Military Review

"Orlan" and others: Soviet projects of cruisers with a nuclear power plant

In the fifties of the last century, leading countries actively developed nuclear technology. Following the atomic weapons and power stations appeared power installations for submarines. Attempts were made to use nuclear power installations (NPI) on ground-based equipment and even on aircraft. However, none of these projects was a success. But certain achievements in the field of nuclear power units for submarines quickly led to the emergence of a new concept. By the mid-fifties, both the Soviet Union and the United States, with a small time difference, came to the conclusion that it was in principle possible and necessary to create a nuclear reactor suitable for use on surface ships. Such systems are not only still alive, but also managed to partially replace diesel or gas turbine power plants. It is worth noting that even in the countries participating in the Cold War the number of ships with nuclear power plants is significantly different and there are a lot of reasons for that.

Project 63

The development of the first Soviet ship with a nuclear power plant began in accordance with the Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 1601-891, in which it was necessary to create new types of ships with new weapons and new types of power plants in the period from 1956 to 1962. In accordance with this document, almost all enterprises in the industry received their assignments. The Central Design Bureau No.17 (now the Nevskoye Design Bureau) was commissioned to develop a project for a light missile cruiser with the cipher 63. TsKB-16 (in the seventies became part of SPBMB “Malachite”), in turn, had to take up the subject of the anti-aircraft cruiser - the project 81. Both of these projects united a number of features. Approximately equal displacement of the order of 11-13 thousand tons, similar running characteristics and - most importantly - a nuclear power plant.

According to the draft versions, the armament of the new ships should have been as follows. The 63 cruiser of the project was planned to be equipped with P-6 missiles (P-35 modification for submarines) or P-40 in the amount from 18 to 24 units. The option of using the P-20 missiles, developed at that time in the design bureau of S.V. Ilyushin. For self-defense, the cruiser had to carry anti-aircraft missiles of the M-1 complex. The anti-aircraft cruiser, according to the draft design, had a less broad range of missile weapons: it was planned to equip only the M-3. On both ships, artillery mounts of various calibers, anti-aircraft guns, etc. were provided.

By the beginning of the summer of 1957, TsKB-16 and TsKB-17 had prepared preliminary designs for the new cruisers and submitted them for consideration to the naval command fleet. An interesting fact is that by this time there was not even a conceptual design of a nuclear power plant for new ships. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but the opinion is often expressed that the Navy command and nuclear designers preferred to first determine the requirements for such a nuclear power plant and only then begin its development in order to fit into the finished ship design. Based on the results of the consideration of two projects, the senior management of the fleet decided to close the project 81. According to the admirals, including the commander in chief of the Navy S. Gorshkova, the construction of individual ships intended only for air defense formations, was not advisable. In the future, this idea was not returned and all new ships were equipped with their own anti-aircraft systems. A part of the developments under project 81 was used in project 63.

In the middle of the 1957 of the year, in accordance with the requirements of the draft design of the cruiser "63", the development of the reactor and related equipment began at the Research Institute-8 (now NIKIET named after NA Dollezhal). The exact parameters of this project have not yet become public knowledge, but from some sources it is known that at maximum power the nuclear power unit could provide the new cruiser with the speed to 32 nodes.

As of the beginning of 1957, it was planned to hand over to the fleet the leading cruiser built at the Leningrad Plant No.189 (now the Baltic Shipyard) in the 61 year. The next three years were devoted to the construction of a series of seven cruisers. In the middle of 1958, all the project documentation went to the State Committee on Shipbuilding under the Council of Ministers. As a result of the consideration of the submitted papers, as well as some related issues, the officials decided to terminate the project. The main reason for this was the unavailability of industry and design organizations. The fact is that by the time the documentation was submitted, a whole set of systems important for the ship existed only in the form of projects that were in the early stages of development. The completion of the creation of missile systems, nuclear power plants and a number of other systems required a lot of time, which was not. In some sources it is mentioned that the 63 project looked like a certain scheme, on which places for a particular unit were indicated. Naturally, the completion of such a project would take a lot of time, effort and money. In the spring of 1959, all work on the 63 project ceased.

Start of the 1144 project

Simultaneously with the 63 project, the 61 project was created. He meant the development of a ship with a gas turbine power plant, designed to combat enemy submarines. By the second half of the fifties, it became clear that it was the American nuclear-powered submarines with strategic missiles onboard that posed the greatest danger to the Soviet Union. Therefore, work was launched on the creation of a layered anti-submarine defense system. In the near and middle zone, the 61 patrol ships were to search for and destroy enemy submarines. It is worth noting that shortly after the start of serial construction — approximately in the mid-sixties — these ships changed their class. In view of the technical characteristics and tactical niche, they were transferred from the guard to the newly formed category of large anti-submarine ships (BOD).

The future large anti-submarine ships of the 61 project at the end of the fifties looked interesting and promising. However, with all their advantages, they also had disadvantages. First of all, this is the cruising range. On economical modes of operation of the engine, one fueling was enough for 2700-3000 miles. At the same time, the supply of provisions for the crew of more than 260 people provided only a trip of ten days. Thus, the 61 patrol / BOD project could not act at a great distance from their native shores, which significantly reduced their combat potential. In this regard, the idea to modernize the ships of the 61 project appeared, having installed a nuclear power plant on them. After such an improvement, it would be possible to conduct patrols at a great distance from the bases, and in addition, to remain at sea for a long time.

The new project received the 1144 index and the Orlan cipher. It is worth noting, at that time he had practically nothing to do with his current state. In just a few years, the project not only received a lot of technical adjustments, but even changed its class. In the early sixties, the 1144 project was a patrol ship, somewhat like the 61 project, but equipped with NPIs. As a result of analyzing the threats and capabilities, it was decided to equip it with anti-submarine-guided weapons, as well as with an anti-aircraft missile system. Anti-ship missiles were not provided for, since such weapons no longer fit into the size and displacement parameters set by the technical specifications. The fact is that at that time the concept dominated that large warships no longer have prospects. Therefore, the recommended displacement value of the Orlans was at the level of 8-9 thousand tons.

However, the new ship could not remain protected only by anti-aircraft missiles and weapons. Required to ensure the safety and means of attack. To this end, shortly after the start of the 1144 project, the 1165 Fu-A project was launched. This cruiser was supposed to carry guided missiles to attack enemy surface targets. Initially, they were going to equip the P-120 “Malachite” or P-500 “Basalt” missiles, however, in the course of further design, they were abandoned for a number of reasons. Ultimately, the main armament of "mines" were to be the new missiles P-700 "Granit". Thus, in order to search and destroy enemy submarines, two ships had to go out to sea. One of them (BNC project 1144) was aimed at the detection and destruction of submarines, and the second (cruiser project 1165) - its protection against enemy ships.

By the mid-sixties, there was a tendency to increase the displacement of both ships. It was quite difficult to meet the prescribed eight to nine thousand tons, therefore, TsKB-53 (now the Northern Design Bureau) took advantage of the very first opportunity that arose and began to increase the combat potential of ships at the cost of increasing displacement. This opportunity was the next version of the technical specification, in which the required displacement was not indicated. After that, the size of the ships slowly but surely began to change in a big way. It is worth noting that a special nuclear power plant for both projects until a certain time existed only in the form of a project at a very early stage. Due to this, all changes in the appearance of the BOD and the cruiser did not adversely affect the course of its development.

By the end of the sixties история with projects 1144 and 1165 took more than an interesting look. Formed by this time the appearance of the ships spoke not only about the good combat potential of the compound from the BOD and the cruiser. The unreasonably high price of such an approach was clearly visible. To ensure full-fledged combat work, it was necessary to build two ships at once, and this, under certain circumstances, could turn into too large expenditures. As a result, the 165 “Fugas” project was closed, and it was decided to install all of its anti-ship component on the Orlan after appropriate modifications. So the former patrol, and then the large anti-submarine ship, became an atomic missile cruiser capable of performing all the tasks arising before ships of this class.

It is worth noting, often the approach to creating projects 1144 and 1165 is subjected to harsh criticism. First of all, the objects of the “attack” are the specific views of the fleet command and the country's leadership on the appearance of promising warships, namely, restrictions on displacement, the desire to ensure maximum capabilities with minimum dimensions, etc. In addition, there are complaints about the formation of the appearance of the ship simultaneously with its development, which clearly did not benefit the economic part of the program.

"New" project 1144

And yet, despite the existing problems, the result was a competent and viable concept of a nuclear missile cruiser, designed to solve several problems. At the same time, for the creation of such a ship it was required to invest a lot of effort and time. Orlan had every chance of becoming the first domestic project of a surface combat ship with nuclear power plants, but it needed serious study.

Disputes designers, military and industrialists covered almost all topics. For example, at the insistence of the commander in chief of the Navy S.G. Gorshkov, on the cruiser provided for a backup power plant with two boilers. Of course, against the backdrop of foreign ships, it looked ambiguous, but in the end we chose functionality and vitality, and not prestige. The reactors themselves did not cause big questions. The nuclear power plants for the cruiser were decided to be made on the basis of the systems used on the new nuclear-powered icebreakers. Thanks to this, we managed to save a lot of time.

Where big disputes went around weapons. Constantly there were proposals to remove the shock or anti-submarine function from the 1144 project. Already after the start of the construction of the head nuclear cruiser, a proposal was made to complete it in the form of a missile cruiser armed only with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles (1293 project), and “take out” all anti-submarine weapons to the new nuclear BOD “1199”. In the end, the composition of the Orlan’s weapons underwent certain changes, and both new projects gradually faded into shadow and ceased to exist.

During the final development of the 1144 project, previous work continued on enhancing ship security. Back in the fifties, booking ships was considered ineffective against modern means of destruction, but the Orlan, however, should have received additional protection. It was proposed to place booking modules around the cellars with rocket ammunition and reactors. This proposal still raises questions. Such protection could cover the ship’s aggregates only from missiles with high-explosive fragmentation warheads, which by that time were gradually leaving the arsenals of the leading countries, giving way to penetrating ones. It is worth noting that warships abroad are still equipped with such protection, although in the case of American aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type, blocks from Kevlar are used.

In the spring of 1973, the construction of the lead ship of the 189 project, named Kirov, began at plant No. 1144 in Leningrad. As a result of all disputes around the requirements and nuances of appearance, it began to look like this. With a length of 250, a width of 28 and a draft of 10 meters, the ship has a standard displacement of 23750 tons or full in 25860. It is equipped with two bypass water-cooled reactors KN-3 with a thermal capacity of 170 MW. Second-circuit steam is supplied to steam turbines with a total capacity of 70 ths horsepower. To save progress in case of problems with the nuclear power unit, Kirov is equipped with two automated boilers KVG-2. If necessary, they can supply steam to steam turbine installations, so that the ship is able to maintain speed.

The main armament of the cruiser "Kirov" steel anti-ship missiles P-700 "Granit". 20 launchers are placed below deck, in front of the superstructure. With the help of these missiles it is possible to defeat surface targets at a distance of up to 550 kilometers. In addition to anti-submarine missiles, the lead ship received Osa-M and C-300F anti-aircraft systems, as well as several types of artillery mounts: two AK-100 (automatic gun 100 mm) and eight six-barrel AK-630 assault rifles. To fight the enemy submarines, the Kirov was equipped with RBU-6000 jet bombs, five 533-mm torpedo tubes and the Metel anti-submarine missile system.

Later on, the 1144 project underwent some changes, as a result of which the 1144.2 project appeared. In accordance with it, three more nuclear cruisers were built: Frunze (now Admiral Lazarev), Kalinin (now Admiral Nakhimov) and Yuri Andropov (laid as Kuibyshev, now Peter the Great) . All built ships differ from each other in some elements of construction and equipment, but the most noticeable differences are noticeable in armament. For example, all cruisers of the 1144.2 project do not have a separate launcher for anti-submarine missiles and therefore must launch the Waterfall ammunition through torpedo tubes. On the lead ship there were two AK-100 gun mounts, but on the following ships one AK-130 with two 130 caliber guns was mounted. The third and fourth ships of the series instead of the bomb-bomb RBU-6000 and anti-aircraft guns AK-630 equipped with a RBU-12000 and rocket-artillery complexes "Kortik", respectively. Finally, Peter the Great is different from its predecessors by the presence of the Dagger anti-aircraft complex instead of the Osa-M.

The head nuclear missile cruiser of the 1144 project became part of the navy on the eve of the new 1981. The next two ships are October 31 1984 and December 30 1988. The fourth cruiser, laid in the mid-eighties, was launched back in 1989 year. However, subsequent events in the life of the country led not only to the renaming of the ship. Due to the difficult economic situation, the cruiser “Peter the Great”, who managed to be “Kuibyshev” and “Yuri Andropov”, joined the fleet only in 1998 year. During this time, the most unpleasant events occurred with the rest of the Orlans. The need for constant repairs, coupled with the lack of appropriate capabilities, led to the fact that Kirov in 1990 was sent to the reserve in the year, and Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Nakhimov in the late nineties went to sludge. It was planned to repair and upgrade these ships, but after more than ten years the necessary work did not begin. Recently, information has emerged on the elaboration of the issue of restoring and updating the Kirov and Admiral Lazarev ships. Work will begin in the coming years. Thus, only one heavy nuclear cruiser of the 1144 project: “Peter the Great” remains in the ranks.

Two AK-100 gunnery

"Orlan" and others: Soviet projects of cruisers with a nuclear power plant

Reactor and aircraft

A heavy ship with anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles equipped with a nuclear power plant is certainly good. But in the conditions of the last decades, the presence of only such ships is small. For example, the naval doctrine of the United States for many years based on the use of carrier strike groups (AUG). As part of such a compound there are one or two aircraft carriers, several cruisers and cover destroyers, as well as auxiliary vessels. Due to this composition, AUG can solve a wide range of tasks using a variety of weapons. The core of the AUG - aircraft carriers - clearly showed their effectiveness during the Second World War, and during the Vietnam War only proved their capabilities.

In the Soviet Union, the creation of aircraft carriers began quite late. The development of full-fledged aircraft carriers began only in the fifties (53 project), which accordingly affected the overall appearance of the navy. However, over the next years, domestic designers created several aircraft carrier projects. Among them were ships with nuclear power plants: the 1160 / 1153 “Eagle” and 1143.7 “Krechet” projects.

Research on the creation of an aircraft carrier with nuclear power plants began in Nevsky PKB back in 1969 year. The possibility of building a modern ship capable of transporting and supporting the operation of airplanes and helicopters was considered. In the case of a successful completion, it was planned to build a series of three such ships, designated as “1160” and the cipher “Eagle”. In the course of the preliminary work, eight design options were considered at once with various layout options, different power plants, etc. In addition, all options had different dimensions and displacement: the latter ranged from 40 to 100 thousand tons.

Aircraft Yak-44 and Su-27K on the deck of the Ulyanovsk ATAKR

In accordance with the finished advance project, the new aircraft carriers were to have a displacement of about 80 thousand tons and were equipped with four reactors. On board the ship could accommodate up to 60-70 aircraft and helicopters. A variety of wing wing configuration options were considered. At first it was proposed to arm the Eagles with specially modified MiG-23A and Su-24 aircraft, as well as Ka-25 helicopters. After 1973, the composition aviation groups adjusted. Now, a dozen Su-27K and Su-28K (one of the early designations for the Su-27 strike modification), as well as reconnaissance aircraft and anti-submarine helicopters, were to be based on board. In addition, it was envisaged to equip ships with P-700 Granite rocket launchers.

The fleet command considered the 1160 project, but noted in it a number of characteristic points that could hinder further operation. In this regard, in 1976, the development of its updated version with the index “1153” began. In accordance with the new task, the aircraft-carrying cruiser should have been a little less (displacement up to 70 thousand tons) and carry fewer aircraft — no more than fifty. Defensive armament remained the same, as did the PKR Granit. Under the flight deck it was envisaged from 20 to 24 launchers for the latter. By the time the design of the updated “Eagle” was completed, a proposal appeared to use not only the previously proposed aircraft, but also the Su-25K attack aircraft.

It is worth noting an interesting feature of both versions of the "Eagle". They envisioned the use of steam catapults: four in the “1160” variant and two in the “1153”. The ability to use these units was due to the presence of a nuclear power unit capable of producing the required amount of steam. In the case of other types of power plants, the presence of a steam catapult caused a lot of questions and problems. At the same time, the catapult, in comparison with the springboard, made it possible to launch a larger range of aircraft from an aircraft carrier.

However, such a technical solution could not have a beneficial effect on the fate of the entire project. In the 1977 year, at the insistence of the Ministry of Defense, the 1153 project was closed. According to the original plans, the head "Eagle" was to be commissioned by the Navy in 1981. However, as a result of the comparison, the fleet command chose the 1143 "Krechet" project as the main path for the development of domestic aircraft carriers. On the basis of the very first project, 1143 created several new ones that have reached the construction stage of ships.

Atomic "Ulyanovsk"

The latest project on the basis of "Krechet" was «1143.7». It was a radical processing of the available technical and conceptual solutions, the purpose of which was to create a ship with a significantly increased combat potential. In a number of possibilities, the new ship would not be inferior to the American “Nimitz” class “superravianos”.

The development of the 1143.7 project began in 1984 year using developments from previous projects of the 1143 family, as well as the old 1160. However, the new aircraft-carrying cruiser, according to the final design, was much larger and heavier than the previous ones. With a total length of 323 meters and a maximum width of the flight deck in the 78, its standard displacement should have been at least 60 kt, and the total displacement should be about 80 kt. For comparison, the maximum displacement of the ship “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” (project 1143.5) is only 61 thousand tons.

The huge ship was to be equipped with an appropriate power plant. In the cruiser holds, four KN-3-43 reactors with a thermal capacity of up to 305 MW each with steam-turbine installations and turbo-gear units were installed. Maximum power on the shafts: 4x70000 hp This power, according to calculations, was enough for maximum speed in 30 nodes.

When designing the flight deck of a new aircraft-carrying cruiser with an area of ​​about 150 thousand square meters. meters designers went to a kind of compromise: it was equipped with a springboard, and two steam catapults "Mayak". In addition, there were aerofinisher units. Under the flight deck on the new ship was supposed to be a hangar for aviation equipment of size 175 x 32 x 8 meters. To lift the aircraft on the deck there were three freight elevators. Inside the hangar and on the flight deck could fit up to 70 aircraft: on 25-27 Su-33 or MiG-29K fighters, as well as X-NUMX-15 Ka-20 and Ka-27 helicopters. Also, the Yak-31 vertical take-off fighter and the Yak-1143.7 long-range radar detection aircraft were created for basing on the 141 project ship.

In addition to aviation, the new aircraft-carrying cruiser had to be equipped with systems for self-defense and attack of enemy targets. These are 12 (according to other data, 16) launchers of Granit missiles, the Kinzhal anti-aircraft missile system with ammunition up to 192 missiles, eight Kortik missile-artillery systems with ammunition to 48 thousand shells and 256 missiles, eight anti-aircraft missiles AK-630 machines, and two RBU-12000 jet bomb bombs. Thus, the existing tendency to equip ships was clearly visible in the 1143.7 armament: a wide range of anti-aircraft weapons and a pair of anti-submarine and anti-ship armaments.

In 1988, at the Black Sea Shipyard (Nikolaev), a groundbreaking ceremony was held for a new aircraft carrier, named Ulyanovsk. According to the plans of this time, in 1992-93, the ship was to be launched, and in 1995, he could have joined the fleet. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the events that preceded it led to a severe slowdown in construction, and then to its complete cessation. At the beginning of 1992, the leadership of an already independent Ukraine decided to divide the constructed structures into metal. According to a number of sources, the ship was ready for 18-20%. In the early eighties, the command of the USSR Navy and the leadership of the shipbuilding industry were going to build a series of four cruisers of the 1143.7 project, but these plans did not even come true by a quarter.


As a result of the extremely unfortunate and disastrous events of the eighties and nineties, the Soviet and Russian navy received only four surface ships with nuclear power plants. At the same time, up to the present, only one of them has survived in the fleet's operational structure - the nuclear-powered heavy cruiser Peter the Great. But nuclear power units turned out to be much more popular in the submarine fleet.

It is worth noting that the use of atomic reactors on surface ships still causes controversy from time to time. With all its advantages, such power plants are not without drawbacks. Thus, the relative fuel savings are more than offset by the cost of the nuclear power plant itself and the fuel assemblies for it. In addition, a relatively small reactor requires a lot of complex and expensive protection systems, which seriously affects the overall dimensions of the entire power plant. Gas turbine and diesel systems are not so demanding on the level of training of staff, as nuclear. Finally, if a nuclear power unit is damaged, it can inflict fatal damage on a ship, and in some circumstances, destroy it, which specifically affects survivability in combat conditions.

Probably, the combination of all these factors was the reason that in recent years the number of new warships with nuclear reactors in the world has decreased significantly. Almost all new surface ships are built with diesel or gas turbine power plants. NPSs are mainly used in submarines. In this case, their use is fully justified, since it allows you to limit the duration of patrols, including those underwater, only to a supply of provisions. Therefore, nuclear submarines, of course, have a great future. As for the surface combat ships with similar power plants, their prospects do not look as obvious. Therefore, the Orlan project missile cruisers may well remain the only representatives of their class in the Russian Navy in the near and distant future.

On the materials of the sites:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Russian
    Russian April 1 2013 10: 16 New
    The fate of aircraft carriers is very sad, such a fleet could have created!
    And Orlanov should be restored and modernized most likely, although they are large and expensive, but now we need them, otherwise there are almost no ships of the first rank.
    1. Snegovok
      Snegovok April 1 2013 11: 54 New
      Perhaps this is even a plus that the aircraft carriers did not have time to set up, if you think logically, then when the 90s arrived, there would be nothing to support them and most likely they were sold at a price of almost scrap, so it was a complete mess, everything was sold could be sold.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 1 2013 15: 24 New
        Quote: Snegovok
        most likely they were sold at a price of almost scrap, so then there was complete chaos, everything that could be sold was sold.

        9 atomic cruisers, 8 aircraft carriers, 18 Legi and Belknap missile cruisers, 33 URO destroyer destroyers, 35 Spruance and Kidd destroyers, 46 Knox X, NUMX X, NUMX, frigates URO "Oliver Perry" ...
        They wrote off 31 strategic submarine missile carrier, 37 multipurpose nuclear submarines Stagen, experimental nuclear submarine Glenard Lipscomb, 15 new atomic submarines of the Los Angeles type

        In total, in the 90-ies the US Navy lost about 300 warships and nuclear submarines.
      2. Reasonable, 2,3
        Reasonable, 2,3 April 5 2013 04: 57 New
        And here are the aircraft carriers?. The article is directed against the modernization of the "Orlan".
  2. Asgard
    Asgard April 1 2013 10: 17 New
    We are ahead of the rest in the development and use of nuclear installations on ships. The Orlan family is a self-sufficient ship that does not require an excursion, that is, movement in the warrant. Therefore, there must be two such ships for each region of the world's oceans (including the Ice type))
    Then Lavrov will not be “expelled” from the planned meetings and our ambassadors will not be beaten up (like in Qatar)) or it was interesting with the FSO officers .....
    Zulus?? insolent ....because there are no EAGLES ....
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 1 2013 14: 29 New
      Quote: Asgard
      We are ahead of the rest in the development and use of nuclear installations on ships.

      USS Nautilus (SSN-571) - the world's first nuclear submarine.
      Underway on Nuclear Power! - a historical message sounded in 11: 00 17 January 1955 years

      On August 3 1958 the Nautilus submarine reached under the ice of the North Pole, becoming the first ship to visit these parts

      Nuclear-powered missile cruiser USS Long Beach (CGN-9).
      Launched in 1959, put into operation in 1961

      The USS Arkansas nuclear missile cruiser (1980) is one of four Virginia-class nuclear-powered cruisers

      / With all due respect to the USSR Navy. But you need to be at least a little objective!
    2. SPACE
      SPACE April 1 2013 20: 59 New
      Quote: Asgard
      Then Lavrov will not be "exposed"

      Right Orlan Lord of the seas and oceans, he is subject to thunder and lightning. These are powerful fists and everyone should see under whose flag he walks. One by one to the ocean, that would be on duty in his heart. Then Russia will be a full-fledged superpower and not such a big price for it.
      I always believed that a tank, plane or ship is just a supporting platform for placing weapons, if a successful platform it can be infinitely modernized, weapons are outdated, changed, it's still easier than building a new one. And I don’t understand when they determine the life span of a ship in 30 years, they must live for 100 years.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 2 2013 16: 18 New
        Even a group of several Orlans is defenseless against AUGs. It is unlikely that they can scare anyone. Here in the same AUG, where there are AWACS aircraft that can give target designation, its potential will be realized to a greater extent. Or even if there is a decent AWACS helicopter on the cruiser itself. If we had at least 15 Orlanes, we would still be far from the US Navy, and there would be no talk of any superpower.
        1. SPACE
          SPACE April 2 2013 20: 30 New
          Quote: patsantre
          Even a group of several Eagles is defenseless against AUG

          An aircraft carrier is a very expensive thing, an expensive air group, expensive maintenance and operation, to feed more than 2 thousands of people what it costs, while alone your aircraft carrier alone is complete zero. Example: Aircraft carrier Nimitz and Orlan at a distance of 100 km from each other, an attack mode is declared. Who will fly into the air earlier and what will fly before the enemy? How fast will the carrier, this “pregnant cruiser” have time to spawn? How many people have time to lift planes into the air and how far they will fly and launch their missiles. The average granite velocity let 700 m / s, i.e. 200 seconds, this is the remainder of the nimitz's life And even in the security system, is it not so simple to always keep airplanes in the air? It seems to me an aircraft carrier, not a tenant. Orlan’s guided missile is akin to an unmanned aerial vehicle and even autonomous; Orlan is actually also a carrier, only unmanned missiles, i.e. it is conceptually more modern. So, according to the price / quality criteria for an aircraft carrier and its aircraft, there are still no prospects in the 21st century for controlling kamikazes. But the Orlan platform is unique, you can stick gadgets there, above the roof, its potential is simply not even half open and not understood.
          1. patsantre
            patsantre April 2 2013 22: 07 New
            Why don’t you push them into a ram? What insanity, expose them 100 km from each other? Who will let them get closer? Set them to the maximum distance and direct each other towards everything. Everything that Orlan sees is an aircraft unattainable for him and Tueva Hucha harpoons.
            1. SPACE
              SPACE April 3 2013 11: 48 New
              Quote: patsantre
              And why not immediately push them into a ram? What kind of insanity

              You yourself answered your question ... to the question of insanity, there too "from a cannon by a sparrow" or "a nut with a hydraulic hammer". As for the ram, I saw how the GRK Moscow shoots from an AK is impressive, but no, it doesn’t shine, and there’s nothing to do with it “aircraft carrier-ha-ha-vnu”. Sorry.
              Quote: patsantre
              expose them at 100 km from each other? Who will let them get closer?

              Example. Syria. Off the coast to support the belligerents, the aircraft carrier and the GREAT PETER THE GREAT are at a distance of a “pistol” shot, such as gunfighters in the wild west, there is no east, there is no war so far. And the battle siren piercingly sounds ... and further in meaning ... But there are all sorts of cases, as Lieutenant Rzhevsky said.
              Quote: patsantre
              All that Orlan sees is the AWACS plane, which is unattainable for him, and the thuja heap of harpoons.

              Of course, they will see: “Slowly the harpoons fly away into the distance, you no longer wait for meetings with them, and although the aircraft carrier is a little sorry for us, the Hornets have all this ahead.”
              Orlan is only good at that! Without doing anything, he makes the aircraft carrier dryuch his air group. And this is not to mention the price of this wonderful, gilded Corıta. laughing
              1. patsantre
                patsantre April 5 2013 22: 30 New
                There is no reason at all to argue with you because of your biased cheers for things. You can not expect objectivity from you.
    3. politruk419
      politruk419 April 2 2013 05: 37 New
      Man, the Zulus are not to blame, they are not insolent. They just could not grow wiser. But their songs and dances are quite on the level. And they still run fast. On the "Eagle" does not catch up. laughing
  3. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 1 2013 10: 48 New
    Before wailing about the unfulfilled atomic fleet of the USSR, I want to remind you that when creating an atomic surface fleet, they "forgot" to create the appropriate infrastructure for it, as a result of which only one Petya survived out of five pr.1144 (including the Urals), and a pier was found under it. . If Ulyanovsk had been completed, then there was nowhere to base it on. How nowhere to base future Mistrals.
    PS: And the “Atlanta” cost the country much cheaper and not inferior to the “Orlan” in combat effectiveness still plow, despite the fact that their same age.
    1. biglow
      biglow April 1 2013 11: 45 New
      Quote: Nayhas
      Before wailing about the unfulfilled atomic fleet of the USSR, I want to remind you that when creating an atomic surface fleet, they "forgot" to create an appropriate infrastructure for it.

      it’s not so difficult to rebuild infrastructure, it’s probably harder to build ships
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 1 2013 20: 44 New
        So they didn’t build it and ruined all 1143 Krechetes in raids and 1144 Orlans ... Now we are stepping on the same rake, the Mistrals have already been laid, but we don’t hear about the places of basing either ...
        1. politruk419
          politruk419 April 2 2013 05: 42 New
          With Boreas the same situation.
          The defeat of Comrade Shoigu’s ICRC occurred for the same reason. The plant is not ready to repair, maintain anything, or even somehow cover up its theft. Not a single pier near Borei in Kamchatka has yet. Not all 11 objects are ready for basing. Someone soon, I hope, will see Kolyma ...... for it is high time! The situation is becoming more and more sad and unsightly.
    2. itkul
      itkul April 1 2013 11: 53 New
      Quote: Nayhas
      And the “Atlanta” cost the country much cheaper and not inferior to the “Orlan” in combat effectiveness are still plowed, despite the fact that their same age.

      Yes, and they are much safer for the crew, it is dangerous to be near the nuclear reactor, any accident can lead to tragedy
      1. Bronis
        Bronis April 1 2013 14: 09 New
        “Atlas” is almost equivalent to “Orlanes” in strike weapons, but is significantly inferior in air defense. Basically, due to the inability to provide protection (by means of one C-300F) from several directions simultaneously. At one time, this was considered acceptable (the action in the squadron reduced this drawback). Now, with a shortage of ships of the first rank, this is a significant minus. But, if the collapse of the USSR were not there, the 10 Atlantes with escort ships and aircraft-carrying cruisers is a very weighty argument. Moreover, they were superior in terms of cost / effectiveness to the Orlans. Especially for operating costs. But a series of masses was not enough.
        Due to the high cost of operation, the Orlans were put into reserve. But now there are few options if the leadership wants to provide the Navy with means of collective air defense. We will not build such ships of 1 rank in the coming years 10. It is necessary to modernize what is.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 1 2013 20: 45 New
          How much effort and money was spent on the Eagles ... During this time, an atomic aircraft carrier could be built and not soared at the expense of air defense.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop April 1 2013 23: 27 New
        Quote: itkul
        it is dangerous to be near a nuclear reactor, any accident can lead to tragedy

        But what, the accident of any other type of power plant leads to comedy? wassat
        1. itkul
          itkul April 2 2013 11: 24 New
          Quote: Misantrop
          But what, the accident of any other type of power plant leads to comedy?

          Yes, as it were, there’s a difference, for example, an accident at the Uglegorsk TPP and the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
    3. mark1
      mark1 April 1 2013 16: 43 New
      Ural - pr. 1941
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 1 2013 20: 46 New
        Thank you, in the know, but he has a pedigree from 1144, and his fate is the brightest ...
        1. Civil
          Civil April 1 2013 21: 50 New
          Quote: Nayhas
          Thank you, in the know, but he has a pedigree from 1144, and his fate is the brightest ...

          made a floating barracks ((
  4. viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus April 1 2013 11: 52 New
    It would not be a bad thing to mention the DBVK SSV-33 Ural.
    1. During
      During April 1 2013 13: 25 New
      And unfortunately, to mention and immediately weep ...
    2. Glenn witcher
      April 1 2013 22: 40 New
      It does not need to be mentioned. About him need to talk. Have patience, citizen. wink
  5. doktor_alex
    doktor_alex April 1 2013 13: 21 New
    Quote: itkul

    Yes, and they are much safer for the crew, it is dangerous to be near the nuclear reactor, any accident can lead to tragedy

    A very dubious statement. To the same extent, we can say that it is dangerous to be with any equipment where there are moving parts or any energy medium. It’s dangerous not to be near the reactor, but let’s say so with “not smart people,” because you can break a fool with a fool.
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan April 1 2013 14: 47 New
      Not dangerously located near the reactor, but let’s say so with “not smart people”

      Absolutely fair! This can be illustrated by the fact that the beginning was happening in the Navy after the ex-students were exempted from service in 1989 and almost all the well-trained junior naval emergency service specialists were sacked.
    2. itkul
      itkul April 1 2013 19: 38 New
      Quote: doktor_alex
      It’s dangerous not to be near the reactor, but let’s say so with “not smart people,” because you can break a fool with a fool.

      Well, it's you for nothing, in our country it is customary to blame all the disasters on the human factor, but knowing how we produce any products with flaws and imperfections, it’s hard to blame the crew for everything
      1. doktor_alex
        doktor_alex April 1 2013 21: 58 New
        Quote: itkul
        but knowing how we produce any products with defects and imperfections

        Are you familiar with military acceptance?
        1. itkul
          itkul April 1 2013 22: 22 New
          Quote: doktor_alex
          Are you familiar with military acceptance?


          What was the cause of the accident on the Peter the Great heavy nuclear missile cruiser? Some experts with whom I had to talk in hot pursuit of the tragedy hastened to answer this question with a traditional reference to the collapse of the Russian military-industrial complex.

          But it turned out that the "collapse of the military-industrial complex" has nothing to do with it. The ill-fated pipe was made and delivered to the cruiser "Baltic Plant" back in 1989, when the crisis of our military-industrial complex did not smell. The state of emergency was based, as Oleg Shulyakovsky, the then general director of the Baltic Plant, told me, "a careless or disregarding attitude to a business, a careless or disregarding attitude toward monitoring the work of specialists."

          Simply put, the pipe, and its length is half a meter and a weight of 35 kilograms, was made with gross deviations from the requirements of state standards and factory technology. She withstood stationary pressure of 45 atmospheres at factory tests. But the dynamic, constantly changing pressure of 35 kilograms per square centimeter, when the ship maneuvered at sea, could not be kept due to technical defects.

          The workers who bent it, welded the flange and installed the cruiser in the engine room did not look for the necessary workpiece, but took the one that lies closer. It turned out to be of the wrong grade of steel, and of the wrong thickness.

          Neither the Quality Control Department, nor the foreman who accepted the work of the welders, nor the military representative from the Navy, who signed the submission list, noticed this.

          And although the majority of those guilty of the accident on the cruiser already for various reasons does not work at the plant, all of them must answer according to the law for their negligence, which led to the deaths.

          Moreover, the same defective, “refined” pipe was delivered by the factory workers in the cruiser’s aft boiler room. This was noticed by sailors only after the accident.

          Admiral Igor Kasatonov, chairman of the State Admission Committee of the cruiser at that time, First Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, told me that in the Northern Fleet it was necessary to check not only the main power plant, but also other vehicles, components and assemblies of the ship. Unfortunately, many of the shortcomings of technology are manifested only in the work, and they often can not be found even with x-rays.

          A shipbuilding engineer with thirty years of experience Oleg Shulyakovsky believes that the accident, in addition to negligence, had other reasons. Maybe not the main, accompanying, but very important. One of them is the design flaws of the steam power system. The layout of the ship's units, in his opinion, turned out to be, to put it mildly, bad. That pipe that burst with 35-atmospheric vapor pressure, he says, should not be on the ship in principle. It does not carry any useful functional load. As an appendix in humans.

          1. doktor_alex
            doktor_alex April 1 2013 23: 12 New
            Quote: itkul

            Iiiii? If at the Baltic plant everyone, including the VP, put a bolt on their direct duties, this still does not mean that nuclear reactors are extremely dangerous, the same pipe would also burst if the PUF were an ordinary boiler. This is with regard to the first statement about the exceptional danger of YaPPU. Further, do not row all into one comb, VP 1059 on the Sevmash works as it should, even with the replacement of the cover of the bolt that holds the pipe suspension I always went to them armed to the teeth with standards, otherwise I won’t see the signature, these guys are not begged, for which they respect. Your example is a vivid evidence that the airspace of the Baltic plant screwed up, because it is they who must keep everyone in good shape there, the OTK (UKP) master, before acceptance by the customer, must bite his nails from the nerves even when everything glistens and smells of daisies, not to slander the marriage of the main steam line. In general, you can always turn the arrows and look for those responsible, I can give a bunch of examples when the crews do not know the mate. part, they exploit a trie with violations of the regimes and regulations, block automatic protection systems of systems, including a power plant, for operating a faulty mat. parts, which in turn leads to the complete failure of the mat parts, and sometimes unfortunately to human casualties. It makes no sense to argue who is to blame for the production or the military, because only increasing both the culture of production and the culture of exploitation will help to avoid casualties. And do not talk about the reactors, at the moment the design is already well developed, reliable, and with proper operation it is perhaps even safer than other types of power plants.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop April 1 2013 23: 21 New
              Quote: doktor_alex
              If at the Baltic plant everyone, including the VP, put a bolt on their direct duties, this still does not mean that nuclear reactors are extremely dangerous

              It is a pity that only one plus can be put.
              Pearl type:
              The ill-fated pipe was made and delivered to the cruiser "Baltic Plant" back in 1989, when the crisis of our military-industrial complex did not smell.
              who, sorry, wrote? If not by night, the aforementioned perestroika with the mess was in full swing already in 1986, then, of course, in 1989 the mess was just beginning (or had already ended), not otherwise laughing Sculpt GEM from garbage selected in the workshop and then be surprised that it breaks?
  6. Professor
    Professor April 1 2013 13: 29 New
    In early 1992, the leadership of an already independent Ukraine decided to divide the constructed structures into metal. According to a number of sources, the ship was 18-20% ready.

    The steamer was certainly unique. The hull on the ChSZ zero slipway was approximately 80% ready. The tragicomedy consisted in the fact that to finish it and launch it in order to free the slipway was cheaper than cut. However, the "geniuses" decided to cut and make money by selling scrap metal ... fool
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko April 1 2013 14: 29 New
      Quote: Professor
      The steamer was certainly unique. The hull on the ChSZ zero slipway was approximately 80% ready. The tragicomedy consisted in the fact that to finish it and launch it in order to free the slipway was cheaper than cut. However, the "geniuses" decided to cut and make money on the sale of scrap metal ..

      Yazhzhzh said that you are capable of good deeds. wink
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm April 1 2013 20: 14 New
      Quote: Professor
      However, the "geniuses" decided to cut and make money by selling scrap metal ...

      Yes, at that time the genius sat on the genius and drove the genius, they say that they promised to pay as for armor steel and how they cut it, they paid as for ordinary metalall. Sorry, so many people worked.
      Probably from time to time, remember the plant.
      Judging by the epaulets, fighting for Syria.
      1. Professor
        Professor April 1 2013 20: 36 New
        Yes, at that time the genius sat on the genius and drove the genius, they say that they promised to pay as for armor steel and how they cut it, they paid as for ordinary metalall. Sorry, so many people worked.

        It was even more interesting. They cut it into large sections, and the customer (Norway, if I’m not mistaken) demanded that they cut it into almost elementary components: profile, knits and so on. and the epic of cutting the armor belt with milling cutters began.

        Probably from time to time, remember the plant.

        I recall both the factory and the aircraft carriers I visited.

        Judging by the epaulets, fighting for Syria.

        I tied up with this useless activity. I’m not avoiding Natsik and urapatriots. soldier
  7. xomaNN
    xomaNN April 1 2013 16: 55 New
    “Kirov” I remember looked super-huge at the KMOLZ dock in the 80s. Still, having relatively live hulls of the AKP Orlan ave. Is smarter than modernizing them than building them from scratch at crazy expenses for metal, shipbuilding, etc. In essence, hull parts were already “licked” in hydrodynamics in those years, etc.
    1. doktor_alex
      doktor_alex April 1 2013 17: 13 New
      Quote: xomaNN
      All the same, having relatively live hulls of the AKP Orlan ave. Is smarter than upgrading them than building from scratch at crazy costs for metal, shipbuilding and so on.

      It is not yet known how live these buildings are, Nakhimov stood with a "goldfish" and despite the fact that there were appropriate separators between them, the fish ate Nakhimov below the waterline very well.
      1. mark1
        mark1 April 1 2013 20: 06 New
        But what, does the titanium-steel combination create a galvanic pair? Or another reason? Enlighten please.
        1. SPACE
          SPACE April 1 2013 21: 24 New
          They restored small containers made of ferrous metal, thought of scalding them with electric welding, stainless steel electrodes, and then polished them a little, they will stand for a hundred years. Strength is higher, only it is necessary to cook carefully, so that there is no deformation. I’m thinking, isn’t it already possible to protect the hull from corrosion in the same way and restore it, including for new ships. The volume is certainly large, but to create some kind of automatic welding machine, which would itself move on email. magnets and produced welding of 2-3 millimeters. corpus becomes practical eternal.
        2. doktor_alex
          doktor_alex April 1 2013 21: 28 New
          Quote: mark1
          But what, does the titanium-steel combination create a galvanic pair? Or another reason? Enlighten please.

          Refers to contact corrosion accelerated by salt water. I perfectly understand that there seemed to be no contact between them, but believe it or not, for 6 years of work on the Sevmash I saw with my own eyes how a goldfish eats the right side of the Nakhimov. Unfortunately I can’t tell a lot, even despite the fact that I don’t already work there, but the condition of the Nakhimov’s corps below the waterline is depressing. More than that, only the condition of the crew saddened.
        3. doktor_alex
          doktor_alex April 21 2013 03: 43 New
          Today I stumbled upon a photo of how Nakhimov stood with a goldfish
  8. Dusk
    Dusk April 1 2013 17: 32 New
    Well, finally they wrote an article about cruisers. I have been waiting for this for a long time ...
  9. knn54
    knn54 April 1 2013 18: 04 New
    Only one per year corvettes (ships of the near sea zone) of project 20380 enter (or are planned to enter). Three frigates of project 22350 are at different stages of construction. But the PLANNED pace of their construction is such that when the last frigate, the head will need to be written off. All domestic ships lack a multifunctional weapon control system similar to the American Aegis, which allows for the collective defense and missile defense of naval forces. Not only ships of the 1st and 2nd ranks of the US Navy are equipped with such a system, but also a significant number of Japanese, South Korean and ships of NATO countries. Faster and cheaper will be the modernization of the same "Orlan", equipping them with their modern weapon systems and SLAs.
    It is necessary to concentrate forces and means on updating and coastal infrastructure. EVEN the flagship of the Russian military fleet “Admiral Kuznetsov” has no base, ie there is no mooring wall. While in Severomorsk, the cruiser is standing on a barrel. The ship is not equipped with an auxiliary power plant, and to provide its systems with energy one has to use one of the power plant boilers.
    PS Only YaSu. An example is the Arctic icebreaker. This is a million miles traveled and 33 years of excellent work. There are also promising small-sized monoblock nuclear reactors. Moreover, Russian designers were better at naval reactors than super-powerful steam-powered plants. TARKR “Kirov” sailed quite successfully, while “Kuznetsov” in any of his campaign had enduring problems with power, up to a complete loss of course. Even for diesel submarines, they still cannot design the installation of the necessary power.
    TSOOBER April 1 2013 18: 15 New
    Russia has agreed with Ukraine on the redemption of the missile cruiser "Ukraine"
    Link: http: //
  11. svp67
    svp67 April 1 2013 19: 19 New
    To understand what a beautiful ship is, you just need to see "Peter the Great" in the sea ...
  12. Zhmurkis
    Zhmurkis April 1 2013 19: 28 New
    Somehow I studied at the school (in the last century before the collapse in Vilnius VVKURE) We had a teacher. former naval. We asked him somehow: Why don't we have aircraft carriers, do specific guys have it, but don't have the right guys? And why, says the teacher, are we aircraft carriers? The USSR itself as an aircraft carrier, the territory from okiyan to okiyan. No, well, they’re building something there, but more for prestige than for business, if only it would be. In addition, aircraft carrier squadrons are very vulnerable and are suitable in peacetime for parades or intimidation of the Papuans. The main disadvantage of aircraft carrier squadrons is that the crews of these ships are eating like pigs for slaughter. Food is delivered to them almost daily. Therefore, it is enough to block food supplies by several submarines and adyu, this squadron will be blown away for a week in the worst case. And since the Americans do not fight without Coca-Cola, then in 2 days they will start to rebel. These are the words of teacher Zdanovich.
    1. mark1
      mark1 April 1 2013 20: 28 New
      Your teacher had an original point of view, but nevertheless the regiments of naval missile-carrying aircraft and SSGNs multiplied both qualitatively and quantitatively
  13. StolzSS
    StolzSS April 1 2013 19: 46 New
    It is foolish to build surface ships with a nuclear reactor, they are an excellent target for beam weapons based on the Bogomolov accelerator ....
  14. Zhmurkis
    Zhmurkis April 1 2013 19: 50 New
    I also want to add that avik can normally perform its tasks in relatively good weather conditions. That is, in the south, in the Mediterranean or somewhere else, where the sun warms 200 days a year. Avik does not roll in the Barents Sea, and in the Baltic it is in doubt. With us, if during the summer 3 weeks of sunny weather are typed, then this is considered sunny in the summer. The second point is the damage to Avik. The plane crashed on landing and that’s all, the entire Avik is out of order. Probably everyone remembers the story about the captain of the submarine, who dreamed of drowning an aircraft carrier and making a dead loop on the submarine? So, he caught his avik, Enterprise, I don’t remember. Avik performed his tasks of practicing take-off landing. And the captain of the submarine under the nose of Avik blew out his latrines, like I caught you. The poop surfaced, the captain of Avik thought that he was being torpedoed and turned away. At this time, a fighter landed on the deck. As a result, the fighter landed in the Avik superstructure. And that’s all, a cool aircraft carrier was sent for repair. Consider poop avik disabled. You can read about this captain on the internet if you google it.
  15. Watchman
    Watchman April 2 2013 00: 53 New
    The goal of Orlan is to demonstrate the flag and capabilities of our shipbuilding industry. In battle, I am sure that if it does not come out victorious, it will inflict such damage on the enemy that it will not seem enough.
  16. ABV
    ABV April 2 2013 01: 35 New
    this article was already earlier ..... or I have a "deja vu" --- (by the way, a great movie!)
  17. Comrade1945
    Comrade1945 April 2 2013 02: 21 New
    ... again these heart-wrenching pictures.
    With all due respect to the author of the article and our fleet, I do not want to read. I apologize
  18. washi
    washi April 2 2013 14: 44 New
    All that remains is cheaper to convert, modernize, But there should be a coastal base. Without a base, a bunch of unique ships and boats were killed.