How not to lose “Admiral Nakhimov” and “Peter the Great”

179
How not to lose “Admiral Nakhimov” and “Peter the Great”

“Push NATO out of the Arctic.” An article with this title in one of the official media made me think about many things at the same time.

The material was devoted to the expected multi-billion dollar costs of modernizing heavy nuclear cruisers of the Orlan project, one of which, Peter the Great, celebrated its thirty-fifth anniversary. It happened on April 29, 1989. In general, the ship is still practically old, especially when compared with the same “Commune”. The second ship, Admiral Nakhimov, is three years older.



And the entire article is devoted to what they will be armed with and what kind of ships they will be dangerous for someone. It’s okay that for some reason “Nakhimov” was given ten years of age, that’s not the main thing.

What caught my attention was the term “squeeze” itself. He's not handsome. I understand “drown”, I understand “destroy”. “Squeeze out”, “displace” - does this mean leaving the enemy unharmed? Just push him beyond some line?

I immediately remember June 22.06.1941, XNUMX and the directives from Moscow that the Germans must be pushed abroad and that’s all. And they were already gathering dust for Minsk and Kyiv. Such unpleasant sensations, to be honest, and clearly at the genetic level.


Quote:
These cruisers are essentially heavily armed mobile platforms. Two dozen launchers of anti-ship missiles P-700 "Granit", anti-aircraft missile systems "Osa-M", "Kinzhal" and long-range S-300F, anti-aircraft artillery - "Kortik" and AK-630, anti-submarine missile torpedoes "Metel" and "Vodopad" ", rocket launchers, automatic double-barreled gun AK-130 - you can engage in battle with any enemy.

"Admiral Nakhimov", and after it "Peter the Great", instead of anti-ship "Granites" will receive more modern P-800 "Oniks" and "Caliber". They can also be used against ground targets, which means that the Orlans will become an effective force to support the operations of the Ground Forces. In addition, modern Poliment-Redut air defense systems with a firing range of up to 150 kilometers will be installed.

Fine. The brain, however, went into a bit of a tailspin, because some things were a little incomprehensible. And the main question: where is this enemy? In the Arctic? No, I agree that US nuclear submarines hang around there regularly, and this is the only class of ships that is capable of depicting something like that in the ice. The rest - sorry.

What is the main striking force of the US fleet?


That's right, aircraft carriers. Moreover, reinforced by a herd of destroyers.


Notice how often the American aircraft carrier can be seen at the 40th parallel. With a frequency of “never”, because these ships with their steam catapults are not intended to work in the conditions of the Far North. Well, or work, but absolutely not for long.

That is why, by the way, the British made their troughs with springboards. Exclusively because it can be very cold there, and aircraft carriers can simply turn into floating junk.


Although, to be honest, they already are. It’s just that the junk turned out to be cheaper than if it had been with catapults.

Destroyers


I respect the Arleigh Burke as a warship.


A very good machine, it can actually perform a variety of tasks and very efficiently. But it is no more suitable for operations in ice than an aircraft carrier. The body is rather weak. Yes, it can push the sludge, but nothing more. When it comes to the fact that Our Ice will be on the way - don’t make me laugh, we have such “Chelyuskins” there, crushed over the entire history they sank, well, no match for some destroyers. “Scheer” was a tough beast, but he stumbled into the ice and began to look for detours.

Icebreakers


The USA does not have them, or rather, either one or two are listed, but both are in a state of being “on the way to the chopping block.”

Canada? Yes, there are as many as TWO icebreakers capable of depicting something like that. The rest of Canada's icebreaker fleet is capable of breaking fast ice, nothing more.


So who will the TARKs push out of the Arctic... Penguins, perhaps, but they already moved to Antarctica several million years ago. We're late.

Submarines



Well, here, of course, our admirals know better, but somehow such a hefty vessel chasing submarines in the ice that can easily navigate under the ice is more of a comic book thing, I guess. Submarines are uncomfortable with small, fast, and specialized corvettes operating.


The Eagles will become an effective force in support of Ground Forces operations.

Where, excuse me, will “Admiral Nakhimov” be able to “support our Ground Forces with missiles”? In the north? But only if the Finnish lemmings attack Murmansk... And we will be forced to launch a military defense against them. So somehow neither the Ground Forces nor any opponents for them are visible.

Baltic? Yes, NATO will not allow these cruisers there. Black Sea? So everyone has been sitting there for a long time in distant ports, because sea kamikazes are fierce. For “Nakhimov,” of course, BEC is like a grain to an elephant, but we’ll think about that a little later. And the Turks won’t let “Nakhimov” go there. And shooting somewhere from the Mediterranean Sea, “supporting” something, is not an option, because missiles will fly through the territories of NATO countries, and they are unlikely to like that.

Far East? Yes, that’s where everything is very tense and incomprehensible, especially in the light of Japanese revanchist fanaticism. But you know, by the time these elephants reach Vladivostok, everything will end there three times over, even if you go through the Northern Sea Route.

In general, something about the areas of operation and targets for the Orlans... not very good.

But here we need to look, for what purpose did they start building these ships 40 years ago? That's right, in order to theoretically turn the American AUG fleet into navy-style pasta. At a distance from its shores, of course.

However, at that time the Soviet Navy was exactly what the Soviet Navy was, and not its scraps. And a couple of “Orlans” could easily go somewhere to hit the Americans in the face, having in their wake several BODs and destroyers that would take care of all the “small things” such as submarines or airplanes.


Today, the ocean-going part of the Russian fleet is, frankly, dying Soviet-built ships, repaired like the Moscow. And they cannot pose any serious threat to the enemy due to their decrepitude and obsolescence. So the Russian fleet has nothing to catch in the ocean zone, there is frankly no strength for this, and the further it goes, the more there will be none. And by the end of the modernization of “Peter the Great”, in ten years there won’t be any left at all.

By the way, many people understand this, but...

Why then all this?



Firstly, “Eagles” is a symbol. Well, they are “the largest in the world after aircraft carriers” and, it seems, the most useless. But nevertheless, when shown in various reports on television, they evoke awe and admiration for their size. For this, however, it is very, very expensive to have two such ships, but remembering the bitter experience of the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, we can definitely say that two ships are better than one.

In general, the moral and political component is clear.

There is also a financial one. Yes, simply colossal sums will be spent on modernization, repair and maintenance of these two ships. Absolutely in vain, given the relative uselessness of these ships, but: for this money, hundreds, or even thousands of people will work in factories and enterprises, crews, again, and so on. That is, this money seems to be working in the country’s economy.

Military component. It all depends on how well the ships will be modernized and what they will be armed with.

Externally, the ship will change slightly, but everything inside will be replaced. In particular, new radio-electronic equipment, modern digital communication systems, and life support systems will be installed. Nuclear reactors will remain, but the systems that ensure their constant operation will be modernized.

Sounds impressive. There is no point in finding fault with such a program; it is as good as it gets. Especially if some of the equipment being updated is designed to work for small-sized targets.

If you remove outright junk like “Osa-M”, “Dirk”, “Dagger” from the weapons complex and install modern ones, it will be very interesting. We should probably translate: “Osa” is 50+ years old and completely unusable, “Dagger” is “Tor-1M”, “Kortik” is “Tunguska” at maximum speed with six-barreled guns. But all this splendor comes from the 70s of the last century, it was a wonderful technique, which, alas, is not relevant today due to the fact that the world has changed a little.

Let's think about how to kill "Peter the Great" without using AUG, without exposing your ships to "Granites", "Onyxes", "Calibers"?


And it's very simple. It's just outrageous. Please see the map.


Here we have Murmansk on the map. It is clear that Vidyaevo, Zapolyarny, Severomorsk and so on. Something happened to us where we just have to go out to sea and slap our adversaries with tinsel from the heart to the point of bloody foam. And the ships begin to leave with menacing force. To the left - to the Atlantic, to the right - to the Pacific Ocean.


Going to the Pacific Ocean, of course, is not an option at all; the Bering Strait is a very narrow place and the meeting there can be simply gorgeous. We forget about the Pacific Ocean and try to make our way to the Atlantic. Why is it difficult to say, but there is simply no third option. The third option is to stay in place and drown in your bases - this is a tradition inherited from the Soviet admirals of the Great Patriotic War. But we have to go and fight the adversary. Drive him out of the same Arctic!

But on the way to the Atlantic we now have two NATO countries. Don’t forget about this, because the situation will be something like this: submarines will support you from the north, threatening with cruise missiles and torpedoes, and the Flock will come from the south. And the flock will consist of the unmanned kamikaze ships known to us and drones! Control planes will be hovering in the air at a safe distance, satellites above them, and plus on both sides (let’s not forget about Spitsbergen) the eyes of observers.

Of course, everything very much depends on the weather. In the North she is capricious, and she can play on our side. Or maybe he won’t play.

And so we look. 6 BECs are guaranteed to sink a corvette-type ship. A set of ten BECs and cruise missiles will sink a ship of a larger class, especially one that does not have modern weapons, something like a BDK. 50 UAVs are guaranteed to penetrate the air defense of a large city, causing damage to infrastructure, especially energy infrastructure. A set of 300 UAVs, cruise and ballistic missiles are guaranteed to break through the defenses of an entire small, well-armed, but slightly self-confident country.


Attention, question: what kit will be needed to ensure that the Orlan TARK is disabled?


I think about 10 BECs and 30-40 UAVs.

Everything is simple here: BEC will not do anything to a thing like Orlan. Well, he will take a sip of water and nothing more. And if it still sips, because a modern corvette is one hull thickness, and an old Soviet heavy cruiser is a slightly different matter. But in a coordinated attack, they will very well distract part of the crew at combat posts.

And if you take into account that the Orlan does not know how to fight against such a dirty trick, the Kortik absolutely cannot shoot down, the AK-630 is doing a little better, you can also place Marines from the crew with machine guns, but all this is very so-so.

But the main threat is UAVs. Yes, there are artillery shells against them (except for the main caliber, of course), there are anti-aircraft missiles, and again there is small arms weapon on the last frontier... But as the war of NATO ships against the Houthi crafts in the Red Sea showed, they reach it. No matter what, they make it. And our products reach targets on the Ukrainian side, and Ukrainian ones, no, no, yes, they fly to our targets.

It is clear that the Orlan should not be hit below the waterline. Everything is simpler - using antennas.


And it’s easier to direct the UAV, I installed a seeker, which works via a radio signal, and that’s it, the job is done. And all you need to do is hit the antenna emitters. Without them, the air defense system does not work. The navigation system does not work. The missile control system is not working. Nothing works, eliminated the antenna modules - and do what you want with the ship. Let them use torpedoes, missiles... The crew will still be blind and deaf.

Well, the same “Peter the Great” has 16 “Dagger” launchers with 8 missiles each. Total 128. And 6 “Dirks” with 144 missiles. They will fight back for a long time, and this option is quite possible. But again, this is theoretical, because in practice, the Kortika and Kinzhal radars are not designed to work against such inconspicuous targets as a plastic kamikaze drone. And such a scenario may not only exist in theory, but even in practice.

So, an attack by a flock of unmanned air and sea kamikazes, followed by anything: missiles, torpedoes, and so on. The main thing is that even if you take 100 UAVs for $10 and 000 BEC for $20, then the total price is one and a half million dollars plus the cost of the second war, let there be three million for such a ship. In general, it’s quite decent.

No, the Orlans are huge, beautiful, powerful ships. And in terms of weapons, everything is beautiful there; from every ten square meters something can be fired or launched. But alas, they are hopelessly outdated today. And their size is also a minus, and a huge one at that: BECs can easily catch up and end up in a corvette, which is ten times smaller. They will fly into this community as if it were their home.

And there is no one to blame here at all; decisions about modernization were made long before everything turned like this and our world became different. Multimillion-dollar (in dollars) submarines and missile-carrying aircraft gave way to some kind of fierce obscenity made of plastic and polyurethane foam. But this is today's reality.

After Finland and Sweden joined NATO, the alliance significantly expanded its surveillance capabilities over the Northern Fleet and increased intelligence activity in the Barents Sea area. For Western countries, this region is the gateway to the Arctic, for whose resources, according to experts, there will be a fierce struggle. Modernized heavy cruisers armed with hypersonic missiles would become a serious deterrent in this area.

Honestly, it’s very doubtful. And it is not entirely clear who will be held back by such ships and who will be forced out. But here’s what I would like to say on my own – if I were those who make decisions, I would not rush into repairs and modernization. We now live in a time when the military world has begun to change very rapidly, and perhaps it would make sense to observe where everything ultimately leads. Just a few years ago, a UAV with a Bayraktar missile was something so powerful, but what now?

So it is still unknown how and to what end these ships will have to be modernized. It is perhaps more important not to lose them, because they will definitely be useful to the fleet.


Instead of a helicopter, you can, for example, mark the Geranium launcher on the aft platform. About 200 or 300 pieces. We know and know how to launch such a bouquet against targets, say, in the Birmingham or Duisburg area from the Shetland Islands. But I can’t say how awkward it will be on the other side, but he’ll be a cracker.

And when they’re all running around like they’re full of scum, that’s when they can be calibrated.

In general, we, alas, live in an era of change. And the really important thing here is not to rush, to clearly collect and process information correctly. We haven’t had much luck with this in life, but still, sooner or later we’ll learn.
179 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    6 May 2024 05: 04
    What caught my attention was the term “squeeze out” itself. He's not handsome. I understand “drown”, I understand “destroy”. “Squeezing out”, “displacing” - is it like leaving the enemy unharmed?

    It is this “clue,” Roman, that with red lines crosses all decisions, the entire strategy of the Supreme High Command with red lines...Where does he get such priorities in the confrontation? Maybe he was inspired by something from the Bible:
    The commandment to “turn the other cheek” does not exist in the Bible, but such words do exist. They were spoken by Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. The full passage reads like this: “You have heard that it was said: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you: do not resist evil. But whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him; and whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt, give him your outer clothing too; and whoever forces you to go one mile with him, go with him two miles” (Matthew 5:38-41).

    Only it talks about one’s own cheeks, and not about the cheeks of someone else (in our case, citizens who are guaranteed something according to the Constitution).
    In general, we, alas, live in an era of change. And the really important thing here is not to rush., accurately collect and correctly process information.

    Who's in a hurry? Who's in a hurry here? We adhere to the strategy:
    If you drive more quietly, you will be further away... from where you are going... Yes
    As for information processing, there is a summary for that too:
    It's never too late to learn! - the old man exclaimed while dying...
    1. +21
      6 May 2024 08: 30
      Quote: ROSS 42
      , Roman, with red lines crosses along and across all decisions, the entire strategy of the Supreme High Command

      The novel is, of course, a “universal soldier,” but if you undertake to write on some topic, it would not be a sin to first familiarize yourself with the topic itself. It’s not like telling stories in the smoking room... It seems that he just returned from Mars... after 5-10 years of living in other worlds... And he doesn’t know that “Nakhimov” and “Kuznetsov” are already preparing for sea ​​trials and it is likely that some of them may return to service by the end of the year. That is, “Nakhimov” is already ready and is undergoing the final adjustments/debugging and preparation for state tests.
      And what kind of nonsense is this about the composition of its (already modernized Nakhimov) air defense? About some kind of “Wasps” and “Broadswords”?? Instead of them, Pntsir-M was installed in the amount of (as I was told) 6 pieces. But even if there are “only” 4 “Pantsir-M”, this is more than serious. This is at least 160 missiles (including “Nails”) on these ZRAKs alone. It is not entirely clear whether the Kinzhal launcher was replaced with the Reduta UKSK, this was also expected. But even if the updated “Dagger” remains, then this is about 160 more missiles for the near zone. Not counting the new "Fort-2" with S-400 missiles. Not counting the new radar with AFAR canvases from the S-500. Do you even imagine the power and intensity of its air defense? Even in the near zone alone? Not to mention that such ships do not sail without an escort. And paired with it will usually be the same “Kuznetsov” and about 4 frigates (22350) and modernized 1155.
      What BEC? What kind of drones? It is for the unarmed 22160 and BDK in the Black Sea that they pose a serious danger, and even then due to a number of reasons and conventions. But not for a full-fledged warship with an escort. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the Nakhimov also has a combat laser, similar to those that have already begun to be installed on the latest Burkes. We also have something like this, but on the cruiser there are free places and energy in bulk. Against those very “terrible” UAVs and BEC. At least in place of the dismantled “dovecotes” with special equipment for the old “Forts” on the forecastle and in the stern. For the S-400 missile defense system, such an anachronism is definitely not needed.
      The author does not understand the purpose and range of tasks for "Kuznetsov" and "Nakhimov" in the Northern Fleet?
      Ensuring safe exit from bases to the combat deployment areas of our SSBNs, SSGNs and MAPLs. Clearing the sky of enemy patrol and anti-submarine aircraft and blocking access there for enemy ships and submarines. What is not clear ? And such a core of the Northern Fleet as "Nakhimov" and "Kuznetsov" with escort ships are quite capable of fulfilling this task. Well, “Ustinov” is attached.
      As soon as "Nakhimov" returns to service, "Peter" will go into modernization and work on it will go much faster. Without leapfrog modernization projects, when cooperative enterprises are already ready to supply and produce everything that is needed, when repair teams know and remember what and how to do. So if at the end of this year or at the beginning of the next "Peter" goes into modernization, by 2030 the Navy may receive a second nuclear-powered cruiser in a modernized form and with an assigned service life of about 30-35 years.
      So everything has already been invented and thought out. USC has already been shaken up and is now shaking up the Moscow Region.
      1. +3
        6 May 2024 08: 33
        Quote: bayard
        that some of them may return to duty by the end of the year

        So he writes about this that: “it may return”, “it is expected”, etc.
        1. +22
          6 May 2024 09: 59
          He lists the weapons systems of the UNMODERNIZED "Nakhimov" and discusses... "whether it is worth pursuing it at all or waiting to see how the trends develop there." And he calls the main threat to a warship... drones. And compares him with an unarmed (practically) small patrolman and a large landing craft. This is what he writes. Having absolutely no idea about the subject of his own story.
      2. +6
        6 May 2024 08: 58
        Single ships, no matter how many weapons you stuff into them, are useless and only suitable for parades (example - "Moscow").
        1. +5
          6 May 2024 11: 58
          Quote: S. Viktorovich
          Single ships, no matter how many weapons you stuff into them, are useless and only suitable for parades

          Let's do the math. Ships of the Northern Fleet.
          Just imagine that by the end of the year two ships “Nakhimov” and “Kuznetsov” are coming out of repair. “Peter immediately enters it. And what does the Northern Fleet look like now?
          - medium aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov",
          - 3 (three) new frigates pr. 22350,
          - 3 (three) BOD project 1155 (one has been modernized and has two UKSK + 16 Kh-35 anti-ship missiles) + another one is being modernized,
          - modernized destroyer "Sovremenny" of the "Sarych" type,
          - the missile cruiser "Ustinov" that has undergone modernization (real, not like "Moscow"),
          - 5 (five) SSBN pr. 667 BDRM "Dolphin",
          - 2 (two) SSBNs pr. 955\955A "Borey" + "Prince Pozharsky" is being completed afloat with delivery in December of this year + two more ("Dmitry Donskoy" and "Prince Potemkin") are under construction.
          - 2 (two) MAPL pr. 885\885M "Yasen\Yasen-M" + one is being completed afloat with delivery in December of this year + 2 (two) more are under construction ("Ulyanovsk" and "Voronezh"),
          - two SSGNs pr. 949A "Antey",
          - 6 (six) MAPL pr. 971 "Pike-B" (Animal Division),
          - 2 (two) titanium MAPLs Project 945A "Condor" + two more Project 945 awaiting repairs,
          - 2 (two) MAPL pr. 971 RTMK "Pike", both were modernized and returned to service in 2017 and 2023. ,
          - nuclear deep-sea station "Orenburg", modernization of pr 667 BDR "Kalmar" into a carrier of ultra-small submarines,
          - nuclear submarine station "Podmoskovye", modernization of pr 667 BDRM "Dolphin" into a carrier of ultra-small submarines,
          - 2 (two) nuclear underwater stations, Project 1910 "Sperm Whale",
          - 2 (two) nuclear submarine stations Project 1851 "Halibut" and another one in modernization,
          - 2 (two) diesel-electric submarines pr. 877 "Halibut", modernized in 2012 and 2015. ,
          - DEPL pr. 677 “Lada”, two more are laid down in 2022.

          Do you really think that this is “for the parade”?
          The main striking force of the Northern Fleet is its SSBNs, SSGNs and MAPLs, as well as its nuclear submarine deep-sea stations. The surface component serves to cover them and ensure combat deployment. The aircraft carrier serves as a naval air defense platform. The configuration of the Northern Fleet is purely defensive. But its underwater component will demolish any enemy or even all of them at once.
          And all new submarines are now mainly going to the Pacific Fleet.
          Quote: S. Viktorovich
          (example - "Moscow")

          Don’t be so openly happy, you are still responsible for “Moscow” to this day, you have become a ruin, you have lost more than half of the pre-war population, and soon you will lose all the men.
          And “Moskva” at that time was simply a disabled person, worn out by long service in the DMZ, which had not received any modernization or even normal repairs. In essence, it was simply given back its speed and the ability to fire with the main caliber. There was no close air defense at all. Only the chassis, radar and "Fort" were repaired.
          1. +4
            6 May 2024 15: 07
            Apart from the boats, everything else listed is a single and outdated item. Even 60 years ago, from my house on Safonova Street 24, I saw a more comprehensively built fleet in Severomorsk. These were the cruisers that a few years later I saw at the cutting shop at the Baltic Shipyard. There were many of them and there were destroyers, etc. The usual Soviet-Khrushchev decision.
            The revival of the surface fleet can begin if it is possible to create a global system of reconnaissance, control and target designation. For long-range destruction systems, which should be placed on ocean-going ships.
            1. +5
              6 May 2024 17: 26
              Are you, out of ignorance or on purpose, not noticing the three new frigates 22350 and the BOD 1155 being upgraded into a frigate?
            2. +3
              6 May 2024 18: 43
              Until 1991, the fleet was large, but very outdated. There was approximately zero sense from the artillery cruisers of Project 68, “as if the cruisers” of Project 58, the destroyers of Project 57 and BPK 61 were morally outdated. There were new modern projects: MPK 1124, SK 1135, EM 956, BPK 1134-B, BPK 1155, RK 1164, TARK 1144, TAKR 1143. They had to be maintained and modernized on time, but there was no money for this. A striking example of ES in . 956, their fate in the Russian Federation and the fate of Chinese export EM 956E/EM.
              1. 0
                6 May 2024 19: 46
                Quote: Cympak
                Until 1991, the fleet was large, but very outdated.

                This happened due to a vicious desire to achieve parity with the United States in the total displacement of the Fleet and because of maintaining the number of pennants. Old ships were not written off, crews were kept on them, money was spent, they took up space in bases and repair facilities. Decommissioning the entire fleet of old and useless ships would improve the health of the Fleet, save money and free up crews that were not enough for new ships.
                Quote: Cympak
                There was approximately zero sense from the artillery cruisers of Project 68,

                Not true . These cruisers performed the role of escort and artillery support for amphibious assault forces. 12 very long-range and very accurate 6" guns in support of landing forces, this is serious. In addition, they were often used as command and staff ships due to their good seaworthiness. They were also used to demonstrate the flag and diplomatic missions (until the time) - beautiful ships and they were enthusiastically received by the public. And they also had ARMOR. Not battleship armor, of course, but other ships had no armor at all... except for a little bit on the Orlans. For a headquarters ship, it’s not a bad idea - it’s spacious (there’s room). for headquarters", high speed, great autonomy and... there is armor.
                Now the construction of a normal, balanced surface fleet is constantly being postponed. So, only for the sake of the withdrawal of SSBNs to the deployment areas and no matter how much protection there is for the BMZ.

                But since the Russian Federation has already begun to create and build the Large Merchant Fleet, surface ships for DM and OZ will still have to be built. But this will require a lot of time and money. However, maritime trade will pay for it.
                1. +3
                  6 May 2024 20: 44
                  Quote: bayard
                  It’s a very good solution for a headquarters ship - it doesn’t make you seasick, it’s spacious (there’s room for a headquarters), high speed

                  As a headquarters ship, these cruisers were not very good. From the word absolutely. I judge from Senyavin. There simply were no additional premises to accommodate staff officers, midshipmen and the normal operation of the headquarters of the 10th OPEC. The Amers had a good solution - headquarters ships of the Blue Ridge type. Our fleet had not grown up to this then. Yes and now too.
                  1. +1
                    6 May 2024 21: 43
                    Nevertheless, the ships were used usefully until the early 90s.
                    1. +4
                      7 May 2024 12: 16
                      I don’t know how it is in the north, but at the DKBF, 68-BIS “October Revolution”, during my service (82-85), it was a persistent and bleeding hemorrhoid for everyone. From the command of the fleet and the Leningrad Naval Base to the emergency rescue service (where I served). If not one thing, then another, if not another, then another. And as a finale (at the time of my service) the flooding in the harbor of the Kronstadt Marine Plant. They changed the auxiliary diesel engine on it and it fell off the slings and pierced all the decks and the bottom. It’s good that there was a little more than two meters under the keel. We had a drill review in the spring, the operational duty officer came running and yelled - the OR sank!!! He has a question - so it’s in the marine plant (the other day we passed the spring standard on it, extinguished it, applied plasters, everyone was smeared in the karsk). The answer is that it sank there. Well, we’ll grab a handful and gallop from Rambov to Kronstadt. And I can’t even count how many fires there were on it, dear mother.
                      1. +2
                        7 May 2024 15: 04
                        Quote: Roman_VH
                        was not a living and bleeding hemorrhoid for everyone.

                        It's always like that with old ships. In addition, there were always problems with ship repair in the Union - there was not enough capacity, but the Fleet was growing. "Moscow" was also driven by services, that nothing worked normally on it, they couldn't repair it (let alone modernize it) in Sevastopol normally, but here - SVO. Will a disabled person fight a lot?
                        To replace the 68-BIS as artillery landing support ships, the Sarych series of destroyers was built in the USSR. And a lack of understanding of its true purpose often causes criticism: “why two towers?” , “why is there so much artillery and almost no anti-aircraft defense?” And this is an escort and artillery support ship for amphibious assault forces. But the “effective” ones managed to rot in a short time even these very good ships. A good modernization program was prepared for them during the middle repair - instead of the aft turret, the installation of 4 UKSK with 32 cells for the Granat missile launcher (the father of the Caliber), instead of two Moskit launchers, the installation of 2 x 6 Onyx anti-ship missile launchers in inclined launchers, replacing the beam air defense system with the Shtil air defense missile system, and installing a permanent hangar for a helicopter instead of a sliding one. But the “effective” ones didn’t even bother to simply put these ships into reserve and mothball them, since there was no money for maintenance. In recent years they would have been very useful for modernization. Since it’s impossible to build new ones.
          2. +2
            6 May 2024 16: 08
            The “Condors” seem to be no longer operational, and the “Barracudas” still can’t decide to molarize them, although both are excellent ships.
          3. +1
            6 May 2024 21: 09
            There is a fleet expert - Navy-Korabel, who monitors the current status of warships and regularly publishes summary tables
            Here is the summary as of 01.05.2024/302957/XNUMX https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/XNUMX.html
            1. +1
              7 May 2024 00: 16
              hi I took it from Wikipedia just for clarity - that the main strength of our Fleet is its submarines. And the surface forces only guard the bases and provide access to the sea for submarines. All plans for the construction of a surface fleet were thwarted for well-known reasons. But this is not a reason not to carry out repairs and modernization of existing surface ships. The assigned service life of Nakhimov after modernization is 30-35 years. Almost like a new ship.
      3. 0
        6 May 2024 22: 25
        who will do the detection of stealthy surface (underwater) drones??? there in the “near” zone there is nothing really working at such altitudes, and in the far zone it is not a fact that they will be detected because they are essentially inconspicuous.
        1. 0
          7 May 2024 00: 09
          Quote: TiRex
          who will do the detection of stealth surface (underwater) drones???

          Do these BEC have propulsion? Does this propulsion system create acoustic waves?
          At Nakhimov there are Pantsir-M air defense missile systems modules (6 pieces!), and they have very high-quality and sensitive OLS. This is what will be discovered and destroyed by all of them. Moreover, our ships (normal combat ones) have anti-torpedo protection - “Packet-NK” complexes with torpedoes and anti-torpedoes. A torpedo for an anti-torpedo is a much more difficult target than a BEC.
          UAV?
          Radars see them perfectly at ranges sufficient to destroy them. These radars just need to be adjusted so that they do not cut off targets at low speeds. This has been done on the ground-based Pantsirs and Tors, and they perfectly shoot down light plastic UAVs. For such purposes, a special ammunition has even been created - the “Nail” missile defense system for the “Pantsir”. Works very well.
          So do not confuse a well-equipped modern warship with a practically unarmed patrol ship or large landing ship.
          In addition, the appearance of a combat laser for just such purposes is quite expected at Nakhimov.
      4. +5
        6 May 2024 22: 37
        Quote: bayard
        It is for the unarmed 22160 and BDK in the Black Sea that they pose a serious danger, and even then due to a number of reasons and conventions.

        The main reason there is insane leadership. There seems to be no reconnaissance; they didn’t even bring a Mavik with a teplak. Personnel training with shooting at moving targets from the deck is not carried out. BDK and MRK were put out to sea and did not move anywhere, as if the admirals were paid from somewhere in the west
        1. +1
          7 May 2024 00: 23
          Quote from alexoff
          BDK and MRK were put out to sea and did not move anywhere, as if the admirals were paid from somewhere in the west

          Nothing is impossible in the capitalist Russian Federation. The arrested Mossad agent with the rank of Deputy Minister of Defense alone is worth something.
    2. +1
      7 May 2024 05: 12
      If you drive more quietly, the master’s work is afraid.
      1. +2
        7 May 2024 05: 14
        Quote: kinolog2322
        If you drive more quietly, the master’s work is afraid.

        Yeah...
        Don’t put your finger in your mouth for a word in your pocket

        ©Ivan Tsarevich and the Grey Wolf
  2. +9
    6 May 2024 05: 12
    It seems that YES is no longer needed, tanks are used only as self-propelled guns, cruisers are outdated... And only UAVs are left on the battlefield.. recourse
    1. +7
      6 May 2024 07: 02
      yeah, so we’ll go back to piston pilots, cheap and cheerful, there’s no jet stream again, but machine guns and autocannons can be inserted plus a couple of bonbs))) and you can load them with bullets, dear mom)) from FPV you can also do this...you can gallop away if you return the cavalry(
      1. 0
        6 May 2024 10: 29
        Yes, in fact, making the IL-2 in new metal (armor) and new guns will just fill the gap between helicopters and jet aircraft. And an aircraft carrier with such aircraft is cheaper to drive barmalei. The Americans seem to have propeller-driven reconnaissance aircraft for takeoff from Avik. The technology has been at a standstill for about 30 years. The grills on tanks are also good as long as the enemy doesn’t have enough conventional shells.
        1. 0
          6 May 2024 13: 00
          tanks with barbecues are because of the lack of fish, cover the ISU -152 with the same umbrella and let them go, and the caliber of serious machines like this is probably available in 2 or 300, of course it’s funny, but taking into account our realities, it’s as if there are no pilots for piston engines, you can prepare it in six months and in can hunt with drones and what kind of patriot, and the same one with 30, won’t spend it on this, by the way, if something like a dora is restored with XNUMX mm drones and added explosive shells, then they can be good at ironing the rear of the nearest ones
      2. +3
        6 May 2024 19: 36
        Quote from Mazunga
        yeah, so we’ll go back to piston pilots, cheap and cheerful, there’s no jet stream again, but machine guns and autocannons can be inserted plus a couple of bonbs))) and you can load them with bullets, dear mom)) from FPV you can also do this...you can gallop away if you return the cavalry(

        Common Thought!
        A horse has a smaller exhaust than a tank and is more difficult to aim! belay
        1. 0
          13 May 2024 03: 47
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          At the horse exhaust less than a tank...
          laughing
          or what the tankman has...?!! winked wink
    2. +11
      6 May 2024 08: 27
      Uncle lee
      It seems that... it is no longer needed...

      Lonely cruiser “not a warrior at sea”...
      Maybe it would be worth agreeing with the author, if not for... reality. But the reality is that, purely arithmetically, instead of modernizing one 1144, it is impossible to build four 22350 or two 22350M, because for a long time not everything can be measured only by money...

      Notice how often the American aircraft carrier can be seen at the 40th parallel. With a frequency of “never”, because these ships with their steam catapults are not intended to work in the conditions of the Far North.

      Until 91, the work of the US AUG in high latitudes, in the North and Norwegian Seas was routine. After the collapse of the USSR and the degradation of the fleet, this was no longer necessary, but for some time now the US AUG have again resumed campaigns to the north. At the end of October 2018, Truman worked quite well in the Norwegian Sea, and in 2023 Ford checked in there...
      But as the war of NATO ships against the Houthi crafts in the Red Sea showed, they can fly.

      And how many NATO ships are seriously damaged?
      . The main thing is that even if you take 100 UAVs for $10 and 000 BEC for $20

      If it comes to a real battle, then nothing prevents you from raising up to fifty IBs from Norwegian airfields and launching a hundred stealth anti-ship missiles towards the KUG, which practically guarantees the destruction of any of the existing warships of our time, and without any antics and jumps from UAVs and BEC...
      We know and know how to launch such a bouquet for targets, say, in the Birmingham or Duisburg area from the Shetland Islands. But I can’t say how awkward it will be on the other side, but he’ll be a cracker.

      And in the area of ​​the Shetland Islands at this time there will be a “vacuum”, or maybe a couple of Virginias and Astute are always “grazing” there...
  3. -1
    6 May 2024 05: 18
    Can BEC destroy the supports of railway bridges on the Dnieper? A massive strike on bridges is simply necessary. As a result, the group on the left bank will be cut off from supplies.
    1. +4
      6 May 2024 07: 03
      Hark ugh)) spit on this comrade, if you haven’t touched it for two years, it means your partners didn’t order it
    2. 0
      7 May 2024 16: 33
      BECs came to the bridge in Zatoka. To no avail.
      1. 0
        9 May 2024 06: 54
        Quote: Alex777
        BECs came to the bridge in Zatoka. To no avail.
        Maybe we should have repeated them and not abandoned their use?
        1. 0
          9 May 2024 21: 40
          Kh-101 doubled its warhead. 800+ kg. It should help.
  4. +13
    6 May 2024 05: 46
    The novel has already been canceled by Orlan! Is there any weapon or type of armed forces that Roman has not abolished?
    1. +7
      6 May 2024 12: 17
      UAVs and agro-stati - don’t even touch laughing
    2. +3
      6 May 2024 22: 40
      For some reason he didn’t cancel the infantryman, although everyone beats him, except perhaps his companions
      1. 0
        7 May 2024 06: 09
        Wait! Not yet evening! Roman will still sparkle with new facets of his talent! And you will still call him!
  5. +6
    6 May 2024 05: 50
    laughing belay request
    Attention, question: what kit will be needed in order to guarantee the disabling of the Orlan TARK?
    I think about 10 BECs and 30-40 UAVs.


    No, of course, such monsters as Timokhin/Klimov, Andrey from Chelyabinsk and, possibly, Kaptsov will arrive by lunchtime.
    Of course, they will write about the modernization of the Orlans; about the krinzhatina "UAV against Orlan"; will explain where the BEC came from to the Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet; and what the “partners” have in store for anti-ship operations. In “100 and 1 more time” a lecture will be written about how catapults on aircraft carriers do not freeze and where the springboard on QE comes from; What is an aircraft carrier doing off Norway?
    Idea will be appreciated "on the stern platform you can, for example, mark the Geranium launcher. About 200 pieces lol or 300 laughing . How to launch recourse such a bouquet for purposes, say, in the Birmingham area belay or Duisburg belay belay from the Shetland area lol islands, we request know and can feel . But I can’t say how awkward it will be on the other side, but I guess laughing there will be another one"
    And so on.

    But I will never believe that the respected author himself does not know all this.
    1. +16
      6 May 2024 09: 16
      Now many have begun to imagine a war with NATO similar to the war with Ukraine, only on a larger scale. Forgetting that the basis of NATO’s military operations is the Air Force, which the Ukrainians actually do not have.
  6. +6
    6 May 2024 05: 51
    All these constructions about drones against ships come down to a simple thing - range. The smaller the size, the shorter the range. Accordingly, “ocean-sized” UAVs will also be needed against ocean targets.
  7. -11
    6 May 2024 05: 58
    For some reason, the author forgot that in the event of a major war with NATO, all satellites in orbit will be shot down in the first half hour. All AWACS aircraft, all these large reconnaissance drones such as Raptor and Bayraktar, will be shot down by long-range air defense systems. Now that NATO has not officially entered the war, they are quietly roaming along our borders. We must not forget that all ground tracking and detection stations in the Arctic and Baltic states will be subject to a massive attack, possibly using tactical nuclear weapons. So there will be no one to monitor the raiders who have gone to sea. NATO has one problem: to help the Europeans, the Americans must cross the Atlantic. In World War II, the Germans showed that this could be a big problem. As for the money for modernization, I heard that one deputy minister was lassoed here, he has enough dough for modernization. If you take a good walk, you can collect some money for the USSR Navy. Moreover, somewhere there are seized yachts, such as Scheherazade. It is only necessary to resolve the issue coordinatedly and decisively with the owners, especially since it has long been ripe.
    1. +5
      6 May 2024 08: 39
      In World War II, the Germans showed that this could be a big problem.

      And more than a THOUSAND excellent submarines with good crews could not interfere
      cross the Atlantic
      , and by the end of the war the “Dönitz boys” were simply being successfully hunted...
      So there will be no one to monitor the raiders who have gone to sea.

      And where will dozens of enemy MAPLs, as well as enemy AUG/KUGs, who also left for deployment areas in advance, go?
      will be subjected to a massive attack, possibly using tactical nuclear weapons.

      Unless there is a "gentleman's" agreement to NOT use it... wassat
      1. +1
        6 May 2024 13: 39
        Quote: Doccor18
        Unless there is a "gentleman's" agreement to NOT use it...

        Who are you going to negotiate “gentlemanly” with?
    2. +9
      6 May 2024 10: 55
      Can you explain exactly how thousands of satellites will be shot down?
      1. +6
        6 May 2024 12: 51
        Can you explain exactly how thousands of satellites will be shot down?

        Never mind. The individual is clearly addicted to something like dihydrocodeine.
        1. -3
          6 May 2024 14: 51
          No, I lean more on dumplings and Krakow sausage
          1. +5
            6 May 2024 16: 40
            Don’t deceive the audience, neither dumplings nor sausage, even with the most ferocious moonshine, do not give such an effect.
    3. +4
      6 May 2024 11: 07
      Quote: fiberboard
      For some reason, the author forgot that in the event of a major war with NATO, all satellites in orbit will be shot down in the first half hour.

      Quote: fiberboard
      We must not forget that all ground tracking and detection stations in the Arctic and Baltic states will be subject to a massive attack, possibly using tactical nuclear weapons. So there will be no one to monitor the raiders who have gone to sea.

      What raiders? What kind of transportation across the Atlantic? According to your initial data, a full-scale nuclear war is about to begin with the vitrification of everything and everyone. Because there cannot be any other result when the space and ground components of the SPYAU are removed - this is the first sign of a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the enemy.
      Quote: fiberboard
      In World War II, the Germans showed that this could be a big problem.

      While the enemy is not ready - yes. Now two USN fleets - the 6th and 2nd - already have access to the Atlantic. Plus the fleets of NATO European countries.
      The Yankees don’t even need to invent anything. It is enough for them to restore the anti-aircraft submarine system of the end of the Cold War - and our nuclear submarines will again be locked behind the Faroe-Icelandic one.
      Quote: fiberboard
      As for the money for modernization, I heard that one deputy minister was lassoed here, he has enough dough for modernization.

      How many times have they written that money in our situation is not the main thing. Remember the same “Zvezda”, which received a fat contract from the Moscow Region - and failed it. Because it suddenly turned out that money itself does not directly transform into goods.
    4. +5
      6 May 2024 12: 49
      For some reason, the author forgot that in the event of a major war with NATO, all satellites in orbit will be shot down in the first half hour. All AWACS aircraft, all these large reconnaissance drones such as Raptor and Bayraktar, will be shot down by long-range air defense systems.

      Be careful with opiates and barbiturates, the destructive effects are clearly already visible.
  8. +6
    6 May 2024 06: 06
    Strange article. It is written according to the principle: “we don’t need this, this is useless, and this is completely meaningless.” It reminded me of something from the not so distant past.
  9. BAI
    +7
    6 May 2024 06: 12
    The main problem of our fleet is admirals. Give them anything - they will make everything useless. For the main purpose of the fleet is to sparkle with torn coppers
  10. +11
    6 May 2024 06: 25
    Thank you, Roman, I laughed heartily.
    When you read about the great and terrible drone made of shit and sticks, which rattles happily and hits every living thing with several kilograms of explosives, I always think how people, almost a century later, finally brought the ideas of M. N. Tukhachevsky to life!
    There were eccentrics all around, the Anglo-Saxons with their bomb carriers and aircraft carriers, and Stalin with his guns and tanks, not to mention Hitler with his Fau and submarines.
    But it was necessary to take up aircraft modeling, well, according to the behests of Mikhail Nikolaevich, rivet the BEC - and victory is in your pocket!
    Why didn’t all these chimeras fire in that war?
    And the author himself revealed in his recent work: connection! This is exactly how he explained to us the reasons for the defeat of the Red Army in 1941. Well, in this case, I agree with him, albeit with reservations, of course, but “loss of communication means defeat in battle” is a true slogan!
    So, let the fans of all this telemechanics forgive me, drones are peacetime weapons, and if communication is disrupted, they are simply explosives drifting in space. In wartime, there will simply be no sustainable radio control, just as the primary emitters of control signals on the ground, in the air and at sea will be destroyed.
    Another thing is Artificial Intelligence. Yes, this is serious. We don’t yet understand what Genie the eggheads are preparing to let out of the bottle. When network-centric devices, receiving online information from the same intelligence officers, will sophisticatedly sow death, without experiencing any fear or reproach - then the time of Armageddon will come!
    As for cruiser class ships.
    Of course, we don't know how they will behave in a high-intensity conflict. But if they exist, then it’s better than nothing.
    And, I have already written more than once in the comments that it is time to transfer them to the Pacific Ocean. As well as strategic bombers along with command and hp. transfer there too.
    Using China's construction power, build bases for joint use and get ready.
    1. +4
      6 May 2024 06: 54
      In wartime there will simply be no stable radio control
      This is true. But there are also drones with a flight algorithm already inherent in them, which do not require any operator. In addition, with the development of AI, drones themselves will learn to “think” where to fly and how to dodge enemy air defenses. But AI is still only the future, although not so distant.
      1. +3
        6 May 2024 06: 56
        Well, that's what I wrote about. This is where the real Armageddon begins!
        1. +3
          6 May 2024 06: 58
          This is where the real Armageddon begins!
          Especially when, I quote:
          We still don’t understand what kind of Genie the eggheads are preparing to let out of the bottle.
          wink
      2. +7
        6 May 2024 11: 09
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        This is true. But there are also drones with a flight algorithm already inherent in them, which do not require any operator.

        Yeah... jet drones with the ability to fly along a route, work in groups, independently detect and classify a target, select target locations, etc. They are called RCC. smile
        1. 0
          6 May 2024 15: 18
          They are called - RCC
          The RCC does not yet have enough of its own “brains” to make the right decision. A radar homing head is just a “dumb” (sorry for the word) radar, as opposed to a visual head, where the decision is made by AI based on the software embedded in it
          1. +3
            6 May 2024 16: 11
            Quote: Dutchman Michel
            A radar homing head is just a “dumb” (sorry for the word) radar, as opposed to a visual head, where the decision is made by AI based on the software embedded in it

            This is an anti-ship missile from the Cold War.
            New anti-ship missiles, the same NSM and LRASM, are equipped with an IR seeker that recognizes and selects a target by comparison with images in the database. LRASM also has a passive radio frequency seeker attached - to facilitate the search and recognition of ships with their specific radars.
            1. 0
              6 May 2024 16: 49
              This is an anti-ship missile from the Cold War. On new anti-ship missiles, the same NSM and LRASM, they install an IR seeker
              IR guidance heads are the same anachronism as recognition by reflected radio signal (in relation to UAVs). An air kiss from the Cold War. IR heads and radar heads, they “see” just an object, just like a blind person, feeling with a cane, “sees”, or rather feels, where to go. Visual heads with AI see and distinguish objects in the same way as you see them.
              1. +4
                6 May 2024 17: 08
                Quote: Dutchman Michel
                IR heads and radar heads, they “see” just an object, just like a blind person, feeling with a cane, “sees”, or rather feels, where to go.

                Nope. NSM has not the simplest Infrared homing in its seeker, but Imaging infrared seeker, which provides an image of the target. It allows the missile's SSN to classify a detected target based on the received image and capture only the target whose image coincides (with a probability not lower than the threshold) with the image from the database.
                1. -1
                  6 May 2024 17: 18
                  The NSM in the seeker does not have the simplest Infrared homing, but an Imaging infrared seeker that produces an image of the target
                  I'm not familiar with this system, but I'm convinced one hundred percent, that it is either IR, or something built on a reflected signal, using the data embedded in it (probably analog). In those days there were no such electronic “brains” and software as have appeared in the last few years!
                  1. +3
                    6 May 2024 17: 51
                    Quote: Dutchman Michel
                    In those days there were no such electronic “brains” and software as have appeared in the last few years!

                    In those times - this is the beginning of the 2000st century. Norgi designed their NSM in the early XNUMXs, and LRASM with IIRS from BAE is generally the mid-XNUMXs of the XNUMXst century.
                    IIR is the same view picture, only in the IR range. It’s not for nothing that the first I is there - imaging (visual) - just to distinguish it from primitive IR.
                  2. +1
                    7 May 2024 13: 37
                    You are both talking about the same thing, you just lose sight of the fact that a picture, photograph, image can be in the visible (to the human eye) range, as well as in the infrared, ultraviolet, x-ray and a bunch of other radio emission ranges. Not just hot, not hot. This is kind of how radio astronomy works.

                    And by comparing all these images, you can successfully reject false targets and more reliably classify the same ships. The missile defense cruiser in these ranges will glow like a Christmas tree.
                    1. +1
                      7 May 2024 16: 07
                      И comparing all these images can already successfully reject false targets
                      You are partly right. However, who will compare, analyze, and then determine the goal? A huge block consisting of a set of transistors or a small microchip that can be stuck behind a fingernail?

                      This is still not my field, but I can assume that the navy probably also has some kind of background camouflage, something like corner reflectors on ships or heat traps, which can easily confuse any so-called database. "images" originally embedded in the anti-ship missile system
          2. +1
            6 May 2024 16: 14
            Well, here you are not entirely right; attempts to solve this have already been used in the P700 and successfully.
            1. +2
              6 May 2024 16: 56
              Well, here you are not entirely right, attempts to solve this have already been used in the P700 and successfully
              These were attempts to put collected data about ships into the control unit and, based on them, select a target. If only I understood you correctly
              1. +2
                6 May 2024 16: 58
                They understood correctly, but if even then it was possible to select a target, then what prevents you from doing this now by putting these parameters into the rocket.
                1. +2
                  6 May 2024 17: 02
                  if even then it was possible to select a target, then what’s stopping you from doing it now by putting these parameters into the missile?
                  I wrote in a post above about a blind man:
                  they “see” just an object, just like a blind person, feeling with a cane, “sees”, or rather feels, where to go

                  The parameters included in the rocket can be changed by the future “target” itself. But it will be difficult to deceive AI. Let me remind you that they can already identify people’s faces when they are completely wrapped in a scarf or a knitted hat pulled over their face. wink
                  1. KCA
                    0
                    8 May 2024 12: 54
                    There is such a thing as reference points, AI uses them to determine a person’s face, the fewer of them - the face is wrapped in a scarf and a cap on the eyebrows, reduces their number and the likelihood of error increases, recently a man was released, whom the camera recognized as a murderer, miraculously bounced back, like a year in spent time in pre-trial detention
          3. KCA
            0
            8 May 2024 12: 50
            I wonder, if anti-ship missiles do not have optical seekers, why did the ancient “Granites” have the profiles of the ships of a potential enemy sewn in and a flock of “Granites” distribute targets? Has everything really become so bad and the Onyx and Caliber anti-ship missiles do not have optical sensors?
            1. +1
              8 May 2024 14: 21
              why were ship profiles sewn into the ancient “Granites”
              Because they are ancient
              Has everything really become so bad and the Onyx and Caliber anti-ship missiles do not have optical sensors?
              It didn't get bad, new technologies just appeared. It's like pigeon mail and email, everything seems to work, but email still works better
    2. -1
      6 May 2024 11: 41
      Everything is correct in principle, but I don’t agree with one thing.
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      And, I have already written more than once in the comments that it is time to transfer them to the Pacific Ocean. As well as strategic bombers along with command and hp. transfer there too.

      Discarding the “pink snot,” we have to come to the conclusion that the Barents Sea region during a global conflict is more dangerous for the most developed and populated part of our country. At the same time, the sparsely populated Far East does not have such strategic importance (logistics alone on a single railway is worth it to the enemy) to drive the main forces of the fleet there to protect it hi
      1. 0
        6 May 2024 12: 08
        Andrey, write in a matter-of-fact manner, but the Northern Fleet in its current configuration simply does not have an enemy with whom it must fight. Underwater duels and guarding bases - that's all.
        Moreover, the Northern Sea Route is a zone of continuous possible mining.
        And I repeat, access to both oceans is closed.
        And in the Pacific Ocean, thanks to the victory of 1945, we have both free access and the possibility of basing in closed seas. The main battles will take place there.
        And the loss of the Far East is the loss of huge strategic territories, after which the collapse of Russia is inevitable.
        1. +2
          6 May 2024 12: 23
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Andrey, write in a matter-of-fact manner, but the Northern Fleet in its current configuration simply does not have an enemy with whom it must fight. Underwater duels and guarding bases - that's all.

          When it comes down to it, the enemy will appear. They won't "rust" behind them.
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Moreover, the Northern Sea Route is a zone of continuous possible mining.

          Given the global "batch", its value is exaggerated.
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          And I repeat, access to both oceans is closed.

          “Where to make money, get yours back” request
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          And in the Pacific Ocean, thanks to the victory of 1945, we have both free access and the possibility of basing in closed seas.

          Undoubtedly, but...
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          And the loss of the Far East is the loss of huge strategic territories, after which the collapse of Russia is inevitable.

          The loss is very conditional. Advancement of the enemy is possible only along meager communications. Ultimately, the results of the conflict will depend on the overall “win-loss” of the parties, and the preservation of the strategic potential of the European part in this case is more important hi
      2. 0
        6 May 2024 13: 55
        BAM don't you think?
        your comment is too short
    3. +1
      6 May 2024 22: 45
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      Another thing is Artificial Intelligence. Yes, this is serious. We don’t yet understand what Genie the eggheads are preparing to let out of the bottle. When network-centric devices, receiving online information from the same intelligence officers, will sophisticatedly sow death, without experiencing any fear or reproach - then the time of Armageddon will come!

      These prophecies have been pouring in since the 80s, and when it comes to things, AI shines only in converting the Vladimir Central into an opera. During Covid, supercomputers found another panacea every week, and a couple of years ago chat room was ready to leave all accountants and other office workers unemployed. But such a future still won’t come, with trains levitating on superconductors at room temperature, nanomachines repairing cells and other graphene batteries.
  11. Eug
    +3
    6 May 2024 06: 27
    As for me, the main task of the Orlans was the destruction of AUG and AUS in the North. Atlantic, but not alone, but together with other naval forces (MRA, MTSAPL, Sarych). With the abandonment of this concept, this task also disappeared - and there are no others for the Orlans....
    1. +1
      6 May 2024 06: 44
      Well, will an ultra-long-range air defense cruiser suit you?
      It may well be.
      And as for the BEC - then launch the same drones over the ship with a BEC detection system and arrow-shaped shrapnel from the RBU. You will like it, BECs will not.
      And yes, a cruiser-class ship can ONLY be nuclear-powered, and the non-nuclear launcher simply needs to be removed. During the war, bunkering will not be possible.
      1. +5
        6 May 2024 10: 07
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        During the war, bunkering will not be possible

        90% of warships are non-nuclear. Why shouldn't they take part in the war?
        1. -2
          6 May 2024 10: 10
          Periodically, off our shores or on the Black Sea. Why is Reni still not occupied and there is no movement through Moldova towards Kherson?
          1. +1
            6 May 2024 10: 31
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Why is Reni still not busy?

            Why it is still functional is the “mystery of the century.”
    2. +4
      6 May 2024 08: 49
      With the abandonment of this concept, this task also disappeared - and there are no others for the Orlans....

      May the AUG not allow a twenty-thousandth monster to come within 100-300 km. But what about target designation from 500-1000 km...? And vice versa, the AUG, using in the near future together with manned aircraft and heavy reconnaissance/attack/refueling/electronic warfare UAVs, will further expand the radius of destruction...
      1. Eug
        +2
        6 May 2024 10: 11
        In a 5-6 point storm it will let us in - when the weather conditions make it impossible to use deck crews... or the catapults won’t work in icing conditions... it was thought something like this. As for me, the method is ripped off from Tirpitz and Bismarck, which are battleships, taking into account modern means and forces.
        1. +1
          6 May 2024 10: 43
          when deck guards cannot be used due to the weather.

          Well, there will be no fools sitting on the bridge either. If you can’t use the advantages of your weapon, then what should you do?
          And let’s not forget about the enemy submarine. It seems to me that the adversary simply will not allow anyone to go out into the open ocean if he really smells of something fried. They are preparing very well for underwater warfare, regular exercises in the north, under-ice torpedo firing, etc...
        2. +3
          6 May 2024 11: 17
          Quote: Eug
          In a 5-6 point storm it will let you in - when the weather conditions make it impossible to use deck guards..

          In this case, the AUG will simply shift the detection to the base aviation, and if our KUG is detected, it will move away from it beyond the launch range of the anti-ship missiles. And our KUG will be taken care of by submarines.
          Quote: Eug
          or catapults will not work in icing conditions..

          Ice-covered steam boiler. laughing
    3. 0
      7 May 2024 01: 21
      I would formulate a new strategic task for the Orlans: long-term patrolling in the combat duty zones of potential enemy SSBNs with the aim of intercepting ballistic missiles during the acceleration phase of the flight. True, then there would be an order of magnitude more Orlans, and some of the Caliber-NK cells would need to be used to accommodate long-range missiles.
      1. Eug
        0
        7 May 2024 05: 09
        And the security is appropriate from the SSBNs - “hunters”, at the same time they will “hunt” the SSBNs.
  12. +4
    6 May 2024 06: 29
    Everything is possible in Russia. For it is “controlled directly by God”...

    Perhaps the author is absolutely right, perhaps the author does not understand anything at all, it is possible to “squeeze out of the Arctic”, or perhaps we will lose all the ships on the first day.....and the missiles will fly where they should?... Perhaps.....

    For example, in December 1991, who knew that it was possible for just three dudes at night in the Belovezhya forest to divide a country with a population of nearly 300 million?
  13. +1
    6 May 2024 06: 44
    In general, I believe that all naval fleets are outdated; we need to focus our efforts on building an Imperial-class Star Destroyer to strike the enemy from a safe distance in low-Earth orbit using turbolasers and ion cannons)
    1. +3
      6 May 2024 07: 17
      I'll tell you a secret, the death star is already being built in orbit, the empire strikes back
  14. -5
    6 May 2024 07: 28
    We don't need this scrap metal for nothing. As experience has shown, it is easier to sink them than to blow your nose, Russia does not have the strength to create a huge group around these galoshes, there are no tasks for them, they consume so much money that it is enough to create several dozen normal ships.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +2
      6 May 2024 13: 00
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      We don't need this scrap metal for nothing. As experience has shown, it is easier to sink them than to blow your nose, Russia does not have the strength to create a huge group around these galoshes, there are no tasks for them, they consume so much money that it is enough to create several dozen normal ships.

      You may not. But Russia needs it. Unless, of course, Russia continues to remain a global player with interests beyond its own border.
  15. +4
    6 May 2024 07: 34
    I don’t want to offend anyone, but now our fleet is so that there are positions for admirals. Yes, occasionally they fire missiles at Bandera’s supporters, but on the other hand they cannot defend themselves in the bases and off the coast. Their air defense is, to put it mildly, below average. Using the NATO squadron as an example, they shoot down almost all of the Houthis’ missiles and UAVs. There is no offensive pressure, no total control over the Black Sea.
    There is no strategic plan for the Black Sea Fleet.
    Another problem is the lack of concepts and modern solutions for modernizing ships. By and large, it is necessary to demolish the entire superstructure, clean out the hold of everything obsolete from the Peter the Great and Nakhimov. But then it turns out that it’s cheaper to build a new ship. And then, during modernization, there is a big temptation to waste money. No worse than Timur Ivanov.
    If modernization will take 10-15 years, then there is no point in starting it. Especially if there is no concept and understanding of what is needed and what weapons are needed. soldier
    1. +3
      6 May 2024 08: 06
      But then it turns out that it’s cheaper to build a new ship.

      Key phrase.
      Modernization project + basic project - superfluous = new cruiser in an old hull. We know how to build it, we can arm it and maintain it. So we need to rivet them! This is much better than scraping out the old and pushing in the new, spending a lot more than when building from scratch.
      And from a financial point of view, this is much better than withdrawing funds offshore and causing theft.
      1. +5
        6 May 2024 09: 22
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        So we need to rivet them!

        Rivet? 20-ct. cruisers? 4-ct. You need to try to learn how to “rivet” frigates first, at an acceptable speed, at least two or three a year.
        1. +1
          6 May 2024 09: 38
          A ship with a nuclear power plant cannot be less than 10 thousand tons. Without nuclear power plants, we will not get out of the bases, and bunkering at sea will not be available.
          A cruiser differs from a frigate in that it is suitable for both squadron and autonomous operations. A destroyer-leader is just a cruiser.
          1. +3
            6 May 2024 09: 50
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            A ship with a nuclear power plant cannot be less than 10 thousand tons

            Undoubtedly, I would say that it is closer to 14-15 kt.
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Without nuclear power plants we will not get out of the bases

            We won’t get out of the nuclear power plant until we ensure the constant presence in the BMZ of a couple of modern non-submarine submarines and anti-aircraft corvettes, with serious support from MA, incl. and fighter. And the point here is not at all in the type of power plant, but in the capabilities of the country’s economy to ensure the construction and maintenance of a modern, balanced fleet. In the meantime, until some kind of mass production of ships of the frigate-corvette class has been established, it is somehow frivolous to dream about squadrons of nuclear destroyers. winked
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            A cruiser differs from a frigate in that it is suitable for both squadron and autonomous operations.

            And the cost is four times, and with a nuclear power plant - five or six times, not to mention the technical component, the ability of shipyards to build such ships in an acceptable time frame (no more than five years).
            1. 0
              6 May 2024 10: 08
              I only see your call sign, FIR FIR, that’s why I’m addressing you this way.
              I have no dreams, and “Frunze” is part of my youth. So I know what kind of ships these are.
              The attempt to exchange nickels for pennies, although low-cost (and even then relatively), is also harmless for our actual opponents. We will be unable to conduct battles in closed seas or operate in the ocean with such forces.
              But with universal cruisers, we can, especially if strategic bombers are repurposed for the tasks of the war in the Pacific Ocean.
              And so - yes, the Northern Fleet (as well as our offshore oil and gas production) are locked in the Arctic, the Baltic is practically unsuitable for ship operations. In the Black Sea, you can’t think of anything other than landing operations and supplying these landings, so surface ships, and even those with nuclear power plants, are not required there.
              And in the Pacific Ocean, on the contrary, except for corvettes, the rest of the ships must be nuclear-powered. Can we build it? And how much do they PAY and SSBNs built per year by the USSR? Our capabilities have not decreased in this regard, and a ton of surface displacement is at least half as expensive.
              Well, a super reserve is the capabilities of the Chinese shipbuilding industry. We give them technology - they give us tonnage.
              1. +3
                6 May 2024 10: 27
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                I only see your call sign, FIR FIR, that’s why I’m addressing you this way

                Alexandra.
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                We will be unable to conduct battles in closed seas or operate in the ocean with such forces.
                But with universal cruisers, we can

                Who would doubt that having 40 ASW corvettes and 20 ASW frigates, 20 ABM destroyers and 5 multi-purpose aircraft carriers is much better than 6 frigates and 8 corvettes... But where are the real opportunities to build all this? Excuse me, delays on corvettes/frigates are sometimes 8-10 years.
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                especially if strategic bombers are repurposed for the war in the Pacific.

                In the Pacific, things are even more complicated. There, in addition to the Americans, the Japanese fleet is also becoming stronger year by year. There are more than a dozen ultra-modern nuclear submarines alone, and there are more and more ships with Aegis. Trying to catch up/overtake, alas, will not work. It won’t be possible to fight “a little bit” in the east either. Either flatten the enemy with special ammunition, or there is a high probability of defeat.
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                Can we build it? And how much do they PAY and SSBNs built per year by the USSR?

                Russia is not the USSR. If you focus only on the submarine fleet, you can be very upset, because the fleet is too multi-purpose, and by cutting it, we are cutting down our capabilities. Who will fight enemy strike and anti-submarine aircraft?
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                Well, a super reserve is the capabilities of the Chinese shipbuilding industry. We give them technology - they give us tonnage.

                Even Chinese banks, frightened by personal Western sanctions, merged, and you hope that they will build warships for us? However...
                1. -3
                  6 May 2024 12: 36
                  Very nice, Alexandra!
                  I will answer briefly:
                  We can compete, I just saw it, but obviously due to your age you didn’t have to.
                  I wrote about the construction of submarines and SSBNs so that you can estimate how many nuclear power plants with PWR-type reactors we could build per year. All production facilities remained in Russia. The fact that a submarine is smaller in displacement than a cruiser does not matter, since a surface ship is two to three times cheaper per ton of displacement. The same applies to armament in relation to SSBNs. So we can build nuclear cruisers in the same quantities. Moreover, their capabilities are much wider than those of submarines, except for stealth.
                  Why did I write about China? Yes, because the main threat in the Pacific Ocean is directed against it. Unlike us, he does not have free access to the ocean. Opposite from the East is the main US Aircraft Carrier and UDC - Japan, on its coast there are two AUKUS invasion bridgeheads - South Korea and Vietnam, supported from the rear by the Philippines and Indonesia. Beyond the Himalayas, Tibbet is threatened by India. Geographically, the bulk of the population, industry and agriculture are located on the Loess Plateau, which will all be washed away into the sea by the impact of the hydraulic structures. All bases, except launch silos in mountainous areas, are reliably covered with minimal flight time. However, no one canceled the preemptive strike against them either.
                  So without Russia, with its geographical capabilities in the Pacific Ocean, China will not survive. The winners will leave him half the population, a quarter of the territory, an eighth of industry (and that is consumer goods).
                  1. +2
                    6 May 2024 15: 24
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    Yes, because the main threat in the Pacific Ocean is directed against it. Unlike us, he does not have free access to the ocean.

                    Exactly so, therefore there is no need, straining all our strength and sacrificing tens of millions of lives, to enter into a third world war with China. It will be very slowly strangled economically, seasoned with the salt of minor regional conflicts. Already, the EU market, which is so important for China, is being quietly closed down, and trade turnover with another important market, the American one, is also shrinking. Many have said and written that time is playing on China, but looking at everything that is happening in the world, it increasingly seems that time is playing against it. Eastern goods in the future will not be able to find an alternative to the highest-margin billion-dollar market of the EU and the USA, and over time, new factories from the south will inevitably replace old ones from the east.
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    So without Russia, with its geographical capabilities in the Pacific Ocean, China will not survive

                    I agree, but in the long outcome that follows, we should think seriously, first of all, about ourselves, about our capabilities, about industrial and scientific independence, and not wait for the understanding and blessing of new partners.
                    Quote: Victor Leningradets
                    So we can build nuclear cruisers in the same quantities.

                    Be that as it may, even the mighty USSR was able to master only 4 TARKs, and even then the last one was being completed in another country.
                    1. +2
                      6 May 2024 15: 35
                      Thank you, Alexandra!
                      It’s rare to have the opportunity to communicate with an intelligent, knowledgeable person.
                      To me, the Chinese are not only brothers, but natural yellow devils. But I know that in the upcoming redivision of the world, neither they nor we can do without us. An attempt to stand on the sidelines will lead to us being defeated one by one. For the Hegemon, this is simply the best solution. And so the United States has identified a victim and is preparing. This is also evidenced by the change in the basing and deployment of logistics supplies in the Pacific Ocean.
                      We have a chance to outplay them, but the mess could be monstrous compared to the Pacific campaign of 1941-1945.
                      Let's see what happens during Putin's visit to China. The main thing is that our Foreign Ministry tries for the good of the Motherland, and not for the interests of its “partners.”
          2. 0
            6 May 2024 19: 30
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            A ship with a nuclear power plant cannot be less than 10 thousand tons.

            Debatable. We had nuclear submarines with a displacement of less than 3 thousand tons. Why can't a surface ship be made?
            1. 0
              6 May 2024 19: 32
              Seaworthiness when weighted on the hull, propulsion, weapons, crew, supplies. An ocean ship turns out to be no less.
        2. +1
          6 May 2024 22: 51
          Quote: FIR FIR
          4-ct. You need to try to learn how to “rivet” frigates first, at an acceptable speed, at least two or three a year.

          Karakurts should learn to rivet at least at this speed...
    2. -2
      6 May 2024 08: 23
      I also don’t want to offend anyone, but I just don’t understand how all sorts of unexpected events happen here.

      For example, Chernobyl - or these days: the cruiser "Moscow" is sailing, everything is fine, sailors, smart officers, caps, ribbons in the wind.....
      All of a sudden-bam! -they are already at the bottom. Funeral march, mourning. But didn’t they themselves know what the threats were? These are threats to their own lives, not to someone else.....

      It’s as if they are not specialists, but hatched from an egg and then there was a cat nearby. And then, of course, other people come, throw up their hands and things move on and again everyone is smart and they all know everything about everything and everything.....
    3. -8
      6 May 2024 08: 44
      Quote: V.
      Using the NATO squadron as an example, they shoot down almost all of the Houthis’ missiles and UAVs.

      Mr. Soldatov, can you at least have some photos and videos to prove your statements?
      1. 0
        6 May 2024 09: 15
        Everything is on the Internet. Photos and videos get into civilian ships, but not into military ships.
        Maybe their censorship works, or maybe they really shoot down everything that flies. bully
        1. -5
          6 May 2024 09: 51
          Quote: V.
          no to warships.
          Maybe their censorship works, or maybe they really shoot down everything that flies.

          In our age of selfie lovers, any censorship is meaningless, but here is such a “victory” without praising ourselves on social networks??? The question arises....was there a boy? what
      2. +1
        6 May 2024 12: 03
        There is no censorship in Western sources. If a drone or missile damaged or sank an American or British ship, it would be widely reported in the press and on television. For months, the Houthis tried to send hundreds of drones and missiles, but none got through. True, most of them were “flying garbage,” but here “quantity did not turn into quality.” I don’t count hits on defenseless tankers or container ships, because this is a terrorist attack, not a fight against the American fleet.
        1. -2
          6 May 2024 12: 57
          Quote: Little Bear
          There is no censorship in Western sources

          Then where are the photos and videos of the shooting down of Houthi drones and missiles???? So the Americans you love have filled the entire Internet with Russian planes flying over them, but they can’t even boast about their “victory” over the Houthi “flying debris” in documents... why?
  16. 0
    6 May 2024 07: 44
    There is no point in clinging to the past, including the remnants of Soviet greatness in the form of surviving fragments of the USSR Navy. This will only cause frustration.
  17. 0
    6 May 2024 08: 13
    Maybe the cruisers that are ruining the country... belay
    1. man
      +2
      6 May 2024 17: 57
      Quote: Arzt
      Maybe the cruisers that are ruining the country... belay

      Ahh, we finally found the culprits! And then everyone thought and wondered why in the richest country in the world people live so poorly, just a little away from the Moscow Ring Road? Now we will know that Blame the vile cruisers! It is urgent to create a commission for the destruction of cruisers, headed by Arzt, and allocate a couple of trillion rubles from the budget for the holy cause. And we will live richly and happily! Hurray, future gentlemen!
      1. -2
        6 May 2024 20: 21
        Ahh, we finally found the culprits! And then everyone thought and wondered why in the richest country in the world people live so poorly, just a little away from the Moscow Ring Road? Now we will know that the vile cruisers are to blame! It is urgent to create a commission for the destruction of cruisers, headed by Arzt, and allocate a couple of trillion rubles from the budget for the holy cause. And we will live richly and happily! Hurray, future gentlemen!

        Not. It is necessary to rivet cruisers and other things, as under Gorshkov, and then shrink to the borders of the Moscow principality. So that there is no access to the sea. Maybe then they'll calm down...

        There should be meaning in such matters, pragmatism and rationality. These cruisers are of no use if anything happens, and there are no ordinary motor boats for the Dnieper. negative
        1. man
          +1
          6 May 2024 20: 31
          Not. It is necessary to rivet cruisers and other things, as under Gorshkov, and then shrink to the borders of the Moscow principality. So that there is no access to the sea. Maybe then they'll calm down...
          It was under Gorshkov that we squeezed??? Are you a liberal?
          1. -2
            6 May 2024 21: 18
            Not. It is necessary to rivet cruisers and other things, as under Gorshkov, and then shrink to the borders of the Moscow principality. So that there is no access to the sea. Maybe then they'll calm down...
            It was under Gorshkov that we squeezed??? Are you a liberal?

            Of course not. Under Gorshkov, we expanded mindlessly. As a result, we now live in the Russian Federation, and not in the USSR.
            The Gorshkovsky fleet is one of the anchors that pulled the Land of the Soviets to the bottom. Yes
            1. man
              +1
              6 May 2024 23: 41
              Of course not.
              Yes, I already realized that after reading your other comments. I was in a hurry, sorry about that.
              During Soviet times, I was also irritated by what seemed to me to be excessive defense spending. But now it is obvious that I was wrong. What would we do without the Soviet legacy now?
  18. +2
    6 May 2024 08: 21
    If they just give the order to leave the Kola Bay for a tank and it gets ready to leave, you can close the accounts of the entire Navy, dress the sailors in green and send them to the infantry. Because this will speak of the complete, not, COMPLETE incompetence of the fleet command and its general uselessness.
    The emergence of such a monster in wartime and not only in time is an operation involving anti-mine, anti-submarine (are they?) forces, satellite and aerial reconnaissance. And the admiral must understand this.
    Why? Yes, if only because at the exit from Kola there are always a couple of NATO nuclear submarines in our terrorist waterways. The last 50 years - certainly. And at the beginning of the war, all the exits to our fleet will be filled with mines, as has already happened in history.
    And without combat support, even such a monster is simply a big target for aviation and nuclear submarines.
    What will we provide?????
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. +3
    6 May 2024 09: 08
    But as the war of NATO ships against the Houthi crafts in the Red Sea showed, they can fly. No matter what, they make it.

    Not a single Houthi craft made it to NATO ships in the Red Sea.
  22. -1
    6 May 2024 09: 32
    That's not why you're dancing.

    The fundamental problem is not the ship itself or its cost, but its “unsystematic nature.”

    We cannot build such ships now; we cannot manufacture some of the main components. As a result, we cannot scale this system.

    And since we can’t scale and update, then it’s pointless to plan something at least 10 years in advance.
  23. +4
    6 May 2024 09: 36
    And the really important thing here is not to rush, to clearly collect and process information correctly.

    The main feature of any fleet (except perhaps the Americans in WWII) is that they fight almost exclusively with what was built in peacetime. Anyone involved in government procurement, design and engineering work knows that the production cycle is very long. And for complex systems or ship projects it is not one year, but sometimes even ten.
    If you don't rush... then... instead of ships you have, albeit not very suitable, but available. There will be nothing but hastily converted civilian scows.
    1. +3
      6 May 2024 11: 33
      Quote: Alceers
      The main feature of any fleet (except perhaps the Americans in WWII) is that they fight almost exclusively with what was built in peacetime.

      Come on. During the war, Limi built and completed the construction of AB, LK and KR, the Japanese - AB and KR.
      Quote: Alceers
      Anyone involved in government procurement, design and engineering work knows that the production cycle is very long. And for complex systems or ship projects it is not one year, but sometimes even ten.

      This is if you build from scratch each time, starting the cycle again. And if you regularly lay down ships according to an existing project and lay down new ships on them as the slipways become free, you will end up like the Yankees: a new aircraft carrier every three to four months.
      1. +2
        6 May 2024 14: 37
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Come on. During the war, Limi built and completed the construction of AB, LK and KR, the Japanese - AB and KR.

        And if we look at the experience of building wooden scows from the times of Peter the Great, then you can make 10k a day. The problem is that modern ships in production are not even several times, but orders of magnitude more difficult than those produced during WWII. And if you also destroy critical production, which often does not have backups, then all construction will become cancer.
        Therefore, at the present time we will have to fight only with what we managed to build and what is in a high degree of readiness, if we manage to protect the SZS from destruction, which is very problematic to do, since they are all specially located as close as possible and convenient for destruction.
        1. 0
          6 May 2024 16: 21
          Quote: JD1979
          And if we look at the experience of building wooden scows from the times of Peter the Great, then you can make 10k a day.

          An example of WWII was given by the topicstarter himself:
          Quote: Alceers
          The main feature of any fleet (except perhaps the Americans in WWII) is that they fight almost exclusively with what was built in peacetime.

          Quote: JD1979
          The problem is that modern ships in production are not even several times, but orders of magnitude more difficult than those produced during WWII

          So the industry has become orders of magnitude more complex. The multiple higher technical complexity did not prevent the United States from building 36 EM UROs in 73 years.
          Quote: JD1979
          Therefore, at the present time we will have to fight only with what we managed to build and what is in a high degree of readiness, if we manage to protect the SZS from destruction, which is very problematic to do, since they are all specially located as close as possible and convenient for destruction.

          That's not why. We will have to fight with what we managed to build, because only members of the nuclear club have normal fleets. But such a war will not last long and will inevitably slide into the nuclear phase - the first strike on an SSBN or SSBN will be enough.
          1. 0
            6 May 2024 19: 22
            Quote: Alexey RA
            So the industry has become orders of magnitude more complex. The multiple higher technical complexity did not prevent the United States from building 36 EM UROs in 73 years.

            Rather, the only thing she allowed was 73. 2 per year. These rates will not make it possible to compensate for losses in the event of a conflict, even if production is maintained.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            That's not why. We will have to fight with what we managed to build, because only members of the nuclear club have normal fleets. But such a war will not last long and will inevitably slide into the nuclear phase - the first strike on an SSBN or SSBN will be enough.

            Here you actually have honey-flowers-and-bees))) So why? Any country enters a war with the equipment that was available at the beginning, regardless of the type and type. And then it just depends on the safety of the rear, no matter what kind of weapons will be used, nuclear or conventional. these are just special cases.
            1. 0
              7 May 2024 10: 28
              Quote: JD1979
              And then it just depends on the safety of the rear, no matter what kind of weapons will be used, nuclear or conventional. these are just special cases.

              In a conventional war, the conflict can drag on for a long time - and here all hope lies in the military industry. The nuclear conflict will end in half an hour.
        2. +1
          6 May 2024 20: 59
          Quote: JD1979
          The problem is that modern ships are not even much more difficult to produce, but orders of magnitude more difficult than those produced during WWII.

          It’s even interesting what this is:

          ten times more complicated than this:

          Despite the fact that the first one takes five years to build, and the second one was built in a little more than a year.
          1. -1
            6 May 2024 22: 58
            I don’t even know how to answer you... if you don’t understand and don’t see the difference between these ships
            1. +1
              6 May 2024 23: 08
              Quote: JD1979
              I don’t even know how to answer you... if you don’t understand and don’t see the difference between these ships

              And you tense up and try.
              1. -2
                6 May 2024 23: 12
                Quote: DenVB
                And you tense up and try.

                I don’t want to, why should I strain if you yourself can put in a tiny amount of effort and half an hour of time, but you’re too lazy to strain your brain? Why do I need this? I know this is enough for me.
                1. 0
                  6 May 2024 23: 24
                  Quote: JD1979
                  Why do I need this? I know this is enough for me.

                  I see.
        3. +2
          6 May 2024 22: 59
          Quote: JD1979
          The problem is that modern ships are not even much more difficult to produce, but orders of magnitude more difficult

          so everything has become orders of magnitude more complicated, now any Chinese phone is like a supercomputer 30 years ago. Koreans rivet civilian ships like scows in Peter's times, and they are not orders of magnitude simpler than warships. It’s just that now the times in the military-industrial complex are such that it is necessary to build little, take a long time and be expensive. That’s why tanks are so expensive, although hypercars have engines of 1000+ horsepower, there’s nowhere to put electronics, the materials are super strong that you won’t be killed at 200 km/h, the bonuses for top managers of Lamborghini are cosmic, plus, probably, a subscription to the best brothels is given as a bonus, and Is it several times cheaper than a tank?
          1. -1
            6 May 2024 23: 10
            Quote from alexoff
            That’s why tanks are so expensive, although hypercars have engines of 1000+ horsepower, there’s nowhere to put electronics, the materials are super strong that you won’t be killed at 200 km/h, the bonuses for top managers of Lamborghini are cosmic, plus, probably, a subscription to the best brothels is given as a bonus, and Is it several times cheaper than a tank?

            This is too difficult to explain... you probably need to first read what a modern tank is, and what else you need to have besides the tank itself so that it not only drives like a hypercar on a flat road, but also fulfills its task. (by the way this is included in the delivery price)
            1. 0
              6 May 2024 23: 40
              I can imagine what a modern tank is. Can you imagine a modern hypercar? What are the requirements for it? How cutting-edge is it? And most of the money there is pure show-off, like the tachila was painted by virgins from Thailand. And this is just one comparison. For example, an ordinary bumblebee, which is a flamethrower, costs as much as an excellent video card, and a lancet costs as much as a one-room apartment in a million-plus city or a new car. The quadric is much more complex and advanced than any ATGM and costs an order of magnitude less. Because there are some special requirements for everything to work at -50, but if there is a rollback to the comrade general, then they will turn a blind eye to heaters and lithium batteries that do not work at -50. Similarly, some people demanded in 2013 that all Russian drones have only Russian components, which is impossible without multi-billion dollar investments, which of course did not exist. And all that remained were the eagles manufacturers, who raised the price several times, Uzga, who collects one outpost per month, who stole money for Altius Tsvetkov, and also Kronstadt, which for two years in three shifts has been riveting Orions, but somehow they are not visible in the news . Military factories belong to businessmen and are in fact monopolists, which means the owners can charge whatever price they want
              1. -2
                6 May 2024 23: 49
                you have some kind of verbal garbage and a mess of separate unrelated information. And judging by what you wrote, you don’t really imagine it. Comparison of quadric and ATGM))))
                1. +1
                  6 May 2024 23: 54
                  Well, that is, you want to say that a drone (for 50 thousand rubles) with radio communication, four clearly controlled ultra-light motors, a digital camera with zoom, a bunch of sensors and controllers is simpler than a pipe developed in the 80s (for a couple of million rubles) with smokeless powder and shaped charge, mechanical gyroscope and other 40-year-old junk?
                  How do you imagine this, or is your pot not cooking properly?
                  1. 0
                    7 May 2024 00: 03
                    I want to say that you are not friendly with logic at all))) explain why you are comparing a 2020+ drone with an ATGM manufactured in 1980? maybe we’ll take something more modern))) or did you specifically select it for yourself?))) but then this is bullshit juggling of facts and double standards)) Let’s get Mavic 2 and Brimstone 2))
                    1. 0
                      7 May 2024 00: 17
                      Explain why you are comparing a 2020+ drone with an ATGM from 1980?

                      Um, because this is what the Russian army is fighting with? Because both are bought for rubles, only the amounts are different and not in favor of the ATGM? Or do you think that the 2023 cornet has gone far technologically from its original version?
                      If you don’t want Russian equipment, I can suggest comparing the German infantry fighting vehicle, which is a puma, with a hypercar. There is the same game there. And the Norwegians buy new leopards for more than 30 lamas, like half a fighter.
                      Let's get Mavic 2 and Brimstone 2))
                      It’s extremely difficult to compare here, since a brimstone is the same pipe with gunpowder and cumulative and dubious results. I saw cornets being knocked out by tanks, brimstones are some kind of mythical weapon on something like the Israeli KAZ, it seems to exist and on paper it looks smooth, but the results don’t show up on camera.
                      The British and Germans can cut through their military budgets as much as they want, the flag is in their hands, but we don’t need this practice for nothing and military factories should undergo an audit of where the profits go, if it’s in the pockets of the bosses and directors, then only nationalization and replacement of management
                      1. 0
                        7 May 2024 00: 40
                        To begin with, in order to compare something, you need to develop comparison criteria. what you don't have. you take something randomly and compare it at random by price. and rush from price to corruption, profit, and other things that are not related to the original question. ours is not ours.... you are not comparing our modern drone with our ancient ATGM.... only for the price and you are indignant for some reason. understand yourself. first of all, what do you want)) the same prices for everything? everyone to the wall like in China? or just chat about nothing?
  24. +3
    6 May 2024 09: 45
    To all those who like to bury the fleet.
    Russia and Belarus are only 3,5% of the surface of the globe. With the complete surrender of the oceans, the area controlled by the United States and its allies is about 80% (negatives should learn geography).
    In this form, we can only submit to our fate.
    1. +2
      6 May 2024 18: 54
      I completely agree! We won’t be able to fight back at sea and we’ll be squeezed.

      The main battlefield is the Pacific Ocean. Everything there should be the most modern.
  25. +7
    6 May 2024 09: 45
    Another anti-Soviet nonsense from the author - “I immediately remember June 22.06.1941, XNUMX and the directives from Moscow that the Germans should be pushed abroad and that’s all.”
    The article is garbage...
  26. -1
    6 May 2024 10: 00
    The author has written a lot, some of it very controversial. I can only add that the British took the trouble to install catapults on their aircraft carriers and side decks. Let's see what they can do.
    1. +2
      6 May 2024 11: 38
      Quote: TermNachTER
      I can only add that the British took the trouble to install catapults on their aircraft carriers and side decks. Let's see what they can do.

      They'll do a terrible job. About ten years ago, at the next hearing on the Prince, the designers admitted that after the abandonment of the catapults on the Queens, no design work was carried out to ensure the rapid conversion of the aircraft from springboard to ejection. That is, you will have to cut it alive.
      Miser pays twice. ©
      1. 0
        6 May 2024 12: 02
        Yes, I read it. I even published an article about this on this resource, with a drawing. It is clear that it will be very expensive. Although options are possible, such an upgrade can be spread over two or even three times. It all comes down to funding and timing. If the maximum option lasts for years and billions of ft. Art., can pass the minimum.
        1. +2
          6 May 2024 12: 50
          Quote: TermNachTER
          If the maximum option lasts for years and billions of ft. Art., can pass the minimum.

          Dangerous. His Majesty's Navy has one terrible enemy - its own politicians. And the longer the ship remains in modernization, the greater the chance that the money allocated for it may go to bribery of voters social sphere, and the ship is being dismantled. The same Cameron in 2010 almost scrapped the Prince under construction.
          1. -1
            6 May 2024 17: 46
            Well, actually the Labor leader said that there would be no defense cuts. Perhaps some streams will be redirected. But overall it won't change. Now, if the economy doesn’t cope, that’s another matter.
            1. 0
              6 May 2024 18: 01
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Well, actually the Labor leader said that there would be no defense cuts.

              Firm promises from politicians... laughing
              When they cut the last nuclear “Queen” CVA-01, Labor also said that there would be no cuts - and the money would be used to purchase TSR2 or F-111 and equip air bases for their deployment in areas of vital interests of Britain. And as a result - no TSR2, no F-111, no bases, and the money disappeared somewhere...
  27. -4
    6 May 2024 10: 07
    "Big" has become unnecessary. Although... a battleship with modern weapons raises questions. A kind of floating “armored barge”, and even with mounted booms, similar to the “barbecues” of tanks. She won't care about missiles, torpedoes and kamikaze boats. This can only be drowned with artillery or air bombs. Sorry for the offtopic.

    Russia, as a LAND power, should concentrate on armored boats and small battleships, and in the North, the “Pomeranian nomad” version for maneuvering in ice. 10 small ones with modern weapons are much more effective than huge “floating targets”.
    1. +2
      7 May 2024 16: 09
      Quote: Bayun
      10 small ones with modern weapons are much more effective than huge “floating targets”.

      This, apparently, is the thinking of the Tsushima times - is it harder to hit a small one? lol
  28. +6
    6 May 2024 10: 55
    Notice how often the American aircraft carrier can be seen at the 40th parallel. With a frequency of “never”, because these ships with their steam catapults are not intended to work in the conditions of the Far North. Well, or work, but absolutely not for long.

    In fact, during the Cold War, the Yankees regularly operated from both the Norwegian fjords and the Bering Sea.
    Here's the Coral Sea in 1983 during a NORPAC exercise:

    That is why, by the way, the British made their troughs with springboards. Exclusively because it can be very cold there, and aircraft carriers can simply turn into floating junk.

    The British made their ships with diving boards solely because of poverty and the reduced social responsibility of politicians. The “Invincibles” received a springboard due to the fact that Labor viewed the classic AB as Ustinov viewed a weapon of imperialist aggression. And the “Queens” acquired a springboard because politicians decided to save money and refused to purchase an EM catapult for the fleet. The savings backfired when the monopolist on SKVVP began to raise their prices.
    Where, excuse me, will “Admiral Nakhimov” be able to “support our Ground Forces with missiles”? In the north? But only if the Finnish lemmings attack Murmansk... And we will be forced to launch a military defense against them. So somehow neither the Ground Forces nor any opponents for them are visible.

    As I understand it, the author conveniently forgot about the old NATO member Norway. As well as about the experience of the Second World War.
    How many Ground Forces do we have there in the North? A formidable army corps consisting of two motorized rifle brigades. Against the armed forces of Finland and Norway, and even with possible support from Sweden.
  29. -2
    6 May 2024 10: 57
    This article is a NATO memo on how to attack our ships?
    Yes, during modernization it is necessary to take into account that UAVs will fly low and UAVs will circle in flocks.
    We need a means of fire protection against UAVs and BECs, this is a reality. New targets, there must be new kits for destroying targets.
  30. +7
    6 May 2024 11: 13
    "Horses and people mixed together..."...
    Take the Black Sea, Barents Sea, Turks, Finns, Norgs, Britons, Amerov, AB, catapults, springboards, EM, submarines, anti-ship missiles, BPKR, UAVs, BEC, KR, (satellites to taste), ice, tropics - put through a meat grinder - and from this we can conclude that the Orlans, modernized or not, are useless - it doesn’t matter laughing.
    And it’s okay that “Orlan”, other than anti-ship missiles and missile defense strikes against sea (primarily) and ground targets, is a bastion of multi-level air defense in the ocean zone. And with his “Polynomial” (not to be confused with “Polyment” laughing) is capable, if not of attacking a submarine itself (although it can easily be), then of issuing target designation for n-n-miles?
    Dear Roman, let's talk about airplanes. Otherwise Andrey will come from Chelyabinsk and will not leave any stone unturned in your reasoning laughing
    1. +3
      6 May 2024 14: 11
      And what about airplanes? A novel about airplanes sometimes writes things that make your ears roll, even though VASO lives at the checkpoints.
    2. -1
      6 May 2024 18: 41
      Yes, buffoons from another shot.

      But the fact is a fact: the Orlans have no escort ships. And I understand that it won’t. (
  31. fiv
    +3
    6 May 2024 11: 28
    Any normal operations not on land, but at sea, consist of a limited, but still many events occurring in one period of time. The mentioned ships and their actions will be part of the operation, the developers of which will assign roles for them taking into account their combat capabilities. Therefore, one cannot talk about the uselessness of even more such ships. With a certain operational talent, they will in any case bring considerable benefit in the performance of THEIR task
    1. man
      +1
      6 May 2024 18: 12
      Quote: fiv
      Any normal operations not on land, but at sea, consist of a limited, but still many events occurring in one period of time. The mentioned ships and their actions will be part of the operation, the developers of which will assign roles for them taking into account their combat capabilities. Therefore, one cannot talk about the uselessness of even more such ships. With a certain operational talent, they will in any case bring considerable benefit in the performance of THEIR task

      Amen!
  32. +2
    6 May 2024 14: 18
    Another painting, not in oil... from “I’m an artist - that’s how I see it”
    History will do.
    The current position is a C grade.
    Objectives and forecasts - as usual: surreal delirium.

    Attention, question: what kit will be needed in order to guarantee the disabling of the Orlan TARK?

    I think about 10 BECs and 30-40 UAVs.


    Don’t think about it, just calculate the performance of all air defense systems, at least without a discount on the low speed of targets. ...Although this also requires gray matter.
  33. kig
    +1
    6 May 2024 14: 43
    How often can an American aircraft carrier be seen on the 40th parallel? With a frequency of “never”

    Many thanks to the author, it calmed me down, it was a real weight off my shoulders. The main base of the Pacific Fleet is at 43 degrees, so you don’t have to worry. And Vilyuchinsk, with its 53rd parallel, can sleep peacefully. love
    1. +1
      6 May 2024 16: 22
      Quote: kig
      And Vilyuchinsk, with its 53rd parallel, can sleep peacefully.

      Yeah... just like 1982. wink
  34. +1
    6 May 2024 15: 13
    Article from the series: Lost in the Universe. In a "boyish" style. I don’t even know who influences whom more among the authors. Either Ryabov, or Skomorokhov... For the worse, that’s for sure
  35. +2
    6 May 2024 15: 20
    [quote]The British made their own troughs with springboards. Exclusively because it can be very cold there, and aircraft carriers can simply turn into floating junk.[/quote
    We would like more such “troughs”, instead of this long-suffering and smoky “Kuzi”. Superficial and amateurish judgments from Skomorokhov. One can feel that in maritime affairs and issues he is far from Klimov, who for some reason has not been published in VO for a long time. The latter is truly a professional, knowledgeable and knowledgeable about maritime topics. It’s better for Roma not to take up this topic.
    1. +1
      6 May 2024 16: 02
      Skomorokhov is good because he still raises sensitive topics. You can argue about the argument, but there is no one but him. Publish questions on this resource.
      1. +2
        6 May 2024 18: 35
        Sorry, they write nonsense.

        He probably wants to write how modern warships need to be modernized to suit modern realities. But instead he writes that any ship can be destroyed by backing, UAVs and anti-ship missiles.

        I was surprised!
  36. 0
    6 May 2024 15: 31
    This is all theory. It is clear that the longer the Orlans, and even Admiral Kuznetsov, are in service, the longer the adversaries will bite their stinking nails. And during this time, it is possible to establish a large series of 22350, and only then let the honored veterans retire.
    1. 0
      6 May 2024 18: 34
      Eh... if only there were diesel engines for these 22350...
  37. -1
    6 May 2024 17: 37
    Quote: bayard
    And I wouldn’t be surprised if Nakhimov also has a combat laser.

    Yeah... Engineer Garin's hyperboloid.
    That is why, by the way, the British made their troughs with springboards.

    The author and commentator found each other... Fisherman - fisherman, so to speak.
  38. -3
    6 May 2024 17: 58
    Comparison with the Commune is funny - but the fact that ships that are thirty years old are “practically not old” is even funnier - these senseless mastodons should have been smartly slaughtered on the slipway - and the customers and designers should have rotted in the zone
  39. +2
    6 May 2024 18: 30
    Skomorokhov is burning again! )

    Roman, you wrote a lot of things: that the ship is unnecessary, there is nowhere to use it, how much effort and resources are needed to destroy it, that the ship was modernized to SVO, without taking into account UAV trends, and so on and so forth.

    Now substitute all Project 1144 for any fighter ship: Arleigh Burke, English 45th, European large frigates, Horizons and everything Chinese 051. 052, 054 and so on. And nothing will change, just think! Any ship will be in the same conditions!

    But 1144 of them are in stock. And they don’t need to be cut down, but modernized. We do not have ocean-going ships with such range and autonomy.

    And you also mentioned the most important difference from other ships: incomparable survivability due to the thickness of the hull and enhanced armoring of individual seats.

    Then what is your article about? That any ship can be destroyed. Wow, surprised!

    Ps and yes, there will be no polyment redoubts on 1144m, obviously. The fort is there.
  40. G17
    0
    6 May 2024 19: 16
    In general, after reading the article and comments, the conclusion suggests itself - in a war with NATO, which has significant superiority at sea, our "Peter the Great", "Admiral Nakhimov" and "Admiral Kuznetsov" will ultimately face the fate of the "Bismarck", "Tirpitz" and "Count Zeppelin". The death of the Moskva and the state of affairs in the Black and Baltic Seas show that we need to build up, first of all, the missile component of the Coastal Forces.
    1. +1
      7 May 2024 09: 35
      If they are used similarly, then yes, the fate will be similar.
  41. +3
    6 May 2024 19: 29
    But here we need to look, for what purpose did they start building these ships 40 years ago? That's right, in order to, in theory, turn the AUG of the American fleet into naval-style pasta
    No, these are large anti-submarine ships.
    Going to the Pacific Ocean, of course, is not an option at all; the Bering Strait is a very narrow place and the meeting there can be simply gorgeous.
    Precisely because the Bering Strait is a very narrow place, we can cover it well.
    But the main threat is UAVs. Yes, there are artillery shells against them (except for the main caliber, of course)
    Just 130-mm universal guns will be the most effective anti-drone weapon.
    But the main threat is UAVs.
    They won’t reach (not only due to fuel/charge): they need to be controlled somehow, the range is 150 km. And there is no cell phone service in the ocean.
    The main thing is that even if you take 100 UAVs for $10 and 000 BEC for $20, then the total price is one and a half million dollars plus the cost of the second war, let there be three million for such a ship.
    Take one bullet (a good one, for 100 rubles) and shoot it at a person, whom it took several million rubles to raise... People are not needed, right?
    The BECs easily catch up and end up in a corvette that is ten times smaller.
    They didn’t catch up, it was those who stood who got it.
    Instead of a helicopter, you can, for example, mark the Geranium launcher on the aft platform.
    Will you also drive submarines with Geraniums?
    And when they’re all running around like they’re full of scum, that’s when they can be calibrated.
    Brilliant! We scare the enemy with firecrackers so that he puts the air defense on alert and only then we begin to heroically break through it!
    1. -1
      7 May 2024 09: 33
      Very well written.
  42. The comment was deleted.
  43. -1
    6 May 2024 22: 16
    I will support you from the first to the last word, I’ve been surprised myself lately...
  44. 0
    7 May 2024 02: 27
    Well, first of all, American aircraft carriers launch aircraft in the Arctic too.
    And secondly, any large ship (and Orlan is large) needs to be protected. At least 4 more ships with modern air defense systems. And if they are not there, then it is better not to risk it.
  45. -1
    8 May 2024 14: 38
    Against BECs, we need artillery mounts with guided artillery shells with machine vision in the visible and infrared ranges, like Derivation-Air Defense. 1-2 projectiles per target. Antidrones are needed against aerial drones. You need to have several dozen such networkers on board, taking into account rotation.