Military Review

Could the Soviet Navy fight in the southern hemisphere of the Earth?

59
Could the Soviet Navy fight in the southern hemisphere of the Earth?



Adventure thriller about the campaign of the Soviet Navy to the Falkland Islands, based on real events.
Lovers of the naval stories I can't wait to find out: was the operation, similar to the one that took place in the spring 1982 of the year on the South Atlantic, according to the forces of the Soviet sailors? During the two months of hostilities, the British "sea wolves" stormed the Falklands, returning the disputed territories under the control of the British crown.

Was the USSR Navy able to repeat something like that? A journey of thousands of miles long in 30 to complete autonomy, through the "roaring forties" and "frantic fifties"? Could our fleet be able to fight in an environment where the nearest logistics center is 6000 kilometers from the theater of operations?

Ahead - roaring storms and Antarctic cold, daily air attacks and shooting until blue in the face ... The time to prepare for the hike is 10 days. Started!

Do not rush to make your bets, gentlemen - because there is no intrigue here.
The results of the long-range campaign of the Soviet squadron are known in advance: the Russian Navy will powder the Argentine fleet (and, if necessary, the British), and then, within a few days, capture the distant islands, with virtually no losses on its part.

The epic with the "participation" of our sailors in the Falkland War is just a farce, the purpose of which is not so much an alternative story as proof of the possibility of conducting a database by the forces of the Soviet Naval Fleet at any distance from its shores.

This whole story is a good reason to talk about the special capabilities of the Navy of the USSR and experience a pleasant surprise on how much the domestic Navy was superior to any of the foreign fleets at that time. Even the once mighty Royal Navy of Great Britain, the third largest fleet of the Cold War, looked like a shameful gathering of junk against the background of the Soviet fleet.

Ur patriot or realist?

Skeptical objections to the successful breakthrough of the USSR Navy to the Falklands are primarily based on a comparison of the Soviet and British deck aviation.

The domestic Yak-38 VTOL, unlike the British Sea Harrier, was not equipped with an onboard radar - the Yak’s fighter capabilities were limited to cutting circles around the top of the mast and firing by sight at short-range targets at the zone in direct visibility. The built-in gun was missing - a suspended cannon container could be installed only instead of a part of bomb and missile weapons ...

Before continuing the criticism of the Yak-38, I hasten to draw your attention to some features of the use of aviation in the Falklands:

In view of the almost complete absence of modern air defense systems on a British ship, the task of air defense fell on the shoulders of Sea Harrier fighters. Alas, as further events showed, the Sea Harriers safely failed their mission - a third of the squadron's ships suffered from enemy air attack weapons, six of them went to the bottom.

* Of the 25 surface warships of the "first line" (aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates), the modern Sea Dart air defense system was only available on seven ships. Most of the British frigates (9 from 15) were armed with C-KAM air defense systems - subsonic (!) SAMs with an effective firing range of less than 6 km - no wonder that all 80 C-CATs went into “milk”. As for self-defense in the near zone - the British "sea wolves" had nothing better than 114 mm "universal cars" with limited shelling angles and anti-aircraft guns "Oerlikon" of the Second World War.
It is not surprising that the British squadron was brazenly shot from guns and smeared with bombs from a strafing flight.


In the case of the Soviet Navy, everything will be completely different.
Heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers "Kiev" and "Minsk" with the Yak-38 aircraft had no value in terms of air defense.

Instead of them, the TARKR “Kirov” - 26 000-ton atom monster with a rocket weapons.
Unhappy Argentine footballers can relax and breathe easy - “Kirov” will not use supersonic “Granites” with YABCH. The missile complex P-700 is more expensive than any of the "pelvis" of the Argentine Navy.
The main value of the "Kirov" - the presence of a multichannel air defense system "Fort" - "gloomy" version of the legendary C-300 system.



Twelve 8-charging launchers. The maximum firing range is 75 km. The possibility of simultaneous guidance to 12 missiles at six air targets. The cruiser’s full ammunition is 96 SAM, and even taking into account the consumption of two missiles for each target, the cruiser Kirov, theoretically, could single-handedly destroy all the combat aircraft of the Argentine Air Force.

In addition to the “Fort” air defense system, two small-range Osa-M air defense systems and four AK-630 batteries (eight six-barreled radar-guided assault rifles) were installed on board the cruiser — try to attack the Kirov as the Argentine pilots did ... dare even the bravest of kamikazes.

The only snag is the C-300F Fort marine with the 5В55РМ missile was officially put into service only in 1984, despite the fact that the cruiser Kirov became part of the Northern Fleet in October 1980. The paradox is easily explained: the Soviet Navy often practiced a scenario in which new weapons and systems reached a working state several years earlier than the official decree of the Council of Ministers was signed to adopt them (long bureaucratic procedure, comprehensive tests and ever-occupied Commander-in-Chief).

One Soviet = three British

Whether or not Kirov will be able to take part in the campaign (as of spring 1982) is not known for certain. In any case, the light on it did not come together with a wedge - a whole squadron of 100 warships and support ships is going on a long hike - we will focus on the British squadron as a reference.

The battle core of the British consisted of eight destroyers URO (type 42, type 82 and a pair of obsolete "County").

In the case of the Navy of the USSR, the functions of British destroyers of URO were performed by large anti-submarine ships (BOD) of the 1134A and 1134B projects - by that time, the Soviet fleet consisted of 17 ships of this type - quite enough to form an operational connection from the 7-8 BOD.



Behind the hypocritical terminology of the “Large anti-submarine ship of the 1134B project” (“Bercut-B”) is the 8500-tonnage missile cruiser with hypertrophied anti-submarine weapons. The Soviet BOD were twice as large as the destroyer Sheffield (the one that burned from unexploded rockets), while, unlike the British ship, had on board four air defense missile systems (against one “Sea Wolf” on Sheffield), but also a complex of rocket-torpedoes, a helicopter, mine-torpedo armament, RBU, universal guns of caliber 76 mm and a self-defense system of four AK-630 "metal cutters", forming a continuous air defense circuit of the ship.

Any "Sheffield" or "County" - just kissel on the background of the Soviet "Golden Eagle". In terms of the capabilities of its air defense systems, one BNC 1134B cost three British destroyers. Flurry of anti-aircraft fire.

Escort

Of the other warships, the 15 heaped up quite primitive frigates (type 21, type 22, Rothesay and Linder) in the British squadron, most of which turned out to be defenseless from air attacks.
To repeat the record of Her Majesty's fleet for the Soviet Navy would not be difficult. At that time, our sailors had the following: “singing frigates” (BNK of the 61 project), ocean-going guard of 1135 Ave. (cipher “Burevesnik”), old, but still strong destroyers of 56 Ave - more than 70 warships each of which was in no way inferior to the British frigates.


Patrol ship project 1135

To form the 15-20 sentry ships (BOD II rank, destroyers and frigates) from these means - the situation for the Soviet Navy is quite prosaic.

The most destructive ships

One of the most important components of the British expeditionary compound was submarines — the 5 nuclear and one multi-purpose diesel-electric submarine were involved in the operation. Modest, but with taste.
What would the underwater component of the Soviet squadron look like?

Hmm ... so what, and this good, we have always been in abundance. For example, the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom at the time was listed as 15 nuclear submarines; for comparison, there were more than two hundred of them in the composition of the USSR Navy!



To allocate a dozen nuclear-powered vessels and several diesel-electric submarines for the operation is a thing that is obvious and necessary. Moreover, among the Soviet nuclear submarines there were such models as multipurpose boats of the 671РТ, 671РТМ (K) or impact atomics of the 670 Scat project (carriers of Amethyst supersonic missiles) - such animals could kill the Argentine fleet in a few hours.
The fleet of Her Majesty is resting - the British at that time simply did not have anything like it.

Doubts about the ability of Soviet submarines to get into the South Atlantic under their own power are completely groundless - back in 1966, domestic K-116 and K-133 made a transition from the North to the Pacific Fleet on the route West Face - Atlantic Ocean - Cape Horn - Pacific Ocean - Kamchatka.
It is noteworthy that for all 52 running days atomic ships never got to the surface. Right. Do they need it?

Strike capabilities

Now we will once again turn to the subject of the VTOL - by providing fire support to the advancing marines, the C Harrier planes dropped bombs of 200 bombs on the enemy’s head.

In the case of the Soviet Navy, the problem will receive a comprehensive solution - in addition to possible participation in the operation of the Kiev and Minsk TAVKRs (although is it worth taking such huge and voracious ships on a long voyage to drop a couple of hundred bombs?) As part of our the fleet were specialized artillery ships suitable for fire support of the landing - the devil's dozen cruisers of the project 68-bis. Most of them were 30 years old, but the old artillery cruisers were still on the move and had a number of impressive skills unknown to modern warships - cannons and armor.



According to dry statistics, during the Falklands War, British ships launched more than 10 thousands of 114 mm shells on the Argentine positions on the islands - it’s scary to imagine what six-inch guns of Soviet cruisers would do!

On each - 12 mm caliber 152 and 12 universal caliber 100 mm guns - cannons beat in any weather, through the darkness of the night, fog and snow blizzard - no “Harrier” and Yak-38 can compare with the effectiveness of a naval artillery gun.

Unlike most modern ships, the old 68-bis cruisers were wrapped in a reliable "skin" 100-mm armor. The British destroyer Sheffield warmed from the unexploded RCC - the Soviet cruiser simply did not feel the Argentine missile hit. RCC would have burst when hitting armor, like an empty nut, only peeling paint on board the cruiser.

Landing force

All for them and for their sake!
By analogy with Britain, we will need to deliver to the islands about 10 thousand soldiers with heavy weapons, mobile air defense systems, MLRS, artillery and armored vehicles. It's nice to get a couple to the islands tank mouth - rather modest T-55 or T-62.

And after - to supply the group for a few weeks. Deliver provisions, tools, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, medicines ... The task is not simple.
We will return to the supply of expeditionary forces a little later, but now we will try to determine what forces the USSR Navy had to deliver such a large group of forces through half of the Earth?

At that time, the Navy had about 25 large landing craft (BDK) of 1171 (Tapir), 775 and 1174 (Rhino) — probably 10-15 of them could have been involved in such an important operation.

What are these ships? For example, the BDK Pr. 775 is a multi-deck flat-bottomed warship of the ocean zone, designed to transport a reinforced company of marines (225 paratroopers and 10 units of armored vehicles).


Ship of Naval Forces of Ukraine "Kostyantin Olshansky" (U402) - formerly Soviet BDK-56

The larger ship, the BDK 1174 Pr. Ivan Rogov (at that time the only ship of its type within the USSR Navy) was designed to transport 500 paratroopers + to 80 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. In addition - on board the "Rhino" are 4 helicopter.

A notable feature of the Soviet BDK are the self-defense systems and the MLRS A-215 systems (broken Grad) - this is another question about the fire support of the landing force. The second important difference is the ability to unload tanks to the coast under its own power through the gates and a retractable gangway.

It is obvious that the capabilities of some BDK will not be enough. Part of the personnel will be able to place on board the hospital ships of the Navy of the USSR. The other part is located on large warships. And if not enough space?
In such cases, merchant ships come to the rescue - rocking ships, container ships, and floating bases. Cheap and angry.

In reality, those of the British who were lucky got to the battle zone on the luxury liners "Queen Elizabeth 2", "Canberra" and "Uganda" - the British command was not afraid to "dispossess" the company "Cunard Line".

Exploration

The Soviet Navy also had something that the most daring "British scientists" could not even dream of - the Legenda-M Maritime Space Intelligence and Targeting System: the orbital constellation from the satellites of passive radio intelligence and the incredible US-A spacecraft low-orbit satellites with a nuclear reactor and side-looking radar.

In 1982, the fantastic system had already come to a working state - it is known that during the Falkland War, the Soviet military was closely watching the events on the other side of the globe. Receiving data from MKRTS satellites, the Soviet Union saw the situation in the Falkland Islands region at a glance, knew the balance of power and the position of the ships of both opponents, had the opportunity to foresee further actions of the British and Argentines.

In those years, not a single state in the world had such a perfect intelligence system!

Paradoxically, the immediate participants in those events were much worse informed: in order to get at least some understanding of the situation in the theater of military operations, Britain was forced to constantly keep the Nimrod naval intelligence officers in the air and beg for intelligence from "Uncle Sam" NOSS intelligence system, also known as Wall Cloud). As for the Argentos, these cranks drove around the ocean in a circle passenger Boeings and business jets.

Logistics

An extremely important point in preparing for such a long and ambitious operation at a great distance from its native shores. Immediately it should be noted that all doubts about the incapacity of the Navy of the USSR (“will not reach”, “not enough”, “collapse”, “accident rate”, etc.) on closer examination turn out to be a mirage - in 1985, in the expanses of the World Ocean DAILY 160 order service of surface and submarine combat ships and support vessels of the USSR Navy.

The issue with the rear base is solved much easier.
The British squadron used the harbor and airfield on about. Ascension (a tiny piece of land in the middle of the Atlantic, halfway to the Falklands). And what will the Soviet fleet do?
The answer is obvious, the Soviet Navy had a dense network of bases around the world; in the conduct of hostilities in the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean, Luanda (Angola) could act as a rear base.

As for the supply of dozens of ships on a long hike - a painful question, but solvable. For these purposes, an entire armada of auxiliary vessels existed in the Soviet Navy: reconnaissance, advice, tanker tankers, integrated supply ships, refrigerators, weapons transports, floating workshops and ship bases - if necessary, merchant fleet forces with their oil tankers, high-speed rokers and container ships could be involved .

Must cope!

Some conclusions from all this crazy story

We do not need foreign lands - we would master our possessions. Falklands remain British. Never mind! The main thing - in those days, our fleet had the potential to conduct a major naval operation in any corner of the planet.

Of course, such a quick charge and long hike is a tremendous stress. In normal times, ocean combat services were prepared in advance — a sure sign of a speedy campaign was a course of vaccinations against southern fevers and diseases, which was assigned to all crew members without fail. They checked the cards, loaded the supplies and food in the sweat, checked the electromechanical part of the ship, systems and weapons.

Would you be able to get ready in at least two weeks? Could. Urgent order, the situation does not tolerate delay. In addition, at least half of the squadron was already in the ocean — all that was needed was to redirect the ships to a new square.

Turmoil will adversely affect the preparation for the campaign. Not without errors, accidents and losses ... however, any war in terms of organization is a fire in a brothel during a flood.

The main thing is that we had the second Navy in the world, exceeding in size the fleets of all the other countries of the world combined (except for the US). A fleet capable of besieging any enemy and fighting anywhere in the oceans.

Heroes Gallery:




Gas turbine BOD project 61, the so-called. "singing frigate"



British destroyer York (Type 42 Batch III) is a modernized version of Sheffield. The consequences of the Falkland war are noticeable: the forecastle is extended, ZAL "Falans" is urgently added


Roller-gas turbine ship "Captain Smirnov" from Odessa-Vietnam line. Double Designation Vessel, max. speed - 25 nodes!



BDK av. 1174 "Ivan Rogov"



Felling submarine pr 670 "Skat"



Large sea tanker of the Navy project 1559В. Displacement - 22450 tons. Load capacity: fuel tank for 8250 tons, 2050 tons of diesel fuel, 1000 tons of aviation fuel, 250 tons of lubricating oil, 450 tons of feed water, 450 tons of drinking water, 220 tons of food


Transport weapons "General Ryabikov"



TAVKR and ship integrated supply "Berezina"


Author:
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2013 08: 41 New
    30
    Hmm ... weird. The article was written by Oleg Kaptsov - but there is nothing to argue laughing
    The cruiser’s full ammunition is 96 missiles - even taking into account the consumption of two missiles for each target, the Kirov cruiser, theoretically, could single-handedly destroy all Argentinean combat aircraft.

    Theoretically, the British could do exactly the same thing - their Sea Dart is a rather outstanding SAM, whose rocket flew at 2,5M at 75 km. The guidance head is semi-active, and 42 target illumination stations were installed on British destroyers of the “2 type”. Not “Fort”, of course, what can I say, but a powerful complex, which in theory did not leave a chance for Argentine aviation with free-falling bombs. Moreover, there were 7 such systems (20-24 ammunition for destroyers and 36 for an aircraft carrier) But this is, in theory, in practice ...
    The Fort is obviously better, but it's ONE. However, here you need to agree with the author - the naval group of the Russian Navy (even without Kirov), but with the BNK 1134-B with their air defense system "Storm" is Death for aviation with free-falling bombs. And Argentina has only six RCCs, and the chances that at least one of them finds a target are not so many.
    As for the potential participation of “Kiev” and / or “Minsk” - it would not hurt :) Firstly, these ships have their own powerful air defense. Secondly - it’s easy to base Ka-25RC on them - i.e. we get some kind of nonetheless distant radar detection. That the Yak-38 did not have a radar - it is very sad, but still the English radar was absolutely not amazing and the English pilots were often forced to focus on directions from the ships and their own eyes. But the Yak-38, unlike the Harrier of those times, carried 4 missiles, not 2. So a certain amount of Yak-38 with all their ugly performance characteristics will still not be superfluous.
    But this is not even the point, but the fact that one could easily throw such charm as the famous Crocodiles Mi-24 into the spacious hangars of our TAVKR. Maybe they couldn’t be used from the deck, but even just throwing a jump on the airfield (the British did this for the Harriers) - and the mass of unforgettable sensations in the Argentinean pehtura is guaranteed laughing
    The fleet of Her Majesty is resting - the British at that time simply did not have anything like it.

    Nevertheless, I would not underestimate the British nuclear submarines - they were created specifically for the search and destruction of Soviet nuclear submarines, because a lot of attention was paid to low noise, quality of ASG and so on. But even here the author is right - the British did not have any strike functions, in fact, no one was going to smash the groups of Soviet surface ships with them.
    Any “Sheffield” or “County” is just a jelly on the background of the Soviet “Golden Eagle”.

    That is yes. The difference in the combat capabilities of the ships is simply shocking. But what about the British - even the American "Spruances" (with the initial composition of armaments) against the background of the 1134B look ... not too good :))) Initially, they had only 1 air defense systems, Sea Sparrow, 2 127-mm guns, ASROK, and 324 - mm TA with 2 Phalanxes.
    1. Santa Fe
      29 August 2013 10: 26 New
      +5
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Theoretically, the British could have done exactly the same thing - their Sea Dart is a pretty outstanding SAM

      With the "fort" can not be compared. Starting weight of missiles - 500 kg against ~ 1500 kg in 5V55RM

      Hence the difference in performance characteristics: missile speed (5V55RM 5-6 Machs), warhead mass (130 kg). The height of the radar detection and illumination on the "Orlan", the rate of fire (12 subdeck PUs against one double-beam on the "Sheffield"), etc.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      the naval group of the Russian Navy (even without Kirov) but with the BOD 1134-B with their Storm air defense system - this is Death for aviation with free-falling bombs

      SAM Storm is so, for wit.
      In the case of the Argentine Air Force, the main role will be played by the AK-630 - this is where the massacre will be! (below there is a comment on this topic)
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Secondly, it’s easy to base the Ka-25RC on them - i.e. we get some kind of nonetheless distant radar detection.

      For this, a small "Leningrad" is enough
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But this is not even the point, but the fact that one could easily throw such charm as the famous Crocodiles Mi-24 into the spacious hangars of our TAVKR.

      This can be done by an ordinary river-sea cargo ship

      TAVKR is too voracious, and we have tension with fuel
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Initially, they had only 1 Sea Sparrow SAM, 2 127 mm cannons, ASROK, and 324 mm TA with 2 Phalanxes.

      two helicopters + outstanding performance in autonomy and cruising range (6000 miles per 20 knots)

      as well as reserved hull volumes (20%) and energy capacities, reserves for stability and durability of the hull - in the future it allowed to put a bunch of different weapons - Mk.143 ABL, Harpoons, SAM self-defense RAM, and, finally, in the mid-1980s The 61-charging MK.41 with Tomahawks took their place. The Yankees were not fools

      By the way, there was still “Kidd” (joker. “Ayatollah”) - 4 modernized spruens for the Iranian Navy, later remained in the US Navy. The main difference is 2 Mk.26 gantry launchers for launching Asroks and long-range anti-aircraft Standers (emnip ammunition destroyer 60 ~ 80 pcs.)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2013 10: 43 New
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        With the "fort" can not be compared.

        However, the Skyhokam with their bombs should have been enough above the roof. However - not enough.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In the case of the Argentine Air Force, the main role will be played by the AK-630 - this is where the massacre will be! (below there is a comment on this topic)

        Against the bombers - definitely. Do AK-630 order 4 km reach? And the bombs are ordinary, uncontrollable ...
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For this, a small "Leningrad" is enough

        For this - yes, enough
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This can be done by an ordinary river-sea cargo ship

        TAVKR is too voracious, and we have tension with fuel

        This is in you, Oleg, the hater of the aircraft carriers says :))) Well, yes, of course you can take it and put the Mi-24 onto a cargo ship. Only now they will have to conduct aviation fuel on another bulk carrier. And the ammunition is on the third. A bunch of people to serve the Pepelians - on the fourth, etc. If suddenly it turns out that the Argentine rocket finds one of them, the idea will be covered with a copper basin.
        TAVKR is a MILITARY ship, it is designed to support the actions of VTOL aircraft and helicopters, it has people, fuel, warheads and all at once. And he is much better protected from enemy influence.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        two helicopters + outstanding performance in autonomy and cruising range (6000 miles per 20 knots)

        Which did not compensate for the weakness of the air defense, and only to some extent - the lack of a powerful and long-range anti-aircraft gun
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        as well as reserved body volumes (20%)

        That’s yes, well, it’s not for nothing that I wrote about the initial composition of weapons
        1. Santa Fe
          29 August 2013 11: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          However, the Skyhokam with their bombs should have been enough above the roof. However - not enough.

          probably there were too few
          Invincible stayed out of the database area
          after the stupid death of “Sheffield”, the British left only 5 ships with Sea Dart, then the Coventry was lost and the Glasgow was damaged ... and that’s all, three “Type 42” couldn’t do anything on such a huge theater
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          TAVKR is a MILITARY ship, it is designed to support the actions of VTOL aircraft and helicopters, it has people, fuel, warheads and all at once. And he is much better protected from enemy influence.

          Power of the power plant TAVKR - 180 000 h.p.
          Power of the state economic institution "Leninsky Komsomol" - 13 000 h.p. (a series of 25 project 567 ocean-going turbo-boats of the same type, gross register tonnage (BRT) - 13270 tons, net register tonnage (NRT) - 6866 tons, deadweight - 16185 tons, length - 169,9 m, width - 21,8 m , midship aboard (middle of the ship) - 12,9 m, draft - 9,7 m, speed - 18,5 knots, crew - 48 people.)

          Andrey, instead of one TAVKR, you can take 10 container ships and tankers
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Only now they will have to conduct aviation fuel on another bulk carrier. And the ammunition is on the third. A bunch of people to service the pepelats - on the fourth

          And fuel, and b / p, and spare parts get 10 times more
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And he is much better protected from enemy influence.

          Yeah, fires on carrier ships are always something
          ACTION and special effects worse than Spielberg
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          hater aircraft carriers says :)))

          It says the hater of everything excessively expensive and ineffective
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2013 11: 53 New
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Andrey, instead of one TAVKR, you can take 10 container ships and tankers

            And finally get the Atlantic Conveyor that you brought in the photo? No, thanks :))) Oleg, the RCC “jumped” from the warships, it was hit by electronic warfare, it went into milk - and stumbled upon the Atlantic. And all - bark the bark. If the same aircraft carrier were in its place, nothing would have happened.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Andrey, instead of one TAVKR, you can take 10 container ships and tankers

            Oleg, the cargo hold area of ​​the Lenin Komsomol you mentioned is 2115 sq.m. http://korabley.net/news/morskoj_bogatyr_mnogocelevoj_sukhogruz_tvindechnogo_tip
            a_leninskij_komsomol_proekt_567/2010-03-16-511
            A hangar area TAVKR Kiev - 6200 sq.m. In other words, only in order to secure the hangar deck you will need three Komsomolets and at least one for the transportation of fuel and ammunition. The fifth ship will be required to transport people. since Komosmoly had places for fifty crew members - and that’s all. Total - 5 hefty civilian ships instead of one TAVKR.
            At the same time, you can unload them only in the port, which also presents certain difficulties.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Power of the power plant TAVKR - 180 000 hp
            Power of the Lenin Komsomol State Economic University - 13 000 hp

            Oleg, fuel consumption does not depend on the maximum power of the EU, but on the mode of its operation.
            1. Santa Fe
              29 August 2013 17: 31 New
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And finally get the Atlantic Conveyor that you brought in the photo?

              Transport ships will be needed in any case. Then what is the argument?

              I can offer a safe solution - preliminarily drop the special forces from the submarine and smash it into shreds of AB Rio Grande (as the Britons planned, if the situation gets out of control - see Operation Mikado)

              about Conveyor - you yourself know very well how it was
              None of the unlucky escort frigates were able to bring down RCC

              in the end, in the long run - what prevents the installation of a jamming system on a ship?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And the area of ​​the hangar TAVKR Kiev is 6200 sq.m. In other words, only in order to secure the hangar deck will need three "Komsomolets"

              Fine. We get great flexibility and ease of unloading - there are cargo arrows on the ships that are not on the TAVKre (there will generally be a big problem with access to cargo on the hangar deck)
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And at least one for transporting fuel

              Do you think the TAVKra fuel tanks are larger than those of the Bubnov?))

              I heard that the tank capacity of the Nimitz tanks is ~ 8500 tons of jet fuel
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Total - 5 hefty civilian ships instead of one TAVKR.

              This is great!
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              fuel consumption does not depend on the maximum power of the EU, but on the mode of its operation.

              what a brilliant conclusion. But it’s nothing that their work regime is identical - all the squadron’s ships crawl a 14-node move for a month

              13 thousand hp - it's a lot
              for example, there was a container ship "Alexander Fadeev" - he had a diesel engine, 6000 hp Here is an example of profitability! The power of its power plant is 30 times less than the power of TAVKra !!

              5 cargo holds with a total bale capacity of 10012 cubic meters
              Gross Tonnage: 6478 T
              Deadweight: 6385 t
              Length: 129,42 m
              Width: 19,24 m
              Depth: 10,43 m
              Draft: 5,08 / 7,51 m
              Speed ​​- 16/17 knots
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              At the same time, you can unload them only in the port, which also presents certain difficulties.

              In this case there is a lighter carrier Alesha Kosygin
              82 lighters (flat-bottomed barge with a capacity of 375 tons)
              displacement of 62 tons. 000 ton gantry crane, speed 500 knots

              Tavkr and Mistral did not lie nearby
              1. old man54
                old man54 1 September 2013 22: 11 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                I can offer a safe solution - preliminarily drop the special forces from the submarine and smash it into shreds of AB Rio Grande (as the Britons planned, if the situation gets out of control - see Operation Mikado)

                VOOOOOO, and why didn’t he suggest that in the article? Especially the little shavers were going to do it, but ... something they didn’t get there! From this, it was generally necessary to start the operation !!
          2. Delta
            Delta 29 August 2013 12: 46 New
            -1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            hater aircraft carriers says :)))

            It says the hater of everything excessively expensive and ineffective

            no, Kaptsov really likes aircraft carriers, he recognizes their effectiveness. This is evident, in particular, from his articles “If the PQ-17 Convoy Was Guarded by American Aircraft Carriers” and “Naval Combat. Survival of an Aircraft Carrier”.
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 29 August 2013 13: 05 New
              +2
              Oleg, as a venerable writer, is recognizable in style from the first words:
              "British" sea wolves ""
              "under the control of the British crown."

              smile
            2. Santa Fe
              29 August 2013 17: 44 New
              0
              Quote: Delta
              This can be seen, in particular, from his articles “If Convoy PQ-17 were Guarded by American Aircraft Carriers” and “Naval Combat. Survival of an Aircraft Carrier”.

              In the words of Rick Blaine from the classics of American cinema (Casablanca): I was misinformed.

              Articles were written at the time when I conceived that he (the nimitz) provides at least 30-40% of sorties in local wars (Desert Storm), while being an indispensable weapon in the ocean.
              Alas, this turned out to be wrong.

              In Iraq, the US Navy aircraft carriers in a sixth way somehow completed 17% of the work, and given the capabilities of modern aviation, the methods of warfare and the role of a global network of air bases - the Nimes are just an expensive useless toy
              1. Delta
                Delta 29 August 2013 18: 10 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                In the words of Rick Blaine from the classics of American cinema (Casablanca): I was misinformed.

                Articles were written at the time when I conceived that he (the nimitz) provides at least 30-40% of sorties in local wars (Desert Storm), while being an indispensable weapon in the ocean.

                as Muller said in Seventeen Moments of Spring - giving up your opinion always smells bad))) it's hard to disagree with him on this issue

                and then - sorties, and survivability ???
                1. Santa Fe
                  29 August 2013 18: 30 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Delta
                  as Muller said in Seventeen Moments of Spring - giving up your opinion always smells bad))) it's hard to disagree with him on this issue

                  The armored mouth of the screenwriters of Mosfilm said nonsense.
                  It is human nature to err and correct. Only fools insist on their mistakes

                  American propaganda is very strong in this matter - what news do not open - aircraft carriers moving to Syria))
                  Quote: Delta
                  and then - sorties, and survivability ???

                  like

                  formally, there were all signs: armor, a small volume ratio of combustible and explosive substances, special measures (irrigation of decks, fire shutters), the huge size of the ship

                  in fact: combustible materials, taking into account the specifics of the nymph, are dispersed over the most vulnerable parts of the ship - there are enough sparks and the ship will not fulfill its task (and if the spark falls successfully, it will generally sink)

                  I'm not a magician, I'm just learning (s). New knowledge is gained through overwork, understanding comes with many interesting things
        2. old man54
          old man54 1 September 2013 22: 06 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEENFor this small enough "Leningrad" For this - yes, enough

          Nope, you're wrong, and both! hi
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Well, yes, you can certainly take it and put the Mi-24 on some sort of cargo ship cargo. Only now they will have to conduct aviation fuel on another bulk carrier. And the ammunition is on the third. A bunch of people to serve the Pepelians - on the fourth, etc. If suddenly it turns out that the Argentine rocket finds one of them, the idea will be covered with a copper basin. TAVKR is a WAR ship, it is designed to support the actions of VTOL aircraft and helicopters, it has people, fuel, warheads, and all at once. And he is much better protected from enemy influence.

          good "+"! Hello! I support!
      2. old man54
        old man54 1 September 2013 21: 55 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For this, a small "Leningrad" is enough

        no, not enough, I'll write below!
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        SAM Storm is so, for wit.

        Well, how to say, for wit! lol Yes, the minimum height of the air defense center is 100 meters, but the range of 55 km makes it possible to work along the airborne lines behind the “line of the physical and radar horizon of the NK and the enemy’s coast! go, fearing power!
        This can be done by an ordinary river-sea cargo ship

        Well wow, Oleg !!! Mixed navigation vessels, "river-sea", they are designed for navigation along the coast, coastal navigation, for insignificant adaptation from the coast and from the possibility of taking refuge in the port or in natural coastal folds of the coast. And you propose to equip it with southern roaring latitudes, where there will be more abrupt storms than in the Barents same and in the North Seas! Moreover, such vessels have a freeboard height of 3/4 meters above the sea, and how to save even the flight suitability of those Mi-24s in such storms and on deck generally ?? The storm is 4 points, well, the maximum is 5 and there, pure metal scrap will arrive on the theater! lol
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 29 August 2013 13: 18 New
      +4
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The article was written by Oleg Kaptsov - but there is nothing to argue

      Andrey, is it good or bad? For me, to argue with Oleg in pleasure ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2013 13: 30 New
        +3
        Good for the article :))) Bad for the discussion :) drinks
        1. old man54
          old man54 1 September 2013 22: 14 New
          0
          strange, but for some reason I find a lot where I can object to Oleg, and in essence! :))) request
    3. Dnepropetrovsk
      Dnepropetrovsk 29 August 2013 23: 05 New
      0
      Reading an article, I recall the one who argued that the Soviet Union did not have a Navy.
    4. old man54
      old man54 1 September 2013 21: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But this is not even the point, but the fact that in the spacious hangars of our TAVKR one could easily roll such a charm as the famous Mi-24 Crocodiles

      I strongly doubt very much that even with the unscrewed rotor blades, the Mi-24 could be lowered into the hangar by a deck elevator! Dimensions in length KA-27 and Mi-24 compare and understand everything! Even if they brought it to the PCB, then the haemorrhoids for their assembly later and the subsequent start from the PCB to the shore are not worth it, it seems to me! And why should the Mi-24 if it is possible to bring up to 40 Yak-38s there and so storm everything you want ??! hi
  2. pogis
    pogis 29 August 2013 08: 48 New
    +4
    Interestingly, the fleet of modern Russia could?
    1. starshina78
      starshina78 29 August 2013 09: 58 New
      +4
      The fleet of modern Russia cannot even defend its bases. Alas, this is the result of the activities of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, which was awarded the highest order of the state - Mikhail Gorbachev, and Boris Yeltsin, the man who drank Russia. Thanks to their efforts, and with the money of "our American friends", the Russian Navy was destroyed. What remains of it is the miserable crumbs of that fleet that could operate anywhere in the world’s oceans, the fleet that had combat bases around the world, and which, according to the recognition of its enemies by the Americans, was the best. What the Soviet Navy knew firsthand He served in the ranks of the Navy of the USSR, in the Pacific Fleet, Kamchatka military flotilla.
      1. vostok68
        vostok68 29 August 2013 13: 28 New
        +7
        He also served there, saw the "Legend-M" marine space reconnaissance and target designation system (ICRC) in action, then he didn’t understand, but now I’m thinking how the designers could make such an element from the base available at that time ?!
      2. old man54
        old man54 1 September 2013 22: 16 New
        0
        Quote: starshina78
        Alas, this is the result of the activity of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, awarded by the highest order of the state - Mikhail Gorbachev, and Boris Yeltsin, a man who has drunk Russia

        and what, after 2000, the fleet directly perked up or what ??? And GDP over the course of 12 years restored it and strengthened it terribly, even by comparison with 1999? Or how, huh?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2013 10: 13 New
      +4
      Eat then he eat, but who will give him?
      The Argentinean Air Force today is 20 Mirages, 13 daggers (the same mirage, only in profile) 8 skyhawks, 24 screw still attack aircraft "Pukara"
      Of course, if you take the Kuzmich TAVKR and plant ALL TWO Ka-31 helicopters that we have on the Air Force (thereby ensuring at least some long-range radar detection), it is against the Argentine zoo even available on the 10 TAVKR Su-33 is a terrible force, and given the quality of domestic deck pilots, I do not envy the Argentines. In addition, the Su-33 may be bigger than the 10 left, I do not know.
      To fill the rest of the space in the hangar with the usual army Mi-28 or something similar, the Tavkr will only bring them, and let them work from the jump airfield - nobody will see it.
      To accompany TAVKR we put “Peter the Great” - “Peter”, to say, really great without fools - the modernized “fort” is a terrible thing ... We support these ships with a pair of BOD from the northern fleet, Chabanenka with Kulakov, for example, and from the Black Sea it’s possible to plow the “Kerch”, and if you really go a bit apart, you can also take the missile cruiser “Moscow” for the duration of the operation.
      Well, a TAVKR with two RKR (one atomic) and three BODs and several Shchuk-Bs are already a force against which it is better for the four Argentine destroyers Almitrant Brown not to stick out ... Deck helicopters will be quite enough against Argentine’s DEPL, and BOD not just called anti-submarine :)))
      In fact, some chances for Argentina appear only if you add anti-ship missiles, so that from the belly, and to work out a massive blow to the enemy ship’s formation - so that the planes, from different directions, and the destroyers and submarines - all together .. Then there is a chance. And since the Argentines obviously have none of this and are not trained to fight like that, then they will have little chance.
      But with the landing - a little worse, on the SF we have 4 of the ship of the 775 project, their ceiling - 225 marines and 10 tanks. But at the World Cup there are three more of the same (the fourth under repair) and three larger BDKs of the 1171 project - 300 paratroopers and 20 tanks. This is quite enough to capture the bridgehead (the Russian marines are ... this ... in general, I would not advise anyone to contact them. It is very unhealthy, very much) and the rest of the forces can be transported.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 29 August 2013 13: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But with the landing - a little worse

        Yeah, at the time to sing "Oh, where are you Mistraaaaaaal .... !!!!!"
        1. Santa Fe
          29 August 2013 17: 50 New
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          Yeah, at the time to sing "Oh, where are you Mistraaaaaaal .... !!!!!"

          Elephants go north and the mistral go yug

          A series of four lighter carriers "Alexei Kosygin"
          82 barges with a carrying capacity of 375 tons (how many MBTs, vehicles and armored vehicles will fit !!!), unloading on any unequipped coast, cruising range - 20 thousand km.
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 29 August 2013 19: 24 New
            +1
            the lighter certainly needs the fleet, but what does the Mistral have to do with it? The Mistral is a multi-functional warship, but you can write a lighter carrier in warships) They work well together, but these are far from interchangeable ships. If you are building lighter carriers for the Navy, then you are preparing to land on an unequipped coast, the support of cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines will be slightly different from zero. Here aircraft carriers are needed.
            Of course, if you have bases like amers everywhere, then you need to be a fool to fly your planes from an aircraft carrier, but you don’t need to question the effectiveness of the type of ships due to the fact that some country does not need it or is not pocketed
            1. Santa Fe
              29 August 2013 22: 30 New
              +2
              Quote: barbiturate
              Mistral multi-functional warship

              What kind of "multifunctionality" can we talk about if the Mistral is only a half-measure for each mission of the landing operation?

              Delivery of armored vehicles and heavy weapons - preferably the use of a lighter carrier or small Soviet-style amphibious assault vehicles with a bow gangway. - Mistral is not even close competitor

              Delivery of personnel? Partially Soviet-style BDK. if necessary, this can be done by any container ship (short distances - from Sakhalin to the Kuril Islands), a hospital ship or a civil liner (long distances)

              Medical unit? Mistral can never compare with a normal hospital ship

              Staff functions? Bullshit from advertising booklets - FKP can be organized on board any of the modern destroyers, for this Mistral is not necessary at all. As for the planning of the upcoming operation, this can (and should be!) Done in Moscow, and not on board a ship in the combat zone

              Helicopters? No more than a cheap "show off" - one squadron of 16 turntables is essentially helpless. In the same operation in the Falklands, the Britons used 130 rotorcraft! Here we need container ships jam-packed with aircraft and equipment, not "universal" Mistrals

              However, the Mistral is not as bad as I describe it here - built according to the standards of civil shipbuilding, it has a minimal price and low cost of operation. Another thing is that this tool can only be an addition to the squadron of rollers, container ships, floating depots, floating workshops and other support vessels, but not a replacement for these transports
              Quote: barbiturate
              If you are building lighter carriers for the Navy

              Lighter carriers are being built for the civilian fleet - the Navy has no time to tinker with such "nonsense"
              In peacetime, they earn a lot of money, in wartime - they become an exceptional means of delivering equipment and equipment
              Quote: barbiturate
              Of course, if you have bases everywhere, like amers

              Therefore, no one but the United States fights on foreign shores
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 30 August 2013 00: 24 New
            0
            I could not immediately answer in the branch about f-35
            About the pace of construction http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/July/Pages/F-35fact2282.aspx

            I apologize for being off topic.
            1. Santa Fe
              30 August 2013 00: 41 New
              +1
              I really appreciate your reply

              Alas, this is nothing more than the sweet dreams of LM for 2008.
              Lockheed Martin officials are expecting foreign military sales to hike the total number to more than 4,000 Joint Strike Fighters.
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 30 August 2013 14: 30 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Alas, this is nothing more than the sweet dreams of LM for 2008.

                After the 20th year, F-15, 16, 18 will be written off to NATO. Some will probably be replaced with new ones with modernization, and part will be the 5th generation, the United States has neither time nor money to develop another 5th generation, and Congress will not understand , from this LM makes a forecast, in any case I have such an opinion, but how time will tell.
      2. old man54
        old man54 1 September 2013 22: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        This is quite enough to capture the bridgehead (the Russian marines are ... this ... in general, I would not advise anyone to contact them. It is very unhealthy, very much) and the rest of the forces can be transported.

        good good lol
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 29 August 2013 13: 21 New
      +3
      Quote: pogis
      Interestingly, the fleet of modern Russia could?

      I think so, because Argentina as an adversary only in football means something. Even in the present worthless state, the Russian fleet will be able to crank up such an operation ...
    4. Orik
      Orik 29 August 2013 15: 55 New
      +2
      Could not, now there are only 16 surface ships of the distant, ocean zone in all fleets. In some material, VO was painted.
  3. ed65b
    ed65b 29 August 2013 08: 57 New
    +4
    Yes, what can I say. All prosra..i. Will Russia achieve such greatness and power of the former in the USSR. And so in all directions from space, etc. I want to believe that yes but I do not believe it. Hucksters will never give. Everything will go to yachts, clubs and castles of the new owners of life. A vivid example of Mudanjian, which forbade military aircraft to take off during recent exercises. God grant that I would be cruelly mistaken.
  4. svp67
    svp67 29 August 2013 09: 24 New
    0
    Could the Soviet Navy fight in the southern hemisphere of the Earth?
    Probably all the same it would be better to say - for the Armed Forces of the USSR - there were no unsolvable tasks ... We have something to strive for.
  5. Santa Fe
    29 August 2013 10: 05 New
    +1


    It’s just interesting what would happen to a couple of these arrogant A-4 Skyhawk, if the British ships had a slightly similar AK-630 (or the Phalanx CIWS 20 mm mount)
  6. barbiturate
    barbiturate 29 August 2013 11: 15 New
    +1
    I read a good article with pleasure and agree with the author, it’s only possible that our surface fleet could still suffer some damage or loss. If the British so late discovered an attack on their own, then it is not a fact that ours would have done it much earlier when approaching enemy aircraft at ultra-low altitude. The AK-630M is an excellent weapon, but it must be brought in time, because even during tests, in the conditions of the range and in advance known data about the target, it did not show a 100% result. The Osa-M air defense system (not the only one, but even so) was also installed on the BOD 1134, but in 1987 there was a tragedy with the Musson missile launcher, which was aimed at by a training target missile. The ship tried to defend itself, fired two missiles of the Osa-M complex, fired from the AK-725 universal artillery mount (cal. 57 mm), but was hit and sank.
    All the same, against the plane, the best weapon is another plane or you will be doomed only to defend yourself from blows and sooner or later miss a strike (hello to the boxers))
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2013 11: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: barbiturate
      in 1987, there was a tragedy with the MRS "Monsoon", which was aimed at a training missile target. The ship tried to defend itself, fired two missiles of the Osa-M complex, fired from a universal artillery mount AK-725 (cal. 57 mm), but was struck and sank

      Everything is complicated there ... here http://lto.narod.ru/ it is very interesting everything is described
      The target did not fly, as planned, in the stern with the 4Ez parameter, but went as the target, with all the high-altitude transitions. Once again, at a distance of 14km to Monsoon, RM moved to a height of 25 (15) m. This is already very dangerous! So what? - again some will say - “Everything is within the limits of the technical characteristics of the air defense system”. And they will be right, but only if everything is done as it should. I’ll try to explain what I’m talking about. Even before the Monsoon, we wondered among ourselves why the 9M33 rockets were loaded onto the Osa-MA complex for firing instead of the 9M33M? After all, the complex provides TTX only with these missiles! They are part of Wasp-MA. And the most important thing in them, according to low-flying targets, is another principle of operation of a radio fuse. The 9M33M missile is capable of hitting NLCs at altitudes above 15m, 9M33 above 30m, otherwise the PB will work from the water. Do you see the difference? And according to the performance characteristics of the SAM system, the lower boundary of the 25m destruction zone is even with the 9M33M missile. Why talk about rockets? Yes, the fact of the matter is that on the Monsoon four 9M33 missiles were specially loaded for firing! What can I say after that, given that the RM actually flew at an altitude of 25 (15) m with a zero parameter?
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 29 August 2013 17: 29 New
        +1
        Thanks for the link, it is very interesting to read an eyewitness and a participant in the events, though there are a lot of obscure terms, it’s hard to read, but the truth is for sure
    2. old man54
      old man54 29 August 2013 22: 52 New
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      The ship tried to defend itself, fired two missiles of the Osa-M complex, fired from the AK-725 universal artillery mount (cal. 57 mm), but was hit and sank.

      Well, firstly, he did not sink! Yes, a lot of people died, anti-ship missiles hit the bridge, where then there was almost the entire RTO command, but the ship itself was saved.
      Secondly, the situation was abnormal, the VHR was not a target, and the target was another decommissioned ship. GOS spontaneously rebooted "Monsoon" and ...
  7. 0255
    0255 29 August 2013 11: 52 New
    +1
    * Of the 25 surface warships of the "first line" (aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates), the modern Sea Dart air defense system was only available on seven ships. Most of the British frigates (9 from 15) were armed with C-KAM air defense systems - subsonic (!) SAMs with an effective firing range of less than 6 km - no wonder that all 80 C-CATs went into “milk”. As for self-defense in the near zone - the British "sea wolves" had nothing better than 114 mm "universal cars" with limited shelling angles and anti-aircraft guns "Oerlikon" of the Second World War.
    It is not surprising that the British squadron was brazenly shot from guns and smeared with bombs from a strafing flight.

    Argentina would use the Tu-22, or at least the Tu-16 with powerful Soviet anti-ship missiles. It is a pity that Argentina did not take the path of cooperation with the USSR until 1982. So would get the normal Air Force and Navy.
    1. old man54
      old man54 29 August 2013 22: 42 New
      0
      Quote: 0255
      Argentina would use the Tu-22, or at least the Tu-16 with powerful Soviet anti-ship missiles.

      I think that if Argentina had at least 1 Tu-22 squadron (the first version even without any M) with trained and trained crews, there were plenty of anti-ship missiles (at least the same KSR-2 and KSR-11), then even most likely they wouldn’t poke around, but would have started whining around the world and writing protests at the UN! They just would not shine anything in the entom case. tongue
  8. sdohnisuka
    sdohnisuka 29 August 2013 12: 04 New
    -3
    dreamers. funny to read how you amuse yourself.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2013 13: 08 New
      +4
      Well, laugh - they say it prolongs life.
      Does the article have anything to say? :)
    2. vostok68
      vostok68 29 August 2013 13: 13 New
      +4
      sdohni suka, accidentally clicked on a space!
  9. saag
    saag 29 August 2013 12: 40 New
    +2
    The Argentines just had to organize an airfield at the Falklands, which the British then did, and would sink the supply transports and the squadron would go home
  10. Delta
    Delta 29 August 2013 12: 51 New
    +3
    “At that time, the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom included 15 submarines; for comparison, there were more than two hundred of them in the USSR Navy!”

    more than two hundred? why not more than a thousand? The maximum number of submarines in the USSR Navy was at the beginning of 1981, a total of 426 units, of which: 174 nuclear submarines including 76 strategic nuclear missile submarines (14 were under refurbishment for another purpose), 47 with cruise missiles and 51 multipurpose torpedo; 252 diesel-electric submarines, including 124 large, 127 medium and 1 small. MORE THAN TWO HUNDREDS, the USSR built over the entire period of its existence, but not for THAT PERIOD there were so many of them
  11. Nayhas
    Nayhas 29 August 2013 13: 27 New
    +2
    Oleg, thanks for the article. But I think few people doubt that in 1982. the Soviet fleet was an order of magnitude stronger than the royal.
    1. Santa Fe
      29 August 2013 16: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      But I think few people doubt that in 1982. the Soviet fleet was an order of magnitude stronger than the royal.

      Imagine someone doubts. There was already a couple of discussions on this topic on Topvar
      1. vostok68
        vostok68 29 August 2013 16: 37 New
        +4
        From 86 to 89 I didn’t doubt a bit, we were incredibly strong, and not only with technical equipment, but also with fortitude! I still have no doubt!
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2013 16: 39 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Imagine someone doubts.

        Hto? Paaarva to the British flag! angry
        1. Santa Fe
          29 August 2013 16: 43 New
          +1
          the last time this topic surfaced here)))
          http://topwar.ru/31591-britanskiy-flot-degradaciya-ili-rascvet.html#comment
    2. sub307
      sub307 29 August 2013 16: 18 New
      0
      Yes it is.
  12. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 29 August 2013 16: 43 New
    +3
    In 1982, most likely there would have been a “Seagull” and not a “Scat” pr.670; the entire series of modernized pr.670M was already built in 1981. And besides space intelligence, the USSR had more than 20 pieces of reconnaissance ship projects, large and small, even the Americans envied. The Argentines could have a chance only if a group of ships of the USSR, due to a bad mood, would break on the rocks.
    And the discussion of the article is relatively small, everyone agrees with you, well, maybe the Taoist will catch up, he will argue with you about the Yak-38.
    As always, thanks for the article.
  13. rks5317
    rks5317 29 August 2013 18: 45 New
    +3
    It was nice to recall the power of the SA and the Navy ... As the former chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR N. I. Ryzhkov once said, "We had fools in the government ... But traitors, NEVER ...". Compare the composition of the government of the USSR and Russia headed by a man who has never worked in real production and whose assets are -1) renaming the police to the police 2) switching to constant summer time 3) the betrayal of Iran from the S-300 ... Therefore, the current attempts of Putin and the CO (sending old ships Mediterranean Sea) look ridiculous and funny ...
  14. smile
    smile 29 August 2013 19: 53 New
    +3
    I appeal to the author. I disagree with some of your conclusions. But one thing is for sure - your articles are invariably interesting and beautifully presented, the easily recognizable style is incomparable. I do not know if you are publishing elsewhere. but I strongly advise readers to be a mass. Thank.
    1. lewerlin53rus
      lewerlin53rus 29 August 2013 20: 21 New
      +2
      I agree. With pleasure and a double sense of pride and regret: WHAT we delays @ whether I read the article.
    2. Santa Fe
      29 August 2013 21: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: smile
      I appeal to the author. I disagree with some of your conclusions. But one thing is for sure - your articles are invariably interesting and beautifully presented, an easily recognizable style is incomparable

      Once, after speaking in Parliament, Churchill received a compliment: "Look how many people have come to support you!"
      Churchill sighed heavily and replied: “If I had been dragged to the scaffold, the people who came to see this would have gathered 2 times more”

      She is such glory, yes)))
      1. smile
        smile 29 August 2013 22: 56 New
        +2
        SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Well, yes ... and with a sense of humor you are fine ... and you set the bar worthy of Churchill ... :))))) and your "enemies" are sometimes just as right as those who criticized the comrade Winston .... and anyway, you're smart! :)))
  15. old man54
    old man54 29 August 2013 21: 01 New
    +2
    AA, Oleg, did you decide that our dispute against that Russian-speaking immigrant from Canada should continue with an article? :))) Do you like to develop topics like this? bully Well done, that issued "on the mountain"! As soon as I started flipping through an article, I understood right away from WHO THE WIND IS BLOWING! laughing (Read later, busy!) hi
    1. Santa Fe
      29 August 2013 21: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: old man54
      that our dispute with you against that Russian-speaking emigrant from Canada to continue with an article? :)))

      Well, from Canada - this is not a fact yet, anonymizer programs can be downloaded and installed in a matter of minutes - then you can safely say that you write directly from Miami, the flag will be stably Shtatovsky))) Although, maybe the guest was really from abroad

      And the topic really seemed interesting. There was something to tell. Glad everyone liked it
  16. navy33
    navy33 29 August 2013 23: 29 New
    +1
    I welcome everyone! The article is interesting, I liked it very much, thank you very much !!! The Soviet Fleet was powerful, there is no doubt about it, but the Russian Fleet is no worse! Yes, ships, boats and aircraft became smaller but People remained the same. Russian Spirit No liberals will uproot a warrior. I am sure of that! And now the Navy and Army are recovering slowly, and then there will be more.
  17. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 29 August 2013 23: 30 New
    0
    Quote: vostok68
    He also served there, saw the "Legend-M" marine space reconnaissance and target designation system (ICRC) in action, then he didn’t understand, but now I’m thinking how the designers could make such an element from the base available at that time ?!

    This is an overweight kilogram for a desktop computer or transceivers, and for a satellite filling of 6-8 tons weighing + - 100 kg is a small correction :-)
  18. Silver70
    Silver70 31 August 2013 01: 29 New
    0
    The last photo, as I understand it, is the final of a hypothetical battle for the Falklands? lol
  19. old man54
    old man54 31 August 2013 04: 25 New
    0
    Oleg, just read it, thanks for the pleasure! I liked the article very much, it was written very easily, competently and even the Urya-patriots have nothing to complain about! lol Hats off to your literary talent! hi Forgive me for a long time I could not read it, but the political situation in the world does not give me rest, alas! request
    Well, I bet a bit, can I? wink
    1. Why did you choose the rear base of Luanda (Angola), and not Cuba, the same? request I agree, a little closer, but not critical. But then the war was going on in Angola, which was alarming, but in Cuba there was quiet and grace, and besides, we already had it there, our ships and nuclear submarines went there regularly to rest. Explain.
    2. Why neglected distant MA and strategists in the conflict? And as a marine strike component (with anti-ship missiles), if TsU decided to completely transfer it to the Legend, so strategic. But are you, Oleg, that when the Argentine attack aircraft got all the Saxon Saxons, they were about to raid their airfield? Moreover, this seems to be the only field in the mainland south of the country, from which their Argentines then blew! They even drove the DRG there and they watched this VVB for about 5 days, but they did not dare to strike the mainland, because they themselves promised not to do this. So, if we wanted, to suppress this airdrome, we could hit the air-to-surface missile launcher on it, or by suppressing its air defense using the same Yak-38 and destroying the runway with them, then we could equalize the same Tu-95 him with ground free-falling bombs, at least 500 kg, at least 1000 !. good
    3. I don’t understand your blame for not taking TAVKR on the “mission” ?? Among other things, it has a wonderful not only air defense system for that time and the level of the Argentine Air Force, but also a good zonal air defense: 3 Shtorm air defense systems (55 km), 8 AK-630, 2 AK-726. In addition, the Yak-38, with all your dislike for them, still an attack aircraft, and 2 squadrons would not hurt at all. And most importantly, pr. 1143 is also a helicopter carrier !! Single instances of turntables on the BOD could solve the problem of providing MP on the shore, their prompt communication with the NK squadron, and ??? wink
    1. Santa Fe
      31 August 2013 21: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: old man54
      Well, I bet a bit, can I?

      I am pleased to respond to such comments
      Quote: old man54
      And why did you choose the rear base of Luanda (Angola), and not the same Cuba? I agree, a little closer

      The difference is 5-6 thousand kilometers !!!
      Quote: old man54
      2. Why neglected distant MA and strategists in the conflict? And as a marine shock component (with anti-ship missiles)

      Meaning? There, the boats will do very well
      As for TsU - a pair of Tu-95RC from Angola
      Quote: old man54
      Moreover, this seems to be the only field in the mainland south of the country, from which their Argentines then blew!

      There is only a submarine landing
      SLCM was not there yet, it’s risky to send bombers without an escort,
      True, there is another option - artillery 68 bis
      Quote: old man54
      They even drove the DRG there and they watched this VVB for 5 days

      How do you know that 5 days?
      EMNIP there everything was covered with a copper basin - the turntable was shot down, but it reached Chile, tourists still photograph its fragments on the beach of Agua Fresca

      As for the daily monitoring of AB Rio Grande - this was done by three British submarines))
      Quote: old man54
      I don’t understand your blame for not taking TAVKR for the “mission”?

      Eats a lot, little use
      An extra target, while also too bulky, difficult and dangerous to operate
      Quote: old man54
      And most importantly, pr. 1143 is also a helicopter carrier !! Single instances of turntables on the BOD could solve the problem of providing MP on the shore, their prompt communication with the NK squadron, and ??

      Anti-submarine cruiser Leningrad and container ships with turntables
      1. old man54
        old man54 8 September 2013 00: 53 New
        0
        Well, let's continue ??? laughing
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: old man54And why did you choose the rear base of Luanda (Angola), and not the same Cuba? I agree, a little closer The difference is 5-6 thousand kilometers !!!

        I have to agree, I didn’t write a card, I apologize! repeat I don’t have exact data, I don’t know the special program for determining distances, but I also have a globe. From Luanda, it turns out roughly 8 tkm (roughly) to sotrov, which with the 1-th refueling even allows you to work on AB Rio Grande on the matrix. But from Cuba one way only 11000 km (roughly). Oleg, you're right here (although the difference is not 5t.km)! hi
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        As for TsU - a pair of Tu-95RC from Angola

        Well, if he decided to use the Tu-95RC as well as the Legends (although why ??), then their 2's are definitely not enough! At the maximum range, they fly away for almost 24 hours (all flight time), i.e. to constantly illuminate the situation in the approaches to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, they will be forced to stay in the air a day after a bit, than you will actually kill them in a maximum of a week. But after such a departure, the crew gets enough sleep only for almost a day! Then come to yourself, you need to recover. The optimum is the 4 Tu-95RC, with the crew operating mode in three days. And the cars will not be so loaded, and the technicians will have time to service them, without emergency.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: old man54 Moreover, it seems that even the only field was in the mainland south of the country, from which their Argentines then blew! There is only a landing from a submarine, SLCM has not yet been

        looking for what landing? If DRG then I agree with you!
        And who said that there was no SLCM, more? And what about the P-5 on the nuclear submarine pr.675 (8 KR)? Or DEPL pr.651 Juliet with 4-me KR? Launch range 500 km.
      2. old man54
        old man54 8 September 2013 01: 49 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        sending bombers without an escort is risky, however, there is another option - 68 bis artillery

        Well, a cruiser like that immediately to send for shelling the coast at the end of the 20 century is very reckless, without preparation, especially ABB! He can be “reassured” while approaching, while the runway of the base is in order, and besides, no one has canceled the mines on the shelf!
        But the "bombers" I would send! But not just like that, I will explain:
        1. The invasion operation must begin with the study of threats and their neutralization, from which the removal from the game of Rio Grande is one of the priority tasks!
        2. An operation plan is being drawn up, and a team of the DRG is selected, for example, from the special forces of the Navy. Accordingly, they are equipped, prepared (2-3 of the day).
        3. The nuclear submarine, even if pr.627, is preparing for the transition to the South Atlantic, on which the DRG is loaded, 2 weeks and it is already there.
        4. Disembarkation at night or through TA in scuba gear, or in view of the weakness of Argentinean PLO in surface on rubber boats. + 1 day for the group to go to the ABB Rio Grande area.
        5. 2 / 3 days for reconnaissance, determine the guard station layouts and their shift schedule. Determination of the location of the air defense radar, PU SAM air defense base, points for.
        6. A radio signal with a digital code is transmitted on a separate channel per day, which means that from the moment it is transmitted, exactly Tu-95 will appear over the ABB in a day.
        7. The DRG is completely ready, the goals are set and distributed among the members of the group. An hour after 3 / 4 before the corrected time of the appearance of the "bombers", another signal is sent over the target, already from the strategists themselves, digital, which does not mean anything.
        8. minutes for 40 before the estimated time, without extra noise, the tanker is captured, preferably a semitrailer and with fuel. 2 of a DRG member get into the cab and drive directly to the runway, accelerate on it and approximately in the middle artificially turn it on board, across the runway. Then they crawl out through the windshield, set fire to the escaping fuel and leave the AVB guard. Before the refueling of the refueling agent on the runway, the security of the ABB does not suspect anything.
        9. The attacker’s explosion serves as a signal for the rest of the group and they trigger explosives under all radar antennas, air defense systems, and air defense systems responsible for air defense of the Rio Grande ABB area.
        10. The base has become helpless from air attacks: its runway is blocked for at least 1 hours (at best); the command of the base is not aware of the approach of the strategists to it (since they were at a distance of about 500 km from it, and I am sure that Argentina did not have radar detection then operating further than 350 / 400 km).
        11. In 30 / 40 min. a Tu-95 squadron (12 LA) appears above the base, lines up for carpet bombing and irones everything you need: a runway; aircraft parking; fuel and fuel storage facilities; taxiing; barracks and service buildings! And they do it FAB-500, which is left even in a concrete runway with funnels up to 5 meters deep and up to 15 meters in diameter.
        12. In order for the Tu-95 not to get lost, it happens that the DRG can pre-set the 2 beacon on the nearest hill, in the drive system of which the planes will orient for the signal for accurate access to the ABB.
        13. Rio Grande ABB is out of service for at least a month, and not a Tu-95 threat from Argentinean IA! Those. all the time the database on MTVD for the islands. good Now you can never strain for air defense on our NK! wink
      3. old man54
        old man54 8 September 2013 02: 05 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: old man54
        They even drove the DRG there and they watched 5 days for this VVB. How do you know that 5 days?

        I read, for a long time somewhere, that the SAS group was monitoring the base and collecting information for its destruction. About the "5" days it is very intuitive, I don’t remember exactly. request
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: old man54
        I don’t understand your inappropriately not to take TAVKR on the “mission”? Eats a lot, a little sense. Extra goal, but also too bulky, difficult and dangerous to operate.

        Well, he is no less reliable than other ships of the Navy of the USSR, read at least on Wiki how many times this project went into the ocean and into the Mediterranean for long-distance trips! The fact that he eats a lot, you already Alexander, "KAA Boa", answered. And where will you place the air group? You yourself write that shaving more than 100 aircraft was used in the operation. On pr.1123? So there all 14 LA is placed in the hangar, and only mad people are lucky to drive them across the ocean across the ocean!
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Anti-submarine cruiser Leningrad and container ships with turntables

        Well, I already wrote about Leningrad above, you’ll bring a maximum of 15 turntables to it, and 40 pieces easily to Kiev! There is a difference? And besides, you can pull up the Yak-38 attack aircraft and base them in the same place, but you can’t go to Moscow! In addition, are you aware that pr.1123 has terrible moonshine? When “Moscow” only thought of going out to the Atlantic and got there in a storm of course, then in the 5 / 7 ball storm its navigation bridge swooped straight, and this is the height of 23 meters! And where is there to go to the South Atlantic, with its terrible storms, the ship can only be saved from the storm later?
        People have already written about container ships, I don’t want to repeat myself. I can only add that they were used by Britons from hopelessness, they did not have our TAVKR then! If they hadn’t destroyed their R1980 “Arc Royal I” in 09, then he would not have been there! And in general, in order to convert a container ship into a helicopter carrier, put pumps for refueling aircraft and fire systems, equip housing for the crew and technical staff, you need a lot of time, but you took 2 weeks to prepare!! fellow
      4. old man54
        old man54 8 September 2013 02: 36 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Old Man54A
        why did you choose the rear base of Luanda (Angola), and not the same Cuba? I agree, a little closer.
        The difference is 5-6 thousand kilometers !!!

        I also found a counterargument against what would still be to do the rear base in Angola. However, please read recourse
        http://bratishka.ru/archiv/2008/3/2008_3_14.php
  20. old man54
    old man54 31 August 2013 04: 26 New
    0
    (Continued)
    4. You last time claimed that the Yak-38 can only "carry" the FAB-100. I wanted to write a counterargument, but then laziness became simple, I'm sorry. You are very wrong about our attack aircraft, Oleg! So, the Yak-38, in addition to the R-13/60 melee and pendant guns can carry:
    Yak-38 is able to attack ground and surface targets at any time.
    All weapons are located under the wing on four beam holders BD3-60-23F1, each of which is capable of carry ammunition in caliber up to 500 kg. Maximum combat load is 1000 kg.
    For ground and surface attacks may apply guided missiles X-23M and X-25MRplaced on unified launchers APU-68U. For radio command missile guidance, the Delta-NG2 overhead container is used.
    To attack ground and surface targets the following may apply unguided rockets:
    S-5 placed in 16-charging blocks UB-16-57UMP or in 32-charging blocks UB-32A and UB-32M
    S-8 placed in 20-charging blocks B-8M1
    S-24B or S-24BNK placed on PU-12-40 launchers
    Possible application following types of aviation ammunition free fall (ABSP):
    High-explosive bombs - FAB-100-M54; FAB-250-230
    High-explosive fragmentation bombs - OFAB-100-120; OFAB-100NV; OFAB-250-270; OFAB-250-M54
    Cluster aerial bombs - RBK-250 GPAB-2,5M; RBC-500 ZAB-2,5SM; RBC-500 SHOAB-0,5M
    Incendiary tanks - ЗБ-360; Zb-500

    so what, do we need such a plane on the Falkland Theater, huh? bully
    5. But the Soviet Navy in 82 had a very big problem, alas, about which no one remembered. crying As of 1982, we have was not in the ranks of landing deck helicopters, generally!! request The famous Ka-29 started production only in 1984! And here is the main problem, Oleg! How to quickly land an airborne assault, DRG, and MP reconnaissance group ashore is not clear. How to evacuate the wounded? The Ka-27 does not take many passengers on board.
    But overall well done Oleg, great! (only why the hell in the "Avenue of the Winners" of our Navy did the Angilian get lost, I don’t understand?)
    1. Santa Fe
      31 August 2013 22: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: old man54
      You last time claimed that the Yak-38 can only be carried by the FAB-100

      It’s clear that I exaggerated

      Another thing is that in combined arms combat, bombs weighing more than 100 kg are not required (it was not by chance that the Luftwaffe had only 50, and then 250 kg). There were no super-fortifications and bunkers in the Falklands.

      Perfectly handle the 6-inch cruisers and ship MLRS A-215. The landing will have T-54/55 tanks, BM-21 mobile MLRS (hail), D-20 howitzers + mortars, PT-76, etc.
      There was simply no need for the Yak-38
      Quote: old man54
      As of 1982, we were not in the ranks of landing deck helicopters, in general !!

      Come on?
      Ka-25 / 27 - to dismantle the filling and here you have the finished transporter - ~ 10 people or 4-6 stretcher will fit

      Mi-4 - up to 16 passengers

      Mi-8, finally (where to land? On a container ship or cruiser "Leningrad")

      This is an Amersky Sea Hawk, dismantled to the skeleton - as you see, it turned out to be a solid transporter
      1. old man54
        old man54 8 September 2013 02: 32 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: old man54
        You last time claimed that the Yak-38 can only be carried by the FAB-100
        It’s clear that I exaggerated

        not really, look for your saying? bully
        you directly said that they are not needed, because except FAB-100 can not use anything. wink
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The 6 inches of cruisers and A-215 ship MLRSs will do just fine. The landing will have T-54 / 55 tanks, BM-21 mobile MLRSs (city), D-20 howitzers + mortars, PT-76, etc. There was simply no need for the Yak-38

        Well, how else can you prove it ?? Well, the end of the Second World War, 44 / 45 of the year, with both front-line artillery, with the BM-13 MLRS, and with various self-propelled guns everything was more than okay then, do you agree? We had enough of them at the front, but for some reason we stubbornly continued to actively use attack aircraft during operations: both IL-2 and IL-10! From nefig do? or is there still a wide range of tasks that, especially during the offensive, are only available for attack aircraft ?? And the role of attack aircraft is still very important in combined-arms operations! So what, do we need the Yak-38 in the Falklands (Malvins) or not? bully
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ka-25 / 27 - to dismantle the filling and here you have the finished transporter - ~ 10 people or 4-6 stretcher will fit

        on Ka-25 the passenger cabin is very small, there is 3 / 4 person only sitting! There are more Ka-27s, but in the movie "Single Voyage" there are 5 MP and 1 Amer soldiers occupying the entire cargo compartment, remember? I agree that the DRG or the MP reconnaissance group on several Ka-27s can be landed, but here is a massive landing party from the battalion ... no! Problem!
        Dismantling the entire equipment will take a lot of time, it's not a removable trunk to remove from the roof of a car! I've been personally and more than once in the cargo compartment of the Mi-24 and Mi-8, and it’s the same as the truck body and the trunk of the Volga car!
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Mi-4 - up to 16 passengers Mi-8, finally (where to put? On a container ship or cruiser "Leningrad")

        in these turntables, the rotor hub is not equipped with a mouth for folding olpastes with faith even, as in Kamov deck machines, how can I carry them around the oceans? They even flurry the squally wind of the blade, and then what? You can’t lower them into the hangar, bring 3 / 5 pieces to the PP and then suffer with their combat use? In addition, it will be necessary to re-equip the carrier’s NK systems for the operation of these types of helicopters, replacing spare parts, their placement, rebuilding the mounting brackets for aircraft (MI) on the PP and so on. And this is all the time, Orleg, and it is always against us! hi
      2. Alex 241
        Alex 241 8 September 2013 02: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ka-25 / 27 - to dismantle the filling and here you have the finished transporter - ~ 10 people or 4-6 stretcher will fit
        KA-29
  21. Su-9
    Su-9 1 September 2013 07: 48 New
    +1
    Thank you very cool article - and just about the topic of discussion in the "British Navy: degradation or prosperity?"
    At least I see some answers to my pessimism. crying
    Once again making a reservation that I have no doubt in the strength of the Navy of the 80s and the final approach, but it would be very interesting to know opinions on the real ability to support the invasion fleet.
    For 30 warships, the Angles took about 60 support ships (tankers, supply ships, hospitals ...)
    How fast could the USSR have put together such a thing?
    From what I saw in the sources, the degree of mobilization readiness of the ships (and the combat readiness) we had was less than 50% on average.
    So it would be very interesting to look at the squadron's list of names - solely for its own alternative story.
    Well, then write a book about how we are releasing Singapore under Andropov. I will share the fee wink
  22. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 1 September 2013 15: 24 New
    +2
    My new friend, Andrey, brought me to the article, for which many thanks to him.
    In fact. Undoubtedly, the USSR fleet would have coped with the task, had it been set by the leadership. The estimates are generally correct, but there are a couple of points from which the article of a respected author would only benefit.
    Quote:"Behind the hypocritical terminology of the" Large anti-submarine ship of the 1134B project "(" Berkut-B ") lies the 8500-ton missile cruiser with hypertrophied anti-submarine weapons."
    This statement is at least incorrect. 1134B was never classified as RKR, since it did not have a specialized complex of the Kyrgyz Republic. Adoption (!) In the 1984 year of the URK-5 "Bell" B allowed him to attack NK with weak air defense at D = 10-50 km. They never shot at 55 km, although the energy range of the rocket allowed it to be done. Therefore, in the 1982 year, he would not have been able to play the role of RKR, since by its mission and main portable weapon it was an anti-submarine ship of the ocean zone. Its main task is the fight against submarines in the areas of their combat patrol.
    Quote: "in addition to the possible participation in the operation of the TAVKRs" Kiev "and" Minsk "(although is it worth taking such huge and gluttonous ships on a long voyage that would drop a couple of hundred bombs?)"
    1. Gluttonous? 1 of naval fuel oil per 1 mile at a speed of 18 knots - is it gluttonous? What kind of fuel did the container ships go? Do they have specialized hangars for maintenance and aircraft regulations? And where to store and most importantly to refuel (with nitrogen!) Aircraft, where to store the base for them? So what’s the result: container carriers and lighter carriers are more expensive and, most importantly, less functional than TAKR.
    2. Drop a couple of bombs can and a little, but to fulfill the function of an air patrol, YAK-38 when hovering from the ship - they could. KA-31 (albeit 02 units) could play the role of AWACS, even MI-6 could sit on the deck, not to mention MI-24. So obviously they would not be superfluous.
    Quote: "Part of the personnel will be able to be placed on board hospital ships of the Navy of the USSR." So it is tempting to coddle: "What, Gustlov’s laurels do not give rest?" This is the first. And, secondly, the Marines are so busy during the transition with snow-white sterile hospitals that not a single San-Epidemic service will wash them off in a year. Therefore, this idea is flawed. MMF vessels that are not suitable for transporting l / s require additional equipment in terms of amenities, because when going to 14, you need to go somewhere 24-25 days. And this is a minimum of 3's one-time meals and 2's one-time visits to latrine. Plus dishwashing, washing and washing l / s. So not comme il faut, however!
    A few thoughts after reading the posts.
    1. TAKR had 2 cargo cranes: bow capacity 12t, stern - 6t. Cranes were controlled remotely. According to the technical specifications, they had a mm rope course and could load RO.
    2. About FKP. With the arrival of TAKR in the CP Sea, the headquarters of 5 OpEsk jumped in with him from the Volga PB and hoped that F-specialists had specialized jobs. FKP was a huge hall in the 2 level with all the tablets and the necessary devices, controls and communications for making a real-time decision. So, "dugout" for the OS is not suitable for a number of reasons understandable to operators.
    3. Communication with Moscow - through space, BP-19 / 4.
    These are my modest additions to the weighty and generally successful article by O. Kaptsov.
    1. old man54
      old man54 1 September 2013 22: 42 New
      0
      Very good and balanced comment, I liked it! But ...:
      Quote: BoA KAA
      KA-31 (albeit 02 units) could play the role of AWAC

      and here's what the gracious Wikipedia writes, Alexander:
      The development of the Ka-31 helicopter of the Kamov Design Bureau began in 1985. The glider and the power plant of the Ka-29 helicopter were taken as the basis. The first flight of the Ka-31 took place in 1987. The helicopter was adopted by the Russian Navy in 1995.

      So request Well, and more:
      Quote: BoA KAA
      even MI-6 could land on deck, not to mention MI-24

      Yes, they could land it, but how can they be transported beyond 20000 km through a storm and how many pieces can be attached to the checkpoint? 3/5 pieces, no more! Indeed, they will not fit into the dimensions of the TAVKR elevator either! And is it worth it?
    2. Santa Fe
      2 September 2013 01: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: BoA KAA
      hiding an 8500-ton missile cruiser with hypertrophied anti-submarine weapons. "
      This statement is at least incorrect.

      Why is this not correct?
      The main armament 1134B - missile weapons. When compared with the western Belknapam, Tikonderogam and other 1134B - the most powerful cruiser URO.

      The fact that in the USSR Navy only ships with striking weapons were referred to the RKR ... well, this is pure philosophy.
      Quote: BoA KAA
      Gluttonous? 1 ton of naval fuel oil per 1 mile at a speed of 18 knots - is it gluttonous?

      The Britons, on average, clocked on “odometers” of 30-35 thousand miles
      In the case of TAVKR, 30 thousand tons of fuel are released. This is 5-6 BMT only for supplying fuel for one "Kiev"!
      Crew - 1600 people. + Avigroup (300-400) !!!

      At the same time, he could not provide any real help to the squadron. Awfully not efficient ship. Both in peacetime and in wartime.
      Quote: BoA KAA
      What kind of fuel did container ships go?

      Fuel oil, solarium.
      gas turbine walkers on light fractions.
      Quote: BoA KAA
      but to fulfill the function of an air patrol, Yak-38 when hovering from a ship - they could

      What for?
      the Soviet squadron has a decent air defense system
      Quote: BoA KAA
      and tempts to laugh: "What, Gustlov’s laurels do not give rest?"

      Did the Argentos have a submarine fleet?

      In the end, tankers, transports and hospital ships will be needed in any case, and your argument with Gustlov does not make sense
      Quote: BoA KAA
      Do they have specialized hangars for maintenance and aircraft regulations?

      Britons somehow brought their turntables, did not stick up

      The aircraft are based on the shore, but we are going to build an airfield there)))
  23. Santa Fe
    2 September 2013 01: 41 New
    0
    Quote: BoA KAA
    And where to store and most importantly to refuel (with nitrogen!) Aircraft, where to store the base for them?

    Once from the deck of a container ship take off;
    BZ - on one of the auxiliary ships, along with the b / p to the Grad and 152 mm howitzers
    Quote: BoA KAA
    And, secondly, the Marines do so during the transition, snow-white sterile hospitals

    Like "Russian pigs"?)))
    But what about the neat and tolerant Britons on the Queen Elizabeth 2 liner?)))
    Quote: BoA KAA
    MMFs require additional equipment in terms of household amenities, since with a course of 14 knots you need to go somewhere 24-25 days

    You can transfer them to Angola with transport sides - then 5 days on the ship - and again ashore!
    Quote: BoA KAA
    About FKP. With the arrival of TAKR in the CP Sea, headquarters of 5 OpESk jumped and moved to it from the Volga PB and could not get enough

    What about 68bis-based command cruisers?
  24. Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 4 September 2013 05: 17 New
    +1
    Cases of bygone days ... But the article is interesting, although it slightly resembles a fantastic action movie in the style of an alternative story :)
  25. Technologist
    Technologist 8 September 2013 05: 45 New
    0
    Yeah, there was a time, there was a COUNTRY.
  26. mithridate
    mithridate 10 September 2013 18: 36 New
    0
    yes, the fleet was mighty. The only consolation is that people stayed the same
  27. xomaNN
    xomaNN 25 November 2013 16: 59 New
    0
    Is it possible to recall the "peak" period of the Soviet Navy repeat And the Argentines would have surrendered when the squadron was still halfway to the islands.