Military Review

Shipbuilding. Plans for 2014 year

41
Shipbuilding. Plans for 2014 year



The outgoing year - even though 2013 was extremely successful in terms of implementing shipbuilding programs of the Russian Navy. Total displacement of all transmitted the fleet warships almost doubled that of 2012. And this is without taking into account the combat and auxiliary units laid down and launched into the water!

By chance in 2013, the grandiose projects of the past came to a final - for example, on December 30, the unique K-560 submarine Severodvinsk will be handed over to the fleet. Sailors have been waiting for this event for more than 20 years - from a distant 1993 year. And then, finally, it happened - the first Russian submarine of the 4 generation was enlisted in the Northern Fleet.

December 23 hosted the transfer to the fleet of K-550 "Alexander Nevsky" - the second strategic missile submarine of the strategic purpose XRUMX Ave. "Borey". 955 thousand tons of steel structures. Armament - Bulava ballistic missiles. Nevsky is much younger than Severodvinsk: its construction took a little less than 15 years (tab - March 10).

Of the other new ships worth noting missile corvettes pr 20380. In the outgoing year, the Baltic Fleet was supplemented with the corvette “Boky” (built during 8 years, from 2005 onwards). But that is not all. December 25 went to factory trials next, the fourth in a row, the corvette "Resistant": the transfer of this ship will take place approximately in the first half of 2014 year.



The corvette “Perfect”, destined for the Pacific Fleet, was a little delayed in terms of commissioning. The construction of the ship at the Amur Shipyard was suspended due to a significant excess of the estimate (initially the cost of construction was estimated at 7 billion rubles). Corvette will be tested in 2014 year.

Despite the obvious progress and a solid amount of combat units transferred to the fleet (two nuclear submarines - a formidable force), the construction deadlines worthy of the Guinness Book of Records are still suspicious: 8 years for the corvette (coastal missile defense crew) total displacement of 2200 tons ... Interesting How long at this pace will take the construction of 10-tysyachtonnogo destroyer? A rhetorical question, no answer is required. All hope for the gradual development of domestic shipbuilding and acceleration of construction in the near future, the 4,5 trillion was allocated for this purpose within the state defense order. rubles, and the shipbuilding industry itself is under the watchful supervision of the state.



Another surprising feature of shipbuilding programs is a wide range of auxiliary ships and support vessels projects being built in the interests of the Navy. On the one hand, this technique is the backbone of any fleet — without it, formidable cruisers will lose the lion’s share of their combat capability. On the other hand, the situation is when the fleet replenishes 1-2 with corvettes over the course of a year, but the Navy leadership massively creates orders for large and small hydrographic vessels (three projects at once!), Communication vessels (in the era of satellite phones and helicopters!) And other, undoubtedly, useful, but far from the most necessary technique, it all looks like an obvious imbalance against the background of the overall development of the Navy. A man in the street has the right to ask a reasonable question: should a war happen tomorrow - will we fight with oceanographers and connected advices? Why “waste funds” on such projects at a time when there is not enough power and resources to build normal warships?


Vessel communication pr. 1388H3



Oceanographic ship pr. 22010 "Yantar"

Spiteful critics say about the notorious "development of allocated funds." But, according to the personal conviction of the author, the domestic shipbuilding industry only does what it can do. The main thing - do not stand still. In the future, destroyers will be assembled with the hands of these guys - so let them train on hydrographs and oceanographers as long as there is such an opportunity. The funds will not be spent in vain, such equipment will certainly be useful for naval sailors.

Two nuclear-powered ships, a corvette and two small rocket ships. These are the overall results for the 2013 year. It is no secret that the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) was able to achieve these successes due to the completion and commissioning of ships laid many years ago.

But will it be possible to repeat these results next year?

Plans for 2014 year

“Oh, how much is not done. And how much remains to be done! ” The old naval joke well describes the current situation in the USC. The following year, the launch of the operation of a significant number of ships. It remains unclear when the issue with the frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" (the lead ship of the 22350 Ave.) will be resolved. The new, heavily armed frigate, positioned as a kind of replacement for destroyers, was launched in the 2010 year, but so far has not managed to go to the factory running tests.

And what happens to the large landing ship "Ivan Gren"? It is being built from the 2004 year, and, obviously, will continue to be built in the future.
The BDK Ave. 11711 "Ivan Gren" was created on the basis of the drawings of the Soviet BDK Ave. 1171 "Tapir" - extremely successful ships, for more than 40 years of service in the domestic fleet. Strong, reliable transport platform with a nasal ramp. Interestingly, when the USSR such BDK built without unnecessary talk for a half - a maximum of two years. Baked like hot cakes.


"Ivan Gren". No complex missile systems and radars with AFAR - however, the construction of the “Grena” stretched for 10 + years

In general, there were a lot of questions about USC. But, fortunately, the situation is not as critical as it might have seemed at first glance - the next year promises to bring many bright surprises.

First of all, we are talking about submarines: in December of the outgoing year, state trials of the third SSBN from the Boreev family - K-551 "Vladimir Monomakh" began. Unlike its predecessors, long-term construction, this submarine cruiser was built from 2006 year - and now, already a year, how it is afloat, going through various stages of the ZHI / GIS. It is planned that the boat will join the fleet at the beginning of 2014 of the year.

Another expected ship is the Novorossiysk B-261 multi-purpose diesel-electric submarine, which is being built according to the 636.3 project. (modernized "Varshavyanka"). In the “stealth” parameter, the diesel-electric submarines of this type surpass any of the existing nuclear submarines. “Black Holes” - this is what the Warsawyankas in the West have received. Novorossiysk will be commissioned with an updated composition of weapons - instead of part of the missile ammunition, the boat will be equipped with cruise missiles of the Caliber complex. B-261 "Novorossiysk" was launched in November 2013, and is scheduled for transfer to the Navy in the summer of 2014.

The third large combat unit is the Vladivostok landing helicopter carrier. The head representative of the family "Mistral a la Rus." The result of the joint efforts of USC, the French defense company DCNS and the South Korean corporation STX. A large 200-meter ship was laid at the shipyard at Saint-Nazaire on February 1 of the year 2012 - and in the summer the 2013 was launched. By this time, the aft part of Vladivostok, built on the capacities of the Baltiysky Zavod, arrived in Russia (according to the terms of the contract, 20% of the hull sections were built in Russia). The need for close cooperation with foreign colleagues has had the most beneficial effect on Russian shipbuilders. All done exactly and as soon as possible.



By October 16 2013, the French docked the stern with the UDC hull and lowered the finished ship into the water. In the coming months, DVKD-1 Vladivostok should be transferred to St. Petersburg, to the outfitting wall of the Severnaya Verf plant. USC specialists will only have to retrofit the ship with Russian armament, carry out a full cycle of factory and state tests, and then transfer the ship to the Pacific Fleet. In the fall of 2013, the formation of the crew for the first helicopter carrier as part of the Russian Navy began. Vladivostok is expected to join the Navy at the end of 2014.

Of particular interest is история with the frigate "Admiral Grigorovich" - the lead ship of the 11356 project. Being built as a cheaper replacement for superfrigates of 22350 Ave., which had not been tackled from the very beginning, Admiral Grigorovich was planned to be launched in the fall of 2013 of the year. Alas, there are just a few days left until the new year, but this event never happened. Despite the delay in construction, the frigate is in a high degree of readiness and can be accepted into the Navy by the end of next year.

Initially, two more frigates of the 2014 Ave - Admiral Essen and Admiral Makarov were scheduled for launch on 11356. But it seems that this joyful event will happen no earlier than 2015-16. The "Makarov" is still not completed the formation of the body. It is also necessary to take into account that after launching the ships will need at least another year to complete and saturate with all the necessary equipment. And after - a long cycle of ZHI / GIS.


The frigate of the Indian Navy F44 "Tabar" (export version of the frigates of the Ave. 11356 being built for the Russian Navy)


Corvettes! Here everything is the same. The plans are two units - "Resistant" and "Perfect" (project 20380). There is a high probability that in 2014, the composition of the Caspian flotilla will replenish the small rocket ship Velikiy Ustyug (RTOs of 21631 Ave. the cipher "Buyan-M").

On this list of warships of the Navy, whose entry into service is scheduled for 2014 year, ends unexpectedly. Total:

- underwater strategic missile carrier - 1 units;
- multipurpose diesel-electric submarines - 1 units;
- amphibious assault carrier - 1 units;
- Frigates pr. 22350 - 2 units. (let's hope that this time the epic with the Gorshkov will be completed, followed by the Admiral Kasatonov);
- frigates pr 11356 - 1-2 units;
- Corvettes pr 20380 - 2 units;
- MRK - 1 units

Few? Did you expect more?

The positive trend in shipbuilding, observed in 2012 and 2013, persists, and the fleet gradually increases its strength. In addition to the above equipment, you should not forget about the grandiose plans to modernize the nuclear Orlans - 13 June 2013 Sevmash received a contract for the modernization of the TARKR Admiral Nakhimov worth 50 billion rubles. (this is 1,5 times more than what was paid for both Mistral). As of December 2013, work is underway on the installation of facilities for carrying out repair work, fault detection and unloading of old equipment is underway on the cruiser. The first modernized "Orlan" promises to replenish the current composition of the Navy in 2018 year.

From the negative points: the construction dates are still not encouraging. Regularly there are scandals associated with the excess of estimates of the ships under construction and the search for the corruption component. The result is predictable - after a short time there should be a statement about the suspension of the serial construction of one or another type of ships (as happened with corvettes pr 20385). A statement from officials sounded at the end of the year about the inexpediency of the further construction of nuclear submarines of the 4 generation, 885 Ave. "Ash" and "Yasen-M". Allegedly, the boats have an exorbitant cost, because the initial plans for the construction of 8 submarines should be revised downwards. And as their replacement, you need to develop a project of a simpler and cheaper submarine for mass production.

Finally, the banal absence of large surface units - missile cruisers, destroyers ... This can only be dreamed of. Ships of similar size to modern frigates, according to the classification of the Soviet Navy, were held only as “watchdogs” or BOD of the second rank. Small things, small "change coins", built in series of 30 and more pieces. Ehh ... (in the hearts of a wave of his hand).

In general, there are enough problems. And they need to be addressed.

Next year, 2014, the USC has every chance to preserve and increase the results achieved in previous years. And to do this not only by commissioning long-term construction projects, but also to realize truly ambitious plans of our time!

So we wish the domestic shipbuilders celebrate the outgoing year according to the rules, and then proceed to the shock work to break all the records of previous years!


There are no guns and missiles on this ship, but it can be safely considered a warship. The large reconnaissance ship of the Russian Navy "Yuri Ivanov" (Ave. 18280), launched in September 2013. According to the plan, should be operational until the end of 2014. It is these scouts who are following the squadrons of the “probable enemy” in the Mediterranean, in the Sea of ​​Japan, in the Indian Ocean, and then - everywhere


K-560 "Severodvinsk", in the background - heavy nuclear missile cruiser of the 1144 "Admiral Ushakov"



Corvette "lively". Posted by Timofeev Yu. P. aka reflex_yu (Balancer Marine Forum)


We will raise a toast today
For all who are away from home,
For those who are in New Year's Eve
Leads to the lighthouses ships.
Author:
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. altman
    altman 6 January 2014 10: 38
    +20
    Well .. not 50 ships a year, but better than nothing !! drinks For those who are at sea !!!
    1. Kibalchish
      Kibalchish 6 January 2014 11: 47
      +7
      Need more ship ... lei wink
    2. kris
      kris 6 January 2014 11: 58
      +14
      Two nuclear-powered ships, a corvette and two small missile ships. These are the overall results for the 2013 year. It is no secret that the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) was able to achieve these successes thanks to the completion and commissioning of ships laid down many years ago.
      On this list of warships of the Navy, whose entry into service is scheduled for 2014 year, ends unexpectedly. Total:

      - underwater strategic missile carrier - 1 units;
      - multipurpose diesel-electric submarines - 1 units;
      - amphibious assault carrier - 1 units;
      - Frigates pr. 22350 - 2 units. (let's hope that this time the epic with the Gorshkov will be completed, followed by the Admiral Kasatonov);
      - frigates pr 11356 - 1-2 units;
      - Corvettes pr 20380 - 2 units;
      - MRK - 1 units

      Can Rear Admiral Viktor Bursuk, the deputy commander in chief of the Russian Navy for armaments, present a calculator?
      http://topwar.ru/38004-vmf-rossii-v-2014-godu-primet-v-svoy-sostav-okolo-40-kora
      bley-i-sudov.html # comment-id-1822902
      And then 3.14 does not blush!
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 6 January 2014 13: 12
        +8
        Why? This year, for example, 30 pieces were accepted. But everyone thinks, BGK, diving boats, rooks, tugs, everything that is transmitted to the Russian Navy.

        Here's an example set graphically this year, I don’t remember whether they counted on the RLS or somewhere else.
    3. Sakmagon
      Sakmagon 6 January 2014 20: 25
      +13
      better than nothing!!


      Fleet - BE!

      "Well, rat from my sea!"
      1. vaddag1
        vaddag1 7 January 2014 15: 29
        +6
        "Well, rat from my sea!" - I love this incident, reveals the whole essence of the Russian soul.
    4. Su24
      Su24 7 January 2014 15: 23
      0
      Yes, the Navy, unlike aviation, is not so happy.
  2. donavi49
    donavi49 6 January 2014 11: 23
    +12
    The construction of the ship at the Amur Shipyard was suspended due to a significant excess of the estimate (initially the cost of construction was estimated at 7 billion rubles). Corvette will be tested in 2014 year.


    It doesn’t work out only if on the shvarotovochnye without departing from the construction wall. There will be a descent, but no more.

    communication vessels (in the era of satellite phones and helicopters!)


    The communication vessel of that project is needed to deliver secret packages, important persons, small secret cargoes physically from the place of receipt to the ship.

    Why “squander funds” for such projects at a time when there is not enough strength and money to build normal warships?


    Obviously, 50-70's hydrographs are crumbling. And they can be built today at river shipyards, on which the corvette cannot be built.

    It is interesting that during the Soviet Union such BDKs were built without further ado for one and a half to a maximum of two years. Baked like hot cakes.


    SHIP DOES NOT NEED THE Navy. THIS IS NOT A BDK, BUT! Ah, the current delay is due to unparalleled DRRA3700 in September only the first shipped. To NG the second. A ship without a power plant cannot be built. The reasons for the project, then the GOZ was rare and everything was stuffed there, corny, to support the enterprises.

    And yes 2015 year already Gren according to plans.

    according to the classification of the Navy of the USSR, modern frigates passed no other than "watchdogs" or BOD of the second rank. Small things, small "bargaining chips", built in series of 30 or more pieces. Ehh ... (a wave of a hand in the hearts).


    But the current generation relies on frigates as the main warhorse and destroyers as the main force of the fleet. Only one country in the world made the main battle horse out of destroyers, others are content with 4-10 pieces on fleets in 30-100 warships.

    And, yes, the use of the destroyer bookmark? What to put there? We won’t be able to pick 22350. For it is still in work, it is delayed, it is not ready, it has not met expectations and they are building it for a replacement. But the destroyer will have to lay even more advanced technology, or he will not perform his task today and especially tomorrow.
    1. Botanologist
      Botanologist 6 January 2014 17: 12
      +1
      Quote: donavi49
      Only one country in the world made the main battle horse of the destroyers,


      Are you talking about Japan or China wink ?
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 6 January 2014 19: 35
        +6
        About the United States of America - where is the main ship of the fleet destroyer type Burke.

        In the PLA, destroyers of the 051, 052 type are still a small number of the bulk of frigates of the 053, 054 type, corvettes of the lightweight 053, 056 type, as well as other ships such as the MPK type 022 of which they have 80 pieces.

        Japan has 6 (!!!) adult Burke-class destroyers (Congo and Atago), the rest are destroyers not by value, but by classification. For to call Asagiri, for example (one of the most massive "destroyers" in Japan), even a frigate would be an exaggeration:
        8 old Sparrows in the form of air defense systems / ASROK in the form of PLUR
        8 Harpoon
        1 76 mm gun
        2 20 mm Fanags
        6 324 mm torpedoes
        1 helicopter
        ??
        Все.

        We have more serious armament on the head corvette 20380 "Guarding".

        Of the new Akizuki, he is good, but he also does not reach the same Burke or 045.
        1. Santa Fe
          6 January 2014 21: 08
          +1
          Quote: donavi49
          Japan has 6 (!!!) adult destroyers of the Burke type (Congo and Atago), the rest of the destroyers are not by value, but by classification

          COME ON belay

          The Japs built 6 licensed Berks, but besides them they built their own destroyers with the borrowing of American technology:

          - "Murasame" - 9 units (UVP, universal and anti-aircraft artillery, turntable, radar with AFAR, anti-ship missiles, torpedoes - with full weight / and more than 6 thousand tons)

          - "Takanami" - 5 units (improved murasame)


          Murasame-class destroyers


          - a pair of elderly "Khatakadze" (peers of our BOD 1155)

          - a pair of destroyers-helicopter carriers "Hyuga"

          and finally, 4 Akizuki-class air defense destroyers - some of the best air defense destroyers in the world, equipped with BIUS ATECS (Japanese analogue of Aegis) and dual-band radar FCS-3A with active phased array.

          Akizuki ("shining moon")
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 6 January 2014 22: 32
            +3
            Murasame is a frigate, for example, an anti-aircraft missile system like our Calm on 11356 and Aster-15 on euro frigates. And this not a new generation frigate destroyer, FREMM equal for example.
            Tanakame is a similar SD-SAM, generally similar weapons and capabilities.

            Hatakadze - gathered to write them off, plus there is Standard-1 which all countries except Iran and Turkey wrote off.

            Hyuga is a classic helicopter carrier with emphasis on helicopters (and not like Cavour, for example, which is more like a landing in the Port), and Si Sparou and Falangs installations for self-defense.

            Akizuki is not 4, but 2, one can argue about the best too. Trite on the possibilities even Congo is better wink . And if you compare with Sejong the Great which is today the most powerful non-nuclear surface ship in the world ...


            In other words, if you follow your logic, then Grigorovich, Essen, Makarov, Butakov, Istomin, Gorshkov, Kasatnov, Golovko and Isakov can be called destroyers.
            1. Santa Fe
              6 January 2014 23: 01
              +1
              Quote: donavi49
              Murasame is a frigate, for example, an anti-aircraft missile system like our Calm on 11356 and Aster-15 on euro frigates.

              So, let's first find out - what is a destroyer? wink
              Quote: donavi49
              Tanakame is a similar SD-SAM, generally similar weapons and capabilities.

              Firstly, it is not

              Secondly, the same "Kongo" are deprived of a helicopter hangar and, like all ships of the "Arlie Burke" family, are vulnerable to low-flying anti-ship missiles (therefore, Akizuki are being built to cover them)
              But this, in your logic, does not prevent them from being considered destroyers

              The "Takanami" has 32 UVP (ESSM- 4 in 1 cell, ASROK), 8 anti-ship missiles, artillery, a helicopter, a cool radar - the world's first shipborne radar with AFAR (inherited from Muraseme), complete with / and 6400 tons , ocean seaworthiness and cruising range ...
              Quote: donavi49
              Hatakadze - gathered to write them off, plus there is Standard-1 which all countries except Iran and Turkey wrote off.

              No better than 956
              Quote: donavi49
              Hyuga is a classic helicopter carrier

              "Classic helicopter carrier" - and there are such?

              Integrated armament complex (16 UVP - ESSM / ASROK), sonar, dual-band radar with active headlights, ATECS CIUS, teat sonar, speed 30 knots

              This is a powerful anti-submarine destroyer with air defense function - a traditional class of ships JMSDF


              The destroyer-helicopter carrier Shirane is the predecessor of Hyuga (the layout is similar to the PLO cruiser pr. 1123 "Moscow")

              Quote: donavi49
              Akizuki is not 4, but 2,

              4. Two in service, two more launched - will be completed this year
              Quote: donavi49
              And if you compare with Sejong the Great, which today is the most powerful non-nuclear surface ship in the world ...

              But this is interesting))
              on the basis of what was this conclusion made? KingSedgeon - just an analogue of Burke, though obsolete
            2. 1c-inform-city
              1c-inform-city 7 January 2014 00: 33
              +2
              Quote: donavi49
              In other words, if you follow your logic, then Grigorovich, Essen, Makarov, Butakov, Istomin, Gorshkov, Kasatnov, Golovko and Isakov can be called destroyers

              By shock capabilities you can safely. It does not reach autonomy, but this is a conditional thing.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Santa Fe
                7 January 2014 01: 25
                0
                Quote: 1c-inform-city
                It does not reach autonomy, but this is a conditional thing.

                Is it just conditional?

                And seaworthiness?
                Ammunition?
                Detection tools and SLAs?

                Finally, the head Murasame was built 18 years ago - Gorshkovs and Grigorovichs are still waiting

                Atago on the left, Akebono on the right (Murasame type)
    2. Santa Fe
      6 January 2014 17: 14
      +1
      Quote: donavi49
      The communication vessel of that project is needed for delivery of secret packages, important persons, small secret cargo physically from the place of receipt to the ship.

      Does it really need an 500-ton yacht for a couple of hundred million rubles ?! belay

      Does the General Staff of the Navy know anything about such a means as a "helicopter"?


      Ka-226T



      Robinson R44


      Eurocopter EC-120
      1. awg75
        awg75 6 January 2014 18: 28
        +5
        specially for you dear friend - a communications ship is a reconnaissance ship !!!
        1. Santa Fe
          6 January 2014 18: 39
          +5
          Quote: awg75
          communication ship is a reconnaissance ship !!!

          Oh really?? You do not confuse it with CERs?

          20.06.2013/1388/402 at OJSC "Sokolskaya shipyard" the launch of a communication boat for the Navy of project XNUMXNZ, factory # XNUMX, designed to support activities in the area of ​​naval bases, transport personnel, supplies and small consignments of cargo.

          Simply put - a yacht for the command staff for a couple of hundred million rubles: fishing, a small cruise - ehh ...
          1. mamba
            mamba 8 January 2014 15: 28
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Simply put - a yacht for the command staff for a couple of hundred million rubles: fishing, small cruise

            Well, our admirals do not rest on the same vessel! wink
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 6 January 2014 11: 31
    +10
    They would have a firm hand at the helm of the state, and they would have learned to build again, and after a couple of demonstrative executions of embezzlers, theft would have begun to steal less, but this would not happen due to the decay of those in power on the basis of personal enrichment and high armchairs. new ones will prevail in the future.
    Which is sad. And amuse yourself with the illusions that the construction of a corvette in 8 years is normal, from my point of view and common sense it looks idiotic ...
    1. Santa Fe
      6 January 2014 17: 04
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      after a couple of exemplary executions of embezzlers, less would steal

      To the question: How did you overcome corruption in your country? Old Man Lee Kuan Yew answered ingenuously: plant 10 of your best friends. You and they know why.

      Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in Skolkovo, 2009 year. Of course, the bear has nothing to do with it, these words were addressed to other people.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 6 January 2014 18: 27
        +20
        I dare to assure you that in my Belarus they steal much less than yours. They try to steal a little, beat them on the hands, and they are already MAJORING large-scale, unlike your Serdyukovschina !!!.
        1. Santa Fe
          6 January 2014 18: 35
          +21
          Quote: Rurikovich
          I dare to assure you that much less is stolen in my Belarus

          Belarusians and Old Man sincere honor and respect

          1. The only country in the post-Soviet space where the "Russian question" did not arise

          2. The only country in the post-Soviet space (except for the Baltic States) that is able to withstand Russian oligarchic capital - Old Man did not give a single enterprise into the hands of the boorish Deripasok and other Abramovichs.
          Lukashenko fundamentally does not compromise on such issues and does the right thing
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 7 January 2014 01: 15
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Lukashenko fundamentally does not compromise on such issues and does the right thing

            Blessed is he who believes.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The only country in the post-Soviet space where the "Russian question" did not arise

            The only true statement.
        2. Akuzenka
          Akuzenka 8 January 2014 18: 48
          0
          We know and envy
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Hitrovan07
        Hitrovan07 7 January 2014 00: 42
        +1
        It was with Medvedev's friends that Putin began to fulfill the "rule of 10 friends."
  4. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 6 January 2014 11: 51
    +5
    God grant that the "Perfect One" will be tortured this year.
  5. moremansf
    moremansf 6 January 2014 12: 11
    +4
    The ships are very necessary for the fleet !!! The policy of EBN's "servility" to the West has led to the fact that the "natives" are already seizing our fishing vessels ... there was a time in the fishing area that naval ships carried combat service and no one dared to poke their attention to them ... but now there are problems, not enough ships ... the main thing is that the movement has begun for the better, they were able to finish building, so there will be new ones ... in January, Putin should be presented with a plan for military shipbuilding, I think that we should see a lot there ... The fleet is alive and will live !!!
  6. bddrus
    bddrus 6 January 2014 12: 12
    +3
    Well, actually, "Grad Sviyazhsk" and "Uglich" were not accepted as a part of the fleet, so with the "Veliky Ustyug" - in 2014 all 3 pieces will turn out, and if the export orders do not slow down Zelenodoltsy, then they can launch someone else. before the end of the year.
  7. BOB48
    BOB48 6 January 2014 14: 00
    -15%
    What does the Russian fleet do if a war starts? - Drowning their ships !!!!!
  8. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 6 January 2014 14: 10
    +7
    I just get the impression that our admirals and shipbuilders do not understand one simple fact, that apart from large ships, although we have little good news here, they have forgotten that the basis of the fleet is made up of the so-called. ships of the "coastal zone":
    And what we have here:
    MPK-27 (BF-7 project 1131, SF-6 project 1124, ChF-6 project 1124, TOF-8 project 1124), all buildings of the 80s, all have weak air defense (1 launcher OSA-MA and 20 missiles), incapable of hitting modern anti-ship missiles, however, on the IPC of project 1131M, except for the Strela column mount, there is no anti-ship missile either. What will replace them? SKR project 20380 so far 6 have been ordered (3 in formation, 1 in trials, 2 under construction): 4 for the Baltic Fleet, 2 for the Pacific Fleet and that's it. SKR project 20385 is a slightly different type of ships, rather a "light" frigate than a "corvette", to which the ships of project 1161.1 "Tatarstan" and "Dagestan" can also be referred.

    IPC project 1124

    IPC project 1331M
    MRK-15 (BF-4, ChF-4, SF-3, TOF-4), of which more or less modern 2 projects 1239: "Bora" and "Samum" on the Black Sea Fleet, with "Mosquitoes", however, they have The air defense system is OSA-MA, and 13 projects 1234, except for one Nakat on the Northern Fleet with Onyx, are armed with 6 P-120 anti-ship missiles, created in the 70s. Well, here, however, there is a RTO of project 21631, but the first five go to the CFL, 3 more are ordered, supposedly for the Black Sea Fleet, and the rest? Moreover, on the RTOs of project 21631, except for "Gibka", there is no air defense at all.

    ISC project 1234
    RCA-28 (BF-7, ChF-5, TOF-11, KFl-5). We reject the CFL: R-32 with Mosquito, has already left for the Baltic Fleet, and Stupinets will probably also leave. 3 RCA of project 206 most likely "on pins and needles", this is evidenced by the fact of purchase for KFl 5 MRK of project 21631. True, they are at least modernized, so on R-60 Black Sea Fleet, they installed the Kashtan air defense missile system, but this is on one of the 25.

    the modernized RCA of project 1241 R-60 passes the Bosphorus, during the "Syrian Express", the Kashtan air defense missile system is clearly visible
    Minesweepers-53 (BF-15, ChF-11, SF-11, TOF-9, KFl-7). In 2008, we handed over the "Vice-Admiral Zakharyin" project 02668, modernized project 266). The newest project 12700 "Alexandrite", which was supposed to be commissioned last year, was never handed over, especially since this is not an ocean minesweeper, but a basic one.
    Well, that's all for replacing 123 ships of the "coastal zone", we have a stretch today 9 (2 TFR project 1161.1, 3 TFR project 20380, 1 minesweeper project 02668, 3 IAC project 21630), in the near future - 12 (plus SKR project 20380, 2 MRK project 21631), well, in the best case - 21 (2 SKR project 1161.1, 6 SKR project 20380, 1 minesweeper project 02668, 1 TSC project 12700 "Alexandrite", 3 IAC project 21630, 8 MRK project 21631)
    1. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 6 January 2014 15: 50
      +6
      Well now, what about the 1-2 ships of the rank and submarine
      Well, we will not talk about the TAVKR, God forbid, "Kuznetsov" will be poisoned for repairs, which by the way has matured and will generally be left without an aircraft carrier.
      "Peter the Great" keeps an ocean watch, "Nakhimov" is being re-equipped at "Zvezdochka", they threaten to commission it by 2018, and they may take on "Lazarev" there. "Kirov" most likely everything ...

      Project 1164 RRC also keep watch: the modernized "Moscow" does not get out from the sea, performing tasks, now in the Sochi area, providing cover for the Olympics, this year "Varyag" from the Pacific Fleet joined it, "Ustinov" on modernization. Maybe they will buy the ex. "Lobov" - "Ukraine", although it will take at least 2 years from the date of purchase to its entry into the fleet, because its condition is not so hot, and the weapons systems are already outdated.

      Destroyers. Full paragraph !!! It is scary to let the 956s with their killed DEUs go far from the coast, the BODs of Project 1155 are primarily anti-submarine ships that do not have anti-ship missiles and are not intended for striking ground targets. Our only ship that can be classified as destroyer "Chabanenko" is now under repair. The laying of the first destroyer under the new project is expected already in 2016, and taking into account the current pace of construction, it will take 8-10 years before its delivery to the fleet.
      The frigates of the 22350 and 11356 projects belong to ships of the 2 rank and will occupy the niche occupied in the Soviet fleet by the TFRs of the 1135 and 61 projects.
      BDK. Full paragraph again !!! Nothing similar to the "workhorses" of the Soviet fleet BDK projects 775 and 1171 is expected in the near future, and those that remain are successfully achieved by the "Syrian Express". The Mistrals are not replacing them in any way, and the Ivan Gren is being built at such a pace that it will only enter service in 2015, and most likely as an armed transport. BDK project 1174 successfully scrapped.
      Diesel-electric submarine-project 677 "Lada" turned out to be so unsuccessful that after the entry into service of "St. Petersburg" the fleet generally wanted to abandon the project, and the diesel-electric submarine itself, only 3 years after its adoption, was sent to the Northern Fleet for testing. True, they decided to finish building 2 more boats of this project and for the Black Sea Fleet to build 6 diesel-electric submarines of project 636.6, which are a modernized version of the export 877EKM. Well, by the way, it is too early to drop the 877s themselves from the shields.

      meeting "St. Petersburg" at the Northern Fleet
      1. skiff-xnumx
        skiff-xnumx 6 January 2014 20: 55
        +3
        It’s not a pity, but Lazarev is also more likely to needles along with Kirov. In the distant future, it’s not where to modernize, but I can hardly imagine how to drag it north. But Kirov, in general, is another story with his problem with a turbo-gear unit and the dream of the sea at the pier since 1990, I think exactly on the needles. By the way, persistent rumors are hovering that when carrying out thorough repairs 1155, even a project is modernized under the Code of Criminal Procedure. But 956, too, they seemed to want it, but most likely we are repairing the withdrawal from the reserve and we are finishing the resource with needles. They made friends with the boilers.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  9. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 6 January 2014 15: 11
    +2
    Everything is of course interesting, but 636 boats are planning three in '14, well, maybe at least two will surrender. Export orders significantly hinder construction, although of course they are also needed. For example, if the Indians order at least 3 more frigates, then for us the next three will definitely move away, or the Vietnamese will order 636 and Cheetahs before. Accordingly, the completion of our series will be delayed.
  10. xomaNN
    xomaNN 6 January 2014 15: 39
    +2
    If there is not even a well-developed project of a modern shock NK, such as EM and KR, this is not encouraging. On the other hand, "having woken up from the depression of the 90s," the ship industry, having trained on corvettes, will finally switch to 6-10 thousand tonnes of NK.
  11. UVB
    UVB 6 January 2014 16: 00
    +5
    8 years for a corvette (TFR of the coastal zone) with a total displacement of 2200 tons ...
    The pace of construction is amazing! For comparison - the battleship "Empress Maria" with a displacement of more than 21 thousand tons: the beginning of construction on 30.10.1911/1.11.11/6.07.1915, launching on 12/32/8, commissioning on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX! This despite the fact that the construction of XNUMX battleships and cruisers with a displacement of up to XNUMX thousand tons and XNUMX light cruisers, not counting numerous ships of other classes, was carried out at the same time. Of course, these are completely different ships, equipment and weapons are completely different and more time is required, but the hull is also in Africa the hull, especially since then they were riveted and not welded. Compare the time from bookmark to launch!
    1. skiff-xnumx
      skiff-xnumx 6 January 2014 20: 59
      0
      It's just the matter in the equipment and suppliers thereof. The corps is now gaining in a year, and if there is a reserve, and even faster
      1. UVB
        UVB 6 January 2014 22: 31
        +1
        Quote: skiff-1980
        It's just the matter in the equipment and suppliers thereof. The corps is now gaining in a year, and if there is a reserve, and even faster

        Can you name at least one large ship that was launched less than a year after the start of construction? I mean after the collapse of the USSR.
        1. skiff-xnumx
          skiff-xnumx 8 January 2014 21: 25
          +1
          Well, if we take a purely formal approach to the issue and we are talking about hulls, then yes I can destroyers pr 956 Impressive and Eternal. From the moment of laying to commissioning less than 3 years, and this is 2000. The pace of construction is amazing. But what I’m interpreting is that I was hurt by serial construction, so the slipway is 1,5-1,8 years and the building set is 8 months. And what a pity that these ships are not for our fleet. Theoretically, with a firm contract, no one is stopping the plant from making an allowable mortgage section, it is known that mass production is cheaper and faster. And then you can report that the ship was built in 2-3 years. But there is one thing that in my head doesn’t fit in my head. Shipyards do not do this, and each hull is like their head. An example of cornets is 20380. At first, the ef managers thought it was their fault that they began to understand and it was not only them. The contracting and payment policy makes adjustments. Everything needs money, but shipyards simply don’t have it. So it turns out or climb on credit at n% and settle it in the cost of the building. Or build each as the head on its own turnover. Plus, sub-agents are not ready, they didn’t have time, they were late. So we have been building the building for 8 years and how to build it. I am ashamed right.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 8 January 2014 22: 24
      +1
      Quote: UVB
      The pace of construction is amazing! For comparison - the battleship "Empress Maria" with a displacement of more than 21 thousand tons: the beginning of construction on 30.10.1911/1.11.11/XNUMX, launching on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. ...Compare the time from bookmark to launch!

      Followed the enthusiastic advice:
      "On June 11, 1911, it was laid down at the Russud plant in Nikolaev, simultaneously with the same type of battleships" Emperor Alexander III "and" Empress Catherine the Great. " Emperor Alexander III. The ship was launched on October 6 of the 1913 of the year; by the beginning of the 1915 of the year it was almost completed. Arrived in Sevastopol in the afternoon of June 30, 1915. "
      So you need to be more attentive with the digital ... Sometimes visitors who served in the Navy come across reading comments too.
  12. sevtrash
    sevtrash 6 January 2014 18: 35
    -6
    What is the point of modernizing "Nakhimov"? Wouldn't it be better to order frigates or corvettes for that money? Surely more needed. Is recycling more expensive?
    I wonder if there is an economically feasible fleet construction program? It must be true, if you wish, you can justify anything. If only the parties were interested.
    Has Gotland's effectiveness been evaluated? Judging by Lada - somehow not very.
    How much will the service, repair of Kuznetsov cost? There is no question of a full-fledged AUG. It may be cheaper to dispose of?
    For what purpose was Mistral needed? Technology collection? Not expensive?
    How much money will be spent on upgrading the maintenance of the infrastructure of the new and old SSBNs, on military campaigns? Or are there also 5 campaigns planned for all SSBNs?
    The saying is better is less, but better is unacceptable?
    1. Santa Fe
      6 January 2014 18: 49
      +4
      Quote: sevtrash
      For what purpose was Mistral needed?

      A transport ship for delivering military and humanitarian aid to those who are deemed necessary in the Kremlin

      A comfortable landing ship capable of being on the front line for months, displaying its flag in any region of the Earth. Moreover, it is not devoid of versatility - to carry out the evacuation of Russian citizens or a "point" landing special operation - all this is possible using Mistral boats and helicopters

      Finally, a helicopter carrier is also needed in serious military operations - for example, where to place minesweeper helicopters?
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 6 January 2014 19: 43
        -2
        Yes, it may be necessary. The question is how often and how necessary is this particular ship (and not an analog or just transport), and even more so 2 (or 4?) Mistral.
        The cost-to-benefit ratio is the question. After all, Russia is not the USSR, which presented its various "brothers" with a lot of equipment.
        The main thing now is the nuclear triad, ensuring the economic zone. But it is not at all the help of technology and the demonstration of the flag.
        1. 1c-inform-city
          1c-inform-city 7 January 2014 00: 58
          +3
          How many copies are broken about this. But for our country I think 4pcs. just right. Two on the tof and, oddly enough, 2 on the BS. This is an ideal ship for the demoflag with great autonomy.
        2. vaddag1
          vaddag1 7 January 2014 18: 16
          +1
          "The main thing now is the nuclear triad, the provision of the economic zone. And not at all technical assistance and the demonstration of the flag." - I do not agree with you. the triad is put in order, with econm. the zone will not get worse. it's time to show the flag - this is both a reminder to the world about our triad and just at the same time providing economy. zones.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 6 January 2014 18: 57
      +3
      Quote: sevtrash
      What is the point of modernizing "Nakhimov"? Wouldn't it be better to order frigates or corvettes for that money? Surely more needed. Is recycling more expensive?

      Meaning? The TARKR project 1144 itself is a full-fledged combat unit, with an unlimited range, thanks to the nuclear power plant, and as part of a group of ships, it can be the core of this group, providing its air defense at long distances, thanks to the S-300 air defense system in its armament, and on " Nakhimov "already and the S-400, as well as the fight against large surface ships of the enemy (aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers). Project 22350 frigates have a cruising range of 4000 km, and 11356-4850 km and limited autonomy (for comparison, the BOD pr.1155-5000), i.e. for their actions, a PTO is needed, of which Russia, except for Tartus, does not have or a large fleet of supply ships, which also does not exist; more modest armament and are intended primarily for solving ASW missions, and corvettes, in general, are primarily ships of the "coastal zone". Notice not a single Project 20380 corvette, of which Russia did not have 3 units in the Mediterranean.
      Quote: sevtrash
      Has Gotland's effectiveness been evaluated? Judging by Lada - somehow not very.
      "Gotland" was created primarily to solve problems in such a closed theater of operations, which is the Baltic. "Lada" is intended for ocean theaters, for the Northern Fleet. The problem of diesel-electric submarines of project 677 "Lada" is not the formulation of the task, but its execution, too much has been destroyed in 20 years.
      Quote: sevtrash
      How much will the service, repair of Kuznetsov cost? There is no question of a full-fledged AUG. It may be cheaper to dispose of?

      Quite expensive, but apart from the United States, none of the countries can boast of having an AUG (China does not count yet, it is not known what they will succeed in and if anything will work out at all). The French "Charles de Gaulle" is also a headache for the French Navy, and even armed with the "Super Etandars" of the 70s, but the French are not going to hand it over to scrap.

      "Charles de Gaulle" in the Gulf of Oman on December 29.12.2013, XNUMX, pay attention to "Super Etandars" (clickable)
      photo taken:
      http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/45567.html#comments
      1. Santa Fe
        6 January 2014 19: 04
        +2
        Quote: Novel 1977
        "Gotland" was created primarily to solve problems in such a closed theater of operations, which is the Baltic.

        For the exercise Joint Task Force Exercise 06-2 in the Pacific, "Gotland" sank the XNUMXth US Navy fleet
        1. Roman 1977
          Roman 1977 6 January 2014 19: 09
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          For the exercise Joint Task Force Exercise 06-2 in the Pacific, "Gotland" sank the XNUMXth US Navy fleet

          Thank you Oleg, I know this, as well as the fact that in 2005-2007 the Gotland submarine was leased to the USA for use as an underwater adversary in exercises.

          San Diego, Ca. (June 27, 2005) - The Swedish Navy Type (A 19) Stirling engine-powered attack submarine HMS Gotland arrives in San Diego on a transport ship from Sweden, as it arrives at San Diego, California (CA). The Gotland class is due to its unusual engine capable of being submerged for weeks. Gotland will begin a one-year bilateral training effort with the US Navy's anti-submarine warfare forces in July. (RELEASED)
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. sevtrash
        sevtrash 6 January 2014 19: 54
        +1
        Quote: Novel 1977
        Quite expensive, but besides the USA, none of the countries can boast of the presence of AUG

        Another saying - stretch your legs on clothes. After all, it is better to ensure the normal functioning of the SSBNs, infrastructure, repairs, modernization, provide access to the sea, provide their support (including the discovery of SSBN hunters).
        It seems to me that this is much more important than the demonstration of the flag by Nakhimov and Kuznetsov, all the more so since they, as separate units, will not have real opposition to the fleet, not only the USA.
        There was already an article here - 5 sea trips per year for all SSBNs. Or even a nuclear submarine.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Roman 1977
          Roman 1977 6 January 2014 22: 20
          +2
          Quote: sevtrash
          Another saying - stretch your legs on clothes. After all, it is better to ensure the normal operation of the SSBN, infrastructure, repairs, modernization, provide access to the sea, ensure their support (including the discovery of SSBN hunters) .It seems to me that this is much more important than the demonstration of the flag by Nakhimov and Kuznetsov, especially since the real opposition to the fleet not only the United States, they will not be provided as separate units. There has already been an article here - 5 sea trips per year for all SSBNs. Or even a nuclear submarine.

          But only in the interaction of all the forces of the fleet is any success achieved. SSBNs themselves are an easy target for enemy submarine hunters without cover, which includes surface, underwater and air components. In addition, problems arise in the world that cannot be solved without the so-called. "demonstration of the flag", such as the situation with Senegal now or the provision of the "Syrian express" or the fight against Somali pirates. At the same time, let me remind you where the only more or less combat ship of Ukraine of the far sea zone - SKR project 11351 "Nereus" - "Kirov" - "Hetman Sagaidachny" - is now in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia, showing the flag. As for our large warships, maybe they will not be able to counteract the US fleet and not only will not be able to (which is unlikely ...), but will be able to make them think. Moreover, I am sure they are not alone in the Mediterranean, at least 1 "loaf" is located there ...

          TAKR "Peter the Great" in the Mediterranean Sea, 30.12.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX

          "Getman Sagaidachny" in the Gulf of Aden
          P.S. By the way, to "Admiral Kuznetsov" with "Kulakov", going to the Mediterranean Sea and to "Peter the Great" with "Varyag" and "Sharp-witted", which are already there, they say soon will be joined by "Yaroslav the Wise" from the Baltic Fleet and "Ladny" from the Black Sea Fleet

          TFR "Yaroslav the Wise" project 11540

          SKR "Ladny" project 1135
          1. Santa Fe
            6 January 2014 22: 30
            +1
            Quote: Novel 1977
            But only, in the interaction of all the forces of the fleet, is any success achieved. The SSBNs themselves are an easy target for enemy submarine hunters without cover, which includes surface underwater and air components.

            These are calculations from the 1960's. SSBN deployment areas are protected only by multipurpose submarines

            Multipurpose submarines generally do not need any cover, except for information support (satellite communications)
            Quote: Novel 1977
            or fight with Somali pirates.

            Pure task for private security structures. The Navy is completely useless there
    4. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 January 2014 19: 12
      0
      Quote: sevtrash
      What is the point of modernizing "Nakhimov"? Wouldn't it be better to order frigates or corvettes for that money?

      You can also recycle. And then, after 5-6 years, we will build a new heavy ship from scratch. How much does it cost to be curious?
      Quote: sevtrash
      The saying is better is less, but better is unacceptable?

      Unacceptable. There is another saying:
      "There is safety in numbers"
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 6 January 2014 20: 04
        +1
        Quote: Dart2027
        Unacceptable. There is another saying:
        "There is safety in numbers"

        It is impossible to embrace the immensity. In a crisis, lack of funds, they need to focus on what is really necessary. The nuclear triad is vital for Russia, ensuring its functioning, ensuring the economic zone, including in the Arctic.
        Large ships look impressive, who would calculate how many days they spent in the seas and oceans for a year (Both Kuznetsov and Peter the Great), including where and how they showed the flag, how much it cost, how much it costs to maintain these ships.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 6 January 2014 23: 48
          +1
          And are you going to ensure the interests of the country in the ocean in general, and economic zones in particular, only as watch men?
          I wonder why some people dislike large and powerful ships so much? And they are not needed and there is no money for them and there is nowhere to use them ... Just like in the 90s, when the "democrats" destroyed the fleet.
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 7 January 2014 01: 34
            0
            Quote: Dart2027
            I wonder why some people dislike large and powerful ships so much? And they are not needed and there is no money for them and there is nowhere to use them ... Just like in the 90s, when the "democrats" destroyed the fleet.

            Is the economy primary or what? Or maybe let everyone hungry in their underpants around the aircraft carriers go for a joke?
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 7 January 2014 07: 00
              0
              Well, definitely the native 90s.
              Firstly, he who does not feed his army will feed the stranger.
              Second, the
              Quote: Dart2027
              And are you going to ensure the interests of the country in the ocean in general, and economic zones in particular, only as watch men?

              Our "partners" will be very pleased with this option. This is the economy, at least its most important part.
              Thirdly, there is enough money in the country, a problem with trained specialists.
            2. mashine
              mashine 7 January 2014 16: 10
              +1
              Quote: sevtrash
              Is the economy primary or what?


              It seems to me that politics, diplomacy, economics, military power go hand in hand. For example, in order to achieve a diplomatic victory, it is necessary to show political will, in order to manifest it it was necessary to ensure the presence of a large number of ships (although for the most part they were bluffing and risking a lot), after reaching diplomatic goals, a contract for the development of oil birth came - i.e. achieved economic effect. Everything is interconnected.

              I personally support the modernization of the Eagles, at least the 1st. This is an impressive ship, the very fact of its presence (flag display) cannot but evoke emotions, and therefore does not affect decision-making.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 7 January 2014 16: 41
                +2
                Quote: mashine
                It seems to me that politics, diplomacy, economics, military power go hand in hand.

                That is why it so often appears to argue that for the development of the economy it is necessary to abandon the powerful surface fleet. Like nuclear weapons will provide security from attack, and the rest is not important.
    5. vadson
      vadson 6 January 2014 19: 14
      +2
      if we are now saving on shipbuilding, then in the end we will lose it, we are building what we can. more control needed and fewer problems
    6. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 7 January 2014 00: 52
      0
      Gotland is an analogue of the 636.6 677 boat of another flight.
      1. Santa Fe
        7 January 2014 01: 20
        0
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        Gotland is an analogue of the 636.6 677 boat of another flight.

        Where does this information come from?
  13. waisson
    waisson 6 January 2014 19: 14
    0
    ships and ships so far more ships but I would like ships
  14. seaman13
    seaman13 6 January 2014 21: 10
    +6
    Think about it gentlemen - comrades, dry statistics of figures from open sources:
    The introduction of nuclear submarines into the USSR Navy:
    1959 - 2 (the firstborn of the nuclear submarine fleet, pr. 627 and 1, pr. 627A);
    and off it went, although after the Great Patriotic War only 15 years passed
    1960 - 2 (1- pr. 627A, 1- pr. 658);
    1961 - 7 (3 - pr. 627A, 1 - pr. 658, 3 - pr. 659);
    1962 - 7 (3 - pr. 627A, 2 - pr. 658, 2 - pr. 659);
    1963-10 (3- pr. 627A, 1- pr.645, 4- pr.675, 2 - pr.658);
    1964 - 8 (6- pr. 675, 2 - pr. 658);
    1965 - 9 (all - Project 675);
    1966 - 6 (all - Project 675);
    1967 - 7 (3- pr. 675, 1 - pr. 671, 2 - pr. 667A);
    1968 - 7 (1- pr. 675, 2 - pr. 671, 4 - pr. 667A);
    1969 - 11 (3- pr. 670, 2 - pr. 671, 6 - pr. 667A);
    1970 - 14 (3- pr. 670, 2 - pr. 671, 9 - pr. 667A);
    1971 - 15 (1 - project 705, 1 - project 661, 2 - project 670, 2 - project 671, 9 - project 667A);
    1972 - 9 (1 - project 667B, 1 - project 670, 2 - project 671, 1 - project 671RT, 4 - project 667A);
    1973 - 5 (2 - Project 667B, 1 - Project 670, 2 - Project 671);
    1974 - 9 (5 - Project 667B, 1 - Project 670M, 2 - Project 671, 1 - Project 671RT);
    1975 - 10 (5 - project 667B, 4 - project 667BD, 1 - project 671RT);
    1976 - 7 (3 - Project 667B, 1 - Project 667BDR, 1 - Project 670M, 2 - Project 671RT);
    1977 - 7 (2 - project 667B, 2 - project 667BDR, 1 - project 670M, 1 - project 705K, 1 - project 671RTM);
    1978 - 7 (3- pr. 667BDR, 1 - pr. 705K, 2- pr. 671RT, 1 - pr. 671RTM);
    1979 - 9 (3- pr. 667BDR, 1- pr. 670M, 2 - pr. 705K, 3 - pr. 671RTM);
    1980 - 9 (3- pr. 67BDR, 1- pr. 670M, 1 - pr. 949, 4 - pr. 671RTM);
    1981 - 10 (1 - project 941, 2 - project 667BDR, 1 - project 670M, 2 - project 705K, 4 - project 671RTM);
    1982 - 3 (all - pr. 671RTM);
    1983 - 4 (1 - project 941, 1 - project 685, 2 - project 671RTM);
    1984 - 6 (1 - pr. 941, 1 - pr. 667BDRM, 1 - pr. 971, 1 - pr. 945, 2 - pr. 671RTM);
    1985 - 4 (1 - project 941, 1 - project 667BDRM, 1 - project 971, 1 - project 671RTM);
    1986 - 3 (1- pr. 667BDRM, 1- pr. 971, 1 - pr. 949A);
    1987 - 5 (1 - pr. 941, 1 - pr. 667BDRM, 1 - pr. 971, 1 - pr. 949A, 1 - pr. 945);
    1988 - 2 (1- pr. 667BDRM, 1 - pr. 949A);
    1989 - 5 (1 - project 941, 1 - project 667 BDRM, 2 - project 971, 1 - project 949A);
    1990 - 6 (2 - Project 671RTMK, 1 - Project 971, 2 - Project 949A, 1 - Project 945A);
    1991 - 1 (Project 949A);
    1992 - 5 (1 - Project 671RTMK, 1 - Project 667BDRM, 2 - Project 971, 1 - Project 949A);
    1993 - 3 (1 - pr. 971, 1 - pr. 949A, 1 - pr. 945A);
    1994 - 1 (D.971);
    1995 - 1 (Project 949A);
    1996 - 3 (2- pr. 971, 1 - pr. 949A)
    I end here, everything is very deplorable.
    1. Sergey Sitnikov
      Sergey Sitnikov 7 January 2014 12: 02
      0
      Unfortunately (((the USSR spent 20-30% of GDP on the army (that’s why it was bent - this is one of the reasons), and the Russian Federation 4-5% and if you compare the price of oil and gas, it’s still possible to get 10-12%, if the USSR thought so - it would have stood to this day))) !!!
      Of course, the numbers (10-12%) were calculated by me))) i.e. disputable but not on budget survivability
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 7 January 2014 12: 39
        +5
        The USSR was simply sold, but the economy has nothing to do with it.
  15. Hitrovan07
    Hitrovan07 7 January 2014 00: 51
    0
    The modernization of Project 1144 (including the capabilities of the shipyard under construction in the Far East) will allow not only to "effectively" spend the budget, but also to train personnel (see the article about the F-35, there is a similar conclusion) and the ships will eventually be "modernized" and ready to sail ( no matter how skeptical about it).
  16. Semenov
    Semenov 7 January 2014 08: 10
    +2
    Maybe the fleet lacks ordinary knowledge about the tactics, capabilities, vulnerability of the enemy, and therefore build reconnaissance, patrol, hydrographic vessels. Failures from the 90s should also be in the "heads", and not only in military technologies, for 20 years they did not do anything in essence, only they learned how to destroy their own fleet.
  17. Semenov
    Semenov 7 January 2014 08: 35
    +3
    It is planned to build two large shipyards in the Far East (USC together with Singapore and Korea) for the production of offshore platforms and tankers with a deadweight of 160 tons. Shipyards are also suitable for the construction of aircraft carriers. Platforms should be in demand for the development of the Shtokman field. The meeting was held with the participation of Putin, Sechin, Rogozin and others.
  18. Sergey Sitnikov
    Sergey Sitnikov 7 January 2014 11: 53
    +1
    22350 ave. - strong))) it’s already armed according to the principle - you won’t spoil the porridge with butter! I heard about the contract for 8 units and everything to the North, if only 10 would be in Kamchatka and for now it’s enough (well, up to 2020) and there the beard technology will grow
  19. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 7 January 2014 14: 40
    +2
    I surfed the Internet. In 2014, according to the plan, the transfer of 3 DPLs of Project 636.3 to the Navy. Plus, 2 more will be officially laid down. One of them - "Veliky Novgorod" is already under construction and will be laid literally the other day.
  20. bublic82009
    bublic82009 7 January 2014 15: 43
    +6
    silly question why hydrographic ships and communication ships. guys asks such questions. it's all scouts. they not only provide communications, but also intercept information from other ships and ships. and hydrographic ships study the oceans of the sea. for the year at the bottom of the sea there are a lot of changes. you cannot study the sea bottom from space. and one with such a ship is out of breath to study the bottom.
    If so, why should aviation? We’ll place combat platforms in space and they will bomb. Khrushchev has already relied on one missile and what happened?
  21. Semenov
    Semenov 7 January 2014 17: 27
    0
    Well, I’m saying why they build such ships, and in such quantities that it is not clear why it’s stupid?
  22. anarky
    anarky 7 January 2014 17: 57
    0
    And all the same, IMHO is being replenished slowly, given the number of destroyers of the URO destroyers. USC, it seems to me, urgently needs to build new shipyards. Well, and accordingly, civilian shipbuilding should be developed to recapture money.
  23. proff41
    proff41 7 January 2014 20: 24
    +2
    "The average person has the right to ask a reasonable question: if there is a war tomorrow, will we fight oceanographers and communication letters?"

    Considering that all special ships bear the main load of reconnaissance and covert delivery of special forces soldiers to the place of "work", ordering such ships does not seem overkill ... Not all the time is not all the time for swimmers-saboteurs to cut through rubber boats.
    1. densh
      densh 8 January 2014 17: 11
      +1
      To fight normally, you need to know the theater of war and, preferably, better than a potential adversary — which the USSR was doing with success in its time, having a whole fleet of scientific and oceanographic vessels (only closed archives know about their "left" pranks with intelligence).
      Yes, and messenger ships are also a necessary thing in the fleet. Do not drive on every trifle of transport. And as for the admiral's yacht, a representative ship has long existed in the fleet of any state in the world (sometimes even if it was the only ship in this By the way, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it will be built with us, and not ordered in England, Norway, Spain or Finland, which would be more heractive for a VIP-vessel. hi
  24. Zomanus
    Zomanus 8 January 2014 15: 23
    +1
    Yes, with the fleet, everything is sad with us. Mainly due to the fact that the main shipyards remained outside of Russia. What is now only looks menacing. That which not only looks is worked out to zero. And the situation with Senegalese obyazykami shows only that we need not only to protect other countries, but also care about their citizens abroad. And then in our embassies, Russians are treated like garbage.
    1. densh
      densh 8 January 2014 17: 27
      0
      I absolutely agree with you, Alexey. The threat of accusing Senegal of piracy (after all, no intelligible accusations have been made so far) and a pair of warships in neutral waters near the Senegal border would quickly nullify any desire to "protect" the environment, according to the wishes of the left heel local "green" minister. In general, another confirmation of the truth about a kind word, backed up by a pistol. angry
    2. Santa Fe
      8 January 2014 17: 31
      0
      Quote: Zomanus
      Mainly due to the fact that the main shipyards remained outside of Russia.

      Can you find a list of these "shipyards that remained abroad"?
      1. densh
        densh 8 January 2014 18: 51
        0
        In Ukraine, in Kherson, Nikolaev and Kerch. Moreover, they built mainly large-tonnage warships on them. Even at the Leninskaya Kuznya plant in Kiev, they built missile boats. Feodosia-hovercraft. I'm not talking about factories and coastal infrastructure, which supplied components and carried out repair work.
        At the moment, in Russia there are almost no capacities (excluding Peter) for the construction of warships of large displacement.
        1. Santa Fe
          8 January 2014 20: 37
          0
          Quote: densh
          At the moment, in Russia there are almost no capacities (excluding Peter) for the construction of warships of large displacement.

          Not true

          Nuclear submarines - traditionally built in Severodvinsk (and N. Novgorod)

          Nuclear cruisers (Eagles) - all built as one at the Baltic factory in Leningrad

          Destroyers Ave. 956 - Zhdanov's factory (now - Severnaya Verf, St. Petersburg)

          BOD Ave. 1155 - were built at Yantar (Kaliningrad) and in St. Petersburg

          Shipyards worked in the Far East

          In fact, only aircraft-carrying cruisers were built in Nikolaev - the rest of the fleet was built in Russia

          Nuclear cruiser under construction, Leningrad, late 70's
          1. densh
            densh 8 January 2014 23: 32
            0
            Dear Oleg, do not consider it a labor, read my text again, especially its concluding part. The only thing I confess is that I forgot to add "surface ships of large displacement." "Moscow" (active) and "Marshal Ustinov" (under repair) - all three are never aircraft carriers.
            Traditionally, Russia and the Soviet Union had two main shipbuilding centers - Petersburg and the Black Sea plants. Petersburg remained. The Black Sea was lost and its capacities were not compensated by anything. Do you really think that modern Russia is able to recreate such a shipbuilding complex with metallurgical, engineering and shipyards?
            1. Santa Fe
              9 January 2014 01: 11
              +1
              Quote: densh
              The only thing I confess, I forgot to add "surface ships of large displacement"

              26 thousand tons cruiser - is it small?
              Quote: densh
              cruiser "Admiral Lobov", the same type of cruisers "Moskva" (active) and "Marshal Ustinov" (under repair) - all three have never been aircraft carriers.

              ))) The Union had so many ships, not to list. In Nikolaev, for example, the BNC 1134B was built. But this does not negate the fact that Nikolaev is some kind of super-loss, without which the fleet is now impossible to build.

              Maybe. The basis of the Navy is submarines, this is a purely Severodvinsk theme
              Powerful shipyards in the Baltic remained (the main thing is not to nightmare them and not turn them into skalds). If you really want and attract Koreans - something will definitely work out in the Far East. You just do not have to sit still and not be sad about past losses
              Quote: densh
              The Black Sea coast is lost and its power is not compensated by anything

              Compensated by the fact that the Russian fleet is not the Navy of the USSR
              We still do not have so much money to build such a number of ships, as in the Soviet Union, and there are no such tasks now.


              Moscow, Lobov, Ustinov, VARIAG (flagship Pacific Fleet)!
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 9 January 2014 01: 27
                0
                Varyag guards missile cruiser in San Francisco, 2010
              2. densh
                densh 9 January 2014 03: 13
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Compensated by the fact that the Russian fleet is not the Navy of the USSR
                We still do not have so much money to build such a number of ships, as in the Soviet Union, and there are no such tasks now.

                If the tasks have changed, then why are the Mistrals needed, why is the fleet intensively gaining experience in ocean cruises?
                Summing up, I want to say that the pace of re-equipment of the Fleet is affected by the lack of production capacities, the personnel shortage of research and production enterprises and the considerable operating life of the existing ship structure. This forces us to choose priorities in the construction of a new fleet, giving preference to the most pressing problems.
                Highlighted by me, taken from A. Gorbenko's article from the site "However". I recommend that you find it and get acquainted with anyone who is not familiar with the modern tasks of the Russian fleet.
                But you, Oleg, didn’t understand me. I didn’t say that Russia couldn’t do it. We don’t feel sorry for the Koreans, we’ll help them, but it was created to solve the problems that Russia is trying to solve. Moreover, this not even decades have gone, I'm not even talking about the enormous costs of finance and resources. Study the history of Russian shipbuilding.
                Modern Russian shipyards,loaded work for the country and for export. It is possible and more, but nowhere (Koreans, where are you !!!). And look at the site "Made with us" - with a thoughtful study of the material there, you will understand, I hope, what I tried to to convey you, sorry hi .
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. makeev.dmitry
    makeev.dmitry 8 January 2014 20: 58
    0
    positive tendency is obvious. I think, taking into account the opposition from outside and the fifth column, we can talk about the great work done to preserve and revive the fleet, at the pace that is possible in specific objective circumstances.
  27. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 9 January 2014 01: 12
    +2
    The situation on the shipboard is alarming. One of the ways to get out of it is the modernization and restoration of the battleship of ships in the sludge. Large NKs have already been mentioned, I want to add a few words about submarine submarine.
    “In early March 2013, the Ministry of Defense and the Severodvinsk Ship Repair Center“ Zvezdochka ”signed a contract for the restoration of those. readiness of 2 decommissioned SF titanium nuclear submarines "Karp" and "Kostroma" pr. 945, built in the 80s of the last century. And then the remaining 2 nuclear submarines of pr. 945A - "Condor", which are in service.
    “Barracudas” and “Condor” after repair and modernization will receive TTX submarines of the 4 generation. The entire filling of submarines - from missile systems to nuclear reactors - will be completely replaced by a new one, similar or similar in parameters to the one that will be equipped with the upgraded Ash.
    The decision to consistently restore and return to the Navy’s permanent readiness forces all 4 titanium submarines - first two Barracuds, and then two Kondors - was made by the Russian Ministry of Defense in January 2013 due to the unsatisfactory general state of affairs in the Navy, and above all, in connection with the non-receipt of new ships for a long time in the Navy. As one of the ways out of this situation, it was deemed expedient to repair and modernize titanium submarines.
    “This decision seems to be expedient, since repairing and modernizing existing submarines, including titanium ones, is about twice as fast as building new ones. This will also require less financial costs. "
    http://vpk-news.ru/news/14917
  28. sds555
    sds555 9 January 2014 01: 36
    +1
    I am only happy with every news about the construction of a new ship for the fleet, only if our officials were more modest and did not spend millions on furnishing their offices, buying luxury cars, it would be fine
  29. reflex_yu
    reflex_yu 9 January 2014 21: 55
    0
    I would like to know why my photo of the frigate Boyky appeared in an article without a signature on authorship, or at least where it came from.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 January 2014 10: 06
      0
      Quote: reflex_yu
      I would like to know why my photo of the frigate Boyky appeared in an article without a signature on authorship, or at least where it came from.

      I will correct it in the near future if you indicate your full name author (or delete - decide for yourself)

      Photos are taken from the Google search engine, it is often difficult to search for the author of each illustration - if you are seriously worried about protecting your copyrights, put the logo and signature on the photo (as Karpenko does). Or publish in books and never send to the Internet, where it instantly scatter over a hundred sites. So, Yuri, do not blame me

      Regards, Oleg
  30. reflex_yu
    reflex_yu 10 January 2014 20: 59
    0
    The photo was posted on the Marine Forum of the Balancer. Author Timofeev Yu.P. aka reflex_yu. Also in the comments I posted one more photo of me, Fr. Yaroslav the Wise, also posted by me on the indicated forum. Sign, please.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 January 2014 21: 46
      0
      Quote: reflex_yu
      Sign, please.

      Required
    2. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 10 January 2014 22: 08
      0
      Photograph of 11540 TFR taken by Yuri reflex_yu at IMDS-2009 in 2009
    3. The comment was deleted.