Seven best cold war missile cruisers

108
Seven best cold war missile cruisers


In the second half of the twentieth century, 180 independent states appeared on the world map, but from this wild variety of countries and peoples, only two superpowers - the Soviet Union and the United States - had a powerful ocean fleet. For example, no one, except us and the Americans, massively built missile cruisers. Four more European countries, in order to maintain the former status of the "naval powers", made efforts to create their own missile cruisers, but all their attempts ended with the construction of a single ship with predominantly American weapons and systems. “Ships of prestige”, nothing more.

The pioneers in the field of creating missile cruisers were the Americans - by the end of the 40-s their military industry created the first combat-ready air defense missiles, suitable for installation on the ship. In the future, the fate of the US Navy missile cruisers was determined solely by the escort functions of the aircraft carrier groupings; American cruisers never counted on a serious naval battle with surface ships.

But rocket cruisers were especially respected in our country: during the existence of the USSR, dozens of very different designs appeared on the expanses of the World Ocean: heavy and light, surface and underwater, with a conventional or nuclear powerplant, even anti-submarine cruisers and aircraft-carrier cruisers existed! It is no coincidence that missile cruisers have become the main strike force of the Soviet Navy.

In a general sense, the concept “Soviet missile cruiser” meant a large multi-purpose surface ship with a powerful anti-ship missile system.

History The seven best missile cruisers are just a brief excursion into the maritime history associated with the development of this unique class of warships. The author does not consider himself entitled to place any specific assessment and create a rating of the "best of the best." No, it will be just a story about the most prominent constructions of the Cold War era, with an indication of their well-known merits, shortcomings and interesting facts related to these death machines. However, the nature of the presentation of the material will help the reader to determine for himself who of this “magnificent seven” still deserves the highest pedestal.

Albany type missile cruisers

1944 / 1962 Full displacement 17 500 tons. Crew 1200 man.
Full stroke - 32 node. Navigation range - 9000 miles (on 15 knots.).
Armament:
- Long-range air defense system Talos (2 PU, missile 104 ammunition);
- Tartar short-range air defense system (2 PU, 84 ammunition, anti-aircraft missiles);
- ASROC anti-submarine missile system (24 rocket-torpedo ammunition);
- 8 intercontinental ballistic missiles "Polaris" (have not been installed);
- two universal guns caliber 127 mm.


Three American monsters, rebuilt from the heavy cruisers of World War II. After the first successful experiments with rocket weapons The US Navy decided on a global modernization of the Baltimore-type artillery cruisers — they dismantled all the weapons from the ships, cut off the superstructure and spoiled their guts. And now, through 4 of the year, an incredible “thug” with a tall superstructure and mast-pipes, covered with secret radio-electronic equipment, came out to sea. The fact that this ship was once a heavy artillery cruiser of the type "Baltimore" reminded only the shape of the nasal tip.

Despite its ugly appearance, the “Albanian series” of cruisers was a cool warship capable of providing high-quality air defense of aircraft carrier formations in the near zone (by the standards of those years) - Talos air defense range was more than 100 km, and two hundred missiles on board allowed long time to fight off aviation the adversary.

Advantages:
- 15-centimeter armor belt, inherited from the heavy cruiser "Baltimore",
- 8 radar fire control,
- high radar installation height,

Disadvantages:
- lack of strike weapons,
- aluminum alloy superstructures,
- archaic, in general, construction.


Heavy artillery cruiser type "Baltimore" - this is how the "Albanian cruisers" looked like before the modernization



Belknap-type missile cruisers

1964 d. Total displacement 8 000 tons. Crew 380 man.
Full stroke - 32 node. Navigation range - 7000 miles (on 20 knots.).
Armament:
- universal launcher Mk.10 (80 anti-aircraft and anti-submarine missiles);
- Automated artillery installation Mk.42 127 caliber mm;
- 3 unmanned anti-submarine helicopter DASH (later replaced with the usual SH-2 "Sea Sprite" helicopter);
- two auxiliary guns of caliber 76 mm (later replaced with anti-aircraft guns "Falanx");
- 8 anti-ship “Harpoon” missiles (added after upgrading at the beginning of 1980's).


A series of 9 light escort cruisers, on which great hopes were pinned - already at birth, the Belknap-type cruisers received a versatile naval weapon complex, including the original computerized CICS, unmanned helicopters and the new AN / SQS-26 remote-powered sonar station as if capable hear the screws of the Soviet boats for tens of miles from the ship.

In some ways, the ship justified itself, in some it was not, for example, the bold design of an unmanned DASH helicopter was of little use for real use in the open sea - the control systems were too imperfect. I had to expand the hangar and the helipad under the base of a full-fledged anti-submarine helicopter.
It is noteworthy that after a short disappearance, the guns of caliber 127 mm returned to the ship - the American sailors did not dare to completely abandon the artillery.

In 60 ... 70-ies of this type of cruiser regularly patrolled off the coast of Vietnam, firing North Vietnamese MiGs with anti-aircraft missiles, who carelessly flew into the cruiser strike zone. But the Belknap was famous for not military feats - in 1975, the lead ship of this type was crushed in the Mediterranean by the aircraft carrier John Kennedy.

Cruiser cost him a navigational mistake - the flight deck of the aircraft carrier literally “cut off” all the superstructures, and a kerosene rainstorm from the broken aircraft main lines crashed down onto the wrecked remains of the ship. The ensuing eight-hour fire completely destroyed the cruiser. The restoration of the Belknap was a purely political decision, otherwise the so stupid death of the ship could undermine the prestige of the US Navy.

Advantages of Belknap:
- computerized combat information management system NTDS;
- the presence on board the helicopter;
- small size and cost.

Disadvantages:
- the only launcher, the failure of which left the ship essentially unarmed;
- flammable aluminum superstructures;
- the absence of strike weapons (which, however, is dictated by the appointment of a cruiser).


Burnt "Belknap"


58 missile cruisers (cipher “Grozny”)

1962 d. Total displacement 5 500 tons. Crew 340 man.
Full stroke - 34 node. Navigation range - 3500 miles (on 18 knots.).
Armament:
- anti-ship complex П-35 (2 PU, ammunition 16 RCC);
- M-1 “Wave” short-range air defense system (16 anti-aircraft missiles);
- two automatic twin guns caliber 76 mm;
- 6 torpedoes caliber 533 mm;
- 2 x 12 rocket launchers RBU-6000;
- Helipad


Nikita Khrushchev's favorite ship. Small Soviet cruiser with a tremendous shock power for its size. The world's first warship equipped with anti-ship missiles.
Even with the naked eye it is noticeable how much the baby was overloaded with weapons - according to the plans of those years, the “Terrible” was almost alone to keep the watch in distant latitudes of the World Ocean. Who knows what tasks may arise before the Soviet cruiser - "Grozny" should be ready for anything!

As a result, a universal weapon complex appeared on board the ship, capable of fighting any air, surface and underwater targets. Very high speed - 34 node (more than 60 km / h), universal artillery, equipment for receiving a helicopter ...
But he was especially impressed by the P-35 anti-ship complex - eight four-ton blanks that could at any moment break from the guides and descend beyond the horizon at supersonic speeds (firing range - up to 250 km).

Despite doubts about the capabilities of long-range targeting for the P-35, powerful electronic countermeasures and anti-aircraft fire from American AUGs, the cruiser posed a deadly threat to any enemy squadron - one of the four missiles of each launcher was with a megaton surprise.

Advantages:
- exceptionally high saturation with fire agents;
- great design.

Disadvantages:
Most of the shortcomings of the “Terrible” were somehow connected with the desire of the designers to place a maximum of weapons and systems in the limited body of the destroyer.
- short cruising range;
- weak air defense;
- imperfect weapon control systems;
- fire hazardous design: aluminum superstructure and synthetic interior finish.

Sea power of the USSR




Long Beach Missile Cruiser

1961 d. Total displacement 17 000 tons. Crew 1160 man.
Full stroke - 30 nodes. Sailing Range - 360 000 miles.
Armament:
- Terrier medium-range air defense system (2 PU, 102 missile ammunition)
- Talos long-range air defense system (1 PU, 52 missile ammunition)
- ASROS anti-submarine missile system (24 rocket-torpedo ammunition)
- two universal guns caliber 127 mm;
- two anti-aircraft guns "Falanx", 8 PKR "Harpoon", 8 KR "Tomahawk" (upgraded at the beginning of 1980-х).


The first nuclear-powered cruiser in the world is undoubtedly worthy of the list of the best ships of the twentieth century. Concurrently, Long Beach became the world's first specialized-class missile cruiser - all previous designs (missile cruisers of the Boston type, etc.) were merely an improvisation based on World War II artillery cruisers.

The ship turned out gorgeous. Three rocket systems for various purposes. The unusual “box-like” shape of the main superstructure, dictated by the installation of the SCANFAR phased radar, is also a unique radio engineering system of its time. Finally, the nuclear heart of the cruiser, which allowed us to accompany the atomic carrier aircraft carrier Enterprise everywhere, and this miracle was created to interact with.

However, for all this, an incredible price was paid - 330 million dollars (about 5 billion at the current rate!), Moreover, the imperfection of nuclear technologies did not allow creating a compact YAU of necessary power in 50-s - the cruiser rapidly “grew” in size, reaching finally 17 thousand tons. Too much for escort ship!
In addition, it turned out that Long Beach is not able to realize its advantage in practice. Firstly, the ship’s autonomy is limited not only by fuel supplies. Secondly, in the retinue of an aircraft carrier there were many ships with conventional propulsion systems, which made it difficult for the atomic cruiser to move fast.

Long Beach honestly served for 33 years. During this time, he left a million nautical miles behind the stern, while managing to fight in Vietnam and Iraq. Due to its exceptional complexity and cost, he remained a lone “white elephant” fleet, however, had a significant impact on the development of world shipbuilding (including the birth of our next "hero").

Advantages of "Long Beach":
- unlimited autonomy for fuel reserves;
- radar with PAR;
- versatility.

Disadvantages:
- monstrous cost;
- less durability compared to conventional cruisers.


Heavy nuclear missile cruiser 1144.2 Ave. (Orlan code)

1998 d. Total displacement 26 000 tons. Crew 635 man.
Full stroke - 32 node. Navigation range - not limited to fuel reserves.
Armament:
- anti-ship complex "Granit" (20 PU, ammunition 20 missiles);
- Long-range air defense system C-300F “Fort” (6 PU, 48 missile ammunition);
- Long-range air defense system C-300FM "Fort-M" (6 PU, ammunition 46 missiles);
- Short-range air defense system "Dagger" (12 PU, 128 missile ammunition);
- anti-submarine complex "Waterfall" (ammunition 20 rocket-torpedo);
- one twin automated gun mount caliber 130 mm;
- 6 anti-aircraft missile and artillery complexes "Dirk";
- three jet bomb;
- three helicopters.


For comparison, the Peter the Great TAVKR was chosen - the last and most accomplished of the Orlan heavy-duty nuclear-powered missile cruisers. The real Imperial cruiser with a tremendous range of weapons - on board it collected the whole range of systems in service with the Russian Navy.

Theoretically, in a one-on-one battle, the Orlan has no equal among all the ships of the world - a huge ocean killer can deal with any adversary. In practice, the situation looks much more interesting - the enemy, against whom the Eagles were created, does not go alone. What does the Orlan expect in a real battle with an aircraft carrier and its escort of five missile cruisers? Glorious Gangut, Chesma or terrible Tsushima mayhem? No one knows the answer to this question.

The appearance of the first "Orlan" in 1980, the whole world stirred up a lot - in addition to cyclopean sizes and heroic statues, the Soviet heavy cruiser became the first warship in the world with underdeck vertical launch systems. A lot of fear caused the anti-aircraft complex C-300F - nothing like this at that time simply did not exist in any country of the world.

In fact, the first ship with the established C-300F experimental complex was BOD Azov. In addition, the C-300F guides are installed not quite vertically, but at an angle 5 ° to the normal in order to avoid a missile falling onto the deck in the event of a failure of the starting engine.

As in the case of the American "Long Beach", when discussing the "Orlan" often sounds the opinion of the adequacy of the creation of such a miracle. Firstly, nuclear submarine missiles of the 949A project look more attractive for the destruction of AUG. The submarine’s subtlety and security are an order of magnitude greater, the cost is less, with the 949A volley-24 of the Granit rocket.

Secondly, 26 thous. Tonnes of displacement is a direct consequence of the presence of nuclear reactors, which do not provide any real advantages, only in vain occupying space, complicating maintenance and worsening the survivability of a ship in battle. It can be assumed that without YASU, the Orlan’s displacement would have decreased by half.
By the way, a paradoxical coincidence, the bald eagle is the national emblem of the USA!



Tikonderoga type missile cruiser

1986 d. Total displacement 10 000 tons. Crew 390 man.
Full stroke - 32 node. Navigation range - 6000 (on 20 knots.).
Armament:
- 122 vertical launchers Mk.41 (launch of virtually all types of missiles in service with the US Navy, with the exception of submarine-based ballistic missiles);
- 8 anti-ship harpoon missiles;
- two lightweight universal artillery systems Mk.45 caliber 127 mm;
- six anti-submarine torpedoes caliber 324 mm;
- two anti-aircraft guns "Falanx";
- two automatic guns "Bushmaster" caliber 25 mm.


“Stand by admiral Gorshkov:“ Aegis ”- at sea!” - “Beware of admiral Gorshkov: Aegis - at sea!” - the first Ticonderoga, an unsightly ship outside, with the most up-to-date electronic content, went to sea with this message.
For comparison, the CG-52 cruiser “Bunker Hill” was chosen - the lead ship of the second series “Tikonderog”, equipped with the Mk.41 air defense system.

A thoroughly thought-out modern ship with unique fire control systems. The cruiser is still focused on providing airborne and anti-submarine defense of aircraft carrier connections, but can independently deliver massive strikes on the coast with the help of Tomahawk cruise missiles, the number of which on board can reach hundreds of units.

The highlight of the cruiser is the combat information control system Aegis. Coupled with the stationary phased panels of the AN / SPY-1 and 4 radar fire control radars, the ship’s computers can simultaneously track airborne, surface, and underwater targets to 1000, while conducting their automatic selection and, if necessary, attacking 18 of the most dangerous objects. At the same time, the energy capabilities of AN / SPY-1 are such that the cruiser is able to detect and attack even fast-moving point targets in low-Earth orbit.

Advantages of "Ticonderoga":
- unprecedented versatility at minimum cost;
- huge shock power;
- the ability to solve missile defense tasks and destroy satellites in low orbits;

Disadvantages of Ticonderoga:
- limited size, and, as a consequence, the dangerous congestion of the ship;
- widespread use of aluminum in the design of the cruiser.



Missile Cruiser pr. 1164 (code "Atlant")

1983 d. Total displacement 11 500 tons. Crew 510 man.
Full stroke - 32 node. Navigation range - 6000 (on 18 knots.).
Armament:
- anti-ship missile system П-1000 "Vulkan" (8 twin PU, ammunition 16 missiles);
- Anti-aircraft missile complex S-300F "Fort" (8 drum PU, ammunition 64 missiles);
- two Osa-MA short-range anti-aircraft missile systems (2 beam launchers, 40 ammunition);
- anti-submarine complex "Waterfall" (ammunition 10 rocket-torpedo);
- one twin automated gun mount caliber 130 mm;
- three batteries of automatic anti-aircraft guns AK-630 (total 6 guns + 3 radar fire control);
- two jet bomb;
- anti-submarine helicopter and hangar for long-term storage.


When the 2,25 has a smaller displacement times than the huge atomic Orlan, the cruiser Atlant retains the 80% of its strike power and up to the 65% of its anti-aircraft weapons. In other words, instead of building one Orlan supercar, you can build two Atlants!
Two Atlantic missile cruisers, by the way, are 32 supersonic anti-aircraft missiles "Vulkan" and 128 anti-aircraft missiles C-300F. As well as 2 helicopter pads, X-NUMX AK-2 artillery mounts, two Fregat radars and two hydroacoustic stations. And this is all instead of one "Orlan"! Those. This suggests an obvious conclusion - the missile cruiser of the 130 Ave is the very “golden mean” between the size, cost, and combat capabilities of the ship.

Even despite the general moral and physical obsolescence of these cruisers, their potential is so high that it allows the Atlants to act on equal terms with the most modern foreign missile cruisers and destroyers of URO.
For example, the unparalleled C-300F complex - even the modern US Navy anti-aircraft missiles, due to the limited size of standard MK.41 ATC cells, are inferior in terms of energy characteristics to the Fort missiles (to put it simply - they are twice as light and twice as slow).

Well, it remains to wish that the legendary "grin of socialism" modernized as often as possible and remain in the military service as long as possible.

The merits of "Atlanta":
- balanced design;
- excellent seaworthiness;
- missile complex C-300F and P-1000.

Disadvantages:
- the only radar control the shooting of the complex C-300F;
- the lack of modern self-defense systems;
- overly complex design of gas turbines.




Maltese Sunset, November 1989. The Slava cruiser is visible, in the foreground is the bow end of the Belknap cruiser.
Our news channels

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

108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    23 January 2013 09: 02
    Something somehow more fun with the Americans! what are our plans for the remaining Eagles, who is in the know?
    1. +25
      23 January 2013 11: 35
      For fun, I must say a special thank you to Gorbachev and Yeltsin thanks to these ghouls and their entourage, we now have what has us.
      But in fact, that the Eagles, that Atlantes are more interesting than their overseas opponents, one misfortune is not enough.
      Of the three Orlans who were preserving, most likely only Admiral Nakhimov will see the sea, Lazarev has less chance .. and Ushakov seems to be letting go of the needles, but it’s a pity the stern demotivators for the NATO admirals.
      1. +13
        23 January 2013 11: 50
        Quote: Sakhalininets
        For fun, I must say a special thank you to Gorbachev and Yeltsin thanks to these ghouls and their entourage, we now have what has us.


        In the 90-ies, the Americans, by mutual agreement, cut about 300 of their combat coral (including 7 aircraft carriers, 9 nuclear cruisers, 41 strategic submarine missile carrier, 60 multipurpose nuclear submarines).

        In our country, in the 90 years, approximately the same number of obsolete naval ships were decommissioned (with rare exceptions), instead of which they built an atomic cruiser, 6 nuclear submarines, a new BOD and 2 destroyer. + 5 nuclear submarines were laid, of which 2012 was completed by 2.

        The fact that nothing has been built lately, except for corvettes and small artillery ships, has nothing to do with the 90 years.
        1. +11
          23 January 2013 11: 57
          The Americans cut technically and morally obsolete trash, not able to conduct hostilities, because new weapons appeared. And built more modern and promising ships.
          And we stupidly cut. And that’s all.
          1. +12
            23 January 2013 12: 19
            Quote: Wedmak
            Americans cut technically and morally obsolete trash, unable to conduct hostilities

            Virginia-type nuclear missile cruisers: the oldest is 19 years old, the youngest is 15 years old.
            "Incapable of fighting" laughing 1991, Virginia shells Iraq with tomahawks:

            Quote: Wedmak
            morally obsolete trash that is not capable of warfare

            Nuclear submarine Los Angeles - 17 units decommissioned. At the time when the Losi was decommissioned, boats of this type continued to be built for the Navy! (the last "Los Angeles" was commissioned in 1996)!
            "Elk" is not a simple boat, it has set world standards.

            35 destroyers of the "Spruance" and "Kidd" class - at the beginning of the 90s the best destroyers in the world. All ships were no more than 15 years old (for comparison - now the age of the "Moscow" GRKR is 30 years old)

            URO frigate "Oliver H. Perry" - 90 units were decommissioned in the 15s. Now, 20 years later, the US Navy has 26 ships of this type.

            Quote: Wedmak
            And we stupidly cut. And that’s all.

            And what did we cut so valuable?
            1. +2
              23 January 2013 12: 38
              And what did we cut so valuable?

              Many things. But I will not believe in life that the Americans live well, write off and cut the best destroyers in the world. So there was some kind of jamb there.
              1. Avenger711
                -5
                23 January 2013 13: 06
                International treaties, and kickbacks in the military-industrial complex.
                1. +3
                  23 January 2013 13: 09
                  International treaties

                  Bullshit ... we saw these treaties: the Americans put in storage, we cut without the possibility of recovery ...
                  and kickbacks in the military-industrial complex

                  Here I agree, the American sawflies will be more numerous than ours.
                  1. +5
                    23 January 2013 13: 36
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    Here I agree, the American sawflies will be more numerous than ours.

                    Only fans of "American cuts" kakbe do not notice that the US Navy has a new ship every year. Therefore, it is difficult to accuse congressmen of cutting.

                    Quote: Wedmak
                    Americans put in storage, we cut without the possibility of recovery ...

                    Long Beach in "storage" laughing 14 March 2010 Brementon
                    In my opinion, this process is called "disposal"


                    And this is the aircraft carrier "America" ​​(CV-66) and the place of its "storage"

                    1. 0
                      23 January 2013 13: 42
                      I am not a fan of cuts, in any case. The US has a very strong debt-based economy. So for now, yes, they are thriving. But the first problems have already begun.
                      Long Beach in "storage"

                      I meant not only ships. Indeed, what they do not need or out of date they cut or sell profitably. Here you can’t refuse logic.
                      1. Quiet
                        0
                        24 January 2013 18: 32
                        And to whom are they selling ?? The Chinese have not heard such ships ....
              2. Not horde
                0
                23 January 2013 13: 34
                Spruyens (and Kidds, respectively) were cut due to the absence of Aegis, if not mistaken.
            2. Not horde
              0
              23 January 2013 13: 11
              If I'm not mistaken, "Spruyens" (and Kidds, respectively) were cut because of Aegis, or rather, because of his absence on this project.
              1. +3
                23 January 2013 13: 55
                Quote: Not HORDE
                If I'm not mistaken, "Spruyens" (and Kidds, respectively) were cut because of Aegis, or rather, because of his absence on this project.

                They were cut, because there were too many of them all.

                The Cold War is over - amers dismantled 300 ships, leaving only the most combat-ready (Aegis cruisers, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the most recent submarines Improved LA and Ohio)


                Although, I repeat, the utilized ships were not bad at all - the modern Russian Navy would consider it a good fortune to have at least a couple of Sprouts
                1. 0
                  23 January 2013 14: 14
                  the modern Russian Navy would consider it an occasion to have at least a couple of Sprouts

                  Naf, naf are such presents.
                  1. +1
                    23 January 2013 14: 28
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    Naf, naf are such presents.

                    What do you dislike about Sprouts?

                    In - and - 9000 tons
                    The move is 32 knots, fuel autonomy is 6000 miles (at 20 knots), in other words, enough from Murmansk to New York and vice versa.

                    Armament:
                    - 61 UVP, standard BC: 45 Tomahawks and 16 ASROK-VL
                    - 8 Garpunov
                    - Si Sparrow air defense system (8 + 16 in the cellar)
                    - SAM RIM-116 (21 melee missile)
                    - 2 x 127 mm guns
                    - 2 Phalanx
                    - 2 helicopter

                    1. +1
                      23 January 2013 14: 31
                      And this is the destroyer "Hayler" being sent to "storage" wink
                    2. 0
                      23 January 2013 14: 49
                      His armament. We have no tomahawks and other phalanxes.
                  2. ansimov
                    0
                    26 January 2013 20: 10
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    Naf, naf are such presents.

                    We must do it ourselves, not take amers
                2. Not horde
                  0
                  23 January 2013 16: 37
                  The ships are really not bad, but for some reason they created the Berks and replaced the Spruenzians.
            3. fokino1980
              +9
              23 January 2013 21: 36
              Climb into a search engine, type in and you will be seriously upset. I did it once, I can't do it anymore. In fact, the Russian Navy has been destroyed. I gave the Navy 22 years of my life and for me this is a very sore point. When I was a sailor at KTOF, we drove the Americans around the Pacific and Indian Oceans, became a lieutenant the same thing, quit on the occasion of the elimination of nuclear submarines, there was nothing to even expel from our own territorial waters. This is the kind of damage caused by the "peddlers" of democracy with our fifth column.
            4. Misantrop
              +5
              23 January 2013 22: 37
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              "Elk" is not a simple boat, it has set world standards.

              What the fuck are the standards? Three (!) Compartments, i.e. any hole is absolutely fatal to the submarine. The fan-shaped arrangement of the TA, in which the submarine is capable of using weapons only at a minimum speed (otherwise it will break the torpedo with an oncoming stream). The steel of a solid body with a bunch of microcracks, the oozing of water from which is considered the norm. A very short service life, after which the nuclear submarine must be disposed of, because it cannot be repaired. Tin-house, crumpled to one side in case of even a slight collision. Disgusting living conditions for personnel, where the sailor does not even have his own bed. Etc. Fucking standard "one-time" weapon, sort of a diaper wassat

              And yet, the author's strange idea. about "without the AEU, the cruiser would be half the size." With what joy? Nuclear plants are VERY compact with very impressive power
              1. -3
                24 January 2013 00: 23
                Quote: Misantrop
                What the fuck are the standards?

                - low level of internal noise (the most secretive nuclear submarine in the world);
                - reliability - in the entire history of the operation of the Losyi there was not a single accident with the reactor core;
                - spherical ASE in the bow.
                - An amazing variety of weapons and special equipment.
                Quote: Misantrop
                Fan TA

                And also 12 launch pits for Tomahawks
                Quote: Misantrop
                A very short period of operation, after which the submarine should be disposed of, because it cannot be repaired.

                originally - 30 years
                in perspective - up to 40 years
                Quote: Misantrop
                Nuclear plants are VERY compact with very impressive power

                Lies insolent, I don’t even want to comment
                1. Misantrop
                  +4
                  24 January 2013 01: 49
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  low level of own noise (the most secretive nuclear submarine in the world);

                  Yes, really?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Lies insolent, I don’t even want to comment
                  If comments like those above, then in fact, do not laughing
                2. +2
                  25 January 2013 07: 27
                  About the noise ... again showed incompetence .......... let it be known that the SSBN "Ohio" is much less noisy than the "Elk" .... or argue ????
            5. +4
              25 January 2013 07: 23
              You, my friend, did not carry batteries at night with the whole crew from one side to another ..... to go to sea ........ and we had 224 things, and the weight of each, do not lie, probably 400 kg ....... and this on new nuclear submarines like "Shark" or "Barsy" 971U pr. in the 90s ........
              And there was no need to cut, there was no stupid money for elementary inter-passage, etc. repairs ...... the ships themselves rotted at the piers ............... theorist, I look noble .... but as a practitioner ........ .......... to manipulate numbers is one thing. only in life is everything different ....................
          2. +4
            23 January 2013 17: 01
            Exactly they CUT AND BUILD !!, and we ONLY CUT !!! that’s the difference !!!!!!!!!!
            1. -3
              24 January 2013 00: 26
              Quote: altman
              and we ONLY CUT !!! that’s the difference !!!!!!!!!!

              And they built: in the 90s, the Russian Navy received a solid set of ships: 6 nuclear submarines, a heavy super-cruiser, a BOD, and 2 destroyers. This is not counting diesel-electric submarines and auxiliary ships. Back in the "dashing 90s", 8 nuclear submarines were laid down (to date, 2 have been completed).
              1. lucidlook
                +2
                24 January 2013 03: 32
                6 built? And how many were cut? 191? And how many were cut in the USA at the same time? 90? How much did they build?
              2. +1
                24 January 2013 08: 21
                Do you think everyone is close-minded? Who are you reassuring or in whose honor you are praising? For you, the destruction of the fleet was in your health - the humpbacked borealis deceived the stupid Americans and got rid of the trash, and at that time they built masterpieces.
          3. +3
            24 January 2013 11: 40
            Not only cut. A vivid example - Battleships of the "Iowa" type built in the 40s underwent a global modernization and went into reserve and are carefully stored in fresh water bodies, where they do not care about time. But our Atomic Giants of Project 1144, built in the 80s, are rotting at the quays in anticipation of a decision from above ...
            1. -1
              24 January 2013 14: 46
              Quote: killganoff
              Battleships of the "Iowa" type built in the 40s underwent a global modernization

              global - loudly said
              modernization was xnumx years ago
              Quote: killganoff
              and carefully stored in fresh water

              Namely, in Pearl Harbor Harbor, in Norfolk Harbor and at the pier in Los Angeles
              The only one standing in fresh water is the battleship New Jersey, Delaware River, on the embankment between Camden and Philadelphia.
        2. 0
          29 January 2013 10: 58
          Ltd!!! There is a smart thought. Ours began to build the fleet from the right start. Why bump into a newly built destroyer if the weapon is still raw for it, etc. The main thing today is to wait for this pause in the "cold war" and then build point weapons. Ours were able to learn this rule of "war", developments are underway, but the best candidate will be put into service. It’s easy to put “Caliber-NK” on the Kirovs. In fact, rockets and their mines (USK) are only a delivery vehicle, and the aiming is already coming from satellites today. It is necessary to learn (again) to direct the missiles exactly where it is necessary, for example, the P-700 (my favorite), with the proper control center such a "bird" will pass under the ABM AUGs. "Falax" will not save from anti-ship missiles flying at sea levels, SM-3 is already sharpened for missile defense.
      2. fokino1980
        +4
        23 January 2013 21: 29
        In principle, the "Eagles" can have a serious modernization, so it will be a pity for "Lazarev" request
      3. 120352
        0
        24 January 2014 21: 03
        Sakhalininsk
        And what did you, dear, forget to mention the "effective manager" Serdyukov? He not only caused damage to the army, aviation and navy, more abruptly than Hitler, he also deprived our Armed Forces of personnel. Military schools did not recruit cadets for 5-7 years! This means that we do not have a teaching staff and there are no officers who were appointed after graduating from military universities, before they were actually closed, in the positions of sergeants (foremen), and earlier these positions were, as a rule, captains and majors.
    2. vyatom
      +3
      23 January 2013 12: 54
      Our cruisers are graceful and formidable handsome men.
      Amerikosy - some terrible freaks.
      1. +4
        23 January 2013 13: 57
        Quote: vyatom
        Amerikosy - some terrible freaks.

        There's a "harsh calculation of nuts and steel"

        not too beautiful lines - the result of ultimate standardization and experience in repairing combat damage to ships, modular design

        Yankee ships are not designed for parades - all of the listed US Navy cruisers have combat experience
        1. 5aa1
          +2
          23 January 2013 17: 46
          Trailer,
          what are our plans for the remaining Eagles, who is in the know?

          welcome! this is what the all-seeing Wikipedia tells us:
          According to RIA Novosti, a senior representative of the main headquarters of the Russian Navy: "All the nuclear-powered missile cruisers of the project 1144 that are in reserve will be returned to the combat structure of the Russian Navy by 2020."
          The work will be carried out for the next five years. Then the ship will go to the Northern Fleet in pair with the cruiser of the same project "Peter the Great". Now work is underway to determine the parameters of the renewal of power plants, radio equipment and weapons. The choice is made towards increasing the combat power of the ship
          1. Windbreak
            0
            24 January 2013 11: 21
            Quote: 5aa1
            According to RIA Novosti, a senior representative of the main headquarters of the Russian Navy
            In the style of Izvestia
        2. Diesel
          0
          23 January 2013 20: 52
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          all of the listed US Navy cruisers have combat experience


          Yeah, shoot at 60 for years with 75 and with 200 for 1500 km from the target and knock down, without even seeing if the target hit or not, I’ll tell you an awesome experience ....
          1. -3
            24 January 2013 00: 37
            Quote: Diesel
            Yeah, shoot at 60 for years with 75 and with 200 for 1500 km from the target and knock down, without even seeing if the target hit or not, I’ll tell you an awesome experience ....


            Albany, Long Beach, Belknap - combat duty off the coast of Vietnam, providing air defense of ships from attacks by Vietnamese aircraft. And, it is worth confessing, not unsuccessfully (silhouettes of downed MiGs):


            Ticonderoga: missile attacks on Iraq (twice), Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya - only about 1000 issued Tomahawk cruise missiles. As well as providing air defense in all these operations.
            Also on the account of Ticonderoga are the sunken Libyan small missile ship Ein Zaquit.
            1. +5
              24 January 2013 08: 23
              I had the opinion that from the praise of the Americans you get an orgasm or an increased salary ....
        3. +2
          23 January 2013 20: 58
          An interesting tablet came across. To early questions.
          1. +1
            24 January 2013 00: 40
            Power requirements also increased.
            By the way, ceteris paribus, the power of the power plant increases to a cubic degree from an increase in the speed of the ship.
            + completely different fuel autonomy standards

            In any case, we have before our eyes 14-thousand. ton Zwolt. Although, it would seem ... even the crew of all 140 people. And there are fewer missiles, and the latest technology.
            1. +2
              24 January 2013 01: 24
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Power requirements also increased

              No, it's me to our Queen Elizabeth 2012

              Based on this plate, you didn’t even get anywhere close. I don’t remember about 500 tons of fuel instead of cash 2500.
      2. lucidlook
        0
        25 January 2013 03: 06
        And you won’t say that ... although, of course, these are not Yankees, but nonetheless NATO.



        Portland and Chabanenko
    3. +2
      23 January 2013 22: 51
      They said that already Nakhimov began repairing in 2012, they want to return everything to the system.
    4. 0
      24 January 2013 11: 35
      Of the decaying three buildings "Ushakov", "Lazarev" and "Nakhimov" it is possible that only the last one will be brought back to life, and I doubt it. Now there is more window dressing and empty promises.
      The former "Kirov" is all rusted and dies at the pier in Severodvinsk, the former "Kalinin" is awaiting proper repairs there, and the one bearing the name "Frunze" resembles the state of "Kirov". Well, about "Peter the Great" and so everyone knows everything.
  2. +1
    23 January 2013 09: 09
    One person with whom I happened to cross, looking at how the sailors painted the upper deck of a military "steamer" with red red lead, remarked with malice that in our Navy this was probably done to make it easier for NATO pilots to approach the target (such a red spot on a gray background of water, just a feast for the eyes!). The memory is inspired by the photographs of our cruisers in this article ....
    1. +9
      23 January 2013 09: 42
      Well, I don’t think it has any significance in the current conditions. You don’t think that they, like in WWII, will drop bombs with a dive? Now the war is at sea, this is the war of anti-ship missiles and torpedoes. So at least paint the entire ship in red, this will not affect the combat effectiveness.
      1. +7
        23 January 2013 09: 57
        Ships are really hard to disguise. But there are options that at first glance seem absurd.
        Blinding disguise, visual illusion techniques, etc.

        When you look, the contours of the ship are blurred, broken, hidden. For optical guidance, sheer hell.
      2. +1
        23 January 2013 10: 19
        Orty
        Naturally, I don’t think so. But for some reason, ships are painted with ball paint (those who don’t know, gray), and not orange. wink
        1. +1
          23 January 2013 10: 41
          Well, it’s rather a tribute to tradition, and just in case, in fact, what color do they still have to be painted?
          1. +1
            23 January 2013 10: 55
            ___________
            1. 0
              23 January 2013 13: 00
              So this is a watchman, rubs near the coast, hence the color. For the Yankees, the coast guard ships in general are red and white and we are kind of white and blue. Here, after all, ships of the sea and ocean zones are more discussed.
    2. +8
      23 January 2013 11: 40
      Quote: Greyfox
      with malice, he noted that this is probably done in our Navy so that it would be more convenient for NATO pilots to approach the target (such a red spot on a gray background of water is just a sight for sore eyes!)


      One of the main unmasking factors is the wake, which is visible even from near-earth orbit. Even worse, the wake and "standing wave" persist for a long time after the passage of the vessel. The harmful phenomenon depends on many factors: the speed, the draft of the ship, its contours, the presence of currents in this area and developed navigation (other ships "trample" each other's tracks). For example, the wake of the Orlan in full swing is visible for more than a day.

    3. +1
      23 January 2013 12: 03
      Most likely this is Surik - a protective paint, another will be painted on top!
    4. fokino1980
      +1
      23 January 2013 21: 46
      Painfully "competent" one person and at the same time misleads you.
    5. Misantrop
      +2
      23 January 2013 22: 44
      Quote: Greyfox
      sailors paint red upper red deck

      The best way so far (and not expensive) to prevent corrosion. Groundhog is not paint, but a primer. So the sailors are good fellows, but you can’t say the same about the supplymen (not so much paint is needed to be painted over the primer)
    6. 0
      24 January 2013 13: 58
      to make NATO pilots more comfortable

      minium is a persistent paint in salt water conditions.
  3. +1
    23 January 2013 09: 10
    a good article, and ships are handsome! There would be more such articles, otherwise they mostly compare tanks and planes!
  4. +1
    23 January 2013 09: 31
    Compared to "Orlan" the Yankees are full of e. Plans.
  5. Avenger711
    +1
    23 January 2013 09: 45
    "Orlan" is just logical. Even if the aircraft carrier is unable to hit, an anti-aircraft missile umbrella is constantly deployed over its formation. In general, a beautiful ship.

    As for the Ticonderoga, I see no point in this floating arsenal, the Tomahawk is worth 2 lemma. An artillery high-explosive projectile of even a very large caliber half-piece. Isn't it easier, instead of providing a monstrous firing range with cruise missiles, first to crush all dangerous targets on the shore, and then calmly shoot at 30-40 km from 155-305 mm cannons? In general, a cruise missile has only one plus, it can be placed on a small ship, but if there is already an aircraft carrier, then planes will do the job cheaper.
    1. +1
      23 January 2013 12: 11
      Ticonderoga as an air defense ship accompanied by an aircraft carrier is very logical. He is quite capable of shooting down anti-ship missiles aimed at grouping ships.
    2. +1
      23 January 2013 18: 26
      Quote: Avenger711
      "Orlan" is just logical. Even if the aircraft carrier is unable to hit, an anti-aircraft missile umbrella is constantly deployed over its formation. In general, a beautiful ship.


      I like it too, it would be well modernized, a new weapon, a radar and a BIUS, there will be power ... At the expense of logic - the article seems to quite clearly describe that Atlant will be more logical. For the same money that you can build 1 eagle build 2 Atlanta, firepower will be one and a half times more than that of Orlan.

      As for the Ticonderoga, you are very deeply mistaken. As for the Tomahawks, when the enemy has live air defense and the fleet, it is very tempting to launch hundreds of missile defense systems on it, which will hit infrastructure, air defense, airfields, etc. It is unlikely that any country has a modern and so dense air defenses that they could destroy all missiles. And airplanes, which are ten times smaller, will obviously be easier to attack.
      1. Avenger711
        -2
        24 January 2013 18: 46
        To shoot down an artillery shell is even harder; in fact, back in the 91st battleships proved to be a cheaper means of shelling coastal areas.
        1. 0
          25 January 2013 22: 53
          Read my post carefully, tomahawks can be fired without entering the zone of destruction of enemy means, but how deep can you get an artillery shell? The fact of the matter is that it is only for shelling coastal areas.
  6. SPIRITofFREEDOM
    0
    23 January 2013 09: 59
    When THEY saw their ships so that the forces were equal? angry
    1. +2
      23 January 2013 11: 56
      Quote: SPIRITofFREEDOM
      When THEY saw their ships so that the forces were equal?


      The Russian Navy gave head start in the 90 years. At that time, Amer wrote off about 300 of their battle coral (including 7 aircraft carriers, 9 nuclear cruisers, 41 strategic underwater missile carrier, 60 multipurpose nuclear submarines)
  7. +2
    23 January 2013 10: 19
    Yeah, inscrutable ways of design thinking.
    And behind the threat of nuclear war. On the way out --- nothing is pleasant.
    1. +1
      23 January 2013 11: 23
      Quote: Kars
      At the end --- nothing is pleasant.

      The main thing is more armor, but the trunks are thicker? lol
      AG-128, 1955
      (belt-343 mm, deck-89 mm, wheelhouse-406 mm, towers / barbets-457 mm)
      (2 × 3 - 356 mm / 50)
      fellow
  8. +5
    23 January 2013 10: 48
    I look at the photographs of American cruisers, and I am slowly horrified at how absurd, ridiculous, square they are, as if they were being cut out with an ax ... Our cruisers are simply mesmerizing, I can look at Petya for hours, a masterpiece in one word.
    1. 77bor1973
      0
      23 January 2013 11: 07
      Different ships for different tasks, "Grozny" in general can be called a cruiser at a stretch. "Orlan" was built as a huge anti-submarine ship, having received shock weapons in passing, the result was a cruiser.
      1. sorokin
        +2
        23 January 2013 12: 46
        Quote: 77bor1973
        "Orlan" was built as a huge anti-submarine ship, having received shock weapons in passing, the result was a cruiser.
        It is rightly considered the most powerful strike ship in the world. Although handsome men like Iowa are, frankly, also good. Two, still in reserve.
        1. 77bor1973
          +1
          23 January 2013 14: 18
          The shock weapons in pr. 1144 did not appear by chance, but as if at one time would look for submarines in the world ocean, even if it poses a threat to aircraft carriers along the way.
      2. Avenger711
        -1
        23 January 2013 13: 10
        What nafig anti-submarine? His goal is aug. Even from the armament, this can be seen, a huge floating anti-aircraft battery.
        1. 77bor1973
          +2
          23 January 2013 14: 12
          The fact of the matter is that they built the "Orlan" as a raider for the nuclear submarine, and "Atlant" pr.1164 as a cruiser-hunter for aircraft carriers. This explains the simultaneous appearance of ships of the same purpose with similar, but not identical, complexes.
    2. +3
      23 January 2013 12: 01
      Quote: Rus_87
      I look at the photographs of American cruisers, and slowly I am horrified how awkward, absurd, square they are.

      laughing
      But it is worth considering that Long Beach was laid down in 1958, Albany is redone from the cruiser 1944.
      And one more thing - all of the Amer ships listed in the list took part in the hostilities.

      Quote: Rus_87
      in the photo of the American cruisers, and I’m slowly horrified at how awkward, absurd, square they are, as if they were cutting them with an ax ... Our cruisers are simply mesmerizing

      Amer sailors describe the appearance of our ships as "purposeful looking" - it is immediately clear that this is a serious machine for serious tasks.
    3. +2
      23 January 2013 12: 25
      This was an article about this, these are features of ship architecture, ship construction schools, we mostly have slanted features, are straightforward in the west, so our ships look more formidable, more beautiful.
      1. +4
        23 January 2013 12: 35
        Quote: neri73-r
        features of ship architecture, shipbuilding schools, we have mostly slanted features, in the west are straightforward


        it’s not just a school, it’s a state standard: all decks are parallel to the structural water line. Such a layout simplifies installation and maintenance of equipment
        1. Avenger711
          -1
          23 January 2013 13: 31
          And ours are not parallel? The forecastle with a collapse is clearly visible on the same "Ticonderoga", "Iowa", unbuilt "Montana" http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Montana_bb67.jpg?uselang=ru
          The collapse is an obvious measure from burying the ship.

          But the structure of add-ons in amers looks box-like.
      2. +2
        24 January 2013 14: 15

        neri73-r,
        here is the article you mentioned. http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/telegraph/technics/460/

        Our ships were better
        American military experts required special efforts during the Cold War to understand the reasons for Soviet military superiority at sea
        1. +1
          25 January 2013 07: 37
          Quote: dmitreach
          Our ships were better

          Corporate visit anniversary concert of the concert. A lady is sitting on the balcony with her husband, the head of a middle arm, and examines the stalls with binoculars.
          - Tell me dear, and who is your director? Husband shows. Where is his wife? Beside. Where's the mistress? Husband shows.
          - Dear, and who is your chief engineer? Husband shows. Where is his wife? Beside. Where's the mistress? Husband shows.
          - Dear! Where is your lover? Husband reluctantly shows.
          The wife looks at everyone through binoculars for a long time and says: "But still ours is better !!!!"
  9. +1
    23 January 2013 12: 23
    yeah, our really beautiful boats. Petya and Moscow are simply amazing. and the tikanderog has the feeling that with a small wave, it will simply tip over to the side. the joke is that now, in principle, as always, the amers are unifying. that on orly berks, that on tikanderogs the very topic is Aegis. so I think the displacement will decrease over time. maybe they’ll come up with some more compact GTS,
    now they will steer frigates with weapons and radars like cruisers)
    1. +3
      23 January 2013 12: 37
      Quote: silver_roman
      so I think the displacement will decrease over time. maybe they’ll come up with some more compact GTS,

      Right now!)))
      Ticonderoga - 10 thousand tons.

      Burke Series I - 8000 Tons.
      Burke Series II - 10 000 tons.
      Burke Series III - 12 000 Tons
      Destroyer Zamvolt -14 thousand tons

      Quote: silver_roman
      now they will steer frigates with weapons and radars like cruisers

      It is physically impossible
      1. 0
        24 January 2013 13: 45
        I meant that they are not building a cruiser with 25 tons of displacement. that mass growth continues to be caused by a growing variety of weapons and equipment on ships, in this case destroyers.

        at the expense of frigates - it was not a big sarcasm. of course, now it is difficult to slam into a relatively small ship, say the same "granite", "volcano" or the same "s-300f", but over time the warhead will decrease (as can be seen from the ratio of mace - voivode, etc.) ...

        something like that
        1. 0
          25 January 2013 22: 56
          Quote: silver_roman
          seen by the ratio of the mace - governor

          just an ass with a finger compared.
    2. +4
      23 January 2013 17: 23
      The yachts of the oligarchs are even more beautiful. But .. I must admit that from the time of the Second World War to this day, the US Navy has no equal. Even the Soviet fleet, at least in terms of surface ships, was objectively weaker, there is nothing to say about the current Russian fleet. We will soon become weaker than China.
      Only at the expense of SSBNs while authority is.
      True, it should be noted that now some progress has been outlined. wink
  10. sorokin
    +5
    23 January 2013 12: 34
    Quote: silver_roman
    and the tikanderog has the feeling that with a small wave, it will simply tip over to the side.
    should not....
    1. +2
      24 January 2013 14: 17
      "The aluminum superstructures of all 22 Ticonderoga-class ships were cracked."
      http://flot.com/nowadays/concept/opposite/cracksplaguecruisers/
  11. biglow
    +3
    23 January 2013 12: 41
    the sight of our ships inspires. It’s not for nothing that Americans chose our ships for advertising, the designers probably still appreciated the beauty and perfection
    1. 0
      23 January 2013 13: 53
      What kind of advertising, if not secret?
      1. +3
        23 January 2013 14: 03
        Quote: biglow
        It’s not for nothing that the Americans chose our ships for advertising. Designers probably still appreciated the beauty and perfection.

        All this nonsense, the usual mistakes of artists
        On the stele at the entrance to the Fokino naval base (Pacific Fleet) - a stencil of the destroyer "Charles F. Adams" laughing
        1. +5
          23 January 2013 15: 07
          I hope the artist’s hands were cut off?
      2. fokino1980
        0
        23 January 2013 21: 53
        Theirs "African American" president was reading a speech against the backdrop of a huge photo of our 1161 laughing Here's a laugh bully
        1. 0
          23 January 2013 22: 03
          Quote: fokino1980
          pictures of our 1161

          What kind of beast is this?
      3. +1
        24 January 2013 13: 48
        but there was some kind of holiday where the American veterans who served in the Navy were gathered, so they pulled the video where our ships showed off.

        here is the link, you can read briefly

        http://www.rus-obr.ru/days/20080
  12. postman
    +2
    23 January 2013 14: 17
    Quote: Author

    For example, the S-300F complex, which has no analogues, even modern anti-aircraft missiles of the US Navy, due to the limited size of the standard Mk.41 UVP cells, are inferior in terms of energy characteristics to the Fort complex missiles (simply put - they are twice as light and twice as slow).

    ?
    And ... and carry almost the same warhead, with almost the same interception range


    48Н6Е2


    And if you "look" RIM-161A (retired):
    2670m / s, under 260km height, under 500km range, weight: 790kg + 710 booster
    Next
    RIM-161C Block IB
    RIM-161D Block II

    and the question of ammunition and logistics (less weight, less overall dimensions, less speed, the same warhead, the same result)
    1. postman
      0
      23 January 2013 14: 18
      SM-2 in variations
      1. postman
        0
        23 January 2013 14: 23
        48H6E in variations
    2. Avenger711
      0
      23 January 2013 14: 32
      http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ЗУР_семейства_«Стандарт»

      And where does the kinetic interceptors? They are useless against airplanes. Warheads for amers are much easier.
      1. postman
        +2
        23 January 2013 16: 20
        Quote: Avenger711
        They are useless against airplanes.

        Who said that?
        Think he (generator) destroys ALMOST armored warhead and is "useless" against an aircraft (made almost of foil)? At the same time, destroying the satellite.



        What is the logic then?
        SAMP / T (Aster 15 and Aster 30) can (and is used) in both ballistics and aircraft

        I do not like RIM-161
        take SM-6 ERAM (
        Quote: Avenger711
        http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ЗУР_семейства_«Стандарт»
        ) -RIM-174. What is the essence is one and the same.
        Note: already in production since 2011
        Or SM-2ER

        Quote: Avenger711
        Warheads for amers are much easier.

        ?
        115 (130) vs 130 (180 kg)
        How many.
        And it’s worth considering why the mass of warheads is greater, m. Is the explosion going at a greater distance?
        1. +1
          23 January 2013 19: 53
          1. Why are the tables different data for CM-2 EP?
          2. Standard-2 has half the speed of the new C-300 missiles. What are the real benefits of C-300?
          3. kinetic interceptor - it should be a direct hit. How realistic is it to use СМ3 against maneuvering aerodynamic targets?
          1. postman
            +2
            28 January 2013 23: 35
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            1. Why are the tables different data for CM-2 EP?

            RIM-67A / SM-1ER Block I (accelerator MK 12) REPLACED THALOS (RIM-8) fit into the Mk86, it was assumed with W-81
            RIM-67B / SM-2ER Block I accelerator MK 70, almost 50% more powerful than MK 12, and MK 45 MOD 8 TDD
            RIM-67C / SM-2ER Block II warhead MK 115 and MK 70
            RIM-67D / SM-2ER Block III New Marching MK 30 MOD 4
            There are even more "tiny" (Same ER) for Mk-41 (VLS).
            RIM-156A / SM-2ER Block IV for Mk 72 (Ticonderoga)
            RIM-156b / SM-2ER IVA block (not accepted)
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            2.

            Here is the question of which SM-2 and which S-300?
            RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIВ is not accepted for service ...

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What are the real benefits of the S-300?

            With 20 m radar (well, etc.) 30 km: divide by the target’s singing speed = time to intercept. Theoretically, the chances are greater if ..... If you do not induce AWACS

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            How realistic is it to use CM3 against maneuvering aerodynamic targets?

            Do you think why the first targets with a beacon flew. Software improves everything. 84% successful interception

            Well, of course, they will not just shoot at an aircraft (expensive), but against "hypersonic" it is quite 2,67 km / s
        2. Avenger711
          -1
          23 January 2013 23: 55
          Can I have one simple question? Thank. If the kinetic warhead can be so precisely guided that it can hit a maneuvering aircraft, then why do we need high-explosive warheads? Or, nevertheless, the joke is that the ballistic warhead can hardly maneuver and its flight by airborne super-supercomputer is easily calculated.
          And one more thing, conventional air defense systems reach 30+ km. If the weight of the rocket is the same, then even if the warhead is less, how can it be delivered to a height of 200 km? Is it possible that such altitude is achieved by reducing the cost of course correction? That is, the rocket simply flies to one point, correcting only a small error, which is useless against a maneuvering aircraft.

          And the warhead mass is greater because the speed is greater, that is, the accuracy of hitting is lower, but the polar fox comes to the enemy vulture faster, and if you catch it, then speed decides.
          1. postman
            +2
            29 January 2013 00: 08
            Quote: Avenger711
            then why do we need high-explosive warheads?

            Are there many anti-aircraft missiles capable of direct interception?
            Quote: Avenger711
            Or, after all, the joke is that the ballistic warhead is almost

            Like this? And the "hypersonic maneuvers" from Poplar? feel
            But what about an autonomous breeding unit? Remote control on combat units? Control surfaces on the warhead?
            Here it happens


            Quote: Avenger711
            conventional air defense systems reach 30+ km
            because they are against LA (flying in the air)

            Quote: Avenger711
            If the weight of the rocket is the same, then even if the warhead is less, how can it be delivered to a height of 200 km?

            For this, the SM-3 for this booster MK72 + TOTAL 3 stages (Tsiolkovsky, multi-stage missiles) + the absence of warheads (115 kg) LEAP weighs (if I'm not mistaken) 38 kg (8 kg DU + fuel)

            2700m / s, Ek = 2700 * 2700 * M / 2


            Quote: Avenger711
            That is, the rocket just flies to one point, correcting only a small error

            Come on, it (the rocket) even "calculates" in what PLACE to hit the target, depending on the type of target, Ie. operates with concepts (at such a speed, at such a distance from the target) - WHERE TO SPECIFICALLY get along the length of the target
            Quote: Avenger711
            and if you shoot after it, then speed generally decides.
            Yes, of course. But "in pursuit" is usually after the aircraft has completed its mission (launch). Maybe it would be more logical to intercept on a head-on course, before an attack?
  13. +2
    23 January 2013 14: 35
    ...it remains to wish that the legendary “grin of socialism” modernize as often as possible and remain in military service as long as possible.

    Extremely liked this phrase. good



    Quote: Rus_87
    What kind of advertising, if not secret?


    During the last campaign for the US presidential elections, Obama's "advertisers", during his speech to the electorate, demonstrating the invincible sea power of America in the background, managed to show the SOVIET ships on the march. From where we had a laugh. lol
  14. Max
    Max
    0
    23 January 2013 14: 57
    Che I did not understand about the first cruiser Albany. All armament is anti-submarine in the description, and the author as a result leads to the fact that he is better adapted to air defense, thanks to 2 hundred missiles. Problem?
  15. +2
    23 January 2013 17: 32
    The beauty of our ships can be admired, as well as the reasonableness and versatility of Amer. Well, pay tribute, in conscience. Yes, and radars and in general BIUS they have ahead of the rest.
    1. 0
      23 January 2013 18: 36
      Well, don’t tell me. Although I like the bogeyman. And he’s beautiful, and they stuffed so much there, mmm ...
    2. fokino1980
      0
      23 January 2013 22: 00
      Don't tell me "Aegis" entered the service in the 80s, and since 1967 we have been operating the "Root", "Alley" and so on. The Americans rely too much on technology, and rightly it was and will be easier for us.
  16. +1
    23 January 2013 21: 33
    Handsomely! True to this topic, I do not kick in the tooth. Only one thing hurt me, can one, even a super-super cruiser, withstand a carrier group? The submarine has more chances than the mighty surface cruiser, maybe I'm wrong. And yet, looking at the eagles, for some reason I recall Tirpitz ....
    1. +1
      23 January 2013 22: 20
      Then Bismarck.
      All shipbuildings during the Cold War were calculated as single-use missiles: the more ships you take with you to the abyss, the better the ship.
      1. 0
        23 January 2013 22: 44
        IMHO, considering the architecture and combat effectiveness of our battleships, modern cruisers, our school of shipbuilders is modern, it builds a "glider" hull from the Bismarcs and Tirpitz, at the time of 45 the most perfect and beautiful assassin ships, which they feared and then built so to speak, and that means they tied themselves to the raiders, the Germans built beautiful pieces of iron, there is nothing to say, one salvo and no hook, while it is necessary to consider the ability of our shipyards to launch ships in the ocean zone, primarily in terms of draft, maneuver and search at depths of over 400t meters (shelf zone), no we have such zones, a current in Kamchatka, but there it is easier to hang a gimor with a mace or even two to hang on the swim than to experiment,
        I am for ash, but our 10 thousandths should be designed for one purpose, the Germans will not forgive us unequivocally, so much effort, blood and metal, such a school should be continued
        1. Avenger711
          -1
          23 January 2013 23: 56
          And the "Hooku" was simply criticized.
          1. +1
            24 January 2013 00: 00
            so ebte, they chased him fast, he alone tied the whole best fleet of the world to himself, I’m not afraid to compare him with the Varangian, whom he could drag with him, a worthy battle
          2. 0
            24 January 2013 04: 02
            Not Hook, but Hood.
  17. lucidlook
    0
    24 January 2013 00: 41
    << "Russia intends to create its own missile defense system by analogy with the American Aegis." This was stated by Anatoly Shlemov, Head of the Department of State Defense Order of the United Shipbuilding Corporation. >> (September 2012)

    "Polyment / Redoubt" - is that it?
    1. 0
      24 January 2013 00: 56
      not, they refused a redoubt, muddied with a shell for the navy, aegis is a zrk + pro, and the near space with target designation for cr, that is, but so far in secret, for the media, muuut, but it seems like there are already rockets
      1. lucidlook
        +1
        24 January 2013 03: 39
        The main trump card of Aegis, IMHO, is its ability to integrate all the ships (equipped with this system) into a single network. The so-called opportunity for collective attack (Cooperative Engagement Capability). Somehow it’s not customary to talk about her, although it seems to me that it is she who makes Aegis so powerful. After all, it is one thing to overload with a means of attack (missiles) one sector covered by two / three ships, and it is quite another thing to try to overload a system in which each of the means of destruction can receive target designation not only from its own radar, but also from the radars of its neighbors. A system in which each attacking element is assigned a unique number, the same for all Aegis networks, so that there will be no re-aiming or under-aiming ... well, or let’s say so - it is extremely unlikely. In general, this is an open info, read.

        And by the way, at the same time you can look at the description of the old man "Success-U" and "Titanite".
        1. 0
          24 January 2013 06: 37
          58 missile cruisers (cipher “Grozny”)

          1962 d. Total displacement 5 500 tons. Crew 340 man.
          Full stroke - 34 node. Navigation range - 3500 miles (on 18 knots.).
          Armament:
          - anti-ship cosplay P-35 (2 PU, ammunition 16 anti-ship missiles);
          - M-1 “Wave” short-range air defense system (16 anti-aircraft missiles);
          - two automatic twin guns caliber 76 mm;
          - 6 torpedoes caliber 533 mm;
          - 2 x 12 rocket launchers RBU-6000;
          - Helipad


          It seemed to me alone, or all the same, "Volna" is not a small air defense system, but still a medium range, tk. is it a naval version of the S-125 "Neva / Pechora" air defense system, which has a range of 40-60 km?
          1. +1
            24 January 2013 07: 46
            Quote: Ramses_IV
            It seemed to me alone, or all the same, "Volna" is not a small air defense system, but still a medium range, tk. is it a naval version of the S-125 "Neva / Pechora" air defense system, which has a range of 40-60 km?
            1. +1
              24 January 2013 09: 16
              More than half a century, and still work. I heard that the 125th was originally done for the fleet, but since it turned out to be successful, they decided to release the land option as well, no?
          2. 0
            24 January 2013 14: 49
            Quote: Ramses_IV
            It seemed to me alone, or all the same, "Volna" is not a small air defense system, but still a medium range, tk. is it a naval version of the S-125 "Neva / Pechora" air defense system, which has a range of 40-60 km?


            even the most modern C-125 modifications have a destruction range of no more than 30 km.
  18. Oren
    0
    24 January 2013 09: 02
    Yes, "Eagles" are beautiful and powerful, you can not argue with that. If they are wisely restored (the latest weapons, BIUS, power plant, etc.), then paired with an aircraft carrier, it will be a force that can be safely sent to the shores of any Syria.
  19. 0
    24 January 2013 11: 22
    "the presence of nuclear reactors, which do not provide any real advantages, only wasting space, complicating maintenance and deteriorating the survivability of the ship in battle. It can be assumed that without the nuclear power plant, the Orlan's displacement would be halved." I understand this is the author's IMHO ...
  20. MilaPhone
    +4
    24 January 2013 14: 28
    Cool article and comments. Thanks to all.
  21. +3
    24 January 2013 15: 57
    When comparing a cruiser, it would be good not to forget that any cruiser in itself is not of great value and can be effectively used only in areas covered by fighter aircraft (aircraft carrier or coastal). If there is no such cover, any cruiser can be pretty quickly launched to the bottom either by enemy aircraft AUGs or anti-ship missiles receiving target designation from the same aircraft or satellites. Therefore, the cruiser is strong only as a component of the same AUG or coastal defense.
    1. +1
      25 January 2013 15: 39
      That's right. And who has the edge in aviation? :(
  22. 0
    25 January 2013 15: 32
    Theoretically, in a one-on-one battle, the Orlan has no equal among all the ships of the world - a huge ocean killer can deal with any adversary. In practice, the situation looks much more interesting - the enemy, against whom the Eagles were created, does not go alone. What does the Orlan expect in a real battle with an aircraft carrier and its escort of five missile cruisers? Glorious Gangut, Chesma or terrible Tsushima mayhem? No one knows the answer to this question.
    ---
    Tsushima pogrom. This is not just a sea battle. Anything that can fly will take off from the amerovsky aircraft carrier. And that cannot (there is no way out - sea battle). Armament of every American "birdie" - wiki to help. Plus an escort with rockets will help.
  23. 0
    26 January 2013 04: 08
    By the way about the "birds" in the article. Missile cruisers of Project 58 (code "Grozny") have never been among Khrushchev's favorites. Yes, Khrushchev liked the appearance and powerful missile armament of the cruiser, but Fleet Admiral Gorshkov, who was present at the show, quickly dispelled Khrushchev's illusions about the cruiser's power, explaining its vulnerability to aircraft and anti-ship missile attacks. As a result, Khrushchev ordered to build several cruisers of this class, but mainly for representative functions (parades, visits to foreign ports, etc.).
    With heavy atomic missile cruisers of the "Orlan" type, not everything is as beautiful as the author of the article describes. But this needs to be written separately. We can only mention that the main weapons of the cruisers are the Granit anti-ship missiles, which were simply "dragged" from submarines to cruisers along with anti-ship missile launchers, into which seawater must be pumped before launching the anti-ship missile. In addition, the success of the use of this class of anti-ship missiles is highly dependent on the availability of target designation within the entire range of anti-ship missiles. And this is again dependence on aviation or on satellites, tk. the cruiser's own reconnaissance means (hydroacoustics) is good if they can provide target designation for surface targets up to 200 km. With radars, this range is even less (radio horizon, you know)
    1. 0
      26 January 2013 16: 03
      Absolutely right. ASM cipher "Granit" was originally developed for SSGNs with the ability to fire from a submerged state. Therefore, water is pumped in so as not to change the rocket. With target designation, everything is much simpler now - there are enough satellites in orbit.
  24. 0
    26 January 2013 16: 57
    It is easier with satellites right now, in peacetime, And in case of war they will be thrown from heaven first. Moreover, there is no particular problem in shooting down a satellite. The "rolls" technologies and the corresponding anti-satellite systems were developed back in the 70s and 80s. But satellites capable of defending themselves (passively or actively were never created, although there were such projects.
    1. lucidlook
      0
      26 January 2013 20: 14
      Is it necessary to bring them down? Maybe enough to drown? Modern electronic warfare systems do not allow this?
  25. 0
    27 January 2013 01: 40
    I’m a little familiar with the subject that you mentioned and have little idea of ​​what exactly and how to jam in this case.
  26. -1
    27 January 2013 11: 37
    Well, just a class !!!
  27. 0
    27 January 2013 13: 03
    I would like to know.
    Several times it was said about a fire hazardous superstructure of aluminum alloys. And what are they doing now and what was the alternative at that time?
    1. +1
      27 January 2013 15: 50
      Quote: Artew
      And what are they doing from now?

      Steel

      Quote: Artew
      what was the alternative at that time?

      Steel
      1. 0
        27 January 2013 16: 23
        But what about stability?
        1. 0
          27 January 2013 20: 35
          Quote: Artew
          But what about stability?

          This is a technical issue. Changing the contours of the body, the ratio of length and width.

          Quote: Artew
          aluminum alloy superstructure.

          The question was not so much with stability as with the desire to save on the total mass of the ship, and therefore on the power of the power plant, etc. - weight spiral

          Quote: Artew
          But what about stability?

          wall thickness - a couple of tens of centimeters of armored steel
  28. 0
    29 January 2013 18: 27
    Thanks to the author for a good selection

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

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; 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"