Military Review

Large anti-submarine ships of the USSR Navy

93



The main headquarters of the USSR Navy was penetrated by slippery tentacles of horror: the nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise Enterprise seemed everywhere to the commander in chief, officers in a panic were thrown from the windows shouting “Aircraft carriers are coming!” The pistol shot clicked - the Deputy Headquarters of the General Staff shot dead in his office, data about the laying of new aircraft carriers like the Nimitz comes from the US ...

If you believe the "journalistic investigations" of the last years, the USSR Navy was only engaged in chasing American aircraft carrier groups, for which they built "aircraft carrier killers" - special surface and submarines destined for the destruction of "Enterprise", " Nimitsev "," Kitty Hawk "and other floating airfields" probable enemy. "

Of course, the strike aircraft carrier Enterprise - a notable goal. Large, with a huge combat potential. But it is very vulnerable - sometimes an unexploded 127 mm missile is enough for an aircraft carrier to “exit the game”. But what will happen if a firestorm of about fifty 100 and 152 mm caliber shells hits the flight deck of the Enterprise? - A Soviet cruiser, traveling in direct visibility, tirelessly holds an aircraft carrier at gunpoint. Constant tracking of the "probable enemy" is an indispensable attribute of peacetime. And it does not matter anymore that the combat radius of deck "Phantoms" is ten times more than the firing range of the guns of the old cruiser - in the case of the outbreak of war, the first move will be for the artillerymen.

The jolly cruiser Ave. 68-bis is just a warm-up. In the sleeve of the Soviet commanders hidden real trumps - nuclear submarines of projects 949 and 949А, missile carriers Tu-22М, space reconnaissance systems and anti-ship ultra-long-range missiles. There is a problem - there is a solution.

But they were at the Soviet fleet and Real Problems. It is no coincidence that most of the surface forces of the USSR Navy were classified as "Large anti-submarine ships." The Soviet leadership was well aware of who the main threat was coming from - one George Washington with a Polaris SLBM could do more harm than a thousand Enterprise carriers.
Quite right, dear reader, - the Soviet Navy was focused primarily on the search and combat of enemy nuclear submarines. Especially with the "city killers" carrying long-range ballistic missiles. The ocean surface was continuously scanned by anti-submarine aircraft IL-38 and Tu-142, underwater killers of 705 and 671 avenged in the water column, and legendary BOD, Soviet cruisers and destroyers focused on anti-submarine missions, were on duty at anti-submarine lines.

Singing frigates

Large anti-submarine ships project 61. The total displacement is 4300 tons. Crew 270 man. Full move 35 nodes. Range 3500 miles on 18 nodes.
Armament:
- 2 M-1 “Wave” launchers (32 ammunition anti-aircraft missiles);
- 2 automated AK-726 automatic installations of 76 caliber mm;
- 2 rocket-bombing installations RBU-6000 (192 depth charges);
- 2 rocket-bombing installations RBU-1000 (48 depth charges);
- five-pipe torpedo tube caliber 533 mm;
- helipad, aviation fuel storage (5 tons), cellar for aviation torpedoes and equipment.


A series of twenty * Soviet patrol ships of the early 60s, later classified as BOD. The world's first warships with a gas turbine power plant, designed for all modes of travel.
The 61 project became an important stage in domestic shipbuilding - for the first time a ship with an aluminum hull and a gas turbine unit was created. Two anti-aircraft missile complexes, universal artillery, jet depth charges and deep-sea torpedoes - a small glorious ship could use its weapon even in a storm: the sharp “snub-nosed” hull lines allowed the BOD to easily go against any wave.
* More 5 ships of this type were subsequently built for the Indian Navy

There were drawbacks: the sailors complained about the high noise in the cabin - the powerful roar of gas turbines penetrated into each room, making the service on the BOD Ave 61 a rather unpleasant event. But a much more serious issue was the survivability of the ship - fears were confirmed in 1974, when the Brave submarine died in the roadstead of Sevastopol - after the explosion of the rocket cellar the fire quickly spread through the ship, destroying the AMG aluminum-magnesium alloy bulkhead in its path.
However, some circumstances make it possible to disagree with the statement about the low survivability of “singing frigates” - 480 kg of explosives and six tons of gunpowder detonated 5 in the “Brave” cellar, but the small ship continued to fight the fire for XNUMX hours.

Until now, the Russian Black Sea Fleet has one ship of this type.
Large anti-submarine ships of the USSR Navy

BOD "Sharp-witted" in the Mediterranean. In the background - Aegis destroyer of the US Navy "Mahen"




Large anti-submarine ships of the project XNUMHA (code "Berkut-A")

The total displacement is 7500 tons. Crew 380 man. Full move 33 node. Range 5500 miles on 18 nodes.
Armament:
- 8 PU anti-submarine missile system "Metel";
- 2 M-11 "Storm" launchers (48 missile ammunition);
- 2 universal automatic artillery systems AK-725 caliber 57 mm;
- 2 battery AK-630 six-barreled anti-aircraft guns;
- 2 RBU-6000 (depth bomb 192);
- 2 RBU-1000 (depth bomb 48);
- 2х5 torpedo tubes of caliber 533 mm;
- anti-submarine helicopter Ka-25PL, deck hangar.


A series of ten BOD, built in the period 1966 on 1977. for the Navy of the USSR. Just good ships, without any special frills. Provided the Soviet naval presence in the oceans, regularly served in the Atlantic, in the Indian and Pacific oceans. They rendered military-political support to “friendly” regimes, patrolled in zones of military conflicts, submarine strategic missile-carriers of the USSR Navy were brought to combat positions, provided combat training to the fleet, and took part in firing and naval exercises. In short, they did everything that a warship had to do during the Cold War.




Anti-submarine cruisers project 1123 (code "Condor")

Full displacement 15 000 tons. Crew 700 man. Full move 28 nodes. Range 6000 miles on 18 nodes.
Armament:
- air group of 14 helicopters: anti-submarine Ka-25PL, helicopters of long-range radar detection and targeting Ka-25TSU, search and rescue vehicles Ka-25PS.
- 4 helicopter pads, underdeck hangar, small hangar aft superstructure, two helicopter lifts;
- Anti-submarine missile complex "Whirlwind" (1 PU, 8 special ammunition with YABCh);
- 2 M-11 “Storm” launchers (96 missiles);
- 2 RBU-6000 (depth bomb 144);
- 2 universal automatic systems AK-725 57 caliber mm.
- initially the ship had a torpedo weapon and AK-30 anti-aircraft guns 230 mm (they were removed during the upgrade).


Anti-submarine cruisers "Moscow" and "Leningrad" were the first aircraft carriers (helicopter carriers) of the Navy of the USSR. The reason for the emergence of these large ships was the launch of American strategic missile-carriers of the George Washington type — the 16 ballistic missiles “Polaris A-1” with a range of 2200 km — pretty much frightened the Soviet leadership.
The result was a "hybrid" with powerful rocket armament, the entire aft part of which was a runway with a long underdeck hangar. To detect enemy submarines, in addition to X-NUMX Ka-14 helicopters, there was an Orion under-sonar sonar and a Vega hydroacoustic station on board.

The 1123 project is not BOD, but based on the purpose of the anti-submarine cruiser and its weapons, it has the right to occupy a place among the “big anti-submarine ships” like it - an extremely vague definition, covering different in size and characteristics of the ships of the Soviet Navy.

The main drawback of “Moscow” and “Leningrad” became clear already during the first combat services on anti-submarine lines. A total of 4 helicopter pads (flight deck space where take-off and landing operations can take place) and 14 helicopters turned out to be too small to provide a 24-hour anti-submarine patrol over a given area of ​​the ocean. In addition, by the time the “Moscow” lead cruiser-helicopter carrier entered service, the US Navy had received a new ballistic missile “Polaris A-3” with a range of 4600 km — the Washington and Eten Allenov combat patrols had expanded, which made counteraction to strategic rocket carriers is even more challenging.



Anti-submarine cruisers served for nearly thirty years as part of the Soviet Navy, made numerous visits to the ports of friendly states ... Cuba, Angola, Yugoslavia, Yemen. The antisubmarine cruiser "Leningrad" was the flagship of the detachment of the ships of the USSR Navy during the mine clearance of the Suez Canal (1974 year).
Both cruisers were part of the Black Sea Fleet. “Leningrad” after two overhauls finished its service in 1991, and “Moscow” was put in reserve in 1983, and decommissioned - in 1997.

Patrol ships of the 1135 project (“Petrel” code)

The total displacement is 3200 tons. Crew 190 man. Full move 32 node. Range 4000 miles on 14 nodes.
Armament:
- “package” PU of the anti-submarine complex “Metel” (4 rocket-torpedoes);
- 2 short-range Osa-M SAM launchers (40 missile ammunition);
- 2 automated AK-726 automatic installations of 76 caliber mm;
- 2 RBU-6000 (depth bomb 96);
- eight torpedoes caliber 533 mm;
- sea mines - up to 20 pcs. on the upper deck.


A series of 32 sentry ships (up to 1977, were classified as BOD rank II) to solve a wide range of tasks in providing anti-submarine and air defense defense of ship connections in open sea areas and the littoral zone, escorting convoys in areas of local armed conflicts and protecting territorial waters.
The 1135 project differed from its predecessors not only in its elegant appearance, but also in its solid armament, the newest means of detecting enemy submarines, and its high level of automation — the Petrels brought anti-submarine defense to a new level. The successful design provided them with long active service in all the fleets of the Naval Forces of the USSR, and two of them still remain in the Russian Navy.

TFR "Petrel" and USS Yorktown (CG-48)

Objectively, due to the weakness of the air defense system and the absence of a helicopter, the Petrel lost by its capabilities to its famous peers, the American frigate Knox and Oliver H. Perry. But the circumstances were such that the US Navy remembers the “Petrel” much better than its “Knox” and “Perry” - in 1988, the patrol ship “Selfless” in a rough form drove the missile cruiser “Yorktown” from the Soviet territorial waters. The watchman broke the American boat and the launching boat and the Garpun anti-ship missile launching unit, broke the skin in the superstructure area, deformed the helipad, and demolished all guard rail on the port side.

Large anti-submarine ships of the project 1134-B (code "Bercut-B")

The total displacement is 8500 tons. Crew 430 man. Full move 32 node. Range 7000 miles on 18 nodes.
Armament:
- 8 PU anti-submarine missile system "Metel";
- 2 M-11 “Storm” launchers (80 missile ammunition);
- 2 short-range Osa-M SAM launchers (40 missile ammunition)
- 2 universal automatic artillery systems AK-726 caliber 76 mm;
- 2 battery AK-630 six-barreled anti-aircraft guns;
- 2 RBU-6000 (depth bomb 144);
- 2 RBU-1000 (depth bomb 48);
- 2х5 torpedo tubes of caliber 533 mm;
- anti-submarine helicopter Ka-25PL, deck hangar.


Constellation of seven large anti-submarine ships of the Soviet Navy. Large oceanic BOD with tremendous combat potential - anti-submarine missile torpedoes, four anti-aircraft missile complexes, universal and rapid-fire artillery, depth charges and anti-submarine helicopter. Outstanding seaworthiness, 6500 miles sailing range is enough to go from Murmansk to New York and back. “Boukari” (as they were affectionately called in the 1134-B fleet) were indeed the best BOD in the Soviet navy, the most balanced in performance and most fully meeting the tasks of the Navy.

Most of the BOD Ave 1134-B served in the Pacific. Reduced into several anti-submarine groups, the Boukari continuously “combed” the Philippine Sea, where the combat patrol area of ​​American strategic submarines, which were preparing to launch a missile attack on the Far East and Siberia, was located.

There were big plans for the modernization of the BOD Ave. 1134-B - the modernization potential of the ships allowed to mount on board a new anti-submarine missile system "Rastrub-B" and even a long-range C-300 anti-aircraft complex! As an experiment, one of the BOD of this type - "Azov" received instead of the fodder SAM "Storm" two half-deck launchers and a fire control system SAM-C-300F - turned out great. In the future, the naval staff of the USSR Navy could replenish unique BOD, whose foreign counterparts would appear only after 10 years. But, alas ...

Large anti-submarine ships of the project 1155 (cipher "Remove")

The total displacement is 7500 tons. Crew 220 man. Full move 29 nodes. Range 5000 miles on 14 nodes.
Armament:

- 8 PU anti-submarine missile system "Rastrub-B";
- 8 underdeck launchers of the drum type ZRK Self-Defense "Dagger" (64 missile ammunition);
- 2 automated artillery guns caliber 100 mm;
- 2 battery AK-630 six-barreled anti-aircraft guns;
- 2 RBU-6000 (depth bomb 96)
- 2х4 torpedo tubes of caliber 533 mm
- 2 Ka-27PL helicopter, 2 hangar.


"Remove" was a mistake of the leadership of the Soviet Navy.
No, at first glance, the BNP 1155 Ave. is a real masterpiece of shipbuilding, equipped with the Polynom 700-ton sonar complex, the multi-channel Dagger air defense system to repel massive attacks of anti-ship missiles, two helicopters and a whole range of naval weapons - from universal artillery to self-guided torpedoes.
“Remove” would be an undoubted masterpiece ... if it were not for its predecessor - 1134-B. Compared with "Bukarem", BOD Ave 1155 was a step backwards.

Because of the 30-meter fairing GAS Polynom, the driving performance and seaworthiness of the new ship were severely affected - the complex was too heavy for a modest BOD. Of course, “Polynom” provided great opportunities in detecting enemy's submarines, which he spotted at a distance of up to 25 miles, which to some extent compensated for the deterioration in the navigable qualities of the “Demery”. But a much more serious disadvantage was the complete absence of medium-range or long-range air defense systems - the Dagger had a range of all 6,5 miles and could only fight with anti-ship missiles, but not with their carriers.



The rest of the BOD Ave. 1155 was a wonderful ship with a noble line of forecastle and powerful anti-submarine weapons. In total, before the collapse of the USSR, the fleet managed to get 12 large anti-submarine ships of this type.
In 90, only one BOD was built using the modified 11551 project - the only representative of this project, Admiral Chabanenko, retained all the advantages of 1155 Ave., but additionally received the AK-130 artillery system, Kortik anti-aircraft systems and Mosquito anti-ship missiles .

Conclusion

The above 90 large anti-submarine ships and anti-submarine cruisers are just the “tip of the iceberg” of the USSR Navy anti-submarine defense system. There was a whole base patrol aviation system with hundreds of anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters. The expanses of the ocean plied the usual trawlers with unusual trawls - camouflaged anti-submarine patrols with a multi-kilometer low-frequency antenna stretching behind the stern (try to prove that it wasn’t a trawl!) Patched many nerves of American sailors.

Were developed fantastic projects, such as the nuclear BOD project 1199 "Anchar". Moreover, all four heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of the 1143 project carried on their decks a squadron of anti-submarine helicopters and had on board a solid complex of anti-submarine weapons (the grandiose SJSC Polynom and anti-submarine missiles Vortex with nuclear warheads). So, contrary to the well-known myth, during the passage through the Bosphorus, the Soviet sailors did not deceive the Turkish representatives at all by calling their aircraft-carrying cruisers anti-submarine ships.

By the way, the United States Navy developed according to exactly the same scenario - the Americans were dying to death of Soviet submarines, that's why they planned the ship composition of their fleet on the basis of “one frigate per Russian boat”. Worldwide sonar submarine tracking system SOSUS, the FRAMM program for converting hundreds of obsolete destroyers into anti-submarine ships, huge series of anti-submarine frigates “Knox” and “Oliver H. Perry”, unique destroyers of the “Spryens” type with hypertrophied anti-submarine weapons, but without systems zonal air defense - just the American "twins" BOD pr 1155 "Remove".

It remains to add that the idea of ​​a “large anti-submarine ship” died with the advent of sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of 10 000 km. From now on, strategic missile carriers could launch missiles from the territorial waters of their state.

Author:
93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 6 March 2013 08: 14 New
    18
    Many thanks to the author and plus, for an interesting essay.
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 6 March 2013 10: 08 New
      +2
      I enjoyed reading, thanks!
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 6 March 2013 10: 55 New
      +3
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      Many thanks to the author and plus, for an interesting essay.


      I join Koptsov in his element
      1. Santa Fe
        6 March 2013 11: 34 New
        0
        Thank you, Vadim
      2. Santa Fe
        6 March 2013 11: 39 New
        +4
        Thank you, Vadim
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 6 March 2013 11: 47 New
          +6
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Thank you, Vadim


          Please Oleg is a cool article, it's a pity these days they didn’t write like that
        2. VAF
          VAF 6 March 2013 17: 40 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Thank you


          Oleg, +! Very cool and interesting! soldier
          1. Armata
            Armata 6 March 2013 20: 05 New
            +1
            Thank you for the article. Everything about the case and very interesting.
            1. vyatom
              vyatom 12 March 2013 13: 01 New
              0
              Which of the projects in the ranks? That's interesting
    3. Sirocco
      Sirocco 7 March 2013 07: 02 New
      +2
      I want to draw attention to the fact that the USSR has always tried to catch up with the United States, and I have already read this fact in more than one article. From this I conclude that the Axis of Evil has always been the United States at all times.
  2. Alikovo
    Alikovo 6 March 2013 08: 41 New
    +1
    seeing our bpk amers sounded the alarm
  3. Vital 33
    Vital 33 6 March 2013 09: 15 New
    +8
    1155, etc., although "unsuccessful" in the opinion of the author, but in my opinion the most beautiful and "predatory". Isn’t it (too lazy to look for accurate data), the British, while they were still in the USSR, hid on a closed berth so as not to "shock people with a too predatory view of the ship." I can not vouch for accuracy, but something like that ...
    Actually, yes, against the background of Western ships, where everything is hidden, ours are simply the height of ferocity and power.
  4. 123dv
    123dv 6 March 2013 09: 36 New
    0
    Such beauty, and on board some of them I had to be!
    Unforgettable moments.
    1. vlad_pr
      vlad_pr 6 March 2013 10: 00 New
      +2
      As an "industry" (MPO 400), he worked continuously from 1134b to Pacific Fleet. Cool ships. A photo of Tashkent is still hanging in his office. And, if memory serves, the japs ​​called Petropavlovsk - the gendarme of the Sea of ​​Japan, not particularly protruding from their straits. Nostalgia....
  5. Andy
    Andy 6 March 2013 09: 45 New
    -9
    “The main headquarters of the USSR Navy was pierced by slippery tentacles of horror: the commander in chief imagined the atomic aircraft carrier Enterprise, the officers threw panic from the windows shouting“ Carriers are coming! ”A pistol shot fired - the deputy headquarters shot himself in his office, data about the bookmark came from the USA new aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type ...

    If you believe the "journalistic investigations" of recent years, then the Navy of the USSR was only committed to chasing American carrier groups, for which purpose it built packs of "carrier killers"


    after this crap looked author yesterday's fighter with aircraft carriers ...
    no matter how good they are, but they will be destroyed at sea by the aircraft of the same Germans ... yes, the aircraft carrier is quite capable of covering the area of ​​operations of its submarines. In addition, the range of missiles allows launching from the submarine without actually leaving the base ... What is the opposite?

    py.s. the conclusion to the use of ships is incorrect. bpc review definitely +
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2013 10: 25 New
      +5
      Quote: Andy
      yes, an aircraft carrier is quite capable of covering the area of ​​operations of its submarines. Moreover, the range of missiles allows launching from a submarine without essentially leaving the base ... what is the opposite?

      The last paragraph in the article

      Quote: Andy
      no matter how good they are, but at sea they will be destroyed by aviation of the same nimts ...

      And what?

      One bomb dropped on the BOD meant the beginning of the Third World War - the conflict between the USSR and the USA could not have developed otherwise.
      1. Andy
        Andy 6 March 2013 10: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        what

        One bomb dropped on the BOD meant the beginning of the Third World War - the conflict between the USSR and the USA could not have developed otherwise.


        let there be no nuclear war, wipe yourself off as always. example-
        1999 readiness of the NATO troops to open fire on our paratroopers at the airfield under pristina. If I am not mistaken, the order was taken to Clark
        2000 - the death of Kursk. many of our military and even foreigners believe that the Americans drowned him. if your galley rower couldn’t turn his back on the fact of drowning, HAS HE PUSHED the nuclear button?
        so the question remains what happened to the warship, smile sweetly in front of the TV camera and say (as with Kursk) "he / she drowned / a"
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 6 March 2013 11: 07 New
          18
          Quote: Andy
          let there be no nuclear war, wipe yourself off as always.


          The Russian-speaking, Andy, Koptsov is not talking about today's rulers, but about the USSR, which is actually the topic.

          Learn the history of Pristina if you don’t know, the cunning American general gives orders not to the Americans, but to the British to attack the Russian paratroopers, which General Mike Jackson (obviously not a moron) commanded the British units, said he would not allow his soldiers to be responsible for the outbreak of World War III, so who made a big question
          1. Andy
            Andy 6 March 2013 11: 17 New
            -15
            the field marshal doesn’t matter to whom the order was given, but WAS GIVEN. well there were people with brains. but would you shoot, would you start a nuclear war or just wave your hand at the battalion?
            rub yourself like this for 20 years in the framework of democracy ...

            Py.Sy the author Kaptsov second day obsession how to throw aug caps
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 6 March 2013 11: 28 New
              15
              Quote: Andy
              with brains were. But would you shoot, would you start a nuclear war or just wave your hand at the battalion?


              If my grandmother had a member, she would be a grandfather, or history does not know the subjunctive mood as you want, to choose from.
              Quote: Andy
              rub yourself like this for 20 years in the framework of democracy ..


              I understand you, the citizens of the Baltic countries who had everything who wants to, throughout their history, always seduces into verbal skirmishes, they don’t get it, they run into the forest
              1. Andy
                Andy 6 March 2013 11: 35 New
                -15
                I understand that even on this site epaulettes replace mosquitoes, but you can’t get away from the facts. Unless you cling to the flag of geographic affiliation. Whatever the politics of the Baltic states (by the way, I’m not happy about it), you have the same thing
                1. Vadivak
                  Vadivak 6 March 2013 11: 49 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Andy
                  epaulettes replace mosk


                  My military rank is captain, I did not swear to Yeltsin
                  1. vyatom
                    vyatom 12 March 2013 13: 05 New
                    0
                    Quote: Vadivak
                    My military rank is captain, I did not swear to Yeltsin

                    SO MOSCOW DO YOU HAVE OR ONLY THE TITLE OF A CAPTAIN OF A NON-EXISTING ARMY?
                2. gagarinneon
                  gagarinneon 6 March 2013 18: 24 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andy
                  . whatever the policy of the Baltic states (by the way, I’m not happy about it)

                  Ass licking for what would not be thrown out of NATO, the promotion of fascism, attempts at provocations, etc. etc.
                  QUESTIONS IS JUDAH ....................
            2. feanor
              feanor 6 March 2013 11: 29 New
              +5
              Yeah, and in 1812 they “wiped themselves out” and in 1945 they “wiped themselves out” and schA “we wither” laughing
            3. Zabvo
              Zabvo 7 March 2013 19: 59 New
              +3
              Hey, no one was worn out if that! “Iu” itself caught up with the “arms race” if you are not already in the know. And they don’t know you in the world without NATO bases! Russia will be reborn and it already does this, but you don’t even have a decent army, in a word a prostitute. You have had the whole story for you, and now you wanted to blather on the country that saved you from genocide? God forbid you to take you back to your guardianship ... But we take any AUG into the light and the "amers" know this, unlike you. I have a bad opinion about you, "gentlemen are good," for your thoughts about us. fool
        2. Santa Fe
          6 March 2013 11: 31 New
          +7
          Quote: Andy
          let there be no nuclear war, wipe yourself off as always. example

          low-quality examples

          Carriers bombed Soviet cities, and Soviet citizens weep and wipe themselves helplessly - can you imagine this?))))))
          Remember the Caribbean crisis, wise guy. We were the first to open fire - shot down the U-2 over Cuba, black Thursday, the Yankees wiped themselves off.
          1. Andy
            Andy 6 March 2013 11: 49 New
            -11
            the years 1999 and 2000 haven’t said anything to you? All of God's dew ... before they could even stand up for themselves, but now ... it's scary to fight even with Georgia. look on the Internet for the military’s opinion about the “courage” of an iPhone

            and I want to remind you of the Soviet airport bombed by amers in Primorye, an article recently was. also before the nuclear war
            1. Santa Fe
              6 March 2013 11: 49 New
              +5
              Quote: Andy

              the years 1999 and 2000 haven’t said anything to you? All of God's dew ... before they could even stand up for themselves, but now ... it's scary to fight even with Georgia. look on the Internet for the military’s opinion about the “courage” of an iPhone

              Chegozh then amers delay?
              All 10 AUG - course on Magadan. To otaku!
              1. Andy
                Andy 6 March 2013 11: 59 New
                -17
                I’m not going to continue the useless discussion, I won’t get through. The fact remains. Just do not blur the country's weakness in pristina (sincere respect for paratrooper soldiers) and the shame with Kursk ... the number of minuses and the transition to the identity and belonging of the flag are only proof of your inability disprove
                1. Vadivak
                  Vadivak 6 March 2013 12: 16 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Andy
                  The number of minuses and the transition to the identity and belonging of the flag is only proof of your inability to refute this

                  Write on the topic and there will be no questions
                2. Armata
                  Armata 6 March 2013 20: 06 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Andy
                  I won’t continue to useless discussion, I won’t get through. The fact will remain a fact. How not to blur the country's powerlessness in pristina (sincere respect for paratrooper soldiers) and shame with Kursk.
                  Just a minus for the gon off topic.
            2. Vadivak
              Vadivak 6 March 2013 11: 54 New
              +9
              Quote: Andy
              and now ... it’s scary to fight even with Georgia


              Well, it can be scary for the Baltic states, but we’re not so good
            3. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 6 March 2013 12: 02 New
              +5
              Quote: Andy
              and I want to remind you of the Soviet airport bombed by amers in Primorye, an article recently was. also before the nuclear war

              This is when it was?
              Quote: Andy
              and now ... scary to fight even with Georgia

              Listen, who's scared?
              1. Andy
                Andy 6 March 2013 12: 21 New
                -7
                clever people who do not know how to use google ...

                http://www.segodnya.ua/world/Voennye-raskritikovali-Medvedeva-za-voynu-v-Osetii.
                html
                Dmitry Medvedev's indecision cost the lives of Tskhinvali peacekeepers and civilians, Russian officers say
                1. Armata
                  Armata 6 March 2013 20: 08 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andy
                  clever people who do not know how to use google ...
                  Oh damn a resident of the network is another. laughing
                2. lazy
                  lazy 10 March 2013 19: 02 New
                  0
                  Amer, even with Libya, was scared to fight, after the lockerbies they limited themselves to an air raid, for the capture of the embassy in Iran they shot down a peaceful Iranian watermelon in neutral waters. loshki however
          2. Andy
            Andy 6 March 2013 11: 50 New
            -5
            and I want to remind you of the Soviet airport bombed by amers in Primorye, an article recently was. also before the nuclear war
            1. Santa Fe
              6 March 2013 12: 01 New
              +2
              Quote: Andy
              and I want to remind you of the Soviet airport bombed by amers in Primorye, an article recently was. also before the nuclear war

              Why is it just a sniffy airfield in Primorye? it was necessary to bomb Moscow on B-29))))

              In the 1946 year, the United States had complete dominance at sea and in the air, had nuclear weapons, short-range cruise missiles, a super-army with more in number than in all other armies in the world
              why were you late?

              P.S. incident in Primorye - a couple of planes fired at a strip of the airfield in Korea. a common mistake by US Air Force pilots, and everyone understood that. the war does not start like that
            2. gagarinneon
              gagarinneon 6 March 2013 18: 26 New
              +2
              Are you directly suffering from Russophobia or is the fashion now such in the Baltic states.
              1. Andy
                Andy 7 March 2013 00: 01 New
                -2
                no, I just want to be objective. pointed out to the "author" a jerk from an Internet article about stupidity and a lie, and suddenly such a collective insult ... or maybe I got to the point about your wiping before the United States? before the heap, in the 90s they handed over all intelligence agents / location of bugs.
                1. vyatom
                  vyatom 12 March 2013 13: 08 New
                  +1
                  If you are in Estonia, how much time do you write one comment?
            3. 11Goor11
              11Goor11 6 March 2013 19: 55 New
              +1
              Andy
              and I want to remind you of the Soviet airport bombed by amers in Primorye, an article recently was. also before the nuclear war

              So it is insulting to a person that they don’t even have one kind of “war corn”, which brings out the problems of a hundred years ago, even the Korean War?
              Found than reproach. Probably because your "army" is three people with squint and rheumatism, armed only with small arms of the "slingshot system." wassat
              1. Andy
                Andy 7 March 2013 00: 04 New
                -2
                but the Dagis are not mutilating there ... and they are not selling their slaves to Chechens
        3. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 6 March 2013 12: 06 New
          +9
          Quote: Andy

          let there be no nuclear war - wipe yourself off as always

          It’s used to being wiped out in Estonia when they put your country in the EU as cancer.
      2. Delta
        Delta 6 March 2013 11: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And what?

        One bomb dropped on the BOD meant the beginning of the Third World War - the conflict between the USSR and the USA could not have developed otherwise.


        why then did the fleet and the army be built at all? anyway, there’s one bomb - and everyone’s
        1. Santa Fe
          6 March 2013 12: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Delta
          why then did the fleet and the army be built at all? anyway, there’s one bomb - and everyone’s

          for local conflicts. large and not very.
          1. Andy
            Andy 6 March 2013 12: 18 New
            -6
            but aug doesn’t fit into these conflicts at all .... sorry I couldn’t resist. laughing

            aa, oleg ... you are not this author for an hour ??
          2. Delta
            Delta 6 March 2013 12: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            for local conflicts. large and not very.


            Well, imagine a local conflict between the US and the USSR (Russia today). Is it even possible? What local conflicts created the fleet of the USSR? if we were so peaceful that we were not going to conquer anyone. And then - what is a “major local conflict”?
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 6 March 2013 12: 22 New
              +5
              Quote: Delta
              . And then - what is a “major local conflict”?

              This is when the whole world is in ruin hi
              1. Delta
                Delta 6 March 2013 12: 53 New
                0
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                This is when the whole world is in ruin


                Well this is absolutely not local)))) this is total. The author was talking about large and not very local ...
              2. Misantrop
                Misantrop 7 March 2013 01: 42 New
                +3
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Quote: Delta
                . And then - what is a “major local conflict”?
                This is when the whole world is in ruin

                But nifiga. It is like a local conflict on the planet Phaeton. The planet is in dust, and the solar system has survived lol
            2. Santa Fe
              6 March 2013 12: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: Delta
              What local conflicts created the fleet of the USSR?

              military-political support of the allies, the delivery of military assistance and equipment to the allies, the flag demonization, visual demontration of the power of the USSR to the Papuans and Negroes - a new ally and an extra voice at the UN will never be superfluous

              protection of their ships and vessels in local conflict zones (example: tanker war), direct participation in local conflicts (example: delivery of landing troops to Abkhazia and Georgian ports)


              famous photo - US Navy escorted a tanker, 80-e, Persian Gulf
              there was our squadron (photo below, frigate Perry, in the background of the BNC 1134-A)
              Quote: Delta
              And then - what is a “major local conflict”?

              Iraq-Iraq war, war in Vietnam. Intensity comparable to WWII
              1. Delta
                Delta 6 March 2013 12: 51 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Iraq-Iraq war, war in Vietnam. Intensity comparable to WWII


                Did the Soviet fleet take part there?
                1. Santa Fe
                  6 March 2013 19: 04 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Delta
                  Did the Soviet fleet take part there?

                  In Vietnam, the U.S. fleet took part.
                  Deck aviation completed a third of sorties!

                  But something the aircraft carriers did not help - the Yankees vseravno about @ rali
                  Maybe it was necessary more aircraft carriers?)))))))
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 6 March 2013 19: 19 New
                    +2
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    In Vietnam, the U.S. fleet took part.


                    You claimed the participation of the Soviet Navy. Do not leave the topic
                    1. vyatom
                      vyatom 12 March 2013 13: 10 New
                      0
                      Our boats watched the AUG, and if necessary had to destroy them.Delta,
                  2. Armata
                    Armata 6 March 2013 20: 13 New
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Deck Aviation completed a third of sorties
                    Greetings to Oleg. And who recently wrote that the aircraft carriers are simply useless troughs? wink The architecture of all our ships is beautiful. Old men, but they are not more beautiful.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      7 March 2013 00: 46 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Mechanic
                      And who recently wrote that the aircraft carriers are simply useless troughs?

                      And what's wrong - the Yankees in Vietnam blew

                      The aircraft carriers tried so hard there, as many as 30% of departures)))))) It is evident that the force is not in the aircraft carrier troughs
                      1. Delta
                        Delta 7 March 2013 14: 38 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And what's wrong - the Yankees in Vietnam blew

                        The aircraft carriers tried so hard there, as many as 30% of departures)))))) It is evident that the force is not in the aircraft carrier troughs


                        And the Russian fleet lost in Tsushima. From this it was necessary to conclude that the strength is not in cruisers and armadillos?
                      2. Santa Fe
                        7 March 2013 17: 38 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Delta
                        And the Russian fleet lost in Tsushima. From this it was necessary to conclude that the strength is not in cruisers and armadillos?

                        Japanese armadillos won in Tsushima

                        In the modern world, aircraft carriers have not won a single battle
      3. Vadivak
        Vadivak 6 March 2013 12: 09 New
        +4
        Quote: Delta
        why then did the fleet and the army be built at all? anyway, there’s one bomb - and everyone’s mouthpiece


        Well, there are still warlike natives besides the USA, and when they saw our ships, their ecstasy was akin to religious
        1. Delta
          Delta 6 March 2013 12: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Vadivak
          Well, there are still warlike natives besides the USA, and when they saw our ships, their ecstasy was akin to religious


          eg? Who? with whom did the USSR clash at sea after WWII?
          1. Santa Fe
            6 March 2013 12: 40 New
            -1
            Quote: Delta
            eg? Who? with whom did the USSR clash at sea after WWII?

            and who openly clashed with the US Navy at sea?
            maximum - with Vietnamese torpedo boats and the Iranian corvette Sahand
            1. Andy
              Andy 6 March 2013 12: 44 New
              -4
              not a single conflict without aug ... the exception is Libya. the natives themselves fled ...
          2. Vadivak
            Vadivak 6 March 2013 14: 21 New
            +3
            Quote: Delta
            with whom did the USSR clash at sea after WWII?


            The commander of the B-88, Fedor Ivanovich Gnatusin, recalled: “At the beginning of 1979 we relaxed - we were in the next factory repair when this obscure war of two Asian socialist states began. But a week later they kicked us out of the factory into the sea. High-speed delivery of tasks, loading combat mines and torpedoes, another week - loading and ramming in and so close compartments of tons of regeneration, spare parts, food, equipment of secondment reconnaissance ... We went to war. In Vladivostok, Nakhodka, Odessa, caravans of military aid were loaded on a small Asian state. Tomorrow in the South China Sea they could be met by junks and kamikaze motobots, artillery and torpedo boats, SKRs and destroyers of the “brothers forever”, with which Soviet boats, SKRs and destroyers of the same projects will engage in battle. And we, the submariners, will meet with the fire and sword the Chinese Navy along the paths of their likely approach to the shores of Vietnam. We are not alone. Only from Ulysses to the coast of Vietnam went five corps. Plus Konyushki, Vanguard, Shell, Sovgavan, Magadan and Bicheva. There are many of us and we are all in vests! ” (“Daily News” (Vladivostok) 28.07.2000/XNUMX/XNUMX)

            There was also a fate in the war of Ethiopia and Somalia and a lot of interesting see for yourself
            1. Delta
              Delta 6 March 2013 19: 21 New
              0
              Quote: Vadivak
              There was also a fate in the war of Ethiopia and Somalia and a lot of interesting



              Are these conflicts involving the USSR Navy? what was the participation? did fire open?
              1. vyatom
                vyatom 12 March 2013 13: 12 New
                0
                Delta,
                Yes, fire opened. in Ukraine this is not to understand, because in fact, there is no own fleet and army.
      4. gispanec
        gispanec 6 March 2013 13: 09 New
        -1
        Quote: Delta
        why then did the fleet and the army be built at all? anyway, there’s one bomb - and everyone’s

        so that there would be no place where the bomb could fall and no enemy with nuclear weapons would be under it
        1. Delta
          Delta 6 March 2013 13: 30 New
          +2
          Quote: gispanec
          so that there would be no place where the bomb could fall and no enemy with nuclear weapons would be under it


          My question was asked for this statement: "One bomb dropped on a BOD meant the beginning of World War III."
          which in turn appeared in response to this: "no matter how good the BPCs are, but at sea they will be destroyed by aircraft of the same Nimes ..."

          so tell me how it can be argued about the weakness and futility of the Nimitsev, while extolling the BOD almost as unsinkable, and in response to doubts, to answer that it’s “one bomb - and the world’s conflict” anyway. So it turns out that Nimits are not needed either (remember the yesterday’s article) and the BOD, if there is already a conflict from one bomb that fell right up to the use of nuclear weapons. And in the local conflicts, the Soviet Navy also did not participate (I mean - actively, in hostilities). Hence the conclusion: the BOD, like other large ships, like the Nimitsy (this is the author) is needed only to demonstrate the flag. So?
          1. Santa Fe
            6 March 2013 19: 10 New
            -1
            Quote: Delta
            "no matter how good the BPCs are, but at sea they will be destroyed by aircraft of the same Nimes ..."

            I wonder how Delta represents the destruction of the 1134-B with the help of US Navy carrier-based aircraft))))

            Until the end of the 70's, carrier-based aviation had no chance to sink the BOD. Is it just to throw the corpses of the pilots ...
            Quote: Delta
            Hence the conclusion: the BOD, like other large ships, like the Nimitsy (this is the author) is needed only to demonstrate the flag. So?

            Currently yes
            1. Delta
              Delta 6 March 2013 19: 26 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              I wonder how Delta represents the destruction of the 1134-B with the help of US Navy carrier-based aircraft))))

              Until the end of the 70's, carrier-based aviation had no chance to sink the BOD. Is it just to throw the corpses of the pilots ...


              Assessment to put it mildly - bold. Oh what unsinkable. Your dreams and god in ears.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Hence the conclusion: the BOD, like other large ships, like the Nimitsy (this is the author) is needed only to demonstrate the flag. So?

              Currently yes


              Well then you contradict yourself. I am explaining this to you on the third day. By the way, the main contradiction is this: you like Kuzya, the British aircraft carriers, you find them useful. And while more powerful in everything (primarily in terms of the number of aircraft), “Nimits” are called useless. Turn off emotions for a minute and turn on elementary logic - how can a more powerful ship with more capabilities be less useful than its "younger brother"? here, of course, one can object - they say that there are no suitable goals for the "elder brothers". But, firstly, we don’t have them, but the States, they find use for them, even without active bombing by their Hornets, and secondly, they just show the flag most effectively if, as you and I already agreed, grains are needed only for this
              1. Santa Fe
                6 March 2013 19: 41 New
                -2
                Quote: Delta
                Assessment to put it mildly - bold. Oh what unsinkable. Your dreams and god in ears.

                ok, your suggestions: how to sink the Golden Eagle-B?))))
                conditions: the height of the Cold War, 1975 year. the enemy has an aircraft carrier energy with full air wing.

                (spoiler: Berkut-B was unsinkable for US Navy carrier-based aviation)
                Quote: Delta
                how can a more powerful ship, with more capabilities, be less useful than its "little brother"?

                Quinn and Kuzya are ineffective and unhelpful ships, for which the only area of ​​application is air defense squadrons in open sea areas. Given that such wars happen once every 70 years, and the tasks of light aircraft carriers can be solved by adjacent relations - the construction of the Kuznetsovs, Liaoyanov and Quinov seems a dubious decision.

                Nimitz and Ford are completely useless ships, as their power for defensive missions is excessive, and for offensive ones is negligible. And given their incredible price, the construction and operation of large atomic Nimits is to the detriment of the United States
                1. Delta
                  Delta 7 March 2013 14: 39 New
                  0
                  Well, unsinkable, so unsinkable, dwell on this. What can you say about such an "iron" argument))))
                  1. Santa Fe
                    7 March 2013 17: 36 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Delta
                    What can you say about such an "iron" argument)))

                    well, so I suggest you - tell me how you think the sinking of 1134-B with the help of subsonic Corsairs with free-falling bombs))))

                    Spoiler: US Navy pilots bathe in blood. 4 air defense missile systems of the Soviet BOD + 2 batteries of quick-fire anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance do not leave intruders and corsairs a single chance
    2. cyberandr
      cyberandr 6 March 2013 12: 39 New
      0
      I agree, it is ridiculous to compare individual types of weapons without reference to the general logic of war. In addition, as practice has shown, on that and in many ways on this one, the eyeliner is not so easy to detect, and one nuclear torpedo or missile is able to solve the issue with an aircraft carrier warrant. But the enemy’s submarine still needs to be found.
  6. Zabvo
    Zabvo 7 March 2013 19: 39 New
    +1
    Firstly, I apologize for such a long absence on the site (work with everything above), I can say the following on your question: our missile carriers can gouge out of the harbor, and in the harbors they will be covered by the Su-27 and not some F \ A 18 “super”, even though F \ A 18 E \ F is not a fighter against Sushok ... Each action has its own opposition. wink
  7. vyatom
    vyatom 12 March 2013 13: 03 New
    0
    Quote: Andy
    after this crap the author watched yesterday - a fighter with aircraft carriers ... no matter how good they were, but they will be destroyed at sea by the aircraft of the same nimts ... yes, the aircraft carrier is quite capable of covering the area of ​​operations of its submarines. besides, the missile range allows launch from a submarine without essentially leaving the base ... what is the opposite? the conclusion to the use of ships is incorrect. bpc review definitely +

    SOMETHING BLIND, BUT SOMETIMES I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND
  • Mother russia
    Mother russia 6 March 2013 10: 25 New
    0
    Whoever said anything about these ships, but they are beautiful and graceful. And in technology, everything that is beautiful and works well. And our BODs walk along the oceans perfectly. Yes, and not only walk, but also shoot.
    Be convinced of it on this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEYhvn4zJG0



    Glory to the Navy of the USSR !!! GLORY TO THE Navy OF RUSSIA !!! Glory to the Fatherland !!!
  • Mother russia
    Mother russia 6 March 2013 10: 27 New
    +4
    Whoever said anything about these ships, but they are beautiful and graceful. And in technology, everything that is beautiful and works well. And our BODs walk along the oceans perfectly. Yes, and not only walk, but also shoot.
    Be convinced of it on this video.





    Glory to the Navy of the USSR !!! GLORY TO THE Navy OF RUSSIA !!! Glory to the Fatherland !!!
    1. navy33
      navy33 6 March 2013 22: 02 New
      +2
      SLAVE THE FLEET RUSSIAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! drinks hi
  • fokino1980
    fokino1980 6 March 2013 11: 32 New
    +4
    I had the opportunity to begin my service to the Motherland at the BOD Petropavlovsk. The best ship of the USSR Navy 80 X. We drove our incredible all over the Pacific and non-Pacific oceans. And indeed, they were hemorrhoids for the Japs and Pmndos. I will always be proud of it.
  • duchy
    duchy 6 March 2013 11: 59 New
    +2
    Glorious ships, glorious history and present. They carried, bear and will carry the flag of our Motherland in all seas and oceans.
  • Nightcrawler
    Nightcrawler 6 March 2013 13: 20 New
    +1
    in 1988, the guard ship Bezavezhetny rudely displaced the Yorktown missile cruiser from Soviet territorial waters. The watchman broke the harbor boat and the Harpoon anti-ship missile launcher, broke the skin in the superstructure area, deformed the helipad and demolished the entire rail on the port side.

    The wrong name was given to him, it was necessary to give "Saucy" or something like that :) Glory to such sailors !! =)
  • KOSMOS
    KOSMOS 6 March 2013 13: 34 New
    +2
    Great article! Thank! Immersed headlong into the glorious past of our Navy!
  • PLO
    PLO 6 March 2013 13: 36 New
    +2
    Oleg, you’ve got one thing.
    ObjectivelyDue to the weakness of air defense and the lack of a helicopter, the Petrel lost opportunities to its famous peers - the American frigates Knox and Oliver H. Perry.

    you probably wanted to write a word subjectively hi
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 6 March 2013 18: 41 New
    0
    But the question of the survivability of the ship was much more serious - the fears were confirmed in 1974, when the Bold "Bold" died on the roads of Sevastopol
    --
    On the roads?!! BOD "Valiant" (what remains) lies 44 ° 43´ N, 33 ° 01´ VD. This is a bit far from the raid. The author of the article may not be up to date?
  • YOU
    YOU 6 March 2013 18: 51 New
    0
    That's for sure far. I served at the Black Sea Fleet at that time.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 6 March 2013 20: 30 New
    0
    The author forgot to indicate that pr.1144 was originally intended as an atomic BOD.
    PS: Golden eagle is handsome !, Petrel is a masterpiece, I’m not afraid to say!
  • arseke
    arseke 6 March 2013 23: 05 New
    0
    What beautiful ships we have all the same ...
  • carbofo
    carbofo 7 March 2013 00: 37 New
    0
    - 2 universal automatic systems AK-725 725 caliber mm.

    laughing , Yamato is resting, and why is the “Condor" PU with BCH? with such a caliber AK. soldier
    1. politruk419
      politruk419 7 March 2013 01: 27 New
      +2
      By the way. If you often shoot in the stern, you can ride the sea twice as fast. repeat
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 7 March 2013 01: 05 New
    +7
    Thanks to the author for the article. However, there are a number of inaccuracies and very gross errors in it; 1. The author, speaking of large anti-submarine ships, mainly focuses on missile-artillery and anti-submarine weapons of ships, but almost nothing about their search abilities of submarines, and this is the most important property of ships of this class. Destroy the boat is what, but to discover - this is a completely different issue, about which the author of the article says almost nothing and does not characterize the ships. And at the same time he makes a very big mistake when comparing BOD pr. 1155 with pr. 1134b, where he puts the first one "step back". In fact, according to the search capabilities of the BOD, pr. 1155, three heads, like an anti-submarine ship above pr. 1134b. And the air defense armament, in spite of only two Dagger self-defense air defense systems in comparison with the two Long-Hand Storm air defense systems, let's call it that (those who are familiar with its capabilities will understand why), + 2 Osa-MA air defense systems in its effectiveness, much higher. Yes, and two 100-mm AC AK-100 with a rate of 60 rpm. to the tower on ships of Project 1155 with an unlimited number of shots in line (limited only by the presence of ammunition in turret compartments and cellars) is much more effective than the 76 mm AU AK-726 on the BOD of Project 1134b, which after 33 shots was supposed to be placed on reduction for cooling overboard channels of the trunks. And the combat information systems in their capabilities can not be compared! In addition, the BOD, Pr. 1155 has two KA-27 anti-submarine helicopters on board, and the BOD, Pr. 1134-B, has only 1 Ka-25, which is twice as inferior in efficiency to the “Twenty-seventh”. 2. The author did not at all mention the large anti-submarine ships of Pr. 57A, specially upgraded from the large missile ships of Pr. 57 bis. Only 8 units (they were on the Northern Fleet and on the Pacific Fleet), on the Northern Fleet there were 5 units (“Thundering”, “Sharp”, “Burning”, “Boyky” and “Daring”. These ships honestly plowed their own and were anti-submarine in their capabilities at the level of his time, at least no worse than pr. 61.
    1. stjrm
      stjrm 7 March 2013 11: 47 New
      0
      The article is really not bad, yes.
      Thank you for the competent amendments.
  • Inwaneind
    Inwaneind 7 March 2013 19: 01 New
    -1
    Greetings to everyone atlichny website!
  • Sever 87
    Sever 87 8 March 2013 21: 18 New
    0
    Mother russia, Good afternoon! In the video, someone's plane was overwhelmed for 2m39 sec. Whose device was it? Do these shots relate to the combat work of Pr. 1134 or are they inserted for the overall effectiveness of the clip?
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 10 March 2013 16: 35 New
    0
    Sever 87, These video frames with a 40-year-old shot down by SAM missiles, no less. As far as I know, these are shots from a foreign chronicle. But this is by no means the shooting of the Storm air defense system, and air training targets, as in the video we never had.