Military Review

How ships were cut in 90's

91
How ships were cut in 90's



First of all, nuclear cruisers were cut - these creatures have long enraged the sailors with their inadequate cost and eternal concerns about their radiation safety. At the same time, nuclear-powered ships did not have any real advantages, except for the senseless "unlimited autonomy for fuel reserves." Firstly, the ship’s autonomy is determined not only by fuel supplies, and secondly, when operating as part of a squadron, any difference between a nuclear-powered ship and a ship with a conventional power plant disappears.

“Long Beach”, “Bainbridge”, “Trakstan” - old troughs were sent for recycling without regret. The same fate awaited more modern "California" and "South Caroline" - despite the seemingly normal age (20-25 years), their fighting qualities completely depreciated by the beginning of the 90-s. Modernization is recognized as unpromising - in junk!

But the most annoying thing was to part with the "Virginia." Four fantastic designs with nuclear reactors and powerful weapons that can without a stop 7 just go around the globe and shoot the enemy with Tomahawks and long-range anti-aircraft missiles anywhere in the world. All four very young: "Texas" was just 15; the oldest, Mississippi, was barely 19 years old. At the same time, the resource of cruisers was designed for 35 years - up to 2015 year!
However, neither the young age, nor the “nuclear heart”, nor the ready proposal for the modernization and installation of the Aegis system saved the atomic Virginia from a bitter fate: in 90's, they were all in a landfill.

Atomic missile cruiser "Arkansas", type "Virginia"

Having shredded their atomic cruisers, the Americans did not calm down, and continued with renewed vigor to clean their "Augean stables" fleet: a huge amount of trash hung on the balance sheet, which, despite regular modernization, could no longer cope properly with the tasks assigned to it.

The 18 escort cruisers of the Lehi and Belknap types (the oldest were 30, the youngest were 20 with a few years), 46 anti-submarine Knox-type frigates were scrapped! Some frigates were lucky, they were sold to foreign fleets, where they serve to date. The rest lay on the seabed with punched sides (shot on exercises) or were simply butchered for scrap.
ABOUT! What is it? Missile destroyers "Charles F. Adams", in the ranks of twenty-three units. Year of construction? Start 60's. The conversation is short - Scrapped! Together with the "Adams" from the fleet they excluded their peers - 10 rocket destroyers of the "Farragut" type.

It was the turn of honored veterans. Within a short time, the US Navy left the 7 aircraft carriers. Six of them are old ships of the Midway and Forrestal type, another one is a fairly new aircraft carrier America (Kitty Hawk type). At the time of the write-off, “America” was just 30 years old - sheer nonsense by the standards of carrier ships, which usually serve for half a century.

The reason for the amazing longevity of aircraft carriers is simple: their main and only weapon - air wing, independently updated every ten to fifteen years without any changes in the design of the ship itself. Generations of fighters and bombers are being replaced, but the carrier platform remains the same (not counting the local work of replacing radars, self-defense systems or installing new air conditioners in the personnel compartments).

Therefore, the old aircraft carriers "Midway", laid back in the years of the Second World War, were in no way inferior to their modern colleagues - the same multipurpose F / A-18 "Hornet" fighters were based on their decks. The aircraft carrier Midway served 47 for years, and was written off immediately after the victorious return from the Gulf War (1991 year).
Forrestola lived no less long life - all four ships were scrapped during the period from 1993 - 1998, when they were already 40 years old.

The aircraft carrier USS America (CV-66), flooded in 2005.



Command center of the aircraft carrier "America"


The only one who was unlucky was the aircraft carrier America. The super-ship 80 000 tons full displacement was the innocent victim of a cutback in the US budget. Despite the relatively young age, surviving resource and high combat capability, “America” was permanently excluded from the US Navy.
The aircraft carrier rusted at the dump for nine years, finally, in 2005, the decision was made to sink it. Despite numerous protests about the inadmissibility of such a "scrapping" of the ship, which "bears the name of the nation", 14 in May 2005.

Dividing the aircraft carriers, the death conveyor turned towards the battleships. Four hulks full displacement for 60 000 tons, armed to the teeth with 406 mm cannons and Tomahawk cruise missiles, now is your time!

Big Jay - New Jersey Battleship

Iowa-type battleships served under the stars and stripes for half a century, but, despite their venerable age, they retained their incredible potential even in the 1990s. In the 80-s, modern anti-aircraft systems and a complete set of radio-electronic systems were installed on the battleships. The possibility of installing computers of the Aegis combat information management system and vertical launchers with hundreds of cruise missiles was discussed. The universal strike ship, chained into the impenetrable shell of 300 mm steel thickness - the Iowa armor-belt was not penetrated by any modern anti-ship missiles. In fact, the battleships built in 1943, even after half a century, remained one of the most formidable warships in the world!
Fortunately, the pink dreams of the American admirals did not come true: Congress did not allocate funds for upgrading and extending the life of the battleships. All four of the "Iow" together went to rust at the Ship Graveyard. A few years later, an agreement was reached on the conversion of battleships into museums, at the moment they can be seen on the eternal parking lots in Pearl Harbor, Philadelphia, Norfolk and Los Angeles.

Despite the well-deserved fears associated with the "resurrection" of American battleships, most experts agree that this is unlikely. Even the limited modernization of the Iow in the 80-e years cost as the construction of four new Ajis cruisers. One can only guess how much the transformation of the “Iowa” into modern “rocket-artillery battleships” with the Aegis system will “fly into” - apparently, it is easier to build a new nuclear aircraft carrier.

The battleship "Wisconsin" on the eternal joke in Norforle

Having written off 117 ships: nuclear-powered missile cruisers, frigates, destroyers, battleships and aircraft carriers, the Americans did not calm down - there was still a lot of work ahead. First of all, the “carrying forces” should be put in order: the appearance of Aegis destroyers of the Orly Burk type instantly devalued even the “fresh” destroyers of the Spruens type - despite the general design principles and completely unified mechanisms and weapons, the absence of the Aegis Idzhis "Did not leave the Spruensans any chance of further survival. Thirty-five * ships of this type went for scrapping (as an option, they were scuttled as targets).

The Sprewens is a special series of destroyers of the US Navy, similar in function to the Soviet large anti-submarine ships. The main advantage of the “Spruence” is unprecedented anywhere else before standardization and unification with ships of other classes, as well as its huge modernization potential. The main drawback of the “Spruence” is the absence of zonal air defense, the destroyer was focused exclusively on antisubmarine and strike functions as part of the AUG. This is his ruin.

* The attentive reader was probably surprised at the strange figure: the number of constructed Sprueans is exactly equal to 31. But it is worth remembering that 4 destroyers (Kidd sub-series), which were distinguished by even more powerful weapons and modern electronics, were additionally built on their base. Often there is the opinion that in 80-ies destroyers such as "Kidd" were the best in the world. All of them were sold to Taiwan in 1998.

Destroyer UROD type "Kidd"

As a result - the American fleet has lost 35 destroyers. Together with the Spruences, in the 1990s, the US Navy also abandoned the 15 of modern Oliver H. Perry frigates. Some of them were sold to Turkey and Egypt, some were divided into metal. The reason for write-off is unsatisfactory performance at an excessive cost of operation.

Not less large-scale shocks occurred in the American submarine fleet: in the period 1995-1998. 11 multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the "Los Angeles" type (and in Russian - "Elk") were written off. They are all new - at the time of cutting, most of them were 15 years old!

Americans refer “Los Angeles” to the “fast attack submarines” class, which, in reality, means “submarine hunters”. The main objectives of the "Moose" - to cover the carrier-based groups and areas of deployment of strategic submarine missile carriers, the fight against enemy submarines. Elks are known for their reliability and low noise levels. They are very mobile (underwater travel up to 35 nodes), have modest size and serious armament, including Tomahawk 12 missiles. Atomic "Los Angeles" is still the basis of the submarine forces of the US Navy.

Together with 11, the sailors also got rid of their predecessors - the 37 multipurpose Stage-type submarines (built at the beginning of the 70-s), and also removed the 12 strategic submarine missile carriers of the "Benjamin Franklin" type (all into metal) .

The events described above took place during the 1990-1999 period, when, when the threat from the Soviet Union was eased, the Americans decided to reduce their naval arsenals. According to my humble calculation, at that time the US Navy lost 227 warships: large and small, outdated and still quite modern.

The world's largest fleet

According to figures of dry statistics, in 1989, the displacement of all ships of the USSR Navy by 17% exceeded the displacement of the US Navy. It is difficult to say how this figure was obtained by counting, but even visually noticeable how powerful the Navy of the Soviet Union was.

Of course, to estimate the power of the fleet according to the total displacement is extremely incorrect. In the composition of the Russian Navy also was a lot of outdated equipment:

- patrol ships of the 35 Ave. and 159 Ave. (were built at the beginning of the 60-x);

- Post-war destroyers of the 56 project;

- old missile cruisers of the 58 Ave and 1134 Ave;

- outdated BOD pr 1134A (the same age as American cruisers of the Belknap type);

- “Singing Frigates” Ave 61 (analogs of the destroyers of the type “Charles F. Adams”);

- artillery cruisers pr. 68-bis (greetings from 1950-x!);

- minesweepers pr. 254 (the most widespread type of minesweeper in the world, built from 1948 to 1960);

- ships of the measuring complex "Siberia", "Sakhalin", "Chukotka" (former ore carriers, built in 1958)

- diesel submarines pr 641 (built in 60-s);

- nuclear submarines of the first generation, etc.

The content of all this trash required a lot of material resources, while by the end of 80's, he could not solve any of the tasks assigned to the fleet. The only intelligible explanation for the phenomenon of the exploitation of hundreds of useless ships is the expansion of states, and, as a result, an increase in the number of admiral posts. It is not difficult to guess that all these ships "breathed their last" and were preparing to be sent for scrap, regardless of the political and economic situation in the country.

As for the sad stories Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers, the untimely demise of TAVKRs was programmed at their birth. For an unclear reason, no one bothered to build the appropriate coastal infrastructure for their home base - TAVKRY all their lives stood on the roadstead, spending “precious” precious resources of their boilers and generators. As a result, they have developed a resource three times faster than the planned period. The ships were senselessly ditched with their own hands. Very sorry.

The final point in their career was put by the restructuring: in 1991, the main carrier-based aircraft of the Russian Navy Yak-38 was removed from service, while there was no adequate replacement for it. The Yak-141 supersonic "vertical line" was too "raw" for launching into serial production, and the Su-33 fighter wasn’t even talking about landing a TAVKRov on a short deck.
In view of the foregoing, three prospects opened before the Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers: the Chinese Naval Museum, the Indian light aircraft carrier, or go to South Korea for scrap metal.

Among the cruel losses of the Russian Navy in 90-s, it is certainly worth noting the large reconnaissance ship SSV-33 "Ural" and the ship of the measuring complex "Marshal Nedelin" - unique ocean scouts, saturated to the limit with the most accurate electronics, radars and space communications systems.

“Marshal Nedelin” served only seven years, but during his short life he did a lot of useful things: he carried out telemetry measurements during test launches of ICBMs, established communication with spacecraft, participated in the rescue of the Salyut-7 orbital station, and even carried out arrogant filming US Naval Base Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean). In 1991, the ship rose to the wall of Dalzavod for a planned overhaul, from where it never returned: the electronic filling of the ship was taken to the receiving points of the color metal, and Marshal Nedelina was soon taken away to be dismantled in India.
Fortunately, the sailors managed to save the second ship of this type - Marshal Krylov, which is still used to control the flights of spacecraft and record telemetry during test launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Special communications vessel - 33 "Ural"
The CER-33 “Ural” is a stillborn project of a large reconnaissance ship of the 1941 av. (What a terrible number!) With a nuclear power plant. With a total displacement of 36 000 tons, it was the largest reconnaissance ship in history. Time has shown that “Ural” is a pure utopia, a dubious project without any purpose or meaning.

In theory, everything looked perfect - a giant nuclear ship could “stroll” for months along the US coast, recording all radio communications of interest at any frequencies, or, conversely, patrolling near American missile test sites, studying the behavior of the divided ICBM warheads on the final trajectory segment.
In practice, everything turned out to be much more complicated: as everything is too big, the Ural was not viable - too expensive, complicated and unreliable. The super-ship never got to the American missile test site on the Kwajalein Atoll. After two fires and a number of serious problems with a nuclear installation and a fragile e-filling, the “Ural” stood on the “barrels” in the Strelok Bay, as it turned out, forever. In 2008, progress began in the direction of its disposal.

Many unpleasant events occurred in the Russian fleet in 90: there is no sense or desire to list the rest of the ships sold, cut or disassembled on the stocks. Unfinished aircraft carriers "Ulyanovsk" and "Varyag"; a planned, but not implemented, series of upgraded BOD Ave 1155.1, canned heavy nuclear "Orlans", the destroyer of the new generation 21956, of which only a dream has remained ...

Stop! It is in this place that the difference between the "reduction" of the American fleet and the "modernization" of the domestic fleet becomes visible. The Americans seriously wrote off several hundred, sometimes the newest ships in the 90s, however, during the same time, they built 100 to replace even newer and more menacing ships in return. However, this is a completely different story.

Heroes Gallery:

And find themselves on the brig,
In the scales, like the heat of grief,
Thirty-three heroes,
All handsome men are good,
Giants are young,
All are equal as per selection

(AS Pushkin)


Missile Cruiser Ave. 58 "Terrible", 1962 year



RKR pr. 58 "Grozny" in a landfill



Old destroyer URO "Charles F. Adams"





Heavy nuclear missile cruiser Frunze



Atomic Long Beach missile cruiser



Long Beach after upgrading, end of 80's



Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Minsk" in Shenzhen (China)



On the deck of the attraction Minsk World (former TAVKR "Minsk"). Shenzhen, China



Ship measuring complex "Marshal Nedelin"



Frigate type "Oliver H. Perry"



Small nuclear cruiser "Trakstan"



Lega-type escort cruiser model 1960 of the year
Author:
91 comment
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Zhenya
    Zhenya 26 December 2012 08: 52
    +60
    Great country, Great Fleet, and Humpbacked on the Rhea! Yeltsin still got off easily, both enemies of the people and not only of Russia.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. crazyrom
        crazyrom 27 December 2012 05: 40
        -9
        It is very interesting, it turns out in the 90s not only our ships were cut, but they cut themselves too! That's foolish, we thought we were defeated and relaxed. Now we will set up our ships back, and the submarines and missiles are already on the way, and even trains with nuclear missiles! And the "probable enemy" will remain without everything, they have no money or brains left.
        1. starshina78
          starshina78 27 December 2012 20: 45
          +26
          How naive you are! Or is it sarcasm? Americans won't do anything in vain. They will calculate and check everything a hundred times. They are rational and pedantic to the point of stupidity. Since they have destroyed something, then they have done something better. We cut everything. I agree with the destroyers of pr. 56: types "Hidden", "Traceless", and others. They have served their time, but what about the "Petrel". They are not so old, but they were destroyed, and now they want to revive by reconstructing and reworking the project a little. And how many new submarines that did not fly yet were cut. Unfinished, up to 98% readily, were destroyed on the stocks. This can be called only one word, for which in 1937 they were given a watchtower - sabotage.
        2. igor.borov775
          igor.borov775 28 December 2012 04: 47
          +4
          Yes, they didn’t even learn to read, They cut what required large financial costs for maintaining units in constant readiness, We would have such thinking, It also clearly says the costs exceed the contents exceed the declared characteristics, And the appearance of the cruiser IJIS TIKANDEROGA put an end to all old systems, Over the past 20 years, the IJIS system has been brought to mind, And modernization was more expensive than a new ship, And how many outdated weapon systems fell short of their existence, In this they are very strong, A good lesson for us, Now the US Navy is several times stronger than it was in 90g
          1. Proxima
            Proxima 25 May 2018 21: 41
            +4
            Quote: igor.borov775
            ....... They cut what required large financial costs

            Leaning Stalin (Boss, business executive) was probably incompetent No. Take, for example, the battleship Marat (the former Petropavlovsk, in service since 1914). He modernized it in 1928-1931, but the bastard Rudel drowned it. Stalin picked it up, repaired and served this battleship until 1953. While Khrushchev .. I’m all this for what, Joseph Vissarionovich was probably not far off, if so caking over ships, knowing the iron rule - it’s better to upgrade than build from scratch hi
            1. Winnie76
              Winnie76 25 May 2018 22: 32
              +2
              Shaw for nonsense. Almost all comments for 12 years.
            2. ser56
              ser56 26 May 2018 16: 03
              +3
              as the battleship Marat was morally obsolete since 1918, the costs of its maintenance in the RKKF were meaningless - with the defense of Leningrad, 12 dm railway conveyors of the TM-12 type would be no less effective. hi
              as for the modernization of ships, it makes sense if it does not concern the main weapon and / or this modernization is already in the design. Otherwise, long, high costs and a controversial result ... see the modernization of the eagles bully
            3. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 26 May 2018 19: 43
              0
              Quote: Proxima
              lifted, repaired and served this battleship until 1953.

              I understand that it was an irony? Because the Petropavlovsk was hardly repaired to the level of self-propelled batteries - in fact, as a full-fledged ship, it ceased to exist.
            4. morved
              morved 31 May 2018 11: 19
              0
              What do you smoke there? Petropavlovsk raised during the war, no one upgraded it, even didn’t set it on course and remained a non-self-propelled training vessel. And in general, if in the 1920s and 1930s the country could build new battleships all of Peter and Paul would have suffered the fate of training ships and not the fact that they would have survived until 1941. Such money was spent on their modernization and maintenance that ... while the effect of this modernization was meager and he could not fight on the high seas with modern battleships.
          2. ser56
            ser56 26 May 2018 16: 04
            +1
            exactly! and we spend money on the "modernization" of obsolete trash ... crying
        3. yehat
          yehat 26 May 2018 16: 03
          +3
          the Americans, when they saw that there was no direct threat, made a reorganization of the fleet, significantly improving the unification and cost of maintenance.
          Previously, they had a couple dozen types of warships in the core of the fleet.
          Now the base of the fleet is literally 6-7, and all of them are of a new generation and surpass the analogues of opponents.
      2. Piligrim
        Piligrim 27 December 2012 17: 25
        +3
        laughing Yes, the money cycle in America! Artificially support their military industry. So they need the war, that would once again be updated in full.
    2. crazyrom
      crazyrom 27 December 2012 05: 38
      +3
      Quote: Marrying
      Humpback in the Rhea

      For a long time to remove later, it’s better to tie the stone overboard!
    3. Yuri11076
      Yuri11076 27 December 2012 09: 37
      +3
      Completely solidary!
  2. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 26 December 2012 09: 03
    +10
    As the author correctly noted, everyone let the old ships into words, this is normal and natural, but the bottom line is that the Americans have updated the main striking forces of their fleet ... and we are unfortunately .... in fact, what has become common knowledge with our fleet.
    I am glad of course that now the restoration of the fleet has begun slowly ... ships of the sea zone are entering service, but unfortunately there are no new ocean ships.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 December 2012 14: 59
      +20
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      I am glad of course that now the restoration of the fleet has slowly begun... ships of the maritime zone come into operation, but unfortunately there are no new ocean ships.


      What kind of blah recovery are we talking about ?? Recovery in relation to what to what? What is taken as an evaluation criterion? USSR or 90 years?

      The situation in the "dashing nineties":

      K-141 Kursk nuclear submarine, laid down on 22 on March 1992. launch on 16 on May 1994, adopted by 30.12.1994 as part of the Northern Fleet.

      Nuclear submarine K-150 “Tomsk”: laid down - 1991 g., Launched - July 1996. Since March 17 1997 of the year K-150 as part of the 1-th fleet of submarines of the Northern Fleet. In 1998, the latest submarine nuclear submarine made the transition to the Far East under the ice of the Arctic. Currently, it is a member of the Pacific Fleet.

      The nuclear submarine K-419 Kuzbass. Bookmark 1991. Launch: 1992. Admission to the fleet in 1992.

      The nuclear submarine K-295 Samara. Bookmark 1993. Launching 1994. Admission to the fleet in 1995.

      Nuclear submarine K-335 "Gepard". Laid down in 1991, 90% readiness at the end of the 90s, Adopted to the fleet in 2001 (in fact, given the volume of work, the boat was built in the "dashing nineties").

      Large anti-submarine ship Admiral Chabanenko (tab - 1990 year, commissioning - 1999 g.)

      Huge TARKR "Peter the Great", 26 thousand tons of metal, four hundred missiles on board - COMPLETED by 1998! Honestly completed, without any complaints about the complexity and large amount of work.

      The Yuri Dolgoruky submarine strategic missile carrier K-535. The first nuclear-powered ship of project 955 Borey. Laid down in 1996, has not yet been accepted into the Navy.

      Nuclear submarine K-139 "Belgorod" Laid down in 1993. By 1999, 80% readiness. Not completed yet.

      The heavy nuclear cruisers "Admiral Lazarev", "Admiral Nakhimov" have been in storage since the early 2000s, their further participation is unknown, the ships are not being modernized and not being completed, not utilized, they are quietly rotting at the piers.

      Borya was an @@@ soldier, he didn’t ride on fighter jets and submarines and generally scored on PR. However, under him, the ships were REALLY BUILT.
      Now the share of what our fleet received in 90 is not being done. Facts in your face. More questions?
      1. arduan
        arduan 26 December 2012 17: 52
        +19
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        in the "dashing nineties"

        People "by inertia" went to work and did it. And the existing ships were completed and new ones were laid. We, in a slightly different branch of heavy engineering, had an anecdote:
        For two years they have not paid their salaries, but people still go to work. How to disperse everyone and bankrupt the plant? The boss at the end of the shift brought everyone together:
        - Tomorrow come to work and start pounding the gallows along the workshop. They will hang you.
        We stood, were silent .. Voice from the crowd:
        -Rope to bring with you or will they give here?

        They drove into our minds that socialism ended when the nineties were already in the past.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Now the share of what our fleet received in the 90s is not being done.
        1. Civil
          Civil 26 December 2012 18: 17
          +6
          Quote: arduan
          People "by inertia" went to work and did it.


          downloaded drove the country into poverty, then for a barrel of cookies into slavery
        2. Santa Fe
          26 December 2012 19: 28
          +7
          Quote: arduan
          People "by inertia" went to work and did it.

          It does not happen.

          Destroyer pr. 956 "Important" - bookmark in 1988, completed by 1999
          Destroyer pr. 956 "Thoughtful" - bookmarked in 1988, completed by 2000
          At the beginning of the 2000's, the flag of the Navy was lowered on the latest ships and the destroyers replenished the Chinese Navy.

          I also remembered an interesting fact from another area:
          In 1995, cosmonaut Valery Polyakov set a world record after spending 438 days on the Mir orbital station
          The last module was docked to the Mir orbital station in 1996, two more modules (Spektr and Kvant) were docked a year earlier, in 1995.

          The station was recessed in March 2001 of the year.

          Quote: arduan
          People "by inertia" went to work and did it.

          In short, this is a very stupid and ridiculous explanation. Multi-pitch modules of Mir station were also launched by enthusiasts ??
          1. arduan
            arduan 26 December 2012 20: 45
            +16
            I clumsily expressed my thought, until the end of the 90s, people in the general mass worked "as under socialism." They did their work as they used to do, according to GOSTs and adherence to TU. They did not know how to "cut and roll", and they were still afraid. And they looked with bewilderment at the privatization and reforms that our government was then carrying out.
          2. Zerstorer
            Zerstorer 27 December 2012 10: 56
            +3
            Something else was funded by the state. Something was funded by the enterprises themselves (I can only speak for RSK MIG, but I believe that it was the same in other offices)
          3. Piligrim
            Piligrim 27 December 2012 18: 03
            +5
            You are not right.
            Project money has already been allocated. Everything is agreed (with subcontractors). even before the 90s. (this is not a place for you to put!) Therefore, inertia has a place to be.
            Another thing is that inflation began and the well-known events of the 90s. And so the directors began to bum and get out- z.p. do not pay, rent the territory and offices to cooperatives and other ry..yu.
          4. dmitreach
            dmitreach 27 December 2012 23: 06
            +12

            People "by inertia" went to work and did it.

            It does not happen.


            It happens.
            Personally, I saw this at Tupolev Design Bureau in the 90s, among workers.
            Those who were younger and did not drink, began to fight for "crimson jackets" for bucks. From hunting knives to custom-made furniture. And THIS is in KB !!!!!!!!
            Those who are older and retirees came to work AS "IN THE CLUB". For ALL their Soviet life passed there. No salary. There is no work. Commerce is such a swear word, judgmental (in their minds). Type - zh._i._d. And they go, believe that production will revive ...
            I had a master who turned 91. They "could not send everyone to retire." The person did not want to die. But at least he had a pension and health.

            And what was going on among the miners, who knocked with helmets on Gorbaty Bridge! They were openly "breakfast" fed, because coal is always in price, but there is no salary ... Why? But that's another story.

            You don't understand the main thing. People associated their "native plant" with most of life and really believed that: "there is not much yet and it will be reborn." It's like when you don't have money for a taxi, you stand at a bus stop and wait for the bus. Five minutes, ten, you wait a long time ... And with every minute it is more difficult to leave on foot, because I have waited so much ... It seems that it is worth walking a hundred meters away, and he will come ... This is the Soviet mentality. Not everyone is able to go into huckstering or find work "not out of acquaintance". There is no entrepreneurial spirit. Wrong time, wrong people. But whose fault is it?
            For people in the 90s who were not able to think like Mavrodi, there was hope for the business that they had been building their whole lives. Or upstart with mmm. That's why they went without a salary, hoping for the best and eating up their savings.
          5. morved
            morved 31 May 2018 12: 45
            +1
            It does not happen.


            Come on, I’ll tell you more, our plant let out rolled products that are called “by inertia”, under the honest words of the directors of defense plants. I just got to work in incomplete 17, then the PO sometimes didn’t pay 5-6 months (no delay for this time, namely the cash gap), in fact, people lived in summer cottages and the plant agreed to give land for planting potatoes, but still they went to work and worked much better than for example in the 00s. There were some wild schemes of mutual settlements when the Defense Ministry paid off with us decommissioned tanks and various tractors for scrap metal. Later, while already working in the design bureau, I heard enough how they completed something at the expense of defense orders for my native Moscow Region, already realizing that there wouldn’t be any payment for it. Inertia in industry is a powerful force.
      2. cariperpaint
        cariperpaint 25 May 2018 16: 54
        +1
        You are right, of course, in something but one but a very large but-1998 year. Default and all. This agony was not a real result. You can argue a lot about etgmu for a long time, but the fact is that it was in 98 that the whole system that was created during the scoop finally broke. I don’t want to touch the reasons, but everything that you said was financed before 98.
      3. g1v2
        g1v2 25 May 2018 17: 42
        +5
        And do not be confused by such a short time from bookmark apl to launching and delivery? Well, purely logical? wink The bookmark happened when apl were almost ready. They were actually built under the Union. And by the time of the collapse were already in a high degree of readiness. It was cheaper to complete them. Therefore, they were completed. request
      4. albert
        albert 25 May 2018 21: 24
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Borya was an @@@ soldier, he didn’t ride on fighter jets and submarines and generally scored on PR. However, under him, the ships were REALLY BUILT.

        Only ships built in the USSR were being completed with a high degree of factory readiness.
      5. Dead hand
        Dead hand 30 May 2018 14: 02
        0
        now is 2018))) .... what you described is already outdated
  3. Rus_87
    Rus_87 26 December 2012 09: 06
    +7
    The whole difference is that the amers really cut the junk, which is at least 10-15 years old, and which is both technically and morally obsolete. And our gouges, thanks to the tagged and the drunkard, are the unique latest ships such as Ulyanovsk and many others.
    1. Alexander K.
      Alexander K. 26 December 2012 21: 30
      +7
      I'm sorry Ulyanovsk, there was a great project, BUT ...
      Remember the 90s ... a poor country that didn’t have money for anything, built with its last forces only the most necessary things, as SWEET_SIXTEEN wrote above. By the way, I’ve built a lot, it’s clear from the Soviet backlog, but nonetheless. In the 2000s, such volumes never dreamed of; they stole almost everything, until recently.
      And now think about it - we are building up Ulyanovsk, in the 90s, in Ukraine, can you imagine the wound price of local nationalists for everything? Even if completed, where is it? Develop a resource on the roads of Severomorsk? How are Kuznetsov? There are no money for hiking, flying and training pilots, there are no berths, and there are no planes either ... Everything was very, very sad in those years.
    2. Piligrim
      Piligrim 27 December 2012 18: 04
      +2
      10-15 years old ship?!?!
      Have you completely read the article ??? No.
      1. Beltar
        Beltar 28 December 2012 21: 41
        0
        If not a battleship, then, in general, yes.
  4. baltika-18
    baltika-18 26 December 2012 09: 07
    +5
    Good article, good analysis.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 27 May 2018 16: 59
      0
      Well, how can I say - Kaptsov is recognized from the first lines. laughing
  5. Igarr
    Igarr 26 December 2012 09: 37
    +13
    Photos - download.
    ..
    Only Oleg, as always, in his repertoire - ".. all this stuff required a lot of material resources, while by the end of the 80s, he could not solve any of the tasks assigned to the fleet. "
    Like an American - so - oh and oh.
    Like ours, Russian - well, ".. trash."
    In this ... trash ... I myself served. And others served. For the glory of Russia.
    ..
    This is the same word .. easy to any genus ..... activity or value - apply.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 December 2012 14: 42
      +3
      Quote: Igarr
      ".. The maintenance of all this rubbish required a lot of material resources, while by the end of the 80s, he could not solve any of the tasks assigned to the fleet."
      Like an American - so - oh and oh.
      Like ours, Russian - well, ".. trash."


      How to distinguish a black cat from a white one? EYES!

      Amer wrote off ships from 60's:
      - The world's first nuclear-powered missile cruiser "Long Beach" (who would dare to call it rubbish? 18 thousand tons of displacement)


      Our decommissioned ships from 60's:
      - watchdog pr. 35


      Ours wrote off SSV-33 "Ural". Although this is not entirely correct - “Ural” wrote off itself. Building such a ship was a pure gamble.

      Amers wrote off really combat-ready nuclear cruisers: in the photo, the Mississippi is in circulation


      1. Igarr
        Igarr 26 December 2012 20: 06
        +17
        Oleg...
        specifically, on the 35 project, I myself, personally, drove a German watchdog in the Baltic, in the 5-point storm.
        Before that, my friend Jack and I fixed a navigation radar, Don-5, in Baltiysk for him.
        In the storm, a crack opened over the midsection. We walked and looked at her - a bewitching sight, like the mouth of a troll.
        At the 35 project, my friend (and subordinate is now at work) - dragged along the South China Sea. Carriers drove away from Vietnam.
        It’s ridiculous. Of course it's funny. But - the amers were afraid of us seriously. They knew that the shells would end, this bandura would rush at them at full speed. And this is fraught.
        In the North, I served on the 50 project. You don’t even have one at all.
        And this "rank 3 frigate" quite so successfully ... smashed destroyers armed with "Penguins". The Penguins have a flight range of 20 km. Our guns hit by 21.
        And it doesn’t matter that there would be no shots from 10000.
        Sibiryakov, entering the battle with Scheer - also - did not expect to win.
        ..
        Eyes ..... trash to determine ???
        Well, any ... re-singing of the Chukhzhgo fleet - JAM. Shot trash.
        1. not good
          not good 27 December 2012 22: 32
          +2
          The 35th "motorcycles" are real hard workers, they were driven in the baltic until the write-off, and in terms of speed, more than one Western analogue was not nearby. There would have been a timely capital plowed for more than one year.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 26 December 2012 20: 57
        +9
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ours wrote off SSV-33 "Ural". Although this is not entirely correct - “Ural” wrote off itself.

        After Gorbachev's meeting with Reagan, the Ural became a bad ship and everything began to break down on it, however, not only in the Ural
        And even if Yeltsin so cares for the fleet of what he "Varyag" fucked up.
        In 1998, it was sold for $ 20 million to a Chinese firm,
        20 million !!!
        Luzhkov collected money from bazaars and drove to Severomorsk so that the workers would not die of hunger and all sorts of Berezovsky would be fattened.
        The truth is now "vague doubts torment me"
        Thank you for the article, interesting
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 26 May 2018 07: 20
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Luzhkov collected money from bazaars and drove to Severomorsk so that the workers would not die of hunger

          Luzhkov and KChF saved !!!!!
      3. Serg65
        Serg65 26 May 2018 07: 16
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        "Ural" wrote off himself

        Well, how did he write himself off?
    2. Ustinov 055 055
      Ustinov 055 055 10 February 2017 13: 00
      +1
      And he himself serves trash. The taxes from the sight of my ship give a tear. The sailors from Murmansk forgot how they drove the Norgs until Kirov appeared and they did not rush to themselves.
  6. borisst64
    borisst64 26 December 2012 09: 46
    +3
    Have you forgotten about Ticonderoga?
    1. Sokol peruna
      Sokol peruna 26 December 2012 10: 51
      +5
      Yes, no, not forgotten. Just the cancellation of the first 5 missile cruisers of the Ticonderoga type is not included in the scope of this article. they were decommissioned in 2004-2005.

      1. postman
        postman 28 December 2012 00: 01
        +1
        Quote: Sokol Peruna
        Just the cancellation of the first 5 missile cruisers of the Ticonderoga type is not included in the scope of this article. they were decommissioned in 2004-2005.

        Retired: September 30, 2004


        From March to August 2004, Ticonderoga completed her career as one of the most successful anti-drug operations. Her involvement led directly to the seizure of drugs: 14406 pounds of cocaine, 4 Go-Fast smuggled vessels, one smuggled fishing vessel, 25 boats and 5 logistics support vessels.
        In addition, Ticonderoga worked with the Navy of Costa Rica and Colombia to secure the capture of two Go-Fast vessels.

        Ticonderoga has already rotted
        1. Ksr
          Ksr 29 December 2012 21: 14
          0
          RIP Tico ...
        2. Ustinov 055 055
          Ustinov 055 055 10 February 2017 13: 02
          +1
          At the same time, it did not hurt her to be in the Baltic Straits in 2003 and follow us
  7. MilaPhone
    MilaPhone 26 December 2012 10: 16
    +7
    Non-banal article. Wonderful ships.
    The end of the Cold War put an end to their existence, as at one time firearms put an end to the age of armor and armor.
  8. common man
    common man 26 December 2012 11: 42
    +16
    The Americans wrote off their ships in the first place because they decided "Russia is a complete mess. She will not rise from her knees." And secondly, in order to regularly load their shipyards with orders. They built a new one, wrote off the old one. Overall combat readiness has only increased. And ours cut to fill their own pockets. First, at the disposal of ships (you don't need to explain the scheme to anyone?). Then on "cutting" the budget. There is money, there are no ships. Where is the money? Right. In pocket. That's the whole difference.
  9. Misantrop
    Misantrop 26 December 2012 11: 55
    +7
    My friend bitterly called himself "the gravedigger of the Northern Fleet." As the chief engineer of the NR SF reloading service, they did nothing but unload the cores. There have been very few downloads of fresh zones over the years ... sad
  10. understudy
    understudy 26 December 2012 12: 07
    +8
    Quote: man in the street
    And ours were cut to fill their own pockets.


    Something tells me that in the near future those who took part in this "cutting" will be taken for himon. And there will be more than one article of similar content, with a touch of justification for the elimination of the USSR's naval heritage.
    Among the amers, what has long been described in our folk tales happened: three new ones come to replace one cut-off head at the Serpent-Gorynych. We ... we have three times report on the successful launch of the same submarine.
    1. Uncle
      Uncle 26 December 2012 12: 35
      +2
      Quote: Understudy
      we have three times report on the successful launch of the same submarine.
      Even a tugboat has been reported about the successful descent, a tugboat, of course, is good, but much more is required.
  11. kotdavin4i
    kotdavin4i 26 December 2012 12: 40
    +4
    Americans are good managers first of all, they sat down felt that it was profitable that there was not, what could be left. We chose the optimal and threw the rest nafig. having drowned an aircraft carrier with the name of the country, they showed that the result is important and not the tradition. By removing several classes of ships, uniting and rearranging others, they achieved the optimum ratio of striking power to quantity. And do not shout now that we were cutting new and good things and they are junk, history itself has shown that the absence of a unified program for the construction and development of the fleet led to such sad consequences. Now we need to think about something else, that something that remains in service should ensure combat readiness while new combat units are being built.
    1. morved
      morved 31 May 2018 12: 55
      +1
      You made a mega-strange conclusion, take an interest in when the Americans destroyers of WWII times and how many menace on their modernization. Just a landslide self-destruction of the USSR fleet, and then the Russian Federation allowed them to optimize everything. In the wake of the unified development program, neither we nor the Americans were different.
  12. Castor oil
    Castor oil 26 December 2012 12: 41
    +3
    An interesting article is definitely a plus. good
  13. black_eagle
    black_eagle 26 December 2012 13: 34
    +5
    And how many tanks were cut, how many planes ??? How many airfields were dismantled? How much infrastructure was destroyed, naval bases? what is there? They ruined the country !!! The owners are damn !!!
  14. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 26 May 2018 07: 23
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      Here, many sailors on the site have something to remember.

      hi Hello my friend!!! Even as there is something to remember !!!!
      Where did you disappear to?
  15. Kibl
    Kibl 26 December 2012 14: 41
    +2
    Hunchback on trial !!! And for life in the very darkness of cockroach!
    1. Denis
      Denis 27 December 2012 05: 41
      +1
      Quote: KIBL
      Humpback on trial

      yes, only not so long ago the order was handed to him not by the Jews, but by St. Andrew the First-Called
  16. Kars
    Kars 26 December 2012 14: 53
    +1
    Despite deserved fears associated with the “resurrection” of American battleships, most experts agree that this is unlikely. Even the limited modernization of the Iowies in the 80s cost as much as building four new Aegis cruisers. One can only guess how much the Iow’s turn into a modern “missile-artillery battleship” with the Aegis system will “fly into” - apparently, it’s easier to build a new nuclear carrier



    Announce the whole amount, please)))))))
    And also the names of experts except Oleg Kaptsov.
    And what can we say to the fact that the museums were not subjected to peeling, useless aggregates for the museum. And Missouri even went to sea for filming in Blockbuster.

    The "rebirth" of battleships in the 1980s was an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of shipbuilding. While retaining a full set of heavy artillery and armor, Iowa received strategic weapons - Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Vulkan MK.15 automated anti-aircraft artillery systems, modern electronic equipment and electronic warfare equipment. Such a combination of the old and the new gave an amazing result - battleships, considered irrevocably a thing of the past, in reality turned out to be universal strike ships, most adapted for conducting modern naval warfare. The Falklands Crisis that took place in 1982 confirmed this opinion: the former "mistress of the seas" was in short supply of ships similar to the "Iowa".

    1. Kars
      Kars 26 December 2012 15: 21
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      One can only guess how much the Iow’s turn into a modern “missile-artillery battleship” with the Aegis system will “fly into” - apparently, it’s easier to build a new nuclear carrier


      I’ll just correct the author so that he knows the numbers,
      The bottom line is just the answer to what you guess.
      1. Santa Fe
        26 December 2012 16: 22
        +2
        Quote: Kars
        The bottom line is just the answer to what you guess.


        There is an obvious mistake in your table. BB Modernization, in principle, cannot cost 1,4 billion. This is an incredible amount.

        Although ... what do you mean by modernization? Missouri alone was worth 18 million.
        http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Oct/15/ln/hawaii910150350.html

        Interesting phrases from the text:

        Missouri as it headed toward $ 18 million worth of repairs - primarily three months of sanding and painting.
        Painting and cleaning of shells. 18 million. Non-acid.

        The portions of the hull that have been underwater were seen covered in barnacles, with a melon-sized hole in the fore starboard side letting seawater spew out like a fountain.
        So it should be that the ship has on board (in the underwater part!) A hole from which water is whipping, when the dock is drained?
        I think the Missouri is a little rotten

        Four tugboats nudged, pulled and towed the Missouri from Ford Island's Pier Foxtrot 5
        On the picture. 4 Tugboat
        1. postman
          postman 27 December 2012 00: 14
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          There is an obvious mistake in your table. BB Modernization, in principle, cannot cost 1,4 billion.

          This is the modernization of the "modernized" model of 1983, with all the Tomahawks, radar harmpons, and so on.
          Look at the date of the document 2007. This would bring to the modern level and put into operation:
          Program Acquisition Costs By Weapon System, Fiscal Year 2008, For battleship
          modernization costs see Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992, 260-261.

          The costs portrayed above are generally correct for fiscal year 2007 costs. This data is meant to show order of magnitude, not pinpoint budget accuracy. For the cost of a 16-inch conventional or sabot projectile, see Navy is Complying with Battleship Readiness Requirements, 6. GAO report provided cost for new shell bodies. Mr. Steve Kienzle, (VP Business Development, ATK Energetic Systems Division, Radford Army Ammunition Plant) provided a rough estimate of the cost for new 16-inch propellant in 2000 round lots for about $ 10 per pound or $ 11,700 per projectile; The cost for LRLAP and 16-inch advanced long range rounds are estimates based upon early costs for Excalibur and ERM costs. No reliable cost estimates for these projectiles are published; For the 5-inch Extended Range Munition cost, see US Government Accountability Office. DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Challenges Remain in Developing Capabilities for Naval Surfaced Fire Support, GAO-07-115. (Washington, DC: GPO, November 2006), 11; For the Tomahawk the cost is the direct procurement with no overhead or recurring costs according as provided by Mr. St. George on 9 March 2007; For the 5-inch all up round cost, see FY07 Navy Budget Submission available at http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/07pres/books.htm for Navy and Marine Corps munitions procurement. Prior years are available at http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/; The Precision Guidance Kit's Course Correcting Fuse was applied to all munitions. The cost goal for CCF is $ 3,500 each as provided by Mr. Russell Hill, Combat Ammunition Systems, Precision and SMART Systems, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, on March 11, 2007.
        2. postman
          postman 27 December 2012 00: 57
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Painting and cleaning of shells. 18 million. Non-acid.

          PORTER (DDG 78) during overhaul in Norfolk, Virginia, October 27 2010 year.
          Commissioning: March 20, 1999
          1. postman
            postman 27 December 2012 01: 01
            +1
            lured him in 2002 and 2008
            This is a photo of 2010

            Orly Burke seems to be painted once every 1-2 years
    2. Santa Fe
      26 December 2012 16: 10
      +3
      Quote: Kars
      Announce the whole amount, please)))))))

      The Navy spent about $ 1.7 billion to modernize and reactivate the four Iowa class battleships.
      $ 400-500 million for installing Tomahawks and updating radars. Each. At 1985 prices. At that time, four new Ticonderoges were worth so much.
      http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/bb61iowa.html
      And here is another interesting addition:
      The Navy estimates costs in excess of $ 500 million, but this does not include an additional $ 110 million needed to replenish the gunpowder for the 16-inch (406 mm) guns
      110 million on gunpowder!

      Quote: Kars
      And also the names of experts except Oleg Kaptsov.

      There is one funny article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Gunfire_Support_debate

      About how sailors, marines and Congress staged a verbal battle on the topic "Is naval artillery necessary in the XNUMXst century?"
      The sailors said: take them to hell, they are too expensive.
      Congressmen: Cutting a pity. Suddenly come in handy.
      As a result, 2 was finally decommissioned, while Iowa and Wisconsin can still be used in theory. In practice, they cannot even move independently.
      Quote: Kars
      And what can we say to the fact that museums have not undergone peeling, useless aggregates for the museum

      This is the Amer Museum. Old transport Jeremy O / Brian is also on the move - once a week she cruises along San Francisco Bay.
      The aircraft carrier Museum-INTERPID (Niyu-York) is in excellent condition - it’s true that not a single modern aircraft can board its deck.

      Quote: Kars
      And Missouri even went to sea for filming in Blockbuster.

      In tow.

      Quote: Kars
      The Falklands Crisis that occurred in 1982 confirmed this opinion: the former "mistress of the seas" was in short supply of ships similar to the Iowa.

      laughing
      The master of the seas, in the first place, did not have enough anti-aircraft guns Falanks
      Coventry was unable to fend off two subsonic stormtroopers circling above his head. The team shot them with personal weapons.)))
      What are the battleships here ....
      1. Kars
        Kars 26 December 2012 16: 29
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The Navy spent about $ 1.7 billion to modernize and reactivate the four Iowa class battleships.
        $ 400-500 million for installing Tomahawks and updating radars. Each. At 1985 prices. At that time, four new Ticonderoges were worth so much.
        http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/bb61iowa.html


        This is how much you say Aegis cruisers at the same prices?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Modernization, in principle, cannot cost 1,4 billion. This is an incredible amount.

        And Zemvvolt means 3 billion can cost)))))))))))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        So it should be that the ship has on board (in the underwater part!) A hole from which water is whipping, when the dock is drained?

        You look at the photo.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The sailors said: take them to hell, they are too expensive

        And they put on Zemvolt 155 mm which is even more expensive, some inconsistent.

        Along the way, I made you again, it’s clear why you were afraid to pop out on an article about hibernating battleships.
        1. Kars
          Kars 26 December 2012 16: 45
          +1
          Photo, pay attention to the waterline.
          1. Kars
            Kars 26 December 2012 17: 01
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            400-500 million for the installation of Tomahawks and radar upgrades. Each. In 1985 prices. At that time, four new Ticonderoges cost so much.
            http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/bb61iowa.html

            There are no prices for Ticonderoges, and 1.7 spent on FOUR battleships.
            Congress commissioned the renewal and modernization of the first Iowa-class battleship in the summer of 1981. This ship, USS New Jersey (BB 62), was put into operation for the third time on December 28, 1982. USS Iowa (BB-61) was renewed on April 8, 1984. USS Missouri (BB 63) was renewed on May 10, 1986 and USS Wisconsin (BB 64) was renewed on October 22, 1988. The Navy spent about $ 1,7 billion on upgrade and launch four battleships Iowa class


            and there is an interesting point
            Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for the 1996 fiscal year included the requirements for battleship readiness (1) to list and maintain at least two Iowa-class battleships per seagoing vessel Register [official list of ships in custody or named navy] that are well maintained and able to provide adequate amphibious fire support; (2) maintain existing logistical support, must have at least two Iowa-class ships on active service, including technical manuals, repairs and spare parts, and ammunition; and (3) keep two battleships on the register before naval The Navy confirmed that it has operational surface fire support capabilities in the fleet that equal or exceed the fire support capabilities that Iowa-class ships would be able to provide for Marine Corps amphibious assault and shore operations.
            1. Santa Fe
              26 December 2012 17: 28
              0
              Quote: Kars
              There are no prices for Ticonderoges

              According to various sources, Ticonderoga cost 500-800 million dollars.
              For comparison: the CSGN super cruiser armed with Ticonderoga, YaSU and 203 mm artillery at the end of the 70's was estimated at 1,5 billion.
              Quote: Kars
              spent on FOUR battleship.

              This is what we are talking about. It is surprising that nothing special has been done - they removed a couple of 5 inch cannons, and instead put 8 containers with Tomahawks. Replaced the radar. No UVP or Ajis to you.

              Quote: Kars
              Authorization for 1996 fiscal year

              I wrote about this above -

              Congressmen: Cutting a pity. Suddenly come in handy.
              As a result, 2 was finally decommissioned, while Iowa and Wisconsin can still be used in theory. In practice, they cannot even move independently.
        2. Santa Fe
          26 December 2012 17: 09
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          This is how much you say Aegis cruisers at the same prices?

          For 1,7 billion it was possible to build 3-4 Ticonderoges.
          Quote: Kars
          And Zemvvolt means 3 billion may cost

          Can. Now try to meet the 1,4 billion by upgrading Iowa, which is 4 times bigger.

          Quote: Kars
          You look at the photo.

          This is the cooling of a power plant. But how can this be in the underwater part?

          Quote: Kars
          And they put on Zemvolt 155 mm which is even more expensive, some inconsistent.

          Zamvolt did not go into the series.

          Finally, 3 billion is:
          - radar
          - new technologies
          - 2x155 mm AU

          Quote: Kars
          it’s understandable why you were afraid of being out on an article about hibernating battleships.

          I did not want to get involved in a long and meaningless argument. What could be added there?
          What is gunpowder worth 110 million? And every 406 mm ammunition is $ 150 000.
          It's easier and cheaper to call Strike Eagle. And battleships are ordinary museums, like the cruiser Ticonderoga, the aircraft carrier Midway and the dreadnought "Texas"
          1. Kars
            Kars 26 December 2012 17: 35
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            For 1,7 billion could build 3-4 Ticonderoga

            You mean Tika cost 1985 425 millions of dollars --- prove it.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Can. Now try to keep within 1,4 billion by upgrading Iowa, which is 4 times bigger


            Yes, it’s easy, it’s easy to build it. In 1985, 425 mil went for one. here they offer 1.4 billion --- half a Zwolvolt for MODERNIZATION.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This is the cooling of a power plant. But how can this be in the underwater part?

            There are kingstones, and I don’t see what you are talking about.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Zamvolt did not go into the series.

            Finally, 3 billion is:
            - radar
            - new technologies
            - 2x155 mm AU

            What are you? Really? Well, let's start that 406 already eats ---
            And how much does the building cost?
            And technology of three billion is not included.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What is gunpowder worth 110 million? And every 406 mm ammunition is $ 150

            I don’t know how much gunpowder, but the shell in 26 000 dolars.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Yes, it's easier and cheaper to call "Strike Eagle

            Which costs 100 million, and which will bring down))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And battleships are ordinary museums

            Quote: Kars
            Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for the 1996 fiscal year included the requirements for battleship readiness (1) to list and maintain at least two Iowa-class battleships per seagoing vessel Register [official list of ships in custody or named navy] that are well maintained and able to provide adequate amphibious fire support; (2) maintain existing logistical support, must have at least two Iowa-class ships on active service, including technical manuals, repairs and spare parts, and ammunition; and (3) keep two battleships on the register before naval The Navy confirmed that it has operational surface fire support capabilities in the fleet that is equal to or greater than the fire support capabilities that Iowa-class ships would be able to provide for Marine Corps amphibious assault and shore operations
            1. Santa Fe
              26 December 2012 17: 45
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              You mean Tika cost 1985 425 millions of dollars --- prove it.

              Tika was worth 500-800.
              For comparison:
              Oliver Perry was worth 250 at the end of 80's
              Modernization of Atomic Virginia 1,2 billion (note - the finished ship!)
              Unrealized CSGN - 1,5 billion (and in real life, probably even more. In / and 17 thousand tons, 203 mm AC, YaSU, Aegis)

              Quote: Kars
              Yes, it’s easy.

              Well yes)))
              Let's first decide: what kind of modernization?

              Quote: Kars
              I don’t know how much gunpowder, but the shell in 26 000 dolars.

              Usual? With a range of 50 km? What year prices?

              Quote: Kars
              Yes, it's easier and cheaper to call "Strike Eagle
              Which costs 100 a million,

              combat radius 500 km.

              What will happen to Iowa if it is fired at by BPS from tanks? ))))))))))))
              1. Kars
                Kars 26 December 2012 17: 57
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Tika cost 500-800

                As we see, you have already lied.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Oliver Perry was worth 250 at the end of 80's

                I do not care.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Well yes)))
                Let's first decide: what kind of modernization?

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                One can only guess how much the Iow’s turn into a modern “missile-artillery battleship” with the Aegis system will “fly into” - apparently, it’s easier to build a new nuclear carrier

                So you tell me what you put into this sense at the cost of 8-18 mil.dollars (I don’t know what aircraft carrier you think is new)
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Usual? With a range of 50 km? What year prices?

                2007
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                combat radius 500 km

                So what?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                What will happen to Iowa if it is fired at by BPS from tanks? ))))))))))))

                Nothing, holes with a diameter of 30-60 mm. The battleship is not a tank, it has ammunition, fuel, engines behind the first layer of the skin.
                1. Santa Fe
                  26 December 2012 18: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  As we see, you have already lied.

                  This is not to defend the desertion.
                  500x4 = 2000 is approximately equal to 1700 + gunpowder

                  In short, everything is fine, in vain you are indignant

                  Quote: Kars
                  the transformation of Iowas into modern "missile and artillery battleships" with the Aegis system - apparently, it is easier to build a new nuclear carrier
                  So you tell me what you put into this sense at the cost of 8-18 mil.dollars (I don’t know what aircraft carrier you think is new)

                  I do not know the cost of "converting Iowas into Idis battleships with UVP" which I honestly admitted.
                  Considering indirect evidence: the price of Berkov, the price of Zamvolt and minor modernization in the 80's, which cost 425-500 million for each battleship, the cost will be colossal ... honestly I do not know how much ...let the minimum 3 billion per ship x 4 Iowa = 12 million. This is a new aircraft carrier!
                  Quote: Kars
                  So what?

                  And you have only 50. Further discussion of value does not make sense -
                  1. battleship cannot solve aviation problems
                  2. it makes no sense to build / upgrade an expensive battleship in order to shoot at 50 km, there are other cheap and effective means for this


                  Quote: Kars
                  Nothing, holes with a diameter of 30-60 mm. The battleship is not a tank, it has ammunition, fuel, engines behind the first layer of the skin.

                  Okay.
                  Do you remember the case when the EMNIP battleship South Caroline received a 127 mm anti-aircraft projectile from a destroyer and what happened?))))))))
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 26 December 2012 19: 08
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    500x4 = 2000 is approximately equal to 1700 + gunpowder

                    And why did you get that 500? I didn’t see the exact figure as 1.7 from you. And with what joy are you munitioning amusement? Let's consider the price of Ticonderoga missiles.
                    So I’m just proving you. That the TV would be especially awkward.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    I do not know the cost of "turning Iows into Idis battleships with UVP" which I honestly admitted

                    You confessed vaguely, you lied about the equivalence with the new aircraft carrier. I gave you a table from the report where the price is 1.4 billion for 2007
                    http://ebookbrowse.com/2007-05-jfsc-thesis-nfs-and-ddg-1000-pdf-d17547342
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    the price of Berkov, the price of Zamvolt and the small modernization in the 80s, which cost 425-500 million for each battleship., the cost will be enormous ... honestly I don’t know how much ... let at least 3 billion for a ship x 4 Iowa = 12 million

                    There are only fairy tales here. And even three billion for one, which will surpass Zamvolt three to five times in efficiency and sustainability.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    And you have only 50. Further discussion of value does not make sense -
                    1. battleship cannot solve aviation problems

                    He has Tomahawks, and he is not obliged to solve ALL the tasks of aviation.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    2. it makes no sense to build / upgrade an expensive battleship in order to shoot 50 km,

                    Doing this with other methods will be more expensive.

                    Quote: Kars
                    Section 1011 of the National Defense Act Authorization for Fiscal Year 1996 included the requirements of the readiness battleship (1) list and maintain at least two Iowa class battleships per marine vessel Registration [official list of ships in custody or under the name of the Navy], which are in good condition and able to provide adequate support for amphibious assault; (2) to maintain existing logistical support, it is necessary to have at least two Iowa-class ships in active service, including technical manuals, repairs and spare parts, as well as ammunition; and (3) keep two battleships in the registry to the naval the fleet confirmed that it has in the fleet operational surface fire support potential that equal to or greater than the fire support capability that Iowa-class ships would be able to provide Marine Corps amphibious assault and shore operations

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Do you remember the case when the EMNIP battleship South Caroline received a 127 mm anti-aircraft projectile from a destroyer and what happened?))))))))

                    127 mm anti-aircraft, this is not BPS for your information.
                    And what happened? Caroline drowned? And project the same hits on Burke or Zamvolt.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      26 December 2012 19: 35
                      +3
                      Quote: Kars
                      Doing this with other methods will be more expensive.

                      No more expensive than building / upgrading and driving a battleship with 1000 crew into the combat zone.

                      Quote: Kars
                      project the same hits on Burke or Zamvolt.

                      In principle, it would be the same.
                      3 killed, 44 wounded, the fire control system failed.

                      Successfully hit the shell)))
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 26 December 2012 20: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        No more expensive than building / upgrading and driving a battleship with a crew of 1000 people into the combat zone

                        Zamvolt is twice as expensive, and 155 mm guns for your needs for what?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In principle, it would be the same.
                        3 killed, 44 wounded, the fire control system failed.
                        And for some reason he was driven into the Persian Gulf, even though there were already 4 aircraft carriers there.
                        And to support the naval landing - well, if there is nothing for you to hold an AUG warrant, it will be more expensive to use URs to avoid entering the air defense zone of small arms and cannons, and the number of URs is small. Each downed plane is tens of millions of dollars. It’s just a visit. threatening power .. AUG is much more expensive and more vulnerable. Even just keeping it in service is much more expensive.

                        Successfully hit the shell)))

                        Yes, no, in principle, Burke would have demanded a month, and lost combat effectiveness.

                        I'm just wondering why did you weave this page into your article when you are not able to confirm anything?
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 26 December 2012 21: 47
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        3 killed, 44 wounded, the fire control system failed.

                        Successfully hit the shell)))


                        What do you call the launch of a fire control system?

                        fortifications on the island. On April 1, the battleship provided direct support to the landed units of the 10th Army. Shooting along the shore did not stop him from shooting down the 6th Kamikaze on the 127th. During this hectic battle with airplanes, a 2-mm shell from a neighboring battleship hit the base of director No. 127 of a 99-mm North Caroline left-side battery (sp. 3 area), killing 44 and injuring 25 people. The explosion occurred about a meter under the roller shoulder strap of the director’s turret, making a hole in the base with a diameter of 16 cm and breaking XNUMX cables, which caused the director to fail.


                        a joker, but Burke could well have been burned from such a hit,
                      3. postman
                        postman 27 December 2012 01: 41
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        a joker, but Burke could well have been burned from such a hit,

                        Here, the USS Porter (DDG 78 class of Berkeley) accidentally in the Strait of Hormuz on August 12, 2012 from the oil tanker MV OTOWASAN at 01:00 touched (where bl @ watchman looked, such a fool:

                        miss)



                        RESULT (what kind of fire there is, you need to put a "gentle" fuse in the shells, otherwise they will explode behind the opposite side):
                        And you're talking about guns, 20mm phalanx, that's it.
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 27 December 2012 01: 48
                        +1
                        Quote: Postman
                        (whatever it is to burn out, you need to put a "gentle" fuse in the shells, otherwise they will explode behind the opposite

                        This is necessary - and I don’t think it’s particularly difficult. Although ships are not the best target for artillery, all the same.
                        Quote: Postman
                        And you're talking about guns, 20mm phalanx

                        If they go to the abstraction distance, I would try the main caliber, one gunpowder
                      5. Santa Fe
                        27 December 2012 01: 03
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        I'm just wondering why did you weave this page into your article when you are not able to confirm anything?


                        I understand that you do not like it, but try to admit to yourself:

                        even a small upgrade of 4 Iyov pulled out 1,7 billion in 1985 prices!
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 27 December 2012 01: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        even a small upgrade of 4 Iyov pulled out 1,7 billion in 1985 prices!

                        Well, 425 mil dollars if Ticonderoga was worth a BILLION. And the correction of getting to Stark (which he didn’t get by accident) cost 170 mil. So I don’t see anything extra special, the order of numbers for the USA is simply banal. So I don’t have anything to acknowledge.
                        Quote: Kars
                        The rebirth "of battleships in the 1980s is an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of shipbuilding. While retaining a full set of heavy artillery and armor, Iowa received strategic weapons - Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Vulkan MK.15 automated anti-aircraft artillery systems, modern electronic equipment and electronic warfare equipment. Such a combination of the old and the new gave an amazing result - battleships, considered irrevocably a thing of the past, in reality turned out to be universal strike ships, most adapted for conducting modern naval warfare. The Falklands Crisis that took place in 1982 confirmed this opinion: the former "mistress of the seas" was in short supply of ships similar to the "Iowa".


                        By the way, do you remember about a balloon with a radar? They tell me that it is quite real and feasible. And even in the USA there are studies.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 27 December 2012 01: 27
                        +2
                        406-mm guns "Ay ovy" in 30 minutes
                        can release 270 862-kg HE shells
                        - 232,7 tons of explosives and steel. A standard
                        combat load of the air wing of the atomic
                        aircraft carrier "Nie Mitz" is
                        76,2 t. Usually deck aircraft per day
                        make no more than three sorties - that is
                        they can drop on the target “total” xnumx t
                        bombs per day. Later Americans supplemented
                        these calculations and the economic component:
                        “Delivery” of each ton of ammunition
                        battleship costs 1,6 thousand dollars, and
                        the attackers of the same “Nimitz” - roughly
                        in 12 thousand dollars
                        Of course, compare these numbers directly
                        - incorrectly. Action range
                        carrier-based aviation compared to ship
                        artillery, much more
                        , and the accuracy of the bombing is higher.
                        But one thing is certain: during the military
                        many actions can arise,
                        decide which, and decide the most
                        effectively, heavy artillery will allow
                        battleships.

                        Modernization of American battleships
                        consisted of the following. Four of ten
                        127 - mm gun mounts Mk-28 were dismantled;
                        instead of I-II on construction sites
                        posted eight armored quad
                        Mk-143 launchers for
                        cruise missiles "Tomahawk,).
                        Anti-Ship Cancer et s RGM-84
                        "Harpoon" (16 pcs.) Placed in the transport
                        - launch containers, grouped
                        in four blocks.
                        FOR defense against low-flying units
                        (including enemy P KR) each
                        Iowa received from
                        four green artillery systems
                        Mk- 15 "Volcano-Falanx" consisting
                        from six-barreled 20-1'.1 1 cannon
                        M61 "Volcano",
                        Radio-electronic weapons
                        upgrade completely. Now on “ay ovah
                        .) there were early warning radars
                        air targets A / PS -49, navigation
                        klex L -66 control system for
                        TASA and satellite
                        svyaz and OE -8 2, as well as complex
                        tactical display system
                        and ship control
                        TDS Regarding radar detection
                        surface targets then at New Jersey And
                        "Iowa" were first installed
                        A / SPS-IO (on the first 1 and s
                        Yeshe appeared in 1968, during his
                        Vietnam campaign), but in 1985 - 1987
                        they were modernized and renamed
                        in A / SPS-67. "Missouri" and "Viscon syn.)
                        immediately received a modernized
                        radar option.
                        The electronic warfare system was based
                        on the SLQ-32 (U) complex,
                        which included, in addition to various transceivers
                        stations eight 18-barrel
                        "Foil throwers" Mk-36 RBOC - directors
                        false radar targets.
                        As a means of protection against acoustic
                        torpedo battleships equipped with a system
                        SLQ-25 "Nixie"; included in its composition
                        the towed container, by design, should
                        was to serve as a "bait" for the head
                        homing torpedoes distracting the latter
                        from the real goal.
                        In the aft deck installed
                        Helicopter flight control post. AT
                        December 1986 mounted on "Iowa"
                        device for launching and landing unmanned
                        reconnaissance aircraft
                        "P aYonir."
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 27 December 2012 01: 28
                        0
                        Modernization also touched upon a number of auxiliary
                        equipment anyway
                        associated with 1 enamel 1 composition of weapons.
                        For example, on each of the battleships
                        had to install three converters
                        frequencies since for the latest
                        Radar and maintenance systems needed current with
                        frequency of 400 kHz. In addition, all residential
                        equipped with air conditioning
                        replaced part of household appliances -
                        live conditions up to accepted
                        The US Navy standard. By the way, for
                        account for the introduction of new equipment and failure
                        from numerous anti-aircraft artillery
                        the page “Iowy” in 1988 was reduced to
                        1510 people (in (, New Jersey) to
                        1518, on (, Missouri,> and (, Wisconsin,> -
                        up to 1515 people).
                        Finally, make a number of design changes
                        forced time itself. Steam
                        the boilers had to be adapted to a new
                        liquid fuel
                        bilge water tanks - B
                        Otherwise, the way "Iowam,> in many
                        foreign ports would be closed. Requirements
                        environmentalists were very annoyed at first
                        warship designers but
                        gradually they nevertheless began to be reckoned with

                        December 14, "New Jersey" opened fire
                        main caliber for Syrian batteries
                        Anti-aircraft defense in southern Lebanon that bribed
                        US unmanned aircraft
                        scouts. Total was released
                        11 HE shells. And February 8, 1984
                        consisted of a new coastal bombing
                        goals - one of the most powerful for
                        the whole post-war history. Guns of the battleship
                        brought down to Syrian positions in
                        Bekaa Valley has nearly 300 406 mm shells.
                        They razed the command post,
                        which killed several senior officers
                        and one general of the Syrian army. AT
                        the same time a lot of shells fell on residential
                        at home - hundreds of civilians died
                        mainly Shiites and Druze.
                        Americans were subjected to tough
                        criticism, including in the United States itself.
                        The correspondent of the newspaper Chicago Tribune B
                        Lebanon wrote: "Everything: nyubili" New Jersey
                        "But until he started shooting.

                        furthest farthest in American history
                        fleet hit - 406 mm projectile
                        hit a target with a range of 24 miles.
                      9. Santa Fe
                        27 December 2012 12: 26
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        300 406 mm shells

                        300 x $ 11700 = $ 3,5 million
                        - consider the minimum (11700 per shot)
                        - excluding resource trunks
                        - excluding the cost of operating the ship, which was driven through half the world.

                        Cost F-16 Block 50 / 52 about 50 million dollars. Flight hour - from 7 to 24 thousand dollars (depending on the sub-account method). 1000 pound CAB $ 50 thousand
                        As a result, we have: instead of "reactivating" Iowa for 1,4 billion, you can build 28 F-16s, and instead of 300 fired shells - 72 hours of flight and 35 guided bombs. At the same time, the combat radius of the F-16 is no less than 500 km.


                        Quote: Kars
                        farthest in American history
                        Fleet - 406 mm projectile hit a target with a range of 24 miles.

                        45 km. Everything is clear with you, dear ones.
                        By the way, at what distance from the coast was the battleship?



                        But it’s much more indicative to compare Iowa with the Su-25. According to unverified data, the rook costs 10 million dollars, another 4 million is spent on its modernization
                        "Now the total cost of modernization with the repair of the Su-25 attack aircraft is more than 120 million rubles," the source added.
                        Instead of "reactivating" Iowa, you can get - 100 Su-25 attack aircraft.
                        Given the minimum cost of an hour of its flight and BP - The Rooks will bombard the Bekaa Valley with bombs worse than the Iow squadron)))))
                      10. Kars
                        Kars 27 December 2012 14: 03
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        “Delivery” of each ton of ammunition
                        battleship costs 1,6 thousand dollars, and
                        the attackers of the same “Nimitz” - roughly
                        in 12 thousand dollars

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        28 F-16s, and instead of 300 fired shells - 72 hours of flight and 35 guided bombs

                        Only 28 airplanes? And only 72 hours of flight? 35 CAB when using which there is a need to enter the air defense zone? And where are the costs of rescue helicopters for the evacuation of downed pilots?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Syrian batteries
                        Defense

                        ))))))))))
                        Also, the maral effect on the corus of pilots when a local pilot puts a shot on a shot down pilot?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        45 km. Everything is clear with you, dear ones.
                        By the way, at what distance from the coast was the battleship?

                        Demon concept, miles in 100 for sure.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Instead of "reactivating" Iowa, you can get - 100 Su-25 attack aircraft.
                        Given the minimum cost of an hour of its flight and BP - The Rooks will bombard the Bekaa Valley with bombs worse than the Iow squadron)))))

                        Do you want to compare hiring blacks in Somalia?
                        Or let's recount your favorite aircraft carrier on rooks?

                        But at least it dawned on you what volume of minimal repair and modernization was performed for 425 mil on the battleship?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        even a small upgrade

                        ))))))))))))
                      11. Santa Fe
                        27 December 2012 14: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        “Delivery” of each ton of ammunition
                        battleship costs 1,6 thousand dollars, and
                        the attackers of the same “Nimitz” - roughly
                        in 12 thousand dollars

                        Why Nimitz? Aviano, Cadena and Figirlik

                        Quote: Kars
                        Just 28 airplanes? And just 72 hours of flight? 35 CAB when using which there is a need to enter the air defense zone?

                        Just an old battleship with a crew of 1500 people who can shoot for 45 km.
                        And take into account operating costs, the same resource of trunks + fuel, to overtake the whopper across the ocean

                        Quote: Kars
                        Syrian batteries
                        Air defense)))))))))))

                        What to do with Yugoslav air defense batteries? Iraqi air defense batteries?

                        You stubbornly do not see the contradiction:
                        aviation can be used against any targets in any area of ​​the earth.
                        it makes no sense to build an expensive battleship just to only shoot at 45 km.

                        Quote: Kars
                        Demon concept, miles in 100 for sure.

                        But all the same? wink

                        Quote: Kars
                        But at least it dawned on you what volume of minimal repair and modernization was performed for 425 mil on the battleship?

                        Honestly, not impressive. Galyun, radar and 8 PU with tomahawks.
                      12. Kars
                        Kars 27 December 2012 18: 54
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Why Nimitz?

                        Well, what am I talking about? Pile carriers are expensive scrap metal.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Just an old battleship with a crew of 1500 people who can shoot for 45 km.

                        Well unforgettable 32 tomahawk shooting at a greater distance.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And take into account operating costs, the same resource of trunks + fuel, to overtake the whopper across the ocean

                        Well, a cheaper aircraft carrier is a fact. Yes, and your F-16 do not fly without service and airfields.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        aviation can be used against any targets in any area of ​​the earth.
                        it makes no sense to build an expensive battleship just to shoot at 45 km

                        Well, with a microscope, you can hammer in nails, who argues.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But all the same?

                        I said 100-200 miles.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Honestly, not impressive. Galyun, radar and 8 PU with tomahawks.

                        Well, what can I say on the topic, I once again took you)))) and it’s already bad to read. I lost my impressionability.
                      13. Santa Fe
                        27 December 2012 19: 55
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Pile carriers are expensive scrap metal.

                        1. Ideal for naval combat
                        2. In the absence of a real naval enemy, they turn into major entertainment. But they can break mama
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well unforgettable 32 tomahawk shooting at a greater distance.

                        This is a pitiful argument - even a little Tikanderoga drags a hundred axes. And the invisible and invulnerable “Ohio” - 154!
                        Quote: Kars
                        I said 100-200 miles.

                        What are you kidding. Your text clearly states:
                        farthest in American history
                        Fleet - 406 mm projectile hit a target with a range of 24 miles.

                        Now I would like to know at what distance from the coastline was the target?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, a cheaper aircraft carrier is a fact. Yes, and your F-16 do not fly without service and airfields.

                        F-16 today will bomb Lebanese air defense, and tomorrow they will fly to bomb Osirak, and after tomorrow - Sudan (I heard a Jewish raid recently)
                        And your Iowa shot in Lebanon and will set off for ten years to rust in Norfolk. Why buy a very expensive toy with limited combat use? To occasionally shoot at 45 km?

                        It's easier to buy planes - and use them anytime, anywhere. Despite the minimal gain on a local scale (shelling of Lebanon), the plane is much more profitable, because its application is not limited to "shelling the coast".

                        Quote: Kars
                        Also interesting is the reaction rate, whose KAB or Landmines will fall on the head of the adversary faster after giving the order?

                        Airplanes quite often strike from the "air watch" position.
                      14. Kars
                        Kars 27 December 2012 20: 25
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        1. Ideal for naval combat

                        It’s just that they frightened you, an aircraft carrier is a useless target without the whole kagola of missile ships and submarines.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        2. In the absence of a real naval enemy, they turn into major entertainment. But they can break mama

                        Exactly, in the absence of conditions, and only Papuans or camps will get lodged after a decade of arms embargo, and at the same time, the aircraft carriers themselves will make 8% of all aircraft combat outlets))))))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        This is a pitiful argument - even a little Tikanderoga drags a hundred axes. And invisible and invulnerable "Ohio" - 154

                        against your 28 F-16s just killer.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        What are you kidding. Your text clearly states:
                        farthest in American history
                        fleet - 406 mm projectile hit a target from a range of 24 miles

                        And what is there? What, in this case, can not be found in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        F-16 today will bomb Lebanese air defense, and tomorrow they will fly to bomb Osirak, and after tomorrow - Sudan (I heard a Jewish raid recently)

                        and what? Bombing countries without air defense is a small merit, but even a purely accidental downing of a couple of F-16s and everyone sailed.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Why buy a very expensive toy with limited combat use? To occasionally shoot at 45 km?

                        Why keep landing ships? Why keep aircraft carriers?

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        the plane is many times more profitable, because its application is not limited to "shelling the coast".

                        Is it strange that someone is stopping you from buying airplanes?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Airplanes quite often strike from the "air watch" position.

                        What time is it? An hour? 30 minutes? What is the fuel consumption? Resource of the engine? The ability to be shot down? That during this time their attack will no longer be a hint to anyone that they will not be able to attack due to air defense?

                        So ring The powerful artillery-rocket ship is more economical and more effective than an aircraft carrier in local wars, safer for personnel (how many pilots from an aircraft carrier died in history, and how many battleship artillerymen died?)
                        And it’s unforgettable that we are talking about ships, so don’t street to get in the ground aviation.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        What to do with Yugoslav air defense batteries? Iraqi air defense batteries?

                        Will you break them all 28 F-16?))
                      15. Kars
                        Kars 27 December 2012 14: 26
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        excluding resource trunks
                        - excluding the cost of operating the ship, which was driven through half the world.

                        Yes, the F-16s probably materialized, it’s not known at how many kilometers from our specific target, the rents for the airdrome will probably not be counted either? As well as the fact that the training for the F-16s is also needed))) how probably in the interval they should not be operated.

                        Also interesting is the reaction rate, whose KAB or Landmines will fall on the head of the adversary faster after giving the order?
                    2. ACCiPaPa
                      ACCiPaPa 27 December 2012 23: 57
                      +1
                      Iowa modernization
                      1- the price will be prohibitive (I can’t name the numbers - but ...)
                      a) the ships of the 2nd world had such a thing as an armored belt. He created the so-called. "citadel" - the perimeter of armor around the vital systems of the ship, integrated into its hull, and separated from the unarmored extremities. This "citadel" usually extended from the bow towers of the main caliber (main battery) to the stern towers, protecting, except for the designated ones; boiler rooms, engine rooms and cellars of AU anti-mine caliber.
                      b) The above means that from the bow turrets to the stern main ships the ship has a very inflexible design in terms of modernization. And if, the installation of several guides for the "URO" is quite possible (which actually was done), then the insertion of the UVP, to put it mildly, is problematic, because will require a rearrangement of not only the internal volumes of the ship, but also the reservation system, or dismantling (in whole or in part) of the main battery towers - the main "highlight" of these ships.
                      c) But to put "Spy" and other components of "Aegis" is quite possible, however, it is interesting to look at the control code of Aegis 406mm AU lol
                      2- About the effectiveness of existing battleships; Yes, a direct hit from Granite is also hard for Iowa, but adapted for survival in artillery duels, WW2 ships are much easier to endure such "injuries" than modern aluminum cardboard boxes. Besides, they will definitely hold the consequences of "atomics" (Shock-wave, EMP, radiation) are better than modern ships ...
                      3- The battleship is a ship of prestige, it's not for nothing that England tried to maintain them for so long. Anyone who has such ships "really cool" angry , therefore, they were left in the register of the fleet - albeit as museums ...
                      4- The army does not count money ... in the event of a serious war, we may well see Iowa in battle, no matter how much it costs the taxpayers, because it is very expensive to modernize, faster than building a new ship ...
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 29 December 2012 23: 56
                        0
                        Quote: ACCiPaPa
                        1- the price will be prohibitive (I can’t name the numbers - but ...)

                        The price is announced - approximately 1.5 billion dollars (for the United States, less than one destroyer)
                        Quote: ACCiPaPa
                        URO "is quite possible (which, in fact, was done), then the insertion of the UVP, to put it mildly, is problematic, since it will require a rearrangement of not only the internal volumes of the ship, but also the reservation system,

                        Well, there’s nothing special there, they’ll take apart the deck where they need to be filed, they can also save weight. There are 98 cells to surpass Zemvolt for three billion dollars, and at the same time the UVP will still be protected by side armor. Although it does not hinder to do UVP outside the citadel.
                        Quote: ACCiPaPa
                        look at the Aegis control code 406mm AU

                        From Aegis, they need only the exact coordinates of the target relative to the battleship and that’s it.
            2. postman
              postman 27 December 2012 00: 35
              0
              Quote: Kars
              You mean Tika cost 1985 425 millions of dollars --- prove it.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Tika was worth 500-800.

              Cost: About $ 1 Billion

              This information resides on a DOD interest computer.
              Important conditions, restrictions, and disclaimers apply.


              For $ 255 you can buy a kit and make it yourself:



              on 4 May 2012 years


              rear Ukrainian ship (probably arrived for dismantling spare parts)


              Oleg is this not "through corrosion"? (canned armor)
              1. Santa Fe
                27 December 2012 00: 57
                0
                Quote: Postman

                Quote: Kars
                You mean Tika cost 1985 425 millions of dollars --- prove it.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Tika was worth 500-800.
                Cost: About $ 1 Billion

                What year
                1. postman
                  postman 27 December 2012 01: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  What year

                  finalized for 1983.
                  Do not send me a document, do not copy. Do not let go. They say someone "ogleg" called and asked not to give sad
                  Maybe Christmas, let’s answer what
                2. postman
                  postman 27 December 2012 02: 01
                  0
                  $ 287 million housing remaining about $ 800 million relates to equipment and machinery

                  Die Kosten einer Einheit lagen bei rund einer Milliarde Dollar. Davon gingen laut Bauvertrag bei der ersten Einheit 287,8 Millionen Dollar an die Bauwerft, die restlichen rund 700 Millionen Dollar entfielen auf Entwicklung und Ausrüstung.
                  approximately $ 987 million
                  / Terzibaschitsch: Seemacht USA. Bernard & Graefe Verlag, Bonn, ISBN 3-86047-576-2, S. 369./
            3. postman
              postman 27 December 2012 00: 45
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              You mean Tika cost 1985 425 millions of dollars --- prove it.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Tika was worth 500-800.

              Cost: About $ 1 Billion
              They promised $ 562 million
              This information resides on a DOD interest computer.

              For $ 255 you can buy a kit and make it yourself:


              on 4 May 2012 years
              1. postman
                postman 27 December 2012 00: 46
                +1
                rear Ukrainian ship (probably arrived for dismantling for spare parts)
                1. postman
                  postman 27 December 2012 00: 47
                  0
                  Oleg is this not "through corrosion"? (canning armor), it was for 2008 (November)
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 28 December 2012 01: 37
                    +1
                    ______________
                    1. postman
                      postman 28 December 2012 02: 07
                      +1
                      Shaw, I’m nothing.
                      Rind, California, March 17, 2012
                      You don’t even have to paint yet
                      1. postman
                        postman 28 December 2012 02: 12
                        +2
                        WISCONSIN "touched" (almost cut into 2 parts) the destroyer EATON (DDE 510)
                        A 120-ton, 68-meter bow from the unfinished battleship KENTUCKY and?
                        After 16 days: on June 28, 1956, the ship was ready to leave the sea.
                        The captain of the destroyer (Varley) really put in jail, probably for the fog
        3. postman
          postman 27 December 2012 00: 23
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          This is how much you say Aegis cruisers at the same prices?

          for the considered modernization options BB tomahawks and harpoons with a PC have already been installed, another 83-85, and the same radar.

          According to the shells you are CONSCIOUSLY misleading, taking advantage of the fact that in the USA they still can not write documents in Ukrainian, or even fuck in Russian:
          a rough estimate of the cost of a new explosive for the 16-inch in 2000 at a price of about $ 10 per pound (330 gr) or $ 11,700 per shell.

          Probably the same with shells ....
          1. Santa Fe
            27 December 2012 00: 59
            0
            Quote: Postman
            According to the shells you are CONSCIOUSLY misleading, taking advantage of the fact that in the USA they still can not write documents in Ukrainian, or even fuck in Russian:
            a rough estimate of the cost of a new explosive for the 16-inch in 2000 at a price of about $ 10 per pound (330 gr) or $ 11,700 per shell.


            I heard something about 150 thousands.

            Cost (according to US sources), somewhere 150 000 $ for 406 / 330 mm sub-caliber.
            1. postman
              postman 27 December 2012 01: 26
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              I heard something about 150 thousands.

              THIS IS LRAP for 155mm and $ 200 for 000 "-ERM
              regular (throwing explosive kit, bag, projectile on average): $ 26
              BUT TO PRODUCE THAT is not necessary anew, it is necessary to replace the "consumables" BB, which has expired the warranty period, therefore: 11700, incl. Work.
              With METAL, what will happen? Everything is in grease
            2. postman
              postman 27 December 2012 01: 32
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              I heard something about 150 thousands.

              THIS IS LRAP for 155mm and $ 200 for 000 "-ERM
              regular (throwing explosive kit, bag, projectile on average): $ 26
              BUT DO NOT PRODUCE THAT again, you need to replace the "consumables" BB,
              whose warranty period has expired, therefore: 11700, on work.

              Our "friends" had these shells like shoe polish in a factory. They shot, shot, but did not shoot ...

              With METAL, what will happen? Everything is in grease
              1. Santa Fe
                27 December 2012 12: 02
                +1
                Clear.
                And you can’t bring up-to-date data on how much babies 500-pound GBU-12 and 1000-pound GBU-24 cost
                1. postman
                  postman 27 December 2012 23: 49
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  500lb GBU-12 and 1000lb GBU-24


                  GBU-31/32/38 price: about $ 22.000 for tailkit (FY2007)


                  GBU -53 / B SDB-II will be $ 263 (in 000)



                  Aug 1/11: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Archbold, PA (FA8213-11-D-0008), and Raytheon Missile Systems of Tucson, AZ (FA8213-11-D-0007) receive a $ 475 million contract for GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb computer control groups (seekers), and GBU-12 air foil groups (tail kits) for 500 pound bombs
                  5-year firm-fixed-price,
                  Paveway II kits for converting standard Mk 80 free-fall bombs into laser-guided bombs.

                  General Dynamics OTS in Garland, Texas will receive a $ 89.7 million fixed-price contract to modify a different number of MK80 series bombs

                  Maybe send a report right away (WHERE?) Everything is there and SMB and AGM
                  you’re tired of watching (kit full, partial upgrade), etc., etc.
                2. postman
                  postman 28 December 2012 11: 54
                  +1




                  OPR: Capt Brian Withrow, HQ USAF / ILSR, DSN: 225-2840
                  Munitions Acquisition Cost / FY00
      2. Botanologist
        Botanologist 26 December 2012 20: 04
        0
        Coventry - transport. What are the phalanxes?
        1. Santa Fe
          26 December 2012 20: 19
          +2
          Quote: Botanologist
          Coventry - transport. What are the phalanxes?

          Her Majesty's destroyer "Coventry", type 23

          Killed 14 May 1982 from the hit of three 454-kg bombs,

          (If you call things by their names, "Kovnetri" is a small, weak frigate with a total capacity of 4500 tons. It could not repel the attack of a pair of subsonic Skyhawks (an old American attack aircraft from the 50s), circling for a long time on the formation. "Coventry" sailed to the Falkland Islands altogether negative )
          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 26 December 2012 22: 44
            +1
            Guilty, messed up with a container ship.
            I sit down to learn materiel feel
      3. Beltar
        Beltar 28 December 2012 21: 38
        +1
        The artillery shell cannot be compared in price with the 2 million tomahawk.
        1. Santa Fe
          28 December 2012 22: 59
          +1
          Quote: Beltar
          The artillery shell cannot be compared in price with the 2 million tomahawk.


          Well, he does not go to any comparison in range and accuracy with the Tomahawk.
  17. mamba
    mamba 26 December 2012 15: 02
    +1
    Having written off 117 ships: nuclear missile cruisers, frigates, destroyers, battleships and aircraft carriers, the Americans did not calm down - there was still a lot of work ahead. First of all, it was necessary to put in order the “destroyer forces”: Thirty-five ships of this type went for scrapping (as an option, they were sunk as targets). At that time, the U.S. Navy lost 227 warships: large and small, outdated and still quite modern.
    Our Serdyukov nervously smokes on the sidelines and bursts with envy. laughing
    1. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 28 December 2012 05: 52
      0
      NO! The gunsmiths were slightly offended, but they were allowed to explore other countries, which was done very soundly and expensively,
  18. orfo
    orfo 26 December 2012 15: 16
    +1
    Of course, there is a lot of drank, and some are still at the docks "canned" / forget, but there is a reason to sweeten:
    Quote: wiki
    Ships under construction for the Russian Navy in October 2012.

    1. Santa Fe
      26 December 2012 16: 24
      +1
      Quote: orfo
      forget but there is reason to sweeten:


      This is all complete nonsense, even compared to the 90 years.
      Moreover, nothing of the intended has been completed.
  19. Zhenya
    Zhenya 26 December 2012 17: 47
    -1
    SWEET_SIXTEEN,
    Forgive me, of course, but what was laid in the beginning of the 90s is an echo of the USSR (Great Power), therefore, to say that it is worse now than in the beginning of the 90s complete nonsense.
    What is now being built is what the state called Russia has already done, the resources are not the same, the areas are not the same, and not all half of the factories and shipyards have gone to the former republics, in your beloved 90s the country was on the verge of collapse and in a complete hole, and it lasted 20 years! Now that there are real results, such as you whining that everything is bad, you don’t like leaving Russia, nothing will become poorer.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 December 2012 19: 11
      +4
      Quote: Marrying
      What is already being built is a state called Russia

      And which state was building the K-141 Kursk submarine in 1992?
      Which state laid the K-535 Yuri Dolgoruky SSBN of the new type Borey in 1996?
      And who completed Peter the Great in 1998?

      Quote: Marrying
      Now that there are real results

      Those. corvette "Guarding" (2,5 thousand tons, built for 6 years) - Real result. A super-cruiser "Peter the Great" (26 thousand tons, built for 10 years) horseradish?
      Where is the logic?

      Quote: Marrying
      was on the verge of decay and in a complete pit, and this went on for 20 years!

      Right. it continues now. And even aggravated, under the joyful cries of the "revival of the Army and Navy"
      The construction of the tugboat, the Steregushchiy corvette and the Rookie anti-sabotage boat for 12 years is the level of the Caribbean state of Haiti
      1. Pollux
        Pollux 28 May 2018 13: 44
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The construction of the tugboat, the Steregushchiy corvette and the Rookie anti-sabotage boat for 12 years is the level of the Caribbean state of Haiti

        What is the list of warships that Haiti is building or was building?
      2. morved
        morved 31 May 2018 13: 07
        +1
        TARKR Yuri Andropov is the one who will become Peter the Great and join the fleet in 1998 in 1991, had 80% readiness, I suspect that the remaining 20% ​​unmounted equipment was also quite high ready, and partially even was at the factory already.
  20. SlavaP
    SlavaP 26 December 2012 23: 23
    +4
    Yeah, the Americans will not refuse practicality.
    Their most efficient rusty waste disposal project was called Pearl Harbor (December 1941).
    Cool - got rid of unnecessary ships and got a legitimate opportunity to pump up the Japanese ...
    1. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 1 January 2013 09: 57
      +2
      They solved several problems, Destroyed a diverse fleet, Optimized the weapons system, optimized the supply system, and most importantly unified power plants, The gain was worth how many varied assets were destroyed, As a result, the fleet became much more powerful and the range of tasks increased with the solutions of which there was only one shit was
    2. morved
      morved 31 May 2018 13: 08
      0
      it's true then everything except Arizona and someone else was raised and rebuilt so that my mother does not cry.
  21. Belij
    Belij 27 December 2012 08: 52
    0
    The main thing is not the technique, but the people who control this technique. In addition to new ships, planes, tanks, etc. need to educate Heroes. Without them, any trash technique, even the most modern.
    1. sapulid
      sapulid 27 December 2012 10: 23
      0
      There is no secondary here. In the 41st heroes with one rifle without cartridges for the entire battalion, they threw at the tanks .... Grandfather told. Two of them survived from that battalion.
      Heroes need modern and highly effective weapons, otherwise we will throw them into the face.
      1. Belij
        Belij 27 December 2012 11: 21
        0
        Agree hi but are we still capable of a feat or not?
      2. morved
        morved 31 May 2018 13: 41
        +1
        Even in the prefabricated units that were building the URs and airfields at the border, there were 10 rifles per company (though with a limited ammunition load of 60 rounds per rifle) and they didn’t throw them anywhere, just some of them were on the cutting edge of a German strike. What your grandfather told you is, let's say embellishment. Another question is that the gunner’s wearable ammunition is only a few hours of battle (more precisely, this is with the ROP) and the collapsed military rear and logistics made the troops practically unarmed
  22. vostok1982
    vostok1982 27 December 2012 12: 05
    0
    Nothing wrong. Not for the first or not the last time the destruction of the Russian fleet takes place. In the past, it happened that we were totally behind and will be in the future. We are a land empire, tanks and planes are more important to us than destroyers.
  23. harrymur
    harrymur 27 December 2012 19: 21
    0
    a good article, a man who was keen on floating pieces of iron wrote, for sure there’s a lot of models of steamboats at home, but as if all the iron on the surface has one killer term, the dream of a submariner,
    my opinion is that the Russians need to have a powerful submarine fleet that is very mesmerizing - a shark circling around a victim on the surface
    1. SlavaP
      SlavaP 27 December 2012 21: 44
      +1
      Perhaps that is so.
      Aircraft carriers and liquors seem to me more a weapon of direct aggression and intimidation - Russia has nothing to do with it.
      A really powerful submarine fleet is enough for nuclear deterrence, small but high-speed, maneuverable and difficult to vulnerable ships like frigates to protect their waters, and in the light of recent events, the "strategic icebreaker fleet", oddly enough sounds
    2. Denis
      Denis 27 December 2012 23: 34
      0
      Quote: harrimur
      shark swirling around the victim

      and how many useful and combat "Sharks" were cut with a patch with a patch and how new friends (such friends for ... and the museum) helped with enthusiasm
  24. M-Sergey
    M-Sergey 27 December 2012 21: 08
    +1
    In 91-92 he served on SSV-33 "Ural", it was a good ship and as far as we were told that at one time they were going to build 4 ships of this project in order to listen to absolutely everything and everyone :). But the Union collapsed, and with it all the construction ... It's a pity that the ship he had only one trip in his life was from St. Petersburg to Vladik .......
  25. bart74
    bart74 28 December 2012 00: 55
    +1
    I still cannot be convinced that this "reduction of the fleet" by needles was a necessary and correct measure. Seven times measure cut once. In general, the result is very sad.
  26. Marek Rozny
    Marek Rozny 28 December 2012 01: 50
    +3
    I liked the article very much. I never thought that I would be hooked by an article on the marine theme. Many thanks to the author for the ability to submit material!
  27. Pattern
    Pattern 25 May 2018 15: 24
    0
    I forgot to write about flotillas ... Everything is in the furnace. To the delight of the enemies. Together with people ..
  28. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 25 May 2018 16: 56
    +2
    They again laid out the old text and discussion with a new date. Will it be constantly now?
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 25 May 2018 17: 06
      0
      And I read, I think deja vu, it was, and then on the date of discussion, and then 2012 ...
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 25 May 2018 18: 43
      0
      yes, well done - juice from birch is driven every year


      then the untimely demise of the TAVKRs was programmed at their birth. For an unclear reason, no one bothered to build the appropriate coastal infrastructure for their base - TAVKRA spent their whole lives in the roads, spending the precious resource of their boilers and generators “idle”. As a result, they developed a resource three times faster than the planned time. The ships were pointlessly ditched by their own hands. Very sorry.

      - THIS WAS A RACE WITH THE Ukrainian NATIONALISTS - TO GIVE ORDERS (STRENGTHEN THEIR INFLUENCE IN KOCHLOSTAN) TO THE RUSSIAN PROM SOUTH OF THE USSR.
      STAFF FIGHT AGAINST THE ROLLING MILL
  29. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 25 May 2018 18: 53
    0
    Shaw, again? It was ...
  30. Old26
    Old26 25 May 2018 20: 44
    +1
    Quote: crazyrom
    Now we will set up our ships back, and submarines, and missiles are on their way, and even trains with nuclear missiles! And the "probable adversary" will remain without everything, they already have no money or brains left.

    Are you so naive? We will configure, but they will be left without? Or maybe the other way around? How many destroyers have we built over the past quarter century? 0,00 And the same Americans began to build the next version of their destroyer. Their number is already over 60. And there will be more
    We cut 11 Moose, but made 12 (so far) new Virginia. And we? Of the post-Soviet boats built 3 "Borea" and in service one "Ash". Yes, completed several previously laid in the 90s.
    Trains with nuclear missiles IF and appear, then no earlier than 2027. And it would be better not to appear. New rockets? Yes, there are new missiles. But the Americans also plan in the coming years to begin the construction of new missiles and new missile boats. And here "BACK TO CUSTOMIZE" we still can not
  31. san4es
    san4es 25 May 2018 20: 53
    +1
    hi USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier leaves Pearl Harbor in 2008. Kitty Hawk (CV-63) was decommissioned in 2009 shortly after this video was shot. It was the last ordinary aircraft carrier (non-nuclear) in service with the U.S. Navy. Put into operation in 1961, Kitty Hawk has been in service for almost 49 years.
    USS America (CV-66) bunkers USS destroyer Richard E. Byrd (DDG-23) and USS William Rush (starboard)
    in the Mediterranean on June 15, 1967.
  32. Kuroneko
    Kuroneko 26 May 2018 09: 15
    +2
    A universal strike ship shackled in an impenetrable shell of 300 mm thick steel - the Iowa armored belt could not be penetrated by any modern anti-ship missiles.

    And Basalt, too? A heavy fool under 5 tons of starting weight, with a half-ton / ton high explosive-cumulative explosives, and rushing at the speed of two Machs?
    Well, well.
    1. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 27 May 2018 14: 13
      0
      Do you think that the Iowa main caliber projectile weighing 1225 kg and an initial speed of 762 m / s had less penetrating power?
      AP Mark 8 armor-piercing projectile pierces up to 9 m of concrete structures during normal fall. The high-explosive shell of the HC Mark 13 during the explosion creates a funnel with a diameter of 15 m and a depth of 6 m. During the Vietnam War, the explosion of a high-explosive shell of the New Jersey battleship created a 180 m diameter zone in the jungle for helicopter landing. In this case, the leaves from the trees were knocked at a distance of 450 m.
      An area with a diameter of 180 m is (for a minute) more than 2 football fields
      1. Kuroneko
        Kuroneko 27 May 2018 15: 37
        +1
        I think yes. Less. Even purely banal kinetics (excluding the basalt cumulative warhead and its half-ton weight - versus ~ 70kg for HC Mark 13 and ~ 18,5 for AP Mark 8). 2 Mach - this is, for a moment, a minimum of 2450 km / h (compare with the miserable 762 m / s - which is subsonic). And the weight of Basalt (even already, with, say, almost exhausted fuel) still exceeds 2 tons (plus, the rocket had its own serious armor - this is not the plastic casings of the current - and subsonic - Tomahawks). Again, compare with 1225 kg of the weight of the Iow rocket shell. Hmm, and then a loss with Basalt.
        So the simple kinetics of Basalt should already nafig if not break through, then stupidly break through the Iow armored belt (but here we also have at least half a ton of explosive-cumulative warhead).
      2. Pollux
        Pollux 28 May 2018 14: 06
        0
        Quote: ArikKhab
        Do you think that the Iowa main caliber projectile weighing 1225 kg and an initial speed of 762 m / s had less penetrating power?

        Shells and missiles at the final stage of the trajectory behave differently. The speed of the shells at the end drops to 300 m / s, modern missiles on the contrary have supersonic speeds.
  33. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 26 May 2018 09: 30
    +1
    Quote: kotdavin4i
    Americans are good managers first of all, they sat down felt that it was profitable that there was not, what could be left. We chose the optimal and threw the rest nafig. having drowned an aircraft carrier with the name of the country, they showed that the result is important and not the tradition. By removing several classes of ships, uniting and rearranging others, they achieved the optimum ratio of striking power to quantity. And do not shout now that we were cutting new and good things and they are junk, history itself has shown that the absence of a unified program for the construction and development of the fleet led to such sad consequences. Now we need to think about something else, that something that remains in service should ensure combat readiness while new combat units are being built.


    Well, reasonable thoughts were heard! What am I doing all the time? Correctly! Without a clear ideological platform, it is impossible to make plans for the future! What are we going to build, if we ourselves do not really know what we are living for ?! And without a plan, how to achieve what was planned? This is a harsh prose, or reality, if you like, of our life, confirmed scientifically by the dialectic of philosophy, and historically proved by the example of the same USSR!
  34. Yak28
    Yak28 26 May 2018 13: 28
    0
    We look forward to a new article on how planes were cut in the 90s wink
    1. Kuroneko
      Kuroneko 26 May 2018 15: 09
      +2
      But they don’t have battleship armor!
      It is unlikely that Oleg will be interested.
  35. Non-fighter
    Non-fighter 27 May 2018 14: 05
    +2
    Rust of memories ...
    The Soviet fleet in 1991/92 was a colossus with feet of clay.
    I myself served on the Kirov, left him at the DMB in the fall of 1992. I’ll be silent about other ships.
    When they talk about the fleet, for some reason they are silent about the actual condition of the ships. In the fall of 1992, the lord of the officers said about our drift "There is no and will not be" :( Well, I remember the one about the accident of the GEM in the last military service.
    One of the steam generators of the first contour of the nasal train flowed. There was no special irradiation, they were deactivated by ventilation into the atmosphere :) As Godki told us, they took analyzes and calculated not only the steam generator but also the section in it :)
    Here they write about the fact that the Tavkr were killed by raid-based. Well, not only them. At the pier, it’s no better :( The ship and its crew from the shore need fresh water, electricity and steam. They gave fresh water, electricity was hungry
    rations, only for communication, lighting and a galley. As the familiar guys from BS7 said that if we turn on at least one station we will leave the entire ship without electricity. When trying to light the boiler, the lights were turned off. The emergency workers worked well ... one of 4-5. There was no steam. GENERALLY!!! That is, the ship is in the base at its own pier and is forced to drive boilers to have steam. The idea of ​​launching a feed train was seriously discussed. Fortunately, it didn’t come to that. This is the winter of 91/92, the berths of Severomorsk.
    These are the memories. Cold. There were times when we put on a second term under the robes and generally warmed ourselves as best we could. The orderly in the cockpit stands in his greatcoat. One day, one of ours complained to me, me, a daytime
    officers from KOS “I was mistaken, I connected the heater to the wrong side. At night БЧ5 slashed” If in 1917 the officers put revolvers under the pillow, then we put lanterns under the pillow. Somehow the wake-up was organized in an original way. Nothing worked, not even calls. The officer on duty on the ship went around the cubes with a megaphone and commanded "Rise !!!"
    So in 1991, “Kirov” was almost not operational.
    The last day on the ship, autumn 1992. The Glavbotsman instructs his soldiers "We moor the heater. This is a barge, it has not been moored for about 20 years." Well, about the barge, the chief boatman got excited, a heater, some kind of hydrograph, came to us on its own. The view is still the same. All the windows in the wheelhouse are knocked out, only fragments sticking out somewhere. The hull is stained with rust but the ship HAS A GO !!!
    About the rest ... In the winter of 1991/92, the Vice Admiral Drozd BOD burned out at the pier. The ASG was driven from all the ships onto it. Well, I visited there. Of the crew of 800 souls, 50 people remained and they climb through the holds and see that the ship does not drown in the base. The galley does not work, they go to the neighbors with tanks.
    Why are these ships being kept? I answer. BOD - ship of the 2nd rank. 3-4 such ships are a brigade. And who is the brigade commander? That's right, captain 1st rank !!! And with him, the headquarters with a bunch of flagship specialists, captains of the 2nd rank, according to the boot lieutenant colonels. I saw the headquarters ... the booths are one thicker. Ships will not go anywhere from the berth, nothing works for them. Depict the IBD and you will have a caperang on the demobilization :)
    Eh .. as you look at the berths of Severomorsk, so the soul rejoices, a forest of masts. But from this forest “even tomorrow’s camping” there are 2-3 destroyers, the same number of BOD and “parquet cruiser”. "Kalinin", aka "Nakhimov" in doubt. After a month of intensive repair - “Kalinin” most likely, + 1-2 destroyers and BODs. The fleet actually kept afloat only due to the introduction of new ships. We have TARKR for 10 years and "There is no progress and will not be" and they have a lousy frigate who runs about 30 years old like a stone.
    And this, I recall, 1991-1992, do not blame everything on the bear and the fight. Problems began much earlier, almost from the 70s.
    There are three reasons in my opinion.
    1. Industrial-military complex. Well, why is it more convenient to work with a device of 50 shaggy year of manufacture, which is also obsolete than with the new of 70 years ??? The old one is designed for a normal sailor who has 1 head, 2 arms and 2 legs. The new one is designed for some kind of mutant, for normal work there need four hands. A "FORT M" on the pet is generally a diversion, for this it is necessary to plant. I’m telling you as an exploiter. About the zoo from the RCC there is an article next to it, read it and be horrified.
    2. Base, and not only raid. As I wrote, the berth is slightly better. Kuzi’s longevity is explained by the fact that from the very beginning he stood up to his native pier. Moreover, judging by a small note in the newspaper, he was immediately normally provided with electricity. And now he stands in a factory where they give him everything that is supposed to be :)
    3. The quality of personnel. A large percentage of recruits from Central Asia. They then in Russian do not understand well, but here they are put to the iron. They serve on the principle until 1,5 "May yours not panimay", and after 1,5 "not laid !!!"
    1. morved
      morved 31 May 2018 14: 02
      0
      Well, if an accident on Kirov had happened earlier, they would have put him on the move without question, and with the restructuring he had no more chances. With regard to the Koperang and admiral posts, everything is correct, with the sad amendment over all, the sad experience of 1941 crushed and I wanted to have a lot of reserve and limited combat readiness but which could be deployed, hence a hundred cropped divisions and T-72 and much more. Understanding by the 1980s began to come, but then disaster plus internal army policy - it’s easy to say, send hundreds and thousands of generals to retire, and then even more colonels and lieutenant colonels. The army headquarters are three generals and 236 officers (and basically not lower than the underground), even if it has two castrated divisions and BHVT in submission, so that there are two more general posts and one and a half thousand officers with ensigns, about the same number of conscripts. And there were dozens of such armies in the country. There was so much equipment that even officer guards had to be put at warehouses and hangars because there were not enough conscripts.

      At the time of 1991, there were 200 thousand officers in the Moscow Defense Ministry information (academy headquarters)
  36. Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 27 May 2018 14: 06
    0
    the right approach from the Americans, you can only learn. They removed the "raznosortitsa" from the fleet, which greatly facilitated the training of medical personnel and material and technical maintenance. And in the Russian Federation, the experience of the Union has not taught anything, they continue to sculpt small series of motley ships
  37. Non-fighter
    Non-fighter 27 May 2018 16: 42
    +1
    Quote: ArikKhab
    the right approach from the Americans, you can only learn. They removed the "raznosortitsa" from the fleet, which greatly facilitated the training of medical personnel and material and technical maintenance. And in the Russian Federation, the experience of the Union has not taught anything, they continue to sculpt small series of motley ships

    In in. And in the end, at the exit, we get a "Christmas squadron" in front of Tsushima. And in much worse technical readiness.