About how ships were cut in the 90s

91
About how ships were cut in the 90s


The first thing they did was cut up the nuclear-powered cruisers - these creatures had long infuriated sailors with their inadequate cost and eternal concerns about their radiation safety. At the same time, nuclear-powered ships had no real advantages, except for the meaningless “unlimited autonomy in terms of fuel reserves.” Firstly, the autonomy of a ship is determined not only by fuel reserves; 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”, “Truckstan” - old troughs were sent for recycling without regret. The same fate awaited the more modern “California” and “South Caroline” - despite their seemingly normal age (20-25 years), their fighting qualities had completely depreciated by the early 90s. Modernization was recognized as unpromising - discarded!

But the most offensive thing was to part with the Virginias. Four fantastic designs with nuclear reactors and powerful weapons, capable of circling the globe 7 times without stopping and shooting the enemy with Tomahawks and long-range anti-aircraft missiles anywhere in the world. All four are very young: “Texas” was only 15; the oldest, “Mississippi,” was barely 19 years old. At the same time, the service life of the cruisers was designed for 35 years - until 2015!
However, neither their young age, nor their “nuclear heart,” nor the ready proposal to modernize and install the Aegis system saved the nuclear-powered Virginias from a bitter fate: in the 90s they all ended up in a landfill.

Virginia-class nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser Arkansas

Having shredded their nuclear cruisers, the Americans did not calm down, and continued with redoubled energy to cleanse the “Augean stables” of their fleet: there was a huge amount of junk hanging on the balance sheet, which, despite regular modernization, could no longer cope properly with the tasks assigned to it.

18 escort cruisers of the Leghi and Belknap type (the oldest were over 30, the youngest were in their 20s), 46 anti-submarine frigates of the Knox type - all scrapped! Some frigates were lucky and were sold to foreign navies, where they still serve today. The rest lay on the seabed with their sides broken (they were shot during training exercises) or were simply cut up at the docks for scrap metal.
ABOUT! What is it? Missile destroyers "Charles F. Adams", twenty-three units in service. Year of construction? Early 60s. The conversation is short - For scrapping! Along with the Adams, their peers, 10 Farragut-class guided-missile destroyers, were excluded from the fleet.

It's the turn of the honored veterans. Within a short time, 7 aircraft carriers left the US Navy. Of these, six are old ships of the Midway and Forrestal type, another is the fairly new aircraft carrier America (Kitty Hawk class). At the time of decommissioning, "America" ​​was only 30 years old - sheer nonsense by the standards of aircraft carriers, which usually serve for half a century.

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

Therefore, the old Midway aircraft carriers, laid down during the Second World War, were not much inferior to their modern colleagues - the same F/A-18 Hornet multirole fighters were based on their decks. The aircraft carrier Midway served for 47 years and was decommissioned immediately after its victorious return from the Gulf War (1991).
The Forrestals lived an equally long life - all four ships were scrapped between 1993 and 1998, when they were already 40 years old.

Aircraft carrier USS America (CV-66), scuttled in 2005



USS America Command Center


The only unlucky one was the USS America. The super-ship, with a total displacement of 80,000 tons, became an innocent victim of American budget cuts. Despite its relatively young age, preserved resource and high combat capability, America was permanently excluded from the US Navy.
The aircraft carrier rusted in a landfill for nine years, and finally, in 2005, a decision was made to scuttle it. Despite numerous protests about the inadmissibility of such “disposal” of a ship that “bears the name of the nation,” on May 14, 2005, “America” was taken to sea with holds full of explosives and ... “Explosion of the ship,” Aivazovsky, oil painting, Feodosia Art Gallery.

Having butchered the aircraft carriers, the conveyor belt of death turned towards the battleships. Four hulks with a total displacement of under 60,000 tons, armed to the teeth with 406 mm cannons and Tomahawk cruise missiles, now your time has come!

Big "J" - battleship New Jersey

Iowa-class 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 80s, modern anti-aircraft systems and a full set of radio-electronic systems were installed on battleships. The possibility of installing Aegis combat information and control system computers and vertical launchers with hundreds of cruise missiles was discussed. A universal attack ship, clad in an impenetrable shell of 300 mm thick steel, the Iowa's armor belt could not be penetrated by any modern anti-ship missiles. In fact, the battleships built in 1943, even half a century later, remained one of the most formidable warships in the world!
Fortunately, the rosy dreams of American admirals did not come true: Congress did not allocate funds for modernization and extension of the operational life of battleships. All four Iowas went together to rust in the Ship Graveyard. A few years later, an agreement was reached to turn the battleships into museums; at the moment, they can be seen in permanent moorings 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 Iowas in the 80s cost as much as the construction of four new Aegis cruisers. One can only guess how much it will cost to transform the Iowas into modern “missile and artillery battleships” with the Aegis system - apparently, it’s easier to build a new nuclear aircraft carrier.

Battleship "Wisconsin" permanently laid up in Norforlk

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, it was necessary to put the “destroyer forces” in order: the appearance of Aegis destroyers of the Orly Burke type instantly devalued the still “fresh” destroyers of the Spruance type - despite the general design principles and completely unified mechanisms and weapons, the absence of the Aegis BIUS "left the Spruances no chance of further survival. Thirty-five* ships of this type were scrapped (alternatively, they were sunk as targets).

"Spruance" is a special series of US Navy destroyers, similar in function to Soviet large anti-submarine ships. The main advantage of the Spruance is its unprecedented standardization and unification with ships of other classes, as well as its enormous modernization potential. The main disadvantage of Spruance is the lack of zonal air defense; the destroyer was focused exclusively on performing anti-submarine and strike functions as part of the AUG. This is what destroyed him.

*The attentive reader was probably surprised by the strange figure: after all, the number of Spruances built was exactly 31. But it is worth remembering that on their basis 4 additional destroyers were built (the “Kidd” subseries), which were distinguished by even more powerful weapons and modern electronics. There is often an opinion that in the 80s, Kidd-class destroyers were the best in the world. All of them were sold to Taiwan in 1998.

Kidd-class guided missile destroyer

As a result, the American fleet lost 35 destroyers. Along with the Spruances, 15 more modern frigates of the Oliver H. Perry class left the US Navy in the 1990s. Some of them were sold to Turkey and Egypt, some were cut up for metal. The reason for write-off is unsatisfactory performance and inflated operating costs.

No less large-scale shocks occurred in the American submarine fleet: in the period 1995-1998. 11 Los Angeles-class multi-purpose nuclear submarines (or “Los” in Russian) were decommissioned. They are all new - at the time of cutting, most of them were only 15 years old!

The Americans classify the Los Angeles as “fast attack submarines,” which in reality means “submarine hunters.” The main tasks of the Elks are to cover aircraft carrier groups and deployment areas of strategic submarine missile carriers, and fight enemy submarines. "Losi" are known for their reliability and low noise level. They are very mobile (underwater speed up to 35 knots), have modest sizes and serious weapons, including 12 Tomahawk missiles. Nuclear-powered Los Angeles ships still form the backbone of the US Navy's submarine force.

Along with 11 new boats, the sailors also got rid of their predecessors - 37 multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Stegen type (built in the early 70s), and also removed from combat duty 12 strategic missile submarines of the Benjamin Franklin type (all cut up for metal) .

The events described above took place in the period 1990-1999, when, with the threat from the Soviet Union weakening, the Americans decided to reduce their naval arsenals. According to my conservative count, during that period of time the US Navy lost 227 warships: large and small, obsolete and still quite modern.

The world's largest fleet

According to dry statistics, in 1989 the displacement of all ships of the USSR Navy was 17% higher than the displacement of the American Navy. It is difficult to say by what method of calculation this figure was obtained, but even visually it is noticeable how powerful the Navy of the Soviet Union was.

Of course, assessing the power of the fleet by its total displacement is highly incorrect. The Russian Navy also contained a lot of outdated equipment:

- patrol ships pr. 35 and pr. 159 (were built in the early 60s);

- post-war destroyers of Project 56;

- old missile cruisers pr. 58 and pr. 1134;

- obsolete BOD Project 1134A (the same age as the American Belknap-class cruisers);

- “singing frigates” Project 61 (analogs of destroyers of the “Charles F. Adams” type);

- artillery cruisers pr. 68-bis (hello from the 1950s!);

- minesweepers pr. 254 (the most popular 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 submarine pr. 641 (built in the 60s);

- first generation nuclear submarines, etc.

The maintenance of all this rubbish required a lot of material resources, and by the end of the 80s, it could not solve any of the tasks assigned to the fleet. The only clear explanation for the phenomenon of operating hundreds of useless ships is an overstaffing, and, as a consequence, an increase in the number of admiral positions. It is not difficult to guess that all these ships were “breathing their last breath” and were preparing to be sent for scrapping, regardless of the political and economic situation in the country.

As for the sad stories Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers, the untimely death of the TAVKRs was programmed at their birth. For some unknown reason, no one bothered to build the appropriate coastal infrastructure for their basing - the TAVKRs stood in the roadstead all their lives, wasting the precious resource of their boilers and generators. As a result, they exhausted the resource three times faster than planned. The ships were senselessly destroyed with their own hands. It's a pity.

Perestroika marked the final point in their career: in 1991, the main carrier-based aircraft of the Russian Navy, the Yak-38, was removed from service, but no adequate replacement was found. The supersonic “vertical” Yak-141 was too “crude” to go into mass production, and there was no talk of landing the Su-33 fighter on the short deck of the TAVKR.
In view of all of the above, three prospects opened up for Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers: a Chinese naval museum, an Indian light aircraft carrier, or going to South Korea for scrap.

Among the brutal losses of the Russian Navy in the 90s, it is certainly worth noting the large reconnaissance ship SSV-33 "Ural" and the ship of the measuring complex "Marshal Nedelin" - unique ocean reconnaissance aircraft, extremely saturated with the most precise electronics, radars and space communication systems.

“Marshal Nedelin” served for only seven years, but during its short life it did a lot of useful things: it carried out telemetry measurements during test launches of ICBMs, established communications with spacecraft, participated in the rescue of the Salyut-7 orbital station, and even carried out brazen filming American naval base Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean). In 1991, the ship came to the side of Dalzavod for a scheduled overhaul, from which it never returned: the ship’s electronics were taken to non-ferrous metal collection points, and Marshal Nedelin was soon taken to India for dismantling.
Fortunately, the sailors were able to preserve the second ship of this type, the Marshal Krylov, which is still used to monitor spacecraft flights and record telemetry during test launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Special communications vessel - 33 "Ural"
SSV-33 “Ural” is a stillborn project of a large reconnaissance ship, Project 1941 (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 ideal - a giant nuclear ship could “walk” along the US coast for months, recording all radio communications of interest at any frequency, or, conversely, patrol near American missile test sites, studying the behavior of multiple warheads of ICBMs at the final part of the trajectory.
In practice, everything turned out to be much more complicated: like everything too big, the Ural turned out to be unviable - too expensive, complicated and unreliable. The super-ship never made it to the American missile test site on Kwajalein Atoll. After two fires and a number of serious problems with the nuclear installation and fragile electronic filling, the Ural stood on its “barrels” in Strelok Bay, as it turned out, forever. In 2008, progress began towards its disposal.

Many unpleasant events happened in the 90s in the domestic fleet: there is neither sense nor desire to list the remaining ships that were sold, cut up or dismantled on stocks. Unfinished aircraft carriers "Ulyanovsk" and "Varyag"; a planned but not implemented series of modernized BOD Project 1155.1, mothballed heavy nuclear-powered Orlans, a new generation destroyer 21956, of which only a dream remains...

Stop! It is at this point that the difference between the “reduction” of the American fleet and the “modernization” of the domestic one becomes visible. The Americans, in all seriousness, decommissioned several hundred sometimes of the newest ships in the 90s, however, during the same time, they built 100 even newer and even more formidable ships in their place. However, this is a completely different story.

Gallery of heroes:

And they will find themselves on the shore,
In scales like the heat of grief,
Thirty-three heroes,
All handsome and daring,
Young giants,
All equal, as if chosen

(A.S. Pushkin)


Missile cruiser pr. 58 "Grozny", 1962



RKR pr. 58 "Grozny" at the landfill



Old guided missile destroyer "Charles F. Adams"





Heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Frunze"



Nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser Long Beach



"Long Beach" after modernization, late 80s



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



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



Measuring complex ship "Marshal Nedelin"



Oliver H. Perry-class frigate



Small nuclear cruiser "Trakstan"



Lehi-class escort cruiser, model 1960
Our news channels

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

91 a comment
Information
Dear reader, in order to leave comments on a publication, you must be logged in .
  1. +60
    December 26, 2012 08:52
    Great country, Great fleet, and Hunchback on the yard! Yeltsin got off easy, both are enemies of the people and not only of Russia.
    1. The comment has been deleted.
      1. -9
        December 27, 2012 05:40
        Very interesting, it turns out that in the 90s they not only cut up our ships, but they cut up their own ships too! What a fool, they thought they had defeated us and relaxed. Now we will set up our ships back, and submarines, and missiles are already on the way, and even trains with atomic missiles! And the “probable enemy” will remain without everything, they no longer have any money or brains left.
        1. +26
          December 27, 2012 20:45
          How naive you are! Or is this sarcasm? Americans will not do anything in vain. They will calculate everything and check it a hundred times. They are rational and pedantic to a fault. Since they destroyed something, it means they did something better. We cut everything. I agree with the destroyers of Project 56: such as “Sneaky”, “Bessledny”, and others. They have served their time, but what to do with the "Petrels". They are not that old, but they were destroyed, and now they want to revive them by slightly reconstructing and reworking the project. And how many new nuclear submarines that never sailed were cut up? Unfinished ones, up to 98% complete, were destroyed on the stocks. This can only be called in one word, for which in 1937 they gave a punishment - sabotage.
        2. +4
          December 28, 2012 04:47
          Yes, they didn’t even learn to read, They cut down what required large financial costs to maintain units in constant readiness, We would have such thinking, It is clearly written there that the costs of maintenance exceed the stated characteristics, And the appearance of the cruiser of the AEGIS TIKANDEROGA system put an end to all old systems, OVER the last 20 years, the IJIS system has been brought to fruition, And modernization was more expensive than a new ship, And how many outdated gun systems ceased to exist in one fell swoop, In this they are very strong, A good lesson for us, Now the US fleet is many times stronger than it was in 90
          1. +4
            25 May 2018 21:41
            Quote: igor.borov775
            .......They cut what required large financial costs

            The thrifty Stalin (Boss, business executive) was probably incompetent no Take the battleship Marat (formerly Petropavlovsk, in service since 1914). He modernized it in 1928-1931, but the bastard Rudel sank it. Stalin raised it, repaired it, and this battleship served until 1953. While Khrushchev... What's the point of all this, Joseph Vissarionovich was probably not far-sighted, if so took care of ships, knowing the iron rule - it is better to modernize than to build from scratch hi
            1. +2
              25 May 2018 22:32
              What nonsense. Almost all comments are for 12 years.
            2. +3
              26 May 2018 16:03
              Since the battleship Marat had been obsolete since 1918, the costs of maintaining it in the RKKF were meaningless - in the defense of Leningrad, 12-dm railway transporters of the TM-12 type would have been no less effective.hi
              As for the modernization of ships, it makes sense if it does not concern the main weapons and/or this modernization is already included in the project.bully Otherwise, it will take a long time, high costs and a controversial result... see modernization of eagles
            3. 0
              26 May 2018 19:43
              Quote: Proxima
              raised, repaired and served this battleship until 1953.

              I take it this was irony? Because the Petropavlovsk was hardly repaired to the level of a self-propelled battery - in fact, as a full-fledged ship, it ceased to exist.
            4. 0
              May 31, 2018 11:19
              What are you smoking there Petropavlovsk was raised during the war, no one modernized it, they didn’t even put it on the move, it remained a non-self-propelled training vessel. And in general, if in the 1920s-1930s the country could build new battleships, all Petropavlovsk would have suffered the fate of training ships and it is not a fact that they would have survived until 1941. So much money was spent on their modernization and maintenance that... the effect of this modernization was negligible and it could not fight on the high seas with modern battleships.
          2. +1
            26 May 2018 16:04
            exactly! and we spend money on “modernizing” obsolete rubbish... crying
        3. +3
          26 May 2018 16:03
          the Americans, when they saw that there was no direct threat, reorganized the fleet, significantly improving the unification and cost of maintenance.
          Previously, they had a couple dozen types of warships in the core of their fleet.
          now the basis of the fleet is literally 6-7, and all of them are of a new generation and superior to the counterparts of their opponents.
      2. +3
        27 December 2012 17:25
        laughing Yes, the money cycle in America! They artificially support their military industry. So they need wars in order to be completely renewed once again.
    2. +3
      December 27, 2012 05:38
      Quote: Zhenya
      Humpback on the yardarm

      It takes a long time to remove it later, it’s better to tie the stone overboard!
    3. +3
      December 27, 2012 09:37
      I completely agree!!!
  2. +10
    December 26, 2012 09:03
    As the author correctly noted, everyone lets old ships go for words, this is normal and natural, but the point is that the Americans have updated the main striking forces of their fleet... and unfortunately we... in fact, what happened to our fleet is well known.
    Of course, I am glad that the restoration of the fleet has now slowly begun... ships in the maritime zone are entering service, but unfortunately there are no new ocean-going ships yet.
    1. +20
      26 December 2012 14:59
      Quote: Sakhalinian
      Of course, I am glad that the restoration of the fleet has now slowly begun ... ships in the maritime zone are entering service, but unfortunately there are no new ocean-going ships yet.


      What the hell kind of restoration are we talking about??

      Recovery in relation to what? What is the evaluation criterion? USSR or 90s? The situation in the “roaring nineties”:

      nuclear submarine K-141 “Kursk”, laid down on March 22, 1992.

      launched on May 16, 1994, accepted into the Northern Fleet on December 30, 1994. Nuclear submarine K-150 "Tomsk": laid down - 1991, launched - July 1996. Since March 17, 1997, the K-150 has been part of the 1st flotilla of submarines of the Northern Fleet.

      In 1998, the newest nuclear submarine made the transition to the Far East under the ice of the Arctic. Currently included in the Pacific Fleet. Nuclear submarine K-419 "Kuzbass".

      Laying down in 1991. Launching: 1992. Accepted into the fleet in 1992. Nuclear submarine K-295 "Samara".

      Laying down in 1993. Launching in 1994. Accepted into the fleet in 1995. Nuclear submarine K-335 "Cheetah".

      Laid down in 1991, 90% complete at the end of the 90s, accepted into the fleet in 2001 (in fact, given the volume of work, the boat was built in the “roaring nineties”). Large anti-submarine ship "Admiral Chabanenko" (laying down - 1990, entry into service - 1999)

      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. Underwater strategic missile carrier K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky".

      The first nuclear-powered icebreaker of Project 955 "Borey". Laid down in 1996, it has not yet been accepted into the Navy. Nuclear submarine K-139 "Belgorod" Laid down in 1993. By 1999, 80% readiness.

      It hasn't been completed yet. The heavy nuclear cruisers “Admiral Lazarev” and “Admiral Nakhimov” have been in disrepair since the early 2000s, their further fate is unknown, the ships are not modernized or completed, are not disposed of, and are quietly rotting at the piers.

      Borya was a great guy, he never rode fighter jets and submarines and generally gave up on PR.
      However, under him, the ships WERE REALLY BUILT. Now we are not doing even a fraction of what our fleet received in the 90s. The facts are in your face. More questions?
      1. +19
        December 26, 2012 17:52
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        in the "roaring nineties"

        People “by inertia” went to work and did it. And existing ships were completed and new ones laid down. In our slightly different branch of heavy engineering, there was a joke:
        They haven’t paid salaries for two years now, but people still go to work. How to disperse everyone and bankrupt the plant? At the end of the shift, the boss gathered everyone and said:
        -Come to work tomorrow and start pounding the gallows along the shop floor. They will hang you.
        We stood there, silent... A voice from the crowd:
        -Should I bring ropes with me or will they be given here?

        It was hammered into our consciousness that socialism ended when the nineties were already a thing of the past.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Now we are not doing even a fraction of what our fleet received in the 90s.
        1. +6
          26 December 2012 18:17
          Quote: arduan
          People “by inertia” went to work and did it.


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

          It doesn't happen that way.

          Destroyer pr. 956 "Vazhny" - laid down in 1988, completed by 1999.
          Destroyer pr. 956 "Thoughtful" - laid down in 1988, completed by 2000.
          In the early 2000s, the Navy flag was lowered on the newest ships and destroyers joined the Chinese Navy.

          I also remembered an interesting fact from another area:
          In 1995, cosmonaut Valery Polyakov set a world record by spending 438 days at 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 sunk in March 2001.

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

          In short, this is a very stupid and funny explanation. Multi-ton modules of the Mir station were also launched by enthusiasts??
          1. +16
            December 26, 2012 20:45
            I clumsily expressed my thought - until the end of the 90s, people in general worked “as under socialism”. They did their work as they were used to doing it - according to GOST standards and compliance with technical specifications. They didn’t really know how to “saw and roll away” and were still afraid. And they looked with bewilderment at the privatization and reforms that our government was carrying out at that time.
          2. +3
            December 27, 2012 10:56
            Some were also financed by the state. Something was financed by the enterprises themselves (I can only speak for RSK MIG, but I believe that this was the case in other offices as well)
          3. +5
            December 27, 2012 18:03
            You are not right.
            Money for the projects has already been allocated.
            Everything is agreed (with subcontractors). even before the 90s. (This is not a dacha for you!) Therefore, inertia takes place. Another thing is that inflation and the well-known events of the 90s began. And that’s why the directors began to make money and get out - z.p. not to pay, to rent out the territory and offices to cooperatives and other crap.
          4. +12
            December 27, 2012 23:06

            People “by inertia” went to work and did it.



            It doesn't happen that way. Happens.
            I personally saw this at the Tupolev Design Bureau in the 90s, among workers.
            Those who were younger and did not drink began to make crafts for the “raspberry jackets” for bucks.
            From hunting knives to custom-made furniture. AND THIS is in KB!!!!!!!! Those who were older and retired came to work AS “TO THE CLUB”.
            Because their ENTIRE Soviet life was spent there. There is no salary. There is no work. Commerce is such a dirty word, subject to jurisdiction (in their minds). Like - f._i._d. And they go around believing that production will be revived... I had a master who turned 91 years old.

            “They couldn’t send everyone into retirement.” The man did not want to die. But at least he had a pension and health. And what was going on among the miners who were banging their helmets on the Gorbaty Bridge!

            They were frankly fed “breakfast”, because coal is always in price, but there are no salaries... Why? But that's a different story. You don't understand the main thing.
            People associated their “native plant” with most of their lives and really believed that: “it won’t be long before it will be reborn.” It’s like when you don’t have money for a taxi, you stand at the bus stop and wait for the bus. Five minutes, ten, you wait for a long time... And with every minute it becomes more difficult to leave on foot, because you have waited so long... It seems that if you walk a hundred meters away, the bastard will come... This is the Soviet mentality. Not everyone is capable of going into trading or finding a job “not through acquaintance.” There is no entrepreneurial spirit. Wrong time, wrong people. But whose fault is it? People in the 90s, who were not able to think like Mavrodi, had hope in the business that they had been building all their lives. Or to an upstart with mmm. That’s why they went without a salary, hoping for the best and eating up their savings.
          5. +1
            31 May 2018 12:45
            It doesn't happen that way.


            Come on, I’ll tell you more, our plant sold rolled products, as they say, “by inertia,” under the honest words of the directors of defense factories. I just got a job for him when I was less than 17, then the salary sometimes wasn’t paid for 5-6 months (not a delay for this time, but a cash gap) in fact, people lived from their dachas and the plant agreed to provide plots for planting potatoes, but still they went to work and worked an order of magnitude better than, for example, in the 00s. There were some wild settlement schemes when the Ministry of Defense paid us with decommissioned tanks and various tractors for scrap metal. Later, while working in the design bureau, I heard a lot about how, at the expense of defense orders, they were finishing something for the native Ministry of Defense, already realizing that there would be no payment for it. Inertia is a powerful force in industry.
      2. +1
        25 May 2018 16:54
        You are right, of course, in something, but there is one very big but - 1998. Default and that's it. This was agony and not the real result. You can argue a lot and for a long time about this, but the fact is that it was in 98 that the entire system that was created during the Soviet era finally broke down. I don’t want to touch on the reasons, but everything you said was financed before ’98.
      3. +5
        25 May 2018 17:42
        Aren’t you confused by such a short time frame from the laying of the nuclear submarine to launching and delivery?wink Well, purely logically? The laying took place when the submarines were almost ready.request In fact, they were built during the Soviet Union. And by the time of the collapse they were already in a high degree of readiness. It would have been cheaper to complete them. That's why they were completed.
      4. +2
        25 May 2018 21:24
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Borya was a great guy, he never rode fighter jets and submarines and generally gave up on PR. However, under him, the ships WERE REALLY BUILT.

        The ships laid down in the USSR were simply being completed with a high degree of factory readiness.
      5. 0
        30 May 2018 14:02
        It’s 2018 now)))....what you described is already outdated
  3. +7
    December 26, 2012 09:06
    The whole difference is that the amers were actually cutting up old stuff that was at least 10-15 years old, and which was actually both technically and morally outdated. And our gougers, thanks to the tagged and drunkard, are unique new ships like Ulyanovsk and many others.
    1. +7
      December 26, 2012 21:30
      I’m sorry for Ulyanovsk, it was an excellent project, BUT...
      Remember the 90s... a poor country that had no money for anything, used its last strength to build only the most necessary things, as SWEET_SIXTEEN wrote above.
      Quite a lot, by the way, I built, understandably from the Soviet background, but still. In the 2000s, such volumes were unimaginable; almost everything was stolen, until recently. Now think about it - we are completing the construction of Ulyanovsk, in the 90s, in Ukraine, can you imagine the inflated price of local nationalists for everything? Even if they completed the construction, where would it go? Develop a resource on the Severomorsk roadstead? How is Kuznetsov? There is no money for trips, for flights and for training pilots, there are no berths, and there are no planes either... Everything was very, very sad in those years.
    2. +2
      December 27, 2012 18:04
      10-15 years old ship?!?!
      Did you even read the entire article???no
      1. Beltar
        0
        December 28, 2012 21:41
        If not a battleship, then in general yes.
  4. +5
    December 26, 2012 09:07
    Good article, good analysis.
    1. 0
      27 May 2018 16:59
      Well, how can I say - Kaptsov is recognizable from the first lines. laughing
  5. +13
    December 26, 2012 09:37
    Photos will rock you.
    ..
    Only Oleg, as always, in his repertoire - “.. The maintenance of all this rubbish required a lot of material resources, and by the end of the 80s, he could not solve any of the tasks assigned to the fleet.”
    As American - so - oh and ah.
    Like ours, Russian - well, ".. rubbish."
    I myself served on this...trash..
    And others served. For the glory of Russia. ..
    This same word...is easy to apply to any kind of.....activity or material values.
    1. +3
      26 December 2012 14:42
      Quote: Igarr
      "..The maintenance of all this rubbish required a lot of material resources, and by the end of the 80s, it could not solve any of the tasks assigned to the fleet."
      As American - so - oh and ah.
      Like ours, Russian - well, ".. rubbish."


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

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


      Our ships were written off from the 60s:
      - patrol boat pr. 35


      Ours wrote off the SSV-33 Ural. Although this is not entirely correct - “Ural” wrote itself off. The construction of such a ship was a pure gamble.

      The Americans wrote off really combat-ready nuclear cruisers: in the photo, the Mississippi is circulating


      1. +17
        December 26, 2012 20:06
        Oleg...
        specifically, on project 35, I myself personally drove a German patrol ship in the Baltic, in a force 5 storm.
        Before this, my friend Jack and I repaired his navigation radar, Don-5, in Baltiysk.
        During the storm, a crack opened amidships.
        We walked and looked at it - a fascinating sight, like the mouth of a troll. On the 35th project, my friend (and now subordinate at work) was dragging around the South China Sea.
        They drove aircraft carriers away from Vietnam. Funny.
        Of course it's funny. But the Americans were seriously afraid of us. They knew that when the shells ran out, this bandura would crash into their side at full speed. And this is fraught. In the North, I served on Project 50. You don’t even have a trace of it.
        And this “3rd rank frigate” quite successfully... hammered destroyers armed with Penguins.
        Penguins have a flight range of 20 km. Our guns hit at 21. And it doesn’t matter that there wouldn’t be a single hit out of 10,000 shots.
        Sibiryakov, entering into battle with Scheer, also did not expect to win.
        ..
        With your eyes..... identify rubbish???
        Well, any...singing along with someone else's fleet is TRASH. Execution TRASH.
        1. negoro
          +2
          December 27, 2012 22:32
          The 35th “motorcycles” are real hard workers, they were driven in the Baltic until they were written off, and in terms of speed, not a single Western analogue was close. If only there was timely capital, they would have plowed for many more years.
      2. +9
        December 26, 2012 20:57
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ours wrote off the 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 on it began to break down, but not only on the Ural.
        And if Yeltsin cared so much for the fleet, why did he screw up the Varyag.
        In 1998, it was sold for $20 million to a Chinese firm.
        20 million!!!
        Luzhkov collected money from the markets and took it to Severomorsk so that the workers would not die of hunger and all sorts of Berezovskys would fatten up.
        It's true even now"I'm tormented by vague doubts"
        Thanks for the article, interesting
        1. +2
          26 May 2018 07:20
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Luzhkov collected money from the markets and took it to Severomorsk so that the workers would not die of hunger

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

        So how did he write himself off?
    2. +1
      10 February 2017 13:00
      And they themselves serve as rubbish. Norgs are freaking out at the sight of my ship. The sailors from Murmansk forgot how Norgi drove them until Kirov appeared and they broke in to their place.
  6. borisst64
    +3
    December 26, 2012 09:46
    Have you forgotten about Ticonderoga?
    1. Sokol Peruna
      +5
      December 26, 2012 10:51
      No, we haven’t forgotten. Simply decommissioning the first 5 Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers is not within the scope of this article because they were scrapped in 2004-2005.

      1. postman
        +1
        December 28, 2012 00:01
        Quote: Sokol Peruna
        Simply decommissioning the first 5 Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers is not within the scope of this article because they were scrapped in 2004-2005.

        Decommissioned: September 30, 2004


        From March to August 2004, Ticonderoga completed her career with one of the most successful anti-drug operations. Her involvement led directly to the seizure of narcotics: 14,406 pounds of cocaine, 4 Go-Fast smuggling vessels, one smuggling fishing vessel, 25 speedboats and 5 logistics support vessels.
        Additionally, Ticonderoga worked with the Costa Rican and Colombian navies to facilitate the capture of two Go-Fast vessels.

        Ticonderoga is already rotten
        1. KSR
          KSR
          0
          December 29, 2012 21:14
          RIP Tico...
        2. +1
          10 February 2017 13:02
          At the same time, it didn’t hurt her to be in the Baltic Straits in 2003 and follow us
  7. Milafon
    +7
    December 26, 2012 10:16
    An unusual article.
    Wonderful ships. The end of the Cold War put an end to their existence, just as firearms put an end to the age of armor and armor.
  8. +16
    December 26, 2012 11:42
    The Americans wrote off their ships, firstly because they decided “Russia is a complete mess. She will not rise from her knees.” And secondly, to plan to load your shipyards with orders. They built a new one and scrapped the old one. Overall combat readiness has only increased. And ours were slaughtered in order to line their own pockets. First, on ship recycling (no need to explain the diagram to anyone?). Then on the “cutting” of the budget. There is money, but no ships. Where is the money? Right. In pocket. That's the whole difference.
  9. Misantrop
    +7
    December 26, 2012 11:55
    A friend of mine bitterly called himself “the gravedigger of the Northern Fleet.” Being the chief engineer of the nuclear weapons reloading service of the Northern Fleet, all they did was unload the cores. There have been very few downloads of new zones over the years... sad
  10. +8
    December 26, 2012 12:07
    Quote: Everyman
    And ours were slaughtered in order to line 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 with similar content, with a sort of touch of justification for the liquidation of the naval heritage of the USSR.
    Among the Amers, something happened that has long been described in our folk tales - the Serpent-Gorynych’s one cut-off head is replaced by three. Here... we report three times about the successful launching of the same submarine.
    1. +2
      December 26, 2012 12:35
      Quote: Understudy
      We have reported three times about the successful launching of the same submarine.
      We even have reports of the successful launching of a tugboat; a tugboat, of course, is a blessing, but much more is required.
  11. +4
    December 26, 2012 12:40
    Americans are good managers, first of all, they sat down and considered what was profitable, what was not, and what could be left. We chose the optimal one and threw away the rest. By sinking an aircraft carrier with the name of the country, they showed that the result is important and not tradition. By removing several classes of ships, consolidating and rebuilding others, they achieved an optimal ratio of striking power to quantity. And there’s no point in shouting now that we were cutting up something new and good and they were junk; history itself has shown that the lack 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 what is still left in service should ensure combat readiness while new combat units are being built.
    1. +1
      31 May 2018 12:55
      You made a mega-strange conclusion, ask when the Americans were destroyers from WWII and how much they spent on their modernization. Just the massive self-liquidation of the fleet of the USSR, and then the Russian Federation, allowed them to optimize everything. In the framework of a single development program, neither we nor the Americans were different.
  12. +3
    December 26, 2012 12:41
    An interesting article is definitely a plus. good
  13. black_eagle
    +5
    26 December 2012 13:34
    How many tanks were cut up, how many planes??? How many airfields were dismantled into slabs? How much infrastructure and naval bases were destroyed? what's there? The country was ruined!!! Damn the owners!!!
  14. The comment has been deleted.
    1. The comment has been deleted.
      1. The comment has been deleted.
    2. +2
      26 May 2018 07:23
      Quote: rudolf
      Here, many sailors on the site have something to remember.

      hi Hello my friend!!! There is still something to remember!!!!
      Where did you disappear to?
  15. +2
    26 December 2012 14:41
    Hunchback on trial!!! And to life in the very darkness of a cockroach!
    1. +1
      December 27, 2012 05:41
      Quote: KIBL
      Hunchback on trial

      yes, only not so long ago he was awarded the order, not by Judas, but by St. Andrew the First-Called
  16. +1
    26 December 2012 14:53
    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 Iowas in the 80s cost as much as the construction of four new Aegis cruisers. One can only guess how much it will cost to transform the Iowas into modern “missile and artillery battleships” with the Aegis system - apparently, it’s easier to build a new nuclear aircraft carrier



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

    The “rebirth” of battleships in the 1980s is an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of shipbuilding. While maintaining a full set of heavy artillery and armor, the Iowa received strategic weapons - Tomahawk cruise missiles, as well as Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Vulcan MK.15 automated anti-aircraft artillery systems, modern electronic equipment and electronic warfare equipment. This combination of old and new gave an amazing result - battleships, which were considered irrevocably a thing of the past, in fact turned out to be universal attack ships, the most suitable for waging modern naval warfare. The Falklands crisis that occurred in 1982 confirmed this opinion: the former “mistress of the seas” really lacked ships similar to the Iowa.

    1. +2
      December 26, 2012 15:21
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      One can only guess how much it will cost to transform the Iowas into modern “missile and artillery battleships” with the Aegis system - apparently, it’s easier to build a new nuclear aircraft carrier


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


        There is an obvious error in your table. BB Modernization, in principle, cannot cost 1.4 billion. This is an incredible amount.

        Although... what do we mean by modernization? Painting Missouri alone cost 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. Not sour.

        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 a hole on the side (in the underwater part!) from which water gushes out when the dock is drained?
        I think Missouri is a little rotten

        Four tugboats nudged, pulled and towed the Missouri from Ford Island's Pier Foxtrot 5
        On the picture. 4 tugs
        1. postman
          0
          December 27, 2012 00:14
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          There is an obvious error in your table. BB Modernization, in principle, cannot cost 1.4 billion.

          This is already a modernization of the “modernized” model of 1983, with all the Tomahawks, radar guns, etc.
          Look at the date of the document: 2007. This is to bring it to the modern level and put it 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 Surface 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 March 9, 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 11 March 2007.
        2. postman
          0
          December 27, 2012 00:57
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Painting and cleaning of shells. 18 million. Not sour.

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

            Orly Burke is painted like once every 2-3 years
    2. +3
      December 26, 2012 16:10
      Quote: Kars
      Announce the full 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. Every. In 1985 prices. At that time, four new Ticonderogas cost that much.
      http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/bb61iowa.html
      Here's 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 for 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 21st century?”
      The sailors said: get them to hell, they are too expensive.
      Congressmen: It's a pity to cut. Maybe they'll come in handy.
      As a result, 2 were finally written off, and Iowa and Wisconsin can still be used in theory. In practice, they cannot even move independently.
      Quote: Kars
      And what can we say about the fact that the museums have not undergone peeling of units that are useless for the museum?

      This is an American museum. Old transport Jeremy O/Brien is also on the move - once a week he cruises along San Francisco Bay.
      The aircraft carrier-Museum INTERPID (New York) is in excellent condition - however, not a single modern aircraft can land on its deck.

      Quote: Kars
      And Missouri even went to sea to film Blockbuster.

      In tow.

      Quote: Kars
      The Falklands crisis that occurred in 1982 confirmed this opinion: the former “mistress of the seas” really lacked ships similar to the Iowa.

      laughing
      The ruler of the seas, first of all, lacked Phalanx anti-aircraft guns
      Coventry was unable to fight off two subsonic attack aircraft circling overhead. The team fired at them with personal weapons.)))
      What kind of battleships are there...
      1. +2
        December 26, 2012 16:29
        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.
        Every. In 1985 prices. At that time, four new Ticonderogas cost that much. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/bb61iowa.html


        How many Aegis cruisers are you talking about at the same prices?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Modernization, in principle, cannot cost 1.4 billion. This is an incredible amount.

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

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

        And they installed the 155 mm Zemvolt, which is even more expensive, but it’s kind of inconsistent.

        Along the way, I made you again, it’s clear why you were afraid to stick your head out on the article about the Hibernation of battleships.
        1. +1
          December 26, 2012 16:45
          Photo, pay attention to the waterline.
          1. +1
            December 26, 2012 17:01
            Quote: Kars
            400-500 million for installing Tomahawks and updating radars.
            Every. In 1985 prices. At that time, four new Ticonderogas cost that much. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/bb61iowa.html

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


            and there is an interesting point
            Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 included requirements for battleship readiness (1) to list and maintain at least two Iowa-class battleships per seagoing vessel Registry [the official list of ships in custody or under the name of the Navy] that are in good condition and able to provide adequate airborne fire support; (2) maintain existing logistical support required to have at least two Iowa-class ships in active service, including technical manuals, repairs and spare parts, and ammunition; and (3) keep two battleships on the pre-naval registry The Navy has confirmed that it has a fleet of operational surface fire support capabilities that equals or exceeds the fire support capabilities that the Iowa-class ships would be able to provide to Marine Corps amphibious assault and shore operations.
            1. 0
              26 December 2012 17:28
              Quote: Kars
              There are no prices for Ticonderoga

              Ticonderoga was worth, according to various sources, $500-800 million.
              For comparison: the CSGN super-cruiser armed with Ticonderoga, nuclear weapons and 203 mm artillery in the late 70s was estimated at 1.5 billion.
              Quote: Kars
              spent on FOUR battleships.

              This is what we are talking about. It is surprising that nothing special was done - they removed a couple of 5-inch guns and replaced them with 8 containers with Tomahawks. The radar was replaced. No UVP or Aegis for you.

              Quote: Kars
              Fiscal Year 1996 Authorization

              I wrote about this above -

              Congressmen: It's a pity to cut. Maybe they'll come in handy.
              As a result, 2 were finally written off, and Iowa and Wisconsin can still be used in theory. In practice, they cannot even move independently.
        2. +2
          December 26, 2012 17:09
          Quote: Kars
          How many Aegis cruisers are you talking about at the same prices?

          For 1.7 billion it was possible to build 3-4 Ticonderogas.
          Quote: Kars
          And Zemvvolt means it could cost 3 billion

          Maybe. Now try to meet 1.4 billion, modernizing Iowa 4 times larger.

          Quote: Kars
          Look at the photo.

          This is the cooling of the power plant. But can this happen in the underwater part?

          Quote: Kars
          And they installed the 155 mm Zemvolt, which is even more expensive, but it’s kind of inconsistent.

          Zamwalt did not go into the series.

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

          Quote: Kars
          It’s clear why you were afraid to stick your head out on the article about the Hibernation of battleships.

          I didn’t want to get involved in a long and pointless argument. What could be added there?
          That gunpowder costs 110 million? And each 406 mm ammunition costs $150,000.
          Yes, it’s easier and cheaper to call Strike Eagle. And battleships are ordinary museums, just like the cruiser Ticonderoga, the aircraft carrier Midway and the dreadnought Texas.
          1. +1
            December 26, 2012 17:35
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            For 1.7 billion it was possible to build 3-4 Ticonderogas

            You want to say Tika cost 425 million in 1985 --- prove it.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Maybe. Now try to meet 1.4 billion, modernizing Iowa 4 times larger


            Yes, it’s easy, you can’t build it from scratch. In 1985, it cost 425 mil per one. here they offer 1.4 billion --- half of Zamvolt for MODERNIZATION.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This is the cooling of the power plant. But can this happen in the underwater part?

            There are kingstons there, and I don't even know what you're talking about.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Zamwalt did not go into the series.

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

            What are you talking about? Really? Well, let's start with 406 already eating ---
            How much does the case cost?
            And three billion technologies are not included.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            That gunpowder costs 110 million? And each 406 mm ammunition is $150,000

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

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

            Quote: Kars
            Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 included requirements for battleship readiness (1) to list and maintain at least two Iowa-class battleships per seagoing vessel Registry [the official list of ships in custody or under the name of the Navy] that are in good condition and able to provide adequate airborne fire support; (2) maintain existing logistical support required to have at least two Iowa-class ships in active service, including technical manuals, repairs and spare parts, and ammunition; and (3) keep two battleships on the pre-naval registry The Navy has confirmed that it has a fleet of operational surface fire support capabilities that equal or exceed the fire support capabilities that the Iowa-class ships would be able to provide to Marine Corps amphibious assault and shore operations
            1. +1
              December 26, 2012 17:45
              Quote: Kars
              You want to say Tika cost 425 million in 1985 --- prove it.

              Tika cost 500-800.
              For comparison:
              Oliver Perry was worth 250 in the late 80s
              Modernization of nuclear Virginia 1.2 billion (note - a finished ship!)
              Unsold CSGN - 1.5 billion (and in reality probably even more. V/i 17 thousand tons, 203 mm AU, YaSU, Aegis)

              Quote: Kars
              Yes, it’s easy, you can’t build it from scratch

              Well, yes)))
              Let's first define ourselves: what kind of modernization is this?

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

              Ordinary? With a range of 50 km? In what year's prices?

              Quote: Kars
              Yes, it’s easier and cheaper to call Strike Eagle,
              which costs 100 million,

              combat radius 500 km.

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

                As we can see, you have already lied.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Oliver Perry was worth 250 in the late 80s

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

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                One can only guess how much it will cost to transform the Iowas into modern “missile and artillery battleships” with the Aegis system - apparently, it’s easier to build a new nuclear aircraft carrier

                So tell me what you put into this meaning, worth 8-18 million dollars (I don’t know what kind of aircraft carrier you consider new)
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Ordinary? With a range of 50 km? In what year's prices?

                2007
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                combat radius 500 km

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

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

                  This is not defending a dissertation.
                  500x4=2000 is approximately equal to 1700 + gunpowder

                  In short, everything is fine there, you shouldn’t be indignant

                  Quote: Kars
                  turning the Iowas into modern “missile and artillery battleships” with the Aegis system - apparently, it’s easier to build a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
                  So tell me what you put into this meaning, costing 8-18 million dollars (I don’t know what kind of new aircraft carrier you are you think)

                  I don’t know the cost of “transforming 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 80s, which cost 425-500 million for each battleship, the cost will be colossal... I honestly don’t know how much...at least 3 billion per ship x 4 Iowas = 12 million. This is a new aircraft carrier!
                  Quote: Kars
                  So what?

                  And you only have 50. Further discussion about cost makes no sense -
                  1. a battleship cannot solve aviation problems
                  2. there is no point in building/upgrading 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 does not have ammunition, fuel, or engines located behind the first layer of plating.

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

                    Where did you get the idea that 500? I’ve never seen such an exact figure from you as 1.7. And why are you happy to add ammunition? Let’s then consider the price of Ticonderoga missiles.
                    So I’ll just say goodbye to you so that TV doesn’t lie too much.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    I don’t know the cost of “transforming Iowas into Idis battleships with UVP”, which I honestly admitted

                    You admitted dishonestly, you lied about the equivalence with the new aircraft carrier. I gave you a table from the report where the price is indicated as 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 minor modernization in the 80s, which cost 425-500 million for each battleship. The cost will be colossal... I honestly don’t know how much... let’s say at least 3 billion per ship x 4 Iowas = 12 million

                    There’s just no need for fairy tales. And even three billion for one, which is three to five times more effective and stable than Zamvolt, is not much.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    And you only have 50. Further discussion about cost makes no sense -
                    1. a battleship cannot solve aviation problems

                    It carries Tomahawks, and it should not solve ALL aviation problems.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    2. there is no point in building/upgrading an expensive battleship in order to shoot at 50 km,

                    Doing this using other methods will be more expensive.

                    Quote: Kars
                    Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 included requirements for battleship readiness (1) to list and maintain at least two Iowa-class battleships per seagoing vessel Registry [the official list of ships in custody or under the name of the Navy] that are in good condition and able to provide adequate airborne fire support; (2) maintain existing logistical support required to have at least two Iowa-class ships in active service, including technical manuals, repairs and spare parts, and ammunition; and (3) keep two battleships on the pre-naval registry The Navy has confirmed that it has a fleet of operational surface fire support capabilities that equal or exceed the fire support capabilities that the Iowa-class ships would be able to provide to 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 shell from a destroyer and what came of it?))))))))

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

                      No more expensive than building/upgrading and sending a battleship with a crew of 1000 people to a combat zone.

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

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

                      The shell hit successfully)))
                      1. +1
                        December 26, 2012 20:33
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        No more expensive than building/upgrading and sending a battleship with a crew of 1000 people to a combat zone

                        Zamvolt is twice as expensive, but what do you need 155 mm guns for?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In principle, it would be the same.
                        3 killed, 44 wounded, fire control system failed.
                        And for some reason they drove him to the Persian Gulf, even though there were already 4 aircraft carriers there.
                        And to support the amphibious assault - well, if it comes with an AUG warrant, you will have nothing to use, using airborne missiles to avoid entering the air defense zone of small arms and cannon weapons will be more expensive, and the number of missiles will be small. Each downed plane is tens of millions of dollars. Just a visit. .threatening force..AUG is much more expensive and vulnerable. Even just keeping it in service is much more expensive.

                        The shell hit successfully)))

                        No, in principle, Burke would have demanded a month and lost his combat effectiveness.

                        I’m just wondering why you wove this planting into your article when you are unable to confirm anything?
                      2. 0
                        December 26, 2012 21:47
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        3 killed, 44 wounded, fire control system failed.

                        The shell hit successfully)))


                        This is what you call removing the fire control system?

                        fortifications on the island. On April 1, the battleship provided direct support to the landing units of the 10th Army. Shooting along the shore did not prevent him from shooting down three kamikazes on the 6th. During this chaotic battle with aircraft, a 127-mm shell from a neighboring battleship hit the base of director No. 2 of the 127-mm battery on the port side of the North Caroline (area 99), killing 3 and wounding 44 people. The explosion occurred approximately a meter under the roller ring of the director's turret, making a hole with a diameter of 25 cm in the base and breaking 16 cables, which is why the director was out of action.


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

                        Here the USS Porter (DDG 78 Berkeley class) accidentally came into contact with the oil tanker MV OTOWASAN in the Strait of Hormuz on August 12, 2012 at 01:00 (where the hell the watchman was looking, 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 on the opposite side):
                        And you're talking about guns, 20mm phalanx, that's it.
                      4. +1
                        December 27, 2012 01:48
                        Quote: postman
                        (what kind of fire there is, you need to put a “gentle” fuse in the shells, otherwise they will explode behind the opposite one

                        This is a must - and I don’t think it’s particularly difficult, although ships are still not the best target for artillery.
                        Quote: postman
                        And you’re talking about guns, 20mm phalanx, that’s it

                        If they really get to boarding distance, I would try with the main caliber, just gunpowder
                      5. 0
                        December 27, 2012 01:03
                        Quote: Kars
                        I’m just wondering why you wove this planting into your article when you are unable to confirm anything?


                        I understand that you don’t like it, but try to admit to yourself:

                        even a small modernization of 4 Iowas cost 1.7 billion in 1985 prices!
                      6. +1
                        December 27, 2012 01:11
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        even a small modernization of 4 Iowas cost 1.7 billion in 1985 prices!

                        Well, 425 million dollars, if Ticonderoga cost a BILLION. And correcting the hit on Stark (which was not sunk purely by accident) cost 170 million dollars. So I don’t see anything super special, the order of numbers for the USA is simply banal. So I have nothing to admit.
                        Quote: Kars
                        The rebirth of battleships in the 1980s is an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of shipbuilding. While maintaining a full set of heavy artillery and armor, the Iowa received strategic weapons - Tomahawk cruise missiles, as well as Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Vulcan MK.15 automated anti-aircraft artillery systems, modern electronic equipment and electronic warfare equipment. This combination of old and new gave an amazing result - battleships, which were considered irrevocably a thing of the past, in fact turned out to be universal attack ships, the most suitable for waging modern naval warfare. The Falklands crisis that occurred in 1982 confirmed this opinion: the former “mistress of the seas” really lacked 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, research is underway.
                      7. +2
                        December 27, 2012 01:27
                        In 30 minutes, the 406-mm Ai Ova guns
                        can fire 270,862 kg of high-explosive shells
                        - 232.7 tons of explosives and steel.
                        And the standard combat load of the air wing of the nuclear-powered
                        aircraft carrier Neemitz is
                        76.2 tons. Typically, carrier-based aircraft
                        make no more than three sorties per day - that is,
                        they can drop “only” 228.6 tons
                        of bombs on a target per day.
                        Later, the Americans supplemented these calculations with an economic component:
                        “delivery” of each ton of ammunition
                        by a battleship costs 1.6 thousand dollars, and
                        by attack aircraft of the same Nimitz - about
                        12 thousand dollars.
                        Of course, comparing these figures directly
                        - incorrect .
                        The range of carrier-based aircraft, compared to naval
                        artillery, is much greater
                        , and the accuracy of bombing is higher.
                        But one thing is certain: during military
                        operations, many problems may arise,

                        of battleships

                        them to be solved, and solved most
                        effectively The modernization of American battleships
                        consisted of the following.
                        Four of the ten 127 mm Mk-28 gun mounts were dismantled;

                        , eight armored
                        quadruple Mk-143 launchers for
                        Tomahawk cruise missiles
                        above the construction sites Anti-ship missiles RGM-84
                        "Harpoon" (16 pcs.) were placed in transport
                        and launch containers, grouped
                        into four blocks.
                        FOR defense against low-flying ships
                        (including enemy anti-ship missiles), each
                        of the Iowa-class battleships received

                        Mk-15 Vulcan-Phalanx
                        anti-aircraft artillery systems,
                        M61 Vulk
                        gun and " Radio-electronic weapons had to
                        be completely updated.
                        Now on the "Air Islands
                        A / PS -49
                        long-range detection radar the L -66 navigation system of
                        the TASA air situation monitoring system and
                        OE -8 2 satellite communications, as well as an integrated
                        system for displaying the tactical situation innovations
                        and control of the actions of TDS ships
                        .
                        As for surface target detection radars, the New Jersey and
                        Iowa were initially equipped with
                        A/SPS-IO (on the former, this radar
                        appeared in 1968, during its
                        Vietnam campaign). but in 1985 - 1987
                        they were modernized and renamed
                        A / SPS-67.
                        "Missouri" and "Wisconsin" immediately received a modernized
                        version of the radar.
                        The electronic warfare system was based
                        on the SLQ-32 (U) complex,
                        which included, in addition to various receiving and transmitting
                        stations, eight 18-barreled
                        “foil launchers” Mk-36 RBOC -
                        false radar target setters.
                        As a means of protection against acoustic
                        torpedoes, the battleships were equipped with the
                        SLQ-25 “Nixie” system;
                        included in its composition , according to the plan,
                        was supposed to serve as a “bait” for
                        the torpedo homing head, distracting the latter
                        from the real target.

                        A helicopter flight control post
                        was installed in the aft part of the deck In
                        , a device for launching and landing unmanned
                        aerial reconnaissance vehicles
                        "PaYonir" was installed on the Iowa
                      8. 0
                        December 27, 2012 01:28
                        The modernization also affected a number of auxiliary
                        equipment, one way or another
                        connected with the composition of weapons.
                        For example,
                        three
                        frequency converters had to be installed on each of the battleships, since the latest
                        radar and maintenance systems required a current with
                        a frequency of 400 kHz.
                        In addition, all living quarters were equipped with air conditioners,
                        some household appliances were replaced -
                        the living conditions were brought up to
                        the standard adopted by the US Navy.
                        By the way, due to the introduction of new equipment and the abandonment
                        of numerous anti-aircraft artillery,
                        the Iowa crew in 1988 was reduced to
                        1510 people (in (, New Jersey) to
                        1518, in (, Missouri,> and (, Wisconsin,> -
                        up to 1515 people).
                        Finally,
                        time itself forced a number of changes to be made to the design. The steam
                        boilers had to be adapted for the new
                        liquid fuel, and the latrines had to be equipped
                        with tanks for receiving bilge water - Otherwise,
                        the way for Iowans to many
                        foreign ports would have been closed.
                        the demands of environmentalists greatly irritated
                        the designers of warships, but
                        gradually they began to be taken into account.

                        On December 14, the New Jersey opened fire with
                        its main caliber on Syrian air defense batteries
                        in southern Lebanon, which were preventing
                        the flights of American unmanned reconnaissance aircraft

                        11 high-explosive high-explosive aircraft
                        were fired. shells. And on February 8, 1984, a new bombardment of coastal targets took place
                        - one of the most powerful in
                        the entire post-war history. The battleship's guns
                        rained down almost 300 406-mm shells on Syrian positions in
                        the Bekaa Valley.
                        They razed the command post, in
                        which several senior officers
                        and one general of the Syrian army were killed.
                        At the same time, many shells fell on residential
                        buildings, killing hundreds of civilians,
                        mostly Shiites and Druze.
                        The actions of the Americans were subject to severe
                        criticism, including in the United States itself.
                        A Chicago Tribune correspondent in
                        Lebanon wrote: “Everyone loved New Jersey
                        , until he started shooting.

                        The longest hit in the history of the American
                        fleet was achieved - a 406-mm shell
                        hit the target from a range of 24 miles.
                      9. 0
                        December 27, 2012 12:26
                        Quote: Kars
                        300 406 mm shells

                        300 x $11,700 = $3.5 million.
                        - count to the minimum (11700 per shot)
                        - without taking into account the resource of the trunks
                        - without taking into account the cost of operating a ship that was driven halfway around the world.

                        The cost of the F-16 Block 50/52 is about 50 million dollars. An hour of flight is from 7 to 24 thousand dollars (depending on the calculation method). 1000 lb CAB $50 thousand.
                        As a result, we have: instead of “reactivating” Iowa, 28 F-16s can be built for 1.4 billion, and instead of 300 fired shells - 72 hours of flight and 35 guided bombs. Moreover, the combat radius of the F-16 is no less than 500 km.


                        Quote: Kars
                        the farthest in the history of the American
                        fleet - a 406 mm shell hit a target from a range of 24 miles.

                        45 km. Everything is clear with you, my dears.
                        By the way, how far from the shore was the battleship?



                        But it is much more revealing to compare Iowa with the Su-25. According to unverified data, Rook costs 10 million dollars, another 4 million is spent on its modernization
                        “Currently, the total cost of modernization and 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.
                        Considering the minimum cost of an hour of its flight and the power supply, the Rooks will bombard the Bekaa Valley with bombs worse than the Iowa squadron)))))
                      10. 0
                        27 December 2012 14:03
                        Quote: Kars
                        “delivery” of each ton of ammunition
                        by battleship costs 1.6 thousand dollars, and
                        by attack aircraft of the same Nimitz - about
                        12 thousand dollars

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

                        Only 28 airplanes? And only 72 hours of their flight? 35 KAB, when used, there is a need to enter the air defense zone? And where are the costs for rescue helicopters to evacuate downed pilots?
                        Quote: Kars
                        on Syrian
                        air defense

                        ))))))))))
                        Also, the moral impact on the pilots’ body when the local population impales a downed pilot?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        45 km.
                        Everything is clear with you, my dears. By the way, how far from the shore was the battleship?

                        No idea, probably 100 miles away.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Instead of “reactivating” Iowa, you can get 100 Su-25 attack aircraft.
                        Considering the minimum cost of an hour of its flight and the power supply, the Rooks will bombard the Bekaa Valley with bombs worse than the Iowa squadron)))))

                        Don’t you want to compare hiring blacks in Somalia?
                        Or let's count your favorite aircraft carrier into rooks?

                        But have you even realized how much minimal repairs and modernization were completed for 425 mil on a battleship?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        even a small modernization

                        ))))))))))))
                      11. 0
                        27 December 2012 14:20
                        Quote: Kars
                        “delivery” of each ton of ammunition
                        by battleship costs 1.6 thousand dollars, and
                        by attack aircraft of the same Nimitz - about
                        12 thousand dollars

                        Why Nimitz? Aviano, Cadena and Incirlik

                        Quote: Kars
                        Only 28 airplanes? And only 72 hours of their flight? 35 KAB, when used, there is a need to enter the air defense zone?

                        Just an old battleship with a crew of 1500 people that can shoot 45 km away.
                        And take into account the operating costs, the same barrel life + fuel to drive the giant across the ocean

                        Quote: Kars
                        on Syrian
                        air defense batteries))))))))))

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

                        You stubbornly fail to see the contradiction:
                        aviation can be used against any targets in any area of ​​the earth.
                        there is no point in building an expensive battleship just to shoot at 45 km.

                        Quote: Kars
                        No idea, probably 100 miles away.

                        But after all? wink

                        Quote: Kars
                        But have you even realized how much minimal repairs and modernization were completed for 425 mil on a battleship?

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

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

                        Well, don’t forget the 32 tomahawks that shoot at a greater distance.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And take into account the operating costs, the same barrel life + fuel to drive the giant across the ocean

                        Well, it’s a fact that it’s cheaper than an aircraft carrier. And your F-16s don’t fly without maintenance and airfields.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        aviation can be used against any targets in any area of ​​the earth.
                        there is no point in building an expensive battleship just to shoot at 45 km

                        Well, you can hammer nails with a microscope, who cares?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But after all?

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

                        Well, what can I say on the topic, I’ve pissed you off once again)))) it’s already hard to read. And I’ve lost my impressionability.
                      13. +1
                        December 27, 2012 19:55
                        Quote: Kars
                        Aircraft carriers are piles of expensive scrap metal.

                        1. Ideal for naval combat
                        2. In the absence of a real naval enemy, they turn into major entertainment. But mothers can break in.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, don’t forget the 32 tomahawks that shoot at a greater distance.

                        This is a pathetic argument - even little Ticanderoga carries a hundred axes. And the invisible and invulnerable "Ohio" - 154!
                        Quote: Kars
                        I said 100-200 miles.

                        You're doing something weird. Your text clearly states:
                        the farthest in the history of the American
                        fleet - a 406 mm shell hit a target from a range of 24 miles.

                        Now I would like to know how far from the coastline the target was?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, it’s a fact that it’s cheaper than an aircraft carrier. And your F-16s don’t fly without maintenance and airfields.

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

                        It’s easier to buy aircraft - and use them always and everywhere. Despite the minimal gain on a local scale (shelling of Lebanon), the aircraft turns out to be many times more profitable, because its use is not limited to “shelling the coast.”

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

                        Airplanes quite often carry out strikes from the “airborne duty” position.
                      14. 0
                        December 27, 2012 20:25
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        1. Ideal for naval combat

                        They just scared you, an aircraft carrier is a useless target without all the missile ships and submarines.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        2. In the absence of a real naval enemy, they turn into major entertainment. But mothers can break in.

                        Exactly, in the absence of conditions, only the Papuans or the Stans can break in after ten years of an arms embargo, and at the same time, the aircraft carriers themselves will carry out 8% of all combat airlifts))))))
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        This is a pathetic argument - even little Ticanderoga carries a hundred axes. And the invisible and invulnerable "Ohio" - 154

                        against your 28 F-16s are simply lethal.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        You're doing something weird.
                        Your text clearly states: the farthest in the history of the American
                        fleet - a 406 mm shell hit a target from a range of 24 miles

                        And what’s wrong with that? Why can’t the ship be located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        F-16s will bomb Lebanese air defense today, and tomorrow they will fly to bomb Osirak, and after tomorrow Sudan (I heard there was a Jewish raid recently)

                        so what? Bombing countries without air defense is a small merit, but at the same time, even a purely accidental shooting down 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 maintain landing ships? Why maintain aircraft carriers?

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        the plane turns out to be many times more profitable, because its use is not limited to “shelling the coast.”

                        Is it strange that someone is stopping you from buying planes? Buy them.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Airplanes quite often carry out strikes from the “airborne duty” position.

                        How long is it? An hour? 30 minutes? What is the fuel consumption? Engine life? The possibility of being shot down? That during this time their attack will no longer be useful to anyone, that they will not be able to launch an attack due to air defense?

                        So ring a powerful artillery-missile ship, more economical and efficient than an aircraft carrier in local wars, safer for personnel (how many pilots from an aircraft carrier died in Vietnam, and how many battleship gunners died?)
                        And don’t forget that we are talking about ships, so don’t get involved with land aviation.

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

                        Will you break through all of them with 28 F-16s?))
                      15. +1
                        27 December 2012 14:26
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        without taking into account the service life of the barrels
                        - without taking into account the cost of operating a ship that was driven halfway around the world.

                        Yes, the F-16s probably materialized, at the airfield we don’t know how many kilometers from our specific target, we probably won’t count the rent for the airfield either? Just like the fact that training for the F-16s is also needed))) just as they probably shouldn’t be used in the interim.

                        Also interesting is the reaction speed, whose KAB or Landmines will fall on the adversary’s head faster after giving the order?
                    2. AcKiPaPa
                      +1
                      December 27, 2012 23:57
                      As for the modernization of the Iowas,
                      1 - the price will be prohibitive (I can’t name the numbers - but...)
                      a) the ships of the 2nd World War had such a thing as an armored belt.
                      He created the so-called "Citadel" - a 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 (GC) to the stern ones, protecting, except those indicated; boiler rooms, engine rooms and cellars of anti-mine caliber guns. b) The above means that from the main battery towers of the bow to the stern, 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 was actually done), then inserting the UVP is, to put it mildly, problematic, because will require 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 it’s quite possible to install “Spy” and other components of “Aegis”; however, it’s interesting to look at the control code for Aegis 406mm AUlol
                      2- Regarding the effectiveness of existing battleships;
                      Yes, a direct hit from “Granit” is difficult for “Iows” too, but World War 2 ships, adapted for survival in artillery duels, endure such “injuries” much more easily than modern aluminum cardboards; in addition, they will definitely withstand the consequences of “atomic” (Shock wave, EMP, radiation) are better than modern ships... 3- A battleship is a ship of prestige, it’s not for nothing that England tried to maintain them for so long.angry Anyone who has such ships is “like really cool” , that’s why they were left in the fleet register - albeit as museums...
                      4- The army doesn’t count money... in the event of a serious war, we may well see the “Iowas” in battle, no matter how much it costs taxpayers, because it is very expensive to modernize, faster than building a new ship...
                      1. 0
                        December 29, 2012 23:56
                        Quote: AttKiPaPa
                        1- the price will be prohibitive (I can’t name the numbers - but...)

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

                        Well, there’s just nothing special there, they’ll dismantle the deck, where it needs to be processed with a file, and maybe they’ll save weight. There, all you need is 98 cells to outperform the Earthvolt for three billion dollars, and at the same time the UVP will still be protected by side armor. Although this does not prevent you from doing UVP outside the citadel.
                        Quote: AttKiPaPa
                        look at the control code for Aegis 406mm AU

                        All they need from Aegis is the exact coordinates of the target relative to the battleship and that’s all.
            2. postman
              0
              December 27, 2012 00:35
              Quote: Kars
              You want to say Tika cost 425 million in 1985 --- prove it.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Tika cost 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:



              as of May 4, 2012


              behind is a Ukrainian ship (probably arrived for dismantling of the body with spare parts)


              Oleg, isn’t this “through corrosion”? (can armor)
              1. 0
                December 27, 2012 00:57
                Quote: postman

                Quote: Kars
                You want to say Tika cost 425 million in 1985 --- prove it.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Teak cost 500-800.
                Cost: about $1 billion

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

                  final calculation for 1983.
                  Do not send me the document or copy it. They don't let me in. They say someone "oleg" called and asked not to give sad
                  Maybe Christmas, let's see what they say
                2. postman
                  0
                  December 27, 2012 02:01
                  $287,800,000 housing the remaining approximately $700 million relates to equipment and equipment

                  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 $987,800,000
                  / Terzibaschitsch: Seemacht USA. Bernard & Graefe Verlag, Bonn, ISBN 3-86047-576-2, S. 369 ./
            3. postman
              +1
              December 27, 2012 00:45
              Quote: Kars
              You want to say Tika cost 425 million in 1985 --- prove it.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Tika cost 500-800.

              Cost: about $1 billion
              They promised $562,000,000
              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:


              as of May 4, 2012
              1. postman
                +1
                December 27, 2012 00:46
                behind is a Ukrainian ship (probably arrived for dismantling for spare parts)
                1. postman
                  0
                  December 27, 2012 00:47
                  Oleg, isn’t this “through corrosion”? (can armor), this was in 2008 (November)
                  1. +1
                    December 28, 2012 01:37
                    _______________
                    1. postman
                      +1
                      December 28, 2012 02:07
                      Well, I'm okay.
                      Rind, California March 17, 2012
                      Don't even need to paint yet
                      1. postman
                        +2
                        December 28, 2012 02:12
                        WISCONSIN "touched" (almost cut into two parts) the destroyer EATON (DDE 510)
                        The 120-ton, 68-meter bow from the unfinished battleship KENTUCKY was delivered on a barge and?
                        16 days later: June 28, 1956, the ship was ready to go to sea.
                        The captain of the destroyer (Varley) was actually put in jail, probably because of the fog
        3. postman
          +1
          December 27, 2012 00:23
          Quote: Kars
          How many Aegis cruisers are you talking about at the same prices?

          for the BB modernization options under consideration, tomahawks and harpoons from the PC are already installed, even from 83-85, and the radar is the same.

          As for the shells, they are CONSCIOUSLY misleading you, taking advantage of the fact that in the USA they still cannot write documents in Ukrainian, or even in Russian:
          A rough estimate of the cost of a new explosive for a 16-inch in 2000 is about $10 per pound (330 gr) or $11,700 per projectile.

          It's probably the same with shells...
          1. 0
            December 27, 2012 00:59
            Quote: postman
            Regarding shells, they are CONSCIOUSLY misleading you, taking advantage of the fact that in the USA they still cannot write documents in Ukrainian, or even in Russian: a
            rough estimate of the cost of a new explosive for a 16-inch in 2000 at a price of about $ 10 per pound ( 330 gr) or $11,700 per shell.


            I heard something about 150 thousand.

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

              THIS IS LRAP for 155mm and $200,000 for 16" -ERM
              regular (set of propellant explosives, bag, projectile on average): $26,000
              BUT YOU don’t need to DO IT again, you need to replace the “consumables” of the explosive, whose warranty period has expired, therefore: 11700, including work.
              What will happen to METAL? It's all in the grease
            2. postman
              +1
              December 27, 2012 01:32
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              I heard something about 150 thousand.

              THIS IS LRAP for 155mm and $200,000 for 16" -ERM
              regular (set of propellant explosives, bag, projectile on average): $26,000
              BUT YOU don’t need to DO IT again, you need to replace the “consumables” of the explosive,
              whose warranty period has expired, therefore: 11700, including work.

              Our “friends” have piles of these shells like shoe polish in a factory. They shot and shot, but didn’t shoot...

              What will happen to METAL? It's all in the grease
              1. +1
                December 27, 2012 12:02
                It's clear.
                Can you give current data on how much the little 500-pound GBU-12 and 1000-pound GBU-24 cost?
                1. postman
                  0
                  December 27, 2012 23:49
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  500 lb GBU-12 and 1000 lb GBU-24


                  GBU-31/32/38 price: about $22,000 per tailkit (FY2007)


                  GBU-53/B SDB-II will be $263,000 (in 2013)



                  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 to laser-guided bombs.

                  General Dynamics OTS in Garland, Texas will receive an $89.7M fixed-price contract to modify various quantities of the MK80 bomb series

                  Can I immediately send the report (WHERE?) everything is there, both SMB and AGM
                  you'll be tired of looking (kit full, partial upgrade) etc. etc...
                2. postman
                  +1
                  December 28, 2012 11:54




                  OPR: Capt Brian Withrow, HQ USAF/ILSR, DSN: 225-2840
                  Munitions Acquisition Cost /FY00
      2. 0
        December 26, 2012 20:04
        Coventry - transport. What kind of Phalanxes are there?
        1. +2
          December 26, 2012 20:19
          Quote: Botanist
          Coventry - transport. What kind of Phalanxes are there?

          HM Destroyer HMS Coventry, Type 23

          Killed on May 14, 1982 by three 454 kg bombs,

          (If we call things by their proper names, the Kovnetri is a small, weak frigate with a full weight of 4,500 tons. It was unable to repel the attack of a pair of subsonic Skyhawks (an old American attack aircraft from the 50s), which had been circling for a long time in formation. It’s simply amazing how "Coventry" even sailed to the Falkland Islands negative )
          1. +1
            December 26, 2012 22:44
            Sorry, I confused him with a container ship.
            I sit down to learn materielfeel
      3. Beltar
        +1
        December 28, 2012 21:38
        An artillery shell cannot be compared in price to a tomahawk that costs 2 million.
        1. +1
          28 December 2012 22:59
          Quote: Beltar
          An artillery shell cannot be compared in price to a tomahawk that costs 2 million.


          Well, it cannot be compared in range and accuracy with the Tomahawk.
  17. mamba
    +1
    December 26, 2012 15:02
    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, it was necessary to put the “destroyer forces” in order: Thirty-five ships of this type were scrapped (as an option, they were sunk as targets). During that period of time, the US Navy lost 227 warships: large and small, obsolete and still quite modern. Our Serdyukov nervously smokes on the sidelines and bursts with envy.laughing
    1. 0
      December 28, 2012 05:52
      NO! The gunsmiths were slightly offended, but they were allowed to explore other countries, which was done very well and expensively,
  18. orfo
    +1
    26 December 2012 15:16
    Of course, quite a few were sawn, and some are still standing on the docks, “mothballed”/forgotten, but there is a reason to sweeten things up:
    Quote: wiki
    Ships under construction for the Russian Navy as of October 2012.

    1. +1
      December 26, 2012 16:24
      Quote: orfo
      forgotten but there is a reason to sweeten things up:


      This is all complete nonsense even compared to the 90s.
      Moreover, none of the plans have been accomplished.
  19. -1
    December 26, 2012 17:47
    SWEET_SIXTEEN ,
    Excuse me, of course, but what was laid down in the early 90s is an echo of the USSR (Great Power), therefore, to say that now is worse than in the early 90s is complete nonsense .
    Now we are building what the state called Russia has already done, the resources are no longer the same, the areas are no longer the same and everything is no longer the same, half of the factories and shipyards went to the former republics, in your beloved 90s the country was on the verge of collapse and in a complete hole, and this lasted 20 years! Now that real results have appeared, such as you whine that everything is bad, you don’t like it, leave Russia, the country will not become poorer.
    1. +4
      26 December 2012 19:11
      Quote: Zhenya
      Now we are building what the state called Russia has already done

      And what state built the K-141 Kursk boat in 1992?
      Which state laid down the K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky" SSBN of the new "Borey" type in 1996?
      And who completed the construction of Peter the Great in 1998?

      Quote: Zhenya
      Now that real results have appeared

      Those. corvette "Steregushchy" (2.5 thousand tons, built over 6 years) - Real result. And the super-cruiser "Peter the Great" (26 thousand tons, took 10 years to build) is a piece of cake?
      Where is the logic?

      Quote: Zhenya
      was on the verge of collapse and in a complete hole, and this lasted 20 years!

      Right. it still continues. And it even gets worse, amid joyful cries about the “revival of the Army and Navy”
      The construction of the tugboat, the corvette Steregushchy and the anti-sabotage boat Grachonok in 12 years is at the level of the Caribbean state of Haiti
      1. 0
        28 May 2018 13:44
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The construction of the tugboat, the corvette Steregushchy and the anti-sabotage boat Grachonok in 12 years is at the level of the Caribbean state of Haiti

        Give a list of warships that Haiti is building or has built?
      2. +1
        31 May 2018 13:07
        TARKR Yuri Andropov is the one who will become Peter the Great and join the fleet in 1998. In 1991, he had 80% readiness, I suspect that of the remaining 20%, the unmounted equipment also had a fairly high readiness, and some of it was even already at the plant.
  20. +4
    December 26, 2012 23:23
    Well, Americans cannot be denied practicality.
    Their most effective project for recycling rusty trash was called "Pearl Harbor" (December 1941).
    Cool - they got rid of unnecessary ships and got a legitimate opportunity to piss off the Japanese...
    1. +2
      January 1, 2013 09:57
      They solved several problems, Destroyed an assorted fleet, Optimized the weapons system, optimized the supply system, and most importantly unified the power plants, The gain was worth it, How much assorted property was destroyed, As a result, the fleet became much more powerful and the range of tasks increased with solutions to which previously were a pain in the ass was,
    2. 0
      31 May 2018 13:08
      True, then everyone except Arizona and someone else was raised and rebuilt, so don’t worry, mom.
  21. 0
    December 27, 2012 08:52
    The main thing is not the technology, but the people who control this technology. In addition to new ships, planes, tanks, etc. we need to raise Heroes. Without them, any equipment is rubbish, even the most modern.
    1. sapulid
      0
      December 27, 2012 10:23
      There is nothing secondary here.
      In 1941, heroes with one rifle without ammunition for the entire battalion were thrown onto tanks.... Grandfather told me. There were two survivors from that battalion. Heroes need modern and highly effective weapons, otherwise we will throw them to the slaughter.
      1. 0
        December 27, 2012 11:21
        I agreehi , but are we still capable of feats or not?
      2. +1
        31 May 2018 13:41
        Even in the prefabricated units that completed the construction of missile defense systems and airfields on the border there were 10 rifles per company (though with limited ammunition of 60 rounds per rifle) and they were not thrown anywhere, just some of them ended up at the forefront of the German attack. What your grandfather told you is, let’s say, an embellishment. Another question is that the shooter’s wearable ammunition is only enough for a few hours of battle (more precisely, it is with ROP), and the collapsed military rear and logistics made the troops practically unarmed
  22. 0
    December 27, 2012 12:05
    It's OK. This is not the first nor the last time that the Russian fleet is being destroyed. It has happened in the past that we were completely behind, and it will happen in the future. We are a land empire; tanks and planes are more important to us than destroyers.
  23. 0
    December 27, 2012 19:21
    good article, wrote a person who is passionate about floating pieces of iron, there are probably a lot of models of steamships at home, but as if all the iron on the surface has one killer term - a submariner’s dream,
    my opinion - the Russians need to have a powerful submarine fleet, a very mesmerizing sight - a shark circling around a victim on the surface
    1. +1
      December 27, 2012 21:44
      Perhaps so.
      Aircraft carriers and liqueurs seem to me more like weapons of direct aggression and intimidation - Russia has no use for this.
      A really powerful submarine fleet is enough for nuclear deterrence, small but fast, maneuverable and difficult to vulnerable ships such as frigates to protect their waters, and, in light of recent events, a “strategic icebreaker fleet,” as strange as it sounds
    2. 0
      December 27, 2012 23:34
      Quote: garrimoor
      shark circling the victim

      and how many fit and fighting “Sharks” were cut up at his ... head with a patch and how new friends (such friends for ... and to the museum) helped with delight
  24. M-Sergey
    +1
    December 27, 2012 21:08
    In 91-92 he served on the 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 only had one trip in its life, it was from St. Petersburg to Vladik......
  25. bart74
    +1
    December 28, 2012 00:55
    I still can’t be convinced that this “reduction of the fleet” by pins and needles was a forced and correct measure. Seven times measure cut once. In general, the result is very sad.
  26. Marek Rozny
    +3
    December 28, 2012 01:50
    I really liked the article. I never thought that I would be hooked by an article on a maritime topic. Many thanks to the author for his ability to present the material!
  27. 0
    25 May 2018 15:24
    I forgot to write about the flotillas... Everything is in the firebox. To the delight of the enemies. Together with people..
  28. +2
    25 May 2018 16:56
    Again they posted the old text and discussion with a new date. Will this be permanent now?
    1. 0
      25 May 2018 17:06
      And I read, I think deja vu, it happened, and then on the date of the discussion, and then 2012...
    2. 0
      25 May 2018 18:43
      Yes, well done - they extract birch sap every year,


      but the untimely death of the TAVKRs was programmed at their birth.

      For some unknown reason, no one bothered to build the appropriate coastal infrastructure for their basing - the TAVKRs stood in the roadstead all their lives, wasting the precious resource of their boilers and generators. As a result, they exhausted the resource three times faster than planned. The ships were senselessly destroyed with their own hands. It's a pity. - IT WAS A RACE WITH THE Ukrainian NATIONALISTS - TO GIVE ORDERS (STRENGTHEN THEIR INFLUENCE IN KOKHLOSTAN) TO THE RUSSIAN INDUSTRIAL SOUTH OF THE USSR.
      SAL'S FIGHT AGAINST THE ROLLING MILL
  29. 0
    25 May 2018 18:53
    Shaw, again? It was...
  30. +1
    25 May 2018 20:44
    Quote: crazyrom
    Now we will set up our ships back, and submarines, and missiles are already on the way, and even trains with atomic missiles! And the “probable enemy” will remain without everything, they no longer have any money or brains left.

    Are you that naive? We will set it up, but they will be left without? Or maybe it's the other way around? How many destroyers have we built over the past quarter century? 0.00 And the same Americans have already begun building the next version of their destroyer. Their number is already over 60. And there will be more
    They cut up 11 Elks, but made 12 (so far) new Virginias. And we? From post-Soviet boats, 3 Boreys were built and one Yasen is in service. Yes, they completed several that were previously laid out in the 90s.
    Trains with nuclear missiles IF they appear, it will not be earlier than 2027. It would be better if they didn't show up. New missiles? yes, there are new missiles. But the Americans also plan to begin building new missiles and new boats with missiles in the coming years. And here "SET BACK" we can't do it yet
  31. +1
    25 May 2018 20:53
    hi The aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk leaves Pearl Harbor in 2008. Kitty Hawk (CV-63) was retired in 2009 shortly after this video was filmed. It was the last conventional aircraft carrier (non-nuclear) in service with the US Navy. Commissioned in 1961, Kitty Hawk remained in service for nearly 49 years.
    USS America (CV-66) bunkers the destroyer USS Richard E. Byrd (DDG-23) and USS William Rush (starboard)
    in the Middle East on June 15, 1967.
  32. +2
    26 May 2018 09:15
    A universal attack ship, clad in an impenetrable shell of 300 mm thick steel, the Iowa's armor belt could not be penetrated by any modern anti-ship missiles.

    And "Basalt" too? A heavy fool with a starting weight of 5 tons, with half a ton/ton of high-explosive cumulative explosives, and rushing at the speed of two Machs?
    Oh well.
    1. 0
      27 May 2018 14:13
      Do you think that the Iowa main caliber projectile weighing 1225 kg and an initial speed of 762 m/s had less penetrating power?
      The AP Mark 8 armor-piercing projectile penetrates up to 9 m of concrete structures during normal fall.
      When an HC Mark 13 high-explosive shell explodes, it creates a crater with a diameter of 15 m and a depth of 6 m. During the Vietnam War, the explosion of a high-explosive shell from the battleship New Jersey created a zone with a diameter of 180 m in the jungle for a helicopter to land. At the same time, leaves were knocked off trees at a distance of 450 m. An area with a diameter of 180 m is (for a minute) more than 2 football fields
      1. +1
        27 May 2018 15:37
        I think yes.
        Smaller. Even purely from banal kinetics (without taking into account the cumulative warhead of Basalt and its half-ton weight - versus ~70 kg for HC Mark 13 and ~18.5 for AP Mark 8). Mach 2 is, for a minute, at least 2450 km/h (compared with the pitiful 762 m/s - which is subsonic). And the weight of Basalt (even with, say, almost spent fuel) still exceeds 2 tons (plus, the rocket had its own serious armor - these are not the plastic hulls of current - and subsonic - Tomahawks). Again, we compare it with the 1225 kg weight of the Iowa main battery projectile. Hmm, and then there’s the loss with Basalt. So the simple kinetics of Basalt should already, if not penetrate, then stupidly break through Iowa’s armored belt (but we also have at least half a ton of high-explosive cumulative warhead here).
      2. 0
        28 May 2018 14:06
        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?

        Projectiles and missiles behave differently at the final stage of their trajectory. The speed of projectiles at the end drops to 300 m/s; modern missiles, on the contrary, have supersonic speed.
  33. +1
    26 May 2018 09:30
    Quote: kotdavin4i
    Americans are good managers, first of all, they sat down and considered what was profitable, what was not, and what could be left. We chose the optimal one and threw away the rest. By sinking an aircraft carrier with the name of the country, they showed that the result is important and not tradition. By removing several classes of ships, consolidating and rebuilding others, they achieved an optimal ratio of striking power to quantity. And there’s no point in shouting now that we were cutting up something new and good and they were junk; history itself has shown that the lack 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 what is still left in service should ensure combat readiness while new combat units are being built.


    Well, some reasonable thoughts were heard! What am I saying all the time? Right! Without a clear ideological platform it is impossible to make plans for the future! What are we going to build if we ourselves don’t really know what we’re living for?! Without a plan, how can you achieve your goals? This is harsh prose, or reality, if you like, of our life, scientifically confirmed by dialectics from philosophy, and proven historically using the example of the same USSR!
  34. 0
    26 May 2018 13:28
    We are waiting for a new article. About how planes were cut up in the 90s wink
    1. +2
      26 May 2018 15:09
      But they don’t have battleship armor!
      It’s unlikely that Oleg will be interested in this.
  35. +2
    27 May 2018 14:05
    Rust of memories...
    The Soviet fleet in 1991/92 was a colossus with feet of clay.
    I myself served on the Kirov and left it for the DMB in the fall of 1992.
    I won't say anything 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 officers said about our ship “There is no progress and there will not be” :( Well, I’m the only one who remembers about the accident of the power plant during the last combat service. One of the steam generators of the first circuit of the bow echelon leaked. There was no special radiation, they were decontaminated by ventilation into the atmosphere :) As they said, they took tests and used them to determine not only the steam generator but also the section in it :)
    Here they write about the fact that the TAVKRs were ruined by raid basing.
    Well, not only them. It’s no better at the pier :( The ship and its crew from the shore need fresh water, electricity and steam. Fresh water was given, electricity was a starvation ration, only for communications, lighting and the galley. As the guys I knew from BC7 said, what if we turn on at least one station then we’ll leave the whole ship without electricity. When we tried to light the boiler, the lights were turned off. Well, one of 4-5 had no steam at all!!! The idea of ​​launching a stern train was seriously discussed. Fortunately, it didn’t come to that. It was the winter of 1991/92, the berths of Severomorsk.
    These were the memories when we put on our second-term robishki and generally insulated ourselves in the cockpit. standing in an overcoat. One of our officers from KOS complained to me, an orderly, at night:
    “I made a mistake, I connected the heater to the wrong side. A warhead 5 cut it down at night.” If in 1917 officers put revolvers under their pillows, then we put lanterns under our pillows. .
    Somehow the wake-up call was organized in an original way. Nothing worked, not even calls. The ship's duty officer walked around the cockpits with a megaphone and commanded "Rise!!!" So in 1991, Kirov was almost unfit for combat.
    Last day on the ship, autumn 1992. The chief boatswain gives instructions to his soldiers: “We are mooring the heater. This is a barge, it has not been moored for 20 years.”
    Well, the chief boatswain got excited about the barge, the heater, some kind of hydrograph, came to us under its own power. The view is still the same. All the glass in the cabin was broken, only some fragments stick out here and there. The hull is stained with rust, but the ship HAS MOVEMENT!!! About the rest... In the winter of 1991/92, the BOD "Vice Admiral Drozd" caught fire at the pier.
    The ASG from all ships was driven towards it. Well, I've been there. Out of a crew of 800 souls, only 50 people remain, and they climb through the holds and make sure that the ship in the base does not sink. The galley doesn't work, they go to the neighbors with the tanks. Why are these ships kept?
    I answer. BOD - ship of rank 2. 3-4 such ships - a brigade. Who is the brigade commander? That's right, captain 1st rank!!! And with him is a headquarters with a bunch of flagship specialists, captains of the 2nd rank, and lieutenant colonels, according to Sabotov. I saw the headquarters... the booths were one thicker than the other. The ships are not going anywhere from the pier; nothing works for them. Pretend to be an IBD and you will have a caperang for demobilization :) Eh.. when you look at the berths of Severomorsk, your soul rejoices, the forest of masts.
    But from this forest “at least tomorrow” there are 2-3 destroyers, the same number of BODs and a “parquet cruiser”. "Kalinin", aka "Nakhimov", is questionable. After a month of intensive repairs - "Kalinin" most likely + 1-2 destroyers and BPKashki. The fleet actually stayed afloat only due to the introduction of new ships. We have TARKR for 10 years and “there is no progress and there will not be”, and they have a lousy frigate that has been running like crazy for 30 years. And this, I remind you, is 1991-1992, so don’t blame everything on the bear and the fight.
    The problems began much earlier, almost in the 70s. There are three reasons in my opinion.
    1. Industrial-military complex.
    Well, why is it more convenient to work with a shaggy 50 year old device, which is also outdated, than with a new one from the 70s??? 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 operation it requires four hands. And "FORT M" in Petka is generally sabotage, you should be imprisoned for this. I’m telling you this as an exploiter. There is an article nearby about the zoo from the PKR, read it and be horrified. 2. Basing, and not only raid.
    As I wrote, it’s not much better at the pier. Kuzi's longevity is explained by the fact that he stood at his native berth from the very beginning. Moreover, judging by the small note in the newspaper, he was immediately provided with normal electricity. And even now he is in a factory where he is given everything he is supposed to :) 3. Quality of personnel. A large percentage of conscripts are from Central Asia. They don’t understand Russian well, but here they are put to the test. They serve according to the principle up to 1.5, “don’t worry about your may”, and after 1.5, “it’s not supposed to!!!”
    1. 0
      31 May 2018 14:02
      Well, if there had been an accident at Kirov earlier, they would have put him on the move without any questions, but with perestroika he no longer had a chance.

      Regarding the Caperang and admiral positions, everything is correct, with one amendment, the sad experience of 1941 weighed on everyone and I wanted to have a lot of reserve, albeit limited in combat capability, but which could be deployed, hence the hundred cropped divisions and T-72s and much more. Understanding began to come by the 1980s, but here there was a catastrophe plus internal army politics - it’s easy to say, hundreds and thousands of generals were being sent into retirement, and then even more colonels and lieutenant colonels. The army headquarters consists of three generals and 236 officers (and mostly not below the underground level), even if it has two castrated divisions and a military combat unit under its command, so there are two more general positions and under one and a half thousand officers with warrant officers for about the same number of conscripts. And there were dozens of such armies in the country. There was so much equipment that even official guards had to be posted at warehouses and hangars because there were not enough conscripts. In Moscow, according to a certificate from the Ministry of Defense, at the time of 1991 there were 200 thousand officers (academy headquarters)
  36. 0
    27 May 2018 14:06
    The Americans have the right approach, you can only learn from it. They removed the “miscellaneous” from the fleet, which greatly facilitated the training of military personnel and logistical support. But in the Russian Federation, the experience of the Union has not taught us anything; they continue to sculpt small series of motley ships
  37. +1
    27 May 2018 16:42
    Quote: ArikKhab
    The Americans have the right approach, you can only learn from it. They removed the “miscellaneous” from the fleet, which greatly facilitated the training of military personnel and logistics. But in the Russian Federation, the experience of the Union has not taught us anything; they continue to sculpt small series of motley ships

    In vo. And as a result, at the exit we get “Rozhdestvensky’s squadron” in front of Tsushima. Moreover, in much worse technical readiness.

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

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