Military Review

Atomic missile cruiser "Peter the Great"

98
Heavy Nuclear Missile Cruiser (TARKR) Project 1144.3 Peter the Great is a technically and militarily highly sophisticated system equipped with the most advanced weapons, navigation, target designation, reconnaissance and control. Many experts consider this ship even more complex than nuclear submarine missile carriers. Over its creation in our country worked for a long 12 years. Mortgaged for Pacific fleet under the name "Yuri Andropov" in 1998 he became part of the Northern Fleet of Russia under the name "Peter the Great". On April 9, 1998, an act of acceptance of the atomic cruiser in the Russian fleet was signed. On April 18, the Andreevsky flag was hoisted on board the Peter the Great.


The ship belongs to the 3-generation nuclear missile cruisers, is the world's largest non-combatant warship. TARKR “Peter the Great” is intended for the destruction of large surface targets (single and group), protection of fleet compounds from attacks by submarines and air attacks in remote areas of the world’s ocean. In total, the 1144 ship was built on the 4 Orlan project, in addition to the Peter the Great are cruisers: Kirov (Admiral Ushakov), Frunze (Admiral Lazarev) and Kalinin (Admiral Nakhimov). Currently, only one ship of this type is in service - Peter the Great, while all 3 TARKR Ave 1144 will be returned to the fleet after repairs and upgrades.

The Peter the Great heavy nuclear missile cruiser has a standard displacement of 23 750 tons, the full displacement of the cruiser is 26 390 tons. The ship has the following dimensions: the greatest length - 251,2 meters, on the waterline - 230 meters, width - 28,5 meters, draft - 10,3 meters. The height of the ship 59 meters from the level of the main plane.

Atomic missile cruiser "Peter the Great"

The main powerplant of the atomic cruiser with 2 nuclear fast-neutron reactors. The total capacity of the plant is 600 MW, there is also a 2 main turbo-gear unit (GTZA) with a capacity of 70 000 hp. each. In the backup version, they can receive steam from 2-x steam boilers running on organic fuel. The combination of a nuclear power plant with oil superheaters increases the overall power of the power plant and the speed of the cruiser. For comparison, "Peter the Great" is able to provide heat and electricity to a city the size of 150-200 thousands of residents. The two propeller shafts transmit the rotation to the 2 five-blade screws. The maximum speed of the “Peter the Great” is 32 knot (almost 60 km / h). Two reserve steam boilers are able to provide the ship with a speed of 17 knots and a range of at least 1000 nautical miles.

The crew of the nuclear-powered missile cruiser consists of 610 people (112 officers), which are located in 1600 different rooms, including 140 single and double cabins for officers and midshipmen, as well as 30 headquarters for sailors and foremen (for 8-30 each). In addition, the crew of the ship has 15 showers, a sauna with a pool, two baths, a two-level medical unit, with isolation rooms, x-ray and dental offices, an operating room, a pharmacy, an outpatient clinic, a gym equipped with various simulators, 3 cabins for officers, midshipmen and admirals, lounge for the rest with a grand piano and billiards, as well as its own ship TV studio. The length of the 49 warship corridor is more than 20 km., While the ship has 6 decks and 8 tiers. The height of its add-ons is equal to the height of a 7-storey residential building.

Protection TARKR provides for the implementation of measures to reduce its radar visibility. In addition, the measures of structural local protection strengthened the protection of cellars for the storage of projectiles, anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. The ship’s autonomy for food and food stocks is 60 days, for fuel - 3 of the year (unlimited at a nuclear reactor).


The main armament of the missile cruiser is the Granit anti-ship missile system (created by NPO Mashinostroeniya). The cruiser has 20 CM-233 launchers with advanced high-precision P-700 “Granit” anti-ship cruise missiles. The PUs are mounted under the upper deck of the ship, with an elevation angle of 60 degrees. The maximum missile launch range is 550 km, the missile’s flight is exclusively on a low-altitude trajectory - 200-250 km. Missile Speed ​​- Mach 1,6-2,5. The length of the P-700 rocket is 10 meters, the diameter of the 0,85 meter, the starting weight is 7 tons. The missile can be equipped with a conventional warhead (750 kg. BB), a nuclear one-piece (500 CT) or a fuel-air warhead to create a volumetric explosion.

Rockets "Granit" have a multi-variant program for attacking targets, as well as increased noise immunity and are designed to attack maritime group targets. During salvo firing, one of the rockets flies at high altitude in order to increase the detection range of the enemy, sharing the information obtained with the other rockets that can literally trail off the water surface. In case the leader rocket is hit by the enemy, one of the auxiliary missiles can automatically take its place. Over-the-horizon targeting and targeting can be carried out using Tu-95РЦ airplanes or Ka-31 helicopters, as well as specialized space reconnaissance and targeting systems.

The air defense of the ship is provided by an analogue of the C-300 land complex called the C-300F Fort. The ship has 12 PU and 96 vertical launch missiles. In addition, the air defense system of the ship includes an autonomous shipborne air defense system “Blade” (“Dagger”). Each of the 16 underdeck drum-type PU is equipped with 8 solid-fuel single-stage remote-controlled 9М 330-2 missiles, the total ammunition - 128 missiles. Unified with the Tor-M1 ground forces missiles.


In addition, the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser is equipped with the Kortik anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex, which protects the ship from a number of “accurate” weapons, including anti-radar and anti-ship missiles, air bombs, helicopters and airplanes, light-tonnage vessels. In total, the ship has 6 ZARK “Dirk”, each of them has X-NUMXx2-mm six-barreled AK-30 M-630 artillery installations with total fire rates at the level of XinMX units of 2 per minute, as well as 10 unit on 000 two of the basic units of the list of the two basic units of the list of the basic units of the basic units of the basic units of the team. fuse and frag-core warhead. These missiles are unified with the rocket of the 2C4 “Tunguska” army air defense complex. The control system of the “Dirk” air defense missile system includes radar and television systems that are interconnected by means of AI elements. The 9 installations of ZARK are installed in the bow of the cruiser on either side of the PU Granit, and 311 in the aft part of the main superstructure.

In addition, "Peter the Great" is armed with 130-mm multipurpose AK-130 paired artillery units (barrel length 70 caliber, ammunition - 840 shells), the maximum firing range to 25 km. The rate of fire is from 20 to 80 shots per minute. AK-130 uses 27-kg projectiles, which can be equipped with different types of fuses: impact, remote and radio-fuses. Ready to fire ammunition is 180 shells. The artillery unit is controlled by the MP-184 fire control system, which allows you to simultaneously accompany and fire 2 targets.

TARKR is also armed with 2 anti-submarine (5 PU from each side) missile-torpedo 533-mm complexes RPK-6М “Waterfall”, which can attack enemy submarines at a distance of 60 km. To combat enemy torpedoes, the cruiser has the RKPTZ-1 “Udav-1М” anti-torpedo complex (10 pipe-guides, reaction time - 15 s, automatic conveyor reloading, maximum range - 3000 meters, minimum - 100 meters, missile weight - XNXX ).


In addition, the Peter the Great TARKR is equipped with jet bombs, which are arranged as follows: one ten-pipe RBU-12000 (80 projectile weight kg, firing range 12 000 meters) is located in the bow of the vessel and mounted on a turntable, another 2-e six-pipe The Smerch-1000 RBU-3 units (55 projectile mass, kg, firing range - 1000 meters) are installed in the aft section on the upper deck on each side.

The general ship counteraction system includes 2-e paired 150-mm PU PC-14 (burst interference complex), spurious targets, counter-electronic traps, as well as a false towed torpedo target, equipped with a powerful noise generator. Also on board the cruiser is the 2 anti-submarine Ka-27 helicopter. The electronic filling of a heavy missile cruiser includes 16 stations of 3 types. General ship tracking, targeting and tracking means consist of 2-x space communication stations (SATSOM), 4-x space navigation stations (SATPAU), as well as 4-x special electronic stations. The air and surface situation is constantly monitored by the 2-e all-weather three-coordinate Fregat-MAE radar (produced by the Salyut plant). These stations are able to detect the target at a distance of 300 km and at altitudes of 30 km.

Also "Peter the Great" is equipped with 4-me radio-electronic fire control systems weapons, 3 navigation stations, the identification of "friend or foe", helicopter flight controls. The cruiser's hydroacoustic system includes a sonar with a hull antenna, which is installed in the bulb fairing, for searching and detecting enemy submarines at low and medium frequencies, as well as an automated towed sonar system having an antenna of variable depth (150-200 meters) and operating at mid frequencies.

Information sources:
-http: //www.arms-expo.ru/049050054056124051056057049.html
-http: //shipandship.chat.ru/military/001.htm
-http: //military-informer.narod.ru/PetrVelikiy.html
-http: //ru.wikipedia.org
Author:
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thomas A. Anderson
    Thomas A. Anderson 8 May 2013 08: 31 New
    16
    So only 4 ... It is necessary to carry out a deep modernization of such ships .... And scatter them in the fleets. And then all this overhaul and modernization often in Russia ends with the theft of money, and the remaining ship is painted and restored to trifles, and then it falls apart 3 times faster ...
    1. aktanir
      aktanir 8 May 2013 10: 05 New
      12
      The fact that we will have four such whoppers in service is already a huge and incredible matter! In sum, they are like a whole separate fleet with all the infrastructure. And one, as you know, is not a warrior in the field. After all, such a boat is the most darling goal and a priority target for any enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to take not only skill, but also quantity.
      1. Gari
        Gari 8 May 2013 11: 39 New
        14
        Heavy Nuclear Missile Cruiser (TARKR) Project 1144.3 “Peter the Great” is a technically and militarily highly sophisticated system equipped with the most advanced weapons, navigation, target designation, reconnaissance and control. Many experts consider this ship even more complex than nuclear submarine missile carriers.

        And at the same time, the handsome man is elegant, in general, like all Soviet Russian Navy ships
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 8 May 2013 11: 58 New
          +7
          The only thing that confused the article was "fast neutron reactors." As far as I know, ONLY hefty stationary nuclear power plants can now work on fast neutrons, "thermal" neutrons are used for mobile plants, it is easier to control and significantly more compact.
          1. datur
            datur 8 May 2013 20: 41 New
            +2
            [quote = Misantrop] The only thing that confused the article was "fast neutron reactors." As far as I know, ONLY hefty stationary nuclear power plants can now operate on fast neutrons, thermal velocity neutrons are used for mobile plants, it is easier to control and significantly more compact than the installation --- it happens, I recently read about shells flying at Mokrushin’s site supposedly thanks to HEXOGEN !!! belay , - generally beauty !!!! wink
            1. doktor_alex
              doktor_alex 31 May 2013 13: 39 New
              0
              More correct is not "speeds", but "energies".
          2. SPACE
            SPACE 8 May 2013 21: 25 New
            +6
            Well, the author’s usual non-attentiveness is normal, they are equipped with ordinary water-water nuclear reactors like in submarines. Fast Neutron Reactor, BN-600 - A fast neutron reactor with sodium coolant, commissioned in April of the 1980 year at the 3 power unit at the Beloyarsk NPP in the Sverdlovsk Region near the town of Zarechny. Electric power - 600 MW. By the way the first in the world.
            1. No_more
              No_more 15 May 2013 17: 38 New
              0
              Wow carelessness. In order to protect yourself, you could write just a nuclear reactor, without details.
              And on Peter, all rightly said you, there are ordinary nuclear installations with two water circuits, the same as on our nuclear icebreakers.
        2. patsantre
          patsantre 8 May 2013 19: 47 New
          -11
          Quote: Gari
          Heavy Nuclear Missile Cruiser (TARKR) Project 1144.3 “Peter the Great” is a technically and militarily highly sophisticated system equipped with the most advanced weapons, navigation, target designation, reconnaissance and control. Many experts consider this ship even more complex than nuclear submarine missile carriers.


          So it was about 15 years ago, no less.
          1. dmi32167
            dmi32167 8 May 2013 20: 33 New
            -1
            in! your owners designed boats in the 60s, and built the last in 2009.
            The type was named after the lead ship of the series, Nimitz, commissioned in 1975. A total of 10 aircraft carriers were built, including the latter, the George W. Bush, which was included in the fleet in 2009.
            at the same time read how many years they have been serving and how many times they upgrade ships of this size.
            1. patsantre
              patsantre 8 May 2013 23: 17 New
              -3
              Every day, you lick the heel’s owners at work, but I’m independent. What difference does it make when a ship is designed, you can replace the stuffing in it, but you haven’t done it with Petya yet. And from the same Nimits, you don’t need anything, as already noted, it’s only the barge on which the planes land, nothing more is required of it.
    2. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 8 May 2013 11: 53 New
      +6
      Quote: Tomas A.Anderson
      So only 4 ... It is necessary to carry out a deep modernization of such ships .... And scatter them in the fleets.


      To be more precise, it’s not 4 ... but a half. Along the side of Peter, it’s less likely that only Nakhimov will be restored, while Lazarev and Ushakov will go to the needles, and the name of the Admiral Ushakov has long been the destroyer of the Northern Fleet. For deep modernization, I completely and completely agree with you, these beauties need an upgrade and commissioning.
      1. jjj
        jjj 8 May 2013 20: 22 New
        +3
        Yes, Ushakov has already been decommissioned and the name given to the destroyer Fearless. But about six months ago On the "Star" went "dvizhuha" for the restoration of the ship. And it seems that the necessary papers have been signed. Here with “Nakhimov” on Sevmash everything is not clear to the end. The work is very expensive. And we need to “rivet” how many boats in the very near future.
      2. SPACE
        SPACE 8 May 2013 21: 32 New
        +2
        Everything must be restored! This is not a problem, the case is normal, restore at least to a minimum.
        1. No_more
          No_more 15 May 2013 18: 11 New
          -2
          There should be a reasonable justification for everything. I do not think that 4 SUCH ships of this type are necessary for Russia, especially considering their cost and the price of ownership (maintenance). More than two are not necessary.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 15 May 2013 18: 33 New
            +3
            Quote: No_more
            There should be a reasonable justification for everything. I do not think that 4 SUCH ships of this type are necessary for Russia, especially considering their cost and the price of ownership (maintenance). More than two are not necessary.

            If a country positions itself as a "Great Sea Power", then the arguments should be appropriate. The Americans are aircraft carriers with a bunch of escort ships. If we contrast this with a purely coastal fleet, then all our statements about our might will be ridiculous.
          2. maai
            maai 10 May 2015 19: 53 New
            0
            There should be two such in each fleet !!!
    3. old man54
      old man54 8 May 2013 17: 31 New
      +9
      Dissociate them in all fleets utter stupidity !! Why is he on the Black Sea Fleet and even more so on the BF ??? I would divide them evenly between the Pacific Fleet and the CSF to create a powerful shock grouping (well, it can be off the mark, and you can give the Pacific Fleet 3, in view of the greater area of ​​responsibility).
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 8 May 2013 21: 12 New
        +4
        Think correctly two on the SF two on the Pacific Fleet. EAGLE IS A VISIBLE FORCE! Everyone should see them, especially the flag!
    4. Avenger711
      Avenger711 8 May 2013 18: 40 New
      -4
      The action is very unobvious expediency, which will pull resources from a number of more important programs, including due to the excessive cost in comparison with the Atlanta.
    5. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 9 May 2013 07: 40 New
      +1
      When will the 2nd “Orlan” be modernized?. They’re tired of waiting, they’re talking alone. And in the middle-earth they’ll put him in his pants.
    6. T-100
      T-100 9 May 2013 16: 44 New
      +1
      Yes, such a cruiser can ram)))
  2. Scythian 35
    Scythian 35 8 May 2013 08: 32 New
    12
    Handsome, there is something to be proud of !!!
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 8 May 2013 09: 27 New
      +6
      Yes, Petya is handsome. Kirov interesting start to tidy up ....? a rhetorical question ..
    2. Grey68
      Grey68 8 May 2013 19: 53 New
      +3
      Like a handsome man, but not everything can be measured with money.
  3. ziqzaq
    ziqzaq 8 May 2013 08: 41 New
    +5
    Yes, good ....
  4. Nesvet Nezar
    Nesvet Nezar 8 May 2013 08: 54 New
    +9
    Not a sour yacht. Large scale. Granite is good!
  5. RPG_
    RPG_ 8 May 2013 08: 57 New
    +4
    It is doubtful that the granites will fly in formation and the head will be a scout. After all, as far as I know volley launches have not yet been carried out. So I think it is necessary to start Peter the Great to bring to mind and granite too.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 8 May 2013 10: 13 New
      +2
      The Granites have expired, it’s unsafe to use these anti-ship missiles ... I don’t know how on Pete, but on Kuz they have already been removed, from Anteyev too.
      1. Ustinov 055 055
        Ustinov 055 055 17 October 2016 13: 42 New
        0
        Launch mines were flooded at the kuz and some other things (secretly) were therefore removed.
    2. Retx
      Retx 8 May 2013 13: 48 New
      +2
      Granite is not needed there now. The rocket is big and this is the main minus. Instead, Caliber, 150 cells (maybe a little less) is perfect. And this makes this ship versatile in all tasks, such as striking military targets. This is our fist of influence.
      1. old man54
        old man54 8 May 2013 17: 38 New
        0
        I agree with you, "Granite" is generally a great oddity of a surface ship, because it was developed for the submarine, it has only a wet start, and it requires flooding the PS with seawater before launch. :) Well, of course ... Can Bramos be put better? :) It is much easier and seems to be just as effective.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 8 May 2013 18: 41 New
        0
        There is nothing more to do, as a vessel of 25 tons with a nuclear reactor used as a lousy destroyer of 10 tons.
        1. Retx
          Retx 8 May 2013 19: 29 New
          +7
          And name at least one "lousy" destroyer in our fleet of 10 thousand tons. with 150 cells for shock and 250 for anti-aircraft.
        2. sv100year
          sv100year 10 May 2013 14: 41 New
          +1
          10000t lousy destroyer? in my opinion someone has a lousy language!
  6. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 8 May 2013 09: 01 New
    +6
    Quote: Tomas A.Anderson
    So only 4 ... It is necessary to carry out a deep modernization of such ships .... And scatter them in the fleets. And then all this overhaul and modernization often in Russia ends with the theft of money, and the remaining ship is painted and restored to trifles, and then it falls apart 3 times faster ...

    Four does not work. 2 of them - "Admiral Ushakov" (Kirov) and "Admiral Lazarev" are not subject to restoration. Sorry, but only 2. "Admiral Nakhimov" is under repair and deep modernization.
  7. vania
    vania 8 May 2013 09: 10 New
    -16
    the ship is old, but new weapons are not bad
    1. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 8 May 2013 09: 37 New
      +2
      so old?
      1. Professor
        Professor 8 May 2013 10: 10 New
        +2
        The cruiser was laid down in 1986 on a slipway of the Baltic Shipyard. So count 27 years is a lot or a little.
        1. Mhpv
          Mhpv 8 May 2013 10: 32 New
          11
          Well, if we compare the American aircraft carriers for the destruction of which our cruiser was intended, the picture is as follows:
          1. Nimitz in action with 1975
          2. "Dwight Eisenhower" -1977
          3. "Carl Vinson" -1982
          4. "Theodore Roosevelt" -1986
          5. "Abraham Lincoln- 1989
          and only three entered in 90x and two in 2000x
          1. Professor
            Professor 8 May 2013 10: 42 New
            +4
            Aircraft carrier is a barge with virtually no weapons. She can swim for 100 years. The main thing that would be able to carry modern aircraft.
            1. Mhpv
              Mhpv 8 May 2013 10: 47 New
              +7
              This barge is made of metal, which for your information has the ability to wear out, although it is operated in water and has fatigue as well as power plants are also limited, but the filling can just be modernized.
              1. Professor
                Professor 8 May 2013 11: 43 New
                -1
                I heard about metal wear and obsolescence of equipment, nevertheless, he still remains a barge, not a cruiser. But there are fewer requirements for the barge.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 8 May 2013 12: 01 New
                  11
                  Quote: Professor
                  But there are fewer requirements for the barge.

                  Seriously believe that a fighter launching or landing fighter loads ship structures than firing rocket weapons? belay lol
                  1. Mhpv
                    Mhpv 8 May 2013 12: 05 New
                    +8
                    Plus, to reduce pitching, there are stabilizers that create oh, how good vibration on the case. hi
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 8 May 2013 13: 47 New
                      +5
                      Quote: mhpv
                      Plus, to reduce pitching, there are stabilizers that create oh, how good vibration on the case. hi

                      There are stabilizer pitching on the cruiser.

                      Quote: Misantrop
                      Seriously believe that a fighter launching or landing fighter loads ship structures than firing rocket weapons? belay lol

                      Difficult to answer. I’m interested in a friend from the QMS department.
                      1. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 8 May 2013 14: 11 New
                        +6
                        Quote: Professor
                        I’m interested in a friend from the QMS department.

                        At the same time, take an interest in the dynamic load on the surrounding structures of tanks partially filled with aviation fuel in conditions of unrest at sea. And there these tanks are VERY big. As well as the shock load of the working catapults at the end of the accelerating trajectory. It is comparable to a salvo of the main caliber
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 8 May 2013 14: 33 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        At the same time, take an interest in the dynamic load on the surrounding structures of tanks partially filled with aviation fuel in conditions of unrest at sea. And there these tanks are VERY big.

                        As far as I remember from the Theory of the Ship course, such tanks do not leave partially filled, since stability deteriorates in a square of the free surface area of ​​the liquid. Therefore, I don’t think that on the aircraft carrier there’s one oooooo big tank with aviation fuel from which kerosene is slowly pumped.
                      3. Mhpv
                        Mhpv 8 May 2013 14: 51 New
                        +3
                        Well then, here is the data for barges:
                        In November 2005, Newport News, the only US nuclear carrier builder, received an order of $ 1.94 billion to reload reactors and refurbish the Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH) of the Carl Vinson CVN-70 nuclear carrier. This reconstruction is also called “mid-life repair,” since it is carried out after reaching 25 years of service, while the full service life of an American aircraft carrier is about 50 years.

                        "Carl Vinson" was accepted into the US Navy in 1982, by the time the repair is completed, which will last 3 years, its service life will be 26 years. Over the course of these three years, equipment will be modernized, repaired, maintained, and recharged, which will provide aircraft carrier service until the 2032, when it is scheduled to be decommissioned.

                        Karl Vinson is the third aircraft carrier of this type after Nimitz and Dwight Eisenhower, which is undergoing mid-life repairs. The works are designed for the 3 of the year, the return of the ship to service is expected at the beginning of the 2009.
                        4288x2848, 886k, Q5

                        The first aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type to undergo reloading and complex reconstruction was the lead ship. He docked in May 1998. During the comprehensive reconstruction, a significant part of the ship's structure, its systems and subsystems were repaired and modernized to ensure its adaptation to future changes in military doctrine and national defense policy. The amount of financing for the conversion equipment amounted to about 2.2 billion dollars. Five years took the development of the project and three years - its implementation.

                        This was the fifth reload of the reactor on American aircraft carriers (before that, four reloads were carried out on the CVN-65 Enterprise carrier: 10.1964-11.1965 reload, 1969-71 reload, main reload and modernization in Bremerton XNXN XNXN XNXN XNXN XN XN complete reconstruction and reloading in Newport News 1979 – 03.1982).
                        1050x750, 79k, Q4

                        The predecessor of Karl Vinson in the dock No. 11 of the Newport News shipyard was the CVN-69 Dwight Eisenzower aircraft carrier. 18 On October 2005, he left Norfolk, completing repairs after a test voyage (Post Shakedown Availability, PSA). A three-month repair at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard completed the long 4-year reconstruction that the aircraft carrier underwent in the middle of its 50-year service life.

                        A comprehensive reconstruction of the aircraft carrier began on 22 on May 2001, when he embarked on the dry dock of the Newport News shipyard.
                        Life Cycle of Non-Nuclear Aircraft Carriers

                        For aircraft carriers with a conventional power plant, an 18-month operational period is adopted, followed by a scheduled repair. Of the three consecutive operational cycles, in two repairs the 3 of the month continues and takes place at the mooring wall (without docking), and in the third cycle a one-year reconstruction is provided. Thus, non-nuclear aircraft carriers have an 6-year interval between dockings.

                        After approximately 30 years of service, the non-nuclear aircraft carrier undergoes a comprehensive reconstruction for the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for 2.5 years, after which it serves for about 15 more years. hi
                      4. Professor
                        Professor 8 May 2013 14: 56 New
                        +2
                        Duc is not just a barge, but also a floating hotel with all amenities. Can you imagine how many lathes there had to be replaced during the overhaul?
                      5. jjj
                        jjj 8 May 2013 20: 30 New
                        +2
                        Eh hehe. Special subtlety of fan systems and bilge water tanks
                  2. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 8 May 2013 16: 07 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Professor
                    Therefore, I don’t think that on the aircraft carrier there’s one oooooo big tank with aviation fuel from which kerosene is slowly pumped.

                    Naturally, far from alone, it would even be purely constructive would be stupid. There are many of them. But they, alas, do not possess elasticity. So there are free volumes, whatever one may say. Although not in the quantity that with one giant tub. Moreover, the loads are constantly changing, due to the high consumption for flights
                  3. Professor
                    Professor 8 May 2013 16: 39 New
                    0
                    Do you know at what pressure they pump fuel into tanks and how do they maintain this pressure? That's right, a pipe is displayed at least 2 meters above the tank and the system monitors that there is always “water” in it.

                    Nothing flounders there. And if it flounders then only in one not big tank. hi
  8. Vadivak
    Vadivak 8 May 2013 11: 10 New
    +7
    Quote: Professor
    Aircraft carrier is a barge with virtually no weapons. She can swim for 100 years.


    Oleg, how do you like Iowa? completed by January 1939, and went to the reserve (museum) in 2012
    1. Professor
      Professor 8 May 2013 11: 53 New
      +4
      Cool steamer. Also a classic. good The Americans were lucky that the USSR did not get to a fight, and that could have turned out many corpses on the same ship. Today, the functions of such super expensive giants are performed by smaller ships.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 8 May 2013 14: 24 New
        +9
        Quote: Professor
        The Americans were lucky that the USSR did not get to a fight, and that could have turned out many corpses on the same ship.


        Yes, thank God has passed. Happy you. hi
        1. Professor
          Professor 8 May 2013 14: 34 New
          +6
          Mutually. soldier Note as befits the Great Holiday.
  9. black_eagle
    black_eagle 8 May 2013 13: 17 New
    +2
    Any vessel, in principle, is a barge, the main thing is that they stuffed into this hull
  10. dmi32167
    dmi32167 8 May 2013 20: 40 New
    -1
    missile cruiser is a barge that only carries missiles. even guidance in the case of a large shecher is carried out either from satellites (for moving targets) or on a paper map of the 80s (for all sorts of cities and villages)
  • Piran
    Piran 8 May 2013 12: 17 New
    -7
    The professor appeared !!! And yesterday and the day before was probably on vacation?
    1. Professor
      Professor 8 May 2013 13: 48 New
      +6
      Are you bored or is there a deal? wink
      Go to my profile if you are so interested and read the comments for yesterday and the day before.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 8 May 2013 15: 04 New
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    The cruiser was laid down in 1986 on a slipway of the Baltic Shipyard. So count 27 years is a lot or a little.

    And age is considered when conceived or when gave birth?
    With timely maintenance, scheduled repairs and upgrades, all four could be in service, the age of the ships is not critical. The oldest "Kirov" was introduced into the Navy in 1980.
    American cruisers in service and year of commissioning:
    CG-52 “Bunker Hill”, 1986
    CG-53 "Mobile Bay" (Mobile Bay), 1987
    CG-54 "Antietam", 1987
    CG-55 “Leyte Gulf”, 1987
    CG-56 "San Jacinto" (San Jacinto), 1988
    CG-57 “Lake Champlain”, 1988
    CG-58 “Philippine Sea”, 1989
    CG-59 “Princeton”, 1989, planned to be written off in 2014 [4]
    CG-60 “Normandy”, 1989, planned to be written off in 2013 [4]
    CG-61 "Monterey", 1990
    CG-62 Chancellorsville, 1989
    CG-63 “Cowpens”, 1991. It is planned to write off in 2014 [4]
    CG-64 Gettysburg, 1991, planned to be written off in 2014 [4]
    CG-65 “Chosin”, 1991. It is planned to write off in 2014 [4]
    CG-66 “Hue City”, 1991. It is planned to write off in 2014 [4]
    CG-67 "Shiloh" (Shiloh), 1992
    CG-68 "Anzio", 1992. It is planned to write off in 2013 [4]
    CG-69 “Vicksburg”, 1992; It is planned to write off in 2013. [4]
    CG-70 “Lake Erie”, 1993
    CG-71 Cape St. George, 1993, planned to be written off in 2013 [4]
    CG-72 “Vella Gulf”, 1993
    CG-73 "Port Royal" (Port Royal), 1994
    1. Professor
      Professor 8 May 2013 15: 54 New
      +4
      And age is considered when conceived or when gave birth?

      The age of the warship is calculated from the day the project was signed, therefore the steamboat (and it’s precisely the steamer as it steams) was laid back in the year 19986, and designed even earlier cannot be called modern. Good, beautiful, formidable, even effective can be called, but not modern. request
      1. Kaa
        Kaa 8 May 2013 16: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        incorporated in the distant 19986

        YOU ARE FROM SUCH A FAR FUTURE ??? !!! belay
      2. Mhpv
        Mhpv 8 May 2013 16: 37 New
        +4
        Here you are a professor sorry for the expression of a hunchback blinded.
        The Peter the Great (Order of the Nakhimov Nuclear Power Cruiser "Peter the Great") is the fourth and only third generation heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARKR) in the 1144 Orlan project series. At 2011, this is the largest operating non-aircraft carrier strike combat ship in the world [source not specified 458 days].

        The main purpose is the destruction of enemy carrier groups. It is the flagship of the Northern Fleet of the Russian Navy.

        Designer - Northern Design Bureau.

        The cruiser was laid down in the 1986 year on the slipway of the Baltic Shipyard (when laying, it was called Kuibyshev, then - Yuri Andropov). April 25 1989 of the year launched. [1] Renamed to Peter the Great by presidential decree on April 22 (October 1? [2]) of the year 1992. [1] Joined the fleet in 1998. [1]

        Industrial enterprises carry out constant work on the cruiser, they allow for eleven years in a row to carry out trips to the sea without putting the ship in an average factory repair. The Central Design Bureau-designer self-relieved himself from work on the ship, considering them unprofitable. Prior to renaming, Peter the Great wore the tail number 183, now the tail number is 099.
        Then, following your logic, what is the age of the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers laid back in the distant 1968 year, and for some reason they are in service.
        And once again I repeat "Peter the Great" (Order of the Nakhimov nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great") - the fourth in a row and the only heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARKR) of the third generation from the series of the 1144 "Orlan" project. At 2011, it is the world's largest operational non-carrier strike attack ship.
        1. Mhpv
          Mhpv 8 May 2013 16: 40 New
          +4
          Your professor’s age is calculated from the moment of birth, and not from the moment of conception hi
        2. Professor
          Professor 8 May 2013 16: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: mhpv
          Here you are a professor sorry for the expression of a hunchback blinded.

          When the designer finished conjuring the Kuhlmann, he invested in his brainchild the most modern solutions that time. It is then determined what the future ship will be. If in your long-term construction, for example, in 20 years, it leads to the appearance of a modern ship, then my ship will remain at the same level as at the exit from the design bureau. Although some details are being upgraded at the factory. So, for example, on Soviet aircraft carriers, equipment was changed to more modern equipment right at the outfitting wall. However, this is the exception rather than the rule.

          Quote: mhpv
          Your professor’s age is calculated from the moment of birth, and not from the moment of conception

          I'm certainly a man and a ship, but not as much ... laughing
          1. Mhpv
            Mhpv 8 May 2013 17: 06 New
            +3
            I’ve highlighted for you a red line, if someone had created more modern in this class, I would have agreed with you, and alas.
            So, based on your logic, half of the American aircraft carriers are just tin cans of which sprats have long been eaten laughing
            1. Professor
              Professor 9 May 2013 08: 15 New
              +1
              Quote: mhpv
              So, based on your logic, half of the American aircraft carriers are just tin cans of which sprats have long been eaten

              Again you are talking about these floating hotels with all the amenities. You really compare with cruisers at least or there frigates. And then some won what aircraft carriers used.
      3. old man54
        old man54 8 May 2013 17: 53 New
        +6
        Rave!! The age of ANY ship, not only a military one, is calculated from the day it was launched, it's classic! And often ships of even one series of moogs differ greatly in filling, i.e. from the initial project.
      4. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 8 May 2013 22: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        . Good, beautiful, formidable, even effective can be called, but not modern

        Well then, you need to upgrade. Happy holiday!
    2. itkul
      itkul 8 May 2013 16: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      With timely maintenance, scheduled repairs and upgrades, all four could be in service, the age of the ships is not critical.


      You are mistaken, even with constant scheduled repairs, the ship is aging, for example, on nuclear icebreakers

      http://forums.airbase.ru/2012/08/t86578,5--ledokol-arktika.html

      Lenin

      built in 1959; decommissioned; 1989; lifetime 30 years (subtract downtime due to accidents with the reactor)


      Arctic

      built in 1975, decommissioned in 2008, operated 33 years - planned disposal

      Siberia

      built in 1977; launched in 1993; operated for 16 years; planned disposal


      The Northern Sea Route

      built in 1988, from 2007 put out to sediment - operated 19 years
      The decommissioning process began in May of this year;
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 8 May 2013 22: 33 New
        0
        Quote: itkul
        You are mistaken, even with constant scheduled repairs, the ship is aging, for example, on nuclear icebreakers

        In modern Russia, it’s very difficult to understand what caused the disposal of a particular machine, it may even be someone’s personal interest, as opposed to you, I can remember the battleship Iowa as well as the 100 year old auxiliary vessel in Russia, operation. A warship must be built for at least 30 years of service, otherwise a normal fleet in the country cannot be created.
  • old man54
    old man54 8 May 2013 17: 42 New
    +2
    and we, Russia, today are able to design and build something better from scratch, with the same combat characteristics ??? And you are "old". Amer even won “Iowa” prozapas and similar to her! And she is already more than 70 years old, from the descent to the water!
  • YaRusich
    YaRusich 8 May 2013 09: 16 New
    +1
    This is the god of war, the ear is already breathtaking. A couple of dozen of these and no aircraft carriers are needed ...
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 8 May 2013 09: 54 New
      +9
      Better two hundred, no better three ... And five hundred submarines ... And Tu - 160 about 1000 will suit me ... Something has incurred me ...)))
      And all this to 2020.
      You do not need such and no aircraft carriers ..

      But what about French barges with Russian names ??
      1. YaRusich
        YaRusich 8 May 2013 10: 25 New
        +1
        Mistral is not an aircraft carrier and the price is not comparable. The main thing is that they will not buy such barges anymore, almost on time they changed the traitor.
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 8 May 2013 10: 18 New
    +3
    “In total, the 1144 ship was built under the 4 Orlan project, in addition to the Peter the Great, it’s the cruiser: Kirov (Admiral Ushakov), Frunze (Admiral Lazarev) and Kalinin (Admiral Nakhimov) "Currently, there is only one ship of this type in service - Peter the Great, and all 3 TARKR Ave. 1144 will be returned to the fleet after repairs and upgrades."
    A perfect complement to these sea giants could be the equally formidable Strategic Heavy Missile Submarine Cruisers of the 941 Project “Shark” (SSBN “Typhoon” according to NATO classification) - the largest nuclear submarines in the world, but alas “In March of 2012, information came from sources of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation that the strategic nuclear submarines of the 941 Shark project will not be modernized for financial reasons. According to the source, the deep modernization of one Shark is comparable in cost to building two new submarines of the 955 Borey project, the TK-17 Arkhangelsk and the TK-20 Severstal submarines will not be upgraded in light of the recent decision, the TK-208 Dmitry Donskoy will continue to be used as a testing platform for systems weapons and sonar systems until 2019 g. "

    [media = / http: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = NI-3zMee0s4 & feature = player_embedded]
    That's how "National Geographic - a unique popular science geographic magazine, the official publication of the National Geographic Society (USA)" rejoiced with the help of NTV to destroy Typhoon.
    1. mark1
      mark1 8 May 2013 11: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: mhpv
      According to the source, the deep modernization of one Shark is comparable in cost to the construction of two new submarines of project 955 Borey.

      A good excuse is the term "deep modernization", I would like to understand what is behind this so-called "deep modernization". “Sharks” are left to swim, provided there is a good overhaul “for about 15-20 years, is there any sense in“ deep modernization. ”In my opinion, it is much more correct to carry out a good overhaul and solve the main trouble of“ Sharks ”- the lack of basic weapons. adapt the available systems - “Bulava” or “Liner” (at the same time, the dimensions of the mine allow you to set an additional step, which will increase the range and the casting weight) or use the liquid ICBM newly developed in Makeeva Design Bureau by adapting its control system to the existing one .941. For the rest of the data and so it is the best in its class and nor any other "deep modernization" it is not particularly necessary for the remaining 15 years.
      1. Mhpv
        Mhpv 8 May 2013 12: 00 New
        +3
        I completely agree with you about the excuse. The building of the hull is already not a small cost, especially since the boats of this project were probably created taking into account the subsequent modernization. It’s not profitable for the Americans to own such formidable weapons, because the sharks started to be delivered from them, which means here politics is involved.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 10 May 2013 20: 43 New
          0
          Quote: mhpv
          .Because building a building is no longer a small cost,

          Moreover, the Shark has only an external steel case, and the durable titanium cases. You can say eternal. Change from time to time outdated stuffing and operate for decades. By the way, the most comfortable submarine for the crew (the "floating hotel"), and perhaps the most tenacious.
          If they still gave the opportunity to bring the Bark missile to mind (Shark weapons) which could be shot right through the ice (up to 2.5 meters thick) - there would be a fairy tale in general.
  • Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 8 May 2013 10: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    The cruiser was laid down in 1986 on a slipway of the Baltic Shipyard. So count 27 years is a lot or a little

    How long did Iowa serve?
    1. Professor
      Professor 8 May 2013 11: 47 New
      +3
      More than necessary. It turned out like with a suitcase without a handle, it’s hard to carry, but it’s a pity to throw it away. All they had to do was shoot at Beirut (New Jersey).
      1. old man54
        old man54 8 May 2013 18: 01 New
        +2
        Well, yes, only when he started in the 90s in the Baltic States he suddenly found himself walking along the Kurzh Spit, for some reason there was such a panic at the DCBF that God forbid! And you ... "a suitcase without a handle" :)))
        1. old man54
          old man54 12 May 2013 00: 29 New
          0
          DKBF sailors at the same time composed a proverb about this, about the entry of Iowa into the Baltic Sea (pilots of the naval aviation of the BF told:)
          "life was so ...
          then Iowa came ... "
    2. jjj
      jjj 8 May 2013 20: 53 New
      +6
      The Iowa is an armored ship. Hence the longevity of its hull and superstructures. And in Molotovsk, even under Comrade Stalin, a battleship was laid that surpassed all the ships of that time. Only the central casemate part was completed. The situation has changed. Construction funding has ceased. So this casemate part was towed to the Black Sea and was used as a target for combat torpedo firing of submariners. Direct hits from torpedoes did not penetrate it! You can, of course, say that the Soviet torpedoes of those years are not Mk 48. But the fact remains that the torpedo could not sink the ship.
      But the "Parsley" the old people call the "Lumine". The ship is yes, beautiful, with good weapons. But he went overseas to visit Chavez - and for repairs. Not so smoothly his service is going on. However, as with the “Kuzi”.
      Ships with lightweight non-armored hulls cannot serve for decades. And thirty years is a term for them.
      1. old man54
        old man54 8 May 2013 23: 57 New
        +1
        so I regret that it wasn’t booked harder, but only we made local reservations! All displacement is "saved", and unreasonable savings in defense matters are not brought to good, as a rule! Here, before the 2nd World War, the shaving tanks built 3-5 tons of weight and with 20-mm cannons, but they were very quick to move, so what? :)) Then they did not know where to put them, sick, because they were no good for nothing! :))
  • LM66
    LM66 8 May 2013 10: 56 New
    -2
    He’s a kind of archaic, as from antiquity
    1. Professor
      Professor 8 May 2013 11: 43 New
      +8
      That's just the look he has that is necessary - however classic. good
      1. Retx
        Retx 8 May 2013 12: 50 New
        +5
        Well, even the British Minister of Defense each time specially flew in a helicopter to admire the Orlanes walking in the ocean.
        1. old man54
          old man54 8 May 2013 18: 02 New
          +2
          Seriously? did not know:)
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 8 May 2013 10: 59 New
    0
    Quote: LM66
    He’s a kind of archaic, as from antiquity

    To do this, a video is attached below and tells why this archaic view from antiquity.
  • ObnaPur
    ObnaPur 8 May 2013 11: 06 New
    0
    Handsome man! What a line of power! Especially in the last photo.
  • LM66
    LM66 8 May 2013 11: 06 New
    -5
    Quote: mhpv
    For this, the video below is attached there and tells why this archaic view from antiquity

    Any car should be beautiful, my opinion of course. And here there is a feeling that everything that is possible is poked, anyhow. Interestingly in the creation of military equipment designers involved?
    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 8 May 2013 11: 32 New
      +2
      Well, if you are trying to compare it with Abramovich’s yacht, then there’s not much glamor, and yet don’t be too lazy to watch the attached video.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 8 May 2013 11: 09 New
    +1
    Regarding the return of three Eagles, it sounds very optimistic. God forbid one to repair. And that is doubtful. Somehow our military commanders quieted down on this subject, no news was heard. Considering the age of the cruiser, the problems with the power plant (it seems the gearbox) cannot be repaired by cosmetic repairs. It is necessary to put it in the dry dock and carry out a complete troubleshooting. And in case of modernization, also prepare the project.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 8 May 2013 12: 06 New
      +9
      Quote: rudolff
      And in case of modernization, also prepare the project.
      This is what the engineers of the design bureau of the younger generation can be trained on. And to drive all sorts of "Yudashkins" from there with a filthy broom. War has nothing to do with gay pride
  • PN
    PN 8 May 2013 12: 57 New
    +5
    Quote: aktanir
    And one, as you know, is not a warrior in the field.

    Here he is just a warrior. This is a raider designed to fight alone.
    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 8 May 2013 13: 32 New
      +7
      Here is the answer to Orlan’s battle alone: ​​“Nuclear-powered cruisers of the“ 1144 Orlan ”type have no direct analogues abroad: American - like Virginia with a displacement of (11 300 tons) in 2,5. And Long Beach (17500 tons) is 1,5 times less On Soviet nuclear powered ships, the power plant includes two steam turbines with a capacity of up to 70000 hp each, in the backup version, the turbines receive steam from two automated steam boilers running on fossil fuels.

      Although the cruiser "1144 Orlan" for several years were the best in the world ships of its class, the project cannot be considered successful. The 1144 Orlan was designed as a strike cruiser, a ship of excellence at sea. This task required a significantly more powerful and diverse weapon than the one that was installed. In order to withstand modern anti-ship missiles, aircraft guns and small-caliber bombs, the ship should have been equipped with at least minimal armor protection. Finally, the autonomy of the ship needed to be significantly increased. Of course, to fulfill such requirements while limiting the displacement of the 28 to thousands of tons is impossible, and the dimensions should have been increased at least twice. The real 1144 Orlan can handle any of the American post-war cruisers, but was completely defenseless against aircraft carrier formations or modernized American battleships like Iowa.

      However, there is also unverified information that NATO considered the Soviet squadrons led by the cruisers of the 1144 Orlan project to be very dangerous rivals for their aircraft carrier formations. At theoretical exercises, to destroy such a squadron, groups of four aircraft carriers were exhibited, of which only one was supposed to stay afloat. The air groups of the three aircraft carriers were supposed to be almost completely lost. "Http://www.snariad.ru/ships/orlan/
    2. Professor
      Professor 8 May 2013 13: 51 New
      +4
      Quote: PN
      This is a raider designed to fight alone.

      Fighting alone is a mass grave for six hundred fighters.
    3. old man54
      old man54 8 May 2013 18: 06 New
      +2
      I heard a bike in my youth, but maybe not :) that the Kirov cruiser, the first of a series, can declare war on France and confront it for 24 hours. :) What do you say? :))
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 8 May 2013 19: 58 New
        -3
        It’s complete nonsense, if only because it’s impossible to throw in here. Well, they are pulled into it with a large fuse of anti-ship missiles, and they are not able to fight off a massive salvo from any ship.
        And before aviation, he is generally defenseless.
        1. old man54
          old man54 9 May 2013 00: 03 New
          +2
          Well, it’s “defenseless before aviation”, of course, you turned down a little, it’s hot, and RCC ... so in the early 90s (from the moment it was commissioned) France only had Exozet, and they had a radius of 40 km Although one certainly is very cool, I agree, but to me, a schoolboy, a naval officer rubbed this :))
          1. Windbreak
            Windbreak 9 May 2013 10: 21 New
            +1
            the aircraft variant AM39 range was 70 km
          2. patsantre
            patsantre 9 May 2013 19: 23 New
            0
            So what will he do to the AWACS aircraft, which hangs at a distance of 400 km from the cruiser and gives the control center to fighters that, without peering out from behind the radio horizon, can, again, simply throw it over their heads?
            And they have much longer RCC.
  • Retx
    Retx 8 May 2013 13: 16 New
    +5
    Quote: PN
    Here he is just a warrior. This is a raider designed to fight alone.

    According to plans, Orlan was to be part of the Ulyanovsk-Orlan-Anchar group. For a single raider, it's too big.
  • stroporez
    stroporez 8 May 2013 15: 21 New
    +2
    ".... There is still insufficient evidence to reclassify ex-defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov from a witness to the accused, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently said. A member of the" harem "of former minister Yevgeny Vasilyev was" punished "only by languishing in the dungeons In the meantime, 15 military veterans who deserve the right to decent medical care stand in line at ordinary clinics after the Kazan military hospital closes. Serdyukov also gave the hospital at the request of the same Vasilyeva ... "now it’s clear why people don’t want to give the right to weapons. Just imagine how awesome it was and could be built for the Armed Forces, for the money that this codla stole .... ...........
  • Best novel
    Best novel 8 May 2013 18: 10 New
    +4
    Out of 4, one is in service (needs re-equipment). An aircraft carrier (the only one remaining) is in a long-term repair for many years. BUT AURORU \\\\\\ TO RESTORE !!!
    1. dmi32167
      dmi32167 8 May 2013 20: 52 New
      -1
      there have never been aircraft carriers and neither in the Soviet nor in the Russian fleet ..... ambush, right?
      1. Mhpv
        Mhpv 8 May 2013 23: 40 New
        0
        To get started, read this article: http://topwar.ru/24966-blef-i-realnost-amerikanskiy-avianosec-tipa-nimic.html, and then together we decide whether to ambush
  • old man54
    old man54 8 May 2013 18: 24 New
    +1
    I didn’t really like the article, I’ll say frankly! More likely a minus than a plus! A set of well-known information about the nomenclature of the armament of the cruiser and the almost complete lack of information about the status of 3 other cruisers of the project today. And I would like to! :) There is not even a general analysis of what weapons it was possible to re-equip, upgrade these cruisers today and the expected range of combat missions in our current military-political and geopolitical realities. There is no detailed comparison of its combat capabilities with the characteristics of the ships and fleet formations of the potential “our partner”, i.e. not given an idea of ​​its real combat capabilities today. Yes, and there is information that the complex "Granite" could potentially "swing" at the line of 625 km.
  • bddrus
    bddrus 8 May 2013 18: 30 New
    +1
    Oh something according to Nakhimov, doubts began to torment me! sad
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 8 May 2013 18: 59 New
    +2
    I am glad that at least one of pr.1444 ships in service! This sort of colossus looks very impressive. I remember my first impression of the KRA Kirov back in Kronstadt. Strength! After the BOD, 1134 was even impressive.
    1. SPACE
      SPACE 8 May 2013 21: 38 New
      0
      My brother served in the Federation Council and visited Kirov and Kalinin as he says this is not what! They have no equal!
  • datur
    datur 8 May 2013 20: 43 New
    +4
    GIVE ALL EAGLES IN STORY !!!!! good
  • SPACE
    SPACE 8 May 2013 21: 58 New
    +1
    If they, all the remaining three do not restore, it is a betrayal! Whoever does not understand this is a traitor or a fool, when they tell me that it is easier and cheaper to build a new one, I laugh with this goat in my face, who have no idea about the construction of ships and about their modernization. It is impossible for Russia without the oceans, without demonstrating its own kind of surface serious ships! Especially in such a not calm time. Not one foreign ship will not be able to compete with him alone, in order to flood ORLAN they need to prepare a whole strategy. He is a loner, a true naval fighter, and for him there are no unsolvable tasks!
  • I think so
    I think so 8 May 2013 22: 20 New
    -5
    It’s interesting, but on this ship ALL dumps were already raked out, or as it was before, a third of the ship is a garbage dump, a third is UNABILIZED, and the rest is just filthy? ...
    1. I think so
      I think so 12 May 2013 00: 23 New
      0
      Judging by the reaction of the MINUSERS, everything remained as it was ...
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 9 May 2013 01: 09 New
    0
    in current conditions, is there any sense in such monsters?
  • MG42
    MG42 9 May 2013 03: 06 New
    +4
    The main weapon of the missile cruiser is the anti-ship missile system Granit

  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 10 May 2013 10: 22 New
    0
    this cruiser stands like an aircraft carrier, while it’s 10 times more cardboard and can’t really work along the coast, push it to the Kuril Islands and the Japanese divisions burst out laughing (in case of war, but was it not created for war?)
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 10 May 2013 10: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Fighting alone is a mass grave for six hundred fighters.


    always liked the comments of this person, to the point