new power plant, modules of the Pantsir air defense missile system, a two-seat hangar, and other innovations. And until everything is tested and finished, laying and building on all free slipways should be 22350.1.

Quote: Alex777

It wasn't discussed. Therefore, I will not answer.
It was said that a new development is needed.
With the same characteristics, but smaller.

I remember I looked at the dimensions of 40H6, it should enter the cell, but you need to make the plumage collapsible. But if you make the plumage foldable and fit in a standard cell, then all the more so you should build the first 22350M only with Poliment-Redoubt and medium-range missiles - until a more powerful radar with AFAR and missiles canvases that fit in standard cells and a range of up to 400 is ready km.
And at Nakhimov, they most likely left drum launchers, which are easier to adapt to standard S-400 missiles.

Quote: Alex777

With the same characteristics, but smaller.
To what extent is this possible in our current
conditions, it is also difficult for me to assess.

If the rocket is non-stickable, then it’s really better to make a new rocket for the existing cell, because they are already in service. In any case, increasing the cross section of the cell for the sake of missiles is not worth it for sure. And if such work is to be done, then there is time for the laying and construction of the 22350M series in VI up to 8000 tons with the used Poliment-Redut, but with expanded strike and air defense capabilities. The very course of events favors gradualness and consistency, without an excessive coefficient of novelty on each new project.
If only our paradoxical leadership of the Moscow Region and the General Staff did not break all plans in their panic attacks.

[kravch67k]

Another yacht? They have enough money.

[marat2016]

Most likely, they also planned to modernize "Peter".

[smart ass]

4 or 5 frigates instead of this one bucket would be better! But to show off and demonstrate the flag, you need a prodigy, so she is alone! Ponte all war is nothing

[Beregovic_1]

It is forbidden. The slipways are full, the engines are scheduled, their production cannot be accelerated. Only together. Nakhimov was put under repair because it was necessary to sharply increase the combat capabilities of the fleet, but it was impossible to speed up or increase the number of new frigates. Therefore, by the way, the BOD is also being modernized.

[Akuzenka]

Why then was it necessary to modernize the same type and not young "Nakhimov"?

What do you mean why?!!!!! I can hit, of course. It will not greatly affect the defense capability, but it is a cool feeder.

[Kaufman]

Well, I think this decision is reasonable

[Xnumx vis]

Let's wait for official data. So far, all these can, possibly and probably ... Nothing ... The era of giants is leaving ... And aircraft carriers will also sink into oblivion .... Means of destruction exceed protection ... And it’s becoming more and more difficult to defend such a colossus .. .

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

The more we just wait, the more likely it is that they will simply put before the fact that Petya has already been cut down

[Alex777]

Quote: Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich

The more we just wait, the more likely it is that they will simply put before the fact that Petya has already been cut down

Is that how you call to the barricades?

[tralflot1832]

In Severomorsk and in the Northern Fleet, this topic is not discussed either. There is no "random" photo of the naval base either.

[Alex777]

Do you think there is hope that this is a false stuffing?

[anclevalico]

Finding logic in MO's actions is getting harder and harder.

[Plate]

I think this is the logical decision. Money is not endless, land and air weapons are much more needed at the moment.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

We have several orders of magnitude more money than the ability of factories and shipyards to produce state defense orders ...
So it's definitely not about the money...

[Plate]

Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2

We have several orders of magnitude more money than the ability of factories and shipyards to produce state defense orders ...

I suppose if you think that in the country, apart from the armed forces, there are no large expenditure items, and in these armed forces there is only a fleet, then you are certainly right. But both the first and second assumptions are false, so I think that you are wrong.
Although, of course, I won’t say this with a confident face, because I rely solely on my own reasoning and conjecture, and not on some kind of statistics and calculations based on it.

[Ermak_Timofeich]

The source said this

In other words - one grandmother said.

[white fall]

Yes, this is not news, the grandmother said. How hysterical military correspondents became. Of course, I'm not saying that you need to be silent. But squealing at any sneeze is only Tsipso to please

[Irek]

Tsipsota in the comments works in full growth.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

Who do you think is the agent here? To say so, to know in person

[seamen2]

specifically - * shoulder straps *. It's worth looking at his comments.

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich

Who do you think is the agent here? To say so, to know in person

I have already asked this question many times and all without an answer, since then I have automatically minus for mentioning this abbreviation in relation to local users

[Ross xnumx]

Quote from Whitefall

Of course I I am not saying to be silent. But squealing at any sneeze is only Tsipso to please

Is it necessary?! If there is something to be proud of, there is something to show - go ahead at full volume.
Silence is a bad habit. Making a smart face at a bad game is a filthy manner. Wishful thinking is a shameful rule.
The gloating of the CIPSO must be stopped by other methods. Leave them no hope of winning or any other advantage.

[Plate]

Quote: ROSS 42

Silence is a bad habit.

What's wrong with hushing up achievements? So there will be no disputes :)

[Akuzenka]

Achievements! Where are they?! I see that the general level, not even of knowledge, of intelligence, has fallen low. What was considered elementary knowledge is now "revelation from above." What is logic and common sense has long been forgotten. These are the real "achievements".

[Eleazar bin Shaul]

pennants of the first rank have always been expensive. It is easier to write off the Soviet legacy. Not a single similar ship has been built in the entire history of modern Russia. But a huge fleet of megayachts.

[marat2016]

1. The construction of a huge fleet (as part of an idiotic foreign policy) was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Union. 2. Since 1992, nothing has been built simply because they could not and did not want to. Yes, and what got written off by the hundreds. Since it is expensive to maintain and it is not clear why, it is difficult to sell to someone as warships.

[north 2]

The strategy of building the Russian Navy for thirty years has not acquired any intelligible features. Leave the Northern and Pacific Fleets without new modern surface missile-carrying cruisers, and over these thirty years the Northern Fleet will build only one or two new modern frigates, is this the strategy of a state that washes strategically important seas and oceans for many thousands of miles. By the way, in case of trouble, the construction of cruisers cannot be caught up as quickly as they have now realized to catch up with the construction of infantry fighting vehicles and tanks. Even building strategic aircraft caught on, but new cruisers, in my opinion, are not even being designed.

[Ross xnumx]

You just need to move away from stupid military games and parades that have no analogues in the world.
Daily painstaking, planned work and moderation in the maintenance of the bureaucracy - we will not feed this horde of freeloaders.

[Gomunkul]

The strategy of building the Russian Navy for thirty years has not acquired any intelligible features.

The main strategy of the Great Energy Power is to export oil, gas, coal. Modern Russia and its leadership do not claim to be the leading world power, they are satisfied with the role that they have been assigned in the global system of division of labor - a raw material supplier, and to protect raw material deposits it is enough to have a fleet of the coastal sea, hence the construction of frigates and corvettes.

[Alexey Z]

And then they climbed into Ukraine then? Again, the administration knows something
And don't miss the comment.

[faiver]

this is the corporate style of the leadership of our country - either to get through, or to break what was, well, and then start all over again ....

[syabroleonid]

What does "the ship is too big, it's hard to defend" mean? Seriously? And for some reason they didn’t drown him for 40 years. Is someone attacking him? Someone says that this is a symbol of a great country. Yes, a symbol. What's wrong with that? This is from the same series, let's cut the "white swans", our nuclear missiles and so on into scrap metal. Opponents will even clap their hands. They may be praised. But how to protect the sea, the largest maritime power in the world, you need to think about it.

[pexotinec]

Time does its thing. So the Americans are not going smoothly with aircraft carriers, they set it up in due time, and now there is no money for repairs and modernization.

[Galleon]

"Nakhimov" is needed by "Kuznetsov" and vice versa to increase combat stability. If all the systems on them are still mated, anyone will have to reckon with such a force. I hope that the reconstruction of the heavy cruiser will justify itself in this. If you think on a scale, each ship separately, of course, such a mastodon is not needed.
Here is the level of thinking of the fleet command. They do not know how to manage the combat formations of ships. A low estimate of the combat stability of this ship is the tenfold superiority of the enemy in aviation. And in naval aviation ...

[marat2016]

Forget about the Kuznetsov - it is not combat-ready, even if it is slightly patched up, simply due to the lack of a normal fleet on it. Without AWACS aircraft and normal anti-aircraft defense systems, they will drown him. And there is no way to place them there.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Tell it to the British AB pulling out the Falklands

[Amateur]

That TASS, which is "Authorized to declare", has long sunk into oblivion. Now this is another "yellow sheet", which, in addition, refers to an anonymous source. So there is nothing to discuss yet.

[Sergey39]

It's strange, for what purpose did the editors of this resource reprint their old article? They didn't even bother to correct it. The Ministry of Defense stated that the Nakhimov cruiser will go to sea for testing in September 2023. On the disposal of Peter, it is POSSIBLE silent. Naturally, when putting in for repairs, there is no need to keep 100% l / s on the ship. They, as ready-made specialists, are transferred to Nakhimov.
This article is a provocation or amateurism, which is unlikely?

[Khibiny Plastun]

And with us, that 22350m is already on the stocks? To scatter ships with such strike capabilities? Expensive? Well, the fleet has never been cheap. You can cut everything, but first build, we have a problem with this. Oh yes, the concept has changed, well, now one concept is to write off more in your pocket (and with impunity). Yes, I don’t want to remember a certain "Barrier" worth the floor of a ship ... And of course, instead of the ocean fleet, set up boats - 5-7 years for each and, of course, "having no analogues"!
Weaving that before you cut, build first.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

Oh yeah the concept has changed

... a natural process, earlier battleships were a thunderstorm of the seas, .. now destroyers and other trifles, because the arsenal of weapons is available and much more powerful than any cruiser, by the way, the striped ones have long written off their nuclear cruisers, and by the way ... the Russian Federation is an arctic power, therefore, the emphasis is on the icebreaker fleet, and here it is out of competition

[Khibiny Plastun]

The process is a process, but before you write it off, you need to build it. And "Nakhimov" is expensive and long under construction also because there were many alterations, but now both production and technological aspects have been worked out at Nakhimov. Not to mention the fact that "Pyotr", unlike "Nakhimov", did not rot for 10 years and does not need to be patched from top to bottom. And what is most interesting is that China, from project to project of destroyers, is approaching, in terms of tonnage, to 1144. After all, you can’t shove something that fits 150 m into a hull of 250 meters.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

go into the body at 150 meters, no matter how you shove something that fits at 250 meters.

... for that it will fit a couple of dozen Buyans into the buildings ... the time of mastodons has passed

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

Hmm, and we also crumble a loaf for Nikolashka, but we ourselves can’t even keep the Soviet backlog, dear tbm.

[U-58]

All this suggests that Russia is not going to create a fleet of the far ocean zone. due to the weakness of the economy.
Demonstration of the flag around the world is a good thing, but feasible only for powerful economic powers.
So "we will threaten the Swede" exclusively along our shores.
Alas and ah ...

[digger]

If at the same time with this news there was another: "A decision was made to start laying down the nuclear destroyer (essentially a cruiser) of project 23560 Leader" Orlov Chesmensky "- that would be a bomb! So to speak, a new replacement for the Orlans. Eh-h-h-h .. .

[marat2016]

Despite the fact that in the infantry the teaching staff is issued a sample of the 1943 model, there is not much and massively .... And the efficiency of the fleet is below the plinth .... Do you think "Orlov Chesmensky" now, if he were available, would he participate in the NWO? He would have been hidden away because it is dumb if a rocket arrives. Until the government changes and the war ends, and then a new industrialization happens, investing in the fleet is simply a crime.

[Vladimir80]

If the news is confirmed, then it is sad, but natural. Without the financial sovereignty of the Russian Federation, only a colossus with feet of clay.

[sledak]

I don’t understand anything in concepts and doctrines, for me this ship is simply BEAUTIFUL. Once upon a time in my youth I was taught that a technically correct movement is beautiful, and a beautiful one is technically correct. And admiring this pennant, you feel its power. I understand how the target on the radar can be seen from a mile away. And all the same, it's a pity if they write it off.

[Galleon]

Quote: sledak

for me this ship is just BEAUTIFUL

When you stand next to him, you feel a sense of admiration of some kind. You're right.

[hostel]

In vain !!!
It cannot be written off, this ship has large internal volumes that can be filled with weapons. New monsters do not need to be built, but those that are on the move should be in the ranks.

[Vladimir80]

Of course it is possible, but given the lack of effective means of protection against cruise missiles and marine drones, the fate of such a ship is to stand at the pier (look what is happening with the Black Sea Fleet now)

[Krasavchag2]

Learn to live wide (O. Bender)

We must keep up with the times! Here is a normal candidate for a new flagship:

Alisher Usmanov's new 156-meter yacht has been officially recognized as the most spacious in the world, Forbes reports with reference to the Yacht Harbor specialized publication. The gross tonnage of the vessel amounted to 15 tons, and the total area of ​​​​internal premises was 917 square meters. m. Up to 3 people can be on it at the same time.

[AdAstra]

As I understand it, we will cover the exit and deployment of underwater strategists with such "helicopter carriers"?

[Vladimir80]

with all the sarcasm about the yachts of the oligarchs, they were not built in Russia ... this is me to the fact that the competence to create something modern has been lost almost completely (avtoVAZ will not let you lie)

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir80

competencies to create something modern are almost completely lost (AvtoVAZ will not let you lie)

Around 2015, I talked with representatives of a Chinese company. My counterparts observed the process of competition between KAMAZ and a Chinese automaker for a major contract in the UAE. Kamaz lost the contract, but acquaintances from the Chinese company noticed that the PRC would incur huge losses by selling the won tender below cost. In 1998, screwdrivers in Russia sold for about 10 cents. After the Chinese strangled factories in Arefino and Novosibirsk, a screwdriver began to cost $10.

[-Paul-]

In 1992 he received the name "Peter the Great". It entered the Northern Fleet on April 18, 1998. Today - the only "Orlan" project 1144, which is in service. It is the largest nuclear-powered non-aircraft carrier operating ship in the world.

Like "Kuznetsov" - the remnant of a highly developed civilization. Now they can't do that.

[AdAstra]

Artifact, comrade, Artifact - of the Great civilization of the "ancients".

[Tim666]

Quote: Warrior with a machine gun

And in return, as always, shish, it’s easier to shit the country’s gold reserves, defective managers only know how to cut and barry

Instead, you can build RTOs or even 2.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

Who can only hang out near the shore and crawl along the rivers?

[Tim666]

Quote: Vladimir80

Of course it is possible, but given the lack of effective means of protection against cruise missiles and marine drones, the fate of such a ship is to stand at the pier (look what is happening with the Black Sea Fleet now)

If you drive large ships one by one, then they were a big target in the 80s of the last century. Should a large ship be accompanied by air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships, or have naval drones already become more dangerous than torpedoes? And what do you think the Black Sea Fleet should do? The task of the fleet is to gain dominance at sea, fight against the enemy fleet, or do you think the ships of the Black Sea Fleet should fire at the coast of Ukraine from AK-100? Or have you seen enough of carbon monoxide and dream of amphibious assaults?

[Vladimir80]

The task of the fleet is to gain dominance at sea, fight against the enemy fleet,

and where is this "dominance" in the black sea?

[Beregovic_1]

We have absolute dominance in the Black Sea. Taking into account the Crimea, its DBK, air defense and aviation, fleet forces, the entire Black Sea is completely shot through. DBKs can shoot at Turkish ships in Sinop right at the pier. Except for the Turks and us, no one has a fleet there.

[Alexey Z]

And why is our fleet there if it can’t really be used?

[pavel.typingmail.com]

Once, Zhukov, in blockaded Leningrad, canceled Voroshilov's order to blow up warships, saying: the ship must die in battle. That is, ships must be used for defense in any condition.

[Petrov-Alexander_1Sergeevich]

I fully agree with him on this issue.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from pavel.tipingmail.com

Once, Zhukov, in blockaded Leningrad, canceled Voroshilov's order to blow up warships, saying: the ship must die in battle.

But at the same time, preparations for undermining ships continued under Zhukov - in pursuance of two main documents:
- Directive of the Headquarters of the Supreme Command to the Military Council of the Leningrad Front on the approval of the action plan for the destruction of the Baltic Fleet (13.09.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX, Kuznetsov, Shaposhnikov, approved by the IVS).
- Action plan for the destruction of ships of the military and merchant fleet and blocking fairways and harbors in case of withdrawal from Leningrad (12.09.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX, Tributs, Smirnov, Zozulya, approved by Isakov).
On September 20.09.1941, XNUMX, the Special Department of the KBF reported to Zhukov about the shortcomings in the preparation for the destruction of ships:

TOP SECRET

Commander of the Leningrad Front, General of the Army comrade. Zhukov

The preparation of a special operation to destroy watercraft and combat units is very unorganized.
The signal system, built by region, is not flexible and deprives the right to destroy objects in sections. Thus, it may happen that explosions and losses begin earlier than they should, in places where they are not needed, endangering objects adjacent to this area (bridges, factories, construction sites).
The very organization of signaling creates a prerequisite for interference or premature destruction of combat units.
It is characteristic that on September 18 this year, unexpectedly, the “Tulip” signal was given to the fleet, which, according to the TUS established for the special operation, means to stop carrying out destruction activities. It soon became clear that this signal was given according to the table of artillery negotiations, meaning an immediate ceasefire.
On the one hand, preparations for a special operation are in most cases entrusted to minor people; so, according to the special purpose detachment, they are carried out t.t. Janson, Klitny, the command in the person of the division commanders captains of the 2nd rank Maslov, Evdokimov prefers to stand aside, and on the other hand, received wide publicity.
As a result, the presence of negative sentiments that predetermine the sad outcome of the defense of Leningrad was noted.
For example:
Captain 2nd rank Maslov on September 16.09.41, XNUMX, being on the destroyer Strict, said: “Yes, I brought you bad news. Leningrad is being prepared for surrender to German fascism. A cross has already been laid on the destroyers Slender and Strict. The big bosses are fleeing Leningrad on planes.
The deputy chief of staff of the KBF, captain of the 2nd rank Zozulya, said pessimistically: "There is nothing to wait, it remains to put a bullet in the forehead."

Head of the 3rd Department of the KBF Divisional Commissar Lebedev
20 September 1941 of

© op. by Platonov A.V. Tragedies of the Gulf of Finland.
Preparations for the destruction of the ships of the fleet continued further:

... On November 13, members of the KBF Military Council sign a directive to the chief of staff of the fleet, Vice Admiral Rall, on preparations for the destruction of ships and vessels in the event that Leningrad is surrendered to the enemy. In general, this directive repeated the already known plan of September 12.

© Platonov A.V. Tragedies of the Gulf of Finland.

[Esaul]

Well, that's right, with the current means of destruction, such a huge ship is just a big target. As a result, 10 years of modernization for 100500 billion can turn into dust in a few minutes.

[sledak]

Quote: Galleon

Quote: sledak

for me this ship is just BEAUTIFUL

When you stand next to him, you feel a sense of admiration of some kind. You're right.

Not the word, COMPLETELY agree with you!!!
I was with my children at the age of 21 in the Crimea, in Sevastopol they got on a boat with a tour of the bay, passed near Moscow and were still waiting for the returnee to moor, pride bursting out for the fleet, and the children simply turned into one big eyes and ears watching what was happening ... And when Moscow was gone, everyone was crying, even me

[Shamil88]

If there is no money, then everyone, the state and the oligarchs, should not have it, but it turns out that the oligarchs increase their capital every year by tens of billions of dollars, and the state does not have money for strategically necessary things, especially for the army that is fighting , and moreover, 99% of these oligarchs are the president’s entourage, it smacks of sabotage and betrayal

[Archivist Vasya]

It's a shame and sad, we have had problems with the fleet for a long time. And given the war, all the more they will not find funding for modernization, so the decision is clear.
The largest ships and submarines in the world are becoming less and less

[zxc15682]

You can't make a museum out of it. Your comment text is too short

[alystan]

Someone purposefully continues to destroy what was not created by them.
First, repairs, where a small fire "happens" with serious consequences, and then decommissioning ...
Is it possible to trust the TASS source, which itself has not been the same TASS for a long time?

[Skiff]

Quote: Saburov_Alexander53

It is clear that the current spending on the SVO determined the priorities in military construction with the abandonment of such giants. With all my love for the fleet, I see an objective necessity in such a decision.

Giants?)))) Here Chester W. Nimitz is a giant, and this is so ...

[Skiff]

Quote: Archivist Vasya

It's a shame and sad, we have had problems with the fleet for a long time. And given the war, all the more they will not find funding for modernization, so the decision is clear.
The largest ships and submarines in the world are becoming less and less

We have had problems with the fleet since the reign of a great lover of corn and cold, only Ustinov tried to change something but did not have time.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Skiff

We have had problems with the fleet since the reign of a great lover of corn and cold

The corn lover was just trying to fix the problems with the fleet - to bring sailors to the meridian, who in the late 50s, with tenacity worthy of better use, ordered and received ships of actually pre-war projects - purely artillery EM and KRL.
Moreover, the same KRL pr. 68 bis could be saved. Two projects were prepared to modernize them in the air defense missile defense with air defense systems (the first - with 4 launchers, the second - with 2 launchers and the preservation of 2 BSh GK). But the fleet crushed these projects, requiring a more complete study - and as a result, the ships went to the needles.

Quote: Skiff

only Ustinov tried to change something but did not have time.

"Didn't have time" - are these four mutants pr. 11431-11444? Which possessed missile firepower four times less than "Glory". Moreover, the "foremast defense attack aircraft" were additionally carried, they were also "on the deck - a breakdown", in an amount like on half the size of the "Ivinsible".
As a result of the wise and balanced policy of Comrade Ustinov, the fleet in the 80s could not even provide air defense of the northern flank of the "bastion" in front of the positional areas of its SSBNs: coastal fighters simply did not have time to go there, and the brainchild of Ustinov's beloved Yakovlev Design Bureau were only suitable as targets for the group air clearing. Oh yes, the low altitudes for the air defense of our ship formations were generally Terra Incognita - for without the catapults hated by Ustinov, the AWACS aircraft could not take off from the deck in any way.

[vvn_vl]

the forts of Kronstadt will receive a large exhibit. just business

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Russia needs nuclear cruisers for a long-term presence in distant regions, for example, to support allies and our interests (Venezuela, Cuba, etc.) or to keep the enemy in suspense.

A cruiser with a bunch of missiles off the coast of your country will make even the United States nervous.

Still, the second Orlan should be completed. These ships would become prototypes of new, more advanced nuclear cruisers, which, together with new nuclear aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and other ships, would protect Russia's interests far beyond the borders of our terrorist waters.

[goblin xnumx]

for the uninitiated, it certainly looks strange - the disposal of the "Lazerev", "Sharks", "Peter the Great", the ridiculous flooding of the "Moscow", the conversion of the SVO into the "trench-artillery", the grinding of equipment, ammunition and not only, the transit of gas and ammonia, grain a deal, allowing opponents to build up resources in weapons and ammunition on the LBS .... for sure there is a system in these moments

[Andrey A]

This was already posted a few months ago. It turned out that this, to put it mildly, is not true.

[savage3000]

Plywood ki again did not surprise. Creatures are the last things they do! There just isn't enough anger.

[Sibiryak70region]

Before writing off, you need to replace a new one. Entered?

[dump22]

Before you write off, you need to replace a new one.

Конечно.
That's just Nakhimov and put into operation to replace him.
As there was one nuclear cruiser in service, so there will be one cruiser.

[Glagol1]

The modernization of Nakhimov is 10 years old and, according to various sources, 100 billion. Peter will no longer fit in a hundred square meters and will be 150-200. These are 5-6 frigates of project 22350. Not an easy choice in favor of frigates?

[dump22]

There is currently no official confirmation of this information.

Yeah, how. We believe.
TASS is state federal information Agency.
There, without the sanction of the authorities, not a single letter will be allowed to be published.

[Ceburec59]

For all post-Soviet times, not a single ocean destroyer, cruiser, aircraft carrier has been built ...
All the guys ... We don’t have a fleet. That’s why Erdogan is so impudent and that’s why Putin doesn’t get out of the shameful grain deal ...

[opposite28]

The fundamental decision to decommission "Peter the Great" has been made. This should happen after the return to service "Admiral Nakhimov"

- leads TASS source words.

It would be nice to build a ship equal in combat power and capabilities, and preferably more than one. The Orlan project is not the only one, and replacing cruisers with frigates is somewhat different. Of course, frigates are cheaper and faster to build, but spying on the experience of the United States, Japan and Great Britain and other NATO countries is extremely imprudent. The domestic Navy must develop without regard to someone else's experience, so that a bad example does not become the cause of failures and failures in naval battles. At least the flagships MUST be present in each of the fleets of the Russian Navy with the appropriate strike power and versatility of use. And the cruiser "Peter the Great" to the Museum of History to the pier, BUT with the possibility of mobilization for a special period ...

[AREOPAG23]

It's sad that nothing like this has been built to replace it. For a long time it was necessary to build boathouses for the construction of Leaders, or at least develop project 22350M, lay at least 2 ships a year.

[AC130 Gunship]

The ship was designed in the late 70s of the last century. Almost 50 years have passed. Military doctrines are changing. And this became even more obvious in the summer of 2022. Let the film "Solo Voyage" remain a beautiful Soviet action movie from the early 80s. The time of these ships is long gone. Kuznetsov won't let you lie...