Military Review

"Wrong" Soviet fleet

349
"Wrong" Soviet fleet

Judge the sins of others. You rush so hard, start with yours and you will not reach others.

- W. Shakespeare


The Iron Curtain collapsed, and the established Age of Glasnost allowed millions of Soviet citizens to learn many new and shocking secrets related to history their former country.

For example, the free press found out that the Soviet Navy Fleet ruled by completely mediocre and incompetent people. Instead of developing an American-style fleet (with emphasis on carrier-based strike groups), the insanity from the Soviet General Staff set about searching for “asymmetric answers,” spending tens of billions of people's rubles on building expensive but ineffective submarines, cruisers and supersonic missile carriers.

Against 14, the American Nimitz, Kitty Hawk and Forrestal, which formed the US Navy's combat core in 1980, the Soviet Navy set up an incredible variety of “squadron” consisting of:

- 15 surface missile cruisers - from the simplest "Grozny" to the incredible nuclear "Orlan";
- numerous series of SSGMs: 659, 675, 670 “Skat” projects, “aircraft carrier killers” of the 949 and 949 Ave. - only about 70 submarines with cruise missiles;
- the monstrous titanic boats “Anchar”, “Lira”, “Fin”, “Condor” and “Barracuda”;
- dozens of "ordinary" multi-purpose submarines and diesel-electric submarines;
- rocket boats and corvettes (IRAs);
- missile aviation Navy - hundreds of Tu-16, Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3;
- anti-ship missile systems - from the primitive "Termite" to the fantastic "Granites", "Volcanoes" and "Basalt".

Obviously, this impressive set weapons he had an enormous cost, but he could not solve the task entrusted to him - the problem of effectively countering the American AUG remained in question.

Many claims are the Soviet system of issuing target designation of missiles. American AUGs moved in the ocean at speeds of 700 miles per day — tracking and taking on such moving objects was an exceptional task. And without qualitative information about the current location of the AUG, the formidable "aircraft carrier killers" became helpless.



And try to shoot him down!

Any reconnaissance Tu-16Р or Tu-95РЦ who risked approaching the AUG in wartime will inevitably be shot down by an air patrol many hundreds of miles from the warfare carrier order. The only acceptable solution is space reconnaissance. The Soviet Maritime Space Intelligence and Targeting System (MKRTS) "Legend-M" was a real nightmare - every 45 day US-A satellite, equipped with a small-sized nuclear reactor and side-looking radar, burned in dense layers of the atmosphere, and along with it burned millions of full-fledged Soviet rubles.

The list of comments on the organization of the service of the USSR Navy usually ends with a statement about the need to build a huge number of airfields for naval rocket-carrying aircraft (MRA) of the Navy, reconnaissance and cover fighters. Again, considerable costs without any useful returns.
Each solved problem opened a series of new difficulties: the leadership of the Soviet Navy drove the fleet to a standstill. Having spent insane funds on "asymmetrical weapons", the Soviet fleet remained an extremely inefficient system, unable to fight on equal terms with the US Navy.



The outcome of this dispute may be a simple and logical conclusion: to the leadership of the Soviet fleet it was necessary to learn from the experience and start creating carrier strike groups modeled on the US Navy. It would have turned out to be more powerful, more efficient, and most importantly - cheaper (according to a well-known legend, the cost of two submarines of the 949 project exceeded the cost of the Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser).

Or should not?

Various speculations about the exorbitant value of the Navy of the USSR are broken, as if about a rock, about the only fact:

The budget of the Soviet fleet was less than the budget of the US Navy.

Expenditures on the Soviet Navy in 1989 amounted to 12,08 billion rubles, of which 2993 million rubles for the purchase of ships and boats and 6531 million for technical equipment)

- directory “Soviet Navy. 1990 — 1991 ”, Pavlov A.S.

For the purchase of weapons and military equipment for the US Navy, it is planned to allocate 30,2 billion dollars, of which 8,8 billion will be used to purchase aircraft, 9,6 billion - combat ships and auxiliary vessels, 5,7 billion - missile weapons, artillery and small arms weapons and torpedoes, 4,9 billion - other military equipment.

- Foreign Military Review, #9 1989 year

Even if you do not go into the details of exchange rates (official and real), pricing, corruption and features of the implementation of military programs on both sides of the ocean, the fact remains the same: despite its titanium submarines and super-cruisers, the Soviet fleet was cheaper several times!



Actually, on this wave it was possible to finish the narration, but the public is interested in the main question: was the Russian Navy capable, as it was, to neutralize the carrier groups in the North Atlantic?

The answer is obvious: YES.

According to calculations carried out on both sides of the ocean, in the event of war, the submarine and the USSR Navy's MRA drowned the American fleet, while the Soviet sailors and pilots themselves suffered heavy losses — after the attack of the AUGs by the Navy of the USSR Navy, it would in fact cease to exist.

Whenever anyone tries to write about the confrontation between our and the American fleets, the mantra is surely pronounced: “for the destruction of one AUG, three aviation regiments of rocket-carrying bombers were allocated”! Usually the mantra is pronounced in an ominous tone, frighteningly goggling in order to convince everyone in the “invulnerability” of the American fleet.


Supersonic bomber bomber Tu-22М3

Although if you look, you can’t do without losses in a war. And the destruction of an aircraft carrier, five cruisers, frigates and 50 ... 60 units of enemy aircraft in exchange for the loss of a hundred Soviet aircraft (take the most pessimistic scenario) - the exchange is more than fair.

Or someone seriously hoped that to counteract the powerful US fleet, for the maintenance and development of which the Yankees spent $ 30 billion a year, a pair of supersonic Tu-22М is enough?

All-seeing eye

Another misconception associated with the detection of the enemy: it is considered that deprived of high-quality intelligence ships of the Soviet Navy helplessly circled around the expanses of the oceans, like blind kittens. And the Americans? Americans are great! The US Navy has both deck aircraft and DRLO sea planes - flying radar E-2C Hawkeye will instantly detect the enemy, and deck Hornety will tear apart any surface or air target, not letting it go to AUG closer than 500 miles.

In this case, the theory is very different from practice.

Of course, being in an ideal “spherical vacuum”, aircraft from an aircraft carrier should be the first to detect the enemy, and the first to strike. Having come under continuous attacks of carrier-based aviation, any of the atomic “Orlans” will die, not even having time to go the launching distance of their missiles.
Supporters of such scenarios usually do not take into account the fact that the Soviet "Orlans" and submarines DO NOT NEED to break through anywhere - Soviet warships were constantly in the most important areas of the oceans:

- 5-I operational squadron - the solution of operational and tactical tasks in the Mediterranean;
- 7-I OpEx - Atlantic;
- 8-I OpEx - The Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean;
- 10-I OpEsk - Pacific;
- 17-I OpEsk - ensuring Soviet interests in the Asia-Pacific region (mainly - the South China Sea and Southeast Asia), the appearance of the squadron is a consequence of the Vietnam War.

The Soviet Navy practiced tracking the “probable enemy” ships — missile cruisers and submarines were always on duty somewhere close to American AUG and NATO warship formations, ready to open fire. In such conditions, deck aircraft lost its main advantage: a large range. Soviet "Skates", "Orlans" and "Antheus" securely kept the "gun" at the temple of the American fleet.


Launch of anti-ship missile complex "Vulkan" with RKR "Moscow"

It only remains to add that in addition to warships, with strike weapons, the naval forces of the USA and NATO were continuously monitored by numerous naval intelligence officers of the USSR Navy - large, medium and small communications vessels (CER), more than 100 units. Modest ships, outwardly almost indistinguishable from fishing trawlers and dry cargo ships, whose tasks included visual observation of the “likely enemy”, radio-technical reconnaissance and retransmission of signals. Despite the lack of weapons, the Soviet CER unceremoniously strolled alongside the formidable Nimitz and Ticonderogs, measuring the electromagnetic fields and noting the current coordinates of the American compound.


The Soviet submarine wound a screw on a secret American TASS antenna and lost its course. The first to help came CER-506 "Find". In the background - the US Navy Peterson destroyer. Sargasso Sea, 1983 year

The Yankees gnashed their teeth with annoyance, but it was forbidden to offend “kids” in peacetime — the security of the CER was ensured by the military and political might of the Soviet Union. In the event of war, the CERs became pure suicide bombers, but before their death they would manage to contact the strike force and transfer the coordinates of the "elusive" American squadron. Retribution will be cruel.

Handyman

Sometimes the Soviet Navy is criticized for its “one-sidedness” - allegedly the Soviet fleet was focused exclusively on a global nuclear conflict, but was completely useless in solving tactical tasks.

It is worth noting that prior to the invention of high-precision sea-based cruise missiles, any of the modern fleets played a purely episodic role in local wars - except for super-large-caliber guns on the four surviving battleships of the US Navy, the fleet could not provide any real help and fire support. In all local conflicts of the twentieth century, the main role was assigned to land forces and aviation.
You see! - supporters of the creation of AUG will exclaim - the fleet cannot do without aircraft carriers in local wars!

Fans of flying from the deck, please do not worry: the air - this is the scope of the Air Force. Decker wing wings are too small and weak to cause significant damage even to such a small country as Iraq. "Desert Storm", 1991 year - the six US Navy carrier strike forces provided the entire 17% of the Coalition's sorties. All the main work was performed by ground-based aviation - on their side were mass character, qualitative superiority, and special equipment for solving complex issues (E-8 J-STARS, RC-135W, stealth planes, etc.).

During the bombing of Yugoslavia, the only American aircraft carrier Roosevelt landed only on the 12 day of the war - without it, the 1000 of NATO aircraft certainly would not have coped. Libya, 2011 year - none of the Nimitz 10 didn’t even lift a finger, but the US Air Force "frolicked" in the Libyan sky. Comments, as they say, are superfluous. The value of aircraft carriers in local wars tends to zero.

The only significant function of the American fleet in local wars is the delivery to the region of several hundred Tomahawk SLCMs, with the help of which the Yankees “endure” the most difficult and highly protected targets - positions of air defense systems, radars, command centers, air bases, etc. objects.

As for the domestic fleet, he did everything that a normal fleet should have done, with the exception of striking targets in the depth of the coast.

The fleet did an excellent job of escorting ships during the tanker war in the Persian Gulf - of course, of which, and destroyers (large anti-submarine ships) as part of the Soviet Navy were always well off, more than 100 units.

The fleet was highly praised during the trawling and clearance operations of the Suez Canal and Chittagong Bay (Bangladesh). Naval sailors provided military and humanitarian aid delivery to countries in Africa and the Middle East, in passing being a clear demonstration of the military power of the USSR. The ships took part in suppressing the coup in the Seychelles, rescuing the crew of the American intelligence officer Alpha Foxtrot 586, driving the cruiser Yorktown out of the Soviet territorial waters — thanks to their large number, universality and global network of naval bases, the Soviet Navy ships were always operational in the right place at the right moment.

Soviet KIK (ships of the measuring complex) regularly kept watch at the Kwajalein (Pacific Ocean) missile range, observing the trajectories and behavior of the US ICBM warheads, and monitored launches from foreign launch sites - the USSR was aware of all the “likely enemy” missile innovations.


Anti-submarine cruiser "Leningrad"

The Soviet Navy was responsible for assistance within the framework of the Soviet space program - ships were repeatedly involved in the search and evacuation of spacecraft landing in the Indian Ocean.
The Russian fleet did not have bulky and monstrously expensive docking helicopters, similar to the American "Wasp" and "Taram". But in the composition of the Navy of the USSR there were 153 large and medium landing craft, prepared parts of the marines, as well as 14 old artillery cruisers and 17 destroyers with automated 130 mm guns for fire support. With the help of these means, the Soviet fleet could easily conduct a point landing operation in any corner of the Earth.

This is the "one-sidedness" ...

The Navy of the USSR was ruled by competent people who understood their goals and objectives perfectly: despite their smaller budget, the Russian Navy could adequately withstand even the mighty American fleet - the ships performed tasks anywhere in the oceans, defending the interests of their homeland.




The landing of Soviet marines on the island of Nokra (Ethiopia)
Soon a permanent logistics center for the Navy of the USSR will appear here.





Main caliber


Author:
349 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Canep
    Canep 15 July 2013 08: 58
    +83
    This article is for those respected members of the forum who sleep and see in the Russian Navy AUGs in an amount comparable to the number of those in the United States.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 15 July 2013 12: 36
      +13
      That's really, really, who is talking about what, and we have again "chm * ryat" aircraft carriers. In the capital work of V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky "The Navy of the USSR 1945-1991" provides calculation data that show that instead of building in 1960-1990 anti-aircraft forces, including 16 diesel boats with anti-ship missiles, 37 nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles, 19 cruisers, plus basic long-range missile-carrying aviation , it was possible to add 20 full-fledged aircraft carriers to our fleet, and move from a defensive task to the task of conquering supremacy at sea. If we really remember the Soviet Union, where did the author of the article have lost the plans to build our aircraft carrier ships, and the USSR began to build nuclear aircraft carriers of the Ulyanovsk project? We are covering the "wrong" Soviet fleet somehow, dear Oleg. Alas, today's Russia is not a mighty Soviet Union, calm down, mattress showers, sabotage, lobbies and betrayal finished off our aircraft carriers, "thank you" and the CIA, even what could be converted into aircraft carriers was destroyed, and the best for its time VTOL Yak -141. Now the main thing is money, and this is another song, according to someone else's notes, in which, unlike the USSR, it is unlikely that everything will be so cheaper here.
      1. Bronis
        Bronis 15 July 2013 13: 01
        +72
        The question is, how many escort ships are needed for 20 aircraft carriers? Look ...
        The problem of creating AUG is that the USSR could not make it quickly. It's not just about money or doctrine, it's about timing. Chamberlain needed an answer urgently.
        One should not overestimate the aircraft carriers, but they should not be belittled either. The USSR began to build them when it was ready technologically, economically, and the concept of its application matured. But the USSR-collapsed, not having time to implement plans ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 13: 16
          +19
          Quote: Bronis
          The question is, how many escort ships are needed for 20 aircraft carriers? Look ...

          Excuse me, but what - "vooot"? :) It was in the early USSR, the stigma "weapon of aggression" all the time wrote that an aircraft carrier needed a huge escort, and when they began to write about our TAVKR Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk, it was somehow unexpected it so happened that our AV escort is not needed at all - they quote from memory "complement the existing ship groupings, strengthening them and increasing their combat stability"
          The point is that there is no need to perceive the aircraft carrier as some kind of passive kalik who needs a huge escort, without which he can do nothing. This "escort" itself solves the most important tasks (such as striking cruise missiles on enemy territory, or the functions of an anti-aircraft defense system or the destruction of enemy ships, covering its own assault forces, etc.) - and the carrier aircraft provides reconnaissance, performs air defense, helps to solve issues PLO, and strongly strengthens the shock functions of the joint
          1. Bronis
            Bronis 15 July 2013 13: 56
            +18
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Excuse me, but what - "vooot"? :) It was in the early USSR, the stigma "weapon of aggression" all the time wrote that an aircraft carrier needed a huge escort, and when they began to write about our TAVKR Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk, it was somehow unexpected it turned out that our AV escort is not needed at all
            Yes, the question is complex, but still without cover the aircraft carrier oh how not just have to. And in the USSR, plans for escort ships for aircraft carriers were developed - the same projects of nuclear destroyers. The question is the implementation of the plans and the conclusions reached by the Navy theorists.
            To the point of absurdity, if the USSR had initially built many aircraft carriers, they would have to become the main striking force. And they would need to be covered (like the United States). But the reality is different. Aircraft carriers had to "fit" into the existing structure of the USSR Navy. Hence, somewhat different tasks - the aircraft carriers themselves, to a certain extent, became a guard for the squadrons.
            Well, about "vooot ..." - the fleet could be left without pants, because not only aircraft carriers are alive ...

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The point is that there is no need to perceive the aircraft carrier as some kind of passive kalik who needs a huge escort, without which he can do nothing. This "escort" itself solves the most important tasks (such as striking cruise missiles on enemy territory, or the functions of an anti-aircraft defense system or the destruction of enemy ships, covering its own assault forces, etc.) - and the carrier aircraft provides reconnaissance, performs air defense, helps to solve issues PLO, and strongly strengthens the shock functions of the joint
            drinks I agree completely. But all of them (both destroyers and aircraft carriers) are a little "kaliki", only together, complementing each other, they become a strike group. It is then that it acquires stability and combat effectiveness. And who "plays" the first violin depends on the concept of fleet development and combat use.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 14: 23
              +8
              Quote: Bronis
              But all of them (both destroyers and aircraft carriers) are a little "kaliki", only together, complementing each other, they become a strike group. It is then that it acquires stability and combat effectiveness. And who "plays" the first violin depends on the concept of fleet development and combat use.

              hi and definitely drinks
              1. Patriot.ru.
                Patriot.ru. 15 July 2013 21: 43
                +1
                "Aircraft carriers became cover for squadrons"

                Our aircraft carriers are able to defend themselves, in contrast to the SGA aircraft carriers.
            2. JonnyT
              JonnyT 15 July 2013 21: 13
              +6
              Lord! And what is the difference ...... can a missile cruiser carry out the tasks of an aircraft carrier?
              Instead of an airplane, a rocket, in my opinion, is much cheaper .....
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. dustycat
                dustycat 16 July 2013 17: 51
                +1
                At least for the whole pilot.
              3. Per se.
                Per se. 17 July 2013 16: 24
                +5
                Quote: JonnyT
                What is the difference ...... can a missile cruiser carry out the tasks of an aircraft carrier?
                Instead of an airplane, a rocket, in my opinion, is much cheaper .....
                Strongly said, from the heart. You were late, however, in this Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev thought deeper and broader, and was sure that here a cruiser is not needed, really, fuck it, if a rocket is a rocket without a cruiser. Another proposal, by the way, from our beloved author, is the replacement of aircraft carriers with basic aviation, a network of airfields on the islands and the coast, which is essentially the same - to leave the weapons "in another place." How much the network of such fixed airfields will cost, their maintenance and security is another question. The United States has 85% of all world military bases, nevertheless, these mercantile guys do not rely on land airfields. Come to an end, men, suffer garbage, an aircraft carrier will be needed as long as there is military aviation, war at sea.
            3. Aleksey_K
              Aleksey_K 17 July 2013 14: 27
              +10
              Dear Andrey from Chelyabinsk and Bronis! Your dispute is very interesting, but the absence of aircraft carriers in the USSR and Russia is caused not only by the amount of money for the construction of ships, aircraft and weapons. Let me remind you that any unit from the unit to the army is worth nothing without rear support. Now let's see the geography. The United States, like England, is a true maritime power. The USA is surrounded on three sides by ice-free seas and oceans, plus satellite countries: Canada, Panama and others. All cities on the coast - all ports. Now let's look at the USSR. 2 ports in the north: Murmansk and Arkhangelsk (the rest are freezing); 3 ports in the west: Kaliningrad, Kronstadt and Leningrad (partially freezing); in the east of the 3 port: Vladivostok, Yu-Sakhalinsk and P-Kamchatsky (the rest are completely freezing); in the south now Sevastopol, Novorossiysk. The USA has 10 aircraft carriers now. We have nowhere to maintain this armada of ships, we do not have such a number of ice-free ports. In addition, geographically almost all of our ports are easily blocked, which was felt during the 2-th World War. Therefore, we do not have the infrastructure for providing AUG. To do this, you need to build new ports, new cities, factories and the entire infrastructure, but the question is - where? That is why in the USSR, the Nazis did not break up to the Volga with the AUG!
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 14: 48
                +4
                Under Vissarionych, infrastructure and basing issues were dealt with very seriously. In fact, almost more was spent on the same infrastructure for the planned Sovetsky Soyuz aircraft than on the battleships themselves :) Well, I have such a question - if someone was already laying the cruisers of the Stalingrad project with more than 40 thousand tons of displacement, then what prevented the placement of smaller ABs?
                This is if you take the situation on after the war. And in the future - there is the Pacific and North of the USSR, and there and there it disposed of the GIANT fleet. And infrastructure is needed even for nuclear submarines, even for AV
              2. s1н7т
                s1н7т 18 July 2013 22: 35
                +4
                I would add - the AUG did not quite correspond to the ideology of the USSR. AUG is a weapon of colonial wars that were alien to us. And to maintain these colossi in case of some Vietnam or Angola is a little expensive, they were single. So the composition of the Navy of the USSR was quite reasonable - we could snap back anywhere in the world’s oceans, and to whom it seems a little - there is SSBN.
              3. novobranets
                novobranets 19 July 2013 16: 37
                +4
                I completely agree with Alexei K. I can only add that the Soviet military doctrine regarded aircraft carriers as an offensive weapon, and therefore foreign to the Soviet system. Understanding of the need to have aircraft carriers in the Navy came late.
          2. carbofo
            carbofo 16 July 2013 18: 13
            +3
            Actually, a considerable cover is needed, but unlike the Americans, our aircraft carrier has a lot of weapons on board, including not quite defensive ones, and even without airplanes it is a ship that is quite capable of snarling.
            6 × 6 AK-630 (48 000 shells)
            Missile weapons 12 × launcher PKKK Granit
            4 × 2 ZRAK “Dagger” (256 missiles, 48 shells)
            4 × 6 PU dagger (192 missiles)
            Anti-submarine weapons 2 × 10 RBU-12000 (60 bombs)
            for comparison, the composition of the aircraft carrier "Nimitz"
            2x Sea RAM
            2x Sea Sparrow
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 18: 19
              +4
              Quote: carbofo
              In fact, a cover is needed and considerable

              Tell me at least one ship in the American AUG, which is used solely to cover the aircraft carrier and has no other tasks
              1. carbofo
                carbofo 17 July 2013 10: 57
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Tell me at least one ship in the American AUG, which is used solely to cover the aircraft carrier and has no other tasks

                Any ship has both defensive and offensive weapons.
                In the warrant, each ship has a primary and secondary task.
                As a rule, the destroyer’s job is to protect cruisers and aircraft carriers from submarines, aircraft and anti-ship missiles.
                Sometimes, due to their versatility, they are attracted to shock operations, such as firing tomahawks on ground targets.
                In principle, no ship can be sharpened for a single task, there is simply a certain specialization, the exception is probably only minesweepers that are sharpened by search for and destruction of mines and also their deployment, nevertheless even they have certain combat capabilities to repel an air or underwater attack.
                So in answer to your question, I can say the following: there are no ships fully and completely tailored for one single task, as a rule, certain classes of ships are simply better suited for certain tasks, therefore their capabilities in this matter are increasing.
                Well, since the aircraft carrier itself will not be engaged in the search and attack of the submarine, the destroyers are engaged in this task, it is clearly better for them, and it is cheaper to lose the destroyer if by chance it runs into a defensive torpedo from the stern vehicle than to lose the aircraft carrier.
                If we take our fleet, then pay attention to almost all the ships were called anti-submarine !!! from the frigate to the cruiser, however, this did not stop having weapons on board from which entire AUGs shy away.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 16: 09
                  +5
                  Quote: carbofo
                  Well, since the aircraft carrier itself will not be engaged in the search and attack of the submarine, destroyers are engaged in this, they are obviously better at it,

                  Uh-huh, what was the anti-submarine Viking squadron doing on the aircraft carrier? You see, a ship's anti-submarine capabilities are largely determined by the number of helicopters based on it. Simply because, in theory, both the submarine and the destroyer can hear each other both 30 and 40 km away, but only the US destroyer with its ASROK is able to declare itself from a distance of 10-20 km (and even then up to 20 km seems to be quite recently finished shot, it was 10 earlier) but our nuclear submarine, without hesitation, is able to slap an anti-ship missile into it so that the sky seems like a sheepskin. And the pepelats is capable of checking thousands of square kilometers with seapoons and treating the submarine with a torpedo at a safe distance from the destroyer :))) But the destroyers were usually based on 2 helicopters, but the aircraft carrier carried at least 8 of them plus the same number of anti-submarine aircraft, which were even more effective than helicopters. So who and whom covered from the submarine is a baaaal question :)))
                  Quote: carbofo
                  So in answer to your question I can say the following

                  I will answer the following - the primary combat mission. And tasks such as:
                  1) Supporting the coastal flanks of the army and delivering strikes on the coastal infrastructure of the enemy
                  2) Destruction of the forces of the enemy fleet in the ocean
                  3) Cover for deployment of the SSBN areas
                  it will perform a connection that includes an aircraft carrier better and better than a connection that does not have one
                  1. carbofo
                    carbofo 17 July 2013 17: 13
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Uh-huh, what was the anti-submarine Viking squadron doing on the aircraft carrier?

                    I took the brackets out of aviation because I answered a relatively specific question regarding the specialization of ships, not aviation.
                    The submarine always hears further by definition, surface ships have a lot of noise.
                    The targets of the submarine defense are not limited to destroyers alone, the distant submarine patrol on the air group.
                    A combat mission is what needs to be done, and how exactly this is already being solved by the ship / unit / AUG commander.
                    The combat mission is a priority, but nevertheless this is not the only task of the ship, in addition to it, the tasks of submarine defense, air defense, mine danger, navigational guidance, and so on are constantly being performed.
                    Several ships with good air defense can scare away anyone who wants to watch the submarine. It is not necessary to carry an entire operational connection for this; for the SSBN, the best cover is an attack boat, and not surface ships.
                    Although this question is probably all the same to submariners.
                    And actually the main thing, our military doctrine does not imply a treacherous attack, it is of a defensive nature.
                    This doesn’t stop the honey from dragging our missile cruiser for each of the American aircraft carriers, so that they wouldn’t relax!
            2. Starina_hank
              Starina_hank 16 July 2013 19: 53
              +1
              However, the aircraft did not count at all!
          3. dustycat
            dustycat 16 July 2013 18: 34
            +5
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            - and carrier-based aviation provides reconnaissance, performs air defense, helps solve problems, deals with air defense, and strongly enhances the shock functions of the compound


            When looking at naval manuals for the most likely ally, you always come across air defense frigates, air defense destroyers, air defense cruisers, an air defense ship and other surface ships with the addition of air defense.
            Do not recall how many specific ships specifically for air defense were in the fleet of the USSR?

            And why is it so extolled by the super-expensive Aegis Americans began to arm every vessel suitable for accommodating Aegis in a row?
            But the Aegis equipment greatly limits the possibilities of using a ship armed with it - it does not have electromagnetic compatibility with the standard weapon guidance systems of her. Despite the fact that it cannot directly control the armament of the vessel. Those. if a certain escort ship pulled out its anti-aircraft / missile defense missiles and drowned or simply turned off - missiles without a missile system were forgotten. Or if the ship's commander decided to show off and perform a feat - he can simply ignore Aegis's recommendations. Then maybe there will be a trial, if something stays afloat from the AUG.
            A close examination of Aegis itself is primarily just an information network system. Better than our Redoubt (the code data transmission to Aegis Absolute and the communication facilities themselves are specially adapted for it, while any of Reduta's radio stations can become a BIUS suppression station, the inclusion of a combat unit in the Aegims system is fully automated, when in Redut you need to dance with tambourine, manual support of the switched field telephone network in Redoubt is generally something). Aegis is primarily an information system.
            And all superradars, supersonars, Aegis superweapons are part of the armament of the carrier base vessel.
            And with all this, the central vessel in the AUG can only be one ship in the AUG. Because of this, it is impossible to increase the probability of intercepting a group target by simply building up AUG vessels. Even with a simple combination of AUGs, the number of simultaneously tracked and fired targets does not radically increase.
            That's why cruisers like PetrPervy and PLARK pr.949 are called the killer of the AUG - any such unit of missiles can neutralize more than Aegis and there is enough remaining volley to complete the main mission. Yes, after a volley of them krants and eternal memory. But the task is completed and the ratio of losses in lives is not in favor of the enemy.
            Well, whose fleet is wrong?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 19: 52
              +2
              Quote: dustycat
              While looking at the manuals of the Navy of the most likely ally, you always come across air defense frigates, air defense destroyers

              Let's take a closer look from this place. Oliver X Perry is an air defense frigate? Would you like a reference book? And the RRC "Ticonderoga"? Is this an air defense cruiser? Maybe the destroyer "Arlie Burke" is listed in some reference book as an air defense destroyer? :))) Excuse me, dear, but where did you see the US air defense ships? Well, at least one? :)))
              Quote: dustycat
              But Aegis equipment greatly reduces the possibilities of using a ship armed with it - it doesn’t have electromagnetic compatibility with standard weapon systems

              Sorry, but here I don't even know what to say. Aegis, in fact, is a combat information and control system (BIUS), and as such it simply cannot interfere with "other weapons". Aegis integrates the control of almost all control systems and ship armament, including air defense. To consider Aegis as an air defense system that interferes with something is at least strange ...
              Aegis is installed on ships for one simple reason - because it increases the power of the ship, and very significantly. We are also trying with might and main to introduce BIUS on our ships, although we have not yet achieved a similar level of system interaction. In any case, Aegis has nothing to do with escorting an aircraft carrier - it is useful both on the AUG ship and on the KUG ship, i.e. it is valuable in no way tied to an aircraft carrier
              Quote: dustycat
              Because of this, it is impossible to increase the probability of intercepting a group target by simply building up AUG vessels

              Perhaps, only now, without BIUS, we cannot be sure even that within the limits of ONE even Peter the Great, all metal cutters will not aim at one "harpoon" out of two flying into the ship.
              Quote: dustycat
              Even with a simple combination of AUGs, the number of simultaneously tracked and fired targets does not radically increase.

              It just does increase, because a more accurate distribution of targets is possible than for ships without a CIRCUIT
              Quote: dustycat
              That's why cruisers like PetrPervy and PLNAR pr.949 are called the killer of AUG - any such unit of missiles can neutralize more than Aegis

              Sorry, but this is far from a fact. Granite (if it does not shoot from 125 km) will go along a high-altitude path. AUG order he will copy kilometers from 70 (well if) and only then will go down. I don’t know where Spy-1 will draw it from, but American ships will have kilometers 80-100 of Granite’s flight. And at the height of the Granite - nothing more than an ordinary supersonic aircraft, the defeat of which in general is not particularly difficult. I’m silent about the air patrol and air defense patrol AUG.
              Neither 949A nor the Great have their own means to detect AUGs at a distance of a Granite volley. At the same time, our KUG aviation is capable of detecting over 900-1000 km. And destroy.
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 17 July 2013 07: 57
                +1
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk

                And why can not assign the tasks of detecting the AUG and pointing missiles at helicopters and vertical take-off aircraft? Almost all modern ships (including those built in the 70-80ee) have a helipad, and some Soviet ships, such as Moscow, also had a hangar with a short flight deck.

                As far as I understand, such an aircraft / several aircraft from different KUG ships can operate under the cover of the KUG air defense, or, for its protection, a separate air defense ship can be put forward to protect it from air patrol. But, in the worst case, he will have time to detect the enemy and make target designation for launching missiles with KUG ships.
                Such tactics were followed, for example, by the Japanese during WWII, when seaplanes ejected from SRT were used for reconnaissance.
                You can also use large AWACS aircraft, for example A-50 under the guise of fighters operating from coastal airfields with the support of a tanker.

                Personally, I am against "pure" AB in principle. Because anti-ship missiles are much more effective and cheaper in attack than aircraft. Therefore, "Kuzya rules" (c), it has both K-K missile armament and a flight deck from which fighters that enhance the long-range air defense of the KUG and RLO aircraft can take off.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 08: 25
                  +3
                  Quote: alicante11
                  And why can not assign the tasks of detecting the AUG and pointing missiles at helicopters and vertical take-off aircraft?

                  Because both of them will be knocked down long before they can find something.
                  The standard air defense patrol of an enemy aircraft carrier is an 1 early warning radar (AWACS) EW aircraft (capable of also conducting electronic reconnaissance) and an 2-4 fighter. And all this is moving forward in a dangerous direction. Patrol line - 300 km from the aircraft carrier. At the same time, the DRL does not include its radar. In case of increased danger, two such patrols rise - one at 300 km from the aircraft carrier, the second at 600 km.
                  In order for a helicopter or VTOL aircraft to detect the enemy from afar, it is necessary that he turn on his own radar. But her work will be immediately detected by an electronic warfare aircraft. After that, the AWACS radar is already turned on (and it is much more powerful than anything that can be placed on a helicopter or VTOL) and directs its own fighters. Everything, there was a helicopter - and there is no helicopter.
                  Quote: alicante11
                  As far as I understand, such an aircraft / several aircraft from different KUG ships can operate under the cover of the KUG air defense, or, for its protection, a separate air defense ship can be put forward to protect it from air patrol

                  And how will he protect him, sorry? A ship can use its own Zur only if its radar sees an enemy aircraft. At the same time, a helicopter hanging over a ship can be shot down by a plane hiding from the ship behind a radio horizon. In addition, the helicopter, even having climbed 10 thousand meters above the ship (and he is not capable of it) will have a radio horizon of the order of 430-450 km. Well, the air defense patrol will detect you from the same 450 km + 300 km - the distance from the patrol to the AUG. And even further.
                  Quote: alicante11
                  You can also use large AWACS aircraft, for example A-50 under the guise of fighters operating from coastal airfields with the support of a tanker.

                  If we are talking about AUG, which approached several hundred kilometers to our shore - then yes. If nearby there are airfields with fighter jets, tankers and A-50. If the enemy is farther away, then ... A-50 will not stock up, and fighters certainly.
                  Quote: alicante11
                  Personally, I am against "pure" AB in principle.

                  so you know almost nothing about them
                  Quote: alicante11
                  Since anti-ship missiles are much more effective and cheaper to attack than airplanes.

                  Who told you such nonsense? :) Only a dozen "Super Hornets" are capable of striking 24 really cheap Harpoons at a distance of 1100 km from AB without entering the air defense zone of the enemy formation (over-the-horizon launch). The same 12 Hornets at a distance of 650 km will strike with 48 Harpoons. Well, the "Great" can attack the AUG only from 550 km, and its "Granites" in size and cost correspond to a light combat aircraft.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 08: 30
                    +6
                    Quote: alicante11
                    Therefore, "Kuzya rules"

                    Kuzya loses to the classic aircraft carrier in almost everything. The number of the air group is small, the speed of the aircraft’s rise into the air is again lower, because it is slower to start from a springboard than from four American catapults. Kuzmich cannot carry AWACS in principle, because they cannot take off from a springboard, they need a catapult. If a dozen Granites warms your soul ... And who will let him go 550 km to the order? The States are well aware of the presence of these missiles (while they were), therefore, with the introduction of Kuznetsov, they seriously began to practice the application of massive air strikes at a distance of 1200 km. The aircraft carrier has a much longer arm, and the presence of AWACS points gives Americans such global advantages over which even the superiority of the Su-33 fades over the Hornets
                    1. alicante11
                      alicante11 17 July 2013 09: 37
                      0
                      So I do not compare its aviation capabilities with the capabilities of the classic AB. But you must admit that fighters and RLO and EW aircraft can be based on it, which will 100% enable shipborne air defense systems to shoot down enemy aircraft "beyond the radio horizon." Instead of attack aircraft, he uses missiles.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 10: 02
                        +2
                        Quote: alicante11
                        But you must admit that it can be based on fighters and aircraft RLO and EW,

                        Electronic warfare - yes, if you make a modification of the Su-33 in the image of the "growler", but the RLO - nothing. For takeoff from a springboard, a thrust-to-weight ratio is needed, which an AWACS aircraft does not and cannot have
                        Quote: alicante11
                        which will 100% enable shipborne air defense systems to shoot down enemy aircraft "beyond the radio horizon."

                        While this is not possible, as I wrote to you below.
                      2. alicante11
                        alicante11 17 July 2013 10: 13
                        0
                        I'm not talking about AWACS. But isn’t it possible for an aircraft with lower characteristics, equipment with which to place on it? Or, say, a seaplane. For the AWACS aircraft there are no special requirements for aerodynamics, since it is not involved in battles.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 10: 22
                        +3
                        Quote: alicante11
                        But isn’t it possible for an aircraft with lower characteristics, equipment with which to place on it?

                        You see, here everything rests on the thrust-weight ratio of the 4 generation fighter. And nothing of the kind will fit into the dimensions of the fighter.
                        Quote: alicante11
                        Or, say, a seaplane.

                        :)) The thought is certainly witty, but even the heavy Be-12 Seagull has only 3 seaworthiness score.
                      4. alicante11
                        alicante11 17 July 2013 10: 47
                        0
                        With RLO it’s clear.

                        :)) The thought is certainly witty, but even the heavy Be-12 Seagull has only 3 seaworthiness score.


                        And with AV aircraft, AWACS can take off at what point? Maybe use a catapult launch with a splashdown?
                        The idea is not mine, "everything has already been stolen before us" - this has already happened before.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 12: 00
                        +2
                        Quote: alicante11
                        And with AV aircraft, AWACS can take off at what point?

                        at least - 5 points, but maybe more
                        Quote: alicante11
                        Maybe use a catapult launch with a splashdown?

                        What for? Landing a plane is not a problem, the problem is takeoff
                      6. alicante11
                        alicante11 18 July 2013 02: 22
                        -1
                        Well, so the catapult for this is done to take off.
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 July 2013 10: 56
                        +3
                        So there are no catapults on Kuznetsovo.
                      8. ivanov valentin
                        ivanov valentin 18 July 2013 15: 21
                        0
                        Yes, there are no catapults on Kuznetsov, something else is interesting, in the conditions of flights, for example, in the Barents Sea or in the Okhotsk Sea, any American aircraft carrier is a piece of iron, aviation is on the deck. Since the restrictions on pitching - 1,5 ... 2 degrees, and onboard - 3 ... 3,5 degrees, rolling, wind speed above the deck is not more than 20 m / sec., Takeoff and landing operations for horizontally taking off aircraft are impossible , at a temperature of 0 degrees, and below freezing of the tracks of steam catapults can quickly disable the catapult. Kuznetsov received and released aircraft on December 20 in the Barents Sea, therefore it is entered in the Guinness Book of Records as a ship providing the most winter and high-latitude flights in the world. Therefore, the aircraft carrier "Essex" was once in the Norwegian Sea in the 70s and only in August.
                      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 July 2013 16: 32
                        +3
                        Quote: ivanov valentin
                        Since the keel restrictions are 1,5 ... 2 degrees, and the airborne ones are 3 ... 3,5 degrees, pitching, wind speed above the deck is not more than 20 m / s, take-off and landing operations for horizontally taking off planes are impossible, at a temperature of 0 gr., and below freezing of the tracks of steam catapults can quickly disable the catapult.

                        Excuse me, but officially Nimitz provides a rise in aviation with a roughness of 5 points, and experienced crews can take off up to 7 points (flights stop at 7) That up to 20 m / s is somehow even surprising, since the speed of an aircraft carrier is 30 knots - 15,4 m / s and aircraft usually take off at this speed of an aircraft carrier. And they feel good :)) As a matter of fact, WWII planes took off at such speeds.
                        About freezing - there are a lot of rumors, but there was no reliable information. Moreover, if anything, then clearing the track is an order of magnitude easier than clearing the Kuznetsov springboard.
                      10. ivanov valentin
                        ivanov valentin 19 July 2013 21: 59
                        0
                        "Nimitz" may provide aircraft takeoff, but there is no landing on the AF, with a wind of more than 20 m / s there will be a breakdown of the flow behind the stern, and with pitching 2 degrees, the vertical course of the stern will be 2-3,5 meters with a ship length of 330 meters, with a passage height of the stern of the aircraft 4-5 meters, there is a high probability of hitting the stern. "Nimitz" is certainly a large ship, but it is not immune from strong winds and rolling. But the freezing of the catapult track leads to breakage of the shuttle and the failure of the catapult, ice will have to be chipped after each takeoff, ice is formed very intensively in places where superheated steam escapes, and the springboard does not freeze during flights at subzero temperatures. "Nimitz" will not go north in winter, he never went north of France.
                      11. dustycat
                        dustycat 19 July 2013 22: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                        About freezing - there are a lot of rumors, but there was no reliable information. Moreover, if anything, then clearing the track is an order of magnitude easier than clearing the Kuznetsov springboard.

                        Which generally can not be cleaned, but simply doused with sea water if the snow is more than 10cm.
                        There is evidence that anti-ice grease in the catapults thickens so much that it wedges.
                        Steam ultrahigh pressure having done the business cools to hoarfrost and settles on the rails. Beautiful icicles above steam pipelines in places of fistulas form from zero and below - those who worked in enterprises using hot steam know this and have seen it. Although they are blowing from a very hot pipe.
                      12. ivanov valentin
                        ivanov valentin 19 July 2013 22: 37
                        +1
                        Keep in mind that when firing catapults, the shuttle moves along the track, and a special tape follows the shuttle, closing the gap in the track so that steam does not escape from the catapult cylinders and does not get into the air intakes of the aircraft, overheated steam at the entrance to the aircraft gas turbine engine is take-off surge with all the ensuing consequences. So these units, shuttle, track and tape, are very carefully adjusted to each other, they are afraid of any mechanical damage, including ice. By the way, in Norfolk during the Cold War, nasal fittings for aircraft carriers in the form of springboards were stored in case of catapult failure from combat damage.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 17 July 2013 09: 32
    -1
    And how will he protect him, sorry? A ship can use its own Zur only if its radar sees an enemy aircraft. At the same time, a helicopter hanging over a ship can be shot down by a plane hiding from the ship behind a radio horizon.


    So a helicopter is above this horizon. And he will see the enemy’s aircraft and will give target designation for missiles. Which will destroy either the plane or the missiles fired by it.

    If we are talking about AUG, which approached several hundred kilometers to our shore - then yes. If nearby there are airfields with fighter jets, tankers and A-50. If the enemy is farther away, then ... A-50 will not stock up, and fighters certainly.


    Well, for Russia, this is exactly what it is. In the far sea zone, we can only have one KUG, which can be built around the Kuzi.
    And for the USSR there was no problem with the TPZ and fighter jets. In principle, the AWACS plane goes after the released KUG. In its cover, 2-3 fighters are replaced, which depart at the line of the TPZ location and then return.

    so you know almost nothing about them


    Excuse me, but did I run over you? I want to find out how applicable these or those options. If you do not want to answer, if this is above your "I", then it is better not to do it at all.

    Who told you such nonsense? :) Only a dozen "Super Hornets" are capable of striking 24 really cheap Harpoons at a distance of 1100 km from AB without entering the air defense zone of the enemy formation (over-the-horizon launch). The same 12 Hornets at a distance of 650 km will strike with 48 Harpoons. Well, the "Great" can attack the AUG only from 550 km, and its "Granites" in size and cost correspond to a light combat aircraft.


    I said. And this is not stupidity. Air defense systems of the S-300 type have the ability to hit over-the-horizon targets, having external target designation. Which can be produced in many ways. One of which I would like to discuss with you as a person "in the subject". So a dozen super hornets will be lying at the bottom 1100 km from AB or 650 km, no difference.
    Given the development of air defense systems, most aircraft are "disposable".
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 09: 59
      +2
      Quote: alicante11
      So a helicopter is above this horizon. And he will see the enemy’s aircraft and will give target designation for missiles.

      Sorry, but at today's level of technology this is not possible. Those. theoretically, it is possible to put the illumination radar into the helicopter, but then it will not perform any reconnaissance functions - for this, a general view radar is needed, which cannot direct the missile defense system. The helicopters were able to direct only anti-ship missiles, (Ka-31), but even the central control unit was sent to the fighter for them - the task was beyond their powers. Well, maybe on the air to shout - "bandits at six o'clock!"
      Quote: alicante11
      And for the USSR there was no problem with the TPZ and fighter jets. In principle, the AWACS plane goes after the released KUG.

      The only problem is that at least 1 fighters at the aerodrome are needed to ensure the round-the-clock duty of the 500 fighter, at least 8 km from the airfield. And airfields are usually designed to receive a regiment (i.e., about 30 cars), which will provide very well if 3-4 patrol cars. A typical strike by American carrier-based aircraft against a complex target (such as our KUG) involves the use of 30-40 aircraft, of which one third to half are fighters.
      Will you fight a lot?
      Quote: alicante11
      Excuse me, but did I run into you?

      So this is not a collision. This is a statement of fact. I don’t know much either. A lot of things. And not at all embarrassed. Because to not know something is not a shame, a shame to pretend to be a connoisseur in matters that you do not know. Personally, I try to avoid swelling my cheeks in every way, and I don’t notice anything like that for you. You communicate culturally, and there are no complaints against you. But since you feel hurt, I apologize, and I assure you that hitting you was completely out of my plans.
      Quote: alicante11
      C-300 type air defense systems have the ability to hit horizontal targets with external target designation.

      Almost all C-300 missiles, such as 48Н6E, 48Н6E2, 9М82, 9М83 have a semi-active seeker, which means that a special radar is required to hit a target. Those. such missiles can hit the enemy EXCLUSIVELY within the radio horizon. There is also 9М96Е1 and 9М96Е2 (are there any? Or are they still being developed? I don’t know for sure) - these have an active GOS, but the fact is that it turns on some kilometers in 10 from the target, and on the march section (like all SAM ) It is adjusted according to general-purpose radars or specialized radars. Which, in order to adjust the flight of SAM, again you need to see the target crying
      You see, at one time I also had an idea - it would be great to take and put the radar to direct active missiles with active seeker into a helicopter or UAV and even hang it over the ship - and then it’s really a shy who will sneak up. But the problem is that nothing like this yet exists in any fleet of the world (and it is not clear when it can exist)
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 17 July 2013 10: 21
        0
        Sorry, but at today's level of technology this is not possible. Those. theoretically, it is possible to put the illumination radar into the helicopter, but then it will not perform any reconnaissance functions - for this, a general view radar is needed, which cannot direct the missile defense system. The helicopters were able to direct only anti-ship missiles, (Ka-31), but even the central control unit was sent to the fighter for them - the task was beyond their powers. Well, maybe on the air to shout - "bandits at six o'clock!"


        Clear. But how were these issues resolved in the Soviet Navy, if at all?

        The only problem is that at least 1 fighters at the aerodrome are needed to ensure the round-the-clock duty of the 500 fighter, at least 8 km from the airfield. And airfields are usually designed to receive a regiment (i.e., about 30 cars), which will provide very well if 3-4 patrol cars. A typical strike by American carrier-based aircraft against a complex target (such as our KUG) involves the use of 30-40 aircraft, of which one third to half are fighters.
        Will you fight a lot?


        So I do not mean war, but only cover for the AWACS aircraft. For this, just enough 2-3 fighter. Since when a mass raid will take place on them, they will be able to detect it and dodge.

        But since you feel hurt, I apologize, and I assure you that hitting you was completely out of my plans.


        Clear. Well, I just don't think I know "nothing." I still know something, at least how the con looks :).

        Almost all C-300 missiles, such as 48Н6E, 48Н6E2, 9М82, 9М83 have a semi-active seeker, which means that a special radar is required to hit the target.


        Clear. Can a DRLO aircraft perform these tasks?
        It’s just that, if I remember correctly, when discussing Moscow’s chances against the AUG in SM, you said that target designation for the Hornets during over-the-horizon missile launch would also be issued by a deck aircraft. I don’t remember which truth.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 10: 30
        +4
        Quote: alicante11
        Clear. But how were these issues resolved in the Soviet Navy, if at all?

        Unfortunately, they did not decide at all. However, in no fleet of the world there are no such decisions
        Quote: alicante11
        So I do not mean war, but only cover for the AWACS aircraft. For this, just enough 2-3 fighter. Since when a mass raid will take place on them, they will be able to detect it and dodge.

        They can do it, but there aren’t any ships! :)))
        Quote: alicante11
        Can a DRLO aircraft perform these tasks?

        Rumors that the Americans are trying to teach their new AWACS E-2D "Edvanst Hawkeye" are circulating. But here the thing is - American technology is generally surrounded by a sea of ​​rumors, and if everyone listens to them, it’s better to go straight to the grave, because according to rumors, Maid Yusei is invincible :))) In fact, it is not at all such, but official I have not seen any statements on this matter.
      3. alicante11
        alicante11 17 July 2013 10: 49
        0
        They can do it, but there aren’t any ships! :)))


        So they will fulfill their task of target designation.

        Regarding AWACS, I meant - heavy - like A-50.
      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 11: 55
        +3
        Excuse me, but what does it mean - do it? A-50 "sketches" enemy aircraft, after which ours will have to retreat. After that, a pair of "Khokaevs" hangs for 300 kilometers from our KUG, and strike squadrons at low altitude go on the attack, launching missiles from distances of 70-100 km, from under the radio horizon, i.e. out of sight of shipborne radars.
        Suppose A-50 even survived somehow, hanging over our ships. So what? All he can do is communicate multiple goals from such and such a course. It's all. From what you know about the presence of enemy aircraft, the ability to destroy them is not added to you.
      5. alicante11
        alicante11 17 July 2013 12: 00
        0
        I do not understand. Hokai perform what tasks? Targeting? Or just detection? If just detection, are the harpoons homing without target illumination?
      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 12: 14
        +3
        Hawkeye controls the sky. Those. he has a conventional general detection radar. But due to the equipment placed on it, it keeps a multitude of targets (and its own aircraft) at the same time escorted and also issues target designation to its fighter aircraft. Those. the pilot of an enemy fighter, who is "led" by the "hockey", knows about the location of the enemy without using his own radar. Without turning on the radar, it is practically invisible to the aircraft it is attacking, since the fighter radar operates in a certain sector and it is possible to plan the attack so as not to fall into this sector. So the hockey player controls the AIRPLANE, but not his weapon :) But when an enemy fighter reaches the range of using weapons, then instead of scanning the entire space in front of him along the sector that is maximally accessible for his radar, he traces the target - i.e. directs a narrow thin beam to the location of the enemy aircraft - after all, he knows. As a result, even if the planes are equipped with radars of the same performance characteristics, the fighter that Hawkeye directs will have an advantage. As a result, he attacks, while his target still does not see who came after him. Those. takes Hokai to the target, and points the weapon - the fighter itself
        Quote: alicante11
        If just detection, are the harpoons homing without target illumination?

        And there is. The harpoon has an active GOS (AGSN) and an inertial guidance system. Those. if Hokai gives out (and he gives out) the exact coordinates of the enemy compound, then the inertial system of the harpoon leads the missile exactly to the point where the order should be (taking into account the speed of the order, its course and the time of launch of the rocket) - and there the harpoon cuts its AGSN ( that is, he carries his radar with him) and begins an active search for targets.
        Unlike Harpoon, SAM can’t afford such a thing - the plane is a much faster target, and GOS Zur is smaller and weaker than that of Harpoon, and the Zur’s target is much smaller. the harpoon is capable of capturing the target in 4-5 tens of kilometers and even more; SAM - 10-15 km. Therefore, missiles cannot be launched simply on an inertial, its flight must be adjusted. This is what a general-purpose radar does - seeing the target and position of the missile launcher (their courses, speeds, etc.), it transmits this data to the computer, which adjust the course of the missile launcher so that it goes exactly to the target, and when the missile is brought to it at 10 km - cuts AGSN
        I clearly explained?
      7. alicante11
        alicante11 17 July 2013 12: 19
        0
        And A-50 can not do this for missiles?
      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 13: 38
        +2
        None of the AWACS aircraft can. and A-50 can't either
      9. alicante11
        alicante11 17 July 2013 14: 47
        0
        Clear. And then why put such an air defense system on ships if it is impossible to use it? Maybe it would be easier to put more medium-range air defense systems?
  • dustycat
    dustycat 19 July 2013 22: 22
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: alicante11
    So a helicopter is above this horizon. And he will see the enemy’s aircraft and will give target designation for missiles.

    Sorry, but at today's technology level this is not possible.

    It is possible and practical.
    Means for this are developed.
    Use different radars to illuminate the target for GOS and detection - even mattresses had not thought of this before. And how does the Cube work with one magnetron ?!
    Another thing is that Russia has mathematics and there is no technology, and mattresses have technologies, but there is no mathematics (for now). At the same time, mattresses do not really respect math.
    She for them is one of the signs of a man of rain.

    But there are nippons. They’re not very good at inventing, but they know how to use what is invented. Like the Chinese.
    And they showed something like that five years ago.
    Since then, silence is dead. And suspicious.

    By the way, any USSR air defense system was able to work and is guided by the radar of a remote position. At the same time, they used detection and illumination with a single radar. Hitch a radar or three to a helicopter - the same Harmony - what's the problem ?! There would be communication channels - fuels and lubricants, TsDMMA, LTE.
    The redoubt has nothing to do here. Aegis has the opportunity.
  • dustycat
    dustycat 19 July 2013 21: 46
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Here from this place, let's get more. Is Oliver X Perry an Air Defense frigate?

    I don’t remember the details. I’m too lazy to climb into the Internet.
    Something about 40 anti-aircraft missiles and 4 or 5 anti-ship missiles - you want to call it a frigate of guided missile weapons, but the main task (by which they are classified) of its weapons is air defense.
    And his radar is excellent in all respects.
    With the rest, practically the same.
    The search engine gives out so much on request "US air defense ships" - you will read it.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    Aegis, in fact, is a combat information and control system (BIUS), and as such it simply cannot interfere with "other weapons".

    Radio transmitters interfere with each other, unfortunately. Especially working in pulsed mode, transmitting pulsed signals and with high power.
    Historically - the Yankee code division of channels (CDMA) was not held in high esteem - there were good high-quality analog filters on quartz and the task of channel compression by analog compression was solved simply and therefore easily fell into the MILS standard.
    The problem is that the compaction and digital signal transmission equipment creates a bunch of pulses with a lot of out-of-band noise.
    In our land redoubt, this is decided by frequency diversity. Aegis has the same.
    Physics doesn’t care what language the student has and what flag is prettier to him.
    There are few frequencies in the transceiver and not always enough for everyone in the escort (and radar too).
    Our fleet and the BIUS troops also need to - look at the picture of the squadron in line-by-line formation - you can’t skip the flag - our screws will rinse - when there is no BIUS, it’s impossible to use weapons without risk.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    Neither 949A nor the Great have their own means to detect AUGs at a distance of a Granite volley. At the same time, our KUG aviation is capable of detecting over 900-1000 km. And destroy.

    Why do they need to know their AUG coordinates to the nearest mile?
    Granites are bulged to the area of ​​the last reliable coordinates of the AUG and then hunt in a pack on their own.
    Up to the point that the first rocket that found the AUG specifies the coordinates for those coming from behind who "knowing" that where they go into a supersonic flight in the zone of radar noise from waves.
    Where are the coordinates from? From communication vessels constantly dangling within sight of the AUG. This is their main function. Everything else - data collection, radio interception, field measurement - so that the service does not seem like honey.
    Yes, it is theoretically possible to detect them in 2000km.
    The question is how many goals and data will the BIUS be able to digest.
    Anyone who tries to run counter-strike on a very weak machine will be able to see the Aegis behavior with too many targets.
    That is how mattresses with the help of Aegis blocked the Iranian passenger Boeing - there were too many goals.
    Low parallelization of calculations in Aegis in the presence of several fairly powerful on-board computers on several order ships - so far, remains the main complaint of NAVI.
    By the way, LTE technology was the answer to this claim. Not just because its range is almost the same as that of GPS. Transfer as much data as possible from one processor to another - the only way to parallelize the calculations in Aegis and conduct more goals. But the military did not accept the technology. (Or maybe they did, and all of this is part of the plan.)
  • Per se.
    Per se. 15 July 2013 13: 28
    +10
    Quote: Bronis
    One should not overestimate the aircraft carriers, but they should not be belittled either. The USSR began to build them when it was ready technologically, economically, and the concept of its application matured.
    So, this is what we are talking about, competing with the Yankees on aircraft carriers was not worth and is not worth it, they would have built 20 for our 40, but you need to have a full-fledged fleet, strive for a full-fledged fleet, and not preemptively limit yourself here. More and more countries are starting to build aircraft carriers or want to have them, and we have an endless requiem for aircraft carriers. We must look for opportunities, not reasons, then we will have aircraft-carrying ships and our own VTOL aircraft with tiltrotors. Otherwise, there will always be those "economists" for whom a grenade launcher is cheaper than a tank, and one bullet for a trained and equipped soldier.
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 15 July 2013 14: 04
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      full fleet

      "Complete or incomplete" is difficult to define. The ship building cycles are huge, as are the costs of them. Shipbuilding programs should also be calculated in decades of systematic work. The Soviet Navy did not have such luxury. The holes were closed as best they could. Hence the diversity and specific focus. And the original goal of the USSR Navy was participation in a global conflict of superpowers, and not local conflicts. It was not up to them ... to ensure survival. Later they began to think about the notorious "balance" ... but too late ...
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 15 July 2013 14: 53
        +5
        Quote: Bronis
        "Complete or incomplete" is difficult to define.
        As you remember, Comrade Stalin had a program of building an ocean-going fleet; even before the war, super-battleships of the "Soviet Union" type, new cruisers, destroyers and submarines were laid. A full-fledged oceanic fleet was supposed, in which there would be a place for aircraft carriers, along with nuclear boats, and, I have no doubt, this fleet would be built. Comrade Khrushchev began to create a defective fleet, with his "asymmetric" solution in favor of some missiles. Global conflict is a consequence of unresolved local conflicts. In this sense, the fleet, and aircraft carriers in particular, is the cure for the disease, the prevention of a major war.
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 15 July 2013 20: 21
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          Remember, Comrade Stalin had a program for building an ocean fleet,

          Exactly, but the key word is "before the war." After that it was not up to it - to rebuild the country and make a bomb. And there was no special talk about aircraft carriers. Then they thought more in the category of battleships ...
          Quote: Per se.
          Comrade Khrushchev began to create a defective fleet, with his "asymmetric" solution in favor of some missiles.

          Passion for rockets was such a sin for Nikita Sergeich. In the Land and Air Force he has even more "merits" than at sea. However, I doubt that it would have been fundamentally different without him. I repeat, we patched the holes as best they could, working to the limit. "Correct", as you say, the fleet would take a long time to build. And there was still little experience with resources.
          Quote: Per se.
          Global conflict is a consequence of unresolved local conflicts.

          Uh ... not exactly the opposite. The global confrontation, subject to nuclear parity, is precisely the source of local conflicts. North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan - not the causes of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, but the consequences.
          Quote: Per se.
          In this sense, the fleet, and aircraft carriers in particular, is that cure for the disease, prevention of a big war.

          The only effective prevention from a major war is nuclear weapons ... hi
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 15 July 2013 21: 08
            +4
            Quote: Bronis
            Uh ... not exactly the opposite.
            Let me disagree with you here, Cuba was a local conflict, without the resolution of which it would have been necessary to move from threats to a nuclear war. Victory in local conflicts, such as the war in Korea and Vietnam, diminished the Yankees' arrogance and postponed the possibility of a global war. Now Syria, we lose, Iran will be next, and our southern flank is open. Georgia will put its ass in this topic under the US, add a problem in such a black Black Sea, especially if Russia also leaves Sevastopol, into which NATO will gladly climb. Nuclear weapons are, of course, a good thing, but for insolent rodents at 08.08.08. they were not allowed to shoot, but similar provocations, which in our history were called "border conflicts" and "military incidents" were and will continue to be, as at the CER, Khalkhin-Gol, Khasan, Damansky. Secondly, the United States will make every effort to reduce nuclear arsenals (we already have missiles with multiple extended periods, the USSR made them in dozens and hundreds, and capitalist Russia did it piece by piece). There is also a strengthening of the missile defense system (including sea-based ones) and the gloomy prospect of the militarization of outer space. I would like to believe in the best, but if we also get a new traitorous president who refuses or does not dare to use nuclear weapons, remembering his relatives in London, real estate and accounts in foreign banks, nuclear weapons will no longer help. No, dear Bronis, it's better to do local prophylaxis than to be comforted with a phrase afterwards - it's hard to treat, easy in a coffin.
  • optimist
    optimist 15 July 2013 17: 42
    +5
    Quote: Bronis
    But the USSR-collapsed, not having time to implement plans ...

    That's the point ... What is the point of arguing on the topic of this article, if all this has already happened! and it’s unlikely to ever be again. After the fight, as you know, they don't wave their fists. An indisputable fact: the United States, without firing a single shot, ruined the USSR and much of what is described in this article. Of course, this is not a reason to look for rope and soap, but you should not engage in hat-making as well: it has always been very expensive for our country ...
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 15 July 2013 20: 09
      0
      Quote: optimist
      What is the point of arguing on the topic of this article, if all this has already happened! and it’s unlikely to ever be again.
      And you, optimist, are a great optimist smile Sorry for the pun! In fact, one can say so. Maybe that will be, but in other realities and for other purposes. So far, everything is beyond the planning horizon. At least in terms of the new aircraft carrier ...
      Well, to argue on this topic, everyone loves everywhere ... only the subjunctive mood ... alas
  • Patriot.ru.
    Patriot.ru. 15 July 2013 21: 32
    +4
    In the USSR, began to build submarines. Nuclear, diesel and DBK, not a single AUG will not suit us. We have a defense, not an attack.
  • AVV
    AVV 15 July 2013 22: 00
    +2
    I just want to admire the power of the Soviet fleet !!! It was a worthy answer to the American hawks !!!
  • cdrt
    cdrt 15 July 2013 14: 35
    +4
    +10005000
    Here too - I wanted to refer to Nikolsky's data. And the plans for the construction of aircraft carriers have not gone away.
    You can arbitrarily prove that there wasn’t, wasn’t involved, didn’t want ... but it was, they built, they wanted to build. Do not have time - yes. Well ... and we must remember that the development strategy of the Kuznetsov-IVS fleet under Khrushchev was thoroughly forgotten. In fact, they began to recreate the fleet from 1964-65. And after 25 years of building the fleet, they came to Kuznetsov, Varyag, Novorossiysk.
    So ... an assessment of the Soviet naval commanders themselves — they could destroy the Americans, but they could not conquer the sea for themselves.
    Well, to the author - he can just write about the fleet, not cycling to AB.
    At any mention - from an intelligent erudite in naval matters, the author turns into a click repeat
    And most importantly, all interesting things disappear.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Santa Fe
    15 July 2013 14: 42
    +5
    Quote: Per se.
    the place of construction of anti-aircraft forces in 1960-1990, including 16 diesel boats with anti-ship missiles, 37 nuclear boats with anti-ship missiles, 19 cruisers, plus basic long-range missile-carrying aircraft, it was possible to include 20 full-fledged aircraft carriers in our fleet

    "They lived happily ever after, and died on the same day. From starvation."

    Cousin doesn't want to compare operating costs? And where would he take another 100 thousand extra sailors?
    The crew of the atomic boat, pr. 675 - 137 people.
    The regular crew of the aircraft carrier "Forrestal" - 5500 people, including the air wing

    Nimitz, Kuznetsov, Shark and Varshavyanka - those. costs are simply not comparable
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 14: 49
      +3
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Nimitz, Kuznetsov, Shark and Varshavyanka - those. costs are simply not comparable

      Figures in the studio
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 15 July 2013 15: 09
      +22
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      "They lived happily ever after, and died on the same day. From starvation."
      The Soviet Union could live happily ever after if it had not lost to the vile bourgeois in an information-ideological war. States eagerly drank the blood of the defeated giant, plundering Soviet achievements and resources. Not the USSR would starve to death, but the USA, with its capitalism, these ghouls can only parasitize at the expense of the rest of the world. Lucky bastards, postponed their death, the whole question is whether the parasite will last for long.
  • Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 15 July 2013 21: 48
    +2
    Quote: Per se.
    and move from a defensive task to the task of gaining dominance at sea.

    Russia was and is a continental state, in contrast to the "gentlemen" and their miscarriages, hence the approach to the fleet
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 16 July 2013 12: 34
      +2
      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
      Russia was and is a continental state, in contrast to "gentlemen" and their miscarriages
      Dear Vladimir, you are not too lazy to see the length of the coastline of Russia, I assure you, it is much larger than the United States, and our sea borders are not so calm. The only indisputable problem is the separation of our fleets; in addition, the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet are easily blocked. Nevertheless, thanks to Peter I, whom, as I recall, you do not really like, Russia became a sea power, and I hope that it will remain.
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 16 July 2013 15: 21
        0
        the size of the coastline has nothing to do with this issue
        Quote: Per se.
        Nevertheless, thanks to Peter I, whom, as I recall, you don’t really like, Russia became a sea power, and I hope it will remain

        he’s not a red girl, that would love him, but the fact that he heaped up I really do not really like
      2. dustycat
        dustycat 16 July 2013 19: 11
        +1
        Quote: Per se.
        Dear Vladimir, you are not too lazy to see the length of the coastline of Russia, I assure you, it is much larger than the United States, and our sea borders are not so calm. .


        Yes, the sea border of the USSR / Russia is longer.
        And what?
        Most of it for over half a year on land.
        Sea ice of the North Ocean successfully holds the Sopka and Bala missile carriers.
        Coastal mobile CRs were launched from the ice of the Baltic Sea.
        Yes, we foolishly - "because a probable ally does not have such a thing" - the Lun rocket-carrying ekranoplanes were buried, and large SVPs were primarily landing craft. And they are the ideal AUG killers for the Arctic Ocean all year round, and for the Pacific theater of operations for six months.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 17 July 2013 16: 01
          +2
          Quote: dustycat
          Yes, the sea border of the USSR / Russia is longer.
          And what?
          Most of it for over half a year on land.
          Well, it depends on how you look at it, under the ice of the Arctic nuclear submarines have not disappeared anywhere, except for our long-suffering "Sharks". It was not in vain that the Americans sought to destroy them. All these songs about its "ridiculous" size and "noisy" are nonsense, the boat was created for operations under the Arctic ice, the base of the deckhouse was specially reinforced for surfacing in ice, and the boat's mass made it possible to break through almost any ice. The boat has one of the lowest noise levels, which, together with the natural crackling of ice, made it very difficult to detect. In addition, the boat, in addition to powerful weapons, has excellent autonomy and comfort for the crew. The boat could stand at anchor under the ice. Yes, now there is a problem with missiles, but it is solvable, there would be a desire not to break, as the Americans want, but to return the boats to service. As for the surface fleet, it is also not worth waiting for Chinese or NATO icebreakers to come to the Arctic. All the same, these are the sea borders from which all of Russia opens. For clarity, a photo of the boat of a potential enemy.
  • T-100
    T-100 17 July 2013 19: 01
    0
    From the Pacific Ocean to the warm seas, the Soviet fleet was all stronger !!!!
  • Revolver
    Revolver 16 July 2013 02: 07
    +3
    Quote: Canep
    in an amount comparable to the amount thereof in the United States.

    If you want, consider it a legend; if you want, believe it.

    When the GDR naval forces got the FRG, naturally the Americans were allowed to study materiel. And once one of the "students" said something like: "Lord, we spend thousands of dollars on advanced electronic devices, and the Russians are solving the same problem with a coil of wire" - this is to the question of the "backwardness" of the Soviet engineering school.

    NASA spent thousands of dollars (the 1960s dollar is not yours today) to develop a pen capable of writing in zero gravity. The Russians used a pencil.
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 16 July 2013 10: 17
      0
      Quote: Nagan
      "Lord, we spend thousands of dollars on advanced electronic devices, and the Russians are solving the same problem with a coil of wire" - this is the question of the "backwardness" of the Soviet engineering school.


      This is not always buzzing. Compare the number and causes of the dead American submarines and ours, you will understand that sometimes it is better to spend an extra thousand dollars than to solve the problem with a skein of rope.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 16 July 2013 11: 03
        +4
        Well, with regard to the ratio of accidents and other things ... it has little to do with the "engineering school", but rather the costs of our method of operation with almost complete disregard for the coastal complex and the eternal "crew shuffle" - the Americans have almost constant crews and when returning to base the boat takes the "coastal crew" - which allows to ensure a normal rhythm of combat service and repairs. And here we are swimming and fixing, and half of the specialists should be replaced before the combat exit. How hello. The problem is not in technology - the problem is, as usual, in the head.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 16 July 2013 17: 26
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          And here we are swimming and repairing, and even before the combat exit half of the specialists replace this in general as hello

          Yes, well, if only half, the entire crew on the Komsomolets was changed. Of course, about the dead, "good or nothing," but with the main crew, "Komsomolets" would not have drowned. Such a boat was ruined ...
          As always, the designers were later found guilty. And you can’t prove that the technique was designed for trained users, but you can foolishly yourself know what to break.
          1. Starina_hank
            Starina_hank 16 July 2013 20: 13
            0
            The technique in the hands of the savage is a piece of scrap metal!
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 16 July 2013 19: 32
        +1
        Quote: Mikado
        Compare the number and causes of the dead American submarines and ours
        Maybe you should also compare the conditions of their basing? Considering who and how the MPO and MPR are carried out, manning and crew rest between trips ... Then the picture will become somewhat more reliable

        Take two fighters, even the same. For one, leave the full-time maintenance scheme, and for the other, transfer ALL inter-flight work to the pilot. And try to guess which one of them has a chance to get higher ...
        1. Kars
          Kars 16 July 2013 20: 36
          +2
          Quote: Misantrop
          Maybe you should also compare the conditions of their basing? Taking into account who and how the MPO and MPR are carried out, manning and crew rest between trips ..


          Is this state of affairs interesting from a misunderstanding of the management or from saving / lack of funds?
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 16 July 2013 20: 43
            +2
            From our eternal desire "to collect cream on shit." It's not a pity to "build" money - there it is, big, iron ... And on PPR and other "little things" the toad strangles ... Recently, a crappy cloud of millions was thrown into it and they still ask ...
          2. Santa Fe
            16 July 2013 22: 04
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Is this state of affairs interesting from a misunderstanding of the management or from saving / lack of funds?

            Systemic problems in Soviet society.

            Widespread fraud, corrupt morality, inability to take responsibility.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 17 July 2013 08: 05
              -1
              Systemic problems of human psychology.

              Widespread fraud, corrupt morality, inability to take responsibility.
          3. Misantrop
            Misantrop 16 July 2013 22: 59
            0
            For all the time of my service, this situation got worse and worse. Once built, it was only dilapidated and crumbled. And it was not for nothing that the ship's crew called the coastal base "anti-submarine". Alas, at this time, promotion to the top was already in full swing according to very specific criteria, not at all related to the success of the service. Of my four commanders, each turned out to be worse than the last. Moreover, it got to the point that with the arrival of the fourth, patience burst and at the next medical examination, 11 officers were written off us, led by the chief officer (out of 44 in the crew). The rest simply did not find at that time a sufficient number of sores to write off ... These "wild-growing", except for their personal careers, were not interested in ANYTHING ... What innovations are already there ... Yes, and their Admiral Rikover (with the same pressure and influence ) the USSR Navy did not find ...
    2. Santa Fe
      16 July 2013 10: 31
      +1
      Quote: Nagan
      NASA spent thousands of dollars (the 1960s dollar is not yours today) to develop a pen capable of writing in zero gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

      Normal bike.

      The Fisher Space Pen was developed by the private firm Fisher Spacepen Co., which had no affiliation with NASA. The pen was originally created not for astronauts at all, but for the free market in order to cut money on the worldwide space euphoria

      The writing ball is made of tungsten carbide and is very precisely installed to avoid leakage. Inks are thixotropic - solid in the normal state and liquefy when writing; squeezed out with compressed nitrogen at a pressure of about 2,4 atm. A sliding float separates the ink from the compressed gas. It is claimed that with a pen you can write three times more than a regular ballpoint pen (but this is conditional). She can also write at heights of up to 3810 m. The operating temperature range is from −35 to 120 ° C. Service life is 100 years.

      Subsequently adopted to equip NASA and the USSR space missions (the Union acquired a batch of 100 such pens for $ 6 each - convenient and cheap)

      ps / pencil use in orbit negative - graphite dust flying in zero gravity and lead fragments can damage equipment
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 16 July 2013 19: 42
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        Subsequently adopted to equip NASA and the USSR space missions (the Union acquired a batch of 100 such pens for $ 6 each - convenient and cheap)


        Yeah, 6 bucks cheaper than a box of crayons for 1 bucks. laughing
        It is so convenient that the NASASovskys also began to use pencils instead of felt-tip pens. True collet.
        And these pens are a souvenir and nothing more.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        ps / pencil use in orbit negative - graphite dust flying in zero gravity and lead fragments can damage equipment

        Is there a pen in a metal case?

        Our pencils were not used, they were used chemical and wax. They were very upset when in 1990 the last factory producing them was closed. We switched to color.

        In addition, the air handling units at the stations and ships are made according to the principle of a vacuum cleaner - they have a filter that catches everything - including any dust (dandruff and skin flakes), small parts and pencils that have flown away.
      2. Kars
        Kars 16 July 2013 20: 37
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        (The Union purchased a batch of 100 such pens at a price of $ 6 pieces - convenient and cheap

        Where can I buy one?
        1. Santa Fe
          16 July 2013 22: 09
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Where can I buy one?

          As usual, on e-bay

          http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fisher-Zero-Gravity-Retractable-Black-Fisher-Space-Pen-/
          190351401163
          1. Kars
            Kars 16 July 2013 22: 16
            +1
            25 bucks - went up from 6. You need to think. I have the most expensive inoxochrome for 40

            Now in the first place the T-90A is almost a hundred bucks, a pure toad is crushing - it has never been more expensive than 30 before.
        2. dustycat
          dustycat 19 July 2013 22: 39
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          (The Union purchased a batch of 100 such pens at a price of $ 6 pieces - convenient and cheap

          Where can I buy one?


          100 pieces from this batch? On the ebay.

          The same Chinese in our market sell (for 4 bucks in a box, 2 bucks without - for one-time expensive) or look at stationery. I also met there.
  • waisson
    waisson 16 July 2013 03: 04
    0
    but yes they are far away
  • Su24
    Su24 18 July 2013 09: 03
    0
    AB is still needed. By the way, the share of the Navy in our country was only 15% on average. With a change in military doctrine, more could be directed to the construction of ships.
  • Airman
    Airman 15 July 2013 09: 02
    +14
    I read the article with interest, I do not agree with the author in everything, but to him +.
  • 77bob1973
    77bob1973 15 July 2013 09: 08
    +10
    We must not forget about hundreds of "diesel engines" in all fleets, the USA has only nuclear submarines. Our navy had almost everything, but something, as always, was missing. An important drawback of our fleet is its geographic fragmentation and, therefore, problems with the transfer of fleet forces to one or another theater of operations.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 15 July 2013 14: 43
      +4
      our geography is an objective reality. Well - stupidly compete with the United States in the number of AUGs of course they could not. But according to our calculations, in 198X they could no longer block shipping through the Atlantic. And precisely because the fleet was in fact imprisoned for only one scenario - a sudden strike before the start of the war against American AUGs. Because our naval commanders themselves did not believe in the destruction of more than half of the operating ABs, it is clear that after that the remaining 6-8 AUGs installed + SOSUS + BPA established undeniable dominance in the Atlantic and the Pacific. And there was nothing to oppose - none of the admirals hoped for the stability of our KUG without air support (which without AB can be provided on its shores).
      And actually at this time, simultaneously with the adoption by the Americans of the "Naval Strategy", ours at sea became clearly defensive - covering Kola and Kamchatka.
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 15 July 2013 09: 17
    +9
    - 15 surface missile cruisers - from the simplest "Grozny" to the incredible nuclear "Orlan";
    - numerous series of SSGMs: 659, 675, 670 “Skat” projects, “aircraft carrier killers” of the 949 and 949 Ave. - only about 70 submarines with cruise missiles;
    - the monstrous titanic boats “Anchar”, “Lira”, “Fin”, “Condor” and “Barracuda”;
    - Dozens of “ordinary” multipurpose nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines;
    - rocket boats and corvettes (IRAs);
    - Navy missile aircraft - hundreds of Tu-16 and Tu-22M;
    - anti-ship missile systems - from the primitive "Termite" to the fantastic "Granites", "Volcanoes" and "Basalt".

    Exactly this was the main problem of the USSR fleet at the heap of types of NK and PL.
    1. starpom
      starpom 15 July 2013 09: 47
      +3
      Quote: leon-iv
      this was the main problem of the fleet of the USSR

      Yes, they first created a rocket, and then a carrier under it.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 15 July 2013 10: 05
        +9
        Just the same, to create a rocket first is normal, maybe with it the main plug, as practice shows.
      2. dustycat
        dustycat 16 July 2013 19: 59
        0
        Quote: starpom
        Yes, they first created a rocket, and then a carrier under it.


        Yeah, but to create a warhead for which it is simply impossible to make the carrier much more ingenious.
        Do not remember the size of the first JAVU Americans and the USSR?
        Some of the Yankees were very jealous of this.
    2. 77bob1973
      77bob1973 15 July 2013 10: 59
      +3
      Again, the heterogeneity of types is a consequence of both the personal bias of the leadership of the country and the fleet, and lobbying for the interests of individual defense industry groups. It’s just that in reality we didn’t have a military-industrial complex, but an industrial-military complex.
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 15 July 2013 14: 48
      +2
      If you rely on the same Nikolsky - with whom I agree, these are symptoms, consequences, and not a problem.
      The problem was rather that the USSR, in fact, had no coherent plans for the development of the fleet. As the top commanders did not have an understanding of the role and place of the fleet.
      IVS - began the gradual development of the fleet, with access to the 60th to AB. A few years - Khrushchev - all under the knife. We are building a submarine. A few years - we begin to build large NK, a few years later - AB (albeit in a wretched form of Kiev co-comrades). A dozen, a year and a half - we cancel everything again, we cut the fleet, the rest is pus.
      The fleet is created and maintained for decades. See USA, WB for samples.
      Oh, you can not remember about creating infrastructure for ships
  • Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 15 July 2013 09: 32
    +16
    In the USSR (as well as now) the country was not ruled by fools. The composition and size of the fleet were scientifically determined and verified depending on the challenges facing, economic, human, scientific, technical and other capabilities of the country. The fleet effectively carried out the tasks assigned to it. But the fact that there have been problems on the ground is mainly the "merit" of the performers, not the country's leadership.
    1. omsbon
      omsbon 15 July 2013 13: 41
      +1
      I completely agree with your opinion. Let me join him.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 15 July 2013 14: 52
      +2
      In the USSR (however, as now), the country was not fools. The composition and size of the fleet were scientifically determined and verified depending on the challenges, economic, human, scientific, technical and other capabilities of the country.

      Yeah ...
      see Nikolsky - the first, right in the book, in my opinion had a story about how naval scientists brought a scientific justification for two mutually contradictory attitudes of two General Secretaries for 2 years. wink
    3. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 16 July 2013 20: 31
      0
      In the USSR, the fleets were armed with many outdated ships that needed to be decommissioned or modernized. Neither one was done!
      For what humane purposes in the 80s did 56 ave. Or SKR 30pr. personally, I’m not very clear. Almost no sense, confusing a waste of money!
      1. Santa Fe
        16 July 2013 22: 12
        0
        Quote: Starina_Hank
        For what humane purposes in the 80s did 56 ave. Or SKR 30pr. personally, I’m not very clear. Almost no sense, confusing a waste of money!

        For what purposes were the amers' "Adams" or "Ferragats" in the ranks?

        The answer is obvious - the admirals did not want to leave their homes (extra ships - extra posts)
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 17 July 2013 09: 51
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The answer is obvious - the admirals did not want to leave their homes (extra ships - extra posts)

          Let us recall the battles near Moscow in the winter of 1941. What armed the militias and why ... Or did they have to throw them unarmed into battle, since the old weapons are not effective against the backdrop of new models? Maybe conclude a truce while the industry of new weapons do?
          1. Santa Fe
            17 July 2013 12: 27
            +1
            Quote: Misantrop
            Let us recall the battles near Moscow in the winter of 1941. What armed the militias and why ... Or did they have to throw them unarmed into battle, since the old weapons are not effective against the backdrop of new models?

            You understand that the militia with the grenade and "Charles F. Adams" are completely different things.

            Impromptu Militia
            "Charles F. Adams" in the 1980s - a pile of scrap metal worth millions to operate. Moreover, his capabilities (and physical wear) are such that he is unable to perform any of the tasks assigned to him.

            And this is in the presence of a huge number of new ships! - "Perry", "Spruance", "Ticonderogs", nuclear "California" and "Virginia", modernized "Legs" and "Belknaps" ...
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 17 July 2013 19: 47
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And this is in the presence of a huge number of new ships! - "Perry", "Spruance", "Ticonderogs", nuclear "California" and "Virginia", modernized "Legs" and "Belknaps" ...
              ... whose life in combat conditions is calculated literally in hours of combat use (if they did not drown at the pier earlier). A battleship is not a Liberty-class transport ship, you can't slap three pieces a day. And in conditions when the main combat strength on both sides of the front has already been knocked out, it is better to have one than none at all. And yet, almost any warship has good autonomy. So it is quite possible to use it as a floating barracks or hospital. Not necessarily in a war, in case of global cataclysms - too. For example, the likely awakening of a hypervolcano in the Grand Canyon will instantly leave a not too large bitten bagel from the territory of the United States. And what to do with the crowds of refugees?
  • Know-nothing
    Know-nothing 15 July 2013 09: 35
    -1
    Did the Soviet Navy track American SSBNs?
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 15 July 2013 11: 13
      +18
      tracked, I personally took part in the search for one in the Mediterranean in the year 89, found successfully
      1. Know-nothing
        Know-nothing 15 July 2013 19: 12
        0
        And in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans?
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 17 July 2013 09: 52
          0
          Quote: Dunno
          And in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans?
          Similarly
          1. Know-nothing
            Know-nothing 18 July 2013 08: 12
            0
            Krasnaya Zvezda and Rear Admiral Kostev write that
            The Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union, Sergei Gorshkov, not without bitterness at one time noted that neither in the Atlantic Ocean, nor in the Pacific, our fleets were able to open patrol areas of American nuclear-powered missile carriers such as the Ohio, whose missiles were aimed at the cities of the Soviet Union.

            http://old.redstar.ru/2008/08/13_08/5_08.html

            Therefore, system monitoring (and not by chance for several hours) was unlikely.
            1. Santa Fe
              18 July 2013 12: 07
              0
              Quote: Dunno
              Therefore, system monitoring (and not by chance for several hours) was unlikely.

              Well, you're done - "Ohio" with "Tridents"! Of course, their detection is almost impossible.

              At least the old "Madison" and "Franklins" from 41 for Freedom were regularly discovered and forced out of their combat positions (Philippine Sea, Mediterranean)
              1. Know-nothing
                Know-nothing 19 July 2013 11: 29
                0
                Does it follow from this that the development of the Soviet Navy is at an impasse?

                They do not work along the coast, at sea the ship's air defense will not repel a massive raid, American SSBNs cannot find, Soviet boats are tracked even in the "bastions." Theoretically, they can drown one or two AUG, but 99% that this is the beginning of a big war with the use of nuclear weapons. So?
                1. Santa Fe
                  19 July 2013 13: 28
                  0
                  Does it follow that the development of the US Navy is at an impasse?

                  They do not work along the coast (until the appearance of the Tomahawk SLCM), the landing forces do not land, the ship's air defense will not even reflect a single raid (USS Stark FFG-31), the Soviet SSBNs cannot detect (with the advent of SLBMs with a firing range of over 7-8 thousand. km, the PLO task became irrelevant for both fleets).

                  At the same time, the fleet has an astronomical cost - several times higher than the fleet of the "potential enemy".
                  Quote: Dunno
                  Theoretically, they can drown one or two AUGs, but 99% that this is the beginning of a big war with the use of I

                  Yes, the "loaves" of pr. 949A could not have been built at all - when Moscow and Washington burned down, the Augs by themselves would lose their meaning

                  As for the "nuclear-free" conflict according to Tom Clancy: the Yankees will fly out of the European continent and a "stalemate" situation ensues - the presence / destruction of the Augs still does nothing: in front of the opponents a 6000-km anti-tank ditch with salt water
                  1. Santa Fe
                    19 July 2013 14: 11
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Does it follow that the development of the US Navy is at an impasse?
                    1. Know-nothing
                      Know-nothing 21 July 2013 07: 06
                      0
                      The USS Caron carried reconnaissance equipment. Everyone was pleased - the Americans carried out radio-technical reconnaissance, the Soviets repulsed the "scary" attack.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        21 July 2013 15: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Dunno
                        USS Caron carried reconnaissance equipment

                        I never would have thought
                        Quote: Dunno
                        Americans conducted electronic intelligence

                        A miserable excuse. It’s impossible to find out anything worthwhile in 2 days ... and, in general, what could the Yankees recognize?
                        The goal was a provocation - to see how the Black Sea Fleet will act. Nothing good came of the venture
                        Quote: Dunno
                        the Soviets repulsed a "fearful" attack.

                        Dangerous maneuvering, swearing attacks on the air - everyday life of the Cold War.
                        At that time, Yorktown and Caron were roughly pushed out of the USSR's guide. Complete moral victory - on the side of the Black Sea Fleet
                        Capt. Philip A. Dur removed from office immediately upon return (April 13, 1988)
                  2. Know-nothing
                    Know-nothing 21 July 2013 07: 21
                    0
                    In the US Navy, almost ALL tasks are performed by an aircraft carrier, and the rest of the ships only ensure its safety. And the Americans carried the aircraft carriers half the world, while the Soviet surface fleet only devoured the resources of a poor country.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    ship air defense does not even reflect a single raid (USS Stark FFG-31)

                    Aviation should be reflected and the absence of "dead zones". The Soviet Navy has its own example of the effectiveness of naval air defense - MRK Monsoon.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Soviet SSBNs cannot detect

                    In 1993 year Barents Sea the latest K-407 Ave. 667BDRM 1990 years Buildings tracked by USS Grayling (SSN-646) 1962 years, and the Russian boat heard the American only after the collision. According to the captain after the collision, our IL-38 flew in, set the bathythermographic buoys. He took hydrology. Experts have established: with such hydrological characteristics, I could hear the "American" for 2-3 cable, he for me for 7-10.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      21 July 2013 15: 46
                      0
                      Quote: Dunno
                      In the US Navy, almost ALL tasks are performed by an aircraft carrier, and the rest of the ships only ensure its safety.

                      Sorry, but this is nonsense.
                      U.S. Navy ships usually operate alone or in the form of OBK of destroyers and submarines.
                      Quote: Dunno
                      The Soviet Navy has its own example of the effectiveness of naval air defense - MRS Monsoon.

                      And since there is no difference - why pay more?

                      PS. comparing a half-boat half-corvette with a Stark is highly incorrect. Stark is larger than MRK every 6-7
                      Quote: Dunno
                      And the Americans carried the aircraft carriers half the world

                      Americans fucked up half the world.
                      But the contribution of AB is NOT worth it here.
                      Quote: Dunno
                      I could hear the “American” for 2-3 cables; he could tell me for 7-10.

                      Operation "Atrina"
                      Quote: Dunno
                      In 1993, in the Barents Sea, the newest K-407, pr. 667BDRM, built in 1990, was tracked by 646 USS Grayling (SSN-1962)

                      On January 8, 2005, USS San Francisco collided with an underwater cliff. Where was the AN / BQQ-5?
    2. Santa Fe
      15 July 2013 14: 22
      +2
      Quote: Dunno
      Did the Soviet Navy track American SSBNs?

      And then!

      Almost all surface ships were designated as BOD - cruisers and destroyers with hypertrophied anti-submarine weapons. Navy commanders well understood where the main threat was coming from:

      Squadron 41 for Freedom
  • knyazDmitriy
    knyazDmitriy 15 July 2013 09: 41
    +4
    Great article. I had no idea that the Navy was commanded by stupid people, the only miscalculation in our fleet was, in my opinion, there were too many different types of ships and boats of the same purpose. Which in turn created difficulties with maintenance. and of course, a pair of full-fledged aircraft carriers would not hurt, but only if the wing is fully equipped
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 15 July 2013 10: 45
      +11
      Quote: knyazDmitriy
      the only miscalculation in our fleet was, in my opinion, too many different types of ships and boats of the same purpose.
      It was not a miscalculation, but a necessity. But with the coastal service infrastructure there have always been real difficulties. And this IMHO did not come from the multiplicity of types of ships, but from security according to the residual principle
      1. knyazDmitriy
        knyazDmitriy 15 July 2013 10: 55
        +2
        then maybe explain why it was necessary to create a bunch of types of multipurpose nuclear submarines, although they performed the same functions
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 July 2013 11: 07
          +6
          Quote: knyazDmitriy
          why was there a bunch of types of multipurpose submarines

          Technology Progress.
          And for a new submarine they were given orders and prizes, but for major repairs with modernization, probably not.
        2. abc_alex
          abc_alex 15 July 2013 11: 20
          +1
          Did they really create them? at once? Do not forget, the USSR has always caught up. Only by the end of the 70s technological parity was outlined.
          1. cdrt
            cdrt 15 July 2013 14: 59
            +1
            How is the constant pursuit of a leader connected with the creation of, for example, 945 and 971 and the simultaneous production of 671RTMK? 671 and 705?
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 15 July 2013 17: 45
              +1
              Quote: cdrt
              with the creation at the same time, for example, 945 and 971, and with the simultaneous production of 671RTMK? 671 and 705?
              Actually, the 971 project is a further development of the 671 project that turned out to be very successful on a new element base. The 705th is generally different here, it is a highly specialized high-speed submarine. I won’t say about 945, there is very little information about them in general
          2. dustycat
            dustycat 16 July 2013 20: 08
            0
            Quote: abc_alex
            Did they really create them? at once? Do not forget, the USSR has always caught up. Only by the end of the 70s technological parity was outlined.


            Just not.
            In the late 1970s, after the zigzag of the mid-1960s with the cutting of vessels ahead of the west, systems developed in the early 1960s were put into operation.
            By the late 1970s, the USSR began to technologically lag behind the West.
        3. Misantrop
          Misantrop 15 July 2013 17: 38
          +4
          Quote: knyazDmitriy
          a bunch of types of multipurpose submarines
          You may be surprised, but multipurpose submarines have MUCH goals and objectives that are more than these types of submarines. Here, under a certain range of tasks, certain projects were created. A wagon can, of course, be everything, but ... equally bad ... request
    2. avt
      avt 15 July 2013 10: 52
      +3
      Quote: knyazDmitriy
      Excellent article.

      In what? The fact is that contrary to Oleg’s claim that the aircraft carrier can be destroyed by a pair of TU-22M, the adult uncles you are talking about
      Quote: knyazDmitriy
      I had no idea that the Navy was commanded by stupid people,

      all the same planned to use a couple of regiments of similar airplanes? Yes, in the end, they came to the conclusion that a balanced fleet needs normal aircraft-carrying ships, and not their ersatz in the form of "Kiev"? =========, The Russian fleet did not have bulky and monstrously expensive helicopter docks, similar to the American "Wasp" and "Tarav." But the USSR Navy had 153 large and medium landing ships, trained marines, as well as 14 old artillery cruisers and 17 destroyers with automated 130 mm guns for fire support. the Soviet fleet could easily carry out a pinpoint amphibious operation in any corner of the Earth. "========== Yeah, the delivery and landing vehicles of the Second World War, could they effectively conduct operations? Yes, even under the cover of old artillery ships !? Well then, nowadays, the battleships must be laid. laughing This is what I agree with, and Admiral Baltin noted this -
      Quote: knyazDmitriy
      too many different types of ships and boats for the same purpose.
      he also said that in terms of armament the same leapfrog was needed and urgently needed to carry out revision and unification. A frivolous article is pre-holiday agitation, generally in general and about nothing in particular.
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 15 July 2013 12: 37
        +2
        No, White Sea Death, but I liked the article.
        Nafik, I don’t even want to criticize.
        But, if Oleg would have inserted it into the article, the ekranoplanes so unloved by him.
        Yes, I would bring a couple of photographs of the Moons and Eaglet.
        I would probably joyfully get busy, albeit on Monday.
        ...
        I understand that it is such an experience for Oleg to check who is like - (well, lan, I won’t speak, bred) - such an article will react.
        However, THANKS, I’ll tell him anyway.
        Thank you, Oleg, for .... optimistic tragedy. And the article.
        1. avt
          avt 15 July 2013 13: 39
          0
          Quote: Igarr
          However, THANKS, I’ll tell him anyway.
          Thank you, Oleg, for .... optimistic tragedy. And the article.

          For optimistic tragedy + laughing The article also amused me and did not put a minus just for this - "The domestic fleet did not have bulky and monstrously expensive helicopter docks, like the American" Wasp "and" Tarav "." ---- laughing The "stupid" Yankes had and still have, as well as the experience of large-scale amphibious operations, and such that neither Oleg nor everyone on the website, and our admirals had. That allows them to carry out what Oleg ascribes to the USSR Navy ===== "With the help of these means, the Soviet fleet could easily carry out a point landing operation in any corner of the Earth." ==== And so far our Mistrals have not been built, only on the model of Ivan Tarava " Unfortunately and in fairness, it should be noted that after the Patriotic War, due to objective and subjective reasons, ships were built in the country, which the admirals lacked in the last war. request Alas, but the fact is that all these handsome 68bis and 30bis destroyers, and the 56th, not to mention the SK of the 50th project, are beautiful ships, but not of their time.
          1. Igarr
            Igarr 15 July 2013 14: 33
            +4
            IC of the 50th project, the commander of the warhead-4, he is also the head of the RTS, he is also the commander of the warhead-1. End of service - assistant commander.
            Your humble servant.
            And the commander himself - the second commander in the Atlantic went half a year. Yes, he stayed on ... somewhere there. A new one came, before my departure.
            1. avt
              avt 15 July 2013 15: 04
              +2
              Quote: Igarr
              IC of the 50th project,

              And fifty dollars was also a stripped-down version of pr42, they seized 400 tons, one hundred square meters and reduced the range by 1810 miles request . Atets saved, nefig supposedly on the Americans to equal their ocean ambitions. The eternal misfortune of our fleet is to save on the displacement in order to save money and to cram the invisible into the available volume. request Here Ragozin there too with the last wise utterances on the ships. You can and should be proud of your Navy, all the more so since there are plenty of reasons, but denying the obvious - great experience and a well-designed military program for the US Navy are stupid. And if there is no way to level them on similar ships, you need to look for advanced alternatives, and well balanced ones.
            2. Aleksys2
              Aleksys2 16 July 2013 08: 36
              0
              Quote: Igarr
              SC of the 50-th project, the commander of the warhead-4, he is the head of the RTS, he is also the commander of the warhead-1.

              "If the cannons are looking into the forest, the RTS is to blame" wink
          2. Igarr
            Igarr 15 July 2013 14: 33
            0
            IC of the 50th project, the commander of the warhead-4, he is also the head of the RTS, he is also the commander of the warhead-1. End of service - assistant commander.
            Your humble servant.
            And the commander himself - the second commander in the Atlantic went half a year. Yes, he stayed on ... somewhere there. A new one came, before my departure.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 15 July 2013 15: 02
        0
        +10005000
        You can also recall the comparison (the article was here). The cost of maintaining the PLACR system + Legend (at current prices) + the necessary ships and support vessels and the cost of maintaining the AUG ...
  • Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 15 July 2013 09: 42
    +7
    In Soviet times, our fleet could solve the tasks assigned to it to counter the probable enemy fleet, for this it was created, this new government destroyed everything that can be destroyed and now it is difficult to restore its former power.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 15 July 2013 15: 10
      +2
      In Soviet times, our fleet could solve the tasks assigned to it to counter the probable enemy fleet, and for this it was created.

      Perhaps this was a conceptual mistake.
      You need to fight not only against something, but also for something. The fleet is an instrument of gaining and maintaining dominance at sea.
      To rebuke the enemy is half the battle. To achieve for yourself is the second half.
      The Soviet Navy could destroy many ships. But the USA could not forbid using the sea. How could not and ensure its use for the USSR.
      Although ... this fleet strategy logically followed from the completely land strategy of the USSR. In other words laughing Zhukov is to blame laughing , with a strategy of throwing armored tanks to the English Channel.
      The fleet in his approach did not have a place at all, and they came up with the idea of ​​blocking communications across the Atlantic. In other words - to save the fleet, we went to Doenitz’s strategy. Well ... and then - smart people were, they understood that the submarines and nuclear submarines themselves would not achieve the goals without the support of the NK. Well, then the growth of the Soviet empire already suggested where to move.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 09: 45
    +19
    Various speculations about the exorbitant value of the Navy of the USSR are broken, as if about a rock, about the only fact:
    The budget of the Soviet fleet was less than the budget of the US Navy.

    Something really broke about the rock ... As I understand it, these were the remains of common sense. This is not even a kindergarten. Take the budget for one year and judge it about the cost of the fleets ... Only Oleg can write this.
    What is the cost of Project 949A SSGNs (our famous "Antei", killers of aircraft carriers ")? Huge nuclear ships of almost 15 thousand tons of standard displacement, equipped with two nuclear reactors and carrying 24 shafts for huge granites and 6 torpedo tubes 650-mm and 533-mm caliber cost as much as 226 million Soviet rubles http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/nsrs/949A/list.htm.
    But the cost of one frigate, Oliver X Perry (four-four-trough trough with the usual power and the only installation MKNUMX) amounted to 13 million dollars. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ffg-194.htm
    The cost of our destroyers of the 956 project. ships one and a half times larger than Perry and immeasurably more dangerous and formidable ranged from 90 million rubles at the beginning of the series to 70 million rubles in the middle. Those. the mighty destroyer was almost three times cheaper in rubles than Perry in dollars. http://topwar.ru/19455-poslednie-esmincy-sovetskogo-soyuza-proekt-956.html
    Just don't ask me why. I will not be able to answer the question of how our ships in rubles were cheaper than American ones in dollars. (although there are thoughts on this). But the fact remains - even the most superficial acquaintance with the topic simply cries out to the fact that the ships of the USSR and the USA CANNOT be compared by the cost of their production.
    If the author wanted to make a truly impartial analysis - he would try to calculate differently - either the construction of a fleet similar to the American one but at Soviet prices, or the construction of a fleet like the Soviet one - at American prices.
    Alas, according to the rules of the Russian language, the words "analysis" "impartial" and "Kaptsov" cannot stand side by side. At least - when it comes to aircraft carriers
    1. common man
      common man 15 July 2013 10: 02
      -3
      Given that one dollar at the official exchange rate was worth 60 kopecks, plus the lack of surplus value, plus the exemption of the manufacturer from taxes, why not.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 10: 28
        +1
        Well, correct Oleg's numbers for the course and "lack of surplus value and taxes" - you will get a figure that is quite comparable to the US figure
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 15 July 2013 15: 18
          0
          And where is the difference in pricing mechanisms?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 15: 35
            +2
            Wherever you want. I explain to you once again - all questions about "cheap labor", "pricing mechanisms" and so on and so forth would have acted in the same way, we are not atomic units but aircraft carriers. And the aircraft carrier, which in the United States passed at a price of $ 3 billion, would cost us about 1 billion rubles.
            Although real labor costs (in man-hours) and material costs during the construction of an aircraft carrier in 100 thousand tons will be comparable, build it even in the USA, even in the USSR
            1. Kars
              Kars 15 July 2013 15: 58
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Yes wherever you want

              You can compare the price of T-34-85 and Sherman M4A4))))
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 15 July 2013 15: 16
        +3
        Because prices in the Russian Federation and the USA were determined in completely different ways.
        And the exchange rate of 0.6 was established artificially and actually acted only on a narrow layer of people (business travelers), or as a simple settlement tool, without managerial consequences. There was no convertibility. For the procurement of enterprises, foreign exchange resources were allocated targeted (i.e., excluding the exchange rate).
        And in fact, one could probably only compare as written above, or even taking the whole economy of creating a ship: the amount of labor (we, they), material consumption in tons (with the division by type of materials and setting uniform prices for them - for example, the London Metal Exchange) , energy intensity in nat. expression, etc.
        It is unlikely that anyone did this, but I think this is the only way to count honestly.
    2. Argon
      Argon 15 July 2013 10: 48
      0
      The subtext of the article, it is quite understandable, with a lower resource intensity of the Soviet fleet (both during construction and during operation), it could quite effectively oppose (not compete) with the American one. In my opinion, this was because the financing of the fleet in the USSR occurred on a residual basis (the exception is the construction of SSBNs). Before asking something, the command of the fleet had to substantiate it ten times. At the same time, the political leadership of the country demanded that the Ministry of Defense strictly link the concepts of development (combat complexes) of the Navy with all sorts of doctrines, strategies for in general, and twenty times it was forced to justify everything (count the resources) before refusing / agreeing. As a result, the most "optimal" systems received the right to life. Transferring the analysis of the combat effectiveness of fleets to the sphere of analyzing the exchange rate, it seems to me, will not bring objectivity, since the value of PAPER money is always from the evil one.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 11: 08
        +5
        Quote: Argon
        The subtext of the article is understandable, with less resource consumption of the Soviet fleet (both during construction and during operation)

        The fact of the matter is that lower resource intensity is more than doubtful
        Quote: Argon
        As a result, the most "optimal" systems received the right to life.

        Sorry, but ... well, not even funny. You read what the sailors asked our industry and what they allowed to build such "noble naval commanders" like Ustinov, for example.
    3. abc_alex
      abc_alex 15 July 2013 11: 26
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      If the author wanted to make a truly impartial analysis - he would try to calculate differently - either the construction of a fleet similar to the American one but at Soviet prices, or the construction of a fleet like the Soviet one - at American prices.


      So the author is just trying to convey to the readers, in principle, an unpretentious idea that the US way of developing the fleet is grandiose and expensive, but far from the most effective and certainly not the only one.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 11: 31
        +5
        Quote: abc_alex
        but far from the most effective and certainly not the only one.

        And ours is the most effective, right? laughing
        1. Rider
          Rider 15 July 2013 13: 19
          -3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And ours is the most effective, right?


          whose ?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 13: 35
            +4
            The most effective, oddly enough, was the US Navy.
            1. Kars
              Kars 15 July 2013 13: 36
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The most effective, oddly enough, was the US Navy

              And it was somehow connected with the fact that it was a multinational standard, and was not only the most effective but also the largest?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 14: 27
                +2
                This is the problem of our fleet - in that having incurred the costs of building a fleet comparable to the Americans, we are not that we have become equal, but have not even removed the US Navy from the status of a multi-HOLD standard
                1. Kars
                  Kars 15 July 2013 16: 00
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  o incurring comparable costs to Americans

                  And how do you know this? About comparable costs? It is possible in salivary equivalent - gold.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 16: 21
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    How do you know that?

                    Kars :)))
                    For the construction of an aircraft carrier about 100 thousand tons of displacement is needed (you will not believe Kars!) About 100 thousand tons of metal and other materials :))) In order to produce 100 thousand tons. metal and other materials (from ore to shipbuilding and other types of steel and other materials) you need a comparable number of man-hours, since the technological level is approximately equivalent (it does not differ by orders of magnitude) and the ore mining conditions are also approximately equivalent. In other words, the materials and labor in 100 thousand aircraft carrier that in the USA and the USSR will be invested approximately the same amount, and how much American / Soviet workers will receive cut paper will be the tenth thing.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 15 July 2013 16: 24
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      For the construction of an aircraft carrier, about 100 thousand tons of displacement is needed (you will not believe Kars!) About 100 thousand tons of metal and other materials :)

                      )))))))) how much metal is written exactly.

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      . In other words, there are about the same amount of materials and labor in 100 thousand aircraft carrier that in the USA and the USSR will be invested in the USSR, and how much American / Soviet workers will get cut paper at the same time is the tenth thing.

                      Yes, one more confirmation of your knowledge of the economy, I wonder why we hear about difficulties with financing the construction of the USSR fleet in the late 80s if cut paper is the tenth thing)))))) Well, I’m astonished at the beginning, I created a serious person

                      And I actually asked about the whole fleet. On the equal cost of the US and Soviet fleets in your words))))))
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 16: 38
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        Yes, one more confirmation of your knowledge of the economy

                        Essentially. Because the economy, Kars, consists of 3 resources - labor, material and monetary, and money, Kars, have the only value - the ability to exchange for any product, they have no other value.
                        Therefore, in the end, everything depends on material resources, manpower and, moreover, the efficiency of using both of these :))) Therefore, Kars, if we assume that the military-industrial complex of the USSR worked less efficiently than the US military-industrial complex (which is far from a fact), then the ship equal displacement and capabilities would cost the USSR even more than the United States.
                        Quote: Kars
                        I wonder why we hear about the difficulties with financing the construction of the USSR fleet at the end of the 80, if cut paper is the tenth thing))))))

                        I do not know. Voices in my head?
                        Quote: Kars
                        And I actually asked about the whole fleet. On the equal cost of the US and Soviet fleets in your words))))))

                        With submarines, destroyers and other warships - the same thing. And in terms of tonnage, the USSR Navy and the US Navy were fleets of the same order.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 17: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Because the economy, Kars, consists of 3 resources - labor, material and monetary, and money, Kars, have the only value - the ability to exchange

                        One thing I can help --- go TE learn something from the economy. Otherwise, why not Russia print rubles for a couple of aircraft carriers)))

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I do not know. Voices in my head?

                        Judge by yourself? I think with you what.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        With submarines, destroyers and other warships - the same thing. And in terms of tonnage, the USSR Navy and the US Navy were fleets of the same order.


                        If I honestly sincerely regret you.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 20: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        One thing I can help --- go TE learn something about economics

                        Kars, start with Bru and McConnell's Economics. Everything is simple there and even in pictures - you will understand :) Then take some textbook on political economy (thicker and preferably Soviet times) Well, when you master it, we will continue
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 20: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Kars, start with Bru and McConnell's Economics.

                        Google is a great thing? Can smart try to get off?

                        maybe then an example on the tanks --- Why did the problems with the gas turbine begin because of its high cost? To tell you cut paper costs nothing.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        ) Well, when you master - continue

                        As for the fleet, Drogovoz has a figure 16. 16 times the US spending on the fleet exceeded the USSR. But you can not believe it.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 07: 27
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Google is a great thing? Can smart try to get off?

                        I have a higher economic, if that :))))
                        Quote: Kars
                        can then clarify the example of tanks

                        I will not explain, because I know almost nothing about tanks
                        Quote: Kars
                        Why did the problems with the gas turbine start because of its high cost? To tell you cut paper costs nothing.

                        Why did she turn out to be expensive, Kars? I’m not malicious, because I repeat, I don’t understand tanks. But the high cost / low cost of a product depends on two criteria - firstly, supply and demand for the product, and secondly, the cost of its production. Those. if the device is technically complicated and a lot more material and (or) labor resources are spent on it, then, of course, it costs more - in these same resources, and in cut paper, of course.
                        I’ll try to explain with a simple and very conditional example. Suppose there is a certain tribe in which 10 are people of workers and 5 are dependents (old children). They have only 1 need - food (fish) So, if each worker a day is able to catch 1,5 daily portions of this very fish, then 10 workers will catch 15 portions a day and everyone will be full and happy, but the tribe will do nothing other than catch fish can not. If suddenly one of them came up with a network that allows you to catch more fish and now in one day the employee catches not 1,5, but 2,5 portions of fish - then in order to feed the tribe, only 6 workers will be enough. And 4 employees can do something else (or do nothing at all) - there is still enough food for everyone.
                        So, Kars, you can load these four with some work, but only the kind that 4 people can do. If you try to require them to work for which you need 5 people, then it will not be completed.
                        The same thing with turbines - the high cost indicates that production requires too much material and labor resources, which you do not have, or rather, they are, but they are engaged in other things. And you are preferable to organize the production of, say, cheaper diesel engines than to make turbines diverting resources from other projects.
                        Quote: Kars
                        16 times the US fleet costs exceeded the USSR. But you can not believe it.

                        Can. And I don’t believe it. If you want a refutation - tell me where Drogovoz is, because I don’t remember, maybe I didn’t read it
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 16 July 2013 10: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I have a higher economic, if that :))))

                        Of course I have too.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I will not explain, because I know almost nothing about tanks

                        And here you do not need to understand anything.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Those. if the device is technically complicated and a lot more material and (or) labor resources are spent on it, then, of course, it costs more - in these same resources, and in cut paper, of course.

                        One must begin to understand something and then not at all.

                        But the fact I'll give you a GTD-1000 costs 300 thousand rubles and a diesel 9 000

                        So what's the difference? The price is given in rubles, cut paper - you don’t need to start talking about the labor costs of the USSR, the net is able to print paper. And the fact that they aren’t made by your personal problems. You said that the USSR will support everything.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I can. And I don’t believe it. Want a rebuttal - tell me
                        And I personally believe in figs whether you believe it or not. You haven’t confirmed your words about cost equality.
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 10: 28
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course I have too.

                        Kars, for your "economic" education, "tower" - just right :) But since our legislation is good, then life-long is possible, without the right to access the Internet :)
                        Quote: Kars
                        So what's the difference? The price is given in rubles, cut paper - you don’t need to start talking about the labor costs of the USSR, the net is able to print paper. And the fact that they will not do it is your personal problem

                        Kars, ay! :) Why would the difference between a gas turbine engine and a diesel engine suddenly become my problem, huh :)
                        Until it reaches you that material and labor costs are primary, and cut paper is nothing more than the equivalent for exchange, a conversation is meaningless.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And I personally believe in figs whether you believe it or not. You haven’t confirmed your words about cost equality.

                        You are just like a rezunist - in essence you cannot say anything (except for an indistinct reference to Drogovoz), but: "the opponents have no argumentation, but in the MAIN thing he is right!" :)))
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 16 July 2013 11: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But since we have good legislation, it’s possible for life, without the right to access the Internet :)

                        Win the court first)))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Kars, ay! :) Why would the difference between a gas turbine engine and a diesel engine suddenly become my problem, huh :)

                        Your your--
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        and cut paper is nothing more than an equivalent for exchange; conversation is meaningless.

                        Why are you so clever? Why were you so clever at once?
                        Quote: Kars
                        And how do you know this? About comparable costs? It is possible in salivary equivalent - gold.

                        And you started to freeze and run around the edges.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You are just like a rezunist - in essence you cannot say anything (except for an indistinct reference to Drogovoz), but: "the opponents have no argumentation, but in the MAIN thing he is right!" :)))

                        What better are you? You don’t give evidence of costs at all.

                        Here the author gave

                        Expenditures on the Soviet Navy in 1989 amounted to 12,08 billion rubles, of which 2993 million rubles for the purchase of ships and boats and 6531 million for technical equipment)
                        - directory “Soviet Navy. 1990 — 1991 ”, Pavlov A.S.

                        For the purchase of weapons and military equipment for the US Navy, it is planned to allocate 30,2 billion dollars, of which 8,8 billion will be used to purchase aircraft, 9,6 billion - combat ships and auxiliary vessels, 5,7 billion - missile weapons, artillery and small arms weapons and torpedoes, 4,9 billion - other military equipment.


                        What did YOU give? only empty words
                        even though at the same time you have already begun to understand that real things are behind cut paper.
                      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 11: 57
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        What did YOU give?

                        The cost of individual ships :))) After which everything fell into place - right away.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And you started to freeze and run around the edges.

                        Kars, I told you 20 times that the costs of creating ships of equal class, displacement and capabilities are comparable in the USSR and the USA. At least measure through gold, at least through platinum.
                        Okay, Kars. Tell me what you say. Here Oleg writes - they say, the Americans built a carrier fleet, but we did not. And therefore, in 1989, the costs of the USSR for the construction of the fleet were much lower than in the USA. Do you agree with this or not? Will you support Oleg’s point of view? Or are you arguing with me for the sake of a dispute? Or do you have some other opinion?
                      10. Kars
                        Kars 16 July 2013 12: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The cost of individual ships :))) After which everything fell into place - immediately

                        Nothing happened. And the infrastructure? The costs of overseas bases? Ports?
                        But it seems you just do not understand.
                        Give the costs of the USSR in 1954 and the USA in 1954? Who has more?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Kars, I told you 20 times that the costs of creating ships of equal class, displacement and capabilities are comparable in the USSR and the USA. At least measure through gold, at least through platinum.

                        Not comparable. American ships will be more expensive
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And so in 1989, the costs of the USSR for the construction of the fleet were much lower than in the USA
                        because the USSR was running out of money.
                      11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 12: 28
                        +3
                        Quote: Kars
                        because the USSR was running out of money.

                        Clear. Those. the reason has nothing to do with the classes and types of ships under construction.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Not comparable. American ships will be more expensive

                        Well yes. That's what Antey is estimated at 226 million rubles and Perry - under 200 million dollars ... The level of innovation, the amount of know-how, the complexity of instruments and weapons of the frigate Oliver X Perry is simply 8 orders of magnitude superior to our submarine missile carriers of Project 949A, and about 956 destroyers and there is no question. That there is some kind of "Granite" with some kind of underwater launch ... Here is an American beam Mk-13 - THIS IS YES! :))) A genuine breakthrough in science and technology :)))) And, of course, the American frigate's suspension compared with some kind of antediluvian reactors, Anteev is just an unattainable level of technology ... like a space station in comparison with a Cro-Magnon hut, like a ballistic missile in comparison with a stone hammer, like a gas turbine engine in comparison with a diesel engine .... yes, Kars ? laughing
                      12. Kars
                        Kars 16 July 2013 12: 38
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Clear. Those. the reason has nothing to do with the classes and types of ships under construction.

                        Why. Just related to the militarization of the economy. In which they contributed and the fleet with their classes and types of ships ordered. The classic atomic aircraft carriers would aggravate the economic situation and the USSR could very well begin to break up in the late 70s
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Well yes. That's Antey is estimated at 226 million rubles and Perry - at $ 200 million.

                        That's bullshit
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Are you kidding me? 667 BDM in 1986 prices of the year cost the country a little more than a billion rubles

                        Bullshit Bullshit Chelyabinsk))) wassat
                        And of course you need to compare it with Perry, and why not with Ohio?
                      13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 12: 54
                        +3
                        Quote: Kars
                        Bullshit Bullshit Chelyabinsk))

                        Kars, congratulations, you just leaked the discussion :)))
                        You quote
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Are you kidding me? 667 BDM in 1986 prices of the year cost the country a little more than a billion rubles

                        Well, if 667BDRM cost the country more than a billion at a dollar exchange rate of 63 kopecks per dollar, then the cost of 667BDRM is about $ 1,6 billion, and the cost of Ohio is $ 1,3-1,5 billion.
                        I foresee the cry of an insulted in the best feelings of the soul about the ruble’s non-convertibility :))) But just before splashing it out for comment - remember that as soon as the ruble was released for free sailing, the cost of our ships quickly approached the cost of the western ones.
                      14. Kars
                        Kars 16 July 2013 13: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Well, if 667BDRM cost the country more than a billion with a dollar exchange rate of 63 kopecks per dollar

                        And how much did it change on the black market? Is it really 63 kopecks))) not a real economist.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I foresee the cry of an insulted in the best feelings of the soul about the ruble's non-convertibility :)))

                        Naturally, but the USSR sold oil for dollars.
                      15. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 13: 46
                        +4
                        Quote: Kars
                        naturally

                        Then what is there to talk about with you at all, Kars? :) But you don’t understand boom-boom in the basics of the economy.
                        The exchange rate of 63 cop to the dollar is artificial, it’s clear to you. And the price of 226 million for Antei is as artificial as the dollar exchange rate - it won’t reach you. Why is that? Yes, because allow the ruble free conversion, i.e. if everyone in the USSR could try to exchange rubles for currency, then the dollar would immediately become much more expensive. Why so, Kars?
                        Yes, for one simple reason - because the amount of competitive goods that the USSR could offer for sale does not correspond to the quantity of goods that he would like to buy. You, Kars, do not understand anything in the economy and think that money is worth something :))) But they are not worth a damn. Do you know how the exchange rate is determined? A country has a volume of goods that it is ready to sell, while in other countries people are ready to buy this volume for currency. That's the whole currency at the disposal of the state :)))) This is a dollar offer. And demand, Kars, is formed from the desire to buy foreign goods. Well, if a country wants to buy imported goods in an amount greater than it can sell its own, then the currency begins to rise in price. It was so in the USSR.
                        You, Kars, don’t understand that the cost of a product DOES NOT AT ALL be compared through the dollar exchange rate. Because the exchange rate shows the ratio of those who would like to buy a dollar and those who would like to sell it. All this has nothing to do with the cost of producing a particular product.
                        And what does the appreciation of the dollar mean?
                        The only thing is that for an imported product (since dollars were bought at an exorbitant price for it), the reseller starts asking for a much higher price than they would for a similar Soviet product. Because the LIKE goods produced in the USSR BEGINS TO COST CHEAPER imported.
                        And what happens in this case? But it’s very simple - own goods begin to rise in price to the level of import :)))
                        If you, Kars, would have thought at least a little yourself, and not with newspaper cliches, then perhaps it would have come to you - since the days of the USSR, in Russia the cost of goods as a whole has come close to similar imported ones. Now a kilo of cooked sausage 300 rub costs, i.e. 10 bucks, about. And in the USSR it cost 2 rubles 90 kopecks and if you take the exchange rate at least 10 rubles for a dollar, it turns out that in the USSR sausages cost only 29 cents :))) Kars, if the REAL cost of our goods were so low, as you thought up to yourself, the USSR, after being introduced into the market, would become the ruler of the world :)))
                        If a miracle had happened and the USSR would have introduced the free conversion of the dollar in 1989, of course, the ruble would have collapsed from 0,63 to 15-20 or maybe more than a dollar (the buffoon knows what the exchange rate would be). Do you understand that? . But what you didn’t understand - the cost of the same Anthea would immediately soar from 226 million rubles into heaven.
                        Yours (and all those who measure the value of goods of the USSR and the USA through unofficial rates), the big mistake is that you take the MARKET dollar rate and compare it with the NON-MARKET price of the goods. Yes, if a market exchange of currency were suddenly introduced in the USSR, but at the same time non-market mechanisms of product pricing were left, that would be true, but such a comparison is completely incorrect.
                      16. Kars
                        Kars 16 July 2013 14: 19
                        +1
                        It follows that when calculating the currency at a more correct exchange rate, the Dolphin in dollars will cost half the price.
                        And do not need so many bukaf.
                      17. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 14: 23
                        +1
                        "more correct" - what is this, Kars? :))) Well, also take into account that the Dolphin will be 1,4 times smaller? :)
                    2. Starina_hank
                      Starina_hank 16 July 2013 20: 55
                      0
                      On the black market, the dollar was worth about 5-6 rubles in those years.
                2. Kars
                  Kars 16 July 2013 13: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  , and the cost of Ohio is $ 1,3-1,5 billion.


                  By the way where are the firewood?

                  I got it
                  For comparison, an Ohio type head boat cost $ 3,1 billion.


                  The English wick gives probably 2 billion for the serial. Ohio is one-on-one in size with Dolphin.
                3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 14: 01
                  +3
                  I took from here
                  http://commi.narod.ru/txt/1997/1002.htm
                  Now I found one more
                  http://www.militaryparitet.com/vp/79 - дает 1,5 млрд, правда на 1980 год
                  Quote: Kars
                  And Ohio in size with Dolphin is one to one.

                  Since when did a ship with a displacement of 11 740 tons suddenly become equal to a ship with a displacement of 16 746 tons, and Kars?
                4. Kars
                  Kars 16 July 2013 14: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  http://www.militaryparitet.com/vp/79 - дает 1,5 млрд, правда на 1980 год

                  I will dwell on 2 billion for serial on the English wiki, they know better than foreign military review

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Since when did a ship with a displacement of 11 740 tons suddenly become equal to a ship with a displacement of 16 746 tons, and Kars?

                  Yes then
                  16 746 / 18 750

                  11 740 / 18 200
                5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 14: 26
                  +1
                  Kars, do I have to explain anything else about displacement? Underwater displacement is, roughly speaking, the VOLUME of the boat. And the surface is the MASS of the boat. In other words, actually iron, and other material in Dolphin in 1,42 times less than in Ohio.
                  Dolphin costs 1,6 billion, Ohio - 2 billion. And?
                6. Kars
                  Kars 16 July 2013 14: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Dolphin costs 1,6 billion, Ohio - 2 billion. And?


                  A dolphin was worth a maximum of 800 million dollars.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Ars, do I need to explain about displacement? Underwater displacement is, roughly speaking, the VOLUME of the boat

                  Well, we will begin to recall the single-hull, double-hull))) In general, they are very close in their characteristics, while Ohio carries 8 more missiles.
                7. Kars
                  Kars 16 July 2013 14: 39
                  +1
                  And purely for fun I will do so
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  That's Antey is estimated at 226 million rubles and Perry - at $ 200 million

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Ohio - $ 1,3-1,5 billion


                  And it turns out that Ohio is much more expensive than Antei)))

                  949A Antey 14 t Ohio 700 xxx
                8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 15: 04
                  +1
                  Kars, I’ve already explained to you 100500 that the price of 226 million rubles for Antei is unrealistic :)) It cost much, much more expensive :)))
                9. Kars
                  Kars 16 July 2013 15: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Kars, I’ve already explained to you 100500 that the price of 226 million rubles for Antei is unrealistic :)) It cost much, much more expensive :)))

                  You told me that I enlightened you in this. What did you call the wrong number. The misanthrope, where I gave out a quote, explained why this could be. And your comparison with Perry was just really real. Is the fantasy weak?
                  Quote: Kars
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Well, if you seriously believe that Antei's 226 million rubles is comparable to Perry's 194 million dollars - the road is there for you :))
                  I? You compared them. And at the same time indicating the wrong figure for Antei


                  Quote: Kars
                  And I said so and AMERICAN ROAD
                  So how are you going to compare with Sea Wolf? It's about 3 billion and even LESS in size))))
                10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 15: 20
                  +3
                  Quote: Kars
                  You to me? I enlightened you in this

                  Dashtots? laughing laughing laughing
                  Kars, for starters, you learn not to lose the thread of the discussion :) My comment outraged you
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Wherever you want. I explain to you once again - all questions about "cheap labor", "pricing mechanisms" and so on and so forth would have acted in the same way, we are not atomic units but aircraft carriers. And the aircraft carrier, which in the United States passed at a price of $ 3 billion, would cost us about 1 billion rubles.
                  Although real labor costs (in man-hours) and material costs during the construction of an aircraft carrier in 100 thousand tons will be comparable, build it even in the USA, even in the USSR

                  And you got into the "last and decisive" Why? Do you like to lose, I guess
                11. Kars
                  Kars 16 July 2013 15: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  you got into the "last and decisive" Why? Do you like to lose, I guess

                  It’s you who loves to say nonsense and then otmazyvatsa comparing the frigate with an underwater cruiser and with ethanol Lazhanutsa in full.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And the aircraft carrier, which in the United States was priced at $ 3 billion, we would have cost about 1 billion rubles.

                  We (you) will not be built at all)) but they will build it for all 200 billion.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 15: 09
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          Well, we will begin to recall the single-hull, double-hull

          Kars, two and a single hull, it’s interesting, of course, but if an American boat weighs 1,42 times our weight, it’s probably worth something, right? :))
        3. Kars
          Kars 16 July 2013 15: 17
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          an American boat weighs 1,42 times more than ours - it's probably something worth it, right? :))

          But what volume doesn’t cost anything? Or will we consider scrap metal?

          What can be done if American ships are more expensive, maintenance of the fleet and infrastructure is more expensive.

          And the total US expenditures on the Navy are not comparable with the expenditures of the USSR. Here is the fact that the United States has a fleet of multi-standard form factor.
          And now, naturally, Russia needs an aircraft carrier, and preferably four. But this is YOUR money, and you will still do as Putin wants.
        4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 15: 23
          +3
          Quote: Kars
          And that volume is worth nothing?

          And the volume, Kars, is not worth anything. Explore at your leisure what a submarine is.
          Quote: Kars
          And now, naturally, Russia needs an aircraft carrier, and preferably four. But this is YOUR money, and you will still do as Putin wants.

          But the most insulting thing for you here, Kars is that you will do as Putin wants it to :))
        5. Kars
          Kars 16 July 2013 15: 28
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          volume, kars, it costs nothing

          Well, on the dog - it’s a monolithic iron ingot))))
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          so this is what you will do as Putin wants it :))

          We still have not entered the Tomezheny Union even though Putin wants this))))
        6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 15: 43
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          Well, on the dog - it’s a monolithic iron ingot))))

          no, there is air between them :))) Who are you trying to pass off as something that costs money Kars :))) In general, have you heard such a term - "air seller"? It is about you.
          Quote: Kars
          We still have not entered the Tomezheny Union even though Putin wants this))))

          And buy gas for 400-450 bucks. As Putin wants it :)))
        7. Kars
          Kars 16 July 2013 18: 37
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          no, there is air between them :))

          Only air? Or is equipment accommodated in the volume? Ballast tanks that have a useful volume?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          air salesman "? It's about you.

          Good skill, profitable.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And buy gas for 400-450 bucks. As Putin wants it :)))

          Yes, we buy, and reduce gas consumption from Russia, and Russia is pulling gas bypass pipelines that will cost a lot, so Gazprom is no longer the leader. As Putin wants.
  • Kars
    Kars 16 July 2013 12: 53
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    That's Antey is estimated at 226 million rubles and Perry - at $ 200 million.

    Quote: Kars
    Not comparable. American ships will be more expensive

    We’ll miss the question of real value. Just laugh with an economist from Chelyabinsk. Who even doesn’t understand what he is writing. Proving MY correctness, the American pelvis is more expensive (well, aren't we going to use the Soviet official course?) Underwater cruiser)) And I said the American ROAD.
    Perry
    Length (m): 135,9
    Width (m): 13,5
    Displacement (tons): 4100
    Speed ​​(knots): 33,4
    Cruising range (miles):
    Crew: 287
    Armament
    Guns: 1 76 Melara / Mk75
    Torpedo tubes: 6 324 mm
    PAC Anti-ship systems: 4 Harpoon
    Helicopters: 2
    Air Defense Systems Air Defense: 1 Volcano MK.15
    1 Standard
    Electronic equipment
    Sonar: 1 AN / SQS-56
    Locator / Radar: 1 AN / SPS-49
    Fire Control System: 1 MK92
    Antey
    Submarine Feature Nuclear Submarine
    General characteristics
    Length (m): 154
    Width (m): 18
    Displacement (tons): 18000
    Speed ​​(knots): 30
    Immersion Depth (m): 600
    Draft (m): 9
    Nuclear Reactor: 2 OK-650B (VM-5) pressurized water reactors (190MW each)
    Crew: 130
    Armament
    Torpedo tubes: 4 650mm
    4 533mm
    PKK Anti-ship systems: 24 P-700 Granite
    Mines: 2
    PLC Antisubmarine complexes: RPK-2 Blizzard
    Waterfall

    Hi Chelyabinsk))) What will happen when he introduces Sea Wolff into a comparison))))
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 13: 01
    +4
    Quote: Kars
    Just laugh with an economist from Chelyabinsk. Who doesn’t even understand what he is writing. Proving MY righteousness, the American pelvis is more expensive (well, aren't we going to use the Soviet official course?) Of an underwater cruiser)) And I said the same as AMERICAN ROAD

    Kars, I think if anyone else is reading our correspondence here, then he himself will conclude who does not understand what and what :)))
    Well, if you seriously believe that Antei's 226 million rubles is comparable to Perry's 194 million dollars - the road is there for you :))
  • Kars
    Kars 16 July 2013 14: 50
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Well, if you seriously believe that Antei's 226 million rubles is comparable to Perry's 194 million dollars - the road is there for you :))

    I? You compared them. And at the same time indicating the wrong figure for Antei


    Quote: Kars
    And I said so and AMERICAN ROAD

    So how are you going to compare with Sea Wolf? It's about 3 billion and even LESS in size))))
  • Santa Fe
    15 July 2013 14: 12
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The most effective, oddly enough, was the US Navy.

    How did you determine this?

    For me, the Israeli fleet was the most efficient in general: small, cheap, 90% of the time on the front lines, a lot of bright victories (you don’t need to talk about Eilat, remember the battle of Latakia better), maximum compliance with the terms of the theater of war, unexpected tricks and competent actions in any situation
  • cdrt
    cdrt 15 July 2013 15: 22
    +1
    Hmm ... the US way of building a fleet is no different from the British, French, Japanese, etc.
    Mahen, Columbus everyone read. There are alternatives, but historically they have lost the idea of ​​building a balanced fleet. The Soviet Navy also lost. But the fleet development strategy by the country's leadership is rather a misfortune of our Navy, and not fault.
    1. Santa Fe
      15 July 2013 15: 43
      +2
      Quote: cdrt
      There are alternatives, but historically they have lost the idea of ​​building a balanced fleet.

      Why is that?

      Kriegsmarine's submarines tore to pieces the balanced British fleet. The problems with the German U-bots appeared only in the spring of 1943, when the Yankees seriously took up them and blocked the ocean with their equipment
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 15 July 2013 17: 12
        +1
        Temporarily, the merchant fleet, well, did not break, of course, and then the balanced fleet really broke the German fleet, which was focused on the submarine.
        1. kirpich
          kirpich 15 July 2013 20: 37
          +1
          Heh, if you compare the sunk ships and vessels of the "balanced" fleet, with the sunken submarines of Germany, then "... I am tormented by vague doubts."
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 15 July 2013 21: 29
            +1
            And on the implementation of the tasks, the supply of Great Britain was preserved in the volume that gave it the opportunity to fight Germany. On the other hand, the German fleet practically stopped fighting on communications, having lost 75% of submariners.
            1. Santa Fe
              15 July 2013 22: 46
              +2
              Quote: sevtrash
              And on the implementation of the tasks, the supply of Great Britain was preserved in the volume that gave it the opportunity to fight Germany.

              Naturally, the Yankees built ships faster than they managed to sink

              Without US help, Her Majesty's "balanced" fleet blew the Battle of the Atlantic: 1942, 6 million tons of sunk tonnage - a couple more years in this regime and the Britons would have been a kirdyk
              Quote: sevtrash
              the German fleet practically stopped the struggle on communications, having lost 75% of the submariners.

              When? Since what year has the effectiveness of Kriegsmarine sharply decreased?
              And why?
        2. Santa Fe
          15 July 2013 22: 36
          +3
          Quote: sevtrash
          Temporarily and merchant fleet

          But what about the aircraft carriers Eagle, Ark Royal, Koreyges - after which the British brought aircraft carriers out of operations against German submarines. Battleships Barham and Royal Oak, cruiser Edinburgh loaded with gold ...

          Quote: sevtrash
          and then the balanced fleet really broke the German fleet focused on submarines.

          And then the Yankees came and bombarded the Germans with their anti-submarine technology

          Mass death of Kriegsmarine submarines in 1944-45 - just a confirmation of the rule "Seven are not afraid of one"
          Quote: sevtrash
          Temporarily

          The keyword is temporary. Where did the Britons revive the merchant fleet?

          Maybe because the Yankees were building 3 "Liberty" a day - to compensate for the colossal losses of the British merchant fleet? Without the industrial power of the United States, Britain would have blown the battle for the Atlantic and died of hunger
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 16 July 2013 01: 08
            0
            I agree, Britain would not have survived without the USA. But you can remember what Britain did - the organization of convoys, the introduction of escort aircraft carriers, the creation of search groups, patrolling aircraft, the creation of a centimeter radar for airplanes with a searchlight, the addic, Bletchley Park, the role of admirals Noble and Horton.
            On the most critical days of March, 43 the US asked to be exempted from participating in the North Atlantic convoys.

            The fourth period - from April 43, the allies went on the offensive in the battle for the Atlantic.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 July 2013 01: 39
              +2
              Quote: sevtrash
              convoy organization

              Despite this important circumstance, the Germans banged 6 million tons in 1942
              Quote: sevtrash
              creation of search groups, patrolling by planes

              Oops!
              Where did thousands of new planes and ships come from in exhausted Britain?
              Quote: sevtrash
              creation of a centimeter radar for aircraft with a searchlight, addic

              The Germans also did not sit idle: "Maltese cross", snorkel, new torpedoes, "Electrobot" XXI-series (it is a pity that they did not see this beast in battle)

              In addition, a number of technical measures taken by the Germans to interfere with the operation of the radar and sonar stations of the ships allowed the submarines to carry out combat operations with almost the same efficiency.

              Increasing the submersion depth of the submarines, reducing to a minimum the time required to change the depth of immersion, and increasing the speed underwater by the end of the war, made it possible to achieve a situation in which the probability of their defeat remained almost the same.

              Thus, technical innovations in the issues of anti-submarine defense turned out to be most effective only against submarines of an old design, which had low submarine maneuverable elements.

              Quote: sevtrash
              The fourth period - from April 43, the allies went on the offensive in the battle for the Atlantic.

              The Anglo-American command was able to achieve a turning point in the fight against German submarines only in connection with the creation of incomparable superiority in the forces and means of anti-submarine defense and the conduct of a number of strategic, operational, tactical, organizational and technical measures.
              (quotes from Vershinin D. A., Eremeev L. M., Shergin A. P. The actions of German submarines in World War II on sea communications. - M.: Military Publishing House, 1956.)
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 16 July 2013 12: 32
                0
                Let’s say so - the use of new developments - strategic, tactical, technological - with a balanced British fleet with American support made it possible to break up the German fleet.
                The Germans, of course, are technical geniuses, but lost in this fight. It seems that as soon as two electric bots managed to go on a military campaign.
                Well, in 1956, the objectivity of information about a strategic adversary is doubtful for the masses.
                1. Santa Fe
                  16 July 2013 20: 17
                  0
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  Well, in 1956, the objectivity of information about a strategic adversary is doubtful for the masses.

                  You shouldn’t be so. Vershinin’s handbook is excellent: any information on U-bots and counteraction: areas and causes of death, KOH for any month of the war, breakdown by classes, routes, loss of allies, actions of the Yankees and Britons, etc.

                  However, for non-believers, the American modern reference book "Submarines of the Kriegsmarine 1939-1945." Christopher Bishop - there is a Russian translation in Runet. The data and conclusions are consistent with the old Soviet tome.
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  use of new developments - strategic, tactical, technological

                  The Fritz had their own ready-made answer to all this. Often more formidable than the Allies could have imagined

                  The only problem is the quantity

                  Take a look at this tabular anecdote - the incredible US industry stupidly flooded the Fritzes with anti-submarine technology. And you are all "balanced fleet", "balanced fleet")))
                  1. sevtrash
                    sevtrash 16 July 2013 20: 45
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The data and conclusions coincide with the old Soviet folio.

                    I'm about the interpretation.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    and all this the Fritz had his own ready-made answer. Often more formidable than the Allies could have imagined

                    Well, like it was already higher - the most important means of detecting submarines underwater - the British made the addicts and transferred the technology to the United States, the most important means of detecting submarines from the air at night - the British invented a centimeter radar, a system of convoys, search groups, escort aircraft carriers.
                    The role of the Americans is certainly important, but since March 43 they have refused to participate in the posting of North Atlantic convoys.
                  2. Santa Fe
                    16 July 2013 23: 17
                    0
                    Quote: sevtrash
                    British made the addicon and transferred the technology to the USA, the most important means of detecting submarines from the air at night - the British invented the centimeter radar

                    Happy for them

                    But sonar and radar are nothing without carriers: ships and aircraft. And ships and planes were made by the Yankees. And what was done in Britain was again made from imported, most often American, materials. And the supply of Britain was carried out by ocean, on the American ships "Liberty", which were threshed by the Yankees at a rate of 3 transport / day (a total of 2710 units during the war years) - all to cover the losses of the British merchant fleet.

                    As a result, the American industrial industry overwhelmed the Kriegsmarine with technology.
                    Quote: sevtrash
                    Americans are certainly important, but since March 43 they have refused to participate in the North Atlantic convoys.

                    yeah)))
                    47 escort aircraft, 800+ escort destroyers, frigates and hunters of the US Navy (data for June 1943) just hung in the Atlantic
                  3. sevtrash
                    sevtrash 17 July 2013 00: 15
                    0
                    ... refused to participate in posting North Atlantic convoys. North Atlantic. Where the main war with the submarine was concentrated.

                    Well, why should we argue with you. The argument seems to be already out of principle - who will argue. And you're right, maybe I'm right in something. The British did a lot, but without the Americans they would have lost. Do you agree to this option? drinks
                  4. Santa Fe
                    17 July 2013 01: 54
                    0
                    Quote: sevtrash
                    Well, why should we argue with you. The argument seems to be already out of principle - who will argue.

                    The dispute began with the statement:
                    The Kriegsmarine submarines lost the battle for the Atlantic because the Germans had an unbalanced fleet

                    It turned out that everything is not so simple ... they could fight and with an equal balance of forces they fought very successfully. However, as popular wisdom says, "seven are not afraid of one"
                    drinks
  • Santa Fe
    15 July 2013 13: 59
    +5
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Just don't ask me why. I will not be able to answer the question of how our ships in rubles were cheaper than American ones in dollars

    Well, how so))) After all, you love the economy so much))

    Soviet ships were cheaper due to cheap labor. The standard of living in America and the USSR was different
    The greed of the shipyard top managers is growing towards the cost of US ships - here, according to your link:
    Two primary factors causing this increase were the addition of equipment that was not included in the original cost and much higher than anticipated shipbuilding costs.

    Plus do not forget to take into account different tax laws
    Plus, it is not known what the Yankees are hiding under the words program cost (after all, the cost of 194 million per frigate is derived from the cost of the program 10 billion / 52 ships.). But what do these 10 billion mean?
    R&D, there may be repairs and upgrades, infrastructure for the construction and operation of ships, m. operating cost? (as is customary in aviation)

    The fact remains that the US Navy was much more complicated and expensive than the Soviet Navy. At the same time, he did not particularly distinguish himself anywhere. This is evidenced by both the figures of the budgets for 1989 and the actual ship composition. The same Perry Yankees riveted 53 pieces (Soviet analogue - Petrel, built "only" 32 ships)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 14: 20
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Well, how so))) After all, you love the economy so much))

      Nevertheless, in the calculation of military equipment of the USSR I have no move, so I can only guess what is there.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Soviet ships were cheaper due to cheap labor.

      Oleg, for the question you are considering - it is DONE without a difference. You see, aircraft carriers in the USSR would be built by the same cheap rafting you are writing about :))) Is it really not clear that all these servile and tax incentives are NOT a class of ships at all. The difference is not that atomarines built instead of aircraft carriers, but that our ships were built in the USSR, and theirs in America.
      But okay. Tell me, please, how much after all (or how much?) In the 1989 year did the USSR spend less on the shipbuilding than the USA?
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The fact remains - the US Navy was much more complicated and expensive than the Soviet fleet

      The numbers are in the studio. Bold, Oleg is not proof
      1. Santa Fe
        15 July 2013 15: 52
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        For the question you are considering - it is DONE without a difference.

        For the question you are considering, it matters

        in the previous comment, you wondered: Why amers have expensive ships. The answer is obvious - the cost of a slave. strength + a number of factors described above
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The difference is not that atomarines built instead of aircraft carriers, but that our ships were built in the USSR, and theirs in America.

        Well, let's see how much this one would cost in the USSR:

        the cost of the destroyer 956 is 70..90 million rubles.
        the cost of the monstrous 949A - 220 million rubles.
        Kuznetsov cost - 720 million rubles. (1989 estimate)
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 16 July 2013 09: 17
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          the cost of the monstrous 949A - 220 million rubles.

          Should we be joking? 667 BDRM in 1986 prices cost the country a little more than a billion rubles. And the "loaf" will be more expensive. By the way, at the same time the dock operation (without accompanying work, purely by itself) cost about 300 rubles.

          One of the "loaves" at the very end of 1985 was slightly damaged by a storm in the plant. A neighbor on the quay wall was slightly "moved" to the mooring lines. And with his propellers he broke the nose cone fairing for the "loaf". Two dock operations, replacement of propellers and fairing. And two new nuclear submarines have been moved to next year's financial plan. As a result, the Arkhangelsk region did not fulfill the five-year plan. Estimate the level of sums ... what
          1. Santa Fe
            16 July 2013 10: 36
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            Should we be joking? 667 BDRM in 1986 prices cost the country a little more than a billion rubles. And the "loaf" will be more expensive. By the way, at the same time the dock operation (without accompanying work, purely by itself) cost about 300 rubles.

            I don’t know, Misantrop. The figure of 226 million is widely walking on the Internet.
            http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-608.html
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 16 July 2013 10: 52
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The figure of 226 million is widely walking on the Internet.
              On an Internet walks a lot of things. If you believe all this ... lol At the same time (in 1986) I received the figures given by me from the responsible delivery officer of our ship. Most likely, he was aware of the REAL value. Do not forget that at that time it was quite a popular phenomenon to "spread" the cost across different ministries. Something was taken over by mintyazhmash, some - by the fleet, another piece - by minsredmash. Etc. Apparently, the Internet figure is just from the report of one of the ministries
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 11: 23
                +3
                And something my heart is telling me that the figures given in the article
                Expenditures on the USSR Navy in 1989 amounted to 12,08 billion rubles, of which 2993 million rubles for the purchase of ships and boats and 6531 million for technical equipment

                they do not include all the costs of maintaining the fleet ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  16 July 2013 11: 43
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  they do not include all the costs of maintaining the fleet ...

                  It doesn’t give you anything)))

                  949A - 226 million + non-included expenses
                  Kuznetsov - 700 million + non-included expenses
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 10: 43
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          For the question you are considering, it matters

          Oleg, well, don't contradict yourself. You claim that the USSR spent a lot less money on the Navy than the USA and that the USSR Navy was cheaper. When the question "why?" you answer
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Soviet ships were cheaper due to cheap labor

          and that
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The cost of US ships wraps up the greed of top managers of shipyards

          и
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Plus do not forget to take into account different tax laws

          Well, what follows from this? Oleg, you did NOT WORD say that the United States built an aircraft carrier fleet, but the USSR didn’t (and it is correct that it didn’t) because the price difference depends on a lot, but the class of the ship has nothing to do with it. If we build submarines cheaper than in the USA, destroyers are cheaper than in the USA, then we will build aircraft carriers cheaper than in the USA. Those. we come to where we started - yes, the USSR fleet cost in rubles cheaper than the American in dollars, but this is NOT connected with the creation of an aircraft carrier fleet.
          Will you argue?
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 16 July 2013 09: 11
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Soviet ships were cheaper in view of cheap work force.
      Well, yes, quite cheap. A skilled worker at the Fiolent plant in Simferopol (which worked for the Navy) in the 80s earned from one to one and a half thousand rubles. This is in Crimea, without any northern allowances. In the prices of that time, one cannot call him a beggar ...
      1. Santa Fe
        16 July 2013 10: 39
        0
        Quote: Misantrop
        Well, yes, quite cheap. A skilled worker at the Fiolent plant in Simferopol (which worked for the Navy) in the 80s earned from one to one and a half thousand rubles.

        Honestly, I can hardly believe it. These are some general salaries

        And how much did you get unskilled?
        The living standards in the USSR and the USA were different, there’s nothing to argue about
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 16 July 2013 11: 00
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Honestly, I can hardly believe it. These are some general salaries
          One and a half thousand was received by the locksmith (my friend). True, the highest level. Without leaving Simferopol. The 5th-level system installer earned 800-1000 at the factory + before he was thrown up to 500 on business trips to the NSR or to bases on Kola. Well, the auxiliary, as elsewhere, received nonsense. My friend graduated from SPI (Sevastopol Instrument-Making) and got to Severodvinsk by distribution. He worked on the assembly of 941 projects. After 2 years, he bought a 3-room cooperative apartment and a Lada. Honestly earned, he didn’t steal and didn’t bother.

          I just used to be quite closely associated with "Fiolent", they did quite a lot for us. And then for about 10 years he worked in the Crimea at an enterprise together with a large number of factory workers from there (they left when the factory began to turn sour). Naturally, we often talked (and about salaries too).

          And the generals, by the way, didn’t get that much. Net salaries were not striking in size. And on one of the submarines of our division, he knew the midshipman, who received more than the cruiser commander (Pole, length of service, etc.) ... By the way, the Soviet military never received much. It was just that there was practically nowhere to spend in the remote garrison during the year, and there was nothing to spend on it, so they left all the expenses on vacation ...
          1. Santa Fe
            16 July 2013 11: 41
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            One and a half thousand was received by the locksmith (my friend). True, the highest level

            And how much did the driver get?
            Specialist from the engineering department?
            The railwayman? (hire to the plant does not creep by itself)
            Etc.

            And in the States, $ 1000 was a nigga loafer
  • Airman
    Airman 15 July 2013 10: 03
    +1
    Why is there such evidence that an outfit of 3 air regiments of bombing missiles was assigned to destroy the AUG?
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 15 July 2013 10: 51
      +2
      Quote: Povshnik
      was an outfit of 3 air regiments of missile bombers designated for the destruction of the AUG?
      Crimean MAD 3-regiment structure (Guards, October, Fun). There was, however, a separate MRA in Novofedorovka on the Tu-22, but he usually acted according to his plan.
      But (according to the pilots) the Tu-22M could only ... fly. Tu-22M2 (and M3) could already use weapons
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 15 July 2013 13: 34
      +5
      In those years, the textbook on naval aviation tactics considered the task of attacking an AUG, including when it included 4x URA cruisers (Aegis system)
      The required force of forces was defined as the delivery of two coordinated attacks by forces of two Tu22M regiments, with the support of reconnaissance and electronic warfare. (Tu22, Tu95)
      Those. 3 regiment is a common required outfit of forces. And not just attack aircraft. When anti-radar and missile jammers were used in the first wave, the probability of AUG defeat was determined as 86% with losses on the part of the attackers in the first wave up to 75% and up to 50% in the second.
  • selbrat
    selbrat 15 July 2013 10: 18
    +5
    The article is good. The only thing that becomes annoying from the thought that little is left of us from that power ...
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 15 July 2013 15: 25
      0
      And what is positive !!! Would Russia give this power?
      What does it give us to defend our interests that we can destroy with a sudden (first, aggressive) air strike of the United States? Give for example any real option?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 15 July 2013 15: 35
        +3
        Let's just say the "doctrine of unacceptable damage" cools hotheads very well.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 16 July 2013 09: 26
        +2
        Quote: cdrt
        Give for example any real option?

        The behavior of NATO countries in Libya and ... Syria. Despite the fact that the 5th naval squadron is not there. Move forward in time to Yugoslavia with decisive goals - who the hell would anyone dare to bomb. And the alignment of forces in Europe would now be completely different
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 15 July 2013 10: 20
    +10
    The Navy of the USSR was ruled by competent people who understood their goals and objectives perfectly: despite their smaller budget, the Russian Navy could adequately withstand even the mighty American fleet - the ships performed tasks anywhere in the oceans, defending the interests of their homeland.
    As for the domestic fleet, he did everything that a normal fleet should have done, with the exception of striking targets in the depth of the coast.

    Everything is correct in the article, I practically agree with everything, but I want to add that due to the fact that Literate people controlled the Navy of the USSRit was assumed, for the balance of the USSR fleet, the construction of a series of aircraft carriers pr. 1143.7 "Ulyanovsk", as well as the Yak-141 was created, which was to be placed on ships pr. 1143.1-4 (Kiev • Minsk • Novorossiysk • Admiral Gorshkov). In this case, the Soviet fleet would be in no way inferior to the American one. And only due to the fact that another revolution took place in our country (the top officials wanted to live in a new way) the plans were not implemented.
    1. Kars
      Kars 15 July 2013 10: 22
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      For the balance of the fleet of the USSR, the construction of a series of aircraft carriers, etc. 1143.7

      This is from the syndrome of adulation before the West which in the USSR got a place by the 80th year.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 10: 33
        +7
        Yeah. Gorshkov has a syndrome of cringing. And the time machine - first decomposed in 1980's and then pulled to the end of 60's - aircraft carriers to design (1160 project) ...
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 July 2013 11: 09
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yeah. Gorshkov has a syndrome of cringing. And the time machine - first decomposed in the 1980s and then dashed to the end of the 60s - aircraft carriers to design (project 1160) ..

          Let’s remember the 40th there were also going to build some kind of aircraft carrier. Then they only launched the captured zeppelin on the target. And as we see from the 60s, the aircraft carrier didn’t, and the United States did not attack the defenseless without the USSR aircraft carriers.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 11: 28
            +6
            Quote: Kars
            Let’s remember the 40-there are also some kind of aircraft carrier were going to build

            Don't just build. ours were negotiating the sale of the Zeppelin in the USSR or the construction of such an aircraft carrier in Germany for the USSR. Germany refused.
            In the shipbuilding program 1946-1955, Mr. Kuznetsov requested the inclusion of 6 large and 6 small aircraft carriers. Stalin rejected and left only 2 small. But under Vissarionych they didn’t have time to lay them down either - he had an advanced in the big cruisers, so they laid them out (although I wish they had been completed, though there were stupid ships, but they would have found use - to accompany the same AUGs )
            Kuznetsov, however, did not accept, and when in 1951 he was returned to the commander-in-chief he continued to demand aircraft carriers - at least small ones. This is how Project 85 was born - under 30 thousand tons, 2 catapults, 40 aircraft and helicopters. Kuznetsov wanted at least 9 of these, but the "great naval commander" Khrushchev Kuznetsov removed and the construction of large ships stopped. Demanding them under Khrushchev became dangerous to health
            But a few years after Khrushchev left, the sailors again begin to demand aircraft carriers. In 1969, the design of an 80-ton nuclear power plant with catapults and an air group of 70 aircraft began. But now a new "naval commander" appears on the scene - Ustinov, and instead of normal aircraft carriers, our sailors have to be content with a Kiev-type aircraft carrier Gorshkov does not give up, and already by the mid-70s he is pushing through Project 1153 - an atomic AB with catapults but less than 1160. But in 1976, Gorshkov dies - and the project is shredded again, and only 10 years later Kuznetsov was laid
            In general, our sailors CONSTANTLY requested aircraft carriers. And here are the high leaders in the person of Stalin. Khrushchev, Ustinov and others - who knew little about the fleet at all - constantly opposed the sailors in this matter.
            1. Kars
              Kars 15 July 2013 11: 34
              +3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Germany for the USSR. Germany refused.

              And then our spite sank the trophy))))
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In general, our sailors CONSTANTLY requested aircraft carriers

              Well, this is always not enough. If they were Soviet aircraft carriers, they would bend in the late 70s. At the same time, a couple of Soviet aircraft carriers against the entire American pack would have no real significance.


              And by the way tiprits / Bismarck also thought to buy.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 12: 02
                +4
                Quote: Kars
                And then our spite sank the trophy))))

                What did you have to do with him? Put on conservation, wait for years until we develop a jet carrier-based aircraft, then rebuild the Zeppelin a little more than completely - dismantle carts and weak catapults, install an angular deck ... Or in 1946, develop a deck-based propeller fighter for it? Do you even remember that the ship's turbines were blown up (it was actually possible to commission 2 of 4) - and the same applied to power plants and elevators?
                And even in spite of all this, Kuznetsov asked him to finish building - he went to the shipyard of the shipbuilding industry and even secured the consent of the Baltic Shipyard to carry out the necessary work. the decision to destroy Zeppelin was by no means taken by sailors.
                Quote: Kars
                Well, this is always not enough. If they were Soviet aircraft carriers, they would bend at the end of the 70

                Yeah :))) A billion rubles per ship (this would be about the Soviet Nimitz cost) would certainly ruin the USSR :)))
                Quote: Kars
                And by the way tiprits / Bismarck also thought to buy.

                They did not plan to buy them, they just studied the documentation and seemed to copy what seemed interesting, and then returned the type as unnecessary.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 15 July 2013 12: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And what had to be done with him? Put on preservation, wait for so many years until we develop a reactive

                  Not the Yankees were used in Korea with piston pistols, but you see the USSR is not kosher))) Maybe you just didn’t need nafig? Although Italian and German disadvantages were actively used. If I hadn’t invaded Novorossiysk, I could have lived up to the 80s.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Yeah :))) Billion rubles per ship

                  Come on, enough in the economy you are a complete zero. Already tired.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  They did not plan to buy them, they just studied the documentation and seemed to copy what seemed interesting, and then returned the type as unnecessary.
                  Of course, turn in under warranty))) the color does not fit.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 12: 16
                    +5
                    Quote: Kars
                    Maybe just nafig was not needed?

                    Kars, did you turn on selective reading again? The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy thought he needed it. The decision to destroy Zeppelin was made contrary to the opinion of the sailors.
                    Quote: Kars
                    Come on, enough in the economy you are a complete zero.

                    But you are a wise man. Again you will tell how the United States, according to the plan of Marshall from Europe, sucked out all the money? laughing laughing laughing
                    Quote: Kars
                    Already tired.

                    Well, do not go into questions that you can’t handle
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 15 July 2013 12: 28
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy thought he needed it. The decision to destroy Zeppelin was made contrary to the opinion of the sailors.

                      The commander-in-chief of the Navy is all sailors? But there is a fact, and Kuznetsov is also not infallible.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      But you are a wise man. Again you will tell how the United States, according to the plan of Marshall from Europe, sucked out all the money?

                      Surely I’m better at understanding you. But read Marshal’s pln, you can understand what's what.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Well, do not go into questions that you can’t handle

                      No, are you personally tired of writing the promised statue? By the first of April?


                      And by the way, by the face of the USSR, even without aircraft carriers, it was not subjected to military aggression. And Argintina lost the Falklands having an aircraft carrier in service.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 12: 45
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        The commander-in-chief of the Navy is all sailors? But there is a fact, and Kuznetsov is also not infallible.

                        Of course you better know
                        Quote: Kars
                        Surely better than you understand

                        Blessed is he who believes :)
                        Quote: Kars
                        No, you personally are tired

                        So I tell you again - refrain from remarks of "cosmic proportions and cosmic ..." and I will not bother you :)
                        Quote: Kars
                        when will you write the promised statue?

                        Did I promise you something? :)
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 15 July 2013 13: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Of course you better know

                        And what is infallible?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Blessed is he who believes :)

                        It’s strange then YOU DO NOT BELIEVE that you understand better than I do)))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So I tell you again - refrain from remarks of "cosmic proportions and cosmic ..." and I will not bother you :)

                        That yes, wait from you will bring your nonsense to the masses.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Did I promise you something? :)
                        Personally, I don’t, but in general I promised.
          2. Taoist
            Taoist 15 July 2013 15: 09
            +5
            Well, I would not say so categorically ... Do not forget that in addition to the purely military, there is an economic aspect. Suppose we could design a full-fledged AV in the 70s ... (although not a fact, I know not by hearsay when serving on THREAD about troubles with catapults) But could you build? Is it ok to keep it after construction? Well, we did not have the infrastructure for these ships ... And it cost much more to create it than to build the ship itself. And without this there were enough troubles even with those, as you put it, "non-aviation carriers" ... Was it worth it to "open the beak" for something more under these conditions? The question is acute.
            Well, admirals, they are always like small children will ask for "bigger toys" ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 15: 28
              +2
              Quote: Taoist
              Suppose we could design a full-fledged AB in the 70 years ... (although not a fact, I know by hearsay when serving on a thread about troubles with catapults)

              I believe that they would have mastered. The thing is very difficult, and probably would have to finish for a long time, but there would be a desire.
              Quote: Taoist
              But could they build it?

              Why isn't there? "Sevmorput" of 61 thousand tons with nuclear power plant was mastered, and even in our time "Prirazlomnaya" was somehow made up ...
              Quote: Taoist
              And after construction is it normal to keep?

              To be able to - if they could, not a question, is another matter - they would want ...
              Quote: Taoist
              Well, admirals, they are always like small children will ask for "bigger toys" ...

              Only they actually fight this. Do not remember a single war that savings would have won
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 15 July 2013 15: 43
                +2
                You are confusing economics with economy. The economy wins wars. Remember the same Germans with their "wunderwaffe".

                Well, do you seriously think that we built our TAKRs on the Black Sea Fleet only because of the masochistic desire to engage in their wiring through the straits? In the north we did not have the capacity to build such ships ... and now there is not. The same poor Gorshkov wasn’t built and modernized for how many years. The construction of civilian vessels of large tonnage is not equal to the ability to build warships. Again built to build ... then what? Do you know at least one dock under such tonnage? And even in the project there wasn’t ...
                Yes, of course, in the days of the Soviet Union they could have shouted "give" and done ... but damn the laws of economics, nobody canceled one thing. It is easier for staff members - their infrastructure for such "toys" has long been created ... not to mention the "climatic bonus" ... In our North, you don't really work on open stocks.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 15: 51
                  +3
                  Quote: Taoist
                  Well, do you seriously think that we built our TAKRs on the Black Sea Fleet only because of the masochistic desire to engage in their wiring through the straits? In the north we did not have the capacity to build such ships ..

                  So nuclear AB would be built there. What is the problem?
                  Quote: Taoist
                  Do you know at least one dock under such tonnage? And even in the project there wasn’t ...
                  Yes, of course, in the days of the Soviet Union they could have shouted "give" and done ... but damn the laws of economics, nobody canceled one thing.

                  And what are the laws of the economy that allowed to build the 100500 nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines but did not allow the construction of aircraft carriers? Or submarines do not need docks? Base locations? Infrastructure?
                  Quote: Taoist
                  You are confusing economics with economy. The economy wins wars. Remember the same Germans with their "wunderwaffe".

                  And you, excuse me, look at things from the standpoint of yesterday. The fundamental difference is that if in those days the victory in the war was decided by the weapons that were produced during the war, then the modern war will be decided by the weapons that were produced before the war. Now it’s impossible to deploy Su-35 production out of nothing and dozens of aircraft carriers and battleships like the USA cannot build in WWII. What they did before the war, they will have to fight.
                  1. Taoist
                    Taoist 15 July 2013 16: 05
                    +2
                    Nobody will win a nuclear war ... non-nuclear ... we will have the same alignment in the economy. Mob reserve and the ability to quickly make up for losses will be decisive.

                    The nuclear submarine, with all their complexities, is still a much more compact machine than even the aircraft carrier. (I’m not talking about a full-fledged AB. So it’s simpler with docks and boathouses. Do not forget that the complexity of construction grows exponentially along with the tonnage. And it’s not because of "harmfulness" that they always tried to limit the tonnage.

                    And the problem with the nuclear submarines in the south was precisely in their power plant and the "status of the straits." After all, we could carry out TAKRs there only by completely disarming them. It is strange that you are not aware of this "feature". Turkey is a NATO country if anything ... And now we don't have the Nikolaev shipyards either ... There is more or less only Severodvinsk left - but it is not capable of much without a very serious modernization. God grant what is to be completed and maintained. Eagles and those really have nowhere to repair.
                  2. Santa Fe
                    15 July 2013 16: 15
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And what are the laws of the economy that allowed to build 100500 nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines but did not allow the construction of aircraft carriers?

                    What a weird number 100500

                    nuclear boats had 250 + a couple of hundred diesels, most of the 613 and 633 post-war projects

                    S-189 and Mistral. The difference is noticeable
                2. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 16 July 2013 14: 20
                  +1
                  Quote: Taoist
                  In the north we did not have the capacity to build such ships.

                  The lead ship of the Soviet Union, serial number S-299, was laid in Leningrad at the Baltic Shipyard. Standard displacement 60,190 t
                  full 67,370 t
                  And in general

                  Mayer Shipyard, Papenburg, workshop 6 - 504x150x70m 2008
                  NSR, Severodvinsk workshop 55 - 436x130xmin. 55m 70s
                  ChSZ, Nikolaev - 400x x
                  Mayer Shipyard, Pepenburg, workshop 6 - 380x150x70m 2001
                  Mayer shipyard, Papenburg, workshop 5 - 360x150x60m 90s
                  Volkswerft, Stralsund, - 300х108х74 1996 g
                  NSR, Severodvinsk, 302x44xmin. 40m 1939
                  1. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 14: 25
                    +1
                    So how is it? Completed? The trick is that the construction there was stopped even before the war, because it became clear that the plant was "not pulling". Capacities are not only the dimensions of the slipway ... Yes, if the task was set it would be possible to sharpen the plant in Severodvinsk for these purposes ... But it would be worth it, oh, how expensive.
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 16 July 2013 22: 23
                      +1
                      Quote: Taoist
                      Yes, if the task was set, it would be possible to sharpen the plant in Severodvinsk for these purposes ...

                      I will repeat again
                      30 декабря 1974 года
                      The State Commission, chaired by the Deputy Minister of the Shipbuilding Industry I.S.Belousov, signed the act of putting into operation one of the main production facilities of Sevmash Enterprise - workshop No. 55, a giant boathouse, which could accommodate four St. Isaac's Cathedrals. Boathouse length - 432 m, width - 130 m, height - more than 70 m.

                      From 1974 to 2008 it was the largest indoor boathouse in the world until the Americans put it into operation, in 2008 Mayer Shipyard, Papenburg, workshop 6 - 504x150x70m The only thing that there was no experience in building aircraft carriers, the truth was practiced with Vikramaditya, several specialists say lured from the Nikolaev plant.
                    2. Taoist
                      Taoist 16 July 2013 22: 46
                      +1
                      And I will repeat once again that "production capabilities" are not only the size of the boathouse. You yourself say:
                      "There is no experience in building aircraft carriers, the truth has been practiced from the Vikramaditya, they say several specialists have been lured from the Nikolaev plant."

                      How many tortured this Vikramadyu? And they made me think about the price, and I am silent about the deadlines. They will set the task there, of course, and they will build AB (there is nowhere else for everything) but it will not be soon and not easy.
                    3. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 17 July 2013 17: 47
                      0
                      Quote: Taoist
                      They will set the task there, of course, and they will build AB (there is nowhere else for everything), but it will not be soon and not easy.

                      All that remains for me is to agree with you, not soon and not simply.
          3. Santa Fe
            15 July 2013 15: 56
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Do not remember a single war that savings would have won

            The fall of the Roman Empire
            USSR withdrawal from Afghanistan

            If the war brings minimal costs to the opponent (or even profit) - he will win.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 15 July 2013 22: 37
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    This is from the syndrome of adulation before the West which in the USSR got a place by the 80th year.

    The idea of ​​building an aircraft carrier was until the 80s, and there was no cringing in the 80s, it began at the end under Gorbachev after he greeted Reagan by the hand in 1987
    1. Kars
      Kars 15 July 2013 22: 46
      +2
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      and there was no adulation in the 80s,

      If I’m not mistaken - Imported jacket 2 pieces? Japanese magnetovon and so on? Dandies? There was something similar in military affairs too. If they make Americans, then we need it.

      Quote: saturn.mmm
      The idea of ​​building an aircraft carrier was until the 80s

      Until the 80s, they certainly were. But the atomic sold only 90 m. Before that, they burned on helicopter carriers.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 16 July 2013 15: 03
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Until the 80s, they certainly were. But the atomic sold only to 90 m

        They began to be built in the late 80s and the development of the project of individual parts of the same catapult, all this lasted at least a decade

        Quote: Kars
        If I am not mistaken - Imported jacket 2 pieces? Japanese magnetovon and so on?

        And a domestic time machine. A Hungarian jacket, Yugoslav shoes, Polish jeans. And Soviet tape recorders, for whom sound was a decisive factor, exceeded Japanese ones in frequency characteristics. Styles and hippies from the 60s.
        Quote: Kars
        If Americans are doing, then we need it.

        It was more like a Lapta game
  • krpmlws
    krpmlws 15 July 2013 11: 36
    +2
    I support = +. The article is not objective and essentially pursues the goal of weakening the country's defense capability. The role of aircraft carriers in the Pacific War in WWII is enormous, and it would be nice to remember the author of the Falkland War. The USSR did not build aircraft carriers under Stalin on the basis of a lag in understanding of their need for balance fleet (for example, anti-carrier ships would be useful in guarding convoys in the Second World War), later guided by political motives (aircraft carrier-weapon of aggression). According to the author, the American military leadership is suckers, since huge funds were squandered into useless AUGs, I doubt it very much. Somehow, we suspiciously cut and sold our aircraft carriers in the 90s, probably not without clues from across the ocean. The significance of aircraft carriers and other high-tech weapons: stealth aircraft, avax; - All this significantly increased the prestige of the United States. The USSR lost in the ideological struggle, which led to an increase in Westernist sentiment. The result is tragic, the formation of prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR.
    1. Santa Fe
      15 July 2013 16: 04
      +3
      Quote: krpmlws
      The USSR did not build aircraft carriers under Stalin on the basis of a lag in understanding their need

      The USSR did not build AB under Stalin on the basis of the capabilities of the shipbuilding industry, which was in a deep hole
      Read how the "Soviet Union" type LC was built - worse than Dom-2 on TNT
      Quote: krpmlws
      for example, self-supporting ships would be useful in guarding convoys in the Second World War

      You watched the Pearl Harbor movie. The Norwegian Sea is not Hawaii: icing decks, arctic cold, 200 days a year, storm and low clouds, constant fog, polar night ....

      Destroyers were required to cover the convoys, but Soviet industry could not even build them in the required number
      Quote: krpmlws
      Somehow we suspiciously quickly cut and sold off our aircraft carriers in the 90s

      Are you talking about "Kiev" and the like?
      There were no planes for them - Yaks were written off in 1991
  • deman73
    deman73 15 July 2013 10: 22
    -2
    Only our enemies and traitors talk such nonsense about the worthlessness of our fleet.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 15 July 2013 15: 38
      +2
      Only our enemies and traitors talk such nonsense about the worthlessness of our fleet.


      Such nonsense, only our enemies and traitors talk about the need to realize the urgent needs of our fleet in a balanced development.

      In principle, the same as your statement, only a mirror wink
      Do not expose your point of view as the only true one, and the opposite - as a betrayal.
  • Ruslan_F38
    Ruslan_F38 15 July 2013 10: 35
    +4
    The article is of course interesting. You just need to understand that there was a fleet in the USSR, a fleet with the capabilities of which the whole world was considered, and modern Russia still needs to build it!
  • Jarserge
    Jarserge 15 July 2013 10: 46
    +3
    First a cartridge and then a weapon .....
  • morpogr
    morpogr 15 July 2013 11: 03
    +1
    An interesting article is what to discuss what happened and what is needed in the future.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 15 July 2013 11: 21
    +4
    The Second World War showed the role of aircraft carriers, the fact that in the USSR they finally decided to make them in the classic version (Ulyanovsk) already says that the Navy did not have enough of them. Another thing is that the creation of a similar US fleet of the USSR was not affordable. As now, Russia cannot afford to maintain and build an aircraft carrier fleet. So the bet on an asymmetric answer was rather logical. The economy, material and technical base did not correspond to the USA and now it does not correspond to the USA, China ...
    Was the asymmetric answer of the USSR successful? Probably, one can judge by the possibility of realizing the main goals. Well, with the submarines, it’s clear that the Americans would strike with their Ohio practically without problems. Ours would have done too, but I don’t know how many boats would have been lost before the strike. The secrecy of our submarines was worse, as was the ability to detect American submarines.
    As with the USA AUG. Perhaps some aircraft carriers sank. Well, of course, not all. I read somewhere that every submarine of the USSR, after leaving the base, passed the US nuclear submarine, maybe not one. And Oscars, of course, too. I think it’s not worth seriously considering the capabilities of other carriers of guided missile weapons — surface ships, airplanes, and they are unlikely to be able to approach the launch line even without the influence of ACG.
    And most importantly. Large-scale war is the final and unlikely version of the conflict. During the Cold War, the fleet had other, not apocalyptic, tasks. Including projection of force, impact in a local conflict. And here the US fleet was and is out of competition.
  • govoruha-otrok
    govoruha-otrok 15 July 2013 11: 32
    +2
    in the 80s, the fleet’s problems were exposed, not least due to the massive supply of new equipment, these were: low command staff training (senior practice on board even at in-base crossings), fraud during military operations (not a single ship was able to complete the training course), deception during the passage of noise measurements, low discipline (one-year-old, drunkenness about / s), weak repair facilities, low training CBD, etc.
    And all these costing calculations are cunning, who counts kindergartens?
    1. Santa Fe
      15 July 2013 22: 27
      +2
      Quote: govoruha-otrok
      in the 80s, the fleet’s problems were exposed, not least due to the massive supply of new equipment, these were: low command staff training (senior practice on board even at in-base crossings), fraud during military operations (not a single ship was able to complete the training course), deception during the passage of noise measurements, low discipline (one-year-old, drunkenness about / s), weak repair facilities, low training CBD, etc.

      High accident rate, eyewash, eternal "fools and roads"
      - a direct consequence of systemic problems in Soviet society
  • Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 15 July 2013 11: 32
    +3
    Not often do I agree with Oleg Kaptsov. smile But here is precisely this case.
    The Soviet Navy could fulfill the tasks for which it was assigned. And the analysis of the composition of the Navy without taking into account the tasks facing it is not correct.
  • Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 15 July 2013 11: 53
    +3
    Oleg, and again you rush to extremes. I understand that you have a steady and along the way already chronic and incurable aerossephobia, but you should not look for a black cat in a dark room. Especially if she is not there ... wink
    And you weren’t too lazy to quote William of our Shakespeare:
    Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
    Judge the sins of others You are so eager to start, start with your own and you will not get to strangers

    And what I will answer with my impromptu:
    "Let's not take Shakespeare in vain ...
    I told him in that seedy London pub,
    swallowing sour ale:
    "William, you are a talent, but people need more
    c.e.c.s and provisions "...


    Of course, Oleg, you can say that my impromptu "neither to the village, nor to the city" (and you may even be right, but I am sinful - I could not resist ... just like you, throwing off your publications), but tell , and why then your "anti-aircraft" articles? .. Now the Soviet Navy is also dragged into this. And the Soviet Navy did not have aircraft carriers because they decided so "at the top", and he got out as best he could without them. And he got out of it ... But why didn’t you come up with a simple idea that it was much easier to do it with aircraft carriers ... Probably you didn’t think about it, Oleg? .. Or maybe you pretended not to thought ...
    1. Santa Fe
      15 July 2013 22: 24
      0
      Quote: Chicot 1
      Let's not remember Shakespeare in vain ...
      I told him in that seedy London pub,
      swallowing sour ale:
      "William, you are a talent, but people need more
      c.e.c.s and provisions "...

      Norm! good
      Quote: Chicot 1
      but tell me, why then your "anti-aircraft" articles?

      US Fleet Development Path Ineffective
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 16 July 2013 23: 35
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Chicot 1
        Let's not remember Shakespeare in vain ...
        I told him in that seedy London pub,
        swallowing sour ale:
        "William, you are a talent, but people need more
        c.e.c.s and provisions "...

        Norm! good

        Thank... yes
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        US Fleet Development Path Ineffective

        There is no ideal in the world ... And the American fleet is imprisoned for American foreign policy. He fully answers her. And the American themselves are quite happy ... wink
        However, it would not hurt us to have a couple of (and ideally three to five) aircraft carriers. Yes, this pleasure is not the cheapest, but they will not be superfluous ...
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 15 July 2013 12: 01
    +6
    The author makes the same mistake as many others before him. Well, you can’t compare the fleets of the United States and Russia so flat. All American ACGs are a threat to third world countries, but not Russia. Because in the water surrounding Russia, the average annual sea swell does not allow the use of carrier-based aircraft. In the Barents and Okhotsk seas, the variability of weather is such that it took off, and there is no where else to land. It is not without reason that our Kuznetsov goes to the Mediterranean Sea for training pilots. And in the Baltic and Black Seas, the American AUG is too vulnerable. The main threat to Russia is the multipurpose nuclear submarines with cruise missiles on board.
  • Toga
    Toga 15 July 2013 12: 12
    +3
    In Soviet times, there was talk among the officers that in the United States the cost of building a ship included the cost of building piers and the entire base structure. And only in the beginning of the 80s did we begin to build at least housing for a new crew.
    The article is very good, our fleet, from my technical background, was balanced and allowed us to solve all the problems of that time. But this phrase is completely incorrect:
    "Soviet KIK (ships of the measuring complex) were regularly on duty at the Kwajalein missile range (Pacific Ocean), observing the trajectories and behavior of the warheads of American ICBMs, they were monitoring launches from foreign cosmodromes - the USSR was aware of all the missile innovations of the" potential enemy ". Such a duty was only in the early 60s in a very short period of time. KIKi performed tasks agreed with the Strategic Missile Forces, but not with the intelligence of the Navy.
  • Hort
    Hort 15 July 2013 12: 15
    +1
    By the way, if it were not for Khrushchev, then aircraft carriers would also have appeared with us. And in the 80s there were projects of aircraft carriers and new TAKRs, but the Union collapsed
  • kirgudu
    kirgudu 15 July 2013 12: 22
    +1
    Tank T-55th is something leaving the landing?
  • Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 15 July 2013 12: 41
    +2
    Any state relies on its military doctrine. The USSR also relied on its naval doctrine, and it was purely defensive, and this is due to the absence of aircraft carriers. With the development of the fleet from coastal to oceanic, the need arose to build aircraft carriers, i.e. the doctrine has changed. hi
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 15 July 2013 15: 43
      -2
      defensive orientation - this is before the beginning of 195X. After that - hundreds of submarines to interrupt communications in the Atlantic, this is not defense
      1. Gomunkul
        Gomunkul 15 July 2013 16: 10
        -1
        Then explain why Khrushchev cut all the battleships into scrap metal? wink
  • Taoist
    Taoist 15 July 2013 13: 14
    +5
    The main problem of the Soviet Navy (however, now the situation has changed little) was not its seeming "low efficiency" and not the lack of AUG (I personally believe that the idea of ​​the aircraft carrier is much more consistent with our doctrine) but the neglect of the coastal infrastructure. We have always formed it according to the "residual principle". The enthusiasm for the "number of keels" with a very unclear system of their further operation and repair did not lead to anything good.
    Another point is also vaguely formed "terms of reference" - as a result, a new ship had to be riveted for each new weapon system. These ships, "sharpened" for a specific type of weapon, were practically not subject to modernization.

    It's offensive. Because in reality the Soviet Navy was the only fighting force capable of challenging (and accepting) the Anglo-Saxon domination of the seas. In principle, not so much is needed for this. And it does not require (even now) the deployment of the next "tonnage" race.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 15 July 2013 14: 24
    +2
    The article frankly surprised me, I just do not understand why? Why did the aircraft carrier move Oleg’s affiliation that frank r already started ... Some comparisons of cost in different coordinate systems, completely incomprehensible statements about the effectiveness of one and the futility of the other. Type phrases
    “The domestic fleet did not have bulky and monstrously expensive helicopter docks like the American Wasp and Taravas.” But the USSR Navy had 153 large and medium landing ships, trained marine units, as well as 14 old artillery cruisers and 17 destroyers with automated 130 mm guns for fire support "are generally awesome (you see 184 large ships cost the USSR nothing, but the Wasps ..)))
    That can explain why one person considers himself smarter than analysts of the US Navy (well, dibs, okay), analysts and sailors of the USSR who constantly demanded aircraft carriers (aa, well, fools, okay here), smarter than analysts of many fleets of the world, who are massively build or order aircraft carriers (well, these are generally downs, the position is clear).
    Why does a person not understand that a balanced fleet cannot consist of submarines alone? Well, the USA, it has bases all over the world, but what about the rest of the countries?
    Yes, and I think about smart, honest and knowledgeable admirals, it was painfully fast and fiercely they sold everything they could reach in the 90s, and these same naval commanders, commanders-in-chief, etc. stole.
    1. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 15 July 2013 15: 22
      0
      Just now you need to look not at the aircraft carrier, but at the plane on this aircraft carrier. The main advantage for commercial aircraft carrier years before the 70s was its massive and instant use on remote TVDs, which was achieved by a large number of relatively cheap aircraft on an aircraft carrier. Now this plane has grown three times in price by 10 times, and the ship has remained the same, problems have been identified for their effective combat use.
  • ksan
    ksan 15 July 2013 14: 27
    +3
    In general, the article in my opinion is correct + The Soviet fleet had other tasks (unlike the American one), and even in the absence of the AUG adequately represented its country. And with all the (indisputable) power of the American, it was the only force in the world that could adequately resist it .And the USSR always managed to resist the threats with "less blood" than Ameram. Yes, and now I think "tearing the navel" of the building is also not worth it. I am sure that now (or in the near future) Russia will find a "symmetrical" answer "not chasing tonnage" as the Taoist correctly noted.
  • Muadipus
    Muadipus 15 July 2013 14: 35
    +1
    Obviously, this impressive set of weapons had an overwhelming cost, but could not solve the task assigned to it - the problem of effective counteraction by the American ACG remained in question.
    The effectiveness of American AUG is questionable. Except for it is very expensive to shake your muscles. I have a question for the author, but how was this "impressive set of weapons" supposed to solve the assigned task? Sink the AUG to hell or what? So now then we would not sit and be clever during working hours at the expense of the employer :) but we would run with clubs.
    1. strange and pretty meaningless
      strange and pretty meaningless 16 July 2013 07: 59
      0
      [quote = Muadipus] [quote] ... and didn’t sit and get smart during working hours at the expense of the employer :) [/ quote]
      laughing test thinking.
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 15 July 2013 15: 04
    +3
    Again we are in battle "Do we need an aircraft carrier, or is it to the devil?"
    mmm guys, but logically, where can we get an aircraft carrier from? only from the Pacific Ocean. in the North, he has nothing to do, or combine him with an icebreaker. In the Baltic, he will scrape all the shallows under the bottom, and where is he going? Denmark will not let it out; will smelt in St. Petersburg be protected? The same situation with the Black Sea, only from Turkey. Also, there is little room for maneuver in the Baltic and Black and his aircraft will lay down very quickly despite all the cover.
    Speaking of the submarine - the story is quite famous in my opinion how our submarine wrapped their ultramodern submarine detection system on the screw. So swearing that the submarines are noticeable is not worth much.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 15: 45
      +2
      Quote: ShadowCat
      mmm guys, but logically, where can we get an aircraft carrier from? only from the Pacific Ocean.

      Three times "damn it!" :))))
      Excuse me, are you planning to withdraw the nuclear submarines to the Atlantic in the event of the start of a big badabum? If yes, then where? I hope not from the Baltic? :) probably not :)))
      And from the North to the Atlantic the road was blocked by a powerful anti-submarine barrier, in all the splendor of the base and deck of aviation, anti-submarine forces, surface and underwater, all kinds of SOSUSs and other things. And it was so difficult to break it. In essence, our submarines were to throw against all the concentrated power of enemy PLO
      But a couple of carrier groups could simply break this barrier and withdraw submarine squadrons to the Atlantic
      1. Inok_10
        Inok_10 15 July 2013 16: 10
        -1
        .. well, you Strategist damn .. :) :) .. The submarines were created for the shortest route through the North Pole .. and the Americans also thought about the same ..
      2. common man
        common man 15 July 2013 16: 20
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But a couple of carrier groups could simply break this barrier and withdraw submarine squadrons to the Atlantic

        Do you seriously think that a pair of aircraft carriers could pass to the Atlantic past Norway and stay alive? And even if it passed. Then what?
        It is not a shame, but we must finally admit that in the event of a major war, our fleet in the world’s oceans does not shine even with aircraft carriers, even without. Against the fleets of the United States, the rest of NATO, and allies such as Japan. Therefore, the main role of the fleet is to protect the coast, closed marine territories (the Northern Sea Route, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Baltic with the Black and Caspian) and solve problems in local conflicts. Carriers are needed, but we have less damn land aviation than amers aircraft carriers. Be realistic.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 July 2013 16: 28
          +3
          Quote: man in the street
          Do you seriously think that a pair of aircraft carriers could pass to the Atlantic past Norway and stay alive?

          What would have stopped them? Maybe the fact that the US AUG, instead of grazing in the Mediterranean, preparing "tomahawks" for shelling our infrastructure, would be wound somewhere near Greenland? And that part of NATO fighter aircraft would have to be sent to cover anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters? And, accordingly, all this splendor would no longer prevent our tanks from going to the English Channel?
          By the way, where does such terrible pessimism come from? In contrast to our AMG, the United States would be able to deploy the 3-4 AUG from the force - and given the fact that Anthei would be part of our submarine squadrons ... in general, I’m not so envious of the United States
          Quote: man in the street
          Carriers are needed, but we have less damn land aviation than amers aircraft carriers. Be realistic.

          We are generally talking about the USSR
      3. Aleksys2
        Aleksys2 16 July 2013 09: 03
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And from the North to the Atlantic the road was blocked by a powerful anti-submarine barrier, in all the splendor of the base and deck of aviation, anti-submarine forces, surface and underwater, all kinds of SOSUSs and other things. And it was so difficult to break it. In essence, our submarines were to throw against all the concentrated power of enemy PLO
        But a couple of carrier groups could simply break this barrier and withdraw submarine squadrons to the Atlantic

        Operation Atrina is a military operation conducted by the USSR Navy in 1987. It consisted of secretly (bypassing the previous exit routes) deployment of the 33-th submarine division of the Northern Fleet in the Atlantic Ocean with the aim of revealing patrol areas of US SSBNs.
        The operation demonstrated the ability of the USSR Navy, in the event of a threat of conflict, to deploy a large submarine group with SLBMs on board off the coast of the United States - thus balancing the US Navy’s naval system around the world. This fact was of great political importance - before the Atrin operation, Soviet nuclear submarines were accompanied by American observer ships all the way and could be immediately destroyed if the war started.
        The operation also revealed the strength of the US PLO in the Atlantic (the American command was aware of the fact that the boats entered the Atlantic, and considerable forces were thrown at their detection, including the British KKE led by the aircraft carrier Invincible) and the tactics of their joint actions to find the enemy.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 09: 34
          +2
          All right but
          1) The submarines were on a new and unusual route for the West (now it is disavowed)
          2) NATO's PLO forces were still much weaker than those that would oppose our fleet if the war broke out
          3) Our submarines had the task of secretly passing to a certain point. They have passed. But such a passage only makes sense for shelling with Granites from the JBCH coast of the United States. Walking with a quiet mouse, not even able to swim up for a communication session ... And when will the combat tasks be solved?
          4) operation was performed by the best of the best - 33-I division. Not everyone had this level of training.
          1. Aleksys2
            Aleksys2 18 July 2013 07: 16
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            NATO’s PLO forces were still much weaker than those that would oppose our fleet if the war broke out.

            Very worried that the USSR’s nuclear submarine division was moving toward the shores of America for unknown purposes, moving stealthily and uncontrollably, the Pentagon threw dozens of patrol aircraft and powerful anti-submarine forces to search for the veil.
            It was a real hunt using all means of search and detection of submarines. Radio direction finders and radars worked, sonars of surface ships were probed by ultrasonic rays of the depths of the Atlantic.
            Airplanes of base and deck patrol aviation circled the ocean around the clock, exposing the barriers of sonar buoys, using on-board search equipment in all modes: magnetometers, heat direction finders, bio-sequence indicators ... The SOSUS hydrophones located on the elevations of the ocean bed, and space reconnaissance equipment worked. But a day passed, the second, the third, and the disappeared division of nuclear-powered ships was not noted on any screens and displays. For eight days, our ships were practically inaccessible to the American anti-submarine forces. They entered the Sargasso Sea in the notorious Bermuda Triangle, where the K-219 nuclear missile boat died a year ago, and, not reaching several tens of miles to the British naval base Hamilton, where, incidentally, American ships and planes are based since 1940. abruptly changed course.
            Soon, the chief of intelligence of the Navy reported "Six nuclear submarines came out of Norfolk to search for Shevchenko's detachment." This is not counting those who were already on routine combat patrols in the Atlantic. Three squadrons of anti-submarine aircraft, three naval search and strike groups, one of them being British led by an aircraft carrier of the Invincible class, and three long-range hydroacoustic reconnaissance ships, were thrown into opposition to us. The American sailors did not quite correctly classify our submarines, defining them as purely missile - the division operated in a mixed composition. US President Reagan was informed that Russian missile submarines are dangerously close to the shores of America. That is why such a large search and strike force was sent against the Soviet submariners.
            The successful operation of the Aport and Atrina operations confirmed the assumption that the US Navy, with the massive use of modern USSR nuclear submarines, will not be able to organize any effective countermeasures against it. At the deployment stage, our submariners are quite capable of actively overcoming all barriers both east of Greenland along the main route using various tactical developments and west of Greenland through the Canadian archipelago due to the excellent seaworthiness of our submarines. After entering the North Atlantic in one way or another, the submarines gained freedom of maneuver and the opportunity to fulfill their main tasks - to disrupt the nuclear strike on the territory of the Soviet Union and to disrupt strategic military transport from the United States and Canada to Europe. In the course of the operations described, submariners successfully found and escorted both American SSBNs (the quietest and most protected targets), and other ships and submarines, and military, and even more civilian - and, therefore, had the opportunity to destroy them with the outbreak of hostilities. It should be noted that, from a military point of view, both Operation Aport and Operation Atrina were carried out almost flawlessly.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 July 2013 08: 12
              +2
              Quote: Aleksys2
              The Pentagon threw dozens of patrol aircraft and powerful anti-submarine forces to search for the veil.

              Dear, I have read this text more than once.
              Quote: Aleksys2
              In response, we were thrown three squadrons of anti-submarine aircraft, three naval search and strike groups, one of them being English, led by an aircraft carrier of the Invincible type, and three long-range sonar reconnaissance ships

              And that’s all. In case of war, the 2th fleet would have deployed there, and the 4th fleet in the South Atlantic. It would be much more serious forces than the above.
  • Inok_10
    Inok_10 15 July 2013 16: 02
    0
    .. Gentlemen, enough to engage in demagoguery .. let's specifically refer to the facts of the use of the USSR Navy: Fact 1: the appearance in the Mediterranean of the TARK "Kirov" quickly calmed down the Americans off the coast of Lebanon in 1983 and more they with their AUG and Iowa are closer than 500-600 km ... didn’t come close .. I hope it’s not worth explaining why? .. :)
    1. Santa Fe
      16 July 2013 22: 55
      +1
      Quote: Inok_10
      I hope it’s not worth explaining why? .. :)

      Iowa walked 10 miles and spread Syrian air defense missile systems in Bekaa Valley
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 July 2013 23: 39
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Iowa walked 10 miles and spread Syrian air defense missile systems in Bekaa Valley

        New Gerssy. Even killed one Syrian general on February 8, 1984

        A SAM suppressed the 8th OFS
  • kirpich
    kirpich 15 July 2013 16: 09
    0
    Quote: 77bob1973
    We must not forget about hundreds of "diesel engines" in all fleets, the USA has only nuclear submarines


    I completely agree. And, "diesels", in modern warfare, more terrible than nuclear submarines.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 15 July 2013 16: 48
    +4
    our apls died very quickly in the event of a real conflict, the sailors themselves admitted it and no one ever argued with this, everything is in numerous memoirs and memoirs. One of the key elements ensuring the rapid death of apl is the complete superiority in air of a probable enemy (opponents). Read the memories of submariners and what do we see? Maybe submariners dreamed of a super torpedo? or about a meter thick case made of titanium? maybe they dreamed of diving for many kilometers? Somehow there are no such thoughts. On the other hand, one thought goes by, the bitches are circling above us, they are throwing buoys and magnetometers are working, and our boats are huge, if only we could cover it, drive it away, but we don’t have our aviation in the ocean and there are no bases at all corners, we’ll have some kind of aircraft carrier . And the naval commanders of the USSR understood this and there is no sadder story in the world than the history of the Soviet aircraft carrier)
    I'm not even talking about the fact that the aircraft carrier has a bunch of other tasks, from a sharp reinforcement of any surface formation for actions against enemy ships, along the coast, to reconnaissance and additional reconnaissance of targets, as well as providing target designation at huge ranges, and all this - very promptly with an extremely short reaction time + this weapon is in the hands of the direct commander (say, an admiral), in contrast to how to drive the Legend system satellite (which cost a hell of a lot, and the life span of a zilch, also a nuclear reactor at startup)
  • kirpich
    kirpich 15 July 2013 17: 34
    +1
    Quote: barbiturate
    I'm not talking about the fact that the aircraft carrier has a bunch of other tasks, from SHARPly strengthening any surface formation for operations on enemy ships, along the coast, to reconnaissance and additional reconnaissance of targets, as well as ensuring target designation at great ranges and all this - very quick with extremely short reaction time


    It has already been said here that an aircraft carrier can be suitable only for Pacific Fleet (and that is not a fact). Where can it come in handy in the case of VK? On the Black Sea? In the Baltic? In the north? Take a look at the map, open your eyes. In the Black and Baltic Aircraft Carrier is Locked !!! North? Have you seen the northern storm? According to him, the Bay of Biscay is a kitten. So where is our aircraft carrier useful? At the Pacific Fleet? In principle, it can only need to slip through
    our AUG past Japan, so as not to be discovered.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 15 July 2013 18: 09
    +5
    First of all, it is worth noting a good and easy language of the author, and an excellent photographic selection.
    As for the essence of the issue, the "asymmetric" strategy for the development of the Soviet fleet adopted in the 50s was a consequence of the economic and technological impossibility of building a fleet similar to the American one and the fact that the main danger for the USSR was a nuclear missile strike from a potential adversary. Hence the emphasis on nuclear submarines and anti-submarine warfare And this, of course, was completely justified (although there were problems - unimportant coastal infrastructure and a variety of ships).
    Another thing is that many Soviet sailors dreamed of a "global fleet" and asked the Central Committee for aircraft carriers.
    And finally, in the 80s, after the creation of the nuclear missile shield and the corresponding production facilities, their dreams began to come true.
    So if it were not for "perestroika", most likely in the USSR they would have started to create full-fledged atomic AUG.
    1. Santa Fe
      15 July 2013 22: 15
      +1
      Quote: Odyssey
      many Soviet sailors dreamed of a "global fleet"

      And then he was not?
      Quote: Odyssey
      and asked the aircraft carriers from the Central Committee.

      To ask a little. Need to justify the need
      But this is a problem - there is not a single case of successful use of AB in the second half of the twentieth century, wherever their presence / absence somehow affected the outcome of the operation
      Quote: Odyssey
      So if it were not for "perestroika", most likely in the USSR they would have started to create full-fledged atomic AUG.

      Alas, jokes with the Ulnowski, Varangians, Buranami and SDI finally crippled the Soviet economy
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 16 July 2013 03: 54
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And then he was not?

        There was, but it seemed to some that it was not enough. Actually, the "fight around aircraft carriers" continued with varying success throughout the post-war history of the USSR.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        To ask a little. Need to justify the need

        Well, they weren’t given smile (at least for the time being there were basically adequate people in the Central Committee). Justifying, in short, the fact that the country already has a lot to spend resources and funds on, and aircraft carriers are not a vital necessity at all.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Alas, jokes with the Ulnowski, Varangians, Buranami and SDI finally crippled the Soviet economy

        Well, the Soviet economy, first of all, was crippled by an extremely inept (and in fact criminal) transition to "market rails".
        As regards military programs, aircraft carriers could be useful in the event of a struggle for influence over the countries of the 3rd world, although of course this was not a priority program. The space program was generally extremely useful, both from a technological point of view and from the ideological side.
        But the strategy of large-scale preparation for a global war after the formation of a sufficient "nuclear shield" by the beginning of the 70s was fundamentally wrong. It was clear that a large-scale war in Europe was suicidal for both sides, so that further rearmament of the Ground Forces and the Strategic Missile Forces was clearly excessive ...
        Well, the Khrushchev conflict with China was also at the top of idiocy, because of which we had to concentrate huge forces on the Far Eastern theater.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 15 July 2013 18: 11
    -2
    Quote: kirpich
    It has already been said here that an aircraft carrier can be suitable only for Pacific Fleet (and that is not a fact). Where can it come in handy in the case of VK? On the Black Sea? In the Baltic? In the north? Take a look at the map, open your eyes. In the Black and Baltic Aircraft Carrier is Locked !!! North? Have you seen the northern storm? According to him, the Bay of Biscay is a kitten. So where is our aircraft carrier useful? At the Pacific Fleet? In principle, it can. It is only necessary, such as slipping our AUG past Japan, so as not to be discovered.


    Well, about Black and the Baltic, I do not feel any illusions, of course they are locked, everything was clear there always before the century before last) As for the north, I would not be so categorical, and where does the northern storm? Ships can be based in the north and this is proven, up to the present moment. If the aircraft carrier had to constantly patrol and fight in the northern seas, and then he only needs to go to the expanses of the Pacific say, what is unrealistic? Well, basing on the Pacific Fleet is certainly preferable.
  • Inok_10
    Inok_10 15 July 2013 18: 46
    +2
    Quote: "It has already been said here that an aircraft carrier can only be suitable for the Pacific Fleet (and that is not a fact). Where can it be useful in the event of a VC? In the Black Sea? In the Baltic? In the North? Look at the map, open your eyes. In Black and Baltic The aircraft carrier is LOCKED !!! North? And, have you seen the northern storm? Compared with it, the Bay of Biscay kitten. So where will OUR aircraft carrier come in handy? At the Pacific Fleet? In principle, it can. You just need to somehow slip our AUG past Japan, so as not to be found. [/ quote] "

    .. partly agree, partly object .. the use of Kuznetsov in the Northern Fleet shows the possibility of having such a class of ship in the Northern Fleet, there are purely technical problems: 1. Aerofinishes - we have dealt with this, but there are no Americans, therefore their AUGs, they are simply not functional in the Northern latitudes :)
    2. The use of a steam catapult is impossible, ours has long been told about this and require, if a project appears, it is only electromagnetic :)
    3. A clean aircraft carrier is still a very "controversial weapon" because of the useful range of carrier-based aircraft, but the armament layout of the Kuznetsov TAVRK is more successful in its flexibility .. air group + anti-ship missiles ... it was not for nothing that our designers received salaries in Soviet times .. :)
    .. in the Pacific Ocean, the presence of AUG is definitely necessary .. but all this is more a "demonstration of the flag" and a subject of show .. :)
  • Master Taiga
    Master Taiga 15 July 2013 19: 05
    -1
    Thank you for the article.
  • Yuriwhite
    Yuriwhite 15 July 2013 19: 13
    +1
    What is this article about? Yes, nothing! How can two different fleets be compared both in composition and in tasks ?! This is up clinical idiocy! I don’t understand what to discuss here!
    PS For the gifted - the USSR did not need a fleet the same fleet as in the USA - our countries have different tasks and different geography.
    PS2 I see the value of ACG exclusively in counter-warfare. Actually, for this, the United States used them. The USAG does not pose a threat to Russia - an ordinary giant guarded barge. Drum and ICL nuclear submarine our all.
  • user
    user 15 July 2013 19: 19
    0
    Medvedev must be executed together with Gorbachev
    1. I think so
      I think so 15 July 2013 19: 50
      +3
      Putin did not go far from Medvedev in the destructive effect on the defense of the Russian Federation. Recall Serdyukov alone ... whose puppet? Well, a sea of ​​other deeds ... It is even more amazing how the Americans did not gouge the country even under such a ruler ... The only explanation is that the p.i.nd.so.sy are GENETICALLY AFRAID of the Russians and fight them ... On this achievement of our fathers and grandfathers is still holding on to Russia ... How long will it be?
  • Mirrors
    Mirrors 15 July 2013 19: 47
    -1
    Khrushchev, not Khrushchev, it's not about him. And in the ideologization of our then state. Party, i.e. The secretary general or the Politburo decided that we would wage the war with little blood on foreign territory, and in the academies and in the troops, the same firmly forgot what defensive operations are. And whoever tried to remember - so the stigma of a defeatist and an enemy of the people, and a bunk at best. The same thing happened with aircraft carriers, they were declared a weapon of imperialist aggression. After that, it was simply not comme il faut to build aircraft carriers ourselves - it turns out that we are also the same aggressors. But we were so peaceful that we established peace in Afghanistan. By the way, there were rumors in the Navy that Sergei Georgievich Gorshkov then said something like "it's good that there is no sea in Afghanistan!"
    Yes, an aircraft carrier cannot provide such a large number of sorties as ground-based aviation. But what water area is controlled by AUG in three dimensions at once! And underwater with the help of multi-purpose submarines, and on the surface of the water, and in the air with the help of AWACS aircraft, and even the satellites here must be added. Moreover, if we take into account that all this is connected by a computer network, that is, a lighting system for underwater, surface and air conditions, you get something so complex, very suitable for modern network-centric wars. Anyway, deploy under cover of AUG SSBN, control large areas of the oceans. They weren’t great naval commanders as idiots, they understood everything very well - just imagine 5 OPESK in Middle East in the 80s, headed by a real aircraft carrier, and as a part of a cruiser, several destroyers of the 956th project and the 1155th BOD project.
    The fleet twisted out as best he could - built some semblance of aircraft carriers, stuffed them with anti-ship missile systems, and called them cruisers. Well, yes, planes fly, but it’s so, the main thing is that the ship has strike weapons, it’s a cruiser, guys, we, peace-loving, need planes so simply for entertainment.
  • kirpich
    kirpich 15 July 2013 20: 07
    +1
    Quote: barbiturate
    As for the north, I would not be so categorical and where does the northern storm?


    The North is here despite the fact that there is a VERY short summer and a VERY long winter. Those who served in the Navy (and worked for the Navy) know what icing is. A, now imagine the Aircraft carrier coming out from September to June on combat duty.

    ZY I recommend re-reading V. Pikul. "Requiem for the PQ-17 caravan" There he described how our sailors SPECIALLY laid out the pallet space with bricks in order to get out of the critical roll point. Because during a storm in the north, such excitement arises that a ship or vessel could easily overkill.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Aleksys2
      Aleksys2 16 July 2013 09: 19
      +1
      Quote: kirpich
      Because during the storm in the north there is such excitement that the ship or vessel could easily make an overclock.

  • kirpich
    kirpich 15 July 2013 20: 12
    +1
    Quote: barbiturate
    and then he only needs to go to the expanses of the Pacific say, what's unreal? Well, basing on the Pacific Fleet is of course preferable.


    Poke on the map a place where an aircraft carrier can be based and be in relative inaccessibility?
  • Fofan
    Fofan 15 July 2013 20: 53
    +2
    Quote: kirpich

    The North is here despite the fact that there is a VERY short summer and a VERY long winter. Those who served in the Navy (and worked for the Navy) know what icing is. A, now imagine the Aircraft carrier coming out from September to June on combat duty.
    what combat duty? Have you seen the device of steam catapults? They CANNOT operate at air temperatures below zero. in a minute the deck will be an ice rink, like the cart itself. the British, by the way, for the same reason cannot build nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and the French de Gaulle is panicky afraid of even moderate latitudes.
    In addition to these reasons, I would like to recommend buying a globe to all Russian amateur aircraft carriers. to compare the location of the USSR (eastern block) and the United States, to measure with ruler the distance from the borders of the eastern block to Africa / Asia and compare the same distance from another point, from the United States.
    I would also like to ask where they were going to land massed marines. to washington? in London? or maybe Osaka?
    at the same time, they can strain the memory and remember about obyas and similar silly abbreviations.
    1. kirpich
      kirpich 15 July 2013 21: 29
      +1
      Here I am about the same.
      But you won’t flip everyone.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 15 July 2013 20: 55
    +1
    Respect to the author! Fans of breezing about the fact that our Navy in Soviet times is nothing, more often than not they themselves know little about this subject, safely having dismissed both from service on it and from work there. And with all the flaws of the long-standing Commander-in-Chief of the Navy of Gorshkov, he managed with a reliable team to form the backbone of the ocean fleet. And the fact that everything was not going smoothly, so in the beginning of the 80s I had a chance to see myself and to hear from naval officers exactly :))
  • Selevc
    Selevc 15 July 2013 21: 21
    +2
    The USSR at one time and Russia even more so cannot have and maintain a decent carrier fleet due to its geography !!! America is washed by 2 oceans inhabited by millions of people and the entire infrastructure for the creation and maintenance of AOG has long been built - in Russia, only the territory of the Far East is suitable for the construction of shipbuilding capacities - but for this it is necessary to invest tremendous money in the development of this region + to attract people the masses, as the USSR did at one time for the development of the North ...
    Further America, the Carrier Fleet is still necessary to control its vast Pacific possessions - to control the islands and coast of Russia, a fleet would be enough and more modest ...

    And so - for the sake of reporting, Russia can of course build a couple of aircraft carriers - but who will you surprise with this? It seems to me that Russia still needs to look for its own asymmetric response to the threat of AUG-ok potential "friends" ...

    I think that Washington will be very happy if Russia starts playing catch-up games with the West again !!!
  • bpk681
    bpk681 15 July 2013 21: 22
    0
    read just the topic
    http://www.e-reading-lib.com/chapter.php/1010019/87/Cherkashin_-_Vozmutiteli_glu

    bin._Sekretnye_operacii_sovetskih_podvodnyh_lodok_v_gody_holodnoy_voyny.html
    and on 10 photos native 1134A, and by the side number of the BOD "Admiral Isakov"
  • Naval
    Naval 15 July 2013 21: 27
    -1
    - 5-I operational squadron - the solution of operational and tactical tasks in the Mediterranean;
    - 7-I OpEx - Atlantic;
    - 8-I OpEx - The Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean;
    - 10-I OpEsk - Pacific;
    - 17th OpEsk - ensuring Soviet interests in the Asia-Pacific region
    If operational squadrons were to be revived, then aircraft carriers would be useful to cover these squadrons, but otherwise it is a very expensive, albeit prestigious, toy.
  • Fofan
    Fofan 15 July 2013 21: 35
    +1
    Quote: Naval
    If operational squadrons were to be revived, then aircraft carriers would be useful to cover these squadrons, but otherwise it is a very expensive, albeit prestigious, toy.
    what shisha to revive them? Now most of the money goes to Syas and counter-terrorism forces. traditional army and especially fleet, on a residual principle. Of course this is bad, but without Russia’s end, the end.
  • papas-57
    papas-57 15 July 2013 21: 58
    0
    I just did not understand one thing - our sailors and pilots could have sunk an aircraft carrier (without using atomic weapons). In some publications they write that aircraft carriers are unsinkable, in others - that `` one pill is enough '', and what in reality. Although it is not necessary to sink it, it is enough to inflict damage to create a roll, and not one plane will take off.
    1. Mike_v
      Mike_v 15 July 2013 23: 33
      +2
      Your question can be answered unequivocally YES. Suffice it to recall the incident off the coast of Vietnam. Then there was a spontaneous launch of a Zuni missile (this is like our C-5) from an aircraft block on one of the aircraft carriers (unfortunately I forgot which one). As a result, the fire raged for several days and the ship was barely saved at the cost of heavy casualties among the personnel. The main armament of the Tu 22 M3 is the Kh-22 rocket. Even if we take the OCH charge, then the approximate damage is a hole of 20 square meters and burning through the interior of the ship at a distance of 12 - 25 m. I will not talk about the newer missiles Kh-29, Kh-32, Kh-35, etc. and missiles such as Mosquito, for example. Even the old missiles carried by the TU 16 are KSR-5, of various modifications had the minimum warhead of 450 kg. This is quite enough. Remember 82, the war in the South Atlantic over the Falkland Islands. It was enough to hit one "Exoset" and the modern (at that time) destroyer URO "Sheffield" went to the bottom. You can also recall the Hit of "Aix" in the US frigate "Stark", such as "Oliver X Perry" in Pesidi Bay from an Iraqi plane and how it ended. Compare the performance characteristics of the "Aksa" and our missiles - it will immediately become clear to you.
      1. Mike_v
        Mike_v 16 July 2013 00: 28
        +1
        To the above, I can add about the X-35. This is a light rocket. Its warhead is only 150 kg and even a fighter can carry it. However, its speed is about 1 km per second. The kinetic energy of its impact is approximately equal to the impact force of a 15-inch shell from a battleship during World War II. This shell sunk Hood in May 1941. "Hood", unlike modern ships and aircraft carriers, had an armor belt of 30 cm. Draw your own conclusion. This missile is guaranteed to penetrate the sides and decks of any modern ship when hit, to the most vital centers.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 July 2013 00: 33
          +1
          Quote: Mike_V
          X-35. This is a light rocket. Its warhead is only 150 kg and even a fighter can carry it. However, its speed is about 1 km per second. The kinetic energy of its impact is approximately equal to the impact force of a 15-inch shell from a battleship during World War II. This shell sunk "Hood" in May 1941

          Now the "battleship mafia" will come here, and will quickly refute your statement))
          1. Mike_v
            Mike_v 16 July 2013 00: 40
            0
            Yes, you’re right .... I served in the Air Force and it’s somehow closer to me.
          2. Kars
            Kars 16 July 2013 00: 42
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and quickly refute your statement))

            Even Wikipedia will refute the manufacturers.

            Russian subsonic low-altitude anti-ship missile designed to destroy ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons.


            The hood was a bit large.
            Quote: Mike_V
            its speed is about 1 km per second

            Really?
            Does the flight speed correspond to M = 0,9 Vika is wrong?

            Well, then the physics in which I am not strong, do not forget to subtract the spent fuel from the starting mass. And there is nothing to say about mechanical strength in comparison with the armor-piercing shell of a battleship.
            1. Mike_v
              Mike_v 16 July 2013 03: 29
              +1
              I agree, the remark is correct, the memory failed. The X-35 is subsonic, I mean the X-31a. This rocket has a maximum speed of M 3,1 i.e. about 1000 - 800 m / s depending on the altitude. Mechanical strength is a moot point here. Open Vika and look at the section of the X-29 rocket. Here is about the same type of warhead design. In the Kh-29, the warhead was originally intended for highly protected targets, I started it myself and saw the result at the range, and the Kh-31a has an emphasis on high speed. It does not need to pierce the armor belt, which is not available on the small ships for which it is intended, and the durability of course is less than that of an armor-piercing projectile of 15 inches, I did not confirm this. I spoke about the force of the blow, i.e. about kinetic energy when the target hits the side. Well, as for physics, it "has not been canceled yet." Back in 90 or 89, this issue was considered at the seed for combat use. If my memory serves me, then it turned out 75 or 80% of the impact force of the projectile "Bismarck" in "Hood". That's why I gave this example. If interested - count it yourself.
              1. Kars
                Kars 16 July 2013 10: 08
                +1
                Quote: Mike_V
                I meant X-31a

                Quote: Mike_V
                Open vika

                Quote: Mike_V
                section of the X-29 rocket. Here is about the same view

                Let me give you a section of a rocket, and I will shell you?
                Quote: Mike_V
                If my memory serves me, then it turned out 75 or 80% of the impact force of the projectile "Bismarck" in "Hood

                Maybe it’s just that she still won’t break through the armor, and the force of the blow can be.
                1. Mike_v
                  Mike_v 16 July 2013 11: 21
                  0
                  I talked only about the strength of the blow, i.e. about kinetic energy when a rocket hits a target’s side and about the correspondence with the force of impact of an armor-piercing projectile. I did not claim that a rocket can penetrate a 30 cm armor belt. I said that a rocket will pierce the side of modern small ships that do not have an armored belt. Perhaps you did not understand me.
                2. Taoist
                  Taoist 16 July 2013 11: 23
                  +3
                  it is not necessary to compare an armor-piercing projectile and a missile warhead head on. They have completely different methods of hitting the target. The projectile does not maneuver and strikes the target along a ballistic trajectory (the angle of encounter with the armor determines the heading angle and distance to the target), the missile usually hits the ship in the most vulnerable places. (in any case, all our anti-ship missiles, before hitting, make a slide and hit the target on the deck. Second, the mass of the projectile is practically only metal - the mass of the explosive charge is a maximum of 10% of the projectile weight. After all, it is necessary, firstly, to ensure the strength of the projectile when fired, and secondly when The anti-ship missile warhead has the opposite ratio. Armor (or structural protection of the ship) is affected due to the "camulative effect." armor belt of a battleship of the Second World War ... but this is not necessary ... hitting the deck is guaranteed to destroy everything within a radius of 20-30 meters, with a 90% probability it will lead to a loss of progress and failure of all radar equipment (you cannot book an antenna system) Well, if on the way of the "shock core" there is a fuel tank or a shell cellar then ... you understand. Modern structural protection is still capable of "removing" lung hits Anti-ship missiles such as Harpoon or X-35 ... but the hit of Granite is guaranteed to "lay down" any ship.
                  1. Mike_v
                    Mike_v 16 July 2013 11: 41
                    0
                    I agree with you, I’ll only add that not all anti-ship missiles fly at low altitude, some fly in the stratosphere (18500 - 22000, used by aircraft in particular, with a speed of about 3,0 M), then a sharp dive and hitting the deck.
                  2. Mike_v
                    Mike_v 16 July 2013 12: 16
                    0
                    I will add one more thing, when I was still a cadet, the teacher gave an example with the old "Comet", used from the Tu-4, and so she broke the target into 2 parts during the tests (the cruiser was still tsarist building with Putilov armor). This was the beginning, approximately 52-55 years. After that, the anti-ship missile device went far ahead.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 16 July 2013 12: 28
                      +1
                      Quote: Mike_V
                      a racer still of royal construction with Putilov’s armor)

                      By the way, this is not a compliment-royal construction, and very thin Putilov armor.
                      Quote: Taoist
                      Yes, most likely no modern anti-ship missiles will be able to break through the main armor belt of the battleship of the Second World War.

                      That's what I want to say. Although I can not vouch for Granite.
                      Quote: Taoist
                      Armor (or structural protection of the ship) is affected by the "camulative effect"
                      I didn’t see any cumulative warheads in anti-ship missiles - one has a high-explosive cumulative warhead. Modern missiles are not designed to overcome armor which simply does not exist.
                      1. Taoist
                        Taoist 16 July 2013 13: 17
                        0
                        Old rocket P15. Shooting at the citadel "Stalingrad" (main armor belt 280mm)

                        "Direct hit achieved
                        on board the target at an altitude of 2,5 m from the waterline and at
                        10 m to the left of the center of the target. Rocket made a hole in
                        side armor with a diameter of 40 — 50 cm. An explosion of the warhead occurred
                        inside the target. "(c) For reference, the mass of the" termite "warhead is 515kg.

                        Well, by type of warhead:
                        "Amethyst" - The 4T-66 warhead was of two types: the high-explosive cumulative action 4G-66 weighing about 500 kg and with a special
                        warhead TK-22.
                        Rocket X-23 The warhead of the rocket is cumulatively high-explosive.
                        The weight of the warhead 111 + -3 kg.
                        X-31 A missile is equipped with cumulative
                        high explosive warhead weighing 95 kg.
                        ЗМ-80 "Mosquito" - penetrating warhead (weight 300kg)
                        Etc...
                        Yes, of course, modern missiles are not designed to overcome the "classic armor" but the concept of structural protection has not been canceled either. By the way, the same Granites have armor designed to reflect the MZA shells and the sediment field of the SAM - can you imagine the kinetic energy of such a fool?
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 16 July 2013 13: 21
                        +1
                        Quote: Taoist
                        Shooting at the citadel "Stalingrad" (main armor belt 280mm)

                        With Stalingrad, there is doubt that the missile hit the main armor belt, or 110 mm. And I would like to see in the Termite section why it pierces the hole less than its diameter.
                  3. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 12: 47
                    0
                    Well, not "a thousand rubles, but a quarter and not in poker, but in preference and did not win, but lost" ... (c)

                    "The cruiser" Red
                    Caucasus". This cruiser is called "Admiral Lazarev"
                    was laid on October 18 1913 in Nikolaev, but after a long time
                    it was rebuilt and put into operation only on 25 of January 1932. His
                    total displacement 9030 t, length 169,5 m, draft 5,8 m.
                    In the fall of 1952, the cruiser was disarmed and turned into a target.
                    Nobody wanted to drown such a valuable target, and Comet
                    "Had a warhead with inert equipment.
                    21 November 1952, the "Red Caucasus" was in the water
                    the water area of ​​the Sandy Balk landfill, 20 km from the coast
                    between Cape Chaud and Opuk. Start of "Comet" was made
                    from the area at Cape Meganom when the carrier Tu-
                    4K was at a distance of 80 — 85 km from the target. Missile hit
                    to the side of the cruiser between the chimneys. Despite
                    to the fact that the warhead was inert gear, the cruiser
                    sank 12 minutes after being hit. "(c)
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 16 July 2013 12: 56
                      +1
                      Quote: Taoist
                      Despite
                      to the fact that the warhead was inert gear, the cruiser
                      sank 12 minutes after being hit. "


                      How was it? This was the first launch with military equipment and not inert, before that the cruiser was launched several times with inert.

                      In June 1953 he was sunk as a target while testing the Kometa anti-ship missiles of the air-to-sea class

                      and you have November 1952
                    2. Taoist
                      Taoist 16 July 2013 13: 22
                      0
                      All questions to the diary of tests of the "comet" complex and the memories of Beria.
                  4. Kars
                    Kars 16 July 2013 13: 02
                    +1
                    there is another option

                    The experiment was built according to this plan. The rudders were laid and fixed on the ship so that it cruised in a circle. The cruising speed was developing. The entire team was filming from the "Red Caucasus" and on torpedo boats retreated to a safe distance from it. After the completion of this procedure, the carrier aircraft prepared for a combat flight rose from the airfield, and then everything was performed as in flight with an analogue: the carrier's radar operator detected and took the target for autotracking, the projectile aircraft operator prepared it for launch, at a distance of 130 up to 70 km, the projectile was detached, entered the carrier's radar beam and went to the target. As a rule, the shell hit the middle part of the ship and "pierced" the cruiser through and through. There were three holes on the attacked side - one large, the size of the fuselage of the projectile plane, and two small ones, the diameter of the cargo at the ends of its wings. The wings of the projectile were cut like a piece of paper with scissors. At the exit, a side with an area of ​​more than 10 square meters broke out. However, the "Red Caucasus" remained afloat and continued to move in a circle.

                    After each such launch, the cruiser crew quickly returned to the ship and carried out urgent and urgent emergency work. Then the "Krasny Kavkaz" went to the base, was repaired within a very short time and again went out for tests at sea. Meanwhile, naval experts, when asked whether the cruiser would sink when one hit the shell with the adopted warhead, answered that it is impossible. Well, if so, they decided during the final experiment to launch a projectile with a warhead.
                    http://www.ng.ru/history/2002-11-22/5_caucasus.html

                    On November 21, 1952, at the end of testing the Comet rocket complex (KS-1 on Tu-4K), the tested cruise missile was equipped with a warhead. As a result of a missile hit, the ship broke into two parts, which sank in less than 3 minutes. Estimated location of the ship’s death: 15 miles south of Cape Chaud, the Gulf of Feodosia.
                    In 1955, the Guards training ship "Red Caucasus" was excluded from the list of naval personnel of the USSR Navy. The name "Red Caucasus" was transferred to a large anti-submarine ship (BOD).
                  5. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 13: 29
                    0
                    An extremely unrealistic story. From the category of hunting tales. Target with a displacement of a cruiser on the move and without control? In any case, the journal of the "sandy balka" landfill did not mention such delights. When shooting at moving targets, boats with telecontrol and size simulators have always been used. (thermal and radar).
                  6. Kars
                    Kars 16 July 2013 13: 33
                    +1
                    Quote: Taoist
                    Extremely unrealistic story.

                    Here you know better.
                    But we are still talking about the use of a combat-equipped missile. And I came across references to this in several places, including those based on the words of the crew of a carrier aircraft.
                    And it would be unlikely that the Red Caucasus sank after the FIRST use of a rocket on it. That would be mentioned.
                  7. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 13: 50
                    0
                    Perhaps, but not necessarily. Here is a description of a similar test with a similar outcome.

                    "In June 1961, the cruiser" Admiral Nakhimov "was withdrawn
                    in tow from Sevastopol and set aside for 45 — 50 miles in
                    side of Odessa. The deserted cruiser drifted slightly.
                    Project rocket ship fired from a distance of 68 km
                    56M "Perspicacious." The missile hit the junction of the spardeck and the side
                    cruisers. A hole formed in the
                    inverted eight with a total area of ​​about 15 m2.
                    As Yu.S. wrote Kuznetsov: “Most of the hole was
                    on spardeck, smaller on board. The hole in the Spardeck belonged
                    Marching engine, on board - warhead
                    in inert equipment. This hole alone is not about
                    it went. The missile "flashed" the cruiser from board to board and went out
                    from the starboard side of the cruiser just under the foremast. Day off
                    the hole was an almost circular hole with an area
                    near 8 m2, while the bottom cut of the hole turned out to be
                    30 — 35 cm below the waterline, and until we got to the cruiser
                    emergency service ships he managed to take
                    inward about 1600 t of sea water. In addition, the cruiser
                    the remains of kerosene spilled, and this caused a fire,
                    which was put out about 12 hours.
                    Prepared for decommissioning the cruiser did not have on board
                    nothing wooden, even the wooden deck was removed, but
                    the fire literally raged - the iron burned, although it is difficult
                    imagine. "(c)
                  8. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 13: 58
                    +2
                    “Come out
                    at sea for a second launch. Shooting was carried out by the destroyer, etc.
                    57bis "Wrathful" (captain of the ship, captain 2 of rank Morozov,
                    commander of the warhead II-captain lieutenant Yaskov) with bow
                    launcher. Shot from the area of ​​Sevastopol in
                    side of Odessa. The target (destroyer "Vigilant") on the barrels is not
                    set. The target constantly changed its position due to drift
                    in relation to the shooting director.
                    At the time of the launch of the rocket to the target, both were in one
                    diametrical plane. It’s like a missile was catching a target,
                    therefore flew up to the target from the stern. All this
                    It was recorded as a scheduled survey made with
                    a helicopter that hovered over a target at an altitude of 1500 m.
                    The missile hit the target in the joint of the deck and sides at the base
                    stern flag racks. The result is a rebound and a rocket
                    went along the diametrical plane of the ship above the deck,
                    sweeping away everything in its path. At first it was fodder
                    gun turrets, then superstructures with located
                    on them with a rangefinder post, then aft
                    torpedo tubes, etc. Everything was swept overboard, right up to
                    to the forecastle.
                    Then the rocket entered along the forecastle, cutting it along,
                    like a can opener. Motion generation slowed down a bit
                    and the rocket stuck in the area of ​​the bow 130-mm guns.
                    At the same time, the dock mast fell on one side, and the bridge with
                    KDP and another weapon of the main caliber - on the other.
                    If the commission on the XI-61 did not take a picture
                    the target before launch, probably no one would have believed
                    what can be done with a ship with one missile, yes
                    still rocket in an inert state. It should be noted
                    that the target was burning in several places. "(c)

                    This is certainly not a battleship, but it is a very illustrative example of the power of heavy Soviet anti-ship missiles. The hit of even 1 such fool, if it did not sink, was guaranteed to turn a ship of any tonnage into a pile of unusable scrap metal. It’s scary to me even to imagine getting such a missile into the hangar deck of an aircraft carrier. Moreover, even theoretically, there is no protection against Granite-class missiles when they are launched in salvo ... The time from the moment the missile is discovered until it hits is too short. Another question is that in order to carry missiles of this class and ships, it was necessary to build the appropriate ...
                  9. Kars
                    Kars 16 July 2013 14: 16
                    +1
                    In these cases, the armor was almost not used. One question about the outlet part of which was below the waterline.

                    As for the hits - for example, an Israeli corvette or something there (I'm not talking about Eilat) I got an analogue of Termite of Iranian production in a helipad and did not lose combat readiness.

                    Once such a conversation started, I will ask a question that interests me - how do you personally feel about using armor from 50 to 200 mm thick integrated into the skin (well, use it as skin) on new ships to protect against subsonic anti-ship missiles of the Harpoon / exoset class and minimize damage from more powerful missiles and fragments of anti-ship missiles after their destruction by artillery-missile systems of the ship.


                    And about the Cumulative High-explosive warhead (although you may have more complete information), I believe that this is a warhead with a cumulative wide-focus funnel designed not to break through armor and form a pest from the cladding, but to give the general direction of the explosion into a block of the ship's hull.
                  10. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 14: 41
                    0
                    That corvette was insanely lucky ... The helipad is a light construction at the very tip of the ship ... Apparently, the entire "force" of the strike went past the hull and only the platform was damaged. However, in the war at sea there are many examples of the opposite kind. (the same Hood - flew into the air due to an extremely unlikely coincidence of circumstances)

                    However, this is unprincipled. Constructive protection (including booking) certainly needs to be applied (though they do). I think Sheffield’s fate was quite indicative. Armor, of course, will not protect against serious toys, but it will increase combat stability.

                    And you are absolutely right, the cumulative effect of warheads of modern anti-ship missiles is not so much designed to penetrate armor as to the maximum depth of damage. However, in order to withstand even such a warhead it would be necessary to have deck reservations of completely unacceptable thicknesses. Or to have structural protection like PTZ - which is also unlikely.
                    But considering probabilities is a thankless task. In any case, in the same textbook on naval aviation tactics that we taught to disable the AUG (not sinking, but "guaranteed incapacitation"), it was considered sufficient to break through the air defense of the compound and hit only 3-4 X-15 missiles. (From 15-18 missiles in a salvo). On Granites, to defeat the AUG, one "half-salvo" was required - 12 missiles ... (again, in the presence of stable target designation. On Mosquitoes, everything is more interesting there - every second missile in a volley was guaranteed to break through. (the range of 100 km is in the close-guarded zone ...) However, Luni (especially near our shores) were quite capable of this. (They were almost not detected due to the effect of the "underlying surface" and the damping of radio waves by water dust. ... thank God, not tested in practice.
                  11. Kars
                    Kars 16 July 2013 14: 56
                    +1
                    Quote: Taoist
                    . However, in order to withstand even such a warhead it would be necessary to have deck reservations of completely unacceptable thicknesses



                    With a wide-focus funnel without a pestle - which is the main armor-piercing moment - the protection should not acquire a large thickness. The armor-piercing cumulative part of the caliber of 100-125 mm penetrates a hole of only 2-4 mm in diameter. I think a thickness of 50 mm minimizes damage, and 150- 200 will be able to reflect the shock wave.


                    but for me it is important
                    Quote: Taoist
                    Armor, of course, will not protect against serious toys, but it will increase combat stability.
                  12. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 15: 32
                    0
                    Well, for sure I won’t answer you - there are no numbers or directories at hand, but keep in mind that the growth there is exponential. And if we try to cover at least 200 mm of armor with the deck of an aircraft carrier ... then it will not be an aircraft carrier, but something absolutely gigantic. Or its significance as an aircraft carrier will be minimized. Now booking is quite actively used (take our same Orlans ...). But they are booked very selectively. Armor will definitely lose to the projectile - so its use must be very, very seriously calculated.
                  13. Kars
                    Kars 16 July 2013 15: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: Taoist
                    . And if we try to cover at least 200 mm of armor with the deck of an aircraft carrier ..

                    Now is it also armored?

                    And I'm not talking about aircraft carriers, this is to his lovers.

                    I have the idea of ​​fixing an artillery missile cruiser like the American Zumvolts only larger and with artillery of 6 10 inches, UVP with 400 cells, and good anti-aircraft weapons. Plus a radar system with a radar on a tethered balloon all this in a displacement of 35-40 thousand
                  14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 15: 52
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    I have an idea fix

                    I see.
                    Quote: Kars
                    with artillery from 6 10 inches

                    Why would he? Ultra-long-range shooting will also be super expensive (the consumption of missiles per hit will be cheaper than the same consumption of shells), and the range of the classic receiver artillery is completely insufficient.
                    Quote: Kars
                    , UVP on 400 cells

                    Arsenal. This idea makes sense.
                    Quote: Kars
                    plus radar system with radar on a tethered balloon

                    the size of the proposed cruiser ... which will be visible directly from the US coast.
                    Quote: Kars
                    all this in the displacement of 35-40 thousand

                    so it will be, but it would be better to shorten, a thousand to 25 at least.
                  15. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 17: 25
                    0
                    A ship - an arsenal - an old idea. But instead of the usual barrel artillery, is it time to set up railguns ...
                  16. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 17: 37
                    +1
                    Quote: Taoist
                    Ship - Arsenal - An Old Idea

                    It’s old, but it makes sense.
                    Quote: Taoist
                    But instead of the usual barrel artillery, is it time to set up railguns ...

                    But these railguns are, in my opinion, a diversion. I could not come up with any application for them.
                    Eating energy - you’ll sway, but what's the use of it? A guided projectile will be super-expensive - how much does it take to invest in order to develop a filling capable of withstanding such accelerations? Uncontrollable ... why is it needed?
                  17. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 17: 45
                    +1
                    Well, firstly, with modern guidance systems, a guided projectile and nafig are not needed - ballistics is an exact science. You're not going to beat a squirrel in the eye? And for purposes, the coordinates of which are usually known. Also a question of price. The shell blank is in every way much more expensive than even the usual artillery shell. again, the question of survivability, there are no shells, there are no charges - there is nothing to explode and burn ... Well, efficiency ... MV square in half is cleaner than any RDX.
                  18. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 18: 09
                    +1
                    Quote: Taoist
                    Well, firstly, with modern guidance systems, a guided projectile and nafig are not needed - ballistics is an exact science.

                    NOT accurate :)))) There is absolutely no difference in accuracy from conventional barrel artillery - and if you count the 1 / 400 CVO from the range (a very good indicator for the barrel artillery) then shooting at 200 km will give a half-kilometer spread. those. even to hit a stationary target, you will have to VERY many and long to hit.
                    Quote: Taoist
                    Well, and efficiency ... MV square in half is cleaner than any RDX.

                    This is if he hit exactly the target. And if he crashed into the earth a meter away from the target - well, he’ll go to mother-cheese-earth about 50 meters and stay there until archaeologists dig up the future.
                  19. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 20: 16
                    +1
                    Well, I can only say "learn the materiel" - the spread when firing cannon artillery is explained by different temperatures, shooting the barrel, and changes in external influences. In Railgun, this is perfectly readable and compensated along the way by a change in the current (equivalent to a change in the powder charge - but many orders of magnitude more accurate.) We also cover that with an increase in speed (and this is a square, the flight time of the projectile decreases and, as a consequence, the influence of the environment. all other things being equal, the railgun will always be more accurate.Well, at the expense of mother damp earth ... meteorites with their cosmic velocities are also just cobblestones - however nuclear explodes will envy ... Everything rests on the same component ... velocity. artillery, we already have a ceiling ... And by the way, no armor will help you, because if there is at least a pair of Bal, or Yakhont batteries on the shore ... then they will cover you before your trough makes a couple of volleys ... The radius is larger (For normal cannon even with an active projectile is 90 km limit) and anti-ship missiles hit by 2-3 hundreds ... Yes, the armor may not let you drown, but it will also be impossible to shoot, antennas, settings and everything that is not covered by armor will turn into a colander. if the ranges are comparable and you can count on that you will have time ... However, this is all pure fiction - no one will even think of building such monsters in the foreseeable period of time ... because they just don't need nafig. Expensive, but count the goals for them ... Papuans can be killed with much cheaper means ... but against a serious opponent this chest does not pull. Not from the air, so from under the water they will beat. The days of battleships are gone ... as well as classic aircraft carriers. Compact and multifunctional machines - robots will run the show.
                  20. Kars
                    Kars 16 July 2013 20: 35
                    +1
                    Quote: Taoist
                    by the way, no armor will help you because if there is at least a couple of batteries Bal or Yakhont on the shore ... then they will cover you earlier than your trough will make a couple of volleys ... The radius is large


                    And what about bananas in UVP?
                  21. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 20: 46
                    0
                    And you first try to detect the mobile complex so that you can shoot at it ... Beam, mounds ... the pre-prepared reinforced concrete is enough ... but your "fool" cannot be hidden ... And after the same Club will empty your containers you can and you shoot ... though not for long ... just as long as the flight time ...
                  22. Kars
                    Kars 16 July 2013 20: 51
                    +1
                    Quote: Taoist
                    And you first try to detect the mobile complex so that you can shoot at it ... Beam, hills ... pre-prepared reinforced concrete is enough ... but your "fool" cannot be hidden.


                    And we will try. And hiding is not particularly necessary. The range of cruise missiles allows.
                    Quote: Taoist
                    And after the same Club can empty its containers and you can shoot ... the truth is not long ... exactly as much as the flying time ...
                    Well, it’s not worth inventing a van der waffe - in vain is there a radar on a balloon. A large radio balloon, enough air defense equipment. Missiles, guns, interference. We’ll send the first wave of landing, open fire positions, we’ll suppress. We’ll come closer and get out of the Balls.

                    So what a dance.

                    And in general, I’m not an attack on the Russian Federation or the Atlantic coast of the United States. And for example, to push the Greeks from the Greeks from the Turks. I will build my boat, and the one who is the only aircraft carrier for the Greeks.
                  23. Taoist
                    Taoist 16 July 2013 20: 55
                    +1
                    Well, it remains to persuade some kind of sponsor to build this "wunderwaffe" of yours ... bully I'm just afraid "son is fantastic" ... by the way, I know where the world of your monsters is ...
                    http://lib.rus.ec/b/182798
                    did not read?
                  24. Kars
                    Kars 16 July 2013 21: 46
                    +1
                    Quote: Taoist
                    Well, it remains to persuade some kind of sponsor to build this "wunderwaflu" of yours.

                    Well, one American specialist sent this to Congress. And it would be cheaper than the Atamic aircraft carrier, and the life cycle would be even cheaper,

                    Quote: Taoist
                    http://lib.rus.ec/b/182798

                    I read the first two went well, then something is not very.
                    The world with ending hydrocarbons is very entertaining. Like the Gtatanks and 500 tons tanks with a nuclear engine.
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 21: 08
            +2
            Quote: Taoist
            Well, I can only say "learn materiel"

            Well, I can only return these words to you back
            Quote: Taoist
            the dispersion during the firing of barrel artillery is explained by different temperatures, the shooting of the barrel, and a change in external influences. Railgun counts it well

            Glad for you that you can calculate all this. Especially - external influences :))) You, of course, know the air temperature throughout the flight of the projectile, the map of winds throughout the route was transmitted to you personally by the Lord God, with an indication of which millisecond in which direction and with what force the wind will blow in the moment of flight of the projectile. Of course, about such trifles as air humidity throughout the route will come to you with the personal signature of the Archangel Gabriel.
            Well, if you think you can accurately, as in a pharmacy, measure the electromagnetic pulse ...
            Quote: Taoist
            In addition, with increasing speed (and this is our square, the flight time of the projectile decreases and, as a result, the influence of the environment

            I am glad that you managed to learn the formula about e um tse in the square. But I want to note that with increasing speed, the flight time of the projectile does not so much decrease, but the DISTANCE on which the projectile flies increases :))) The projectile, if anything, can hit a ground target outside the line of sight only by flying along a parabola. And if you need to hit a target, say, in 200 km, then you need to either artificially reduce the speed of the projectile, or increase the length of the parabola - i.e. shoot at the mortar.
            Quote: Taoist
            Well, at the expense of the earth’s mother’s cheese ... meteorites with their cosmic speeds are also just cobblestones - however, the nuclear envy explodes ... Everything depends on the same component ... speed

            Naturally. But here's the bad luck - at a meteorite the speed reaches 72 kilometers per second. And the speed of a military railgun shell is even theoretically limited by 7,9 km / s, but in practice it will be even lower.
            About everything else - sorry, but about the unacceptability of the barrel artillery - you explain this to Kars, I myself know
          4. Taoist
            Taoist 16 July 2013 21: 32
            0
            Well, in vain do you get excited - I understand perfectly well that a railgun is also never a wunderwafer. But with all this, he is able to tell the projectile an order of magnitude greater energies and, more precisely, to dose these same energies. And even if during World War I, without any computers and radars, naval guns managed to give a completely satisfactory percentage of hits for maneuvering targets at distances of twenty dozen, it is clear that the railgun will be at least no less accurate. Well, and how much energy will be released when braking into the ground discs weighing at least a hundred kg at a speed of at least 5-6 km / s is also easy to calculate - something tells me that it will explode ...
          5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 22: 48
            +2
            Quote: Taoist
            Well, you are in vain getting excited

            Well ... I'm sorry if something is wrong :)))
            Quote: Taoist
            And even if, during World War I, without any computers and radars, naval guns managed to give a completely satisfactory percentage of hits for maneuvering targets at distances of two dozen km

            2,5-3% order to be precise. At the same time, as you yourself understand, there was the possibility of adjusting the fire, which is very complicated at a distance of 200 km :))) Well and all sorts of artillery subtleties - shooting in volleys at least in the 4 trunk, etc. :)
            Quote: Taoist
            Well, and how much energy will be released when braking discs weighing at least a hundred kg at a speed of at least 5-6 km / s

            Yes, he will not have that speed :))) At the end of the shell, the speed drops about half of the initial one. The Railgun’s initial 7,9 km of speed is the absolute limit - not because it can no longer (it just can) but because the shell fired at that speed will not fall to the ground - this is the first space one, so even firing a shell parallel to the ground will go away to near-earth orbit :))) And a shot at a speed of 6-7 km / s will give a fall speed in 3-3,5 km / s. This is not so much.
          6. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 July 2013 23: 17
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            A shot at a speed of 6-7 km / s will give a fall speed of 3-3,5 km / s. This is not so much.

            Well, if the mortar then it does not fall at that speed. The initial velocity of the bullet is an average of 750 m / s. Sorry to fit in.
          7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 July 2013 23: 24
            +3
            If on the mortar - then definitely you are right, but if the angle is not too high - then, I think, it will be approximately the same, as I indicated. To be honest, I was guided by heavy naval guns - they have something like that.
            And on the mortar ... Oh, I feel, he will fly away into the near space, only we saw him there
          8. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 17 July 2013 17: 54
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            To be honest, I was guided by heavy naval guns - they have something like that

            I’ll try to figure out how to calculate something, take an angle of 30 degrees, it became interesting.
          9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 20: 12
            +1
            I can recommend Kofman's book "Japanese battleships of the second world Yamato" and "Musashi" "There, on page 124, angles and speeds are given for the guns of all the newest battleships of all countries at distances from 0 to 200 kbt
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 16 July 2013 23: 37
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      At the same time, as you yourself understand, there was the possibility of adjusting the fire, which is very complicated at a distance of 200 km

      There are no problems. Control the trajectory of the test shell, enter corrections, get where you need
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 07: 19
      +1
      And what to control, sorry?
    4. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 July 2013 08: 30
      0
      Using radar. Ground targets target with ARSOM from the middle of the last century.
    5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 08: 33
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      Using radar

      Well, you give :))) An over-the-horizon radar, or what? :)))) Have you tried to look at the range of the ARSOM? :)))
    6. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 July 2013 08: 46
      +1
      You confuse the radar type SNAR and ARSOM. This is the first when servicing a sighting need to detect gaps. SNAR is enough projectile behavior on the path.
    7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 July 2013 09: 22
      +1
      If my memory serves me, it’s just ARSOM that makes a notch of the projectile’s flight path and adjusted for weather conditions gives the position of the enemy’s battery that released them.
      That generally has nothing to do with adjusting your own fire. Because in order to correct something, you need to know where the target is located (and ARSOM does not know this) and you need to understand where your own projectile fell (during ultra-long range shooting ARSOM will not know this either, since only the insignificant radar will see it part of the projectile trajectory)
    8. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 July 2013 14: 00
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      If my memory serves me, it’s just ARSOM that makes a notch of the projectile’s flight path and adjusted for weather conditions gives the position of the enemy’s battery that released them.

      Exactly.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      That generally has nothing to do with adjusting your own fire.

      But this is no longer true. The station is capable of detecting its own shells. So, knowing the coordinates of your fire and target, i.e. ideal trajectory, able to compare it with the real one and provide amendments to the firing unit.

      Moreover, there is already a station designed exclusively for this kind of work. Part of the Israeli FMS FERA. And allowing you to work with MLRS with a range of up to 160 km. Given the fact that the ship system has less restrictions in size and power supply, to increase the shooting range will not be a problem.
  • Kars
    Kars 16 July 2013 18: 44
    +1
    Quote: Taoist
    But instead of the usual barrel artillery, is it time to set up railguns ...

    Well, I rely on the characteristics of the already developed guns. And 10 inches is enough to slap the poises and provide support for the landing. At the same time, the armor will allow you to get closer to the shore. The only thing to increase the percentage of filling explosive HE shells.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 16 July 2013 20: 17
    +1
    However, this is all pure fiction - no one in the foreseeable period of time will even think of building such monsters ... because you just don’t need nafig. Expensive, but consider no goals for them ... Papuans can be soaked with much cheaper means ... but this chest does not pull against a serious opponent. Not from the air, so from under the water. The times of battleships have passed ... however, like the classic aircraft carriers. Compact and multifunctional machines - robots will rule the ball.
  • Kars
    Kars 16 July 2013 20: 33
    +1
    Quote: Taoist
    in the foreseeable period of time no one will even think of building such monsters ... because you just don’t need nafig

    Like aircraft carriers, now they are mainly an indicator of prestige. The British will immediately try to sell their new quins, the second will try to sell. Maybe Taiwan will take
    Quote: Taoist
    Compact and multifunctional machines - robots will rule the ball.

    I hoped her to look at the fighting on the moon, as well as visit their possessions.
  • sub307
    sub307 20 July 2013 13: 07
    0
    Absolutely.
  • old man54
    old man54 17 July 2013 17: 47
    0
    Quote: Mike_V
    To the above I can add about X-35. This is a light rocket. Its warhead is only 150 kg and even a fighter can carry it. However, its speed is approximately 1 km per second.

    I think my friend you are useless, I'm sorry! X-35 has a supersonic speed, and based on your data, its speed is near hypersonic, i.e. 3600 km / h bully Itself is not funny ?? And if you like to translate the speed in km / s, then its speed is approximately 0,28 km / s. Next time, pre-calculate what you write.
    1. Mike_v
      Mike_v 17 July 2013 23: 22
      0
      Regarding the X-35, they immediately corrected me (meaning the X-31a missile), hoped for memory and did not check myself. I already wrote about this above. Mathematics is not "to blame" here - age.