Military Review

Under construction and adopted ships for the Russian Navy. Part of 2

83
We continue the review of ships under construction on orders of the Russian Navy.


The head BPC Russe Vladivostok, built by STX France and the Baltic plant under the project DCNS. 27 July 2013, the two halves of the ship were docked, now they will drain the pool and level. By the end of the summer, the ship will again float, now as a whole. The surrender of the Russian Navy is planned for 2014 year, wait and see.




Displacement - 21 000
Armament - 2 30 mm AK-630М and 2 ADMS 3М47-01 Bending with Needle missiles.
Air Group - Ka-16, Ka-29, Ka-27K helicopters.
The landing party is a battalion of marines with all standard equipment and armament, briefly an 2 battalion with reinforcement. Landing facilities - 4 TK CTM each of which can take MBT, 2 BMP or 90 marines with weapons (or 94 cargo), launching boats and boats for special forces and marines.

Serial BPC Russe Sevastopol, built by STX France and the Baltic plant under the project DCNS. 18 was laid on June 2013 of the year, construction is underway and a set of blocks is being made, some of which are visible in the photo of Vladivostok, above. It is planned to hand over the ship of the Navy already in 2015 year.



The main large landing ship of 11711 Ave. Ivan Gren, under construction by the Yantar plant, designed by Nevsky PKB. The ship is lowered and completed afloat. Machines are accepted, compartments are being saturated. This year must move in next year running and surrender. The low rate is due to the speeding up of the frigate order.


Displacement - 5000
Armament - 76 mm guns AK-176M, two 40 barrels 122 mm rocket launchers A-215 (sea hail), 2 30 mm AK-630М, a helicopter with a hangar.
Airborne Opportunities - 13 tanks or 36 armored vehicles, unloading at the port or through the nose ramp into the water, 2 companies of the marine corps with reinforcement (300 people, short-term up to 500).

The landing craft of the 21820 project, Denis Davydov, being built by the Yaroslavl Shipbuilding Plant under the project of the Central Design Bureau on the SEC named after R.E. Alekseeva. The ship is launched on July 26 2013 of the year. They promise to start testing this year.


Displacement - 280
Armament - 2 MTPU 14,5 mm Machine Gun
Landing capabilities - 2 OBT or 4 armored vehicles, about 100 people with weapons.

Landing craft project 21820 Lieutenant Rimsky-Korsakov №702, under construction by the Yaroslavl Shipyard on the project of the Central Design Bureau on the SEC them. R.E. Alekseeva. Equipment and machinery are being installed, a descent is expected until the end of 2013.

Under construction and adopted ships for the Russian Navy. Part of 2


Landing craft project 21820 Michman Lermontov №703, under construction by the Yaroslavl Shipyard on the project of the Central Design Bureau on the SEC them. R.E. Alekseeva. Launched 18 January, 2013, under construction.




The landing craft of the 21820 project Ivan Kartsov, being built by the Eastern shipyard according to the design of the Central Design Bureau for the SEC named after R.E. Alekseeva. The ship is painted and prepared for descent, it is planned for August 2013. The Pacific Fleet expects to receive Kartsev before the end of the year, as it will be, we'll see.



Large reconnaissance ship project 18280 Yuri Ivanov, being built at the Northern shipyard. Rolled out, is preparing for the descent, which is scheduled for 26 September 2013 of the year. The approximate date of delivery of the Navy is the end of the year 2014 or 2015. The main problems with the engine, which was removed from the stand and the main intelligence complex, which is also a bench.


Displacement - 2700

The communications vessel of X. NUMXNZ avenue was built by Sokolskaya Shipyard OJSC under the design of the Vympel Design Bureau. Launching 1388 June 20 of the year. The construction is under way afloat, presumably by the end of the year, the communications vessel will go on inland waterways to the duty station.


Displacement - 420

Large hydrographic boat of project 19920 Cormorant No. 01843, being built by the Rybinsk Shipyard according to the design of the Vympel Design Bureau for the Caspian flotilla. Preparing for the descent, which is due to take place in 2013. Transfer to the fleet in 2014.

Photo sisterspira for photo order no

Displacement - 320
Opportunities - designed for hydrographic and pilotage activities in the coastal areas of the seas, maintenance, inspection, reloading and repair of coastal and floating navigational aids, delivery of personnel, special equipment and cargo to the unequipped coast. BGK has a modern hydrographic equipment: a multibeam echo sounder with a complex for collecting and processing information, a survey echo sounder, a profilograph, a system for measuring the parameters of pitching, a sound velocity meter in water, an autonomous returnable hydrological probe, an automated gauge machine.

Large hydrographic boat project 19920B Cormorant №702, under construction CVD them. October Revolution in Blagoveshchensk on the draft of the Pennant Design Bureau for the Pacific Fleet. Preparing for the descent, to be held in 2013 year. The transfer to the fleet 2013 year, but it will be thwarted because on July 28 no descent.
Photo sisterspira for photo order no


The rescue ship of 21300 pr. Igor Belousov is building Admiralty shipyards according to the Almaz design bureau. The completion is under way until the readiness of 61%. Complex GVK-450 sent to the factory. Red Sormovo let down the Bester-1 and conducted the first tests, but there is still a lot of work.




Displacement - 5000
Opportunities - submersible device on 700 meters, diving complex GVK-450 to work up to 450 meters, a complex of pressure chambers on 60 people, a diving complex for depths of 60 meters.

The rescue ship of the project 22870 SB-45, being built by the Astrakhan shipyard under the design of the designation of the Pennant for the Caspian Flotilla. Launched 24 May 2013, completed afloat. Exit to the test is scheduled for this year.



Displacement - 1200
Opportunities - towing and removal of ships and ships from the shoal, extinguishing fires on emergency ships (ships) and onshore facilities, evacuating people and providing medical assistance to rescued people; power supply to the emergency ship (vessel) and keeping it afloat; diving operations at depths up to 60 m, as well as for gathering oil products with a flash point of more than 60 ° С from the sea surface, performing survey works.

The head special vessel based on the tug Ave. 16609, being built by the shipyard Pella according to its own design for the Baltic Fleet (customer of the GUGI). Bookmark 24 held on July 2013.


Displacement - 600
Opportunities - presumably will be used as the base platform for deep-sea vehicles during their development.

The rescue boat of 23040 ave., Built by OJSC Plant Nizhegorodsky Teplokhod. Laid 27 June 2013 of the year. General order 16 boats of this project, for three years of construction.


Displacement - 120
Opportunities - the provision of any diving operations at a depth of 60 meters, with waves to 3 balls, a basic, remotely controlled, unmanned underwater vehicle on 150 meters, a descent and towed sonar. In addition, the boat has the ability to apply power to an emergency vessel or to extinguish a fire using standard means, including various extinguishing agents.

The rescue boat of 23040 ave., Built by OJSC Plant Nizhegorodsky Teplokhod. Laid 27 June 2013 of the year.



Diving boat-catamaran Ave. 23370 SMK-2093 under construction by OJSC KAMPO under the project of OJSC KAMPO and ZAO Quartet-SPb. Formed body and superstructure, descent in summer. In September, the head will make the transition to Lomonosov for GI - transferred to the Baltic Fleet. Total 12 ordered such catamaran boats, 8 for the Baltic Fleet and 4 for the Caspian Flotilla.




Displacement - 100
Equipment - the boat has a hydraulic crane for lifting loads from the depth and is equipped with a pressure chamber, there is all the necessary equipment for the work of divers in various equipment.

Diving boat of 14157 Ave., built by Blagoveshchensky JSC “Shipyard of the October Revolution”, designed by Vimpel design bureau. According to official information from the factory - the second boat is ready for 70%. In late May, it is also planned to be launched, but there are no pictures of the descent or any other data about it. Transferred to the Pacific Fleet.


Displacement - 80

The 23120 project support vessel Elbrus (Arc4) is under construction by the Northern Shipyard under the project Spetssudoproekt CJSC for the Northern Fleet. A set of hull blocks is being carried out, this is hampered by the workload of the shipyard (it’s simply nowhere to do everything). Planned delivery to the fleet in November 2014 of the year will be disrupted, almost certainly.



Displacement - 9000
Opportunities - loading, storage, transportation and transfer of dry goods to the shore, surface ships, submarines and ships; towing, assistance to crews of ships and ships in distress.

Sea transport weapons project 20180TV Akademik Kovalev under construction at the shipyard Zvezdochka designed by TsMKB Almaz. The hull is formed, it is being saturated, descending in 2014 year.


Sistership

Displacement - 6100
Opportunities - sea transportation, transshipment, testing of marine equipment, weapons and weapons; - search, inspection and lifting of sunken marine equipment; - other work with the deployment, use and lifting of large objects; providing combat training for the fleet; search and rescue work.

Sea transport weapons project 20183 Akademik Alexandrov under construction at the shipyard Zvezdochka designed by CMDB Almaz. The hull is being recruited, the planned delivery of 2015 year.




The port support vessel of the project SKPO-1000 Umba (class Ice3 R2) is being built by the shipyard Pella on its own design. It is being completed afloat; sea trials will begin by the end of the year.


Displacement - 2290
Opportunities - bunkering of ships with different types of fuel (using washable separate cargo tanks, which allows you to simultaneously carry various types of liquid cargo and, if necessary, replace them in the shortest time), collect oil-containing, waste, bilge water from ships and floating objects, collect from vessels of solid garbage and food waste, transportation and staging of buoys, maintenance of floating navigation aids, liquidation of emergency oil spills, transportation of goods.

The port support vessel of the project SKPO-1000 Pecha (class Ice3 R2) is being built by the shipyard Pella according to its own design. The ship is launched on June 11 2013 of the year and is being completed afloat.



The transport floating dock of the 22570 Ave. Sviyaga being built by the Zelenodolsk plant to them. A. M. Gorky on the project TsMKB Almaz for the Russian Navy. Launched on November 30 2012 of the year, is active in the set of housing, the planned delivery 2015 year.



Load capacity - ships or cargoes weighing up to 3300
Opportunities - transportation of ships and vessels, as well as ensuring their dock inspections and repairs.

Sea self-propelled floating crane project 02690 head. No. 900 being built at the Almaz shipyard, according to the project of ZAO Spetssudoproekt. Launched 17 May 2013, built in the interests of the Russian Navy.


Displacement - 2000
Features - self-propelled range up to 3500 miles, payload 150 tons. Designed to perform all types of lifting work, loading of discharge cargo to surface ships, submarines and ships, ordinary cargo, carrying out work on weaving the chains for fixing floating moorings, installing and shooting road equipment, transporting cargo on the upper deck.

The head sea tug of pr. PS-45 (unlimited navigation area with class Ice2 - Arc5), being built by the shipyard Pell on its own project. Launched 22 July 2013 year for the Northern Fleet, the transfer is scheduled for 2014 year.



Opportunities - 80 ™ hook, breaking 1m of ice, cruising range up to 3500 miles, availability of containers for diving equipment, equipped medical unit, deployable helipad, fire system with a total 4000cube capacity. m per hour

Sea rescue tug of the project 745MBS Viktor Konetsky under construction by the Yaroslavl Shipyard according to the design of KB Vympel. After the winter descent under the Christmas tree (14 December 2012 of the year) is completed afloat, the plant promises to be tested before the new year, the Russian Navy is delivered on the 2014 schedule a year, in fact, the order is ahead of schedule.


Displacement - 1300
Opportunities - towing ships and vessels in the open sea, as well as between bases, in harbors and on roadsteads; assisting ships and ships in distress (extinguishing fires, breaking off, pumping water); extinguishing fires on shore facilities. Sailing distance to 5000 miles, with agitation to 5 balls, you can keep any course and course.

90600 (Ice2-Arc4) RB-400 raid tugboat, built by the Pell shipyard according to its own design. Lowered 25 July 2013 of the year, transferred to the Northern Fleet, sending a tug to the end of the 2013 year.


Displacement - 417
Opportunities - 23-35 ™ traction force, escorting speeds up to 10 nodes, can be used to clear ships and ships from the ground, extinguish fires on floating objects and onshore facilities, participate in OSR operations, transport cargo, wash out ice.

90600 (Ice2-Arc4) RB-401 raid tugboat, built by the Pell shipyard according to its own design. Preparing to descend in early August, transferred to the Baltic Fleet until the end of 2013.



Strategic strategic nuclear submarine nuclear-powered missile cruiser of Prince 955 Ave., Prince Vladimir, being built at Sevmash, designed by Rubin Central Design Bureau. Under construction.


Displacement - about 16 000 / 26 000
Armament - 16 (20?) Intercontinental missiles R-30 Mace, 6 533 mm TA.

The atomic multi-purpose submarine of the 8851 Ave. Kazan under construction at Sevmash under the Malachite project. Active construction is underway, the hull is fully formed, it is being saturated. The descent is scheduled for 2014 year, the adoption of the Northern Fleet in 2015 year.
photo from bookmark

Displacement - 8 600 / 13 800
Armament - 8 quad mines for the Caliber complex and 10 533 mm TA.

The atomic multi-purpose submarine of the 8851 Ave. Novosibirsk, being built at Sevmash under the Malachite project. Laid on 26 June 2013 of the year.




The main nuclear submarine for special tasks of 09852 K-139 "Belgorod", under construction at Sevmash, designed by TsKB MT Rubin. In December 2012, the boat was redeclared. The hull is almost formed, work is underway to upgrade the compartments and the hull itself for a new project.


Displacement - about 25 000
Purpose - deep work, the base for deep-water vehicles, including manned.

The diesel-electric submarine pr. 636.3 B-261 "Novorossiysk" is being built at the Admiralty shipyards according to the design of the CDB MT "Rubin". Construction is underway, the hull and boats are practically formed However, due to the Vietnamese order, everything is shifted by a year, that is, the descent is most likely in the spring of 2014 of the year. It is planned for transfer to the Black Sea Fleet.


Displacement - about 3000
Armament - 6 533mm TA, through which you can use the complex Caliber-PL.

The diesel-electric submarine of the 636.3 Ave. B-237 "Rostov-on-Don" being built at the Admiralty shipyards according to the design of TsBB MT "Rubin". The blocks are being assembled and the hull is being formed. It is planned for transfer to the Black Sea Fleet.




The diesel-electric submarine Ave 636.3 B-262 "Stary Oskol" being built at the Admiralty shipyards according to the design of TsKB MT "Rubin". The building blocks are being assembled. Scheduled for transfer to the Black Sea Fleet in 2015 year.




The diesel-electric submarine pr. 677 B-586 "Kronstadt" is being built at the Admiralty shipyards according to the design of TsKB MT "Rubin". After the necessary design improvements and research work, the construction contract was unfrozen on July 9 of the year 2013. The planned date for the transfer of the upgraded boat 2017 year to the Northern Fleet.

Displacement - underwater around 3000
Armament - 6 533mm TA, through which you can use the complex Caliber-PL.

The diesel-electric submarine, pr. 677 B-587, is under construction at the Admiralty shipyards according to the design of TsBB MT "Rubin". The boat is selected as the head for the new VNEU, which is just being developed. Since July 2013, the boat began work related to the modernization and modification of the project, to install VNEU. The deadline for 2017 is a year that may be disrupted due to delays on the VNEU. Place of registry Northern Fleet.



As you can see, ships of various classes are built for the Navy. All of them are needed by the fleet and it is not necessary to allocate a fairly large number of suppliers. After all, without tugboats, hydrographs, tankers, rescue ships and supply vessels, no fleet will be combat-ready. Also, you should pay attention to the increasing number of shipyards working on the orders of the Russian Navy! Separately, it is necessary to single out the GCC Diamond, which practically does not build for the Navy, but it works on the orders of FSB FS, building complex and most modern ships. In particular, PSKR pr. 22460 and PS cipher Purga, serial PS-825 just recently began the transition to the North, and then its course will go to the Pacific Ocean via the NSR.
Author:
Photos used:
airbase.ru, shipyard sites
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 30 July 2013 07: 21 New
    10
    But who was yelling that everything is bad with us?
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 30 July 2013 10: 22 New
      26
      Quote: tronin.maxim
      But who was yelling that everything is bad with us?

      We are not all bad!
      We are not doing well! But for now, the sooner we turn this situation around, the better for us all! But how fast it will turn out, here is something to think about?
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 30 July 2013 11: 30 New
        +8
        We are not doing well!


        Absolutely true and accurately said!

        But many very quickly transform it into "Everything is bad with us".
    2. Conepatus
      Conepatus 30 July 2013 17: 01 New
      -1
      And what's good? "Ivan Gray" began to build before the 2nd Mistral ", and will be handed over later, the guarantee. Even later than the second" Mistral "The communication vessel looks more like a rich man's yacht than a military ship. Some kind of boats, some kind of tugs. If so will go on, then soon the inflatable boat will be reported as a mega achievement. Only in those reports it will be called an "anti-deviation" boat. Where are the warships of the ocean zone?
      They are building nuclear submarines, but have they officially accepted at least one of the fleets, or are they still being tested? How many years will they test?
      The GDP at the bathyscaphe looks at the sunken ships and itself (or with its tacit consent) merges the fleet. IMHO
      1. donavi49
        30 July 2013 18: 38 New
        +5
        The first part with the Far Sea zone and accepted nuclear submarines - http://topwar.ru/31373-stroyaschiesya-i-prinyatye-na-28072013-goda-korabli-dlya-
        vmf-rf-chast-1.html

        As for Grena, the factory has 11356 priority forcing them. Gren will be surrendered in 2014 year.
    3. Mikola
      Mikola 31 July 2013 17: 00 New
      -2
      According to Shoigu, now 80% of more than 1 thousand Russian military and auxiliary vessels have exhausted their resources and are operated outside of the overhaul periods. At the same time, under the State Arms Program, until 2020, it is planned to repair a total of 65 warships, 12 special and 62 auxiliary vessels. At the same time, instead of obsolete vessels, it is planned to build 113 warships, eight - special and 65 support vessels.

      At the same time, according to the military, Russian shipyards are not able to provide repair and maintenance of all ships. So, according to the Ministry of Defense, in the 2012 year, the United Shipbuilding Corporation, which combines almost all of the Russian shipyards and shipyards, did not complete the repair of six and service on 157 ships and ships of the Russian Navy.


      Read on: http://izvestia.ru/news/547782#ixzz2acxlQA9w

      EVEN DO NOT KNOW HOW TO COMMENT ON IDIOTISM WITH YOUR CAPTURE
      1. Contrpropaganda
        Contrpropaganda 1 August 2013 12: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Mikola
        Read on: http://izvestia.ru/news/547782#ixzz2acxlQA9w

        Holy faith in the ravings of news.
        1. Mikola
          Mikola 3 August 2013 14: 01 New
          0
          your faith is not interesting to me, I believe the facts smile
  2. Crang
    Crang 30 July 2013 07: 23 New
    -12
    I see the same as in the previous article. Instead basics - i.e. large ships with strike weapons, now at 90% ships of various helper classes... It is necessary first to fill the fleet with the base, and only then to build all sorts of tugs, boats, hydrographic and other ships. The basis is needed - aircraft carriers (not like "Vladivostok"), huge missile cruisers and destroyers.
    1. Sirs
      Sirs 30 July 2013 07: 41 New
      +4
      And that would be designed by young engineers, young technologists, under the supervision of "aksakals"
    2. altman
      altman 30 July 2013 08: 00 New
      19
      everything in this life is on the foundation ... in this case ... boats, auxiliary vessels, tugboats and even frigates are just the foundation !! aircraft carriers - like the top of the pyramid! You can’t start from above, just stupid !!
      1. Crang
        Crang 30 July 2013 08: 18 New
        -23
        And starting from below is even dumber. If any obsolete trash can still be used as a foundation, which in no way affects the aircraft carrier’s fighting ability, it’s hard to imagine the place of all these longboats and tugboats hung with old tires in a modern war without a foundation - all this will melt in 5 minutes and that's all. As in WW2, we became a fleet - battleships and aircraft carriers were dumb. But tugboats, schooners, boats and all shit in bulk. At which our grandfathers willy-nilly heroically fought the enemy. Under the king, the fleet was more powerful.
        No need to exchange on trifles. It is better to build one standing ship than a dozen of them, the appointment of a commander on which would be a shame.
        1. Zlodeey
          Zlodeey 30 July 2013 09: 16 New
          12
          Quote: Krang
          And starting from below is even dumber

          So I understand your house / building from the roof begin to build?
          Quote: Krang
          melt it all in 5 minutes and that's it

          I wonder who will drown? Having a nuclear weapon.

          Quote: Krang
          As in WW2, we became a fleet - battleships and aircraft carriers were dumb. But tugboats, schooners, boats and all shit in bulk. At which our grandfathers willy-nilly heroically fought the enemy. Under the king, the fleet was more powerful.

          Enlighten:
          By the beginning of World War II, the naval crew of the USSR consisted of 3 battleships, 7 cruisers, 59 leaders and destroyers, 218 submarines, 269 torpedo boats, 22 patrol boats, 88 minesweepers, 77 submarine hunters and a number of other ships and boats, as well as auxiliary vessels. 219 ships were under construction, including 3 battleships, 2 heavy and 7 light cruisers, 45 destroyers, 91 submarines. In terms of combat and operational qualities, the built domestic surface ships were at the level of similar ships of foreign fleets. They possessed sufficient speeds, proper protection, high survivability and unsinkability. The cruisers and destroyers were armed with reliable long-range artillery systems of 180 mm and 130 mm caliber.
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 30 July 2013 10: 34 New
            +2
            Quote: Krang
            The basis is needed - aircraft carriers (not like "Vladivostok"), huge missile cruisers and destroyers.

            To begin with, I think it is necessary to create bases for them (ships of the 1st rank) with all the necessary infrastructure, which would not work like with Kuznetsov ...
            Quote: ZloDeey
            By the beginning of World War II, the naval crew of the USSR consisted of 3 battleships, 7 cruisers, 59 leaders and destroyers, 218 submarines, 269 torpedo boats, 22 patrol boats, 88 minesweepers, 77 submarine hunters and a number of other ships and boats, as well as auxiliary vessels.

            And how much was built during the war ...
          2. Crang
            Crang 30 July 2013 11: 35 New
            -8
            Quote: ZloDeey
            So I understand your house / building from the roof begin to build?

            Basis - These are aircraft carriers and cruisers, not tugs and boats. Why are aircraft carriers and battleships considered shock force or the core of the fleet. Build a fleet and auxiliary ships.
            Quote: ZloDeey
            I wonder who will drown? Having a nuclear weapon.

            Generally not a topic of question.
            Quote: ZloDeey
            By the beginning of World War II, the naval crew of the USSR Navy consisted of 3 battleships,

            Old, royal. Which could not withstand a duel with either German or Japanese more or less modern battleships. And there were only three of them.
            Quote: ZloDeey
            7 cruisers,

            Well, at least they were able to build cruisers.
            Quote: ZloDeey
            The cruisers and destroyers were armed with reliable long-range artillery systems of 180 mm and 130 mm caliber.

            What are you doing ?! Probably, they would have shown themselves cool against the 460mm guns of Japanese battleships with shells weighing about 1,5 tons or 380mm Bismarck guns with 805kg shells.
            Quote: ZloDeey
            In terms of combat and operational qualities, the built domestic surface ships were at the level of similar ships of foreign fleets.

            The main force of the fleets of that period were NOT cruisers, and aircraft carriers and battleships... Show me the domestic aircraft carriers and battleships of WW2 that were "at the level" of similar ships of foreign fleets? Who do you want to deceive? We were not even invited to the Washington conference. our fleet was not taken seriously by anyone. They will say something about "Marat" or "Paris Commune" - I will give you the list of battleships and aircraft carriers of the US Navy in the war in the Pacific. As they say - feel the difference.
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 30 July 2013 14: 18 New
              +6
              Quote: Krang
              The basis is aircraft carriers and cruisers, not tugs and boats. Why aircraft carriers and battleships are considered strike force or the core of the fleet.

              It is precisely that aircraft carriers or heavy missile ships (if we are talking about modern realities) that is the striking force of the fleet. But that's just not the basis, the basis is just coastal infrastructure and support vessels. Without them, the large ships are simply shiny expensive tsatskis, which produce a resource for 5-10 years without any benefit to the fatherland.
              Quote: Krang
              Old, royal. Which could not withstand a duel with either German or Japanese more or less modern battleships. And there were only three of them.

              Yes there were problems. The fleet has always been a weak point, that RI, that the USSR.
              Quote: Krang
              What are you doing ?! Probably, they would have shown themselves cool against the 460mm guns of Japanese battleships with shells weighing about 1,5 tons or 380mm Bismarck guns with 805kg shells.

              And you compare the comparable, and it turns out that they could quite well show themselves against their classmates armed with 152 and 127 mm guns.
              Quote: Krang
              The main force of the fleets of that period were NOT cruisers, but aircraft carriers and battleships. Show me the domestic aircraft carriers and battleships of WW2 that were "at the level" of similar ships of foreign fleets? Who do you want to deceive? We were not even invited to the Washington conference. our fleet was not taken seriously by anyone.

              My dear, show me another state that built 30.000 tanks between the WWII and WWII. Selawy ... the fleet was not a priority for the leadership of the USSR, problems on the land borders were much more significant and vast.
              But of course, if, on the whole, not paying attention to the facts, then yes - we have cured the polymers and we are all dead.
              1. Crang
                Crang 30 July 2013 15: 02 New
                -4
                Quote: Rakti-Kali
                Yes there were problems. The fleet has always been a weak point, that RI, that the USSR.

                Only the USSR. RI and where? Such a giant fleet has created. From state-of-the-art technology.
                Quote: Rakti-Kali
                And you compare the comparable, and it turns out that they could quite well show themselves against their classmates armed with 152 and 127 mm guns.

                Their "classmates" had onboard electronic equipment 10 years more modern than ours and they performed only secondary tasks. Which cruisers should do. No - our 130mm, 152mm, 180mm guns of light and light heavy cruisers would have to deal with Washington (406mm), Yamato (460mm), Bismarck (380mm), Vitorio-Venetto (381mm), etc. P. Even the "PC" with "OP" somehow do not dance against them, and any cruiser will fly to pieces after the first hit. Not to mention "Zero" with "Corsairs" and "Wildcats" which ours in the ocean had nothing to oppose at all. Coastal fleet. Only submarines could do something - the surface component was weaker than the RI fleet before the Russian-Japanese war of 1904.
                Quote: Rakti-Kali
                My dear, show me another state that built 30.000 tanks

                Oh, how beautifully translated the topic. Bravo. But we are here about the fleet.
                1. Odysseus
                  Odysseus 30 July 2013 18: 10 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Krang
                  USSR only

                  belay Industrialization, which allowed creating the whole spectrum of modern military equipment without purchasing abroad, began only in the 30s. The construction of the Ocean Fleet was planned by the 1939 plan. The war prevented.
                  After the war, a huge fleet was calmly rebuilt.
                  Although valid for Russia, as a land power without colonies, the fleet was always secondary.
                2. Rakti-kali
                  Rakti-kali 30 July 2013 19: 01 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Krang
                  Only the USSR. RI and where? Such a giant fleet has created. From state-of-the-art technology.

                  Your RI created crap instead of a fleet. Ununified, often dysfunctional crap. Even the French and Italians did not allow such original (in the worst sense of the word) constructions.
                  Thank you beloved sovereign for the complete lack of a clear concept of both the Navy and the Navy command.
                  Quote: Krang
                  Their "classmates" had onboard electronic equipment 10 years more modern than ours and they performed only secondary tasks. Which cruisers should do. No - our 130mm, 152mm, 180mm guns of light and light heavy cruisers would have to deal with Washington (406mm), Yamato (460mm), Bismarck (380mm), Vitorio-Venetto (381mm), etc. P. Even the "PC" with "OP" somehow do not dance against them, and any cruiser will fly to pieces after the first hit. Not to mention "Zero" with "Corsairs" and "Wildcats" which ours in the ocean had nothing to oppose at all. Coastal fleet. Only submarines could do something - the surface component was weaker than the RI fleet before the Russian-Japanese war of 1904.

                  Of course, I apologize for the banality, but this question asks here - so - WELL AND WHAT?
                  IT WAS NOT at the USSR Navy before WWII the tasks of gaining superiority in the far sea zone. Well, the USSR did not have overseas colonies.
                  And the state had no resources even for such a seedy fleet.
                  By the way, how many large NK are there for aviation sank during the war, as a percentage if not 3/4? Shameless battleships in WWII.
                  Quote: Krang
                  Oh, how beautifully translated the topic. Bravo. But we are here about the fleet.

                  Oh ... well, nedo ... praise ...
                  We are here about the state. There was no extreme need for the USSR in the ocean fleet, and there were no resources for it. But there were enemies on the land borders. Therefore, the resources went not to the fleet but to the NE.
                  1. Crang
                    Crang 31 July 2013 08: 40 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Rakti-Kali
                    Your RI created crap instead of a fleet.

                    This "crap" consisted of the most advanced warships of its time core classes those. battleships, not cruisers. And the fact that this power was controlled by the rotten royal system is another question already.
                    Quote: Rakti-Kali
                    Ununified, often dysfunctional crap.

                    No more ununified than other fleets. Or do you think each next project should be different from the previous one, how does the VAZ-2107 differ from the VAZ-2105? Such a fleet is in the ass. Such unification is going to ass.
                    Quote: Rakti-Kali
                    Such original (in the worst sense of the word) constructions

                    In the best understanding. These "constructions" would send the entire "mighty" fleet of the USSR of WW2 to the bottom into the light. For 1904, in total: 88 305mm guns, 26 254mm guns, 8 229mm guns and 28 203mm guns. In 1941, the mighty Soviet fleet had 36 305mm guns and 40 180mm guns. The difference in medium caliber guns of 120-152mm from the side of the RIF fleet was simply overwhelming. So much for the "backward fleet". So much for the "backward designs". Someone's brains were simply retarded.

                    Quote: Rakti-Kali
                    Of course, I apologize for the banality, but this question asks here - so - WELL AND WHAT? THE Navy of the USSR had no problem with WWII in order to gain superiority in the far sea zone. Well, the USSR did not have overseas colonies.

                    So then why the hell is he needed? Don't you understand what the ocean fleet is for? I explain - for example, you will have to fight with the United States or Japan and without a fleet, even with the most powerful army you will not do a thing. That's what the Navy is for, not the colonies. And if you don't need it, then you don't need to write such articles. And brag about tugboats and schooners as "the rebirth of the fleet."
                    Quote: Rakti-Kali
                    By the way, how many large NK are there for aviation sank during the war, as a percentage if not 3/4?

                    Well, how was it with our fleet with naval aviation? How many she would melt the enemy ships say in Hawaii or the Philippines?
                    1. Zlodeey
                      Zlodeey 31 July 2013 11: 45 New
                      0
                      I apologize, but forgive me, you have paranoia, this is no longer understandable, you absolutely do not want to listen to the opinions of other people who understand this much more than you. All collected what is possible for both the Tsar and the Second World War, at all times: WOULD be flooded, could be, but what could not and did not flood? "WOULD" hurt? Straight keyboard strategist.
                      Someone’s brains were backward.
                      You took it directly from the tongue!
                    2. Rakti-kali
                      Rakti-kali 31 July 2013 11: 56 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Krang
                      This "crap" consisted of the most advanced warships of the main classes, ie. battleships, not cruisers.

                      Before the REV, this crap remained crap, even if it consisted of battleships. Although if you look closely, you have to accept the fact that battleships and armored cruisers were then battleships, which were supposed to bear the brunt of the squadron battles. Moreover, the armadillos were mostly of foreign construction (according to projects that weren’t the most successful in addition), the armored cruisers had a turtle speed due to unreliable vehicles (with the exception of Askold and the Bogatyr) and disgusting artillery, armored cruisers to fight on the communications of the British Empire, which relied on in the last decades of the XNUMXth century, the Russian naval department, being unable to create a linear fleet comparable to the British, was frankly very weak and did not meet the assigned tasks - for squadrons The military battles were of weak armament and armor; for cruising, the speed was absolutely unsatisfactory.

                      Quote: Krang
                      No more ununified than other fleets. Or do you think each next project should be different from the previous one, how does the VAZ-2107 differ from the VAZ-2105? Such a fleet is in the ass. Such unification is going to ass.

                      What is this stream of consciousness? If you are not aware, then most of the large NK before the RYA were built abroad and according to completely different projects and in accordance with completely different concepts of warfare at sea. And if they tried to continue which ship with a series on domestic lines, then they turned out to be prohibitively expensive, overloaded and unreliable slaughterhouses. So "YES" - "Such unification is going to be the same".
                      Quote: Krang
                      In the best understanding. These "constructions" would send the entire "mighty" fleet of the USSR of WW2 to the bottom into the light. For 1904, in total: 88 305mm guns, 26 254mm guns, 8 229mm guns and 28 203mm guns. In 1941, the mighty Soviet fleet had 36 305mm guns and 40 180mm guns. The difference in medium caliber guns of 120-152mm from the side of the RIF fleet was simply overwhelming. So much for the "backward fleet". So much for the "backward designs". Someone's brains were simply retarded.

                      The number of rivets and latches forgot to count. In general, this is called abstract phallometry for a spherical object in a vacuum. So tie with comparisons of warm to soft.
                      Quote: Krang
                      Someone’s brains were backward.

                      You probably wanted to offend me with this? Did not work out. But in your ignorance you very accurately described the gentlemen, who represented the highest naval leadership of the Republic of Ingushetia.
                      1. Crang
                        Crang 31 July 2013 14: 05 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Before the REV, this crap remained crap, even if it consisted of battleships.

                        These were some of the best battleships in the world. There was no one better. Type "Sevastopol", "Tsarevich", type "Borodino". They had no equal in their time. And what is important - they were built on time.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Although if you look closely, you have to accept the fact that the battleships were battleships then

                        It is the same. Line Fleet.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Moreover, the battleships were mostly of foreign construction (according to not very successful projects in addition)

                        Mostly ours. And for the best projects. Only "Retvizan" and "Tsarevich" were foreign. But the dreadnoughts of the "Sevastopol" type (yes, yes - exactly the same ones) were just very unsuccessful from the beginning. And no upgrades could completely remove their innate jambs.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        the non-deck cruisers had turtle speed due to unreliable vehicles (with the exception of Askold and Bogatyr) and disgusting artillery,

                        Rave. Our artillery was already the best in the world. Ring fastening. This is not an Amstrong barn with wire.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        What is this stream of consciousness? If you aren’t in the know, then most of the large NKs in front of the NRW were built abroad according to completely different projects and in accordance with completely different concepts of warfare at sea.

                        I am aware of what you are not aware of. You are carrying some kind of nonsense. They all had similar performance characteristics. Just divided into series with various combat capabilities.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        But in your ignorance you very accurately described the gentlemen, who represented the highest naval leadership of the Republic of Ingushetia.

                        I was not going to insult you. I meant the leadership of the Republic of Ingushetia.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        In general, this is called abstract phallometry for a spherical object in a vacuum.

                        Nothing is called. The cannons were almost the same and made it possible to fire over the entire range of reliable visual contact. They would have dug. Even with old MSA and shells. Well, even with new ones (it would be more objective) and even more so. And these unsuccessful dreadnoughts of the 1908-10 level. They were completed only in 1914-18. when the enemies already had Bayrens, Worspites and Hoods. So what? Who could they have defeated there in the 40s? With "Texas" is there something to butt.
                        I now look at the giant "destroyers" type of the USA (healthier than our cruisers pr.1164), and then I look at my uncle, who, showing tugs hung with tires, speaks of the revival of the Navy and I feel sad at heart. Of all the ships listed in both articles, 30-40 percent are truly serious and noteworthy. The rest ... The same Americans rivet in hundreds like cars and do not even notice them.
                      2. Rakti-kali
                        Rakti-kali 31 July 2013 16: 27 New
                        0
                        Quote: Krang
                        These were some of the best battleships in the world. There was no one better. Type "Sevastopol

                        These are those "Baltic Dreadnoughts", with canned armor, over which the whole world laughed at?
                        Quote: Krang
                        Tsarevich

                        This is EBR. Frenchman. One of the few successful ones. By 1914 it was out of date.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Borodino

                        Again EBR. Essentially an improved Cesarevich. They built at home, and as I already wrote, a gigantic structural and operational overload was allowed. The only advantage is the central aiming system.
                        Quote: Krang
                        I now look at the giant "destroyers" type of the USA (healthier than our cruisers pr.1164), and then I look at my uncle, who, showing tugs hung with tires, speaks of the revival of the Navy and I feel sad at heart. Of all the ships listed in both articles, 30-40 percent are truly serious and noteworthy. The rest ... The same Americans rivet in hundreds like cars and do not even notice them.

                        And inappropriately to look at the sizes. Look at the purpose and characteristics.
                        Otherwise, I can remember the ridden destroyers-helicopter carriers of the "Hyuga" type (ひ ゅ う が 型 все) - so now all countries of the world will have to rivet destroyers with a displacement of under 18 kilotons?
                        And without "tugs hung with tires" really no revival of the fleet will be.
                        Remember, in the 90s we built large ships purely out of touch of the USSR, in the first decade of the XNUMXst century we didn’t really build anything. And now, even if not cruisers and aircraft carriers, but already laying new corvettes and frigates, we are building them. This is a big step towards rebirth.
                        And what is the trend in the world? Where else besides the USA are aircraft carriers and cruisers / destroyers built for themselves? In the WB? So they have been sawing their aircraft carrier for 10 years without much haste.
                      3. Crang
                        Crang 31 July 2013 17: 58 New
                        0
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        These are those "Baltic Dreadnoughts", with canned armor, over which the whole world laughed at?

                        With this phrase you yourself have signed your own obscurity. You can't even tell the difference between the Sevastopol-class battleships and the Sevastopol-class dreadnoughts. And you don't even know that there were no dreadnoughts in the Russo-Japanese War yet. So your "canned" dreadnoughts of the "Sevastopol" type (the series also included "Gangut", "Petropavlovsk", "Poltava") - these are the very three tsarist battleships ("Marat", "October Revolution" and "Paris Commune") which formed the core of the USSR Navy in the Second World War. Considering that they were "canned" by the standards of WW1, it is easy to assume that they had few chances to withstand a battle with any western battleship of the 30s and 40s.
                        And quite another battleships of the "Sevastopol" type, which formed the core of the 1TOE in the Russo-Japanese War 36 years before the Second World War. For example, the main armor belt of "Poltava" was made of Krupp's armor 368mm thick (!). No dreadnought of the First World War had such a belt. And in the Second World War, only a few battleships had such a shell. ...
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        This is EBR. Frenchman. One of the few successful ones. By 1914 it was out of date.

                        French on our project. And what was the RIF only in 1914? And in 1904 he was the newest.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Again EBR. Essentially an improved Cesarevich. They built at home, and as I already wrote, a gigantic structural and operational overload was allowed.

                        Yes, it was the best battleships in the world of that period. And then everyone had an overload. You see - at fffseh. In general, everyone. Including and the dreadnoughts.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        And inappropriately to look at the sizes. Look at the purpose and characteristics.

                        So I look. The performance characteristics of their DDX type destroyers are cooler than the tugs shown here.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Remember, in the 90s we built large ships purely out of touch of the USSR, in the first decade of the XNUMXst century we didn’t really build anything.

                        And take another look. Compare the fleet rolls of the 90s with today. How many SSBNs did we have then and how many now? How many aircraft carriers were there then and how many are now? How many cruisers were there then and how many are now? The difference will horrify you. Our fleet is actively replenished with tugs and boats. But aircraft carriers, cruisers and huge submarines disappear from it just as rapidly. How many giant "Sharks" pr.941 were in the stagnant 90s? Six pieces. Not a single left. All this power has been replaced one Project 955 "Yuri Dolgoruky". Open Rakti's eyes. And understand that our fleet from a really necessary huge oceanic organism is rapidly turning into a boat-tug-schooner coastal flotilla, on which it is a shame to serve. How to ride a "Zaporyga" when "Sam" rides a 600.
                      4. Rakti-kali
                        Rakti-kali 31 July 2013 22: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: Krang
                        With this phrase you yourself have signed your own obscurity. You can't even tell the difference between Sevastopol-class battleships and Sevastopol-class dreadnoughts. And you don't even know that there were no dreadnoughts in the Russo-Japanese War yet.

                        Poor thing ... What Russian is not native?
                        Quote: Krang
                        These were some of the best battleships in the world. There was no one better. Type "Sevastopol", "Tsarevich", type "Borodino"

                        You have put in one row the "Baltic under-dreadnoughts" of the "Sevastopol" type and the "Tsarevich" type of brigade, and the "Borodino" type, and now you are trying to dump from a sore head to a healthy one.
                        Well crap, have the courage to admit, if you didn’t have the mind to lower the brakes. But why are you trying to outweigh your jamb?
                        Quote: Krang
                        So your "canned" dreadnoughts of the "Sevastopol" type (the series also included "Gangut", "Petropavlovsk", "Poltava") - these are the very three tsarist battleships ("Marat", "October Revolution" and "Paris Commune") which formed the core of the USSR Navy in the Second World War. Considering that they were "canned" by the standards of WW1, it is easy to assume that they had few chances to withstand a battle with any western battleship of the 30s and 40s.

                        You probably think that you made a discovery? I will disappoint you - most of those interested in the topic know this a long time ago.
                        Quote: Krang
                        And quite another battleships of the "Sevastopol" type, which formed the core of the 1TOE in the Russo-Japanese War 36 years before the Second World War. For example, the main armor belt of "Poltava" was made of Krupp's armor 368mm thick (!). No dreadnought of the First World War had such a belt. And in the Second World War, only a few battleships had such a shell. ...

                        Congratulations! You have passed the Google and Wikipedia exam.
                        Quote: Krang
                        French on our project. And what was the RIF only in 1914? And in 1904 he was the newest.

                        Fespalm ... Yes ... I hurried to praise you ...
                        Quote: Krang
                        Yes, it was the best battleships in the world of that period. And then everyone had an overload. You see - at fffseh. In general, everyone. Including and the dreadnoughts.

                        Doublefacepalm. For the same reason.
                        Quote: Krang
                        So I look. The performance characteristics of their DDX type destroyers are cooler than the tugs shown here.

                        I just can not understand - is it a modern mainstream to compare the warm with the soft? If you are not in the know, tugboats are usually compared with tugboats.
                        Quote: Krang
                        DDX destroyers

                        Itit-pound ... The Yankees have been sawing this project since 1991. And this guide pepelats? There is no cheat? Oh, well, the sturgeon was cut from 32 cases to 3, despite the fact that two of them are again in question. That's right, even for the United States this project turned out to be too expensive - $ 3,5 billion for a cruiser called a destroyer, this is already beyond reason.
                        Either the Yankees want to build Burkov again ...
                      5. Rakti-kali
                        Rakti-kali 31 July 2013 22: 45 New
                        0
                        Quote: Krang
                        And take another look. Compare the fleet rolls of the 90s with today. How many SSBNs did we have then and how many now? How many aircraft carriers were there then and how many are now? How many cruisers were there then and how many are now? The difference will horrify you. Our fleet is actively replenished with tugs and boats. But aircraft carriers, cruisers and huge submarines disappear from it just as rapidly. How many giant "Sharks" pr.941 were in the stagnant 90s? Six pieces. Not a single one remained. All this power was replaced by one pr.955 "Yuri Dolgoruky"

                        Sorry, but in the year 91, the Russian Federation was in the situation of a man who fell under a train during a heart attack, lost his legs and got a head injury - and in such a situation, the loss of a suitcase was not a critical event.
                        Yes, the fleet is now in poor condition, but now I see that we are starting to build NK and submarines, and it pleases. And aircraft carriers and RKR are the business of the future.
                        Quote: Krang
                        How many giant "Sharks" pr.941 were in the stagnant 90s? Six pieces. Not a single one remained. All this power was replaced by one pr.955 "Yuri Dolgoruky".

                        The shark is by no means a child prodigy, its size is a need issued for virtue - the missiles were already very large - and its size is not explained by any other circumstances.
                        And pr.955 is planned for 8-10. It is an adequate replacement for the disagreement that took place in the USSR Navy.
                        Quote: Krang
                        understand that our fleet is rapidly transforming from a really needed huge ocean organism into a boat-towing-schooner coastal flotilla, on which it’s a shame to serve

                        Catch Abramovich, take him warm and soft, and ask him to buy an aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy, and preferably two.
              2. Contrpropaganda
                Contrpropaganda 1 August 2013 12: 54 New
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                This "crap" consisted of the most advanced warships of the main classes at that time

                It was just that the tsarist admirals were afraid of putting out to sea "the most advanced battleships of the Sevastopol class" at that time.
          3. Selevc
            Selevc 30 July 2013 19: 54 New
            +9
            As I understand it, here some have battleship and aircraft carrier fever !!! Ask Putin - let him buy a couple of aircraft carriers - maybe all this fraternity will calm down !!! Maybe Obama will throw you a couple !!! :))))))))))))
            Battleships are very beautiful ships and, well, a very stupid waste of money !!!
            The battleship Bismarck was incapacitated by several plywood torpedo biplanes - which delivered a fatal blow to him !!! The Italian battleships almost stood on the bases for almost the entire war ... The Germans fought with the battleship Tirpitz throughout the war - carefully hiding it from the aircraft and submarines of the Allies, but the battleship was flooded anyway after receiving three 5500 kg bombs - almost without taking part in during the 2nd World War ... Admiral Spee's battleship - was sunk by his own team after they believed in the British desu about the allegedly approaching strong detachment of their ships ... Some huge Japanese battleships were sunk by the Americans at the very end of the war having resisted and others ended their fate as surface targets during nuclear tests !!!
            The only serious naval battle in history between two more or less equivalent carrier groups - the Battle of Midway, the Americans won more thanks to luck than tactics - they caught the Japanese aircraft carriers at a very unfortunate moment for them when aircraft were being served on their decks ...

            The real result is that large ships are very beautiful and probably scary for Banana states, but the facts say that Carriers are a very, very dubious investment of colossal funds !!!
            Although if you look at the situation from the other side - how many quarries were made on large ships by all kinds of staff and rear "rats", how many were stolen from their construction - yes, from this point of view, battleships and aircraft carriers have always been "very profitable" to build !!!
            1. donavi49
              30 July 2013 20: 13 New
              +2
              The Marian operation should not be forgotten. The forces were actually equal to 450 aircraft on 9 aircraft carriers and about 300 base aircraft against 900 aircraft on 15 aircraft carriers (of which 8 are light).

              The result was actually 750 on 900 aircraft, while the Japanese accumulated strength for a year, updated the composition of the groups to include new dive-bombers, new modifications of Zero, and trained pilots as much as possible. However, the defeat was a complete loss of the fleet (3 aircraft carrier irretrievably, the rest with damage) and all aviation (more than 600 destroyed aircraft) against 123 destroyed American aircraft.
              1. Selevc
                Selevc 30 July 2013 20: 16 New
                +1
                It is interesting to know the details of this operation and the reasons for such a serious defeat for the Japanese !!
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 30 July 2013 14: 37 New
        +2
        The main force of the fleets of that period were NOT cruisers, but aircraft carriers and battleships. Show me the domestic aircraft carriers and battleships of WW2 that were "at the level" of similar ships of foreign fleets? Who do you want to deceive? We were not even invited to the Washington conference. our fleet was not taken seriously by anyone. They will say something about "Marat" or "Paris Commune" - I will give you the list of battleships and aircraft carriers of the US Navy in the war in the Pacific. As they say - feel the difference.

        In fact, the entire shipbuilding school of the Republic of Ingushetia fled the country.
        Everyone who was connected with the sea knew about barges sunk by revolutionary sailors with naval officers. Accordingly, almost everyone left.
        By the way, along the way, they gave a good impetus to military shipbuilding in France (as an example, the theoretical outlines of the French LCR — Dunkirk and Strassburg — were worked out).

        You read Nikolsky for example.

        Read about how they built a couple of Italian cruisers with great difficulty and how it was clear from the results of their construction that to build large ships, you need to learn again by trial and error.
        So ... it’s good that such a Navy for the Second World War was preserved.
      3. uhu189
        uhu189 31 July 2013 00: 11 New
        +4
        Dear Krang, what will you supply the aircraft carriers and cruisers with, bring them to the piers, refuel them, carry out their weapons, measure the fairways for them, protect them from submarines or the same saboteurs? Or can an aircraft carrier do all this himself? Aircraft carriers are insanely expensive ships, no one throws them into battle, they always go accompanied by destroyers and frigates. What can I say ... in order for large attack ships to be combat-efficient - you must already have support vessels. They started with them, and thank God that the leadership understands this.

        And as for the comparison of the calibers of our cruisers and Bismarck - first, tell us how far Bismarck with his draft could go in the Baltic Sea and threaten our ships? Or maybe he would suddenly appear in Black? The Northern Fleet had infrastructure at that time in the Northern Fleet, so ships larger than destroyers were not based there, and to counter such battleships (such as Scharnhorst and Tirpitz) there were submarines and torpedo bombers. As far as I know, even the raiders did not come close to our ports. USSR aircraft carriers at that time were simply not needed, and therefore they were not built. So please do not confuse God's gift with fried eggs
  3. Evgeniy-111
    Evgeniy-111 30 July 2013 15: 20 New
    +1
    And to call the scavenger - not a shame?
    And nowhere without them!
  4. Contrpropaganda
    Contrpropaganda 1 August 2013 12: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Krang
    Under the king, the fleet was more powerful.

    And what's the use?
  • washi
    washi 30 July 2013 08: 32 New
    +8
    First, the production experience and the sold auxiliary fleet must be restored. Large ships are nothing without support. And with whom and how are you going to fight with the Big Ships? For defense in the coastal zone, it is quite possible to do with small ships, which are cheaper both in production and in maintenance. During the Second World War, we lacked precisely the Small Fleet. I had to adapt civilian vessels, and to take lesh-lease trawlers, hunters, torpedo boats, landing ships
    1. Crang
      Crang 30 July 2013 15: 39 New
      -6
      For coastal defense the fleet is not needed at all. There is enough aviation and ground forces. The whole point of the fleet is to get the enemy, which is located far beyond the ocean. And in this regard, it is precisely large ships with high survivability, long range, autonomy and seaworthiness that are needed. On boats and tugs with machine guns you will not do anything. Sharks only make laugh.
      1. old man54
        old man54 30 July 2013 23: 57 New
        0
        Quote: Krang
        For coastal defense the fleet is not needed at all.

        You are 5 with "+"! You speak the truth, but Internet strategists do not hear you, and do not want to hear you! The Yankees have aircraft carriers, so we want to! fool
      2. uhu189
        uhu189 31 July 2013 00: 27 New
        +1
        The meaning of the fleet is protection - the country's water frontiers in the first place, and already as one of the forms of this protection is the fight against enemy ships in the ocean zone.
        And if you don’t need a fleet in the coastal zone at all, please answer - but what are you planning to fight off from nuclear strike submarines, which will then blow out almost to the coast? Aviation? Or self-propelled guns like Msta? And how many planes and airfields are needed for such purposes? Why do you build patrol ships? Who will conduct the convoys and what in wartime, who should protect the approaches to ports from multipurpose submarines? Cover large ships, control coastal areas, bear the regime of blockade of the coast of the enemy, but just banal patrol? Cruisers and aircraft carriers? Excuse me, but you are deeply wrong
    2. AVV
      AVV 30 July 2013 15: 41 New
      +5
      You still have to earn money for aircraft carriers, expensive is a pleasure! Without them, nothing was done before that. And from the 20s we will begin to build them! Now Boreev, Ash, frigates, corvettes are not enough !!! Money needs to be invested in the most necessary in the first place !!!
  • avt
    avt 30 July 2013 09: 05 New
    11
    Quote: Krang
    First you need to fill the fleet with the base, and only then build all kinds of tugboats, boats, hydrographic and other ships there.

    Yeah, and burn motor resources in the raid.
    Quote: altman
    everything in this life is on the foundation ... in this case ... boats, auxiliary vessels, tugboats and even frigates are just the foundation !! aircraft carriers - like the top of the pyramid! You can’t start from above, just stupid !!

    So try this, quite a sensible idea to think about, at the same time remember the Tallinn crossing of the 41st, when stupidly there weren’t enough minesweepers for example.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 30 July 2013 14: 48 New
      +5
      Yeah and burn motor resources in the raid

      This is probably not an argument in response to the claims made by altman.
      As a reconnaissance ship or survey vessel, they will save the resource from "burning".
      By the way, only one is also being built by the minesweeper (and they are also not enough, especially modern ones).

      Yes, you need to build an auxiliary fleet. There is no doubt.
      But, one gets the feeling that the number of warships since the times of the USSR has greatly decreased (their planned number has also decreased), and the need for auxiliary vessels has not been reduced, by inertia replenishing the number even from Soviet times.
      Although ... on the other hand, warships are nowhere to be found, operating shipyards that have retained their military orientation seem to be already occupied. At other shipyards, you probably do not need to build warships.
      Well ... there’s nothing special to build now:
      - 1135 the production at Yantar was saved - 11356 is built there. Restoring its production at other plants is probably not economically justified.
      - 22350 - not yet, and the problem is not in the stocks and hulls, but in the armament (i.e., again, build 5 times more hulls, there will simply be 5 times more unfinished ships)
      - there is no destroyer yet, even the design is not completed
      - there’s no shipyard suitable for an aircraft carrier yet
      - boats - where production is saved, they are being built. Maybe not at the Soviet pace, but again, the problems are in pickers, and not builders like.
      1. avt
        avt 30 July 2013 15: 18 New
        0
        Quote: cdrt
        Yes, you need to build an auxiliary fleet. There is no doubt.
        But, one gets the feeling that the number of warships since the times of the USSR has greatly decreased (their planned number has also decreased), and the need for auxiliary vessels has not been reduced, by inertia replenishing the number even from Soviet times.

        Well, they cut down the ENTIRE ship composition of the Navy, not only combat ones, it is just that it is not customary to notice "non-heroic" floating crafts. As for the auxiliary fleet, the large-scale Falklands War is a vivid example. The ratio of warships to auxiliary ships was 1 to 1 mu. Even when amers they bombed Afghanistan from an aircraft carrier - they drove it like a floating base non-nuclear Constellation right before it was decommissioned, the Indians could not get in, they bought Gorshkov from us.
    2. Crang
      Crang 30 July 2013 17: 43 New
      -6
      Quote: avt
      So try this, quite a sensible idea to think about, at the same time remember the Tallinn crossing of the 41st, when stupidly there weren’t enough minesweepers for example.

      Can you imagine the Tallinn crossing or the Tsushima battle using only minesweepers, boats and hydrographic vessels.
      1. avt
        avt 30 July 2013 19: 28 New
        +3
        Quote: Krang
        And you imagine the Tallinn crossing or the battle of Tsushima using only minesweepers, boats and hydrographic vessels.

        Can you imagine the withdrawal or entry of a large ship or submarine without tugs? And what about navigation without normal, professional maps? Or from the aircraft carrier Virovochku, pagdon -lin, will you lower the lump? And how will you fight mines without minesweepers, now seekers? The old way - supply the aircraft carrier with paravans? As a leader, "Moscow" that was so undermined in the domestic one in Romania.
    3. old man54
      old man54 30 July 2013 23: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: avt
      at the same time, remember the 41go Tallinn crossing, when stupidly there weren’t enough minesweepers for example.

      and you saw a lot of minesweepers in the list of articles that are at least planned for the bookmark, eh?
  • donavi49
    30 July 2013 10: 04 New
    12
    In the first part of the review. Briefly, they are already building 7 frigates for the far sea zone, all of them have strike weapons of the Caliber complex (over 2000km for ground targets and 350 for surface targets). They also build the 2 corvette of the near sea zone with the Caliber complex. Also build 5 MRK with a complex caliber.

    Carriers are needed - but I wrote in the first part. It is necessary to understand the tasks, and from here formulate the task for the project, then create and protect the project. Well and most importantly, find a factory where to build this aircraft carrier. At this stage, we are in the design stage.

    Cruisers - once again I write, for 20 years no one has been building them. The last cruiser Peter the Great accepted into the fleet. The penultimate Ticonderoga Port Royal in the distant 1994 year.

    Destroyers - today the destroyer niche is occupied by modern frigates. Our destroyer is only in projects. Offer to sit and wait? The point is not only in the ship itself, but in the filling. The indicative situation with 22350 Ave. - Gorshkov is being torn down year after year solely because there are no accessories. For the project incorporated the newest systems and components that did not yet exist in the metal. Bottom line, BIUS, Polement, Cannon and a bunch of systems just went right to the 1-2-3 of the year. With a destroyer, if we are talking about a modern ship, the situation will be similar. Or, to build a type of destroyer, based on old studies, but it will also lose FREMM (which is a frigate).

    And yes, without tugboats, tanker supplies, your supercruisers and multi-carrier aircraft carriers cannot move away from the factory wall. The deterioration of the auxiliary fleet today is greater than the main combat units.
  • Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 30 July 2013 10: 19 New
    +4
    Quote: Krang
    The basis is needed - aircraft carriers (not like "Vladivostok"), huge missile cruisers and destroyers.

    Which will quickly decay without appropriate coastal infrastructure and will be unworkable without support vessels? Thanks, have already passed. No more.
    The only problem at the moment is throwing with diesel submarines. I would like them more and faster.
  • Mairos
    Mairos 30 July 2013 10: 35 New
    +7
    You're not right. At the end of the 30s, they stamped a lot of tanks for mechanized corps, and when the war started, it turned out that they had nothing to repair and no one to bring them fuel and ammunition. So first a support system is created for the future fleet, and then the fleet itself. It should be so.
  • sub307
    sub307 30 July 2013 11: 05 New
    +1
    Quite right, landing boats, tugs and other auxiliary watercraft - all this is necessary and it is good that they are building. But when the nuclear aircraft carriers will be laid down with appropriate escort support. We, of course, are not aggressors, it seems, but as you know, the best defense is attack, i.e. readiness to move from defense instantly to what. This topic has been "procrastinating" since the middle of the last century. Under Gorshkov, they began to create something, and then everyone remembers what happened next.
  • Evgeniy-111
    Evgeniy-111 30 July 2013 15: 19 New
    0
    Big ship is a big goal!
    A squad of cover ships is another big target!
  • old man54
    old man54 30 July 2013 23: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Krang
    I see the same as in the previous article. Instead basics - i.e. large ships with strike weapons, now at 90% ships of various helper classes.

    I attentively honored both the first and the second article of the author, of course, many thanks to him and a deep bow for such work! Well, "+" of course! But ... indeed, at first it surprises and then amuses even a huge number of different diving boats, tugboats, "fleet support vessels" !!!, rescue ships with pressure chambers and special equipment, sort of like to save a submarine, but for some reason all this on NK and not on a submarine to be built ?! And the most interesting thing is that the article shows that all diving boats of various projects, and there are more than 20 hulls planned for them, are intended only for DCBF and CFL! fellow Like neither at the Pacific Fleet, nor at KChF they are not necessary at all! bully There is no sabotage threat at all! I’m not talking about KSF, maybe now military divers and combat swimmers are afraid of the cold, I don’t know. And why is this attention of the country's leadership only to the Baltic and the Caspian Sea, then both MTVD are far from being key today, for the country's threats from the sea. And I'll tell you: they, the government, thus, at the expense of the budget and professional naval personnel, are going to solve private commercial problems of various JSCs and LLCs, such as Gazprom and Lukoil (but in fact, their own problems, since they there are all the main shareholders). It is there, in the Baltic Sea, that an underwater gas pipeline is being pulled to the EU, which will have to be constantly monitored for maintenance and protection against "terrorist" attacks (mining). Apparently, they are going to build something similar in the Caspian, or maybe take shelf platforms far out to sea. Therefore, the submarine rescue vessel is not so logical, in the form of an NK, so that the gas and oil pipelines and the platform are primarily convenient to maintain, and the submarines in distress ... well, that's something. request
    Therefore, there is such a cunning "Jewish" accent in the construction of the fleet now: ships of the literal zone + a bunch of special support vessels, different (although the NK of the near sea zone in the sea is to be fooled, they do not go far from the bases, as a rule!). And various large marine support vessels and rescue vessels with powerful cranes on board, this is probably for the Arctic, most likely, but not for the Navy either, but first of all, offshore oil production is to be developed there, so ships are being built for this very soon.
    Many forum users do not want to understand that these people in the ave of Russia do not need a powerful marine fleet! They need oil and gas, as the reason for the replenishment of their personal accounts in the Cayman Islands! fool hi
  • Turik
    Turik 30 July 2013 07: 39 New
    -9
    Damn it! Some longboats and schooners, where are the destroyers, frigates, missile cruisers, hovercraft?

    Apart from a couple of underwater missile carriers, degradation is evident.
    1. Crang
      Crang 30 July 2013 07: 45 New
      -10
      Boat fleet
    2. xxxMYSTICxxx
      xxxMYSTICxxx 30 July 2013 09: 02 New
      +5
      Dear, and you read the first part of the article, there is just about it ...
      1. Turik
        Turik 30 July 2013 12: 00 New
        +2
        20 years ago, our country was able to build ANY ship of any type. If we did not build aircraft carriers, then not because of a lack of brains, but because of a different doctrine for the Navy.

        Now the very fact of buying the Mistral is already about something, but I must say.
  • altman
    altman 30 July 2013 07: 56 New
    +8
    Great article !! thanks!! commanders have already been assigned to Novorossiysk and Rostov !!!
  • fzr1000
    fzr1000 30 July 2013 08: 50 New
    10
    In fact, many ships are laid and are being completed. Of course, I would like an armada of destroyers with aircraft carriers, but a floating dock, crane and auxiliary vessels are also needed, without them in any way.
  • Fire
    Fire 30 July 2013 09: 07 New
    -5
    The first part was more interesting, but that wasn’t the point ... Where are the destroyers, cruisers (surface), frigates, aircraft carriers we still dream about ... Leadership of the Navy's boats, tugboats and corvettes (in the first part), in which case will they fight? As you know, defending is twice as easy as attacking, but not with boats with tugboats !!!
    1. donavi49
      30 July 2013 10: 10 New
      11
      Add about the cruisers - Nakhimov will be, so to speak, the most powerful surface ship in the world (now these laurels belong to the South Korean King Sejong).

      And yes, do not forget about the 7 frigates already under construction. This is precisely the distant sea zone.

      I repeat:

      In the first part of the review. Briefly, they are already building 7 frigates for the far sea zone, all of them have strike weapons of the Caliber complex (over 2000km for ground targets and 350 for surface targets). They also build the 2 corvette of the near sea zone with the Caliber complex. Also build 5 MRK with a complex caliber.

      Carriers are needed - but I wrote in the first part. It is necessary to understand the tasks, and from here formulate the task for the project, then create and protect the project. Well and most importantly, find a factory where to build this aircraft carrier. At this stage, we are in the design stage.

      Cruisers - once again I write, for 20 years no one has been building them. The last cruiser Peter the Great accepted into the fleet. The penultimate Ticonderoga Port Royal in the distant 1994 year.

      Destroyers - today the destroyer niche is occupied by modern frigates. Our destroyer is only in projects. Offer to sit and wait? The point is not only in the ship itself, but in the filling. The indicative situation with 22350 Ave. - Gorshkov is being torn down year after year solely because there are no accessories. For the project incorporated the newest systems and components that did not yet exist in the metal. Bottom line, BIUS, Polement, Cannon and a bunch of systems just went right to the 1-2-3 of the year. With a destroyer, if we are talking about a modern ship, the situation will be similar. Or, to build a type of destroyer, based on old studies, but it will also lose FREMM (which is a frigate).

      And yes, without tugboats, tanker supplies, your supercruisers and multi-carrier aircraft carriers cannot move away from the factory wall. The deterioration of the auxiliary fleet today is greater than the main combat units.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 30 July 2013 17: 55 New
        +2
        Dear donavi49, the situation with Monomakh is not entirely clear. Are you going to take it without rocket firing?
        1. donavi49
          30 July 2013 18: 40 New
          +4
          Again, I will bring the news from Sevmash:
          Sevmash guarantees the transfer of three nuclear submarines to the Navy in 2013
          Three nuclear submarines will be handed over to the Navy in 2013: two strategic projects 955 Borey, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh, and one multipurpose project 885 Yasen, Severodvinsk, told reporters on Tuesday in Moscow General Director of the Sevmash boat manufacturing plant Mikhail Budnichenko.

          The day before, President Vladimir Putin instructed industrialists to hand over these three boats this year.

          “We have a clear understanding of what we must do this year. Sevmash is to deliver two strategic, one multipurpose nuclear submarines for the Navy, the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov for the Indian Navy, the Prirazlomnaya offshore ice-resistant stationary platform for Gazprom Neft Shelf ", - said Budnichenko.


          According to Monomakh, according to the plan, she was supposed to start factory trials yesterday - firing in October (Nevsky in September).
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 30 July 2013 19: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: donavi49
            According to Monomakh, according to the plan, she was supposed to start factory trials yesterday - firing in October (Nevsky in September).

            Thank you, I understand. First of all, the issue of shooting worries. And most importantly, the willingness to go to the database.
            And then you can take the boat ... The main thing is to be able to use them.
      2. Gans1234
        Gans1234 8 September 2014 03: 40 New
        0
        How about updating the info for the 14 year and why didn’t push the ships for the coast guard - they were also built / are being built a lot
  • Toporkoff
    Toporkoff 30 July 2013 09: 10 New
    +4
    In big business there are no insignificant trifles, first you need an auxiliary fleet and infrastructure, otherwise what is the point of a weapon that you can’t service.
  • Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 30 July 2013 09: 16 New
    +6
    Logistics support vessel for project 23120 Elbrus (Arc4) being built by the Northern Shipyard under the project of Spetsudoproekt CJSC for the Northern Fleet. A set of hull blocks is being carried out, this is prevented by the workload of the shipyard (there’s no place to dock everything).
    Oh, when Ukraine joins the customs union, its shipbuilding plants would be a good help in the shipbuilding program. One Nikolaev factory what costs!
    PS thanks to the author for the review. hi
  • xxxMYSTICxxx
    xxxMYSTICxxx 30 July 2013 09: 26 New
    11
    HUGE thanks to the author for the article, the fleet is being revived and this is good news. And I would like to remind all alarmists about the origins of the Russian fleet, where it all began. Read at your leisure about the "amusing flotilla", "Peter the Great's boat" and think into what it all grew into. Our state is recovering from the disaster of the late 20th century, and we need to undergo a recovery course without overloading the body. It's like a situation with a person dying of hunger - food only in small quantities will save life, and if you immediately overeat, then death. We need to move in a planned and thoughtful way, without rushing to extremes, and only then will we succeed, and shuffling from side to side and populism have never been brought to good.
  • King
    King 30 July 2013 10: 10 New
    +1
    Reviving the fleet! and it pleases.
  • LM66
    LM66 30 July 2013 10: 21 New
    +1
    Specialists tell me, after the Russian-Japanese war, there were sea battles, such that big fleets, cruisers shot at each other from the main caliber, or they all rusted and never fired at an equivalent enemy.
  • SOZIN2013
    SOZIN2013 30 July 2013 10: 43 New
    +1
    Quote: Krang
    I see the same as in the previous article. Instead basics - i.e. large ships with strike weapons, now at 90% ships of various helper classes... It is necessary first to fill the fleet with the base, and only then to build all sorts of tugs, boats, hydrographic and other ships. The basis is needed - aircraft carriers (not like "Vladivostok"), huge missile cruisers and destroyers.

    They are doing everything right. The shipbuilding program should begin with small and as ambitions, funding and the ability of the plant and the State to grow. For example, here you will have an Aircraft Carrier without the same tugs standing at the pier and who will lead him out to sea, Uncle Vasya ??? In general, according to many military experts, they would start production not from corvettes and frigates, but from basic minesweepers. Take the same Baltic Sea will throw an exit from St. Petersburg with mines and everything ... will be like during WWII
  • SOZIN2013
    SOZIN2013 30 July 2013 10: 55 New
    +3
    I ask you to get acquainted with the opinions of experts on the topic of the fleet, the author of the article is certainly +!



  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang 30 July 2013 11: 02 New
    +2
    Quote: LM66
    tell me, after the Russian-Japanese war, there were sea battles, such that big fleets, cruisers shot at each other from the main caliber, or they all rusted and never fired at an equivalent enemy.

    Yes, perhaps in the global form only the battle of Jutland in 1916. Conditionally, one can count in this category the battle at Coronel (a pure battle of armored cruisers), the battle at the Falklands (well, there the forces were absolutely unequal) and Dogger-Bank (the Germans took the battle on the move).
    During WWII, there were dueling situations: "Bismarck", "Spee", "Scharnhorst". Well, the Americans with Japs preferred to spud each other with carrier-based aircraft.
  • eplewke
    eplewke 30 July 2013 11: 16 New
    0
    Build a fleet !!! Build Russia!
  • Russ69
    Russ69 30 July 2013 11: 58 New
    +1
    Next year, the appearance of the new destroyer will be determined, and then we will reach the aircraft carriers. It is impossible to build everything at once, since they have lost so much time, then they will have to make up for some time. Ships are not a cheap thing and are built not a single day, especially considering their saturation with weapons and equipment.
  • Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 30 July 2013 11: 58 New
    -3
    I quote: A diesel-electric submarine, pr. 636.3 B-261 Novorossiysk, being built at the Admiralty Shipyards under the design of the Central Design Bureau MT Rubin. Construction is underway, the hull and boats are almost formed. However, due to the Vietnamese order, everything is shifted by a year, that is, the descent is most likely in the spring of 2014.
    Here is perhaps the answer to why we have been building ships for the Russian Navy for years. The selfish interests of shipbuilders prevail over national ones.
    Vietnam, India, China, to all who are not lazy, but to themselves, in the last turn .. e
    1. donavi49
      30 July 2013 12: 19 New
      +4
      Wrong. Vietnam signed the contract only under the condition that Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh were transferred in 2013 year, and all 6 boats by 2016 year. An 5 boat for the Vietnamese Navy has already been laid.

      In other words, it was about whether we would build boats in Vietnam or someone else (Vietnam has no shortage of people who want to supply the most modern weapons, especially in times of crisis).

      For our Navy, the deadlines are less stringent, in fact, for 1, they give more for construction (3,5-4 of the year per boat from bookmark to delivery against the Vietnamese a little less than 3 of the year).
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang 30 July 2013 12: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: Russ69
    Next year, the appearance of the new destroyer will be determined, and then we will reach the aircraft carriers.

    Dear, look here: we are only building frigates two projects 11356 - Indians, run-in on six hulls, whose legs grow from the "border cruisers" 1135P and etc. 22350.
    In professional language, this is called unification. To put it simply: you have two types of ships of the same class in one formation or formation, all brand new. You will not be able to throw any unit, as it is done now on the BOD Project 1155 in preparation for the Gulf of Aden. Reason: ununification. This was understood even by MGSH specialists in rotten tsarist Russia - the series of battleships "Borodino" is perhaps the most vivid example.
    I am also glad for such a review and the author has a huge "+", but you must be able to read between the lines.
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 30 July 2013 14: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Kavtorang
      Dear, look here: we are only frigates building two projects

      And what to do ... 11356 is certainly a palliative, but problems with 22350 make this palliative inevitable, because ships are needed yesterday.
    2. alex86
      alex86 31 July 2013 05: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Kavtorang
      this is called demonization

      This is extremely alarming - instead of (conditionally) one Kalashnikov assault rifle for the entire army, we make many different types, which are more compatible in terms of armament, but in terms of performance characteristics (the speed of the squadron is determined by the slowest ship), unification of equipment, logistics of logistics, training crews vary.
  • Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 30 July 2013 12: 45 New
    0
    donavi49 UA  Today, 12:19 ↑ New


    Wrong. Vietnam signed the contract only under the condition that Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh were transferred in 2013 year, and all 6 boats by 2016 year. An 5 boat for the Vietnamese Navy has already been laid.
    From the point of view of trade, this may be so, but what about the standpoint of the combat readiness of our fleet? Will a potential adversary wait for us to pack up and unwind ??? Well, it would have been a matter of a Kamran base for the Russian Navy. And so, just for the sake of candy wrappers, it is still unknown in whose pocket ???
    1. donavi49
      30 July 2013 13: 23 New
      +5
      the enemy will wait when we gather and unwind ???


      The enemy has been waiting for 20 years, he will wait another 1 year. Without flip flops, our head would have been handed over at the end of the 2013 year, Rostov by the beginning of the 2014 year. So the lead in 2014 year (closer to the end probably) and Rostov or the end of 2014 or the beginning of 2015.

      And so, just for the sake of candy wrappers, it is still unknown in whose pocket ???


      In the pocket of Rosoboronexport, and from there to the treasury, in other words, to finance new submarines for the Navy. The contract with Vietnam is a real trifle, think some 4,5 billion (large, one-time prisoners were only with India).
  • daem00n
    daem00n 30 July 2013 14: 11 New
    +3
    Quote: Gomunkul
    Logistics support vessel for project 23120 Elbrus (Arc4) being built by the Northern Shipyard under the project of Spetsudoproekt CJSC for the Northern Fleet. A set of hull blocks is being carried out, this is prevented by the workload of the shipyard (there’s no place to dock everything).
    Oh, when Ukraine joins the customs union, its shipbuilding plants would be a good help in the shipbuilding program. One Nikolaev factory what costs!
    PS thanks to the author for the review. hi

    Even if Ukraine enters, the plant in Nikolaev has long ceased to exist — there are cranes and slipways left, and where are the qualified personnel to take? Or will the Russian Federation reanimate the plant in the territory of another state? I strongly doubt it, although it would be good for Ukraine. It's a shame of course that such a plant was yelled but one must face the truth - in Ukraine it is no longer possible to build anything on ChSZ.
    1. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul 30 July 2013 14: 50 New
      0
      Or will the Russian Federation reanimate the plant in the territory of another state?
      Placing orders for the construction of ships is already an investment in production. In any case, it would be better to place orders in Ukraine (after joining the CU) than in France. hi
      1. biglow
        biglow 30 July 2013 17: 52 New
        0
        Quote: Gomunkul
        Or will the Russian Federation reanimate the plant in the territory of another state?
        Placing orders for the construction of ships is already an investment in production. In any case, it would be better to place orders in Ukraine (after joining the CU) than in France. hi

        from Nikolaev all the specialists moved to Russia a long time ago. The Nikolaev shipyards only formally exist
      2. Conepatus
        Conepatus 30 July 2013 17: 57 New
        0
        Before placing an order in Ukraine, (if at all when it happens), the company needs to be redeemed, otherwise we have a specific business. As soon as the company should receive "not weak" money, suddenly out of nowhere, a "private owner" of this appears enterprises. "Komunizdit" funds and disappears, become invisible, steeper than any "stealth" fighter. And all kinds of penalties and fines, will be blamed on the state.
  • Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 30 July 2013 14: 35 New
    -1
    Rosoboronexport is not a holy organization. The maximum that they can contribute to the budget is taxes. Investments can be made out on paper, and the rest on the accounts of individuals. Is it not so? Some 4,5 billion, a trifle. To the state that the elephant is grainy, but for an individual it’s good.
    After Mr. Serdyukov, it turns out that no one can be trusted, just a chatter.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 30 July 2013 14: 58 New
    0
    Tired of 100t displacement of 500t. When we build the ships. Severodvinsk when going camping. A mediocre squadron of two canyons was formed. Yeah cheers adversary crap and ran to the applause in the Atlantic. The adversary was cut off and we were shown all the rules of the fleet on the spot. Previously, our ships went to the ocean so that no one had bad thoughts, but now they go so that we can ride on our ears and suddenly start thinking about what these guys did 15 years after the villain EBN they gosudarstvenniki.
    1. donavi49
      30 July 2013 18: 55 New
      +1
      You don’t do it well. See the first part about ships. Severodvinsk passes State tests, has already shot the main complex. This year they will be accepted into the fleet and assigned to the Northern Fleet, so they will go camping.

      The Mediterranean squadron was formed not from two troughs, but from a replaceable fleet, at the moment it is the BOD and 2 BDK Pacific Fleet, with the supply of the Black Sea Fleet. Until recently, there were:
      TFR Yaroslav the Wise
      BOD Fists
      BOD Admiral Panteleev
      BDK Admiral Nevelskaya
      BDK Peresvet
      BDK Nikolay Filchenkov
      BDK Azov
      SB Altai
      SB Fotiy Krylov
      Sat Sat-Xnumx
      Tanker Lena
      Tanker Dubna
      Tanker Pechenga
      One of the BSF scouts.

      Now the Wise has gone home, Kulakov and Moscow have gone to the Atlantic. BOD and BDK in Novorossiysk. Rotation is underway. An expeditionary carrier and strike group campaign is being prepared from the Northern Fleet for this fall (Kuznetsov and the defense BOD go south to the Mediterranean Sea, Peter the Great and the BOD go north-east along the NSR).
  • kanifas
    kanifas 30 July 2013 17: 24 New
    -1
    The communication vessel 1388NZ is clearly for rest and recreational activities of the command.
    1. donavi49
      30 July 2013 18: 45 New
      +1
      Designed to support operations in the area of ​​naval bases, transport personnel, stocks and small consignments.

      By the way, the base of torpedoes, these "Yachts" are already on the Black Sea Fleet and the Northern Fleet. They are quite actively working for their intended purpose (communication, transportation of cargo documents).
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 30 July 2013 18: 41 New
    +1
    Against the background of our dying Nikolaev shipyards, which do not have even small military orders, the phrase "there are no free stocks at the shipyard ..." USC in Russia got down to business powerfully and with decent funding
  • ramsi
    ramsi 30 July 2013 20: 31 New
    0
    if so little money, then everything needs to be thrown for the construction of SSBNs, it’s enough to already have combat duty at the piers, and patrol with poplars
  • yurik
    yurik 30 July 2013 22: 19 New
    0
    under the auspices of the fact that the Russian fleet needs aircraft carriers, a giant cut of budget funds will be drawn up and semi-aircraft carriers with imperfect equipment will go to sea and become floating coffins if there is a confrontation with American carrier groups, since our only Kuznetsov can hardly get reliable cover from cruisers, destroyers, submarines. this is a ship of one battle, for good it should be sold to the Indians and with the money that is spent on this forever repaired pelvis to build several nuclear submarines, of which there will be more sense
  • Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 31 July 2013 11: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Krang
    So then why the hell is he needed? Don't you understand what the ocean fleet is for? I explain - for example, you will have to fight with the United States or Japan and without a fleet, even with the most powerful army you will not do a thing. That's what the Navy is for, not the colonies. And if you don't need it, then you don't need to write such articles. And brag about tugboats and schooners as "the rebirth of the fleet."

    Judging by this emotional opus, it’s you who have no idea why the ocean fleet is needed and what for the USSR needs it before WWII.
    Quote: Krang
    And brag about tugboats and schooners as "the rebirth of the fleet."

    A journey of a thousand or so begins with the first step. (with)
    And if in our opinion, then: - a hen on the grain, and the whole yard is already knee-deep for ..
    Quote: Krang
    Well, how was it with our fleet with naval aviation? How many she would melt the enemy ships say in Hawaii or the Philippines?

    Frage Numer Ain - What should the USSR naval aviation do in Hawaii or the Philippines?
    Daini no shieldsumon - And when was the German aircraft carrier completed?
    Kveshn Namber Three - How did the Third Reich aviation show itself against sea targets?
    If it doesn’t reach you that the USSR’s strategy before WWII did not provide for a confrontation with anyone in the far ocean zone, because the USSR simply had no interests there (those that were lost during the Republic of Ingushetia and didn’t have time to acquire new ones), but the Russian strategy may include anything, but industrial capacities and personnel are not enough, and the defeat of industry and the Navy of the USSR was much more thorough than in the REV, then I wash my hands.
  • 1961NNN
    1961NNN 31 July 2013 15: 42 New
    +2
    Thank you for the article. The main thing was to build ships and revive the Fleet. Compared to the dashing 90s ... THIS IS PROGRESS!
  • Crang
    Crang 31 July 2013 18: 21 New
    +1
    The author you wrote an excellent article. For this, you are a definite plus. BUT. We here with one overly optimistic uncle got angry about the "growing power" of our Navy, and the majority here does not support me. I suggest you do so. Write another article and link it to this one. The article will be very descriptive for many. It should have two columns. In the left column heading "Ships under construction and accepted for the Russian Navy for the period ..." And you list all these corvettes, helicopter carriers, tugboats, hydrographic vessels, etc. indicating their photos and characteristics. And in the right column heading "Decommissioned and decommissioned ships of the Russian Navy for the same period"... And you list all these super-powerful submarines "Akula", huge aircraft carriers of the "Kiev" type, landing and anti-submarine helicopter carriers of the "Ivan Rogov" and "Moscow" type, etc. etc. With an indication of their photos and combat characteristics.
    That all would look. And as they say, they were horrified. Rakti-Kali especially.
    1. donavi49
      1 August 2013 10: 03 New
      +2
      Recorded Sharks - for them, the last rocket decayed in 99 or 01 year. In Ukraine, such missiles can no longer be produced, because the workshop was reprofiled for Zenit. Will we keep water carriers without rockets and beyond? They eat up over the year how to build RTOs with UKKS. Convert? Ok what? The mace, so the rocket is small and if you don’t break the catamaran in your nose (and it’s already easier to build a new one) then either put new ones in the old glasses - that is, 20 rockets, or redo everything, well, 24 rockets will fit. However, the cost of this will be fantastic (to remake the start-up complex of Zhizhi on a theater), at the exit we will get boats comparable in combat efficiency with Borey, but of the previous generation, with a resource for 10 years.

      Rogov - only Mos_k_a_lenko survived in 90's, the rest were plundered to zero.

      Helicopter carriers Moscow - were extremely unsuccessful, they had seaworthiness like the Stereguschiy corvette, they simply went off into the storm in a storm and, in practice, the helicopter was only raised with 2 ballistic excitement. Further, the hangar and lifts are designed for the Ka-25, reworking on the Ka-27 was expensive and even in the USSR it was planned to decommission both ships after the expiration of the resource, which went to the 90 and 92 year.

      Kiev - they are imprisoned for VTOL. We refused the Yak-38, and the new Russia simply did not pull the Yak-141. In this case, only Gorshkov was running, the rest either were already under repair or demanded. But the country did not have money to finish building even new finished ships, which were launched and required 3-5% of the cost for completion.

      In general, you can lament for a long time about the heavy 90s, but it is better to do something, correcting the situation, rather than lie down and wait for death. And yes, in recent years, they write off only that which does not meet the tasks at all or that the resource has been killed to zero and capital is needed at the price of a new ship (there is no old cooperation, no details, such repairs result in an individual modernization project with the replacement of old units with completely different, but produced).

      From plans to decommission warships:
      Kerch - after 2015
      Enko - before 2015
      2-3 uh ave. 956 - to confirm the facts on paper and only (while we are talking about those destroyers that are used as spare parts for 3 living).
      Lazarev - up to 2015
      Plus a bunch of helper. And again about tugboats, now there are tugboats on the SF and Pacific Fleet, which 60 (!!!) years and who work exclusively on Stalin's quality. And these are not ocean-sea tugboats, which are completely new to themselves, namely, RB - which Pella makes to replace them.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 2 August 2013 14: 46 New
        0
        Everything is correct. The fleet starts with tugs and boats. True, we are waiting for a couple of Mistrals ... But we need to build helicopters for them now ...
  • Zubr
    Zubr 31 July 2013 18: 46 New
    +1
    Quote: Arberes
    Quote: tronin.maxim
    But who was yelling that everything is bad with us?

    We are not all bad!
    We are not doing well! But for now, the sooner we turn this situation around, the better for us all! But how fast it will turn out, here is something to think about?


    Well, fast doesn’t mean good ....
  • ijin
    ijin 31 July 2013 18: 49 New
    +1
    "Ships under construction and accepted for the Russian Navy over the period ..." AND "Decommissioned and decommissioned ships of the Russian Navy over the same period".
    Keep
    1. donavi49
      1 August 2013 09: 49 New
      +1
      Well this year, nothing was written off. In the foreseeable future, only the decommissioning of 3-4 destroyers, etc. 956, which are not running from 90's and nothing can be done about it. Plus Lazarev. And yes, if you collect all the decommissioned, then you will be surprised that in the USSR until the end they kept diesel boats 613 / 633, which were already of zero value, kept a lot of destroyers of the first or second generation, which even the 2 P-15M did not carry. Therefore, not everything is so simple.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 2 August 2013 14: 51 New
        0
        DPL is a big and sad topic. 613/633 is already scrap.
  • Mikola
    Mikola 3 August 2013 14: 20 New
    +1
    Considering - According to Shoigu, now 80% of more than 1 thousand Russian combat and auxiliary vessels have exhausted their resources and are operated outside of the overhaul periods. At the same time, under the State Arms Program, until 2020, it is planned to repair a total of 65 warships, 12 special and 62 auxiliary vessels. At the same time, instead of obsolete vessels, it is planned to build 113 warships, eight - special and 65 support vessels. And the fact that the Russian economy is no longer in the 10 developed economies of the world and the fleet cannot keep the second fleet in the world and the fleet will be reduced first:
    increase production capacity - transfer the construction of standard projects to private shipyards. And at first, before they were armed at state enterprises, and then at private shipyards. This will free the state-owned enterprises for the construction of medium-tonnage ships (corvettes, frigates) and also the state-owned enterprises will be able to repair and modernize those ships that are still valuable (for example, destroyers pr.956, cruiser Atlant, Kirov) but in the near future due to the weak economy will be built;
    second It is finally necessary to build shipyards in the Far East, which can build ships with a displacement of more than 25000 tons. This production and strategic hole was inherited by Russia from the tsar and the general secretaries)) Because of this, in the Far East, TAKR type Kiev and actually the corpses of a cruiser type Kirov and again destroyers pr.956 were rotted. And in the future, after 7-10 years, the unfortunate Mistrals will turn into trash ...
    1. donavi49
      3 August 2013 15: 46 New
      +1
      transfer the construction of standard projects to private shipyards.


      Already, Pella is an example of this. It’s difficult to build warships with private owners (namely, the main classes of corvette-frigate-destroyer), because you cannot drive out a box at one enterprise and mount equipment at the enterprise. Rather it is possible, but it will be much more expensive and longer because the technology of building and saturating the box requires the installation of certain components, assemblies and weapons in the process of building the ship itself.

      About the Far East - the Star is already being built. After the completion of the first stage, ships from / to 60k tons, after the 2 line for 100k, after the end of the project (4 line) - 350k.

      Almost 956 corpses in all fleets, in the North, in the Baltic, and not just in the Pacific Fleet. The reason is an unsuccessful design.