Admiral Nakhimov: a single-use cruiser

293
Admiral Nakhimov: a single-use cruiser

Russian heavy nuclear missile the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov is returning to the open sea. Indeed, many channels and media outlets are paying attention to this issue, and it is justified: for almost thirty years (and with testing and finishing touches, that is exactly how long it could end up being) the cruiser was either laid up or modernized. And now the final deadline is approaching, after which Admiral Nakhimov will go to sea again.

How should we treat this fact?


There are different attitudes. And both sides of the world react this way. However, it makes sense to consider the opinions of both sides, Western and Eastern.



In general, everyone has it fleet there must be a flagship. And here, depending on what the budget allows, somewhere it is a nuclear aircraft carrier, the newest by naval standards, somewhere a landing ship, and somewhere a forty-year-old corvette-patrol ship was lucky, while it existed.


For some time, the flagship of the Russian fleet was the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, but things turned out the way they did, and the fleet needed a new flagship. That is, the personification of strength, power and reliability, capable of going out to sea and fighting if necessary.


According to a very controversial opinion, the nuclear missile cruisers of Project 1144 Orlan, which in the West are called Kirov after the first ship of the series, could become such for the Russian Navy.

NATO classifies the Orlans as battlecruisers, largely due to their size, which makes them the largest non-aircraft carrier surface attack ships in the world. They were originally intended to destroy American aircraft carriers and escort groups in the event of a hot war between the United States and the USSR, but such a conflict, to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, never occurred.

Today, the US is more than critical of the Orlans’ capabilities.

They believe that the Orlans were too expensive to maintain, which is why they were taken out of service.


"Kirov", which joined the fleet in 1980, made its first combat mission in 1984, and since 1991 has been laid up and has not gone to sea since. In 1992, it was solemnly renamed "Admiral Ushakov", and under this name it awaits its disposal. Of its 45 years of life, the ship actively served for 7 (SEVEN) years.


"Frunze" almost repeated the fate of "Kirov". It entered service in 1984, in 1985 it began active operations, in 1992 it was renamed "Admiral Lazarev", in 1994 it was laid up in Abrek Bay. And since 1999, expectations of disposal began, interspersed with rare information bursts about the possible return of the ship to service. The expectations ended in 2021, when "Lazarev" was delivered for disposal to the 30th shipyard in the village of Dunay.


"Kuibyshev" was luckier than the others. The cruiser was laid down in 1986 (at the time of laying down it was called "Kuibyshev", then - "Yuri Andropov"). On April 29, 1989 it was launched, during completion in 1992 it was renamed "Pyotr Velikiy", entered service in 1998. To this day it continues to serve, that is, it is more active than all other cruisers combined. The subsequent fate is not entirely clear.


"Kalinin". The hero of our story. It entered service in 1988, in 1992, together with all the cruisers, it was decommunized and renamed "Admiral Nakhimov". It served actively until 1997, when it made the transition to the place of repair and modernization, and from 1999 to the present, the ship has been in the stage of repair and modernization. And now, after 25 years and 200 billion rubles, the Russian fleet will have a new flagship.


Note: for the amount of money spent on repairing and modernizing the Nakhimov, it would have been possible to build 3 Borey-class submarines or 4 Yasen-M-class submarines. But more on that later.

Overseas experts rightly note that there was no clear plan for a complete modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov. As Russia's strategic priorities changed, the program was repeatedly suspended and resumed. Ultimately, it was fully implemented by 2014, and it was something in the style of "everything and to the maximum." Fortunately, it should be noted, the ship's robust hull allowed for this.

"Moscow seems intent on making sure that the Admiral Nakhimov can outperform any NATO warship it encounters. So they are installing as many as 60 Tsirkon hypersonic anti-ship missiles and Kalibr cruise missiles. For good measure, they are also installing Russia's advanced S-400 air defense system. In essence, the Admiral Nakhimov is becoming a giant missile truck. There have been other advances that have made the Admiral Nakhimov a truly modern warship operating on the high seas.

The return of the Admiral Nakhimov is planned for 2026


The iconic ship is expected to sail between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic, avoiding relatively tight spaces. Besides, the last thing Moscow wants is to expose its prized warship to the same attacks that led to the sinking of the Moskva in 2022.”

This is the opinion that was published in one of the American publications. Yes, there is much that is unknown and ununderstood on the other side, one could reproach them for comparing the Orlan with the Project 1164 missile cruiser, which is four times smaller, but the Americans can be forgiven for not delving deeply into the topic.

Another issue is that even there they understand that after the modernization, Admiral Nakhimov and Pyotr Velikiy will indeed represent a very respectable force, and two cruisers will be able to quite easily wipe out a full-fledged US Navy strike group from the waters.


However, American experts are not horrified by the idea that, as a result of some collisions, the Orlan will end up on the route of the AUG. Here we can again turn to the quotes, since they illustrate quite well what they are seriously thinking about on the other side:

"There is, however, one aspect of the Admiral Nakhimov's long-awaited return after decades in dry dock that should leave many naval observers scratching their heads. Despite all the improvements the Russians are apparently adding to the ship, such as an impressive set of hypersonic weapons and defense systems, the fact remains that the warship is vulnerable to air and missile defense (A2/AD) systems just like NATO warships.

If the Russians intend to send this ship on a mission, as the Russian military claims, then its defensive systems could be disabled using swarming tactics.

And that's not to mention the possibility that Admiral Nakhimov could be sunk by NATO rivals in any great power war. Russia's most powerful weapon at sea has always been its submarines."

Yes, it is a fact: Americans have always been afraid of Soviet submarines, which were the masters of the underwater part of the ocean and posed a real threat to American shores. It was Soviet submarines, not missile carriers or aircraft carriers, that scared cadets in naval schools. No, intercontinental ballistic missiles in silos and on mobile launch platforms are also a force, but a rather noticeable force. Their location can be found out, they can be tracked with the help of satellites and intelligence. But missiles that are hidden from sight and ears by hundreds of meters of water are something else.

And in the USA of the last century they knew very well that even if a war began and, in the words of the American science fiction writer Ray Bradbury, ended at that very moment, Russian nuclear submarines would still fire a salvo. It is not known from what point in the vast ocean, but they would fire.


And a nuclear cruiser, huge as it is, even if deadly, every mile of its movement can be easily tracked. Its attack will not be sudden.

Is it possible to disguise a strike group? In the modern world? Of course not. But no one would do such stupidity: there is no need to hide a force capable of wiping out a small state like Albania or Slovenia. There is more of a psychological component here: slowly and inexorably, like Nemesis, the ships of the group go to where they will bring death and destruction. And everyone must be ready there, in the sense of demoralized.


A good approach, in the spirit of the times.

So, it is impossible to hide the Orlans from view. But this completely makes the possibility of a relatively stealthy approach to a strike position unrealistic. In such a situation, a nuclear submarine is a much more effective tool.

And the second point. Where is our Northern Fleet based, which will definitely include cruisers (at least, there is no other information yet)? That's right, in Severomorsk. This is not the most, let's say, convenient area for controlling the world's oceans. Yes, access to the North Atlantic is quite real, but the border has been closed for some time now by NATO countries, which have the main enemies of such large ships - submarines. The Americans point this out with satisfaction, and they are right.


Control over the Northern Sea Route? But since 1942, when the Admiral Scheer was hanging around there, there have been no more attacks on the NSR, and not even by large forces. Yes, US and British submarines appeared systematically and regularly in the polar region, but fighting them is not a task for a ship like the Orlan. But the appearance of an AUG on the Northern Sea Route... Even taking into account that the climate is warming, the ice is melting - there is nothing for aircraft carriers to do there, because there are no targets.

North Atlantic? And what are Russia's tasks there? Who knows?


"Russia is preparing for great power rivalry. But is the Admiral Nakhimov up to the task?

The Admiral Nakhimov's deployment areas in the Arctic and Atlantic show that Moscow is planning a long round of great power rivalry with the West, thus refuting the rosy predictions of Western propagandists that Russia is about to fall apart."

Silly, right? Russia will not fall apart anytime soon. It will take a lot of time and titanic efforts for that to happen. The rivalry that the Americans talk about looks completely different in the 21st century than it did in the 20th. It was during the Cold War that there were all these flights, cuts, and attacks... Dashing and completely useless in their essence.

Today, rivalry is conducted in a completely different way, without rattling weapons. And if you demonstrate capabilities, then specifically, by taking control of territories necessary for your country. And here, you know, anything is possible: you can very unsuccessfully take control of Ukrainian territories, or you can very successfully take control of an entire country, as the Americans did in Afghanistan. The results will be completely different both politically and militarily, but who will blame the Americans?

But let's get back to the cruisers.


It is important for each class of ships to have its own goals and tasks. The corvette protects coastal territories, the frigate and destroyer cover the work of landing ships and aircraft carriers, driving away enemy aircraft and submarines, and what about the Orlans?

They have declared AUGs. Aircraft carrier strike groups of the US Navy and NATO countries. Well, purely theoretically, the same groups can be put up on paper by France (when they finally fix the De Gaulle) and Great Britain (if they scrape together a couple of destroyers for the order), but this is about as likely as the AUG in the Shokalsky Strait. That is, practically a fantasy about time travelers, so fashionable these days.

Where can the Orlans meet with the AUG and under what conditions? Well, only in the Pacific Ocean. The Americans won't go into the ice in the Russian North, the Baltic and Black Seas are too shallow for them, and there's no point in sticking their noses in there. So - only the Pacific Ocean, and there are plenty of people to push around there besides the US: we should never forget about Japan, where South Korea is now mooring with all its might.

Considering that the Pacific Fleet is a rather dull phenomenon compared to the Japanese one, two such ships would greatly increase the capabilities of the Russian naval group of ships. Moreover, Pyotr Velikiy and Admiral Kuznetsov would even tip the scales in Russia's favor for some time.

But, alas, it has been said repeatedly that the Orlans will be based in the Northern Fleet.

On the one hand, it is understandable: all the infrastructure for servicing ships is here. And the enemy will never come here, as was said above. Or this way: the probability of an American strike group appearing in our northern waters is negligible, because, firstly, the ice conditions are difficult all year round, and secondly, there is someone to strike the strike group.

But if problems start in the Far East...


No problem: of course, the Orlans will leave Severomorsk and travel 8500 km to the Kuril Islands. Through the Bering Strait, where, of course, there will be no surprises. And in 3-4 weeks (depending on the ice conditions) the cruisers will be in the Kuril Islands area.

Of course, the Japanese and Americans will kindly wait and do nothing. All our wars are fought according to the rules of chivalry, aren't they?

Thus, heavy nuclear missile cruisers will be based in the North, where the appearance of an enemy is not expected in the next 20 years, and from where they are simply not in a position to come to the rescue in the event of a “fire”.

No, the Americans are sometimes great, they know how to count and predict. And now they are saying that there is no point in even thinking about going to the North, there is absolutely nothing to do there. And it is unrealistic to threaten any actions of the American fleet from there: any AUG, having received the news that the Orlans have left the base, will simply leave, and they will not be able to catch up with it. With approximately equal speeds, the Americans will have the advantage that they left earlier and learned earlier about the Russians' exit.

Well, 10-12 days in clear water to the Kuril Islands is just a joke.

In general, it is somewhat similar to the Soviet battleships in the Great Patriotic War (take any one, none of them fought properly) or the Japanese Yamato and Musashi, which, despite their power, turned out to be single-use battleships, conditionally, because they were never used. Or the German Tirpitz, which was looked after throughout the war no worse than the Soviet battleships and which was also destroyed without causing any damage to the enemy.

But given that the Soviet battleships were just dreadnoughts from the First World War, the Musashi, Yamato and Tirpitz are more appropriate in such a comparison. Yes, they were powerful to the point of being ugly (especially the Japanese). Yes, they were capable of instilling fear and horror in any shore rat from the fleet's analytical department. But in the end, the British and American pilots, with the words "Save our whiskey," sank both Japanese super-battleships and dismembered the German one with bombs in shallow water.

Two historical digressions from the topic. The first one is the Musashi under American bombs, the second one is the Tirpitz at the end of its life.



This is how all super-ambitious projects end.

If the Orlans really do remain in the North, they will be of exactly the same use as they were at the beginning of their career. Why? Because no one thought about the reason why these ships were permanently laid up after 7–9 years. After all, it’s simple: some time was spent on training and getting the crew together, and… that’s it. Yes, each cruiser went on a voyage a couple of times to “show the flag.” And the Pyotr Velikiy did go on voyages in its Russian career.


But this demonstration is nothing more than the use of money in huge quantities. No one (of those who shout loudly about how necessary it is for Russia to show its flag on distant shores) thinks about how much it costs and where the profit is. But it would be worth it.

Who would be interested in an old, albeit modernized, cruiser? Who needs to show this flag? Well, developed countries are not interested, some have their own fleets. With "stealth" ships and BEKs. Africans? Latin Americans? Don't make me laugh, they are interested in demonstrating the dollar and writing off their debts. This is what interests them, and let's admit it: we can count our allies around the world on the fingers of one hand, what do they get from this demonstration if they can buy hydrocarbons cheaply?

No, of course, the ship will get some applause, but nothing more.

So it turns out that there is no one to demonstrate and nothing to demonstrate, and it is expensive, in general today there are other places to spend money, oddly enough.

Many countries (especially the US) have spent billions and billions on vanity projects that have come to nothing. Is it worth emulating them? The same question as 200 billion rubles, which could have been used to build three Boreys or four Yasen ships, which pose a real threat to our adversaries, is it too much to pay for showing the flag?

In the West, they understand perfectly well that within the naval department, the interests of the group that stood for the restoration of the Admiral Nakhimov won out. It is clear for what reasons, in the US, lobbying is a normal phenomenon, so they do not need to explain anything.

And it is equally clear that now the Admiral Nakhimov will be in Severomorsk, going out at best on training missions in its waters. And this will not even be at the will of the Russian command, it will be a political will: Moscow is unlikely to survive a second tragedy like the Moskva so calmly.


"Nakhimov" will be preserved in the same way. Perhaps for one battle, because in modern conditions there is very little chance that the cruiser will emerge victorious, or perhaps for the sake of political prestige, as was the case with "Admiral Kuznetsov" and with approximately the same outcome.

But it seems that four Yasen would be more effective. Although, of course, you can't show the flag with a nuclear submarine. But it has many other, no less valuable capabilities. But that would be a completely different story...
293 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    30 January 2025 04: 49
    Tirpitz kept the English fleet on edge with his presence. He didn't even have to leave the base to do this. There is a certain need for Nakhimov, to keep the northern sea area under control as part of the formation for a limited time to carry out tasks during a threatening period.
    1. +22
      30 January 2025 05: 46
      Tirpitz kept the English fleet on edge with his presence

      Admiral Nakhimov, even after modernization, is not Tirpitz

      Launched in 1939 and commissioned in 1941 Tirpitz was a new ship. And it was considered the strongest in European waters - it was faster than any of the British battleships, and in terms of gun caliber (380) it was noticeably superior to the King Georges (356 mm). And such superiority was observed in most parameters

      Nakhimov, even modernized, is a 40-year-old ship, a representative of an even older project from the 1970s. It looks very weak, after modernization the old radars remained, the cruiser did not receive any analogue of Aegis, a large barge with cruise missiles
      1. -3
        30 January 2025 10: 10
        To all theorists))) I want to note that while scolding the "Nakhimov", the mattress-makers for some reason do not refuse surface ships. And these photos are mattress))) I want to note that AUGs have not been sailing in such a composition for a long time. At best, 3 "Bjerka". "Nakhimov" can carry several dozen "calibers" or "tsirkons" in its UVP. So - yes, very bad, for the enemies of Russia.
        1. +10
          30 January 2025 12: 58
          Quote: TermNachTER

          I want to note that AUGs have not been running in such a composition for a long time. At best, 3 "Björks".

          And 3 Arleigh Burke destroyers - that's not enough? 96 missile cells on each + "Harpoons" in containers. Plus F-18 from an aircraft carrier. The sea around is patrolled by DLRO aircraft around the clock.
          1. +2
            30 January 2025 18: 18
            Nk everything is as good as it seems to you and as it is shown in the photo. And in the photo - they are cleverly shown, which cannot be said for now. Previously, the standard support group is two "tiki" and 5-6 "spruances". Moreover, the "tika" is not only a carrier of SAMs, but also an air defense/missile defense command center. Now there are three "tiki" left and their condition is very questionable. They are trying to remake the "Bjork" Flight II A as an air defense/missile defense command center, but this is a little bit of a different coat)))
            It has been said more than once that the F-18 no longer fully corresponds to reality. The F-35C corresponds to these requirements even less.
        2. +27
          30 January 2025 13: 40
          Quote: TermNachTER
          To all theorists))) I want to note that while scolding the "Nakhimov", the mattress-makers for some reason do not refuse surface ships. And these photos are mattress))) I want to note that AUGs have not been sailing in such a composition for a long time. At best, 3 "Bjerka". "Nakhimov" can carry several dozen "calibers" or "tsirkons" in its UVP. So - yes, very bad, for the enemies of Russia.

          I have read here many times over the last 10 years from "passengers" nicknamed Romario Agro and Operator about how the cruiser "Moscow" will single-handedly destroy the entire 6th US fleet and will not allow a single warship in the Mediterranean to stick its head out.
          We all saw the result ourselves.
          And this is not an isolated case when this kind of reasoning, when confronted with reality, simply crumbled into fluff....

          Mattress makers and NATO members make balanced ships.
          Unified in control systems, weapons, network-centric.
          And he who considers them as such is very much mistaken.
          at best 3 "bjerka"

          This is a single combat organism on three "pillars".
          This is a single strike complex:
          Radar of three sets SPY-1 and SPY-6, operating as a single organism.
          Up to 160 Tomahawk and LRASM cruise missiles in a single salvo at any surface target.
          Up to 100 long-range SAMs. Somewhat outdated by American standards, the semi-active SM-2, of which 3 Berkas can simultaneously guide about 27 pieces (9 illumination radars for 3 missiles alternating the transmission of correction) and unlimited SM-6, which receive the initial correction not from the illumination radar, but from the main radar, and then their own ARGSN is turned on.
          Don't you want to think like that?
          And Nakhimov has no chance against this at all.
          Will never.

          And people like you, although you try to write articles about the navy, there is no system in your mind. There is no understanding of this. You are always comparing some spherical horses in a vacuum.
          1. +5
            30 January 2025 16: 07
            Only in this case the "Bjorks" will have to approach the "Nakhimov" to the launch range of its SAM. Here the threat is most likely posed by submarines, which already mastered our Barents Sea quite well in the 90s... And, unfortunately, our anti-submarine submarines have not become stronger since then.
          2. +1
            30 January 2025 18: 30
            What do you know specifically about the sinking of the "Moskva"? Enlighten us ignorant))) I've been interested for two years now. But apart from meaningful puffing out of cheeks and pure show-off, nothing has been said yet.
            Scary stories))) about network-centricity and other unscientific nonsense, tell the Houthis - they are a bit illiterate guys, that's why the aircraft carrier had to be hidden from them))) otherwise, Allah forbid, they would have sunk it - it would have turned out very ugly and offensive)))
            My bosses wrote about my mental abilities in the characteristics. Your opinion, in this matter, is not even 0, but minus infinity)))
            1. +6
              30 January 2025 19: 15
              There are no details. From objective data - he died without entering into a naval battle.
              1. -5
                30 January 2025 19: 43
                What are the conclusions based on?
              2. -7
                30 January 2025 23: 27
                He died honorably. In war, on a campaign, while carrying out a combat mission.
          3. +3
            30 January 2025 23: 59
            A big ship in any case, big possibilities! The main thing is the correct application!
            The cruiser Moskva was a missile ship capable of hitting targets at a distance of 700 km + a command center for the fleet, why was it hanging around in the enemy's anti-ship missile range if it itself was capable of hitting targets while outside their range?

            Nazimov is capable of many things and is a formidable force, comparable to an entire fleet, if used correctly, he is a very difficult target at least because it is difficult to reach him simply because of the range of his fire, his arsenal is capable of inevitably sinking an entire fleet and this factor will be a strong deterrent!

            I probably agree with the author that such a ship is really more useful in the Pacific Ocean and the real concern is precisely the qualifications of the naval command, because the SVO has shown and shows that our fleet is frankly not very combat-ready, primarily because of the tactics of its use, the development strategy is unclear because it lacks everything for a modern war, that's the feeling feel
            So far the only valuable thing is the Caliber and Onyx. Probably only missile launch, that's all the fleet is capable of! The fleet hasn't demonstrated anything else at all
            1. +3
              31 January 2025 10: 39
              Quote: Eroma
              why was he hanging around in the enemy's anti-ship missile zone

              He stuck out because he had (on paper) freshly modernized air defense (missile defense) systems and was part of the order, so the defense system was common and he was a key link in it.

              Considering that the cruiser Moskva was unable to even provide its own defense, there are serious doubts about the Nakhimov's security. Since an attack with anti-ship missiles is the most likely threat. And, most likely, the anti-ship missiles will be carried by the aircraft of the potential enemy, which will fire back from a safe distance.

              Therefore, the range of its own anti-ship missiles will not help in any way and the cruiser can operate only in the zone of cover of its aviation. By the way, the cruiser Moskva had such cover and it did not help at all. But there were rumors that the repair of its chassis was done in a very peculiar way, from which, perhaps, the damage was orders of magnitude greater than from the hit of the Neptunes. Perhaps the situation is better for Nakhimov, but this is not certain. request
              1. +3
                31 January 2025 11: 14
                Quote: Netl
                He stuck out because he had (on paper) freshly modernized air defense (missile defense) systems and was part of the order, so the defense system was common and he was a key link in it.

                This is precisely what raises doubts about the qualifications of the Russian Navy command! lol
                The aircraft carrier is such a terrible opponent because it is invulnerable to other ships, it attacks from a distance that is inaccessible to other ships, its formation always includes several ships with air defense and missile defense, but the AUG will never approach the enemy within the range of its weapons.
                What is the difference between a missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier? Because it has missiles instead of planes! Moscow, being near Novorossiysk, was able to hit a target anywhere in the Black Sea, and from the center of the Black Sea, it could hit targets in the Sea of ​​Marmara and in the north of the Aegean Sea, that was the value of this ship!
                A missile cruiser integrated into a water space illumination system, where naval patrols of corvettes and submarines, patrol aircraft are involved, is the main hummingbird of the fleet, capable of destroying an entire enemy fleet with a salvo, its radar can be the center of the air defense of the region, for aviation, to fight the patrol aircraft of the enemy.

                What genius in the Navy came up with the idea of ​​using such a ship in a naval blockade? In fact, blockades have been carried out by submarines since the Second World War! fool We did not control the actions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Moscow was in a vulnerable position, our command gave the initiative to the enemy, putting the fleet's main command as a target!
                1. 0
                  31 January 2025 15: 39
                  Quote: Eroma
                  What's the difference between a missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier? It has missiles instead of planes!

                  But, after all, it also differs in the presence of a decent air defense system, missile defense, which theoretically should provide protection for the cruiser from missiles of a potential enemy until the moment when it has the opportunity to strike itself. lol

                  It was in this capacity that the cruiser Moskva was used. There was no need to use anti-ship missiles, but the task of protecting the order and positions on Zmeinoye was acutely relevant. And as subsequent events showed, after the destruction of the cruiser, everything there fell apart. That is, it was impossible without it at all sad

                  Quote: Eroma
                  What genius in the Navy came up with the idea of ​​using such a ship in a naval blockade? In fact, blockades have been carried out by submarines since the Second World War!

                  Blockades were very different depending on the purpose, available means and other factors. For example, the key role in the most famous naval blockade - the blockade of Germany in World War I was played by English dreadnoughts. Therefore, the decision to use a cruiser for this purpose was not a mistake. According to the documents, it was the most protected ship of the Black Sea Fleet, with maximum survivability, with the best, just modernized air defense systems. If all this were in reality, the cruiser would have performed the specified tasks very well.

                  And the "geniuses" were those, thanks to whom all these high characteristics were exclusively on paper. Who planned and carried out "modernizations" (including the chassis), who accepted these "works", who conducted "exercises" and gave high marks, etc. request
                  1. VlK
                    0
                    31 January 2025 16: 01
                    They wrote that the cruiser Moskva was on radar patrol, covering the situation over the south of Ukraine, at the mouth of the Danube and the western part of the Black Sea.

                    What is surprising if our fleet, with the exception of the Marine Corps, fought for the last time in 1945, not counting the brief episode of 08.08.08. Whole generations of sailors have changed, who all their lives carried out only conventional combat missions according to conventional input, and served exclusively in peacetime. And the army without war as a combat organism degrades.
                  2. 0
                    1 February 2025 11: 20
                    Quote: Netl
                    But, after all, it also differs in the presence of a decent air defense system, missile defense, which theoretically should provide protection for the cruiser from missiles of a potential enemy until the moment when it has the opportunity to strike itself.

                    As I understand it, the Black Sea Fleet command also thinks backwards! wassat
                    In general, it is correct when a ship goes to the attack line in order to attack FIRST, and strong air defense is needed to repel a possible RETURN attack, this is what MASTERING THE INITIATIVE is, the ability to seize the initiative is the art of strategy! soldier

                    Moscow did not have Uber-PVO, its modernization was aimed more at preserving the running qualities and maintaining the operability of the existing systems, with some modernization. And on paper and in reality, for the most part, everything probably coincided.

                    But the command, you see, was not quite in line with their positions. feel
                    1. 0
                      3 February 2025 12: 21
                      Quote: Eroma
                      In general, it is correct when a ship goes to the attack line to attack FIRST, and strong air defense is needed to repel

                      Right, then it may be right, of course. But in reality it is almost unattainable. sad
                      Because, for this, it is necessary for the potential enemy to bring its tasty targets within the range of our guidance systems and the range of the cruiser's anti-ship missiles in advance, or for the enemy not to notice the attacking cruiser heading towards them. And considering that such cruisers do not have any means of radio stealth, and the cruiser itself is a large and very noticeable ship, the enemy is always aware of its location. Well, since the designers of the cruiser were not naive dreamers, they placed various echeloned air defense systems on it, which would allow the cruiser to survive until the opportunity for attack. request

                      Quote: Eroma
                      Moscow didn't have Uber-Air Defense

                      There is no definition of what "Uber-PVO" is. But the cruiser had:
                      S-300F "Fort" and M-4 "Osa-M", six-barreled 30 mm artillery machine guns AK-630 and a twin artillery mount with rapid-fire 130 mm guns. That is, all echelons are covered, including the farthest one - S-300F!
                      And in 2019, the cruiser's repairs were completed, during which "the RTS was modernized" - this is a phrase from the press release.

                      Again, the cruiser operated as part of a formation, meaning it was covered not only by its own very powerful (on paper) air defense, but also by the air defense of neighboring ships. Plus, it was additionally covered by its own aviation from Crimean airfields. Thus, the conditions of use were close to ideal.

                      As I wrote above, I agree with you about the strange decisions of the Black Sea Fleet command. But their strangeness is not in the fact that they used the cruiser in defense in almost ideal conditions. But in the fact that they hid the real state of the cruiser, which led to its rapid destruction. sad
          4. -3
            31 January 2025 06: 30
            Every time I read about 96 cells on Berkas, I ask a counter question... Do you know that out of these 96, only 20-30 are filled with strike missiles, 40-50 with anti-aircraft missiles and at least 10-16 with anti-submarine missiles. And because of this, such large boats have such a low-power strike system as Harpoon, so that if something happens (and very often there are maximum anti-aircraft missiles there) there would be at least something to fight back with. So 160 from three Berkas will not be in a salvo, I think there will not be even 100 cruise missiles in a salvo. hi
            1. +1
              31 January 2025 13: 21
              Quote: jonht
              Every time I read about 96 cells on Berkas, I ask a counter question... Do you know that out of these 96, only 20-30 are filled with strike missiles, 40-50 with anti-aircraft missiles and at least 10-16 with anti-submarine missiles. And because of this, such large boats have such a low-power strike system as Harpoon, so that if something happens (and very often there are maximum anti-aircraft missiles there) there would be at least something to fight back with. So 160 from three Berkas will not be in a salvo, I think there will not be even 100 cruise missiles in a salvo. hi


              Every time I read people who are single-minded and unipolar, I always think: “Why is that?”
              Why don't these people know that there are different options and roles for using multi-purpose ships???
              With multi-purpose UVP...
              Even Wikipedia writes about 2 sets of missiles.

              In reality, there are at least 4, and in reality a dozen scenarios for using a multi-purpose ship. And for each scenario, the contents of the UVP change.
              And change it the way you want.
              Singles: "Peacetime Patrolman", "Peacetime Shock Trooper", etc.
              Group: "Aircraft carrier order", "KUG order", etc.
              Regional variations: "Mediterranean Sea", "Pacific Ocean", "North Atlantic".
              There are a ton of options and they are all actually different in terms of setting and accordingly.

              And yes, Harpoons were only installed on the first 28 ships.
              The remaining 46 are already without Harpoons.
              And another 20 third series are under construction.
              Simply because the UVP can be equipped with Block 4 Tomahawks, which have also been upgraded for use against ships (and all previous versions of Tomahawks are also being upgraded to Block 4). And then immediately the new anti-ship Block 5. (And the Block 4 already built is also being upgraded to Block 5).
              And this is a universal Tomahawk. For both submarines and ships. Which is truly "swarm". Which has two-way satellite communications. The flight mission can be issued and adjusted after the missile has been launched. Missiles can actually arrive from all sides at once - completely overloading any ship-based non-stationary air defense.

              Knowing the nature of the expected collision and the balance of forces in the theater of operations, the combat load is perfectly changed.
              56 Tomahawk cruise missiles in anti-ship missile mode for each. And 34 SAMs for each.
              Here you will get what I wrote earlier
              Up to 160 Tomahawk and LRASM cruise missiles in a single salvo at any surface target.
              Up to 100 long-range SAMs


              And yes.
              Once again, I ask you not to fall into spherical horses.
              Even 3 US EM will never be left alone.
              They will be provided with everything they need.
              Satellite information in real time. Both from imagery reconnaissance satellites and radio reconnaissance satellites. Weather.
              Basic anti-submarine warfare and early warning aircraft.
              patrolling submarines in dangerous areas of anti-submarine defense.
              That's how it's done there.
              They have more than enough resources for this.
              1. 0
                3 February 2025 03: 59
                There can be any number of scenarios, but the FSA people themselves always said that they were never loaded with purely strike weapons and that at least half of them were always filled with anti-aircraft missiles, but yes, you can load only axes, yeah... hi
        3. 0
          31 January 2025 13: 45
          "Nakhimov" can carry several dozen "calibers" or "tsirkons" in its UVP. So - yes, it's really bad for Russia's enemies.

          The balance is important: - strike weapons with target designation, target tracking and situational awareness. The Bjorks have an IJES system, which is qualitatively better than the Nakhimov and increases the ship's capabilities both to repel attacks and to attack.
          Björks are not too expensive, they are optimal and there are a lot of them, 68 pieces - they are the workhorses of the American fleet, they spend more time on duty, and not at the pier. We need to copy successful solutions, and not make analog coins. Money is also needed for ships.
          The Russian Federation has enough money, but it was wasted, for example, Rosnano spent 45 billion rubles somewhere.
          1. 0
            31 January 2025 14: 33
            You are comparing the wrong ships, Nakhimov, in our fleet, in theory, it is the equivalent of an aircraft carrier in the US fleet, logically so.
            For them, the Orliks ​​are the cover ships for the US Navy's main command and aircraft carrier.
            Since it is unlikely that anyone will tell the real characteristics, then purely logically Nakhimov with its Tsirkons should have a target destruction radius, the same as an aircraft carrier (in the doctrine of the USSR it was exactly like that), its radar is capable of detecting and guiding SAMs to deck-based Hokkai AEW aircraft, and the firing range of the SAM should allow to get Hokkai at their detection distance of Nakhimov. Naturally, Nakhimov should also at least with an order from frigates (which we have). In such a situation, the victory of the US AUG is far from guaranteed over the Russian KUG, here the balance is rather the opposite, since the speed of destruction of hypersonic missiles is much higher than that of aviation and today, hypersonic is still an absolute weapon.
            Everything will depend on how target designation is set up in the opposing fleets, not for a specific combat unit, but for the fleet as a whole (I’m talking about all sorts of over-the-horizon radars and space systems and similar strategic UAVs).
          2. 0
            1 February 2025 09: 21
            "Bjerki" are not very expensive? The last ones are already approaching $1,5 billion. There are 68 of them "on paper", in reality there are fewer. The first five are now going into repairs of varying duration. And do not forget which water areas they need to control, and which we need to control.
          3. 0
            9 February 2025 02: 38
            According to rumors from the press, Chubysh is opening an academy in Israel for these 45 yards)))
    2. +7
      30 January 2025 06: 48
      Quote from: navycat777
      Tirpitz kept the English fleet on edge with his presence
      The useless German battleship Tirpitz in WWII kept the equally useless British battleships in suspense wink
      1. +4
        30 January 2025 07: 41
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        The useless German battleship Tirpitz in WWII kept the equally useless British battleships in suspense

        "useless" precisely because they supported each other, but what if they hadn't? wink
        1. +1
          30 January 2025 08: 28
          Quote: 2 level advisor
          and if not?
          If not, they would just stand in the bases. wink
      2. -7
        30 January 2025 07: 42
        1. It's time to retire the honored representatives of the Soviet Navy. These beauties should be transferred to museums.
        2. The basis of our fleet is still submarines, but the era of UAVs in naval aviation and BEKs has arrived. This is what needs to be urgently developed, hundreds of unmanned submarines will be much more powerful than 1-2 nuclear cruisers.
        3. It is time to move into a new era of UAVs, UAVs, UAV frigates, UAV corvettes, UAVs (nuclear submarines) with hundreds (thousands) of drones for various purposes. In which it is already clear that American AUGs are also a relic of the past.

        P.S. I was very worried about the fate of the Orlan and Atlant series and even support the modernization of the Nakhimov, since only this could preserve it as a museum and not put it on needles. Is 200 billion too much to preserve the history of the might of the Soviet Navy?
        1. -1
          30 January 2025 08: 32
          Quote: Civil
          The basis of our fleet is still submarines, but the era of UAVs in naval aviation and BEKs has arrived
          I completely agree with you. All this iron junk in the form of aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers only pumps money out of the budget, preventing the development of nuclear submarines, drones and aviation. This has long been an anachronism
          1. +26
            30 January 2025 10: 14
            Quote: Dutchman Michel
            All this iron junk in the form of aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers only drains money from the budget, preventing the development of nuclear submarines, drones and aviation.

            Tell me, did the slipways where the Boreys and Yasen were built remain empty during the Nakhimov modernization period due to a lack of funds for their construction? Or was the "product 30" for the SU-57 built for so long due to poor funding? Or maybe the PD-8, PD-14 and PD-35 also did not receive enough funds during their development? And was the development of UAVs also hampered by a lack of funds? It seems to me that the reason is completely different.
            I am neither a supporter nor an opponent of the Nakhimov and Kuznetsov, I don’t understand this, but I think it is wrong to blame them for the fact that a lot of money was spent on their modernization and therefore frigates, corvettes, MS-21, SU-75, etc. UAVs are being built slowly.
            1. -3
              30 January 2025 10: 46
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              I think it is wrong to blame them for the fact that a lot of money was spent on their modernization and therefore frigates, corvettes, MS-21, SU-75, etc. are being built slowly.
              The issue here is not modernization, but their complete uselessness.
              1. +5
                30 January 2025 11: 58
                Quote: Dutchman Michel
                The issue here is not modernization, but their complete uselessness.

                It is definitely necessary to add it - I think so.
                But the author of the article thinks a little differently -
                [/quote] For the amount of money spent on repairing and modernizing the Nakhimov, it would have been possible to build 3 Borey-class submarines or 4 Yasen-M-class submarines. [quote]

                Whether you are right or not, I do not know, but the author, based on the given quote, is clearly wrong. "Nakhimov", with its modernization, did not divert either the funds or the production forces necessary for the construction of the nuclear submarine.
                1. +9
                  30 January 2025 13: 52
                  Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                  Whether you are right or not, I don’t know, but the author, based on the given quote, is clearly wrong.

                  Well, yes, first I had to study the topic I decided to write an article about, at least find the cost of certain weapons in open sources. Then it would immediately become clear that Yasen was always more expensive than Borei...
                  Nakhimov did not "drive anyone into bankruptcy", the Borei-A/AM and Yasen-M were built according to schedule and are still being built to this day.
                  To talk about the "uselessness" of such a powerful combat unit when the Fleet really needs ocean-class ships is, at the very least, strange...
                  Well, and again the familiar words of Nikolsky and Klimov come to mind:
                  Another aspect of the matter should be touched upon. Constantly and attentively monitoring the development of foreign naval technology, one can notice that our foreign colleagues have not lost sight of our activities.

                  However, this interest had one specific focus for them. Foreign publications of those years, concerning the development of aircraft carriers, "almost synchronously" accompanied our studies, as if pushing us away from the general course that they themselves followed. Thus, with the advent of VTOL aircraft, Western naval and aviation magazines almost immediately "choked with delight" about the exciting prospects for the development of this direction, which supposedly almost all military aviation should follow. We began to increase the displacement of aircraft carriers - they immediately began to publish articles about the inexpediency of developing such supergiants as the Nimitz and that it was preferable to build "smaller" aircraft carriers, and, moreover, not with nuclear, but with conventional energy. We took up the catapult - they began to praise ski-jumps. Information often flashed about the general cessation of their construction of aircraft carriers. And it must be admitted that these actions were not always unsuccessful. They gave rise to certain fluctuations in the upper echelons of leadership.

                  Although, as we see now, the Americans themselves did nothing of the kind.
            2. 0
              30 January 2025 18: 56
              It most likely took so long to build because most of these funds remained with effective managers and officials, and the rest flowed to the performers
        2. +7
          30 January 2025 08: 57
          3. It is time to move into a new era of UAVs, UAVs, UAV frigates, UAV corvettes, UAVs (nuclear submarines) with hundreds (thousands) of drones for various purposes. In which it is already clear that American AUGs are also a relic of the past.

          Oh, how...it turns out that unmanned frigates, corvettes and submarines are a topic, but an unmanned aircraft carrier is a relic of the past laughing
          And where is it clear that AUGs led by aircraft carriers are a relic of the past?)
        3. -15
          30 January 2025 11: 14
          Quote: Civil
          It's time to retire the honored representatives of the Soviet Navy. These beauties should be transferred to museums.

          "Admiral Nakhimov", "Admiral Kuznetsov" are white elephants. Especially the aircraft carrier. The thick smoke of the fatherland from its boilers hints at the lack of repairs and exploitation. Neither "Kuznetsov" nor "Nakhimov" will return to service during the current conflict and will either be scrapped as a result of it if we lose, or will be used in some more rational way if we win. However, it is possible that greater rationality will also consist in scrapping.
          1. +4
            30 January 2025 19: 34
            Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
            Especially the aircraft carrier. The thick smoke of the fatherland from its boilers hints at the lack of repairs and exploitation.

            What does the smoking British aircraft carrier hint at?
          2. +4
            30 January 2025 20: 35
            Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
            The thick smoke of the fatherland from its boilers hints at the lack of repairs and exploitation.

            Incomplete combustion. Doesn't mean anything else. Either the fuel/air ratio is incorrect or the mixing is poor (bad burners)
        4. -4
          30 January 2025 13: 44
          Quote: Civil
          1.
          P.S. I was very worried about the fate of the Orlan and Atlant series and even support the modernization of the Nakhimov, since only this could preserve it as a museum and not put it on needles. Is 200 billion too much to preserve the history of the might of the Soviet Navy?


          200 billion - that's what was allocated then, the old money at the rate of 30.
          How much more was actually added, because in the Russian government order everything was done completely murkily on purpose.
          Sevmash alone receives 200 billion from the state.
          Each supplier of equipment and weapons receives separate money from the state under a separate government order.
          Therefore, the final figure in reality could be 500 billion and even a trillion rubles.
          25 years of endless "sawing" during the fattest years for the Russian military-industrial complex, when no one was responsible for anything - that in itself is a flight to the stars.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. +8
        30 January 2025 13: 10
        Useless British battleships and a bunch of destroyers were hanging around in the North Sea because of the useful Tirpitz instead of hunting German raiders converted from steamships throughout the rest of the ocean.
      5. +5
        30 January 2025 15: 33
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        Quote from: navycat777
        Tirpitz kept the English fleet on edge with his presence
        The useless German battleship Tirpitz in WWII kept the equally useless British battleships in suspense wink

        I completely agree and... Not only that, it is worth remembering the fate of convoy PQ-17, when it was the departure of the squadron led by Tirpitz that led to a number of mistakes that cost the loss of a third of the convoy.
      6. +1
        30 January 2025 20: 00
        His older brother, Bismarck, caused a lot of trouble before his death, and that was due to the stupid and arrogant stupidity of his captain.
      7. 0
        30 January 2025 23: 32
        The useless Boreas kept the equally useless Virginias in suspense... wink
    3. +14
      30 January 2025 09: 26
      As far as I remember, the British abandoned convoy PQ-17 because of the threat of Tirpitz's exit to the sea.
      1. 0
        30 January 2025 15: 35
        In general, it is somewhat similar to the Soviet battleships during the Great Patriotic War (take any one, none of them fought properly)

        I would not forget about the role of the main calibers of our battleships in the defense of Leningrad!
      2. +1
        30 January 2025 20: 05
        All this is a cliche, the destruction of Tirpitz, this is Churchill’s personal revenge and the underhanded game of the lords’ establishment, he practically did not represent any danger, given the forces that the British had in that area, there are many articles on this topic.
    4. +7
      30 January 2025 13: 30
      Here you go, Tirpitz, with one sortie at sea, without a single shot, destroyed the PQ-17 convoy, which was carrying weapons and ammunition for an entire army of 60 thousand soldiers. Any powerful fleet must be balanced. Our main ones - the Northern and Pacific - solve several problems, but one of the most important is to ensure the combat stability of our submarine strategists. For this, we need submarine hunters, surface forces and naval aviation. So Nakhimov will have enough work. But in general, we need to build 22350 and 20385 in a good series, these ships are also waiting in other fleets. The fate of Peter the Great in this context is not obvious.
      1. +4
        30 January 2025 14: 00
        Quote: Glagol1
        The fate of Peter the Great in this context is not obvious.

        It is not obvious, but I would like to see modernization touch Petr as well. 27 years for such a ship is nothing, it can serve the country for another 15 years.
    5. -3
      31 January 2025 11: 02
      Even a couple of BEKs' bites to the stern and side of the Tirpitz won't cause much harm. It has armor. This nuclear-powered monster doesn't have much armor. A flock of surface drones will sink it in an hour.
      1. 0
        31 January 2025 12: 43
        1. Unlike frigates, Nakhimov has full armor, it is not for nothing that in the West it is considered a battle cruiser. 2. Where have you seen BEKs in the ocean or in the distant sea zone and among ice floes? What is their seaworthiness? So far they are used in the coastal areas of the Black Sea
        1. +1
          31 January 2025 17: 15
          The MBEKs can be launched in a flock from any sea or ocean transport - a container ship or a research vessel of the icebreaker type. In the distant sea zone and beyond there are enemy submarines that will cut it in half with missiles within an hour. The best air defense in the world cannot fight off 8-10 Western missiles without gaps. And no ship's missile defense will be able to repel salvos from even a couple of submarines into one fat target. And even at base such a carcass is also vulnerable to the same BEKs. They just don't touch it in the north yet. And if something starts happening, the coast will be swarming with them. And not everywhere there is ice.
          1. 0
            31 January 2025 23: 14
            I won't give a minus, your comment, Rio, is valid. But! Navicat is also right, the southern seas are one thing, the north is another. Any ice floe will stop such a boat, and most likely with a charge explosion. Reaching a battleship with a back - well, it's like a single Tu-22M3 sinking an aircraft carrier.
            1. +1
              1 February 2025 14: 41
              You forget that in the SVO the Ukrainians used BEKs with the Starlink system and each had OE modules, plus real-time radar reconnaissance, all of this dramatically increases the effectiveness of combat use and, most importantly, mass use. The fact that they cannot do this en masse is a matter of time and Western policy.
              And I wrote everything correctly at the top BorzRio,the future belongs to them.
  2. +27
    30 January 2025 04: 50
    They poured so much money into "Nakhimov" that it was just a shame to "throw it away". That's probably why they left it, let it be. It's like a retro car. Little use, a lot of show.
    1. +14
      30 January 2025 05: 20
      Quote: Chifka
      It's like a retro car. Little sense, a lot of hype

      There is a more precise definition, "White Elephant".
    2. 0
      31 January 2025 23: 16
      A lot of money was spent. But at the end we have LINCOR, about which the partners will be very worried. We spent money, yes, but there is a result!
  3. +32
    30 January 2025 04: 52
    Note: for the amount of money spent on repairing and modernizing the Nakhimov, it would have been possible to build 3 Borey-class submarines or 4 Yasen-M-class submarines. But more on that later.

    Why count the people's money? For those 550 billion dollars invested in the fortunes of Russian billionaires, plus 300 billion in frozen reserves, it would have been possible to build "who knows how many" ships, submarines, and other military equipment capable of ensuring the country's sovereignty and security, not to mention factories...
    But...We have a special status, we just have to believe that we will get to Heaven...
    1. +22
      30 January 2025 05: 21
      Quote: yuriy55
      yes plus 300 billion in frozen reserves could have been

      why count money that was not initially set aside for the people... They were kept for a "rainy day", and when it came, it turned out that it was not for our "rainy day"...
      1. +15
        30 January 2025 09: 29
        You need to count all the money and draw conclusions. And the white elephant... It may be white, but it's still an elephant. Who's to blame that the chestnuts rule and not the mastodons?
    2. +28
      30 January 2025 07: 41
      $550 billion, $300 billion in frozen reserves
      Yes, plus 11 (eleven, Karl!) trillion, which the generals emptied into their pockets... It's mind-boggling how brazen all these [censored] have become...
      1. +20
        30 January 2025 09: 23
        And if we imagine that the generals only picked up the crumbs from the bosses...
      2. +15
        30 January 2025 10: 35
        I don't understand complaints like "they stole it." We live under capitalism. There are capitalists in the government. The president is a capitalist. The officials are capitalists. And they all make a buck. It's a system. The entire "civilized" world lives by it. All we have to do is not object and die for their capital. That's what democracy is. It won't make things any easier for us just because we learned that someone is doing something. We were simply shown a piece of the capitalists' struggle for a tasty morsel of profits. That's all.
        1. +10
          30 January 2025 12: 59
          There are capitalists in the government. The president is a capitalist. The officials are capitalists. And everyone is making a buck. It's a system.

          It's possible that the photo will be banned as an expression of extremism :(( Everything goes in circles.
        2. +2
          30 January 2025 19: 47
          We live under capitalism. There are capitalists in the government. The president is a capitalist. The officials are capitalists. And everyone is making a buck.
          our capitalists decided to steal the security service fund, usually normal capitalists do not skimp on the security of themselves and their business, but here they are getting hit with assets, and they tolerate it
          1. +2
            31 January 2025 12: 51
            our capitalists decided to steal the security service fund, usually normal capitalists do not skimp on the security of themselves and their business, but here they are getting hit with assets, and they tolerate it
            I will quote the guarantor: "We were deceived!"
        3. +2
          31 January 2025 13: 57
          I don't understand complaints like "they stole it". We live under capitalism.

          Stealing is a sign of feudalism and banditry. Capitalists earn and do not steal.
    3. +1
      30 January 2025 09: 10
      Don't fool people
  4. +27
    30 January 2025 05: 13
    I honestly tried to read to the end, but stopped at the reasoning why and wherefore. The reason is simple, the decision why and where is made by the General Staff, as well as about the development and prospects of certain weapons (I understand that recommendations are given there by specialized and non-specialized people, whoever feels like it) but the author's hope only for submarines is utopian. Without cover at the exit and in the deployment areas, submarines are also ineffective and will be easily destroyed by anti-submarine weapons. Corvettes and frigates will not be able to cover areas from AUGs, and we probably will not be able to assemble a CCD sufficient for butting now, not on the KSF and KTF. Therefore, although it is not a "young" cruiser, even a single salvo from it is capable of significantly battering an enemy CCD. And from a massive air raid and missiles (and not even supersonic ones), a cruiser can be covered by a couple of frigates, and several corvettes will not be superfluous (Actually, this is almost a CCD). hi
    1. +35
      30 January 2025 06: 02
      It's hard to read an article that was created for the word count, which determines the fee.
      In general, Skomorokhov's idea is clear, but it has many holes. Some inaccuracies can be overlooked, comparison of the displacement of the Orlan and Atlant.
      Oddly enough, the North Atlantic is also a strategic region of the world's oceans.
      The KPUG, led by a cruiser, is a powerful fist capable of destroying the AUG and DeSo, capable of covering one of the sea flanks hanging over the European territory of the country.
      I remember that initially our enemies wrote that we would not be able to “recapitalize” the cruiser, now “a new song” it is a ship of one-time use, but they themselves do not stop “riveting” aircraft carriers and UDCs of various types.
      All the arguments that for 200 billion rubles ($2 billion) it was possible to build a certain number of ships and boats rests on the availability of shipbuilding capacities and the implementation timeframe. And, the cruiser underwent modernization standing in a free filling pool and at the wall of the NSR.
      1. +15
        30 January 2025 06: 27
        Quote: Sergey39
        It's hard to read an article that was created for the word count, which determines the fee.

        good
      2. +18
        30 January 2025 07: 12
        I absolutely agree with your comment. hi
        Quote: Sergey39
        .All the talk that for 200 billion rubles (2 billion $)

        1. What is $2 yards? That's the cost of building 1 Berk. But can we seriously compare the combat potential of these ships? It's incomparable.
        2. The possibility of commissioning ocean-going ships is limited, so it is necessary to implement any real project in this direction.
        3.
        Quote: Sergey39
        it is a disposable ship,
        So any combat ship is created specifically for combat, which means that any of them can be called in a similar way...
      3. +18
        30 January 2025 08: 22
        Quote: Sergey39
        All the arguments that for 200 billion rubles ($2 billion) it would be possible to build a certain number of ships and boats rest on the availability of shipbuilding capacity and the implementation timeframe.

        Yes, and he wrote such nonsense about the number of "Boreys" and "Yasens" ... WHAT 4 "Yasens?? For 2 billion dollars you can't even build 2 (TWO) "Yasens"! According to the government procurement website, one "Yasen-M" costs about 1,2 - 1,3 billion dollars!! But just "Borey-A" for 2 billion dollars you can build as many as 4 units. And this is also according to the government procurement website. The cost of "Borey-A" (the penultimate) was about 497 million dollars. Why there is such a spread in prices for "Yasen" and "Borey" I do not know, the secret is kept behind 77 seals and at one time Timokhin and Klimov were quite indignant about this topic ... because it is simply unrealistic (2,5 times!). But perhaps for the "Yasen" project something else is being built and financed. And then everything will be fought for in terms of money.
        Quote: Sergey39
        It's hard to read an article that was created for the word count, which determines the fee.

        good drinks
        The author seems to simply not understand even the simple arithmetic of this ship's potential:
        - 80 UKSK cells for the Zircon anti-ship missile system (I simply don’t believe in the Kalibr and Onyx missiles in those cells - they are of no use there),
        - 20 pcs. PLUR "Otvet" or "Vodopad" with launch through TA,
        - 96 SAM BD SAM "Fort-M" from S-400 SAM,
        - 6 (SIX!) modules of the Pantsir-M anti-aircraft missile and gun system with each ammo pack containing 44 MD SAMs, including the Gvozd SAM, which in total gives 264 MD SAMs,
        - there is a possibility that instead of the Kinzhal SAM launchers, the Redut medium- and short-range SAM launchers have been installed,
        - "Package-NK" - 4 launchers with 12 torpedoes and anti-torpedoes in each.
        And this is only missile weapons.
        And this cruiser will sail in tandem with the AV "Kuznetsov", creating a synergy of striking power and its own invulnerability. And if you consider that their escort will include at least two frigates of project 22350 and two modernized large anti-submarine ships of project 1155, which are also not at all unarmed ... Now you can evaluate the striking power and capabilities of the air defense and anti-submarine warfare of such a formation. Especially if they are insured and reinforced underwater by at least two SSNs (MAPS and SSGNs). Such a KUG/AUG is capable of completely destroying the entire northern part of Europe along with England, France, Germany and other small fry with one salvo of its main defense. With one salvo of one KUG/AUG. If the warheads are nuclear.
        And some people have songs about "disposability".
        It's time to think about the disposability of Europe. Because once is probably enough.
        1. -2
          30 January 2025 09: 43
          "...And this cruiser will sail in tandem with the AV "Kuznetsov", creating a synergy of striking power and its own invulnerability..."
          Yeah, tell the cruiser Moskva about that.
          1. +10
            30 January 2025 13: 19
            Quote from AdAstra
            Yeah, tell the cruiser Moskva about that.

            Because there is no point in sending the flagship of a naval unit, the carrier of a missile and air defense missile system, to the front line all at once.
            It's like dragging an unprotected S-400 to a LBS and then whining about its uselessness.
            1. -6
              30 January 2025 14: 05
              Ah, I see, he just wasn't paired with AV, otherwise there really would have been a "synergy of striking power and his own invulnerability", right?
              1. +5
                30 January 2025 14: 23
                Quote from AdAstra
                Yes?
                "Moskva" was supposed to be sent for modernization. And it is not in the Black Sea that we need a powerful fist, where an updated cruiser would be very useful. And, yes, as part of an operational squadron, it would be a "synergy of striking power."
                If you listen to you, why have a tank if it can be shot down by a cheap drone, and why have a soldier if he can be killed by a cheap bullet, the army itself, all the costs...
                People are easily taken in by "white elephants", they grumbled about aircraft carriers, about "Akulas", that, like, they couldn't fit in the sea. Everything that is dangerous for enemies, we swallow as harmful and useless. Apart from us, it seems, no one in the world discusses the uselessness of a strong fleet.
              2. +5
                30 January 2025 16: 35
                Quote from AdAstra
                Ah, I get it, he just wasn't paired with AV

                Do you read what you quote?
                Quote: bayard
                And this cruiser will sail in tandem with the AV "Kuznetsov", creating a synergy of striking power and its own invulnerability. And if we take into account that their escort will include at least two frigates of the project 22350 and two modernized large anti-submarine ships of the project 1155

                That is, the author of the original thesis assumed that the naval group would have an escort.

                In the case of the Moskva, if its destruction was caused by external reasons, the cruiser would have needed a support aircraft from the shore and at least a couple of small missile ships to increase the depth of air defense at low altitudes in the threatened direction.
                Project 1164 has very poor air defense in the near zone. The ship was designed primarily as a carrier of heavy DD anti-ship missiles and air defense missile systems of the formation. And the air defense of the near zone was supposed to be taken over by other ships of the formation. And here the "team player" was put to serve alone.
                1. VlK
                  +3
                  30 January 2025 16: 42
                  Were the small missile ships of the Black Sea Fleet really capable of providing air defense for anyone, including themselves?
                  1. 0
                    31 January 2025 10: 51
                    Quote: VlK
                    Were the small missile ships of the Black Sea Fleet really capable of providing air defense for anyone, including themselves?

                    Alone - no. But with target designation and air cover, they could play the role of "remote ZAKs", shooting down what got through the IA screen.
                    The Black Sea Fleet simply has nothing else. The 1135s became obsolete during the Soviet era, and the 11356s themselves need to be covered.
        2. +9
          30 January 2025 10: 04
          Quote: bayard
          And some people have songs about "disposability"

          Our entire Soviet surface fleet of 1st and 2nd rank ships was disposable. Entire squadrons were disposable - 5th Mediterranean and 7th Indian. I would call the Orlans "Last Parade" ships. Yes, they have powerful strike weapons, but they lack an effective targeting system, which negates the combat capabilities of strike weapons. I have no doubt that our satellites will be disabled or destroyed first, which will blind the Orlans. The reconnaissance potential of our aviation is too weak to ensure reliable use of strike weapons by these cruisers. It will be easily destroyed by carrier-based aviation. This is the main problem. The second problem is missile defense. In Soviet times, there was not a single sensible missile defense exercise. The firings were conducted using simplified versions of missile targets and were more like a well-rehearsed performance for a good report on their results. Based on these results, orders, titles, and promotions were received. Everyone was interested in a positive result and no one cared that these exercises had nothing to do with combat conditions for the use of missile weapons. Therefore, I do not believe in the effectiveness of our "Atlant" missile defense system.
          1. +11
            30 January 2025 12: 01
            Quote: Silhouette
            Our entire Soviet surface fleet of ships of the 1st and 2nd ranks was disposable.

            That's how it was - it was possible to shoot the entire BC in 15 minutes and then request But such were the times and conditions of a probable war. Few could survive in it.
            Quote: Silhouette
            They have powerful strike weapons, but lack an effective targeting system, which negates the combat capabilities of strike weapons.

            The thing is that the USSR, in addition to satellites and aircraft for maritime reconnaissance and target designation (also at the cost of their lives in the event of war), also had a huge fleet of reconnaissance vessels, which, under the guise of fishing trawlers and other odds and ends, trailed behind the enemy's AUG, intercepted all their communications, and passed the baton of escorting to each other. There really were a lot of them. Not long ago - a year and a half ago, there was an article, and perhaps more than one, about such reconnaissance ships subordinated to the GRU General Staff. Their task was to issue target designation to enemy ships at any time, especially to the AUG. And who would work on them - MRA, SSGN or surface ships, is a third matter.
            "Orlans" were built not so much for autonomous missions or missions as part of a KUG, since the decision was made to build large nuclear aircraft carriers, they were supposed to sail with them (Ulyanovsks) in pairs and provide air defense of the AUG. That is why only 4 of them were built - according to the number of expected "Ulyanovsks". In this case, the air wing of the AV would provide reconnaissance, target designation, and long-range air defense. And the "Orlan" was supposed to cover the order with two of its "Forts" and provide a salvo of heavy anti-ship missiles at the enemy AUG in the event of war. The structure of the USSR Navy was gradually brought to the classic appearance - 10 AUGs after the construction of 4 "Ulyanovsks", 2 "Kuznetsovs" and after the modernization of the first 4 "Krechets" into classic AVs or after their rearmament with Yak-41.
            In the late USSR they also worked on their own version of the AEGIS, but the result was still far away. But the bet was already made on the construction of large series of identical ships, first two large series of "Sarych" and 1155, but by 1990 it was decided to continue building destroyers based on the 1155 project, enhancing its strike capabilities. And all previously built "Sarych" and 1155 were supposed to undergo modernization during the mid-life repairs in the 90s and receive UVP/UKSK for the BD "Granat" cruise missile and inclined PU for the "Onyx". The Sarychi were to have 4 UKSK with 32 cells for the Granat instead of the aft turret, and two inclined packages of six Oniks instead of the Moskit's inclined PU (such a PU had already been tested on an experimental small missile ship). The Shtil was to be used as an air defense missile system.
            The 1155th UKSK was supposed to have 2 x 6 inclined Onyx launchers, Vodopad anti-submarine missiles and a Shtil air defense missile system in place of the second turret, instead of the Rastrub launcher.
            Reaching parity (if not in terms of aircraft carriers, then in terms of surface forces potential) should have happened during the 90s.
            And do not forget about the very large number of Soviet SSGNs of several types. One Project 949 in a salvo exceeded the anti-ship salvo of the "Orlan". In terms of the number and variety of its SSNs, the USSR significantly surpassed the USA. So, for 600 SLBMs of the USA, the USSR had 950 SLBMs according to 1988 data. And the USA did not have such a class as SSGNs at all. In our country, any KUG was always accompanied by at least one SSGN and, in fact, simply provided it with target designation and cover from ASW aviation and enemy surface ships. The Gorshkov Doctrine was effective until the enemy had AEGIS and effective anti-submarine weapons. To compensate for this, in the 90s the USSR should have had its own full-fledged aircraft carriers and a new generation of ASW aircraft, a new generation of SSNs with increased stealth ... But the traitors managed to do it first.
            In general, due to the MRA, SSGNs and a large fleet of reconnaissance and target designation ships, the USSR Navy was quite effective. In the 90s, the technical lag had to be overcome ... But in everything else, we had and were developing a very serious advantage. We won the Cold War with our military-industrial complex and economy, but the traitors decided otherwise.
            1. -4
              30 January 2025 13: 44
              Quote: bayard
              Thus, for 600 US SLBMs, the USSR had 950 SLBMs according to 1988 data.

              Did you make a mistake with the zeros?
              1. +4
                30 January 2025 16: 05
                Quote: Silhouette
                Did you make a mistake with the zeros?

                Of course not. At that time I was professionally involved with these figures.
                Let me surprise you with some more figures, for the same 1988.
                At that time, the US had 1050 ICBMs in service, including 1000 Minuteman 2 and 3 and 50 heavy MXs with ten warheads of 600 kt each.
                At the same time, the USSR had 1750 ICBMs in service, and of these (if we consider them by American standards), about half were heavy class (over 100 tons with a launch weight. There were about 36 different modifications of the monstrous R-400.
                And this is not counting the IRBMs (which had not yet begun to be reduced), of which there were also plenty, from the old but very powerful R-12 and R-14 to the newest at that time "Pioneers".
                At the same time, the United States had 600 strategic bombers.
                And the USSR only had 150 units.
            2. +1
              30 January 2025 19: 07
              But in everything else we had and were developing a very serious advantage.

              good good good
          2. +6
            30 January 2025 13: 27
            Quote: Silhouette
            Our entire Soviet surface fleet of ships of the 1st and 2nd ranks was disposable. Entire squadrons were disposable - the 5th Mediterranean and the 7th Indian.

            Did anyone believe in the reusability of the fleet? No, seriously - a major war at sea begins, SSBNs and SSBNs inevitably get caught up in the fray - and after that the war continues with conventional means?
            If the owners of strategic nuclear weapons clashed directly, and with the use of the main forces of the fleet, then very soon it would come to the troops, after which there would be silence.
            The engine of the second stage burned out behind a hazy haze,
            A "bus" in a black abyss pierces a tight heights,
            The order of the false is deployed, large and silver,
            It's great that we all broke here today ...
            ©
            Quote: Silhouette
            I have no doubt that our satellites will be disabled or destroyed first, which will make the Orlans blind.

            Oh, great, and the satellite constellation is under attack. What, in such a situation they will wait until it comes to the SPRYAU devices?
      4. -2
        30 January 2025 13: 57
        Quote: Sergey39

        All the arguments that for 200 billion rubles ($2 billion) it was possible to build a certain number of ships and boats rests on the availability of shipbuilding capacities and the implementation timeframe. And, the cruiser underwent modernization standing in a free filling pool and at the wall of the NSR.


        What a "distortion" due to ignorance of the essence.
        Over 200 billion rubles spent is not 2 billion dollars.
        Money began to be allocated to the State Defense Order starting in 2011. When the exchange rate was 30. For the 12 year, 5 billion and then 7-10 billion rubles annually.
        that is, 1 billion dollars had already been spent on Nakhimov by 2014.
        Then twice as much was allocated in rubles. At the rate of 65 on average.
        And only the last 3 years at the rate of 100.

        If we calculate correctly, then the modernization paid to Sevmash alone cost 4 billion dollars.
        Not counting direct state defense orders and payments for them to all suppliers of equipment and weapons, which bypassed Sevmash.
        So you need to count correctly and with real numbers.
        It actually cost as much money as it did to build a Ford.




        It is a
    2. +5
      30 January 2025 07: 18
      Quote: jonht
      Without cover at the exit and in the deployment areas, submarines are also ineffective and will be easily destroyed by anti-submarine weapons. Corvettes and frigates will not be able to cover areas from AUGs,

      Nakhimov will perfectly cope with covering the nuclear submarines of the SN in the places of deployment from anti-submarine aviation first of all. Also, the presence of powerful sonars will help in detecting attack nuclear submarines. The nuclear power plant gives a long patrol time. Well, if NATO attack aircraft fly to it, then this is WAR, it is time to empty the missile silos of the nuclear submarine, and then as luck would have it. They have fulfilled their mission.
    3. +2
      30 January 2025 07: 31
      Quote: jonht
      Therefore, although it is not a “young” cruiser, even a single salvo from it is capable of significantly damaging an enemy’s AUG.

      After the upgrade, Nakhimov will essentially be a new cruiser in an old but very strong hull. And its service life after the upgrade is assigned as a new ship, and this must be well understood. As for "wearing down the AUG", then with proper target designation, even with a salvo of a quarter of the BC (20 GZ anti-ship missiles "Zircon" out of 80) from any US AUG there will simply be nothing left. And this is with conventional equipment of the warhead "Zircon". Although they write about other types of missiles, but they are either not at all for naval combat, or are already obsolete (like "Onyx") and will definitely not clog the cells. 80 "Zircons", which the enemy simply has nothing to shoot down with, are not to play with subsonic "Harpoons" or "Tomahawks", this is a tool with a guarantee.
      On the issue of air defense, everything is also completely different from what the author argues - 96 BD SAMs from the S-400 SAM system, plus 6 (six !!) modules of the Pantsir-M SAM gun system with a BC in 44 MD SAMs (including Gvozdi) is 264 MD SAMs with a range of 7-10 km. (Gvozdi) to 32-40 km. There was talk that instead of the Kinzhal SAM launcher, they were going to install the Redut SAM launcher (medium- and short-range SAMs), but there is no exact data on the latter. That is, the Nakhimov's air defense is not just powerful and effective, it is the most powerful air defense ship in history and in all fleets in the history of Mankind. To control low altitudes and provide zonal anti-submarine warfare, it certainly needs an escort, but it is the Nakhimov that will be the main striking force and the main air defense center of any KUG led by it. And it should sail in a pair in the Kuznetsov AV, which will be modernized at the same time as it. That is, a fighter wing capable of effectively fighting cruise missiles during WWI at a great distance from the formation is added to the most powerful naval air defense. So, a KUG/AUG consisting of the Kuznetsov, Nakhimov, two frigates of Project 22350 and two modernized large anti-submarine ships of Project 1155, plus support ships - this is a powerful multifunctional naval formation capable of fighting any targets and performing any tasks. Especially with underwater support from one or two SSNs (MAPS and SSGNs). The strike capabilities of the combined BC of this formation will be sufficient for the guaranteed destruction (it's even awkward to say this) of at least 4 full US AUGs using two salvos for each of them. And this is the minimum of their strike capabilities, and only for the cruiser and escort ships, the aircraft carrier will also make its contribution. And its (formation's) capabilities for repelling air strikes are quite high... even without taking into account the work of the air group. And it will definitely work.
      As for the deployment locations, it is a debatable issue, everything depends on the long-term plans of our command. And of course, we need several of these KUG/AUG. But for now, that is what we have. And what we are going to have has not yet returned to service.
      1. +6
        30 January 2025 08: 00
        Quote: bayard
        That is, in addition to the most powerful naval air defense, there is also a fighter wing capable of effectively combating cruise missiles during WWI at a great distance from the formation.

        I had already read something similar before the war, about our strong air defense, which had no analogues, and so on. The war and burning oil refineries, State Reserve bases, damaged enterprises and oil depots decided everything. On land it is clear, but on the water a hit on a cruiser by just one torpedo or anti-ship missile will turn it into you know what (the cruiser Moskva will not let me lie). So maybe moderate your ardor and look at things more realistically.
        The fighter wing thing was also funny
        Here are Ukrainian planes frolicking in the skies of Ukraine yesterday and none of our air wings did anything
        (The enemy also does not have - there is quite effective electronic warfare, to blur the situation)
        From the cart.........
        January 29 2025
        An air alert regime has been introduced in Crimea and Sevastopol, indicating the presence of cruise missile carriers in the sky, the Rybar Telegram channel reports.
        "Today, Ukrainian aircraft took off en masse from several airfields in the central and eastern parts of the so-called Ukraine. In total, at least 6-7 MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters were spotted in the air, as well as at least one F-16 fighter. A missile threat was introduced for the southern territories of Russia, and the Crimean Bridge was closed, but no strikes followed," TK writes.
        It is noted that, nevertheless, the fighters’ flight routes were characteristic of the launch of cruise missiles at Russian territory, as indicated by a number of signs.
        Enemy aircraft took off from four airfields at once: MiG-29 and Su-27 from Cherkassy, ​​Mirgorod and Kanatovo, and F-16 from the Vasilkov airfield.
        “They all made their way towards Dnepropetrovsk and the southern part of the Kharkiv region, after which some turned around and some disappeared from radar near Dnepropetrovsk,
        So we live in fantasies far from reality! IMHO
        1. +2
          30 January 2025 08: 54
          On land it's understandable, but on water a hit on a cruiser by just one torpedo or anti-ship missile will turn it into you know what (the cruiser Moskva won't let me lie). So maybe you should moderate your ardor and take a more realistic look at things.

          Well, what did you expect - this is a war, not chess, and in a war it is quite logical that there WILL be losses. Also, ships can sink from one missile, or they can survive a couple of hits and leave for repairs under their own power. Anything can happen. So what, should we surrender now and not build a fleet?
          The fighter wing thing was also funny
          Here are Ukrainian planes frolicking in the skies of Ukraine yesterday and none of our air wings did anything

          No one argues that the enemy, to the best of its ability, will also provide counteraction... but this does not at all negate the fact that the combat stability of the cruiser in particular and the naval formation as a whole, together with the aircraft carrier, will increase.
          1. +1
            30 January 2025 09: 11
            Quote: Sanguinius
            On land it's understandable, but on water a hit on a cruiser by just one torpedo or anti-ship missile will turn it into you know what (the cruiser Moskva won't let me lie). So maybe you should moderate your ardor and take a more realistic look at things.

            Well, what did you expect - this is a war, not chess, and in a war it is quite logical that there WILL be losses. Also, ships can sink from one missile, or they can survive a couple of hits and leave for repairs under their own power. Anything can happen. So what, should we surrender now and not build a fleet?
            The fighter wing thing was also funny
            Here are Ukrainian planes frolicking in the skies of Ukraine yesterday and none of our air wings did anything

            No one argues that the enemy, to the best of its ability, will also provide counteraction... but this does not at all negate the fact that the combat stability of the cruiser in particular and the naval formation as a whole, together with the aircraft carrier, will increase.

            It is clear that the sky should be blue, the grass green, the winter with frost, and the fleet full-fledged and powerful. But in fact, what we have is what we have!
            1. +1
              30 January 2025 16: 02
              But in fact, what we have is what we have!

              Well, actually yes, that is our reality, unfortunately
        2. -5
          30 January 2025 09: 19
          Quote: cmax
          I had already read something similar before the war, about our strong air defense, which has no analogues, and so on.

          Do you have any doubts about its effectiveness and capabilities?
          Perhaps you are an air defense specialist and are able to evaluate its work professionally?
          Quote: cmax
          The war and the burning oil refineries, State Reserve bases, damaged enterprises and oil depots decided everything.

          The new nature of targets and the absence of a continuous radar field in the WWI for targets with extremely low EPR at their low speed are new types of targets that require special tools. As for our Army and Object Air Defense, it works very effectively. But it works where it is - the frontline zone and objects under the cover of Object Air Defense.
          Quote: cmax
          on the water, a hit on a cruiser by just one torpedo or anti-ship missile will turn it into you know what (the cruiser Moskva will not let me lie)

          The cruiser Moskva was not destroyed by a torpedo, and possibly not even by an anti-ship missile (although its ancient, unmodernized air defense against targets during WWI did not work at all). There are no traces of an anti-ship missile hit on the Moskva either (judging by the photographs). A fire broke out in the short-range SAM BC on the cruiser. It could have been caused by a hit (although there are no traces of a hit or damage), or it could have been caused by an abnormal activation of an old SAM. The cruiser was destroyed by fire. Possibly while repelling an attack from its own SAM. In that state, it should not have been released for service at all, since it did not receive any modernization, but was merely repaired - its speed was restored for subsequent transfer to the North for a full modernization. So comparing a ship that has been killed by long service without repairs and upgrades with a practically new ship, of which only the hull has remained the same... After modernization, the Nakhimov has been assigned a service life of 25 years. Only new ships are given this much time before a major overhaul. And at least inquire about the composition of its air defense. No one has anything like this and probably won't:
          - 96 SAM BD SAM "Fort-M" (S-400),
          - 6 modules (!) of the Pantsir-M air defense missile and gun system - 264 MD SAMs with a range of up to 40 km.
          - there was also information that instead of the Kinzhal SAM launchers, Redut SAM launchers with medium- and short-range SAMs were installed.
          As anti-submarine warfare - 20 anti-submarine missiles "Otvet" or "Vodopad" with the launch of their TA, as well as 4 PU "Paket-NK" with 12 torpedoes and anti-torpedoes in each. Plus from 3 to 5 anti-submarine warfare helicopters.
          And since such a ship never goes without an escort, and the escort will be frigates of project 22350 and modernized large anti-submarine ships of project 1155, and if there is an aircraft carrier in the formation... This will be a VERY tough nut. Which subsonic cruise missiles definitely won't take. Just calculate the number of channels of its six "Pantsirs". 6 x 4 = 24 channels - that's how many targets only "Pantsir-M" can fire at simultaneously, and in automatic mode.
          Quote: cmax
          In total, at least 6-7 MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters were spotted in the air, as well as at least one F-16 fighter. A missile threat was introduced for the southern territories of Russia, and the Crimean Bridge was closed, but no strikes followed,” TK writes.

          So what ? laughing
          You didn't even understand what you quoted. If our means of control and detection recorded the takeoff and the entire flight path of these pepelats, then we SEEN them in full depth. But it looks like it was just a training flight with route practice. And in the Dnepropetrovsk area the pepelats simply landed. Perhaps at the Airport, there is the necessary infrastructure for basing and maintenance.
          Quote: cmax
          So we live in fantasies that are far from reality!

          So live in reality. laughing
          Rybar about the activity of Sumerian aviation. What he came up with there with the types of aircraft, I do not know, radars see a mark about the target, and not its type. The type can only be assumed. It could have been "Mirage-2000", and F-16, they do not have so many Soviet aircraft left, if they began to write off aircraft technicians to the infantry by the dozens.
          1. +5
            30 January 2025 10: 14
            How tired I am of you and your ilk with your empty talk! Debris, flashes, bangs, here we go, is there life on Mars or not, mirage or not. But in fact, as you wrote about being a realist, I am a realist. The enemy is still in the Kursk region (will we be able to drive out the adversary by May 9 or will we listen to speeches from the podium about traditions, etc.). Drones are flying, well, "debris" are flying and quite successfully throughout the territory of the European part of Russia. Something is being done on the ground, with a lot of bloodshed, which simply might not have happened if the army had real, high-tech weapons and equipment. They have already written about this a thousand times on VO. So it is still a long way to Lvov, and you fantasize in your country of "pink ponies"!
            1. +6
              30 January 2025 13: 05
              Quote: cmax
              How tired I am of you and your ilk with your empty talk! Debris, flashes, bangs

              Young man, I have had these "bangs" since 2014, I live in Donetsk. And I know firsthand how our air defense works, if everything that flies from the city reached it, there would be only ruins left now. And it is still flying, it is good that the shells can no longer reach it.
              Quote: cmax
              The enemy is still in the Kursk region

              A friend of mine died there about a month ago - he fought there since 2014, the commander of one of the best reconnaissance units... I myself regularly get mad at the Ministry of Defense quad bikes. But the air defense (where it exists!) works well. Only it is not everywhere. And because the country is huge, and we would not have been able to fight off such targets even under the USSR 100%. Precisely because of the nature of the targets. So once again the wisdom of the Great Patriotic War is confirmed - "The best air defense is our tanks at enemy airfields." To kill a Snake, you don't need to tickle its tail, you need to hit it in the Head. But the head of the fascist regime is inviolable and under the guarantee of the guarantor of all guarantees.
              I am talking about the Nakhimov as a combat unit, its purpose and method of combat use. And do not confuse this with the theft and sabotage of the USC quadroplanes, who stole the budget of the ships under construction, due to which all their delivery dates have been missed. This is their form of struggle against us in favor of the enemy. USC now has new management and a new owner, they are cleaning out the Augean stables there. And Shoige and Co. have already been trampled by everyone, and rightly so. As well as other smart guys. Only the article about the cruiser Nakhimov is being discussed, and not the state of our air defense and not about the sharply increased number of new types of attack UAVs in the enemy. When 100 to 200 long-range attack UAVs are used in one raid, and NATO headquarters are laying paths to our rear for them using all means of technical reconnaissance, something will definitely fly over and reach. 100% air defense does not exist in nature, no matter how effective it is. We are at war and it is time to realize this. The entire NATO bloc and Co. are against us. Everything that flies at us is NATO's means of destruction, and not from the funny, evil and absurd Kyiv gang. War is not without losses. We have been fighting for almost 11 years. You have been fighting for about 3 years. During the war, our children grew up and went off to fight. But in this case, a specific warship is being discussed.
              Quote: cmax
              Lviv is still very far away, and you can imagine

              Live 11 years in a war, then tell me what you fantasize about.
              We held the front in the unrecognized republic for 8 years so that you could properly prepare for the war. What were you doing during these years? Why didn't you prepare the Army for the war that was already inevitable then? I can ask you this because I have been on the "Peacemaker" lists almost since the founding of this site - what did you do to avoid shitting yourself by the fall of 2022? Think about what kind of ponies you rode before the start of the SVO and why everything is working out so well for you. And we haven't even liberated Donbass yet and it's unknown how long, with such leadership, the surgeon will have to pull a special operation like a cat by the genitals, telling how his galoshes are tight and how many mines Lenin planted.
              1. -7
                30 January 2025 14: 26
                I don't owe anything to anyone, especially you! Don't write nonsense. If you can't give a clear answer on the topic, then that's your problem, you've mixed everything up (just Leo Tolstoy) ...ponies, Lenin, genitals, surgeons. And I'm the same young man as you are a pioneer! As Lavrov said about some people, it also concerns you! Our multi-star general!
                1. +5
                  30 January 2025 16: 12
                  Quote: cmax
                  I don't owe anyone anything at all.

                  Well, if you yourself don’t owe anything, then why are you asking someone for the debris?
                  So, you don't owe anything either.
                  Especially on the forum about the missile cruiser.
                2. 0
                  31 January 2025 09: 33
                  "Nonsense" is spelled with an "a", fabulous!
                  1. -1
                    31 January 2025 09: 52
                    Quote: Scaffold
                    "Nonsense" is spelled with an "a", fabulous!

                    Thank you, vigilant one!
                    1. 0
                      31 January 2025 12: 43
                      It's just your level. You haven't read a single book, you don't know what the Russian language looks like, but you still try to express your opinion.
                      1. 0
                        31 January 2025 13: 52
                        Quote: Scaffold
                        It's just your level. You haven't read a single book, you don't know what the Russian language looks like, but you still try to express your opinion.

                        Oops, why be rude? You don't know me, I don't know you either, especially since I wasn't arguing with you. Sometimes people make spelling mistakes, especially if they answer from a mobile (narrow window) and are in a hurry. This is a public site, it's not for you to tell who can express their opinion and who can't! I'm sorry if I offended you, but you still shouldn't be rude!
                      2. 0
                        2 February 2025 19: 09
                        Only those who have not trained themselves by reading make spelling mistakes. That is, they do not know what Russian words look like. And what opinion can a person who does not read have?
                      3. 0
                        2 February 2025 21: 11
                        Quote: Scaffold
                        Only those who have not trained themselves by reading make spelling mistakes. That is, they do not know what Russian words look like. And what opinion can a person who does not read have?

                        There are no more words or letters from your psychological delights. I thought you were smarter! It happens.
            2. +6
              30 January 2025 13: 32
              Quote: cmax
              Drones fly, well, "fragments" fly and quite successfully throughout the entire territory of the European part of Russia.

              If the air defense system did not work, then not just a few UAVs would arrive, but 90 percent of what was launched.
              Quote: cmax
              Here are Ukrainian planes frolicking in the skies of Ukraine yesterday and none of our air wings did anything

              Yeah... the takeoff of 8 planes from 4 airfields is already considered massive.
              1. -3
                30 January 2025 14: 18
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Yeah... the takeoff of 8 planes from 4 airfields is already considered massive

                I apologize that the Ukrainians raised so few planes. All claims to them. In 3 years of war it was probably possible to solve the issue with the planes of the enemy of the 2nd army of the world or we will ask the Americans to help with this!
                1. 0
                  30 January 2025 16: 41
                  Quote: cmax
                  I apologize that the Ukrainians raised so few planes. All claims are directed at them.

                  Well, you have all the complaints against us. Like, we couldn't take out the entire airfield network of the former Kyiv military district so that the airfields couldn't lift single planes.
                  Quote: cmax
                  In 3 years of war it would probably have been possible to resolve the issue with the enemy aircraft of the 2nd Army of the world, or we could have asked the Americans to help with this!

                  "looks thoughtfully towards one country in Southeast Asia, whose air defense and air force the Americans and their allies have been ironing out for more than ten years - and still can't stand it.
                  It is very difficult to take out the Armed Forces when they are constantly being supplied with equipment and people from territories that cannot be attacked.
                  1. -2
                    30 January 2025 19: 12
                    What claims are there against you? You are not the Ministry of Defense. Regarding Vietnam, you should also remember the Battle of Kulikovo. It would be more correct to remember Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq.
                    This is indicative and correct. On our side is Syria.
                    1. 0
                      31 January 2025 11: 00
                      Quote: cmax
                      Regarding Vietnam, you should also remember the Battle of Kulikovo. It would be more correct to remember Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq.

                      And who supported and sponsored these countries, pumping them with weapons across the border? wink
                      Don't confuse the demonstrative flogging of third world countries with a war with a puppet. We have exactly the situation of Vietnam. Then, too, the US Air Force tried time and again to take out the DRV air defense - and at the same time, Soviet ships with new fighters and air defense systems were unloaded in the ports.
                      Quote: cmax
                      On our side is Syria.

                      Absolutely right. Northern Syria with its pro-Turkish militants. Assad was unable to take them out even with our support. Because Turkey, which stood behind them, either compensated for the losses or simply brought in its forces. And also drew red lines - with Sidewinder missiles.
          2. VlK
            +2
            30 January 2025 14: 40
            Quote: bayard

            Quote: cmax
            In total, at least 6-7 MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters were spotted in the air, as well as at least one F-16 fighter. A missile threat was introduced for the southern territories of Russia, and the Crimean Bridge was closed, but no strikes followed,” TK writes.

            So what ? laughing
            You didn't even understand what you quoted. If our means of control and detection recorded the takeoff and the entire flight path of these pepelats, then we SEEN them in full depth. But it looks like it was just a training flight with route practice. And in the Dnepropetrovsk area the pepelats simply landed. Perhaps at the Airport, there is the necessary infrastructure for basing and maintenance.
            Quote: cmax
            So we live in fantasies that are far from reality!

            So live in reality. laughing
            Rybar about the activity of Sumerian aviation. What he came up with there with the types of aircraft, I do not know, radars see a mark about the target, and not its type. The type can only be assumed. It could have been "Mirage-2000", and F-16, they do not have so many Soviet aircraft left, if they began to write off aircraft technicians to the infantry by the dozens.

            Why aren't they shot down if they are observing the flight and tracking the route? By the fighter jets on duty, the S400, or something else? They don't fly near the Polish border, but land almost at the LBS. I can't find an answer to this question anywhere. Can you, as a professional, explain this point? And how do we even see them in this case?
            1. +1
              30 January 2025 22: 33
              Quote: VlK
              Why aren't they shot down if their flight is being observed and their route is being tracked?

              Because they were observed by A-50U or A-100 AWACS aircraft (two experimental aircraft are currently undergoing testing and can also be used for combat missions in the air).

              Quote: VlK
              A fighter jet on duty, C400, something else?

              Our airfields are now 300 km+ away from the LBS and the planes simply might not have had time to fly there, and the S-400 might not have been at the required distance to fire at targets over the horizon. Or perhaps there was some kind of malfunction in the SAM guidance system from the AWACS aircraft. Usually the enemy monitors the situation regarding the presence of AWACS aircraft in the air, fighters on duty and uses "windows of opportunity" when some have already gone to base, and others are just taking off to replace them.
              Quote: VlK
              . I can't find an answer to this question anywhere. Can you, as a professional, explain this point? And how do we see them in this case?

              The Earth is round and therefore the line of sight of any radar to targets at low altitudes depends on the height of the antenna post. The AWACS aircraft sees the furthest from a height of 10 km+. But seeing the target is not enough, you also need to be able to shoot it down. If the AWACS aircraft cannot illuminate or guide the SAM of a ground-based SAM system, then it can only track targets and transmit data on them to the air defense command post and intelligence agency.
              As for landing in Dnepropetrovsk, this civilian airfield has casemates where MiG-25s were on duty back in the Soviet era. In any case, there have been many episodes of enemy aircraft being shot down deep behind the front line. And there will be more.
              1. VlK
                +1
                31 January 2025 13: 02
                Thanks, clear.
                But can’t we organize constant fighter duty in the air, covering the “shift changes” of other units?
                1. +1
                  31 January 2025 13: 12
                  Quote: VlK
                  But can’t we organize constant fighter duty in the air, covering the “shift changes” of other units?

                  In principle, it is possible, but on a permanent basis over such a long period of time it will lead to the knocking out of resources, exhaustion of the flight crew and will provoke the enemy to hunt for such aircraft with the help of the "Patriot" from ambushes. We have already been through all this, and there were losses, and such air defense systems were identified and punished. And fighter duty in the air was organized. The main thing here is not to act according to a template, because if the enemy sees that you act monotonously, repeat yourself, hang around on one patrol route for a long time, he will definitely try to catch you. This is a constant game and constant improvement.
                  And no one will answer you about how and why our Aviation or Air Defense is acting this way now - we have an open platform, and the enemy is also reading us. And analyzing.
                  1. VlK
                    0
                    31 January 2025 14: 09
                    combat aircraft are created first and foremost to fight, not just to exist... In theory)) Saving the resources of equipment is a task for peacetime, in my opinion.
                    And in my opinion, it is possible to plan a hunt for a hunter in advance, as a related task, if desired?
                    I am trying to clarify for myself very general questions, without details, keeping in mind what you said above. In any case - thank you for the explanations.

                    p.s. I'm just curious who and why constantly gives you minuses for some unknown reason?
                    1. +1
                      31 January 2025 14: 41
                      Quote: VlK
                      Saving the resource of technology is a task of peacetime,

                      I would call this not saving, but rational use of resources. The war is not over and can expand in scale at any moment, and although there are talks about its imminent end, but with no more than a 50/50 probability ... in half a year ... maybe. And it is not customary to ruin such expensive and valuable equipment in vain. Aviation is working in constant mode, Su-34s are non-stop delivering FAB with UMPK, Su-35S are covering them, Su-57s are hunting for "hunters" - they are identifying and destroying enemy SAMs, and very effectively and in continuous working order. And what the public is now spreading is a storm in a teacup, because absolutely nothing happened, no strike was carried out, they did not approach the border / LBS, the usual relocation and practicing the route for future launches of cruise missiles. Perhaps they decided to take advantage of that "window of opportunity", but they did not remain unnoticed. But now at least ten airfields are known where they base themselves in turn.
                      But the fact that the US has removed supplies and funding is already serious. So whatever is flying there is already starting to fall apart.
                      But we still have to fight until at least the end of summer.
                      1. VlK
                        0
                        31 January 2025 15: 04
                        Sorry - the comment went to the very bottom. I can't figure out the system for formatting responses.

                        Quote: bayard

                        But the fact that the US has removed supplies and funding is already serious. So whatever is flying there is already starting to fall apart.
                        But we still have to fight until at least the end of summer.

                        They didn't remove it, they suspended it, for the duration of the financial audit, you understand. And only through officially announced channels. So I wouldn't be too fooled, and wouldn't base any serious calculations on this fact, such projects are not simply shut down so easily.
                      2. 0
                        31 January 2025 21: 45
                        Quote: VlK
                        , such projects are not simply shut down so easily.

                        This is not Trump's project and he has no interests there, so he is winding it down, and it is much more convenient to do this through an audit, so that there are compelling reasons for it. He will hang all the dogs with criminal cases on Biden/Blinken and their whole company, right up to the electric chair for the "heroes". Trump is now much more interested in killing England and Europe with their "old elites". And Russia is now getting new opportunities to end the war by military means on its own terms, and this is exactly what Patrushev said - that by the end of the year there will no longer be a state like Ukraine. Let's see how it goes.
      2. 0
        30 January 2025 09: 48
        What is the guarantee of the Zircon? Who will guide it to the target up to 1000 km? That Nakhimov will be accompanied by an A 50. This is the same as if the S400 would take off over Kiev.
        1. -3
          30 January 2025 12: 11
          Quote: dimon642
          What is the guarantee of Zircon?

          It is invulnerable to modern enemy air defense.
          Quote: dimon642
          Who will guide it to a target up to 1000 km away?

          Targeting means can be different. From a satellite group (it is currently being formed), to reconnaissance and targeting UAVs launched from a ship, passive reconnaissance stations, base and deck aviation, including modernized anti-submarine helicopters, whose side-looking radars see an enemy ship at a distance of about 300 km.
          Quote: dimon642
          Nakhimov will be accompanied by A 50?

          Of course not, but there may be three to five anti-submarine helicopters on board, which can also...
          Quote: dimon642
          This is the same as if the S400 took off over Kyiv.

          Depends on the target's altitude. To shoot down a target at a range of 380 km, it needs to be flying at an altitude of about 12 km. But if there are one or two AWACS helicopters on board, then it can guide the SAM beyond the horizon. And then its (the target's) altitude will no longer play a special role.
          1. +3
            30 January 2025 13: 07
            But if there are one or two AWACS helicopters on board, then it can guide the SAM beyond the horizon.

            Helicopters do not guide SAMs; their radars do not have the right system.
            1. +2
              30 January 2025 15: 17
              New AWACS helicopters will be able to, because the A-50U can already, the A-100 can (two are undergoing testing), and helicopters can do it too. Modern SAMs and RVVs have AGSN and radio command guidance to the capture point, this is not target illumination, for this you need a special algorithm, not a special radar. Even the Su-35S is capable of guiding long-range SAMs to targets during WWI. A specialized helicopter can do it too.
            2. 0
              30 January 2025 16: 46
              Quote from solar
              Helicopters do not guide SAMs; their radars do not have the right system.

              In theory, they can. According to the same scheme as the SAM system with the A-50: a SAM with an ARL homing head and a data transmission line from the AWACS to the control cabin are needed for the cabin equipment to generate signals for correcting the SAM trajectory in the area before entering the homing head operating zone.
              Yes, the OVTs radar cannot provide precise target coordinates and ensure the accuracy of the SAM's guidance to the target, sufficient for the radio fuse to operate. But this is not necessary - it is enough to guide the SAM to the area near the target, in which the target will be captured by the ARL homing head. And then it will guide the SAM to the target itself.
              1. 0
                31 January 2025 10: 21
                The helicopters have a two-coordinate radar; there is no data on the target's altitude.
          2. +1
            30 January 2025 13: 37
            Ka 31 detects targets up to 300 km, E2 Hawkeye up to 600 km. And Ka31 will hang in the air for a long time. And what kind of UAV will be on our ships, which will be created someday.
            Not long ago they also wrote about Admiral Grigorovich, how he scared the entire US fleet in splendid isolation.
            1. +1
              30 January 2025 15: 29
              Quote: dimon642
              Ka 31 detects targets up to 300 km, E2 Hawkeye up to 600 km

              In this sense, a helicopter will never be able to match an airplane, although the new AWACS helicopter will have a new radar system - more powerful and far-sighted.
              Quote: dimon642
              And the Ka31 will hang in the air for a long time.

              Just change more often. "Kuznetsov" can carry 4 such helicopters, and "Nakhimov" itself another two. This will be more than enough to organize constant duty in the air.
              Quote: dimon642
              And what kind of UAV will be on our ships, which will be created someday.

              From the deck of the Kuznetsov, it is possible to launch regular "Forposts" with an optical camera. Modernized "Inohodtsy" can be launched, even small "Orlans" can be launched. "Orlans" were launched and received even from corvettes and frigates. And they were received on the net.
              Quote: dimon642
              Not long ago they also wrote about Admiral Grigorovich, how he scared the entire US fleet in splendid isolation.

              The main thing here is not to scare him, otherwise he will do something out of fear. And he can, even though he is small.
              1. 0
                30 January 2025 15: 35
                Kuzya has been under repair for a long time, and it’s not a fact that it will ever float.
                You don't need to write to me about a distant fantastic future with no analogues. Ka 52 is a super-duper combat helicopter, it only works when pitched up.
                Su 34 flies over the LBS and strikes. No. Same with Nakhimov.
                The entire invisible Su 57 flies over Kyiv
                1. 0
                  30 January 2025 23: 59
                  Quote: dimon642
                  The entire invisible Su 57 flies over Kyiv

                  Well, since you don’t see it above your head, it means it’s definitely flying over Kiev, after all, it’s “invisible” – STEALTH.
                  Quote: dimon642
                  Kuzya has been under repair for a long time, and it’s not a fact that it will ever float.

                  Evo's repairs are already finished, the last finishing works in the cabins and preparation for sailing. It will be released at about the same time as "Nakhimov". "Kuznetsov" is already completely ready, the delay was due to the stolen budgets of the ships under construction, ship repair and modernization programs by the previous management of USC.
                  Quote: dimon642
                  You're talking to me about a distant fantastic future.

                  Why far away, if in the spring we will be on the move, as soon as the ice conditions allow? Last fall, but we didn't have time before the ice formed and postponed it until the spring.

                  Quote: dimon642
                  Ka 52 is a super-duper combat helicopter that only operates when pitched up.

                  Stop lying, the Ka-52M operates with high-precision LMUR missiles, "Vikhr", a new modification of "Vikhr", and when required, it can also work with NURS. No one has been conducting direct assaults for a long time.
                  Quote: dimon642
                  Su 34 flies over the LBS and strikes.

                  Ukrainian F-16s and Mirage-2000s fly over?
                  And the Israelis did not fly over the Syrian border while the air defense was working properly - they launched a bomb/rocket from a pitched position and immediately dived behind the Anti-Lebanon ridges.
                  Quote: dimon642
                  The entire invisible Su 57 flies over Kyiv

                  These handsome guys deliver air defense systems to you in commercial quantities.
              2. +1
                30 January 2025 16: 51
                Quote: bayard
                "Kuznetsov" can carry 4 such helicopters, and "Nakhimov" itself can carry two more. This will be more than enough to organize constant duty in the air.

                It will not be enough. smile
                Nobody hangs an AWACS over the order - you might as well draw a huge arrow in the air saying "shoot here". Plus, to increase the depth of the air defense, the AWACS is always moved towards the most likely enemy arrival.
                So, to the patrol time, add the flight time to the duty zone and back. Plus inspection and maintenance of equipment. Plus the withdrawal of some helicopters for repairs.
                4 heavier-than-air AWACS devices can provide full 24/7 duty only if they are aircraft.
                1. -1
                  31 January 2025 00: 22
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  It will not be enough.

                  Six is ​​not enough?? Well, let it be 8 lol , even 12, the hangars of the Kuznetsov, Nakhimov and escort ships allow this.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  4 heavier-than-air AWACS devices can provide full 24/7 duty only if they are aircraft.

                  But this will not happen - we will not have aircraft of such sizes that AWACS aircraft could launch and receive them. And there are no such aircraft and there will not be. Even the An-2 crop duster cannot be replicated by quadroplanes from UAC, UEC and the Ministry of Industry and Trade. So ONLY HELICOPTERS.

                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Nobody hangs an AWACS over the order - you might as well draw a huge arrow in the air that says "shoot here".

                  belay what And the working radar and other signatures from the aircraft carriers and escort ships do not do the same?? So what is there to be afraid of? It is much more important to timely detect the approach of targets in the First World War as far as possible, provide target designation for ship-based air defense systems (including for firing at targets over the horizon), for carrier-based aircraft fighters and provide conditions for preventive target distribution of targets breaking through to the order for the operation of the MD air defense system.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Add flight time to the patrol area and back to the patrol time.

                  But what if we spit and let them hang over the order, providing coverage of the air situation in the First World War at a range of 300 km? All the problems that you have imagined for yourself go away and normal routine work remains. AUG satellites will always reveal, so there is nothing to hide, but to build a layered air defense with control of the First World War at a range of 300 km., this is GOLD - for an AUG with an air wing of fighters and a cruiser with such a level of air defense and such an ammo. And there are other escort ships that can do this too.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Plus inspection and maintenance of equipment. Plus taking some helicopters out for repairs.

                  And have you forgotten that the air wing and the hangars of the escort ships also include Ka-27M anti-submarine warfare helicopters? Which also has a very good side-looking radar with a detection range of 200-280 km. depending on the type of target and the size of the EPR? So don't worry - there is something to insure yourself with. There is someone to send for reconnaissance and who can provide target designation for the detected enemy ship/s.
                  There will be no deck-based AWACS aircraft, forget about it. Just take it for granted. What is much more important to us is a good AWACS helicopter, which is needed not only in the Navy, but also for plugging holes on the border and in the threatened area. The helicopter does not need a runway, a platform for duty in the zone is enough.
                  1. 0
                    31 January 2025 11: 15
                    Quote: bayard
                    Six is ​​not enough?? Well, let it be 8 lol , even 12, the hangars of the Kuznetsov, Nakhimov and escort ships allow this

                    Are you suggesting to forget about PLO? smile
                    In one of the threads, if my memory serves me right, about a small AV, I once tried to calculate the number of AWACS helicopters required for 24/7 duty at a safe distance from the order. In general, less than a dozen did not work out. The main problem was with the flight time "ship-duty zone". sad
                    Quote: bayard
                    And the working radar and other signatures from the AV and escort ships do not do the same thing??

                    But there is no point in highlighting the order with all your radar systems when the AWACS is working. smile
                    In fact, the AWACS was created, among other things, to provide ships with the ability to operate with minimal radiation of their own - like a remote radar.
                    Quote: bayard
                    But what if we spit and let them hang over the order, providing coverage of the air situation during WWI at a range of 300 km?

                    Then expect a flock of LRASM to visit. Which will be launched from beyond the AWACS radio horizon using the coordinates of the radiation source (recalculated taking into account its course), so we may not even see their carriers.
                    The Yankees took the AWACS away from the order for precisely this reason - so as not to make targeting easier for the Soviet SSGNs and submarines.
                    And now the USSR/RF monopoly on the DD anti-ship missiles no longer exists.
                    Quote: bayard
                    AUG satellites will always be discovered

                    All five, of which only one is active (two in the future)? wink
                    You must remember the series of articles analyzing the "strike on the AUG" - there was a whole article about detection.
                    Quote: bayard
                    There will be no deck-based AWACS aircraft, forget about it.

                    Well then there is no point in building an air defense system - it will only provide targets for the enemy.
                    Yes, we will have to build. Because "Kuznetsov" is not eternal, and no major repairs will save it.
                    1. +1
                      31 January 2025 13: 03
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Are you suggesting to forget about PLO?

                      In no case! Especially since the modernized Ka-27s themselves can do AWACS, albeit worse, so they will cover you if anything happens.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      I once tried to calculate the number of AWACS helicopters required to be on duty 24/7 at a safe distance from the order. In general, less than a dozen did not work out.

                      This is already too much, but if you really want to, you can increase it to 6-8 units. But the trick is that a helicopter is not an airplane, it takes longer to fly to the designated area, and its flight time is shorter. So there is no point in wasting helicopters. If you really want to hang an AWACS in the direction of interest, then send a BPK project 1155 to that area. It has two helicopter hangars, one of which can be an AWACS.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      But there is no point in highlighting the order with all your radar systems when the AWACS is working.

                      The thing is that when I was talking about the capabilities of the satellite group to detect the AUG, I meant their satellites and our AUG. With their capabilities, we are unlikely to get lost, so there is no need to invent any difficulties for ourselves. The AWACS helicopter hovering over the formation provides a WWI control zone of up to 300 km, which is quite enough to raise carrier-based fighters into the air to intercept in the long-range zone. If the raid is massive and some of the anti-ship missiles break through closer to the formation, the ship-based medium-range SAM systems with target designation from the AWACS helicopter and (possibly) carrier-based fighters, which have already fired their ammo, but are capable of providing target designation for the SAMs, will come into play. And the last line of defense, if anyone breaks through, will be the ship-based SAM-PKK "Pantsir-M" and SAM "Redut" with MD SAMs with AGSN. It will be VERY difficult to penetrate such a layered air defense with subsonic anti-ship missiles and will require a raid by a very large number of anti-ship missiles. So they will definitely fight off subsonic cruise missiles. NATO does not have supersonic anti-ship missiles yet, and they will not be particularly difficult either, only there will be less time to react, but the duty pair/link of air defense will definitely have time to raise. But if the enemy does get a main defense anti-ship missile ... then only the air defense system will be able to fight off. But the S-400 seems to have been sharpened precisely for such targets.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Then expect a flock of LRASM to visit. Which will be launched from beyond the AWACS radio horizon according to the coordinates of the radiation source.

                      Of course, it would be desirable to see the carrier, but there is no case, and this anti-ship missile is still subsonic. Only it is low-visibility, so an AWACS helicopter will see it at a range of 150, maximum 200 km. But this is also enough. The main thing is that such missiles do not jump out from under the horizon at a distance of 15-25 km from the order, when the AWACS helicopter is not in the air.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      You must remember the series of articles analyzing the "strike on the AUG" - there was a whole article about detection.

                      Well, our satellite group will have problems, because it is almost non-existent. But they will detect our AUG and will track it with all available means. But here the saying "the eye sees, but the tooth does not touch" may be more likely to be true.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Quote: bayard
                      There will be no deck-based AWACS aircraft, forget about it.
                      Well then there is no point in building an air defense system - it will only provide targets for the enemy.

                      But our aircraft carriers have completely different tasks - not to sneak up unnoticed and strike, but to ensure combat stability for the Fleet's operational units in the DM and OZ. Their task is not to hide themselves (from orbit everything is in plain sight), but to provide a control and security zone around the unit at a distance of several hundred kilometers. And such aircraft carriers of the average VI will be quite capable of this.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      will have to be built. Because "Kuznetsov" is not eternal, and no major repairs will save it.

                      And we are only capable of building aircraft carriers the size of a large UDC. This is our technical and financial limit. And money won't save us, we need EXPERIENCE in building large aircraft carriers.
      3. -4
        30 January 2025 13: 04
        Quote: bayard
        there will be simply nothing left of any US AUG.

        And if the AUG fires a salvo at the Nakhimov, will much of it be left? Or "what's the point of it?"
        1. +2
          30 January 2025 15: 07
          "Nakhimov" will sail in pair with "Kuznetsov" and escort of at least 2 frigates of project 22350 and two modernized large anti-submarine ships of project 1155. So combat stability of such KUG/AUG will be at a sufficiently high level, and air defense capabilities of the cruiser and the order are quite high. So the AUG salvo will be repelled. After all, it will be a strike of subsonic anti-ship missiles. High-positioned radar, AWACS helicopters, carrier-based fighters will detect these cruise missiles in advance and begin interception at a long distance despite WWI. Cruise missiles that break through to the order will be hit by ship-based SAM "Pantsir-M", of which "Nakhimov" has as many as 6 modules with 44 SAMs in each in the BC (264 units in total), with four firing channels in each module! 24 firing channels only for the ZRPK. Plus about the same for the Fort-M and Redut SAM systems. Escort ships will also be engaged in reflection. So this will be a very tough and very toothy "nut".
          Quote: Robocat
          Or "what's wrong with him?"

          If he strikes first, the escort ships of the AUG will of course be able to fire some kind of salvo, and even raise several aircraft... but firstly, this will not save the enemy's AUG in full force, and secondly, it will be easier for our AUG to fight back - our fighters are already in the air, as are the AWACS helicopters, and it will not be too difficult for Nakhimov and Co. to repel such a raid.
      4. VlK
        0
        30 January 2025 15: 16
        and is there any chance that in the next few years we will be able to assemble an escort of 4 first-rank aircraft for it? And not even because of their fundamental availability and combat readiness, but at least because of their possible deployment for other tasks in other areas during the threat period? Well, and about Kuznetsov in the bundle - what is the approximate time perspective of the potential possibility, taking into account the introduction into service of the flight crew that has not flown from the deck for a long time?
        Regarding the cruiser's potentially super-air defense, there is also a question - who will provide over-the-horizon target designation for targets at extremely low altitudes in the prospective KUG? Is it possible in principle to ensure that at least one air defense helicopter is on duty over the formation 24x7 for at least some length of time to monitor the situation? And there is also non-flying weather in the area of ​​its operations...
        1. +1
          30 January 2025 23: 24
          Quote: VlK
          is there any chance that we will be able to assemble an escort of 4 first ranks for him in the next few years?

          In principle, we can do this today, and in 2026, when it will be put into operation, even more so.
          Quote: VlK
          And not even because of their fundamental presence and combat readiness, but at least because of their possible deployment for other tasks in other areas during a period of threat?

          If we take into account that we have three frigates of project 22350, four BPK-1155 in the Northern Fleet, two of which have been modernized, one destroyer of the Sarych type with new boilers and after major repairs, and a modernized cruiser of project 1164 Marshal Shaposhnikov, then we will always have the opportunity to form an escort for the KUG/AUG and not leave the Northern Fleet without pennants. But we need to build further, more and better.
          Quote: VlK
          Well, and about Kuznetsov in the bundle - this is approximately what time perspective potential opportunity

          They are entering service at about the same time, so they will probably return to service within the same year.
          Quote: VlK
          taking into account the introduction into service of flight crews who have not flown from the deck for a long time?

          The flight crew is currently flying and landing on NITKA in Saki. Another thing is that it is not known how many pilots there are in the two regiments trained for the deck today. At the time of the last trip there were not many, and years have passed and I cannot say anything for sure. I hope the pilots were trained.
          Quote: VlK
          Regarding the cruiser’s potentially super-air defense, there is also a question: who will provide over-the-horizon target designation for targets at extremely low altitudes in the prospective KUG?

          AWACS helicopters.
          Quote: VlK
          Is it possible in principle to ensure that at least one air defense helicopter is on duty over the order 24x7 for at least some length of time to monitor the situation?

          According to the staff of such an aircraft carrier as "Kuznetsov", four AWACS helicopters are supposed to be part of the air wing. Two more such helicopters can be taken on board "Nakhimov" - it has the technical capability to carry on board from 3 to 5 anti-aircraft defense, AWACS, and PSS helicopters. Moreover, the modernized Ka-27M has a very good side-looking radar, the detection range of air targets is about 200-250 km. Not AWACS of course, but as a substitute and for insurance in case of problems with the standard AWACS. Even without fighters in the air, timely detection of the approach of a cruise missile during WWI and the issued target designation and bearing on targets under the horizon will allow the air defense system to be put on alert, target distribution and the destruction of them immediately after they rise above the horizon. The Nakhimov's radar antenna posts are located high enough that it will see targets before other ships in the order, and its six Pantsir-M modules and the Redut SAM's AGSN SAM will do their job.
          Quote: VlK
          And there is also bad weather in the area of ​​its operations...

          Sometimes the weather conditions are unsuitable for any type of aircraft. But the Ka-27M ASW helicopter has less stringent weather restrictions. And then there are the shipborne radar systems, passive ELINT stations, satellite support, and support from the base AWACS aviation. Even a base ASW aircraft in the air with its side-looking radar turned on will be of help. In general, such issues need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. We have not yet had a comprehensive approach to the issues of reviving the MRA, ASW aviation, creating a new base ASW aircraft based on the Tu-214, a new ASW helicopter, creating hardware for such an aircraft and helicopter, reviving the MRA regiments based on the modernized Su-34M as carriers of air-launched anti-ship missiles... we have not heard about all this yet. Is it surprising if the entire previous leadership of the Russian Defense Ministry was enthusiastically stealing the military budget and was engaged in window dressing. As was the entire Ministry of Industry and Trade when Manturov was its minister. Now Patrushev supervises shipbuilding due to its special importance, he established the Marine Collegium, Belousov headed the Defense Ministry and is now cleaning up Shoigi's "Augean Stables", and the USC, stolen by the previous leadership, was given to VTB Bank with monstrous debts and the failure of almost all shipbuilding and ship repair programs. We will soon see how the new leaders and their teams will show themselves. But if we look at the affairs in our civil and transport aircraft industry... quad-banging continues, as do the transfers "to the right", loud promises and the formation of a fish memory among the plebs.
  5. +5
    30 January 2025 05: 21
    The cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" and other ships of this series are not to blame for the lack of intelligence in how to use them. Four such cruisers were probably intended for each fleet, one at a time. To show off their flag everywhere. Three or four escort ships plus a nuclear submarine are a great fist for intimidation. They could simply be used as a floating battery of air defense and anti-ship missiles, in the same Severomorsk or Vladivostok or in the same Syria. Another important circumstance is the education of real men and specialists of various profiles on ships. These are welders, turbine operators, boiler operators, electricians, who are gladly hired to work at enterprises where knowledge and discipline are required.
    The nuclear power plant allows unlimited patrolling of areas where our ships are required to be. This includes Cuba, the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Baltic at the moment, and the protection of our merchant fleet in the world's oceans.
    1. +11
      30 January 2025 07: 42
      Quote: V.
      Four such cruisers were probably intended, one for each fleet.

      No, all four cruisers were supposed to work in tandem with the promising nuclear super-aircraft carriers of the Ulyanovsk class, of which it was planned to build 4 units. The previous plans to build ten (!) Orlans were abandoned, limiting themselves to 4 units, and instead of the remaining 6 units, it was decided to build at least 10 cruisers of the 1164 class.
      There is nothing worse than discussing the opinion of a generalist journalist on a military website. After all, you could have simply opened materials on the Orlans - what they were built for (escort of nuclear-powered Ulyanovsks, provision of zonal air defense for the AUG, and as the main strike arsenal of supersonic anti-ship missiles). That's roughly the same thing, but with much greater capabilities, that the Nakhimov will do, working in tandem with the Kuznetsov and leading the AUG escort. The synergy is colossal, especially in strike capabilities, especially if there are at least two submarines (with at least one SSGN) underwater on a long voyage.
      1. +3
        30 January 2025 08: 20
        Well, we don't have aircraft carriers, we screwed up the state, destroyed the fleet, the USSR, the Empire was destroyed, but superyachts were built, the question is now about the existence of Russia itself. Everything that exists needs to be restored, rearmed and put into operation. Or are you suggesting that we surrender to the mercy of the enemy, Banderites, NATO?
        In principle, all military ships with the development of anti-ship missiles, UAVs, and unmanned aerial vehicles are now disposable. Peacetime ships. The main thing is to get ahead of the enemy and deliver the first crushing blow.
        In Soviet times, cruisers of the Minin and Pozharsky type followed American aircraft carriers to have time to tear their decks apart with a salvo. Did the cruisers have a chance to survive? Almost none. But they did their duty to protect the Motherland.
        1. 0
          30 January 2025 09: 56
          Quote: V.
          Well, we don't have aircraft carriers, we've screwed up the state

          One remained, modernized, put into operation in the spring on clean water. Will return to service almost simultaneously with "Nakhimov".
          And two more aircraft carriers UDC are under construction. If at the turn of the decade our own VTOL aircraft appears, there will be two carriers at once.
          Quote: V.
          In principle, all military ships with the development of anti-ship missiles, UAVs, and unmanned aerial vehicles are now disposable.

          In case of war with a serious enemy, this is true. And here the importance of QUANTITY comes into play. But the game of quantity of surface pennants is not for us now. But now a good groundwork has been made for ship weapons systems and they will be tested and improved on the "Nakhimov". If we have a future, it will be possible to build a full-fledged Fleet when better times come.
          1. -1
            30 January 2025 13: 38
            Where is it being built, in Kerch, and how will it be completed?
            1. +1
              30 January 2025 15: 51
              War is not eternal, and according to the initial plans, the first one will be delivered in 2027, the second one in 2030. They are not in a hurry with them, the plant itself is being modernized and developed for such tasks, and personnel are being trained. Now these ships are not of primary importance, but if there is something to wear and for future tasks, up to 4 such ships can be built at the Gulf at the same time. And at a higher rate.
            2. -1
              30 January 2025 17: 00
              UDC under construction. Movement is observed, metal is being cut and the hull is being assembled.
      2. +5
        30 January 2025 13: 33
        Quote: bayard
        After all, it was possible to simply open the materials on the Orlans - what they were built for (escort of nuclear Ulyanovsks, provision of zonal air defense for AUGs and as the main strike arsenal of supersonic anti-ship missiles).

        Well, how can I slightly object to you, because 1164 and 1144 were designed and began to be built at almost the same time - the beginning of the 70s. 1164 - as a strike force of the OPESK against enemy nuclear aircraft carriers, and 1144 - was originally designed as ocean raiders ASW - nuclear BPK. There was no talk of any 1143.7 Ulyanovsks then (only the second of the Krechets Minsk was built ...), and the construction of the lead Ulyanovsk began only 2 years after the laying of the keel (11 years after the issuance of the technical specifications) of the lead Kirov ...
        The design and construction of the first nuclear warship was delayed due to a number of technical problems, the displacement was skyrocketing (they initially wanted 8000 tons), then it became clear that a "nuclear BPK" of SUCH a size would certainly be attacked from the air by enemy carrier-based aviation armadas - and an unprecedented echeloned air defense system and structural protection appeared on the ship, and only later a bright idea came - to make the ship truly multi-purpose - to shove into its belly the latest heavy anti-ship missile Granit (by the way, created exclusively for the SSGN 949), which was accepted into service only three years after the construction of the Kirov... Thus - in the course of a long design (over 4 years) and painful construction (6,5 years), the 8 kt. nuclear BPK turned into a 26 kt. TARK...
        It is difficult to say for sure, but there are suggestions that the Soviet command itself was somewhat surprised, having "suddenly" received such a giant at its disposal, so its original tasks - searching for and destroying enemy SSBNs - did not become dominant, and such a significant representative of the Fleet was increasingly associated as the core of the KUG or a loyal partner of future Soviet nuclear aircraft carriers, but all this was somewhat later...
  6. -2
    30 January 2025 05: 24
    No problem: of course, the Orlans will leave Severomorsk and travel 8500 km to the Kuril Islands.

    Well, who will let them do this? They will mine the Kola Bay and goodbye, no one will leave Severomorsk...
    1. +6
      30 January 2025 05: 47
      And who will allow them to carry out the mining of this very bay?)
      Don't make us look like completely defenseless kittens)
      1. +3
        30 January 2025 06: 22
        Quote: Sanguinius
        And who will allow them to carry out the mining of this very bay?)
        Don't make us look like completely defenseless kittens)

        Mining is carried out not by destroyers and minelayers, as before, but by submarines using self-transporting mines, i.e. the submarine does not even need to enter the bay itself. In addition, aviation can lay mines by placing mines that fly independently for a hundred kilometers and land on the water at the required coordinates. They have the means to place bottom mines at a distance.
        1. 0
          30 January 2025 08: 13
          I am aware of such capabilities... but as far as I remember, their Captor-type bottom mines have long been decommissioned... and the new Hammerheads have not yet been accepted into service.
          Well, it is worth considering that these submarines and aircraft can still be detected by us at the launch line)
          So, not everything is so clear-cut here.
          1. 0
            30 January 2025 09: 44
            Quote: Sanguinius
            may be detected by us even at the launch stage)

            Well, it's in the realm of probability, maybe yes, maybe no. And what if they don't find it? It can't be ruled out. No one is on duty in the air and under water 24/24.
            1. 0
              30 January 2025 16: 00
              Of course... in fact, just like your assertion that they will manage to mine the Kola Bay, it is also one of the probability theories.
          2. 0
            30 January 2025 23: 42
            Quote: Sanguinius
            ...Well, it is worth considering that these submarines and aircraft can still be detected by us at the launch line)

            I wonder why on the Kursk submarine, two submarines of a potential enemy were not immediately detected..?!! especially during naval exercises??? belay
            request
      2. 0
        30 January 2025 09: 50
        The sea tiger in the form of the Black Sea Fleet showed what our fleet is capable of.
        1. +1
          30 January 2025 16: 16
          In part, it’s good that he showed it (although knowledgeable people already understood that the Black Sea Fleet was in trouble)...now we need to work to ensure that even negative experience is taken into account and used for the benefit of the cause.
    2. 0
      30 January 2025 09: 28
      The depth of the Kola Bay is 200-300 m. Do not forget about the anti-submarine defense of the naval base and the anti-submarine warfare with small anti-submarine ships and minesweepers. It is problematic for a nuclear submarine to remain unnoticed in its narrows and depths.
      1. 0
        30 January 2025 10: 00
        Quote: Sergey39
        Don't forget about the anti-submarine defense of the naval base and the anti-submarine warfare with small anti-submarine ships and minesweepers.

        The Northern Fleet has only one minesweeper equipped with an AUV to search for bottom mines.
      2. +1
        30 January 2025 10: 49
        Quote: Sergey39
        Don't forget about the anti-submarine defense of the naval base and the anti-submarine warfare with the MPC and minesweepers. It is problematic for a nuclear submarine to remain unnoticed in its narrows and depths
        Don't forget about the pack ice in the part of the ocean where the submarine usually dives. wink
      3. +2
        30 January 2025 13: 38
        Quote: Sergey39
        Don't forget about the anti-submarine defense of the naval base and the anti-submarine warfare with small anti-submarine ships and minesweepers.

        The first new TSh-IM for the Northern Fleet was launched only in August last year. The rest are still under construction.
        Well, about the MPC... You yourself know how old the Albatrosses are and how many 2038* we have, which are the only ones that can replace them.
  7. -8
    30 January 2025 05: 28
    They are installing as many as 60 hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zircon"

    There are big doubts about "Zircon", because about five years ago the director of Sevmash, when asked by a journalist about "Zircon", said that if they finance it, then the PU will be installed. Accordingly, "Zircon" was not included in the plan, and they have already exceeded the budget. Therefore, its existence is not a fact at all.
    1. +5
      30 January 2025 06: 11
      The launcher is one for all cases, and the problem is only in the software for launching Tsirkons. On the 22350 frigates, they are no different from what was installed on Nakhimov. Although it seems like they made a more advanced version of the launcher, but the one that was before was initially sawed for all promising missiles.
    2. 0
      30 January 2025 06: 15
      there is the same PU with Kalibr. If necessary, they will make a combined number of missiles
    3. +3
      30 January 2025 07: 51
      Quote: Puncher
      About five years ago, the director of Sevmash, when asked by a journalist about Zircon, said that if they finance it, then the PU will be

      Well, yes, now frigates and corvettes are being converted into carriers of the Zircon, and at the Nakhimov lol "doubts". Five years ago, the "Zircon" was not yet accepted for service and supply of the Fleet. It was doubtful then. But the presence of the already obsolete "Onyx" in the cells is in doubt. And the "Kalibr" will be there only for a specific task. The "Nakhimov" uses anti-submarine missiles from the TA (20 "Vodopad\Otvet" anti-submarine missiles), so in the standard equipment all 80 cells can be filled with "Zircons". "Kalibr" and other "non-serious" things can be carried in their cells by escort ships and submarines as part of the KUG.
    4. +3
      30 January 2025 09: 32
      "Tsirkons", "Onyxes", "Kalibrs", "Otvets" are loaded into the UKSK 3M14, and there are 10 of them on the cruiser, for 80 missiles. Live in the present day and study the information about the cruiser's armament. It has undergone demagnetization and in the spring, when the White Sea opens up, it will go out for testing.
  8. +5
    30 January 2025 05: 54
    In today's reality, any ship is disposable, but the Orlans are the most durable option (except for aircraft carriers). The Mediterranean Sea is a good position, Europe, the Middle East and part of Africa are under control + the airspace above the sea. It turns out to be a highly autonomous, mobile missile base.
    1. +2
      30 January 2025 09: 33
      The Nakhimov has an armored belt on the ship's hull.
    2. -1
      30 January 2025 14: 31
      Quote: mark1
      In today's reality, any ship is disposable, but the Orlans are the most durable option (except for aircraft carriers). The Mediterranean Sea is a good position, Europe, the Middle East and part of Africa are under control + the airspace above the sea. It turns out to be a highly autonomous, mobile missile base.


      In the Mediterranean Sea, his chances are exactly the same as in the Baltic or the Black Sea - zero.
      It will simply be swept away by the air forces and navies of NATO countries.
  9. Rtu
    -2
    30 January 2025 06: 11
    Well, yeah... Not an inspiring article at all. And plausible, it seems. Especially against the background of the story with the cruiser "Moskva". And everyone has a lot of high-precision weapons. It really seems that the surface fleet is becoming disposable.
  10. -2
    30 January 2025 06: 23
    Yes, four Orlans in a dialogue with Donald Trump would not hurt us now. Their hulls are old, but as they write in the comments, they are still very good. They knew how to build in the USSR! By the way, the Navy has a ship that has been there since the Tsarist times.
    And five Atlanteans, six modernized Akulas with Onyx missiles, a couple of aircraft carriers. And Donald would think about whether to be rude to us or not.
  11. +5
    30 January 2025 06: 26
    A beautiful ship! But the admiral, not the scribblers from the Military District, must decide whether it is necessary. And it is extremely necessary to take into account the experience of the "Moskva".
    1. +4
      30 January 2025 06: 58
      since it was built a long time ago, that's why they're messing around with it, and there's no quick equivalent replacement for it, and so in my amateurish opinion, 10 universal destroyers like the Yankees' Arleigh Burke would be smarter, they would sail more across the oceans and seas as a result, and would have greater survivability due to the fact that there are 10 of them, not 1
    2. 0
      30 January 2025 09: 26
      So you are suggesting that we ignore the fact that the cruiser can only operate near repair bases and is essentially unusable anywhere else?
      1. 0
        30 January 2025 17: 26
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        So you are suggesting that we ignore the fact that the cruiser can only operate near repair bases and is essentially unusable anywhere else?

        Why such a conclusion?
        1. -1
          30 January 2025 17: 27
          What other reason could there be for both nuclear cruisers to be part of the Northern Fleet when they are more needed in the Pacific? The only possible reason is the distance from specialized repair bases.
  12. +2
    30 January 2025 06: 45
    All our wars are fought according to the rules of chivalry, aren't they?
    This is what is most upsetting
  13. UVB
    +6
    30 January 2025 07: 00
    This is not a collage. Peter the Great in the Suez Canal.
  14. -9
    30 January 2025 07: 09
    Such a ship would be very useful in the Baltic, where pirates have already seized 3 of our ships. But, having built such monsters, the command is afraid to use them, as was the case with 4 Petropavlovsk-class ships. Nevertheless, 2 of them saved Leningrad in 1941. The Germans simply could not come closer than 30 km to the city, half-ton gifts from battleships flew at their positions. And the third battleship suppressed German batteries in the Crimea. So the large ships turned out to be useful, although they did not participate in naval battles, but were floating forts.
    1. +7
      30 January 2025 08: 53
      A ship like this would be very useful in the Baltic.

      Seas like the Baltic and Black are just puddles for battleships. Easy to target from the shore, the chances of defeat are huge. "Admiral Nakhimov" was created for the ocean.
      1. -6
        30 January 2025 08: 59
        Yes, of course. I saw Peter in Kronstadt. His uncle Vova brought him to the Navy Day in 2018. Before that, the naval part of the Victory Parade was curtailed in May due to the arrival of the destroyer Early Burke in the Gulf of Finland. The ships left the Neva and dispersed. And Peter can reliably protect an entire region. And why does everyone think that ships are needed for some kind of ocean battles? From history, they cover entire seas and regions. Especially the "window to Europe", so that
        1. -2
          30 January 2025 10: 16
          From history they cover entire seas and regions.

          From history, batteries were removed from them, installed on the shore. And the ships themselves were sunk to the bottom at the entrance to the bay.
    2. +1
      30 January 2025 09: 34
      An extremely unfortunate example. The battleships in Leningrad were seriously damaged, Marat was completely sunk. The defense was held by Fort Krasnaya Gorka, and in Sevastopol by its coastal batteries. The ground artillery turned out to be much more resistant to enemy fire.
      1. +2
        30 January 2025 13: 48
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        The defense was held by the Krasnaya Gorka fort

        Well, yes, well... and "Marat", which fired 1371 main caliber shells during the war (most of them in 1941), was just standing nearby. And "Oktyabrina" with its 1442 main caliber shells too.
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        and in Sevastopol its coastal batteries.

        So "Parisianka" supported mainly the Crimean Front on the Kerch Peninsula. And by March 1942, she had shot the guns to complete wear and tear.
        Despite the absence of combat damage, the battleship was in need of serious repair: six of the 305-mm guns had cracked trunks at the muzzle, and at some ends of the trunks were torn off, the resource of the guns (250 battle shots per barrel) was completely used up.
        © A.M.Vasiliev. Battleships of the "Marat" type.
        1. 0
          30 January 2025 13: 57
          How unexpected! If my memory serves me right, you are a supporter of the concept of unarmed ships. And here, you have to stand up for battleships precisely when they were operating along the shore. And Marat, strictly speaking, was already a floating battery after its sinking. If it had been built as a fort, it would have been even more useful.
          1. +1
            30 January 2025 16: 57
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            You, if my memory serves me right, are a supporter of the concept of unarmed ships.

            Nope. I am a supporter of the concept of specialized ships. In the sense that an aircraft carrier should not carry a full set of air defense missile systems, cruise missiles and anti-submarine warfare systems. Because these systems can be placed on escort ships. But the aircraft that do not fit on the aircraft carrier due to the space eaten up by other weapons cannot be placed anywhere else - only the aircraft carrier can carry them.
            ICHH, our chimeroid heavy aircraft carrier pr.1143 with its 37 tons of displacement with such specialization could easily be replaced by an 000-ton missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier with a 11-500-ton SVVP. And this unit would also receive a DD SAM system as a bonus. I'm not even talking about the fact that there would be more slipway space for building such ships.
  15. +3
    30 January 2025 07: 17
    What about money? Now they've taken on a high-speed railway... Ambition and show-off - I agree. Its necessity - hardly...
    1. +3
      30 January 2025 09: 44
      So, given our problems with civil aviation, high-speed railways are not needed? Excellent logic, nothing to say.
      1. -1
        30 January 2025 13: 43
        In Portugal, already in 2001, high-speed trains were running at 280 km per hour on a regular railway.
        1. 0
          31 January 2025 12: 34
          And whose construction are these trains? Portugal?)))))))
          1. -1
            31 January 2025 13: 37
            Sapsan and Lastochka trains from Siemens.
            1. 0
              31 January 2025 15: 58
              The swallow has been released here for many years
              1. 0
                31 January 2025 16: 22
                The Portuguese have also been producing it since 2000.
      2. -1
        30 January 2025 14: 52
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        So, given our problems with civil aviation, high-speed railways are not needed? Excellent logic, nothing to say.

        In China (they work, not saw). Below is just about the Chinese railway, in Russia everything is silent. They divide the cash flows, who will sit on them on the branch from Moscow to St. Petersburg.

        Results 2023, China.
        At the end of 2023, according to the national company China Railway (CR), the length of China's railway network reached 159 thousand km, of which 45 thousand km are high-speed lines (compared to 42 thousand km in 2022). The increase is significant compared to the pre-pandemic 2019, when the total length of high-speed lines was 31 thousand km.
        During 2023, 34 projects were completed, 102 stations and 3637 km of new lines, including 2776 km of high-speed lines, were put into operation. The total investment in the railway sector was about US$106,8 billion, up 2022% from 7,5.
        In 2024 even more.
        Well done!
  16. -3
    30 January 2025 07: 29
    Because no one thought about the reason why after 7–9 years these ships were firmly mothballed?

    There is one reason - people. The extremely low technical literacy of our sailors. And this can be traced back to Tsushima. There are modern ships, but there are no people who can operate them competently.
    For some reason, in aviation, no one thinks of putting a conscript at the controls of an airplane or entrusting him with the technical maintenance of the airplane, but in the navy, this is normal.
    There shouldn't be people in the crew of a ship worth ..... without higher education and serious work experience. And not just work experience - but specialized experience. Not so much that he served as a diver, became responsible for the power plant.
    Well, there should be responsibility of the commanders. "Departed" - the ship in one trip - prison.
    1. 0
      30 January 2025 07: 53
      Quote: ism_ek
      There should not be people without higher education and serious work experience in the crew of a ship worth .....

      Your comment reminded me of ads like "salesperson needed for a furniture store, higher education is a must", yes, there should be professionals, there shouldn't be (and there aren't!) cases where "divers are put on nuclear submarines", but to claim that every sailor, including the "cook's assistant", should have a higher education is too much... as is your statement about the general illiteracy of sailors in their field... Your idea is clear and it is correct in principle, but it is expressed very, let's say - "poorly"...
      1. 0
        30 January 2025 09: 46
        There is a grain of truth in the discussions about the need for engineering personnel on board the ship.
    2. -1
      30 January 2025 09: 46
      There is only one reason - people. The extremely low technical literacy of our sailors. --- maybe the extremely low literacy and military and civil responsibility of a very small number of civilians and military personnel who did not lose even a penny for their inaction, and in some places even for their resistance? No? However, as at Tsushima.
      1. +1
        30 January 2025 15: 05
        Not always. The reason for the short life of the ship can be an unsuccessful, non-repairable design. It's like with passenger cars, you can't get under the front panel to replace the air conditioner evaporator.
    3. +1
      31 January 2025 11: 25
      Quote: ism_ek
      There is one reason - people. The extremely low technical literacy of our sailors.

      No amount of technical literacy will help if there are no basing conditions.
      Here, even if you staff the entire crew with engineers, but if, for example, the pier cannot deliver anything to the ship from the shore, then the ship will have to use up the resource of its main power plant at the base. And if there is an eternity-long queue at the shipyard, so that all the scheduled deadlines have long been missed, then the next restoration of combat capability instead of a scheduled repair will turn into smoke halfway across the ocean, the impossibility of lifting the onboard vehicles with a full load and torn finisher cables.
      The entire history of our fleet is a fierce struggle with inadequate basing conditions. I remember that at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, all destroyers in the Northern Fleet required repairs to the main propulsion plant and anti-submarine generator - after two years of service!
      1. 0
        1 February 2025 10: 24
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The entire history of our fleet is a fierce struggle against inadequate basing conditions.

        Don't make up any nonsense. We have a civilian fleet and the basing conditions there are even worse. Nuclear submarines sail for 30 years without repairs.
        1. 0
          3 February 2025 10: 43
          Quote: ism_ek
          Don't make up any nonsense. We have a civilian fleet and the basing conditions there are even worse. Nuclear submarines sail for 30 years without repairs.

          Found something to be proud of. The result of such exploitation is the decommissioning of ALED after 30 years of service.
  17. +7
    30 January 2025 07: 45
    Firstly, as the article here writes, there has never been a common flagship ship for the entire Russian Navy consisting of four fleets and one flotilla. All four fleets and the Caspian flotilla had their own flagship. The USSR Navy had the same thing. And this is not necessarily
    were the newest or most powerful ships. At one time, the flagship of the DKBF in Soviet times was the twenty-year-old artillery cruiser of project 68-bis "Sverdlov", although the fleet had new and modern large anti-submarine ships with missile weapons.
    Secondly, since Soviet times, the naval architecture and naval aesthetics of Russian surface ships, in my opinion, are the most beautiful in the world. And in all the navies of the world, the task of the flagship is also the task of demonstrating the flag of its state. Therefore, flagships, for example, are not nuclear submarines, although they can surpass the flagship in terms of the power of a salvo. Russia is not a beggar, and such a beautiful and powerful ship as the cruiser Nakhimov, this is how the flag of Russia should be demonstrated.
    thirdly, such a ship must also have an order of protection and escort corresponding to its importance.
    fourthly. Once again about the beauty of the ship. Do not doubt, if the American "Iowa" today were the same age as our Nakhimov, then they would also modernize "Iowa" today. It's just that she is already almost 80 years old, well, where is she, only as a museum ... It's also good that our "Mikhail Kutuzov" of project 68-bis has become a museum. Otherwise, poor "Sverdlov" was dragged to the scrap yard to be sold to foreigners, until somewhere half-submerged and rusty they abandoned her. What a shame ...
    1. -7
      30 January 2025 07: 58
      Quote: north 2
      Since Soviet times, the naval architecture and naval aesthetics of Russian surface ships

      This is pampering. The main thing is that the ships serve for 40 years, like in the US and China.
      Who needs these stupid "peakless caps" and "daggers" if they destroy a ship in one trip?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. +3
    30 January 2025 07: 46
    our boats have all been described long ago and a hunter is always hanging around so there is no uncertainty in principle and the eagle is a ship of a "different" concept, just if you remove all the bleating about repelling an attack, defense and all these patient narratives, then it is just a ship of destruction, it just needs to strike first, that's all))) but this will never happen while the boys have yachts hanging around Miami and a ranch or chalet in Switzerland, so these are ships of another civilization, the red one, and they, as we know, flew away(
  19. 0
    30 January 2025 08: 12
    Question number one: why do we need SSBNs in such numbers if the potential enemy, thanks to us, has come to believe that the Russian Federation will never use nuclear weapons unless absolutely necessary, and we didn’t say where these areas are?
  20. +9
    30 January 2025 08: 15
    Ships of the ocean fleet of a superpower. The superpower was destroyed by internal betrayal. The fleet repeated its fate. If the Russian Federation could build 22350 en masse and in an acceptable time frame, then there would be little point in modernizing 1144.
    1. +3
      30 January 2025 12: 45
      Quote: Vulpes
      If the Russian Federation could build 22350 on a large scale and within an acceptable time frame, then there would no longer be much point in modernizing 1144.

      Golden words, if only...
  21. 0
    30 January 2025 08: 49
    Even if this ship is "one battle", the whole world should tremble from this battle!!
    It's a shame that we lost Moscow, either NATO sank it, or the hohol-Nazis, we'll never know the truth.
    1. -1
      30 January 2025 14: 37
      Quote: Asker
      Even if this ship is "one battle", the whole world should tremble from this battle!!
      It's a shame that we lost Moscow, either NATO sank it, or the hohol-Nazis, we'll never know the truth.

      The sinking of Moscow truly shook the world.
      It was very.
      Only we, from the bewilderment inflated by our Ukrainian patriots, received feelings of emptiness, loss and humiliation.

      And they laughed...
  22. 0
    30 January 2025 08: 55
    You MUST think, comrades! ... and offer real, calculated solutions! And not to criticize is pointless and ... even cruel! Think, calculate and offer!
  23. -2
    30 January 2025 08: 56
    A famous story from the 20th century immediately comes to mind: The Hunt for Bismarck.
    There are many analogies.
    A single super-powerful expensive ship could do almost nothing. He was lucky with Hood, otherwise he would have lost to zero. It seems that his brother did the same.
  24. +3
    30 January 2025 09: 01
    the return of this ship to service is not a military decision, but a political one, the people who made this decision were firmly convinced that Russia would not fight with anyone, therefore all military construction was not comprehensive, but focal, it was possible to brag about the Pantsirs and S-400 at all kinds of military exhibitions and salons, but at the same time have leaky air defense through which the maize-growers fly, it was possible to build a bunch of ships for no apparent reason, and modernize another, and in the end they were "driven beyond the Mozha" by a country that does not have a navy at all, military construction should be such that the army effectively defends the country and its interests, and in Russia the army, due to lies and self-promotion, has turned into a "thing in itself".
    P.S. I hope that Nakhimov has anti-debris defense, because nowadays the debris from missiles is worse than the missiles themselves.
  25. +2
    30 January 2025 09: 01
    Nakhimov is 2,3 times bigger than Moscow, not 4.
  26. +2
    30 January 2025 09: 07
    Orlans will ensure the stability of the KUG. Providing air defense of the order. Destruction of the AUG, KUG of the enemy outside the range of aviation and missiles of the enemy. A salvo of 16 Tsirkons and 80 different things. ASW KUG will be carried out by frigates. At a glance 2 Orlans, 3 Gorshkovs, Ustinovs and a couple of BPK + a couple of submarines powerful KUG that can cut off communications. Can close any area
    1. +3
      30 January 2025 12: 50
      The key problem of our fleet is the absence of AWACS aircraft on the Kuznetsov. And without this, the KUG will be blind.
  27. -6
    30 January 2025 09: 12
    I agree with the author - we need to do what is necessary and what we can do well - submarines!
    1. 0
      31 January 2025 00: 03
      Quote from Aleprok
      ...we need to do what is necessary and what we can do well - submarines!
      Well, it was necessary to build RTMKs and Shchuka-Bs!!! But when the Union collapsed in the 1990s, the underwater component was the first thing they cut
    2. 0
      31 January 2025 11: 28
      Quote from Aleprok
      I agree with the author - we need to do what is necessary and what we can do well - submarines!

      To the delight of a potential enemy that has spent 80 years developing anti-submarine warfare tactics and strategy.
  28. 0
    30 January 2025 09: 21
    Quote: bayard
    The cost of "Borey-A" (the penultimate one) was something around 497 million dollars. I don't know why there is such a price difference between "Yasen" and "Borey", the secret is kept under 77 seals and at one time Timokhin and Klimov were quite indignant about this topic ... because it is simply unrealistic (2,5 times!). But perhaps something else is being built and financed under the "Yasen" project. And then everything will fight for money.

    The answer is very simple - the contract for the Boreya and Yasen was concluded under Serdyukov, and for the Yasen-M under Shoigu, that's the whole story. At one time, Serdyukov issued a directive to reduce the cost of the Severodvinsk SSGN by 40 billion rubles at once (in half). Serdyukov simply threw out all the intermediaries, in the form of shady companies, and that's it.
    Romka Trotsenko, who later went to Rosneft and stirred up trouble with the Americans, was indignant for a long time.
  29. +1
    30 January 2025 09: 22
    Roman. Even Tirpitz caused damage, more than the USSR. By the fact of its existence. And Nakhimov will act on its "partners" in the same way. The question is that they do not have a balanced fleet to support both Tirpitz then and Nakhimov tomorrow. Now the scheme is more complicated, in addition to the order for the cruiser, several similar KUGs or AUGs are needed. Plus satellites, several types of aircraft.
  30. -4
    30 January 2025 09: 28
    For the projects of these useless galoshes, as well as aircraft carriers, the entire Gorshkov-Chernavin gang should have been put against the wall. Look at Khrushchev, without any fleet, who put the USA in its place during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
    All troughs are just a vacuum cleaner for pumping out money.
    The basis of the fleet in the north should be a diesel frigate with a displacement of 4-5 thousand tons, the main task of which is to ensure the deployment of its own SSBNs and that’s all.
    Stop pretending to be a superpower for domestic consumption.
    The Russian Federation is a country that supplies cheap and free resources; it cannot afford to play soldiers.
  31. +2
    30 January 2025 09: 43
    80% of our exports go the difficult way through sea waters, the same can be said about imports. In addition, there are our own territories supplied by waterways - the Kuril Islands, Kamchatka and Chukotka.
    The task of the fleet is to protect its own shipping and disrupt enemy communications; submarines handle the second part, but only surface ships handle the first!
    There are some very contagious nonsense like "we don't need a navy - we are a land-based country" or "let's shoot missiles from our shores" but this is all from the evil one. Let's hope that after modernization, the ocean ship will serve the Fatherland while in the ocean, and not as a missile "aircraft carrier-killer barge" (in fact, a target) like the cruiser Moskva...
  32. +1
    30 January 2025 09: 47
    Nothing new has been created, we are eating up the Soviet stuff. And in the Kremlin, the old men are sitting on chests of privatized property again. Who among them is a state politician? The marketeers, however
  33. 0
    30 January 2025 09: 48
    The answer to all these questions is very simple: these ships are not designed to fight the US and NATO. In the event of a real mess, they will be the first to be destroyed. The AUG consists of many ships and aircraft, including AWACS. And these battleships of ours will be detected and sunk long before they themselves have time to detect anyone. Not only that. In light of the development of satellite reconnaissance and drones, even an AUG is not needed; one or two Arleigh Burkes, each with 60 tomahawks of various modifications, will suffice. The purpose of our nuclear battleships is completely different: to show the flag and conduct international anti-terrorist operations. jointly with the US and NATO. When we finally normalize our relations. Really normalize them, on an equal basis, and not like in the post-Soviet 90s. And in this sense, they can be of great benefit, since they are a demonstration not only of the flag, but also of Russia's possession of unique technologies and competencies comparable to the US. That's why we really need them.
    1. VlK
      +1
      30 January 2025 15: 43
      What kind of terrorists are these that a battleship is needed against them?
      And yes, of course, NATO is eagerly awaiting us for such operations, without us there is no help) It just wafted nostalgically about Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. But welcome to reality
    2. 0
      9 February 2025 20: 42
      Isn't the ship too expensive for an anti-terrorist operation?
  34. +1
    30 January 2025 10: 00
    Tirpitz did fight once, after all - it fired at Spitsbergen during the German raid on that archipelago.
  35. -7
    30 January 2025 10: 02
    The American aircraft carrier does not know where to hide from the Houthi hypersonic. Reality has shown... The CHE was essentially destroyed, including the flagship, by Moscow. Drones will become smarter and always several times cheaper than their targets. The only limitation is that the aggressor must know that he will immediately receive a response in the form of a strike by a super-powerful munition on his territory.
    1. +4
      30 January 2025 12: 08
      Quote: Dave36
      The American aircraft carrier does not know where to hide from the Houthi hypersonic. Reality has shown... The CHE was essentially destroyed, including the flagship, by Moscow. Drones will become smarter and always several times cheaper than their targets. The only limitation is that the aggressor must know that he will immediately receive a response in the form of a strike by a super-powerful munition on his territory.

      Read it ...

      https://www.twz.com/news-features/what-red-sea-battles-have-taught-the-navy-about-a-future-china-fight

      Not a single American warship was hit. Duraki learn from their mistakes, smart ones from others. They have gained a wealth of experience, analyze, optimize and, taking into account many months of experience, prepare for a conflict with China.
      This is about the number of missiles used by their ships (statistics)

      https://www.twz.com/news-features/navy-just-disclosed-how-many-of-each-of-its-surface-to-air-missiles-it-fired-during-red-sea-fight

      Nobody takes Russia into account anymore.
      Authority is earned over years, but lost in one go! IMHO.
  36. -4
    30 January 2025 10: 04
    I'm not really in the know, but if we need to escort caravans from Ust-Luga, will it be possible to do it with submarines?
  37. +1
    30 January 2025 10: 29
    It seems that a TAR, in order to strike, must approach the range of a cannon shot from a main battleship of the Great Patriotic War. The range of missiles declared for the world's civilian population: - "Zircon" - 1000 km; "Caliber" - 2500 km, but in reality? So our TARs will still be useful. Tirpitz paid for itself (see above), and about the unbuilt Boreas, etc., you didn't say a word about how you calculated all this (.. The Count counts, the accounts are on his account... the movie "Four Hands Game"). IMHO
  38. +3
    30 January 2025 10: 38
    In case of danger of nuclear war, Russian PLARBs will need protection from enemy submarines, and the surface formation itself - from aviation. The task is to provide a salvo of PLARBs, this is not much time. The surface formation will have many corvettes and frigates. But a strike ship with powerful anti-aircraft and air defense will not hurt. And why not use Tsirkons against targets in Norway?
  39. -2
    30 January 2025 11: 12
    Hmm, did they decide at VO that there hasn't been a naval squabble for a long time? Well, ok..
    The completion and modernization of the Orlans is, first of all, the preservation of competencies in the field of a large-scale ocean fleet; the necessity of these is questionable, but let them be, as they say, we can afford it. For now they will be stationed in the north, because there is no infrastructure in the Far East for their basing; if they want to, they will build everything necessary in 5-6 years. The fact that today any surface ship is a target has not yet been fully realized, but everything is heading in this direction, hypersonic will put an end to this issue and in 10-15 years everyone will have it. Therefore, the transition to submarines is inevitable, or only patrol ships will remain from the fleet, which are not particularly sad to lose, and white elephants (into which any modern pennant has turned) will stop being made. Space, missiles, aviation are much more promising than tubs on the water and will cost less. Issues between superpowers will not reach the use of the fleet, because such a loss of face will lead to mutual nuclear war, and with other characters other methods will work, there aviation, missiles, and space will be more than enough, because when the residence of the leader of a certain country who "believed in himself" is destroyed within a few minutes anywhere in the world, then absolutely everyone will think about how to avoid this. And the surface fleet is all, it will go away in a dozen or two years as unnecessary, like battleships, cavalry, hussars and others..
  40. +1
    30 January 2025 11: 31
    1. Let's at least have the north under reliable protection. This is a strategic factor. Let the ship be there, and let it have a reliable cover group, considering the immediate threat of drone swarm technology.
    2. The Far East needs to be developed first in terms of infrastructure, then think about the fleet.
    3. The situation in the Black Sea needs to be corrected; modern versions of air defense batteries and anti-drone defense are needed.
  41. +1
    30 January 2025 11: 31
    Well, let's start with the fact that when they started modernizing it, the INF Treaty was in effect, and it was only possible to deploy cruise missiles in the air and on the water. Since Russia does not have the ability to build large surface ships, they decided to restore the old one. Its purpose is not ships and aircraft carrier formations. This is a "raft" for a large number of cruise missiles that were supposed to destroy objects on the ground - Germany, Poland, Denmark.., in the event of a conflict with NATO. And this "raft" will be located in one of the largest and most guarded naval bases in Russia, where it will be extremely difficult to get it. Plus, this is a large ocean-going ship, and having an ocean-going fleet is a status thing...
  42. +4
    30 January 2025 11: 38
    The article in short - in the interests of interested parties, 200 billion rubles were sawed up on a useless wonder weapon.
  43. +1
    30 January 2025 12: 29
    The collapse of the USSR is the reason why the eagles were laid up. Submarines cannot replace surface ships. It is easier to destroy a submarine from the air than such a ship.
    1. 0
      30 January 2025 14: 49
      Quote: Lumberjack
      The collapse of the USSR is the reason why the eagles were laid up. Submarines cannot replace surface ships. It is easier to destroy a submarine from the air than such a ship.


      Or vice versa.
      667BDR spent 1 million Soviet rubles daily from the Soviet budget.
      Shark - already 16 million Soviet rubles daily.
      The Orlans spent state money in exactly the same proportions.
      And there was also space with Energia-Buran.
      Fully subsidized "fraternal aid to world communism", the subsidized regions of the country began to reduce their production in general, even to the point of sabotaging the planned economy, striving to improve their supplies at the expense of others
      And when there are too many such projects, the country falls apart.
      Our country has never been awash in money.
      1. 0
        1 February 2025 00: 56
        To refuse large ships and build only small ones is money down the drain. Such a fleet will not be viable against the USA or China, for example. Of course, it is possible not to fight with anyone, but sometimes it is not only our envy.
  44. 0
    30 January 2025 12: 53
    Yes, there is much that is unknown and ununderstood on the other side, and one could reproach them for comparing the Orlan with the Project 1164 missile cruiser, which is four times smaller,

    Moscow - 186 meters
    Nakhimov - 250 meters. Where 4 times, oh well.
    What is more puzzling is the fact that they have built Godzilla again, which will sink from a couple of anti-ship missiles. And for some reason he will sail the oceans, uselessly devouring billions from the budget, until he sinks or gets old. We are no longer the USSR, but the habits of the USSR remain.
    Instead of this useless monster, it would be better to buy loaves of bread, tools and normal radios for the men at the front.
  45. 0
    30 January 2025 13: 15
    For some reason, the author failed to see the most obvious task of the Northern Fleet: to interrupt maritime communication between the USA and Europe in the event of war.
    For such a purpose we need Nakhimov, Pyotr and Kuzya. And another ten frigates and submarines.
  46. 0
    30 January 2025 13: 30
    The time for such colossi as our cruisers has simply passed. Now frigates, corvettes and small ships with deadly weapons are much more dangerous for the USA and for the West in general.
    1. 0
      30 January 2025 20: 58
      The US uses aircraft carriers to provide air defense for the squadron. Plus, there is heavy air defense on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. They have many Aegis destroyers. Long-range air defense can only be installed on a large ship. Russia has no aircraft carriers and will soon have no large ships. This means that a squadron can be destroyed from the air without the ability to somehow counter it. Modern frigates and corvettes can perform missile defense functions or shoot down an aircraft that does not have good target designation and has flown too close. With target designation, anti-ship missiles can be launched en masse from aircraft without entering the air defense radius of small ships. The fleet is in dire need of ships with long-range air defense such as the S400 and helicopters for each ship, equipped with submersible sonars and armed with droppable torpedoes for anti-submarine warfare.
  47. +1
    30 January 2025 13: 35
    Life has shown that in a modern war, you first need to ensure the OVR, and only then build super-battleships.
    The Project 22800 MRK Odintsovo did more for the Black Sea Fleet than the Project 1164 cruiser Moskva
    1. +1
      30 January 2025 21: 00
      These ships have different tasks and they must complement each other.
  48. -1
    30 January 2025 13: 41
    Quote: jonht
    Therefore, even if it is not a "young" cruiser, even a single salvo from it can significantly damage an enemy's AUG. And from a massive air and missile attack (even non-supersonic ones), a cruiser can be easily covered by a couple of frigates, and a few corvettes will not be superfluous (actually, this is almost a CUC). hi

    It will go to the bottom like the cruiser Moskva immediately after leaving the bay, from attacks by all sorts of cheap unmanned nastiness. Just like tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are blown to smithereens by a drone for 30 thousand rubles with an RPG shot attached.
  49. +1
    30 January 2025 13: 45
    Quote: Dimax
    And this "raft" will be located in one of the largest and most guarded naval bases of Russia, where it will be extremely difficult to get it. Plus, it is a large ocean-going ship, and having an ocean-going fleet is a status...

    Hand face, were you defrosted from the 90s yesterday?
    Drones made of shit and sticks fly into this bay. If for you status is an ancient 250 floating coffin.
    Dinosaur officials who read the Internet on printed sheets of paper also think about status, while half the country goes to shit in wooden toilets and heats their houses with coal.
  50. +2
    30 January 2025 14: 02
    two cruisers will be able to quite easily wipe out a full-fledged US Navy strike group from the water surface

    I can't stop laughing like a horse, sorry, colleagues laughing request
    We would like to somehow "erase" something bigger than a transformer box from the earth's surface, and somehow they erase more of us from the sea surface. "Moscow" will not let us lie request
  51. +1
    30 January 2025 14: 04
    Excellent article, only the author forgot to put the title "thoughts of a professional on the toilet". Everything is mixed up in this article, people, horses, AUGs and the author's efforts.
    I picked on the Tirpitz. I cleverly wove it into the topic without mentioning the Bismarck, which showed itself quite well in battle. And besides, the review somehow missed how the Tirpitz scared the "allies" simply by the fact of its departure to sea. This is also important.
    The reasoning about the AUGs is also at the level of "I heard something about them being somewhere, but we have ice here." Do you, author, have ice starting right from the north of Great Britain? Where did you find ice in the Atlantic? By the way, not a word was mentioned about the Atlantic at all, he simply forgot about this ocean, meowing about the Pacific. Maybe there is ice in the Norwegian Sea? On the border with the Barents Sea in the area of ​​the North Cape - Bear Island? Or is the Barents Sea frozen? What kind of ice stream of consciousness is this? And, by the way, are the visits of aircraft carriers to the Norwegian Sea in recent years not enough to recognize the training of the use of AUGs in the northern regions? And the constantly voiced plans of the United States to develop the Arctic, and the allocation of funds for this, and the training conducted there, all this probably only applies to the Pacific region in the Alaska zone? Well, well..
    And what is this sick attachment to the AUG? If you are already familiar with the term AUG, why did you forget that there are also such wonderful formations as KUG, RUG, Desault, ADG, EUG. Or are the OBK from the five "Ticonderogas" and "Orly Burke" (which is the KUG) in the northeastern part of the Norwegian Sea not worthy of becoming the target of a massive strike with anti-ship missiles? Or are the PLARB and PL not worthy of being covered by a ship with the most powerful air defense at the exit from their bases? Probably not. The author only has the AUG, like a mantra running through the entire text. Anti-submarine aviation, ships - none of this exists.
  52. +1
    30 January 2025 15: 00
    author makes categorical conclusions.
    There was an admiral named Doenitz who also thought that he would close the Atlantic with his "wolf packs". For the seven hundred plus submarines it ended badly.
    An underwater cruiser is great, right up until the moment it is detected from the air. In this case, the cruiser may not even suspect that aviation has taken it under escort. Of course, we can talk about how our underwater cruisers infiltrated the Atlantic. But in a period of threat, there will be orders of magnitude more anti-submarine aircraft in the air. And it may happen that an underwater cruiser learns that it has been detected from the air only after an airborne anti-submarine torpedo hits it.
    A surface cruiser in a naval strike group will, of course, be tracked by the enemy. But, unlike in the past, it does not need to get very close to the enemy. 800-850 km and it is possible to strike with hypersonic or cruise missiles. At the same time, 800-850 km is practically the maximum range of carrier-based aviation. Well, without PTB, of course.
    Furthermore, the appearance of a cruiser with its set of dozens of surface-to-surface missiles will make the enemy aircraft carrier nervous. Especially when there are no means against hypersonics. A single missile can become a "golden bullet" for an aircraft carrier. Especially since at 8 "machs" hypersonics will cover 1000 km in 6 minutes.
    It turns out that the submarine cruiser is supposedly stealthy, but if it is detected by aircraft it is practically doomed. But the surface cruiser with its 120 long-range SAMs and 200 short-range SAMs has a chance to fight back and reach the launch line of its missiles at the enemy aircraft carrier.
  53. The comment was deleted.
  54. 0
    30 January 2025 15: 51
    An unconvincing article, moreover, the meaning of the "flag demonstration" is distorted and presented incorrectly.
  55. +1
    30 January 2025 16: 00
    Nakhimov, Pyotr Velikiy and Kuznetsov need to be transferred to the Pacific Fleet, which will allow us to significantly equalize our surface forces with potential adversaries.
  56. VlK
    0
    30 January 2025 16: 03
    Now, all over the world, the very concept of surface attack ships is disposable, to fire one salvo "with a full broadside" and remain in the middle of the sea without the main caliber, with the possibility of reloading only at the base - this can only be explained by the inertia of thinking in preparation for a general thermonuclear war, from the last century. It is like going from multi-shot small arms back to single-shot multi-barrel, a completely dead-end branch of the evolution of weapons.
    1. 0
      1 February 2025 00: 43
      Reference. At present, there are weapons transporters in the world for recharging submarines and naval ships at sea and in unequipped places. In Russia, for example, the Project 20360M series is being built.
  57. +2
    30 January 2025 16: 17
    the era of huge beautiful surface iron ended at the moment of the Moscow disaster, which was understood throughout the world, the Ticonderogas were decommissioned, they were supposedly being foisted off on the Poles for fun)) but no, the Admiralty has its own opinion, after all, they are such beautiful, big, powerful cruisers)) , I personally am for 4 ash trees instead of Nakhimov
    1. +4
      30 January 2025 23: 17
      Quote: Sailor Murmansk
      I personally am for 4 ash trees instead of Nakhimov

      And I'm for 8 or, even better, 12. But, damn, in terms of money, even two barely works out
  58. DO
    0
    30 January 2025 16: 39
    The return of the Admiral Nakhimov is planned for 2026
    The iconic ship is expected to sail between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic, avoiding relatively tight spaces. Besides, the last thing Moscow wants is to expose its prized warship to the same attacks that led to the sinking of the Moskva in 2022.”

    heavy nuclear missile cruisers will be based in the North, where the appearance of an enemy is not expected in the next 20 years

    The SVO will undoubtedly end with the complete liberation of Ukraine. Signs of this are already visible.
    What will the US do in light of this trend? That's right, first of all they will organize a direct conflict between European NATO countries and Russia (at present, this conflict is hypothetical). Naturally, the first to enter the conflict will be NATO countries that have a common border with Russia.
    These countries include Norway, which is also the closest to the Northern Sea Route. That is, Norway will be the gun with which the US will try to kill two birds with one stone, two US goals - a conflict between a NATO country and Russia, and a blockade of the Northern Sea Route from its western side, for all countries except Russia.
    Historically, NATO's main strike potential is located on ships, aircraft carriers and submarines. Consequently, in the event of the aforementioned conflict, the NATO fleet would predictably launch missiles at the European part of Russia, primarily from the northern and western Norwegian shores, possibly bringing in an aircraft carrier with escort ships from the Mediterranean.
    If the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov is in the Kola Bay, the distance from NATO ships to this cruiser may be slightly more than 100 km. And from a submarine - even closer. And it is clear that the first massive attack of the enemy (most likely unexpected) will be carried out on the powerful threat to the NATO fleet visible to intelligence, on the Admiral Nakhimov.
    If the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov is based in the Far East, the enemy's strike assets will have to get closer to the target to deliver an attack, and this attack will no longer be unexpected, the missiles will have a longer flight time, and the cruiser's air defense and anti-submarine defense and cover will have a better chance of saving the life of the Admiral Nakhimov.
    1. DO
      0
      30 January 2025 17: 36
      PS
      And smaller ships than the Admiral Nakhimov can and should provide cover for submarines leaving the base in the Kola Bay. In order to cover these ships, coastal air defense and its air wing should be strengthened.
  59. +3
    30 January 2025 16: 50
    What is the use of the Black Sea Fleet today? A suitcase without a handle. They don't know where to hide it anymore. It's too expensive for launching calibers. What is needed is not the "Tsar of the Gun", but many ships of the modern version of the "Oliver Hazard Perry" to cover the SSBNs. Otherwise, the latter will not be able to fulfill their purpose.
    1. VlK
      +1
      30 January 2025 17: 03
      for example, despite all the development of technology, you still cannot provide a blockade of ports and coasts with inspection and seizure of violating ships under a neutral flag, neither with aircraft, nor with submarines, nor from the shore, only with surface ships capable of staying at sea for a decent amount of time without calling at a port
    2. +1
      31 January 2025 06: 46
      And what does the fleet have to do with it if we have the SVO, and not a war with 404? If a full-fledged war were to be declared, then a naval blockade of the ports of 404 should immediately begin, but we have the SVO and everyone seems to be observing the commercial obligations assumed on them, and it is no longer possible to block the ports, here we are violating world trade.... This means transporting cargo to a country at war, which means being sunk, and what is happening now... SVO...
      1. 0
        9 February 2025 23: 20
        Wow! And on TV, propagandists are screaming at us that a "people's war" is going on. They are shouting that the people should self-mobilize and go into the trenches. Apparently, for the glory of businessmen.
  60. +1
    30 January 2025 18: 21
    Here it is
    But in the end, the British and American pilots, with the words "Save our whiskey," sank both Japanese super battleships and dismembered the German one with bombs in shallow water. This is how all super-ambitious projects end.
    an absolutely incorrect conclusion. The Japanese battleships had a fist throw length equal to the marathon distance. The Tirpitz with its lightweight 495-kilogram high-explosive shells could reach at a distance of 55,7 kilometers.
    That is, the Japanese and Tirpitz, in order to create a threat to coastal American or English or any other cities and bases, had to at least get within shooting distance. And cities like London didn't have to be afraid of them at all. Not to mention Paris or Washington.
    And the Eagles? How far do zircons fly? The devil knows. They write that from 400 km to 1000 km. And maybe further.
    Calibers? They write that up to 2600 km (in thermonuclear combat equipment with a warhead of up to 1 kt).
    On March 11, 2016, at the ceremony of raising the St. Andrew's flag on the frigate Admiral Grigorovich, the then commander of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy stated that this ship has a combat impact area of ​​800 thousand km² when firing at sea targets, and 7 million km² when firing at land targets. This indicates the ship's ability to hit surface targets within a radius of about 500 km, and land targets within a radius of about 1500 km (with a non-nuclear warhead).
    On October 19, 2017, speaking at a discussion at the Valdai Club, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces stated the range of the sea-based Kalibr cruise missile as 1400 km.
    So, the main role of our Orlans, in my opinion, of course, is in the event of an escalation in Washington or simply before the start of negotiations with the US, to pay timely courtesy visits to Cuba or Nicaragua. bully
    And in the east, let the Chinese AUGs follow the US AUGs. wink
  61. +1
    30 January 2025 18: 33
    Interesting article about Putin's crystrazh. Objectively, the fleet needed such a ship as a carrier of many weapons with the prospect of installing nuclear weapons. As for the basing and 4 weeks to Vladivostok, even the US will not sail to it in a week, and you can also consider building a joint fleet base somewhere in the middle of the NSR. As for battleships, why not take the Congo as an example - it fought a lot and was of good use.
  62. +1
    30 January 2025 18: 40
    In general, every fleet should have a flagship.

    There should be no flagships at the moment. AI and network-centric systems, interchangeability are modern. And flagships in which everything that can fly will fly and eventually sink, causing both military and reputational losses are the past. In essence, we have a "suitcase without a handle".
    1. 0
      1 February 2025 19: 24
      Evgeniy_Sviridenko, I won't argue about "this moment", understanding the futility of this undertaking... And about "a suitcase without a handle" - I'll try to decipher how it is understood in the navy: this is an individual or a group of individuals whose head is occupied with something else and is not at all "friendly" with other parts of the body or trying to "lead" or judge something about which they have very superficial knowledge and experience...
  63. 0
    30 January 2025 19: 07
    I haven't even read halfway through... Pure boasting.
  64. -1
    30 January 2025 19: 28
    Why didn't they copy the Aegis? There is no suitable communication? Are the radars at least interchangeable within the ship?
    1. 0
      9 February 2025 23: 12
      There is no electronic industry, there are not so many satellites, there are not so many DLRO aircraft (in fact, there are none at all). There are many things that are missing. There is nothing to copy and no need to.
  65. 0
    30 January 2025 20: 51
    I often speak out here against preserving "Kuznetsov", but I probably disagree with the author on this project. Or partially disagree - that would be more accurate.
    Of course, this is a SWAG ship and a masculite's best friend. There is no point in this, just like the Kuznetsov. We also know from the experience of the current conflict that there are no targets that are absolutely invulnerable to GMW, there are simply not enough GMW. The question is how many long-range air-to-surface missiles will be needed to penetrate the missile defense of this ship, which is not absolute. And where will it be at the time of "Hour He", when and if the mess starts. And in the planning of the mess, the elimination of such a ship will be fully provided for, they will monitor it, etc.

    However. However, I will note that, unlike the Kuznetsov, the ship definitely cannot be called useless. In the case of the Kuznetsov, its survival is a problem, its performance is a problem, its power with a full aircraft load is a problem, and so on. In the case of the Nakhimov, the ship is full of missiles, which, unlike the aircraft from the Kuznetsov, will fly off in one direction. And if necessary, they can be used on land, by the way. In a hypothetical conflict where we start out "white", the Nakhimov is much more useful than the Kuznetsov. At least there will be no illusions that it is a "full-fledged aircraft carrier" - a missile carrier is a missile carrier. The main thing is that the missiles are good and the targeting is adequate.

    So theoretically there may be some benefit from the "Nakhimov". But, as the author rightly noted, on TO. Specifically, to cool the Japanese loins. At least as a big and overrated bugaboo.
  66. 0
    30 January 2025 23: 23
    any AUG, having received news that the Orlans have left the base, will simply leave, and they will not be able to catch up with it

    Well, that means he deserved his 200 billion!
  67. 0
    31 January 2025 01: 39
    Looking at this theater of the absurd (with the low combat readiness of the heavy nuclear missile cruisers described in the article), I would like to propose an extremely unusual solution for the fleet for the future.
    It is extremely strange and requires enormous courage - all the experience and traditions of our fleet will be against it. I will say right away that this decision additional, basically our fleet has ENTIRELY enough submarines with cruise missiles and medium/small ships with various missiles.
    But as an addition specifically for actions as far away from home shores as possible, in the vast ocean spaces, my proposal can be useful. Specifically as an additional solution for the future.

    I propose that instead of giant cruisers 250 meters long, with a displacement of 25 thousand tons and crews of 700-800 people, we build approximately the same large (or slightly smaller) reinforced survivable ice-class container ships with a double hull. With the following mobilization functions initially included: 1. installed but disabled detection, illumination, and guidance radars, 2. barbettes, magazines, and feed systems for one gun (on the bow) and a pair of rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns (at the back of the superstructure), 3. a reserve armored command post (under the wheelhouse or even in the hold), 4. multiple redundant diesel generators and survivability systems scattered throughout the ship.
    And, naturally, permanent double crew on all flights! One purely peaceful one from the merchant navy (with extra pay for knowing their combat schedule: posts on survivability, energy and navigation/chassis). And the second, a naval crew permanently working on the ship, also disguised as "traders" (with the actual receipt of all diplomas/certificates/classes of a merchant navy sailor and with the corresponding salary), but also with Navy ranks, a military specialty and their own posts on the combat schedule (and a second salary at home in the Navy). For such a container ship, the standard now is a ridiculous crew of only 12-36 people, so a double crew of 70-80 people is quite enough for such a combat container ship. Modern automation allows this.

    And the main weapon of such a ship-supposedly-a container ship will be - of course! - 20-foot containers with hidden inside "Caliber-K" missiles[1] (export designation: English: Club-K)
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D1%80-%D0%9A
    Moreover, this ship can carry such containers with missiles secretly and unnoticed to carry on oneself continuously and in peacetime, during regular trading flights!
    Just don't explain to me that this contradicts some international agreements - the system of international law is now practically destroyed and only an idiot can observe it to his own detriment, to the delight of his enemies and competitors. We must be more brazen in the international arena, otherwise they will bend us so much that the stupid "grain deal" and the failed Istanbul agreements will become a model successful independent diplomacy
    laughing

    This option with missiles in containers has already been written about here: https://topwar.ru/18852-raketnyy-kompleks-club-k-kritika-i-perspektivy.html
    But things are still the same... Alas.
    But the containers can also accommodate aircraft/helicopter drones for reconnaissance and target designation for Kalibr missiles. Containers with vertically installed Tor-type anti-aircraft missiles can provide good short-range air defense (the guidance radar should be in another container or in the superstructure), and other containers (along the sides) can be equipped with ejected false targets (such as the PK-2 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%9A-2 ).

    I propose to estimate how much more time such a fleet of container ships will spend at sea compared to cruisers in layup, and not in layup, but on training cruises. One cruiser went out "for a walk" from Sevastopol Bay during the SVO for some unknown reason - and we all know how it ended!

    I suggest that we seriously think about how much MORE survivable a fleet of such specially reinforced container ships is (especially if you load containers filled with foam plastic into the holds!) than a regular heavy missile cruiser (not armored at all, by the way).

    Imagine how many missiles would have to be fired into a container ship like the Emma Maersk, almost 400 meters long and with a displacement of 170 thousand tons, for it to start sinking. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk

    Think how much smaller the crew of such an arsenal ship disguised as a container ship is, which can have 200 or 400 missiles - and how much smaller the human losses are even in the worst case scenario. The comparison is clearly not in favor of a classic missile cruiser.

    How much more useful is such a vessel (and its crew) in peacetime and semi-wartime - as now, when Russia has de facto found itself in a naval blockade that is becoming increasingly severe...

    Well, it seems that no one in the world has done anything like this yet. But perhaps our eastern neighbor is already doing something like this secretly (there are some signs, and far from its native shores).
    And in principle: why do we always wait for someone to do something, and then we will copy it?
  68. 0
    31 January 2025 05: 30
    With things like sea drones and cruise missiles, all those monster cruisers and aircraft carriers are just great targets that you can't miss.
  69. +1
    31 January 2025 08: 04
    No matter how much the modernization of the Nakhimov costs, it is still justified. It is an ocean-going ship. And our country may never build such ships again due to many reasons well known to all of you. And the Pyotr needs to be modernized. No matter how much it costs.
    The whole article is complete nonsense.
  70. 0
    31 January 2025 09: 13
    Quote: TermNachTER
    And in the photograph they are cleverly depicted, which is not something you can say now.

    Is this in Bulgarian? Definitely not in Russian.
  71. 0
    31 January 2025 10: 57
    The Russian Navy is in a really sad state right now. It's crazy. Everyone remembers the TARK Admiral Kuznetsov, which for some reason was sent to Syria to chase the bogeymen in jeeps across the desert. And it managed to blacken the skies of all of Europe and sink two planes for no reason. And after its return, it was in for extremely expensive repairs. Only the lazy haven't written about the Black Sea Fleet and its suffering during the NVO. The most important thing is that when the generals, oligarchs and various special Chubais didn't know what to do with or where else to transfer the billions they had stolen from Russia, there was apparently no time to spend money on the army and navy before the NVO. As a result, we have what we have. Chubais abroad, Shoigu in the Security Council... The army and navy are in the rear of the body. And if the ground forces and military pilots are at least somehow adapting to the new realities of war, the navy is stuck in its helplessness. It needs to be completely changed, reformatted. In its current form, the fleet is defenseless against modern enemy weapons - surface and underwater drones, aerial drones and missiles.
    1. 0
      1 February 2025 23: 09
      The fleet is not defenseless, it is useless. For about the last 170 years.
  72. +1
    31 January 2025 14: 18
    Well, purely theoretically, France could put up the same groups on paper (when they finally fix the De Gaulle)

    Stop spouting nonsense about Charles de Gaulle, once again. It is routinely repaired every three years, and right now it is at sea on exercises!
  73. VlK
    0
    31 January 2025 15: 02
    Quote: bayard

    But the fact that the US has removed supplies and funding is already serious. So whatever is flying there is already starting to fall apart.
    But we still have to fight until at least the end of summer.

    They didn't remove it, they suspended it, for the duration of the financial audit, you understand. And only through officially announced channels. So I wouldn't be too fooled, and wouldn't base any serious calculations on this fact, such projects are not simply shut down so easily.
  74. 0
    31 January 2025 15: 32
    By the way, is Lazarev still in Nikolaev? Does anyone know what his condition is?
    1. 0
      31 January 2025 15: 51
      My fault, I meant Ukraine...
  75. +2
    31 January 2025 17: 27
    Some kind of Moscow phobia has begun to manifest itself after the loss of the missile cruiser!! Yes, it died in battle, how and under what circumstances, there is no exact information yet! But this does not mean that the wonderful Soviet legacy in the form of these cruisers should be sawed up and forgotten!! Yes, modern Russia is unlikely to be able to build such a cruiser, but for the future, at least as a training ground for sailors, this is both operational experience and skills that will be useful in the future!! And of course, one cruiser in the field is not a warrior, but its presence can keep the forces of a potential enemy in suspense!
  76. +1
    31 January 2025 18: 00
    Again, sooo many letters and one yes because you immediately see who wrote it and you don’t have to read it.
  77. 0
    31 January 2025 18: 19
    So is there Poliment on the Nakhimov or not?
  78. The comment was deleted.
  79. +1
    31 January 2025 20: 41
    It is curious that Western experts understand the value of a ship like the Admiral Nakhimov, but our liberals do not. And so, a strong surface fleet is not an obstacle to a submarine fleet, a surface fleet allows us to effectively deploy our submarines, otherwise it will be difficult for them to leave Murmansk. The Admiral Nakhimov, with its strike capabilities and powerful air defense, can be the core of an entire squadron, for example, providing it with air defense. After all, we only have one aircraft carrier and it had serious engine problems, while the Admiral... has a virtually unlimited cruising radius. And without powerful air defense, our surface ships will only be able to stay near their shores, and the same will inevitably happen to the submarine fleet. And we would not want that. As for the cruiser Moskva, the official cause of its death is fire. It is quite possible that this is the result of sabotage, and not the consequence of being hit by an anti-ship missile.
  80. +3
    1 February 2025 14: 36
    The author of the article claims that 200 billion rubles spent on the modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov could have been used to build 4 submarines of the Yasen project. I think this is not true. As for the cost of modernizing the Admiral, in 2023, i.e. quite recently, it was noted that it exceeded 90 billion rubles and this was stated by the first deputy head of the State Duma Defense Committee A. Zhuravlev, a person who is certainly informed. And all this talk about 200 billion spent on repairing the cruiser is just speculation by unnamed experts and is not confirmed by anything. The Yasen submarine in 2011, i.e. almost 15 years ago, cost about 50 billion rubles to build. It must be assumed that over the past time, the price of the submarine has increased significantly. So, the Admiral Nakhimov and the Yasen-class submarine cost approximately the same, but it is obvious that the Admiral's combat value is significantly higher: our heavy nuclear cruisers perform the same functions as aircraft carriers in the West, i.e. they are the core of the AUG. The Yasen cannot perform such functions. Finally, the Admiral has three times the displacement, and accordingly, three times more weapons can be placed there. https://dzen.ru/a/ZEEcxAVoDBX7mpmX
    1. 0
      4 February 2025 17: 07
      The great strategist Skomorokhov knows better!!!!
  81. -1
    1 February 2025 15: 35
    Everything in the article is to the point and correct. Respect to the author. So there will be 4 Yasen and Nakhimov and Peter the Great. And everyone will be saved, precisely for that One Fight!
  82. +1
    1 February 2025 18: 46
    There are no "single-use" cruisers by definition... They are made so by people vested with positions, shoulder straps, personal experience, knowledge and political preferences, sometimes - mercantile interests... Ships of this class occupy their "niche" in the naval component of any Navy... "General - Admiral" Skomorokhov, as always, in his "repertoire" - "gets the crowd going", based on "personal experience" and "deep analysis" of "foreign" information....
    1. 0
      5 February 2025 21: 05
      People who are connected with the Navy (not to be confused with analysts/experts) say: "a ship perishes with the weapons it went to sea with"....
  83. +2
    1 February 2025 23: 05
    You can't build four ash trees just with 200 billion rubles. Because you need to have idle capacities, which you don't have. Illiterate comparisons are very annoying, like instead of a Tirpitz you could have made a couple/three tank divisions. No, you can't, that doesn't work.
    1. 0
      4 February 2025 17: 05
      You, sir, don't understand! This is Skomorokhov! The father of democracy! Oh, the strategy!!!!
  84. +2
    2 February 2025 02: 01
    We have 4 ships arrested for a quasi-break in some Baltic cables, one with some super valuable equipment was blown up and we are all scratching our heads wondering why we need ships.... Does anyone want to recalculate the possible losses from the death of our merchant ships, when the Anglo-Saxons, nodding at Ukraine, will start sinking them and arresting them in batches? And every time no one can understand anything.... Some ships are washed away from the scene of the crime without taking our drowning sailors.... And there is no one to send to help, foreigners help and then "transfer" control to our arriving ships... What's with the cost of the Orlans? The Orlans have a huge resource of autonomy, why shouldn't they chat on trade routes covering our cargo fleet.
    1. +1
      9 February 2025 22: 55
      To protect merchant ships, you need to build a LOT of missile multi-purpose frigates. Not one huge giant that can destroy a small city with a salvo.
  85. exo
    0
    2 February 2025 15: 18
    I love big ships. I even witnessed the construction of the Kalinin in 1987-88. But I agree that minesweepers and OVR ships are more important now, so that nuclear submarines can deploy. Anti-submarine aircraft. There is no time for big ships now.
  86. 0
    4 February 2025 17: 03
    my deep couch opinion.
    to the fleet in no way and never and therefore I can not show off. But as a great strategist, I am obliged to express my opinion.
    In my opinion, there is peacetime technology and there is wartime technology. During WWII, large ships were hidden for precisely this reason.
    I would suggest restoring Nakhimov and her sister ships. Attaching a restored and converted Akula to each of them. And let them sail along the enemy's coast. For example, from Norway to Africa through the English Channel at a minimum distance from the borders.
    - Macron, who are you going to send to the hohols? Look out the window!))))))) The armed forces are a section of politics. Yes, they will be seen, accompanied and intercepted. But the idea is that they must clearly understand that the RUSSIAN FLEET is nearby and the missiles are ready to launch.
    During the period of threat, of course, they must go closer to their territory or, on the contrary, far into the ocean, so as not to let anyone near them.
    "My opinion is unchanged. There should be no such ships in the World Cup! We are shooting through this puddle with our missiles. There we need 12 diesel submarines (6 Crimea, 6 Novorossiysk) and a flotilla
    MRK and MPK. No cruisers are needed there at all. "Moscow" was eaten due to their stomach upset.

    Skomorokhov needs to remember the movie about Robin Hood. In the final scene, the hero was surrounded, but everyone was afraid to come close. Because he had a long bow and the arrows flew accurately and far. Yes, in the end he was killed, but only after he ran out of arrows. So here, by the time you get to the "Nakhimov", you will be drowned by Zircon or whatever else is there.
    And most importantly, Orlans are beautiful and powerful!))
    Sea fans, throw your slippers))
  87. 0
    5 February 2025 21: 10
    In essence: there will be no modernization of "Petro". The last donkey in Ethiopia has long understood this. But not the experts here...
    Regarding "Nakhimov". God knows how many years ago, smart people (if my memory serves me right, at the "air base") immediately said: this is a repair, turning into disposal. Due to our domestic political realities, we have to state/clarify: until the end of VVP's lifelong reign, they will not let him go on needles, continuing to saw off crazy money on "maintenance"...