Military Review

Why aren't cruisers built?

137
Why aren't cruisers built?



In the military:
- I want to serve in the Navy!
- Do you even know how to swim?
- And what, you have no ships?


Discussion of the future of Russian fleet occurs according to the same scenario: the absence of shipyards is seen as a key problem. Then follow the lament that all shipyards, primarily for large-capacity shipbuilding, remained abroad - in Ukraine, in the city of Nikolaev. The discussion ends with a debate about the advisability of acquiring the cruiser Ukraina (formerly Admiral Lobov). The completely outdated rusty box of the “imperial cruiser,” which has stood at the construction wall of the 23 Communard factory for 61 years, has become the epicenter of Russian public sympathy.

The collapse of the USSR is a crime without a statute of limitations, but the causes of many contemporary problems are much closer than it may seem. The existing problems of the Navy are in no way connected with the absence of shipyards. Had Nikolaev been on the territory of Russia, nothing would have changed fundamentally: the once “tough” plant, left without orders from the Navy, would now continue to drag out its miserable existence. And the Russian Navy on 10 years would have remained without new ships.

However, first things first.

I am risking anger and bewilderment in the Ukrainian part of the audience, but even in the glorious times of the Soviet Union our navy depended little on the results of the work of shipyards in Ukraine. No doubt, the Slavic brothers completed a number of large projects, but on an absolute scale their significance was small.

Many will be surprised. Indeed, in Nikolaev, all 7 Soviet heavy aircraft carrier cruisers were built: the 4 TAKR of the Kiev type, our first classic aircraft carrier - the Admiral Kuznetsov TAKR, its Varyag sistership (now the Chinese Liaonin) and the Ulyanovsk nuclear TKR (disassembled on the stocks in 1993).



However, one should not forget that at the same time, at the plant of the Baltic plant named after him. S. Ordzhonikidze built nuclear missile cruisers pr 1144 (code "Orlan"). Four 250-meter bulkheads with a total displacement of 26 thousand tons - on board two nuclear reactors, two hundred missiles, a reservation, the most advanced means of detection and communication. In terms of its complexity and technical excellence, the Orlan did not yield to Admiral Kuznetsov in the least.

26 thousand tons - not the limit. The Baltic shipyard in Leningrad built ships of the measuring complex of 1914 pr. (“Marshal Nedelin”) - displacement 24 thousand tons, nuclear reconnaissance ship “Ural” (36 thousand tons), scientific ship to control spacecraft “Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin” displacement 45 thousand tons!


"Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin". Made in USSR

Together with the huge scouts and ships of the measuring complex, a series of linear nuclear-powered icebreakers of the “Arctic” type were built (6 units, the total displacement of each 23 thousand tons).

After such facts, complaints about the lack of capacity in Russia for large-capacity shipbuilding sound at least unfounded.

Domestic shipbuilding was not limited to Leningrad enterprises. On the shore of the White Sea, there was a complex of shipbuilding enterprises, now known as OJSC Northern Center of Shipbuilding and Ship Repair. The cradle of the nuclear submarine fleet of Russia.

It was here, at the facilities of the Sevmash software, that the first domestic K-3 PLA was created. From here went to sea K-162 (project "Anchar"), which set the world speed record in a submerged position (node ​​44,7).

Severodvinsk is the birthplace of K-278 Komsomolets. The deepest titanium hull submarine in the world, reaching record depths of 1027 meters.

It also built giant "Sharks" - heavy strategic submarine cruisers project 941. According to the figurative expression - "boats that did not fit in the ocean." The height of the floating cosmodrome was equal to the height of a nine-story building. 19 isolated compartments. 20 ballistic missiles with a launch weight of 90 tons. Surface displacement of 23 submarine thous. Tons. Underwater - 48 thousand tons!





Totally at the Sevmash production facilities 128 atomic submarines were built - The main striking force and the basis of the domestic fleet. The shipbuilding plant in Nikolaev with its five TAKRs is simply lost against the background of the achievements of St. Petersburg and Severodvinsk.

Of course, the Nikolaev CVD is known not only for “Kiev” and “Kuznetsov”. Three missile cruisers of the 1164 Ave. (GRKR Moskva, Marshal Ustinov and the flagship of the Pacific Fleet - RKR Varyag), large anti-submarine ships of the Ave 1134B, twenty TFR / BNK 61 project were built on the shores of Chernoy. At the Kerch shipbuilding plant, many of the patrol ships of 1135 Ave. (Burevestnik code) were built. It's a lot. Lots of. But in the shipyards in Severodvinsk, N. Novgorod (Gorky), Leningrad, Kaliningrad and the Far East more was built.

Shipbuilding enterprises of Leningrad built 12 missile cruisers (four of them are nuclear), a dozen and a half BOD and 17 missile-artillery destroyers of 956 ave. (Plus 4 for export).
The Kaliningrad SSZ “Yantar” did not lag behind the city on the Neva - the landing ships “Tapir” and “Ivan Rogov” were massively built, over thirty TFRs of the 1135 Avenue (“Petrel”) and ten large anti-submarine ships of the 1155 avenue were launched. and 1155.1.


Large landing ship pr. 1174 "Ivan Rogov"

The Krasnoye Sormovo plant (Gorky / N. Novgorod) was operating at full capacity - over the past half century, the industrial giant has launched 26 nuclear and almost 150 diesel-electric submarines. Among the masterpieces of Nizhny Novgorod - multi-purpose submarines pr 945 "Barracuda" and 945A "Condor" with a titanium case.

There was a shipbuilding center in the Far East - the Amur Shipbuilding Plant (Komsomolsk-on-Amur) built over 30 nuclear submarines, not counting other orders in the interests of the military and civilian fleet.

After the collapse of the USSR, all these shipyards remained in Russia!

Of all the above facts, an obvious conclusion emerges - the loss of shipyards in Kerch and Nikolaev, which became the property of Ukraine, is not a catastrophic loss or obstacle to the creation of a powerful ocean fleet.

Yes, it was sensitive damage - we lost an important shipbuilding center. But it should be understood that modern Russia is not the Soviet Union. We physically do not have such a large amount of funds for the construction and maintenance of hundreds of warships. Moreover, many priorities have shifted these days - we cannot afford to build hybrids of obscure purpose or boats with hulls made of very expensive titanium. In exchange, modern technology represents much broader opportunities - one modern destroyer in its combat power and situational awareness surpasses the entire squadron of missile cruisers and BOD built in the 70s.

If we build ships using advanced achievements of science and technology, we simply do not need such a number of ships, as was the case in the USSR.

But these are dreams and plans for the future. The reality is much more serious ...

Even if the Nikolaev CVD were in the structure of the USC, then its power would be idle without work. Just look at the Russian shipyards of the United Shipbuilding Corporation - where previously submarines were launched annually on 2-3, they are now slowly collecting one that will be completed to some 20 ... of the 15th year. Where large-scale construction of amphibious and patrol ships was carried out, the only Ivan Gren (BDK ave. 10) has been building for more than 11711 years. And once in a couple of years they are handed over to the customer by the 1 frigate (as a rule, for export) - as you already guessed, this is a Baltic “Yantar”.

The Nikolaev factory is proud of its past achievements in the field of large-capacity shipbuilding. Often there is the opinion that CVD them. 61 Kommunar has a monopoly on the construction of aircraft carriers.

Alas, this is not entirely true. The Admiralty shipyards in St. Petersburg have a slipway that allows launching vessels with a deadweight of up to 100000 tons. In 2008-09 two unique icebreaking tankers of the Ave P-70046 class ("Mikhail Ulyanov" and "Kirill Lavrov") were launched here. 260 length meters. The width of the 34 meter. Deadweight 70000 tons. This is already serious - their dimensions correspond to the dimensions of Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers.

But when it came to the real restructuring of the Admiral Gorshkov for the Indian Navy, it turned out that there was enough power in Severodvinsk for this. Deep modernization with a complete change in the appearance of the ship, the removal of the entire bow and the construction of a springboard in its place, the redesign of the interior, the replacement of the GEM and the entire radio-electronic "stuffing" ... The epic stretched for 10 years, but nonetheless the Indians got their "Vikramadityu." Russian industry has coped with an unusual project.







We can do everything. But do not do anything?

Good question. Why is nothing built on domestic shipyards, except for frigates and coast guard zones?

Sometimes you can hear an explanation of the fact that we lack capacity and that domestic shipyards are already overloaded with orders. This is nothing more than slyness: the stocks and extension walls are overloaded with long-lived ships. If you build a boat for 20 years, and corvettes and frigates - eight years each, then there will not be enough slipways. Why lay the bottom section of the new ships, if the plant can not solve the issue with the projects of previous years? And the culprit here is often not shipbuilders, but numerous contractors and contractors - primarily suppliers of the most sophisticated electronic equipment and weapon systems.

Indicative of история with the lead frigate pr. 22350 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov." The ship's hull was assembled in a fairly short time by Russian standards - for 4 of the year. But then a deadlock arose - from the 2010 of the year “Gorshkov” quietly rusting near the construction site of the “Severnaya Verf”, not being able to go to sea trials. According to one data, the delay is caused by failures and mutual conflicts of the systems included in the control system of the Polymen-Redut anti-aircraft complex. According to other data, the main problems are delivered by universal artillery. There may be many explanations, but there is one fact - the sailors have been waiting for the “Gorshkov” for the eighth year.


Frigate "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" pr.22350, March 2013
(Photos from the archive sevstud1986, http://forums.airbase.ru).

The situation with the "Gorshkov" gives a completely clear answer to the question about the promising Russian destroyer (cruiser, battleship?). Building a ship of such a ship is not a problem, but there will be nothing to install on it.
Of course, the matter does not stand still, and in some ways our “defense specialists” have succeeded quite well. For example, the universal ship-shooting complex (USCS) existing in reality with a family of Caliber missiles. According to the presented characteristics and the concept of their combat use, "Gauges" promise to surpass the best world analogues.

But what else is there besides the Caliber?

Marine anti-aircraft systems - there is total darkness. The only sample of the new “Poliment-Redut” air defense system aboard the Gorshkov frigate is still “the cat in the bag”. What is this complex, what will it be in practice, are there adequate capacities for its mass production? Answers to these questions are known only to "proxies." And, judging by the prolonged silence, the essence of these answers will not be very impressive.

Among other zonal air defense systems, the most justified is the installation of an air defense system, unified with the legendary C-400 (or even C-500)! But, as you know, the C-400 maritime version does not yet exist, and it is unlikely that it will even appear at all — no work in this direction has been heard. The last time such a set — the previous generation C-300FM naval anti-aircraft system with revolving launchers and phased 4Р48 fire control radar — was exported to the Chinese Navy more than 10 years ago.

No less questions with detection tools. For example, to set up another modification of the good old Frigate M as a survey radar would be an overly primitive decision. But other options have not yet appeared.

Universal artillery ... At first glance, it is all right. Arsenal design bureau developed a new 130 mm A-192 gun. But in fact: no one saw the current model A-192 on a warship.

These are the problems of domestic shipbuilding. The endless complaints about the loss of the Ukrainian GCC and the dreams of buying the decrepit wreck of the cruiser Admiral Lob have nothing to do with the real state of affairs. All problems should be sought much closer - within the walls of the Arsenal design bureau, Salyut NPO and the Almaz-Antey defense concern. It is these companies that are crucial and are the main “brake” in the creation of promising Russian ships. They are responsible for the development of new types of sea-borne air defense missile systems and means of detection, without which talking about a prospective cruiser or destroyer does not make sense.

We can do everything. But we do nothing ...


Large anti-submarine ship "Admiral Levchenko" (built in Leningrad)



Nuclear-powered cruiser "Kirov", Leningrad, 1970-s




Author:
137 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tlauicol
    tlauicol 14 January 2014 09: 38
    +59
    A plus. Yes, the main problem is in electronics, equipment, and generally high technology. We stayed in the last millennium
    1. Orik
      Orik 14 January 2014 10: 18
      +58
      Do not forget about cooperation, the author correctly named the reason. A ship is not only a hull, but a multitude of complex engineering systems that must be timely (!) Designed and created in hardware.
      1. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 14 January 2014 17: 02
        -5
        Quote: Orik
        Do not forget about cooperation, the author correctly named the reason. A ship is not only a hull, but a multitude of complex engineering systems that must be timely (!) Designed and created in hardware.


        That's it, and the author first of all presses on what they say
        take a residual look at the Russian shipyards of the United Shipbuilding Corporation - where the submarines were previously launched annually on the 2-3, they are slowly gathering one that will be completed by some 20 ... eleventh year.

        The author needs to be reminded of one apt statement "Break not build?"

        So, shipyards in the Russian Federation are loaded to capacity - a fact, and it would be wrong to throw out long-term construction projects from there, since they are thanks to the "effective managers of the 90s" a vivid example of which is the head boat of the Borey project.

        Moreover, the author barely managed to publish this article, since already this year, it will not have the effect that it has now. Roughly the same thing happened with similar articles. ala-all-gone about the army, new weapons, aircraft, the Union of Artists and much more.
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 14 January 2014 17: 25
          +61
          90 - why do we cut ships?

          00 (beginning) - why don't we build ships?

          00 (end) - why do we build unit ships?

          10 - why aren't we building a cruiser?

          In my opinion - a great trend and progress on the face.

          Z.Y. In order to build ships and other weapons in sufficient quantities, it is necessary to restore engineering and, first of all, machine tool construction, and much more to be restored.

          "Western, imported high-precision machines are not allowed to be moved without the manufacturer's permission. The manufacturer equips the machine with a GPS sensor and / or a gyroscope. If moved, the machine is automatically locked until an unlock code is received." And they will not sell machines to us in the defense industry. They just won't. Units, bypassing everything and everyone, can and will be able to purchase. But for the rise of industry, this is nothing. Therefore, it is necessary to revive the basic industries.
          1. StolzSS
            StolzSS 14 January 2014 17: 53
            +9
            Where did you see progress in chatter ??? For 2 years sections for traffic lights at the crossroads we are waiting and suing manufacturers for a marriage of 30 percent ??? With such progress, regression is not needed (((
            1. Ivan_Ivanov
              Ivan_Ivanov 14 January 2014 18: 01
              +9
              I saw progress in statistics REALLY launched and adopted in the Navy ships.

              Traffic light statistics are from a different area, not from the area of ​​military shipbuilding.
              1. sledgehammer102
                sledgehammer102 14 January 2014 18: 31
                +10
                Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
                Where did you see progress in chatter ??? According to the 2 of the year, we are waiting for the section for traffic lights at intersections and are suing the manufacturers for defects in 30 percent ???


                And we have 36 civilian aircraft and 77 combat aircraft in 2013 flew.
                And the other day the good news came about Severodvinsk)

                Below are statistics on the space industry
                1. crazyrom
                  crazyrom 27 January 2014 03: 15
                  0
                  Why is nothing built on domestic shipyards except frigates and coast guard patrols?


                  Very simple: the larger the ship, the larger it needs escort. One large ship cannot be allowed into the ocean for war without escort by small ships. There, with the Americans, they are sailing in carrier groups, there is only 1 a large aircraft carrier and a bunch of escorts. So we do everything in order, after a bunch of small and medium-sized ships will take over the large.
            2. Botanologist
              Botanologist 14 January 2014 19: 27
              +19
              Quote: StolzSS
              According to the 2 of the year, we are waiting for the section for traffic lights at intersections and are suing the manufacturers for defects in 30 percent ??? With such progress, regression is not needed (((


              The other day I plunged into what you write about. I want to say that trouble is not in traffic lights - trouble in managers. I will explain with an example.

              A simple and small object of the "household goods store" type is being prepared for construction. The bank finances, the owner of the chain of these stores sends chelas for activation and control. Along the way, the department of land issues buys out land for construction.
              So there you go!
              the network owner sends the ToR for a pre-project examination. 28 points, you need to get all sorts of letters about the connections of telephones-gas-light-water-other turbidity. The man ran to collect.
              At the same time, surveyors, geologists, other specialists are hired and run to the site to study the territory.
              The landlords department merrily trades for land, for which the landlord asks for 10 millions.

              In 2 weeks.
              A person who collects letters about water-gas-light connections comes with answers in which, as in that anecdote, "black.j.e. piy" is written with "o", and "n.a.h" - separately. The reason is simple - by decree of the Government of the Russian Federation, TK and other interesting documents are given only to the owner and if there is a project.
              The owner sends a standard (!) Project.
              Surveyors are waiting for the contract to be signed, because without it the police arrested the drill (you know, without documents nowadays, drill a hole with a depth of 20 meters in the city center wassat ).
              The land department is happily trading for land. Bankers sent a representative, the price rose to 20 million.

              In a month!
              Letters of complete absence at the construction site of light-gas-water are collected. It turns out that there are about a dozen authorities where it’s kind of awkward to go with empty pockets.
              A person sent from the owner of the network suddenly discovers that someone is doing an examination for a thousand, and on the Internet some cool company from Syktyvkar promises to do the same examination for a steward, and even give a kickback. Experts are sent nafik, the legal department goes to court to sue the advance. They say months on 5 fuss. A cool company from Syktyvkar asks for an advance of 100%.
              Surveyors waited for the contract and took the drilling site, but they were in no hurry to get to the site. The advance payment was not listed. Showdowns show that they did not list it because of a) they did not give a "rollback", b) they just ... lost the contract.
              The land department sent a deputy director to help with the trade, the price has already been "almost agreed" about 30 million.
              1. Ustian
                Ustian 15 January 2014 19: 24
                +2
                Quote: Botanologist
                cool company from Syktyvkar asks

                And what is needed from Syktyvkar? For those who are not in the know, Syktyvkar is driven by newcomers - Muscovites, Petersburgers.
            3. Botanologist
              Botanologist 14 January 2014 19: 27
              +22
              After two months.
              All sorts of New Year's gifts have been purchased, people are leaving to collect letters in the second round. Cheerful returns - in letters already only "n.a.kh", "black.zh.o.pymi" are no longer called names.
              Surveyors are negotiating with the forehead sent by the owner of the network - he suddenly realized that the contract needed to be doubled, otherwise the new year was on the nose, and he was without presents. Decide that the wells will not be drilled at 20 meters and not all good .
              The land owners have already submitted the documents on the purchase of the plot for approval, the price is not being announced. The chief's secretary, who looked into the contract in search of a price, was taken away by an ambulance and, they say, will be treated for a long time.
              An attempt to attach a typical project to a plot on a standard sheet of paper (A4 format) failed - TK was not given anyway. Architecture also does not accept, laughs.

              Actually, this is how we live. I stock up on popcorn and wait for what happens next. I am wondering - will the intermediaries raise their share in the total estimate to 80% or only half will be stolen?

              And you are talking about traffic lights that are the same intermediaries and bought in the garbage cans around the plant.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. nickname 1 and 2
                nickname 1 and 2 16 January 2014 14: 54
                +2
                Quote: Botanologist
                Architecture also does not accept, laughs.


                To me it is most in openwork!

                to the place of the remark from the movie: WHO IS BUILDING THIS?

                Even my father, who would have turned 100 this year, and had a first-grade education class, WOULD HAVE DONE ANOTHER ON THE QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION!

                Everyone already knows that without knowing the rules of the DD, you don’t need to drive!

                Well, why do you need to start construction without LEARNING THE CONSTRUCTION ORGANIZATION TECHNOLOGY?
          2. blizart
            blizart 14 January 2014 18: 51
            +6
            Or maybe his fleet? Can take for granted that Russia is a "land robber", well, we do not have convenient, safe exits to the sea, geographically unlucky. Stalin's words, when in support of building and developing the Northern Fleet, said something like the following: "The Black Sea is a bottle, but the cork is not with us." Echo with Russian naval folklore
            Black Sea Fleet
            Pacific Fleet too fleet
            KBF-Like a fleet
            SF-Most fleet
            1. Motors1991
              Motors1991 14 January 2014 20: 13
              +7
              You are wrong: the Black Sea Fleet is the fleet, the Che is not the fleet. The Baltic Fleet is the former fleet. The Northern Fleet is the atomic fleet, The Pacific Fleet is to all fleets.
              1. blizart
                blizart 15 January 2014 18: 42
                +3
                Quote: Motors1991
                You are wrong: the Black Sea Fleet is the fleet, the Che is not the fleet. The Baltic Fleet is the former fleet. The Northern Fleet is the atomic fleet, The Pacific Fleet is to all fleets.

                The Baltic Fleet is the Red Banner Baltic Fleet, about the Pacific, when Japan becomes a strategic ally for us, then maybe there will be a fleet for all fleets. However, I just retold the words of the Russian-Soviet sailors
          3. kruplen
            kruplen 14 January 2014 19: 13
            +5
            And that in Russia there is no hacker to unlock the machine?
            1. Ivan_Ivanov
              Ivan_Ivanov 14 January 2014 19: 57
              +2
              Who will risk a machine of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

              Indeed, if a hacker fails - and this is a very high probability, the machine will be lost forever.
              1. dustycat
                dustycat 14 January 2014 21: 04
                +12
                Hire for 50000 a month an engineer with "back in the USSR" education to maintain this machine in working order and he will throw out all this cybenematics and make your machine work from the Dandy prefix. with parameters higher than the factory ones.
                True, as soon as you reduce the salary of this engineer, or don’t let him go on vacation when he wants and how much he wants, no one can make this fucking machine work.
                1. Ivan_Ivanov
                  Ivan_Ivanov 14 January 2014 22: 19
                  +4
                  Nonsense please do not write. Our people are really the most brainy, but this does not mean at all that it’s normal to hammer a new expensive machine.
              2. Ustian
                Ustian 15 January 2014 19: 29
                +2
                Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
                Who will risk a machine of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

                Indeed, if a hacker fails - and this is a very high probability, the machine will be lost forever.

                And if you manage, and this is much more likely, the profit is millions of dollars. Not taking risks means not living.
                The Yozu whales don't even think about it.
            2. dustycat
              dustycat 14 January 2014 21: 07
              +8
              Quote: kruplen
              And that in Russia there is no hacker to unlock the machine?

              In Russia there is no director who is ready to pay 50000 to a local engineer for the machine to work without fail.
              It’s better to pay 300000 for a one-time visit of an import adjuster.
              1. Ivan_Ivanov
                Ivan_Ivanov 14 January 2014 22: 17
                -1
                What if you famously translated the conversation from hacking into the brains of machine tools is a very big risk, to the fact that all managers in Russia are fools with a hint that we have no country.

                Don't like the country? Big world, go wherever you want ...
              2. max702
                max702 14 January 2014 23: 41
                +17
                Yes, just like that, in 96 he worked on the installation of equipment with a total cost of 50cc Duc when the terms were burning hard workers began to pay sn 1 thousand ye. per month (the standard salary was then 100e then) a German who followed the course of work walked constantly with round eyes, guarded by the pace of work and the wit of the workers, it immediately became clear that the German people understand very well, can read the drawings in German and much more no one suspected, passed everything on time and with proper quality. So everything depends on the loot that is paid not to managers and others, but to the working people .. do not click on the staff and everything will be ..
                1. Basarev
                  Basarev 15 January 2014 16: 10
                  0
                  Staff and workers with engineers are not synonyms!
          4. nerd.su
            nerd.su 15 January 2014 00: 32
            +1
            Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
            Imported high-precision machines must not be moved without the permission of the manufacturer.

            Since when has this become a problem in Russia? Tell the machine operator that you can make a good leftist in your pocket if you move the machine and he and his comrades quickly think of a thread. Since hackers and special services operatives cannot break the protection or get the code.
          5. de klermon
            de klermon 16 January 2014 20: 59
            +5
            Someone would tell Dimon Medvedev and his teachers from the category of yasin-gaidars about the revival of industry! These monkeys are still whining something about the effectiveness of private property and privatization !!! The Soviet scheme, when the plant, instead of the "effective owner" of the Baumgertner category, had its own educational institutions from nurseries and children. garden to a technical school and an institute (an institute is at least an industry, and not just one institute!), when the defense industry allies on a ministerial command, if necessary, almost sat down on the barracks, when the "unprofitability" of ballistic advances and avionics for the "strategists" of Tu-160 was the main criterion for profiling production, then it was INDUSTRY!!! And now...
            Now there are a lot of slipways and good intentions! And saying this, realizing that nothing is just not missed, but continues to be destroyed artificially, by various kind-hearted "effective managers", who, in the opinion of Mr. First Deputy Head of the State Committee. It is a sin to keep Vladimir Gutenev's industrial Duma "idle" and undermines the conclusion that industrialists like Medvedev, Khristenko, Gutenev and other "Serdyuk" will not lead us far!
        2. My doctor
          My doctor 14 January 2014 18: 28
          +4
          sledgehammer102 in the course of the only minus of this article from you.
          Quote: sledgehammer102
          That's it, and the author first of all presses on what they say

          as I understand it, the author does not put pressure on this, but writes that the matter was not in the babin, that is, it was not in the shipyards. quote:
          To build the hull of such a ship is not a problem, but there will be nothing to install on it.

          The problem, according to the author, is the lack of modern systems of the proper level:
          And the fault here is most often not shipbuilders, but numerous contractors and contractors - primarily suppliers of sophisticated electronic equipment and weapons systems.

          So I think you're wrong, article plus.
          1. sledgehammer102
            sledgehammer102 14 January 2014 18: 51
            -5
            Quote: MyVrach
            as I understand it, the author does not put pressure on this, but writes that the matter was not in the babin, that is, it was not in the shipyards. quote:


            You have not read my message.
            The author should be reminded of one apt statement "To break, not to build?"


            We do not live in a fairy tale, everything takes time, and it seems to me 10 years is not enough for this.

            And a little higher, Ivan Ivanov very well noticed a change in the rhetoric of people who share the opinion of the author of this article.

            90 - why do we cut ships?
            00 (beginning) - why don't we build ships?
            00 (end) - why do we build unit ships?
            10 - why aren't we building a cruiser?
        3. dustycat
          dustycat 14 January 2014 20: 54
          +8
          Do you want to say that the author is wrong in that one sharashka (anti-aircraft missile) cannot coordinate the parameters of his iron with another sharashka (communication systems and radiometry) so that one does not interfere with the other? The author is wrong that apart from the obsolete FregatM there are no radio measuring systems?
          Again, it’s unclear what the hell out of blocking the incomprehensible A192 cannon (which no one has seen except in the form of beautiful large-scale models) and not trying to adapt the Mst artillery system to the sea? Moreover, the coastal naval batteries are fully equipped with them. Although Msta is still muddy, but she is there and rides and shoots and hits.
          The problem of allies and their fraudulent fuss is as old in the Russian army as Russia itself.
          It's time to decide something with this.
          1. sledgehammer102
            sledgehammer102 15 January 2014 04: 01
            0
            Quote: dustycat
            Do you want to say that the author is wrong in that one sharashka (anti-aircraft missile) cannot coordinate the parameters of his iron with another sharashka (communication systems and radiometry) so that one does not interfere with the other?


            Since when has the author been aware of the latest developments in the Russian military-industrial complex? Such sofa or kitchen analysts claim that there are no missiles on Dolgoruky, they said that the Mace will not fly, PAK FA is a miscarriage, and a lot of the same garbage
          2. Cher
            Cher 19 January 2014 12: 12
            +1
            So also the military acceptance was reduced
          3. vladeinord
            vladeinord 20 January 2014 23: 43
            0
            To the count of all of them, until they completely plundered their Homeland and destroyed the army and navy!
    2. starshina78
      starshina78 14 January 2014 10: 50
      +13
      A huge plus for the author! Yes, there are many problems, but there is no answer to how to eliminate them. It seems to me (this is my personal opinion) that there is not enough will for the leadership of the country, or in another way you just need to knock your fist on the table and indicate the deadlines for the delivery of this or that equipment. Although this is not an option. Where to get specialists? Many retrained, left the profession, many, alas, left for another world, many left for the WEST, but there is no influx of fresh strength. Institutions train specialists, and they go to work not in their specialty, but where they pay more. It's time to start the distribution again! It may so fill the vacuum of specialists.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 15 January 2014 16: 13
        +2
        A specialist is a specialist for strife. The country needs noble workers and cool engineers, and now it is full of lawyers and economists - not as many as in the nineties, but still substantially more than necessary.
    3. T-100
      T-100 14 January 2014 13: 15
      +2
      A plus. Yes, the main problem is in electronics, equipment, and generally high technology. We stayed in the last millennium

      But this millennium still brings rustle to a new century. And I’m sure that there is development - it’s top secret under the bar))))
    4. vyatom
      vyatom 14 January 2014 15: 47
      0
      one modern destroyer in its combat power and situational awareness surpasses a whole squadron of missile cruisers and BODs, built in the 70s.

      It is doubtful of course. The author is somewhat mistaken against a background of dislike for Ukraine.
      Shipyards of St. Petersburg and the Gulf of Finland are somewhat limited in their capabilities.
      After all, it was not without reason that our aircraft carriers were built precisely in Nikolaev, although everyone realized that later there would be difficulties with crossing them through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. That is why Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier, but an aircraft carrier cruiser.
      SevMash was imprisoned specifically for the construction of submarine nuclear submarines. Only multi-purpose and diesel boats built Krasnaya Sormovo (let's not forget that these boats still need to be driven over the Volga to the Baltic Sea or the Barents Sea. Although the low rate of conversion of the fleet is evident.
      1. URAL72
        URAL72 14 January 2014 18: 45
        +7
        I still did not understand why the author grabbed onto the Nikolaev plant "named after 61 Communards"? In Nikolaev there is also the "Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant", which also built helicopter carriers, project 1123 (Moscow and Leningrad), forgotten by Kaptsov. And in Nikolaev practically all the Soviet gas turbines of high power were produced. And now Russian frigates for export (and for themselves) are equipped with them ... It is not yet possible to create such an enterprise in Russia, although work in this direction is underway. The Kherson shipbuilding plant with a capacity of up to 40000 tons is not mentioned at all. Even in Kiev, "Leninskaya Kuznitsa" built "corvettes" with a capacity of 1200 tons (by the way, the "Ternopil" from Kiev is the newest ship of the Ukrainian Navy). And Feodosia, Ilyichevsk? And what about the repair facilities of the Black Sea Fleet? And what about Mariupol ship steel, without which it was necessary to cut the hull laid by the Soviet Union for the pr.971 nuclear submarine for the construction of the first "Borey"? But the main thing is that if the collapse of the Union did not happen, there would not be such a drop in production and R&D, which means they would build a lot and at all shipyards, refusing orders in Poland (BDK), Finland (icebreakers), and even in the GDR they built for us warships ...
        1. Horde
          Horde 14 January 2014 19: 19
          -1
          Quote: URAL72
          I did not understand why the author clung to the Nikolaev plant named after 61 Communards


          and you don’t need sweets, like we have enough of our opportunities with problems ...
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 15 January 2014 00: 05
          -2
          Quote: URAL72
          And what about Mariupol ship steel, without which it was necessary to cut the hull laid by the Soviet Union for the pr.971 nuclear submarine for the construction of the first "Borey"?

          Some technologies are irretrievably lost + a small batch of nafig is not needed by the owner of the plant. Does this Mariupol still work?
          Quote: URAL72
          But the main thing is that if the Union didn’t collapse, there wouldn’t be such a drop in production and R&D, which means that they would build a lot at all shipyards

          Nobody argues with this. The author just says that you don’t need as many ships as you built before. How many cruisers do you need?
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 14 January 2014 23: 55
        0
        Quote: vyatom
        one modern destroyer in its combat power and situational awareness surpasses a whole squadron of missile cruisers and BODs, built in the 70s.

        Doubtful of course

        I see that he may be better, but in terms of weapons it’s unlikely
    5. tank 34
      tank 34 14 January 2014 21: 45
      +2
      Well no. The main problem is sloppiness and dibilism of so dearly beloved and adored power !!!!!!!!!!
    6. Basarev
      Basarev 15 January 2014 13: 49
      +3
      I think that nevertheless we are fully capable of creating an ultramodern filling for ships of any class. I don’t see any problems with money, production capacities and technological capabilities. There are only two really serious problems: personnel and corruption. Experts in shipbuilding are among those who built the carrier cruisers - either too old, or even died. But, in principle, we decide - we need technical schools and institutes of an appropriate orientation. But corruption is more difficult. Is it when they plunder up to 90% of the funds allocated for shipbuilding?
  2. Nevsky_ZU
    Nevsky_ZU 14 January 2014 09: 50
    +1
    I asked:

    Why aren't cruisers built?

    Listen carefully to the answer:

    1. Magellan
      Magellan 14 January 2014 09: 58
      -15%
      But under Yeltsin, cruisers and destroyers were just being built!
      1. Orik
        Orik 14 January 2014 10: 20
        +17
        I have a father-in-law and mother-in-law in the Baltic all my life, the ships ARE AID, and were laid in the USSR.
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 14 January 2014 11: 19
          +3
          Quote: Orik
          I have a father-in-law and mother-in-law in the Baltic all my life, the ships ARE AID, and were laid in the USSR.

          And what's wrong with that?

          The hulls remained on the slipways - they were honestly completed and put into operation - unlike present times.

          Submarines - they generally built from scratch. Six nuclear submarines from 1992 to 2001! Then silence
          1. Nevsky_ZU
            Nevsky_ZU 14 January 2014 11: 31
            +25
            Quote: Magellan
            Quote: Orik
            I have a father-in-law and mother-in-law in the Baltic all my life, the ships ARE AID, and were laid in the USSR.

            Not always

            The main thing that honestly completed and put into operation - in contrast to the present times


            And you are probably unfamiliar with the concept of inertial path? How many people of the "Soviet type" were there in 1996, age and level of education? For 5 years it was possible to stop factories or reduce production, but it is not possible to throw out the brains. But in 20 years just right. Whatever patriot comes to power now, he will face the generation of "liberty" and all that it implies ...
            1. oracul
              oracul 15 January 2014 07: 56
              +2
              I agree. The most important thing is frames. Equipment can be bought at any time and the most modern - there would be money. But professional personnel have been preparing for many years and their training is real investment in the future. And for neoliberals, everything connected with personnel is a cost.
      2. oracul
        oracul 15 January 2014 07: 52
        +1
        They were not built, but those that were laid in the Soviet era were completed.
    2. svp67
      svp67 14 January 2014 11: 44
      +1
      Quote: Nevsky_ZU
      Why aren't cruisers built?

      "... what can be changed in the conservatory? ..."
  3. knyazDmitriy
    knyazDmitriy 14 January 2014 09: 53
    +3
    The author writes everything correctly, it is not enough to build a building, it is still necessary to saturate it with equipment and weapons.
  4. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 14 January 2014 10: 09
    +13
    I get the impression that our admirals and shipbuilders do not understand one simple fact, that in addition to large ships, although here we have little good news, they have forgotten that the basis of the fleet is 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. Therefore, I believe that the MRK of project 21631 should be transferred primarily to the BF and the Black Sea Fleet, since they approximately correspond to the Swedish corvettes of which 11 missile corvettes in the Baltic (2 Stockholm -380 tons, 8 RBS-15 anti-ship missiles, 4 Gothenburg "- 380/425 tons, 8 RBS-15 anti-ship missiles, 5 Visby missiles - 640 tons, 8 RBS-15 anti-ship missiles).
    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. URAL72
      URAL72 14 January 2014 20: 31
      +1
      Roman 1977 is working well today, I'm tired of adding things! good
  5. Akim
    Akim 14 January 2014 10: 22
    +24
    Put a plus article for the phrase
    We can do everything. But we do nothing ...

    In Ukraine, such parsley is not only with the fleet, but with the entire military-industrial complex. We can do anything, but we eat up "bread" from Soviet stocks, which has long been turned into crackers.
    1. knn54
      knn54 14 January 2014 14: 38
      +22
      Because the Serdyukovs ... solimpiadili.
      -Admiral does not spare money for his new lover, they say that the last gift - a luxurious collection of diamonds - was purchased at the expense of the funds intended for the "Chilean contract" (Russia plans to buy armadillos under construction in England for the Chilean Navy).
      - What did you want, sir? Eliza Ballet is now one of the richest women in Russia.
      - Yes, the Grand Duke knows a lot about “kickbacks” - it is no accident that the contract for the supply of ship armor was handed over from the KAZENNY Izhora plant to the PRIVATE Mariupolsky, which drives Khaltur at a price twice as expensive (9,9 instead of 4,4 rubles per pound).
      Approximately in this vein, the high society St. Petersburg public in the early twentieth century gossiped among themselves - the Most Gracious Sovereign, Admiral, Grand Duke Alexey Alexandrovich rested notably on the Cote d'Azur and generously gave gifts to his young beloved, French ballerina Eliza Ballet, until Rus -Japanese war.
      "Go away, Prince Tsushimsky"! - screamed furious public, at the sight of Alexei Alexandrovich entering the stalls of the Mikhailovsky Theater, which almost brought the admiral to a heart attack.
      It got that day and his passion - a ballerina shining with “pebbles” was showered with all kinds of litter with shouts: “This is where our Pacific Fleet is! The blood of Russian sailors on your diamonds ”!
      30 May 1905, the Grand Duke Alexey Alexandrovich resigned from his post as chief of the fleet and the Navy Department and drove off to Paris with Balletta.
      History repeats itself.
      PS Restoring the economy and industry after the terrible war, the USSR in the 1960s rolled out to the expanses of the oceans such a fleet, from which everyone trembled!
      And EVERYTHING that the USSR did often had no analogues in the world.
      The first in the world sea ballistic missile and its underwater carrier; The “singing frigates” of the 61 project are the first ships in the world with a fully gas-turbine power plant; Legend-M sea space reconnaissance and target designation system ...
      Anti-ship missiles - here the USSR Navy was not equal at all.
      The Soviet Union was able to build submarines from titanium, aircraft-carrying cruisers and giant Orlan nuclear-powered submarines - each of them is a MASTER OF DESIGN.
      1. vyatom
        vyatom 14 January 2014 16: 02
        +3
        PS Restoring the economy and industry after the terrible war, the USSR in the 1960s rolled out to the expanses of the oceans such a fleet, from which everyone trembled!
        And EVERYTHING that the USSR did often had no analogues in the world.
        The first in the world sea ballistic missile and its underwater carrier; The “singing frigates” of the 61 project are the first ships in the world with a fully gas-turbine power plant; Legend-M sea space reconnaissance and target designation system ...
        Anti-ship missiles - here the USSR Navy was not equal at all.
        The Soviet Union was able to build submarines of titanium, aircraft-carrying cruisers and giant nuclear powered "Orlan" - each of them is a MASTER OF DESIGN. [/ Quote]


        Correctly. Because everything went to create an army and navy. And they themselves lived modestly.
        1. blizart
          blizart 14 January 2014 18: 57
          +4
          I think the destroyer Novik was the MOST ship in Russian naval history. He set the vector of development for the whole class, around the world, for many years
          1. nikcris
            nikcris 14 January 2014 19: 23
            +1
            Not for any long years. For a dozen years. So many boats are being built today.
            Regrettably, but a fact. (((
            1. dustycat
              dustycat 14 January 2014 21: 17
              +1
              The British "noviks" are still building.
              Recently, a couple of Suffolks were sold to the Barzilians.
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 15 January 2014 00: 13
        +1
        Quote: knn54
        was acquired at the expense of the funds earmarked for the “Chilean contract” (Russia plans to buy armadillos being built for the Chilean Navy in England).

        Nobody would have sold them to us. It’s not so simple. There were a lot of dubious personalities around these cruisers who wanted to warm their hands. Yes, and England put sticks in the wheels. It could happen that the money was paid and the ships were not ready
  6. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 14 January 2014 10: 24
    +7
    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 climb out of the sea, performing tasks, now in inter-trip repairs, going to 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 projects 22350 and 11356, belong to the ships of the 2nd rank and will occupy the niche that the SKR of projects 1135 and 61 occupied in the Soviet fleet. True, there are 2 new ships of the project 11540, but there are no anti-ship missiles on the Neustrashim, and Yaroslav Wise "is armed with only 8" mosquitoes ", ie. in terms of its combat capabilities, it roughly corresponds to the project 20380 corvette.

    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
  7. Per se.
    Per se. 14 January 2014 10: 45
    +15
    Why aren't cruisers being built? The question in the article is good, but, here, the answer I would not call that. One way or another, the listed problems of domestic shipbuilding can be transferred to almost all of our military-industrial complex, but this is not an answer, nor is it a final answer "We can do everything. But we do nothing ...". The first thing "don't do" here is what is real. If now we can replenish the Russian fleet with the cruiser "Ukraina", this should be done, and not go into the absolute, expecting opportunities to build super-ships in the future, without receiving anything in the foreseeable future. Why in general oppose the modern Russian shipyards to Nikolaev? You have to understand, again because of the cruiser "Ukraine". If there is an agreement on the purchase of the ship, most likely there will be an agreement on its repair and completion, there will be relations with shipbuilders in Nikolaev. Who will it harm, Russia, Malorosia? No, rather, on the contrary, it will strengthen cooperation and contribute to the development of Russian shipbuilding, which the author is so concerned about. If the Chinese had not bought the Varyag, and "dreams of buying the decrepit skeleton of the cruiser Admiral Lobov" would have been supplemented by dreams of a "decrepit" aircraft carrier, not even an aircraft carrier, but its "skeleton". The Chinese have finished building an aircraft carrier, we need to finish building a cruiser and call it Little Russia. So it is necessary to revive the fleet and united Russia, this will begin the answer to the question "Why are we not building cruisers" and are not completing them. Otherwise, all the sadness about the topic is rather just hypocrisy about our problems in the navy.
    1. shtanko.49
      shtanko.49 14 January 2014 13: 38
      +2
      Better to buy "Ukraine", preferably completed in Nikolaev, than this money will be plundered.
    2. avt
      avt 14 January 2014 14: 40
      +10
      Quote: Per se.
      Why aren't cruisers built? The question in the article is good, but, now, I would not call it the answer.

      But why ? Oleg outlined the picture quite clearly, quite popularly and objectively.
      Quote: Per se.
      Why in general oppose the modern Russian shipyards to Nikolaev? You have to understand, again because of the cruiser "Ukraine". If there is an agreement on the purchase of the ship, most likely there will be an agreement on its repair and completion, there will be relations with shipbuilders in Nikolaev. Who will it harm, Russia, Malorosia? No, rather, on the contrary, it will strengthen cooperation and contribute to the development of Russian shipbuilding, which the author is so concerned about.
      And why does he oppose !? He gave the general picture that was in shipbuilding. With regards to the possibilities of completing and building large ships at the shipyards of Ukraine, I happened to read an interview with the chief builder of aircraft carriers in Nikolaev, so he believes that in the current state of shipyards in Ukraine this is impossible and said that they can actually build in Russia in the North - there are corresponding capacities and frames. Which actually confirms the correctness of Oleg's article when he mentioned the rework of "Gorshkov" as an example. So the article is quite good, objective and in Oleg's style - energetic, maybe from this we saw the "opposition" with Ukraine.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 14 January 2014 23: 16
        +2
        Quote: avt
        he believes that in the present state of the shipyards in Ukraine it is impossible
        The cruiser is already afloat, and not on the slipway, in extreme cases, it can be taken away in tow, for completion with us. We need a ship, and the shipyards in Nikolaev are also needed, their restoration and use for the benefit of Russia, the Black Sea Fleet, is in our national interests.
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 15 January 2014 00: 22
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          their restoration and use for the benefit of Russia

          do you want to invest a lot of money in them in such a situation in Ukraine? If Crimea was ours, I would support you. But it is not known what will happen next. By the way, are the shipyards not yet privatized? They don’t have a host?
          This money can be invested in our shipyards.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 15 January 2014 08: 06
            +3
            Quote: Pilat2009
            This money can be invested in our shipyards.
            It is possible, but the second Sevastopol (like the Black Sea) cannot be bought with any money, and Novorossiysk will not fully replace it, just as it is difficult to replace the shipyards in Nikolaev with what we have on the Sea of ​​Azov. The linkage of the Black Sea Fleet to shipyards in the Baltic and the North is also questionable. Finally, we must fight for Sevastopol and Nikolaev, just because the Americans and NATO did not end up there.
    3. Odysseus
      Odysseus 14 January 2014 18: 51
      +6
      Quote: Per se.
      The first thing "don't do" here is what is real. If now we can replenish the Russian fleet with the cruiser "Ukraine", this should be done, and not go into the absolute, waiting for opportunities to build super ships in the future

      A dubious idea. You can buy an old case, but with what to equip it? Until the issues of weapons and electronics are resolved, its completion will be costly long-term construction. If you finish building in Nikolaev, you also need to invest a lot of money in the restoration of the shipyard. If Eastern and Southern Ukraine enter the Union State with the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, then you can still go for it. ....
      What really can be done is to modernize (and not just repair) our own 1164 cruisers, and to fix the idiotic situation with their spreading over different fleets by sending them to the Pacific Fleet.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 14 January 2014 23: 03
        +2
        Quote: Odyssey
        A dubious idea. You can buy an old case, but with what to equip it?
        So old? The cruiser "Ukraine", aka "Galicia", aka "Admiral of the Fleet Lobov", aka "Komsomolets", the newest ship in the series, at 75% readiness became the property of the Ukrainian Navy. Let them think there are many options for equipping, the Chinese had much more problems, when they decided to buy an aircraft carrier, they solved them. The fleet will not build by itself, decisions will not fall by themselves. Nikolaev shipyards, like Sevastopol, are too important for our Black Sea Fleet to sit and wait for the chip to fall in Ukraine. If we do nothing, then, indeed, we will lose not only Little Russia, but also the Black Sea Fleet.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 15 January 2014 02: 20
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          If nothing is done, then, indeed, we will lose not only Little Russia, but also the Black Sea Fleet.

          I completely agree with you here, in my opinion Russia should not be given over to external control in the person of the EU and the USA, and it is high time to really intervene in its policy by heading for the peaceful separation of Eastern and Western Ukraine. Then all issues with Nikolaev shipyards would be resolved. ..
          But this, as you know, is a political issue.
          Quote: Per se.
          at 75% readiness, it became the property of the Ukrainian Navy. Let’s think that there are many options for equipping, the Chinese had much more problems, when they decided to buy an aircraft carrier, they solved them.

          75% of the readiness was 22 years ago in 1991. How much of that readiness remains? Here you need to listen to people who know the cruiser’s real condition for today. As for the Chinese, they were offered and they didn’t take Lobov. The aircraft carrier needed blood from their nose, plus they now have huge production capabilities and a lot of money.
          Do not think, I am not against the cruiser, but I think the technology and production capacities for new weapons and electronics are more important to us now.
    4. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 15 January 2014 00: 18
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      most likely there will be an agreement on its repair-completion

      Again, the question arises of combining old and new weapons systems. It will cost as much as Vikrimadilla, but there the Indians paid
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 15 January 2014 08: 18
        +3
        Quote: Pilat2009
        but there the Indians paid
        Is India richer and stronger than Russia? I would agree with you, we will build new ships of similar classes in 3-4 years, in general, if we had the opportunity to build them. Alas, today's alternative to the repair and modernization of Soviet ocean-going ships is NOTHING, EMPTINESS, and the "Grachenok" cruiser or aircraft carrier will not replace here, build at least a thousand such boats. Until we have restored the capacity, we need to repair and modernize, at least in order to preserve not only the fleet, but also the personnel for this period.
  8. moremansf
    moremansf 14 January 2014 10: 47
    +7
    It's sad, but it's a fact ... apart from shipbuilding enterprises, many factories producing equipment and weapons also remained on the territory of the former Soviet republics, the chain broke and, as a result, there is "iron", and there is nothing to stuff it with ... and those enterprises, too, that remained in Russia, also did not receive orders and state support, and so, as a result, there is "Gorshkov", there is "Ivan Gren", etc. We build on imports faster, because the filling there is mostly not ours, hence the pace of construction for the "natives" is much higher ... It is easy to break, but to rebuild is much more difficult ...
  9. moremansf
    moremansf 14 January 2014 10: 50
    +12
    In addition, more material:
    Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin instructed the press services of the corporations of the military-industrial complex subordinated to him to create "their own news factory - real, optimistic, raising people to new achievements." Rogozin wrote about this on Monday evening, January 13, on his Facebook page.
    The Deputy Prime Minister explained that he decided to take such a step because the central TV channels "drive the streams of vulgarity," and from their news blocks "you can learn about anything, but not about your own country." To change this situation, Rogozin wrote, he instructed the press services of the corporations subordinated to him "in the field of space, aircraft, ship, engine, helicopter and other structures", "to collect bit by bit the facts of the real rise of the country's industry, the restoration of its great The military-industrial complex, as a whole - the new industrialization of the country. "
    "We want to return to the people hope based on real, first, but already convincing facts of the revival of the national industry in Russia," Rogozin said.
    In my opinion, this should also change the negative attitude to the defense industry, people should feel that their work is appreciated and proud ...
    1. Evgeniy-111
      Evgeniy-111 14 January 2014 12: 44
      +3
      Site "Made by Us!" (and not a state one!)

      http://www.sdelanounas.ru/
  10. PLO
    PLO 14 January 2014 10: 52
    0
    Among other zonal air defense systems, the most justified seems to be the installation of air defense systems unified with the legendary S-400 (or even S-500)! But, as you know, the marine version of the S-400 does not yet exist and is unlikely to appear at all - no work has been heard in this direction.

    and the development of the Krepost air defense system?
    in any case, everything rests first on bringing and testing the Poliment radar, and in particular the Poliment-Redut air defense missile system.
  11. malikszh
    malikszh 14 January 2014 11: 50
    +6
    Acquisition of the cruiser Ukraina (formerly Admiral Lobov). The completely outdated rusty box of the “imperial cruiser”, which has been standing at the completion wall of the 23 Communard factory for 61 years, has become the epicenter of Russian public sympathy. - The author, why do the cruisers say outdated? Such obsolete is now the flagship of the TF and the Black Sea Fleet. It seems to me that urgently, Nodo will buy this cruiser; I still need to urgently restore the atomic cruisers.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 15 January 2014 13: 07
      +1
      Quote: malikszh
      Such obsolete is now the flagship of TF and BSF

      Not from a good life. They need to be put on modernization. Looks like Peter was going to put on 5 years
  12. AVV
    AVV 14 January 2014 12: 07
    +2
    Quote: Magellan
    But under Yeltsin, cruisers and destroyers were just being built!

    Mostly on paper! And we need a real speed of construction. HOW, FOR EXAMPLE, FRENCH Mistrals have been assembled in a year, we need to strive for this too !!!
  13. Cristall
    Cristall 14 January 2014 12: 26
    +3
    I have a question, there are capacities in Russia, but they are all in the Baltic and to the north. Is there a climatic question and difficulties when building at these facilities?
    It is no secret that non-freezing seas and shipyards on such seas are more profitable. Although it may already in the past or to this day more difficult and more expensive to build?
    1. densh
      densh 14 January 2014 13: 39
      +1
      This was one of the advantages of Ukrainian shipyards, one of many that the author of the article stubbornly does not want to notice. hi
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 15 January 2014 15: 43
        0
        Quote: densh
        This was one of the advantages of Ukrainian shipyards, one of many that the author of the article stubbornly does not want to notice.

        This is exactly what “was” until this advantage was eaten away by political instability in Ukraine. Therefore, the author does not even notice.
  14. Russ69
    Russ69 14 January 2014 12: 32
    +8
    Not being built yet ... There is no refusal to build new destroyers. Design work is underway, it has been written a lot, but for now they are modernizing what is.
    Oh, but to restore the Mitrofan Enko BD Pr 1174 would not be bad. Almost a new ship was put in reserve ... I think to restore it, it would not be very expensive.
  15. bvi1965
    bvi1965 14 January 2014 12: 54
    +4
    However, do not forget that at the same time at the plant to them. Zhdanova (now - OJSC "Severnaya Verf", St. Petersburg) built nuclear missile cruisers, pr. 1144 (code "Orlan"). Four 250-meter hulks with a total displacement of 26 thousand tons - on board two nuclear reactors, two hundred rockets, armoring, the most advanced detection and communications equipment. In its complexity and technical perfection, Orlan was not inferior to Admiral Kuznetsov.

    You can't forget what you don't know - all this farm was built at the Baltic plant "


    The Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg has a 350-meter slipway, which allows launching vessels with a deadweight of up to 100000 tons. In 2008-09. here, two unique ice-class class tankers, R-70046 Ave. (Mikhail Ulyanov and Kirill Lavrov) were launched. Length 260 meters. Width 34 meters. Deadweight 70000 tons.

    And these are on the Admiral.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  16. densh
    densh 14 January 2014 13: 21
    +3
    Now China is in first place in world shipbuilding:
    In 2009, China took over the baton of a world shipbuilding leader from South Korea. Statistics show that by that time in the Middle Kingdom there were about 3000 manufacturers, when in South Korea there were about three hundred. The main players in the market are two state enterprises: KGSK and KSPK. In the early 2000s, KGSK launched a company development program called “Goal 5-3-1”. The company set itself the goal by 2005 to become one of the largest shipbuilders in the world, and by 2015 - to occupy the first position among them. But it turned out that the industry in China was developing much faster than analysts had expected. For the first half of 2010, China received 46% of all shipbuilding orders in the world. Moreover, these statistics take into account all types of ships: from passenger ships, yachts to ships and cruise liners. Thus, Chinese shipyards gain experience and modern technologies necessary for the construction of warships
    We have a blockage with export civil shipbuilding. It is almost nonexistent. Yes, and with the construction of civil ships for "internal" use, too, not everything is smooth. Over the past 20 years, the volume of Russian orders for vessels at domestic shipyards has not exceeded 10%. Orders and money were given to foreign shipbuilders.
    Should one be surprised at the lack of personnel and modern technologies, if the industry hardly needs them. hi
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 14 January 2014 22: 42
      +3
      Leader in what area shipbuilding? Agree, obviously not in the field of nuclear submarines. This is a hint.
  17. Professor
    Professor 14 January 2014 13: 37
    +1
    Quote: densh
    Now China is in first place in world shipbuilding:
    In 2009, China took over the baton of a world shipbuilding leader from South Korea. Statistics show that by that time in the Middle Kingdom there were about 3000 manufacturers, when in South Korea there were about three hundred.

    At the time of the collapse of the USSR, Russia occupied the 12th, and Ukraine 13th place in the rank of world shipbuilding.
    1. densh
      densh 14 January 2014 13: 41
      +2
      Quote: Professor
      At the time of the collapse of the USSR, Russia occupied the 12th, and Ukraine 13th place in the rank of world shipbuilding.

      And what place do they occupy now?
      1. Professor
        Professor 14 January 2014 14: 49
        +1
        Quote: densh
        And what place do they occupy now?

        I don’t know, but beyond 15th place. The last time I was engaged in shipbuilding in 1995 was at ChSZ.
        Shipbuilding countries

        Here are some interesting statistics for shipbuilder countries:
        Top 10 Shipbuilding Nations By Orderbook (excluding offshore) in CGT Terms
        Romania is in 10th place and it accounts for only 0.5% (half percent) of world shipbuilding. Russia and Ukraine do not even have this anymore, and here we are about cruisers ...
        1. kagorta
          kagorta 14 January 2014 20: 08
          +1
          Che and the United States in this ranking is not, they also probably shipbuilding in the pen. wink
          1. Professor
            Professor 14 January 2014 21: 59
            0
            Quote: kagorta
            Che and the United States in this ranking is not, they also probably shipbuilding in the paddock.

            They have shipbuilding on high. wink
  18. Nayhas
    Nayhas 14 January 2014 13: 43
    +4
    Equipping modern equipment is not a disaster yesterday or even the day before yesterday, and the 90s are not particularly to blame. The trouble with our shipbuilding is the fatal lag of arms manufacturers from shipbuilders. A lot of striking examples. The same pr.1144 in which only Peter-1 received a full set of weapons! Did Udulo go through all of his service without a Blade? Now we are witnessing the same thing that happened during Soviet times ...
    PS: fussing with Polyment-Redoubt is just a consequence of Almaz-Antey's inability to create medium-range missiles. The 9M96 missile defense system did not have time to reach the S-400, they decided to "shake it off" for the fleet, but nothing came of it, they began to mold the S-350 under it ... Let's see what happens ... The probability that 9M96 will substitute the third air defense system exists.
    PPPS: Why did the military need Polyment-Redoubt, which was already a "pig in a poke" then, when there was a Hurricane / Calm already tested by time, with a good modernization reserve and completely similar characteristics?
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 14 January 2014 21: 47
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      PS: the fuss with Polement-Redoubt is only the consequences of the inability of Almaz-Antey to create medium-range missiles.

      Polyment-Redoubt is an overheated "Vityaz", and "Vityaz" passed state tests in the fall.
      The A-192 cannon on the Gorshkov is now probably being screwed to the deck and then to the ZKhI in the Baltic Sea, so by 2015 the frigate should be handed over to the fleet, most likely there will be two frigates, the Kasatonov will arrive in time by that time.
      Thanks to Oleg for the article, I touched it, but I hope everything will be fine, technical circles need to be organized more, the boys have no limit to their imagination.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 15 January 2014 07: 13
        0
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        and "Vityaz" passed state tests in the fall.

        Well, finally, this year we just planned to start testing and at best planned in 2015. adopt, so hurry ...
  19. lexat7
    lexat7 14 January 2014 13: 54
    +1
    I agree with bvi1965, "Eagles" is the merit of the Baltic plant, it is there that the 350-meter slipway, they themselves wrote. And at the Severnaya Verf there were 170 meters of slipways, but 7 pieces. Article plus, thanks to Oleg, interesting.
  20. ilya_oz
    ilya_oz 14 January 2014 14: 09
    0
    Cruisers are also not being built due to price. If I'm not mistaken, the price of modernization of Nakhimov is 50 billion.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 14 January 2014 22: 18
      0
      And I would not call the "Eagles" cruisers. They can be distinguished into a separate class of multipurpose attack ships, and cruisers will be more modest.
  21. RMRS
    RMRS 14 January 2014 14: 14
    +11
    Let's look objectively - in the article, of course, everything is written correctly. Let's imagine: all of a sudden all the money from the Olympics ($ 50 billion US dollars (data July 2013)) was received in the form of shipyard and design bureaus projects, and the patriots will exclaim, now they will be like But a person who is even a little familiar with the realities of shipbuilding in Russia will laugh and be right! Recall that with the shipbuilding of Ukraine we have lost 2 excellent universities for training shipbuilders. Russia has only 1n, for the whole country (another one in the Far East, but there and in the Soviet Union it was not considered a standard, more operators were trained)! and the university base remained at the level of the 70s, early 80s. So, there are no people. Then we will go further - the equipment in the shipyards. Oh, yes, it has been there since the 70s. -80s. Everything is old, barely alive. And what can we build modern there? The bottom line is that we urgently need to update the whole thing, teach and build people a little bit. In any case, with Ukraine, without it today, and what a shame - tomorrow, we will not be able to build a powerful fleet. The ship is the most difficult A feminine creation, here you can't let everything go on its own, they say we give them money, they'll figure it out there. No, in the modern realities of our government there is no time for this, they would have to milk the country in wagons, why strain the buttocks there ... Not fashionable! There will be few sdigs, because the leaders do not care about the country, there are things that are much more important and more pleasant for them. To urinate in the Mediterranean Sea from your own yacht for fabulous money is what you need!
    1. Cristall
      Cristall 15 January 2014 21: 13
      +1
      Quote: RMRS
      Recall that with the shipbuilding of Ukraine we lost 2 excellent universities for the training of shipbuilders. In Russia, there was only 1n left for the whole country (one more in the Far East, but it was not considered a standard in the Union either, more operators were trained)! And the university base remained at the level of the 70s, the beginning of the 80s. Here and sailed, no people.

      As far as I remember at the USSR, in Nikolaev in my opinion they taught. You should go there if you want to be a shipbuilder (I dreamed but higher mathematics and geometry with drawing, alas)
      It's like in Odessa, a bunch of academies. where they prepare sailors, there is no merchant fleet - we plan specialists for others ...
      Again, the turbines-Zorya, and so on .. in general, when the USSR was built where necessary. They did not count on the "parade of independence"
      1. Professor
        Professor 15 January 2014 22: 19
        0
        Quote: Cristall
        Recall that with shipbuilding in Ukraine we lost 2 excellent universities for training shipbuilders.

        Throughout the USSR, there were only 2 specialized shipbuilding universities: LCI and NKI. There were also faculties and branches. By the way, NKI was the only university in Ukraine of union subordination.
        1. RMRS
          RMRS 23 January 2014 01: 26
          0
          I agree, but in Odessa, too, good preparation was, of course, not NKI and LKI, but in full. Not a couple of Primorye.
    2. Nick_1972
      Nick_1972 16 January 2014 14: 23
      0
      And you studied the design of the building on what textbook? An hour is not Barabanova, head. Department of Ship Design KSF DVPI?
    3. Nick_1972
      Nick_1972 16 January 2014 14: 23
      0
      And you studied the design of the building on what textbook? An hour is not Barabanova, head. Department of Ship Design KSF DVPI?
      1. RMRS
        RMRS 23 January 2014 01: 23
        0
        I don’t remember already, I remember Smirnov Yuri Alexandrovich and Vladimir Nikolayevich Tryaskin taught + many with KB and research institutes, but I have already read so many textbooks and other things during my work - that I don’t remember.
      2. RMRS
        RMRS 23 January 2014 22: 54
        0
        I studied at LCI
  22. yehat
    yehat 14 January 2014 14: 41
    +1
    the essence of the problem is that it is necessary to re-create the industry of allies, providing them with regular orders. Only relying on this base can we build a normal combat fleet.
    Moreover, the industry is not subsidized (which will lead to a dead end and huge costs), but competing in the world market. Look at the Germans, who are called "not seagoing nation": submarines are sold all over the world, the most modern frigates are supplied to Europe, and so on.
    And why? Because for 20 years they have been making screwdrivers, drills and sockets the best. We also need to start from this.
  23. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 14 January 2014 14: 42
    +1
    Guys ... no one is building a cruiser right now. None at all.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 14 January 2014 15: 10
      +3
      Quote: Kibalchish
      Guys ... no one is building a cruiser right now. None at all.

      What about Zumvolt? You can of course call it a destroyer, but in terms of displacement it surpasses the cruiser Moskva.
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 14 January 2014 23: 19
        0
        .
        And in terms of efficiency? No.
        .
  24. Professor
    Professor 14 January 2014 14: 58
    +6
    Of all the above facts, an obvious conclusion emerges - the loss of shipyards in Kerch and Nikolaev, which became the property of Ukraine, is not a catastrophic loss or obstacle to the creation of a powerful ocean fleet.

    It's true. Russia can build anything, but it will not be realistic.

    The Nikolaev factory is proud of its past achievements in the field of large-capacity shipbuilding. Often there is the opinion that CVD them. 61 Kommunar has a monopoly on the construction of aircraft carriers.

    Here the author was mistaken. Plant them. The 61st Communard never built aircraft carriers. The Black Sea NW was engaged in this.

    The Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg has a 350-meter slipway, which allows launching vessels with a deadweight of up to 100000 tons. In 2008-09. here, two unique ice-class class tankers, R-70046 Ave. (Mikhail Ulyanov and Kirill Lavrov) were launched. Length 260 meters. Width 34 meters. Deadweight 70000 tons. This is already serious - their dimensions correspond to the dimensions of Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers.

    And here the author is not quite right. The dimensions of the slipway are not everything. On the "zero" slipway of the ChSZ were installed "unparalleled in ... the USSR" Finnish gantry cranes specifically for the construction of aircraft carriers. How else would the sections including the armor belt be installed? With all due respect, icebreakers do not have such heavy sections.



    1. densh
      densh 14 January 2014 15: 19
      +1
      Add also the enterprises of "subcontractors" that were close by - there was no rental, mechanisms, etc. lead across half the country. hi
      1. Professor
        Professor 14 January 2014 15: 24
        +4
        About 40 people worked at ChSZ alone ...
    2. Gad
      Gad 14 January 2014 20: 48
      +2
      I agree! the cranes installed at ChSZ were unique for the USSR. I wanted to draw the author's mistake to the confusion of 61st and ChSZ, but got ahead :). We must not forget that in Nikolaev there is another "Ocean" plant with a huge dry dock, as well as the Kerch "Zaliv" with a dock, where the only supertankers of the USSR were built. Baltic factories can't do that!
      1. Professor
        Professor 14 January 2014 22: 01
        0
        Quote: GaD
        We must not forget that in Nikolaev there is another "Ocean" plant with a huge dry dock, as well as the Kerch "Zaliv" with a dock, where the only supertankers of the USSR were built. Baltic factories can't do that!

        "Ocean" is a purely civilian enterprise and has never built ships, which, in principle, helped them to survive.
  25. q_556
    q_556 14 January 2014 15: 06
    +1
    I do not agree with the author. The main reason why cruisers are not being built is that after 20 years of stagnation, you can’t just take and start building cruisers. For starters, you need to establish serial production of boats, small ships, corvettes, frigates, and only then, if everything goes smoothly, take on destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers and other large-tonnage ships.
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 14 January 2014 18: 03
      +4
      Actually, this is how the restoration of the fleet in the USSR began after the First World Civil War and the intervention. From the construction of patrol ships ("bad weather battalion"), torpedo boats, minesweepers, the completion of ships on stocks - cruisers of the "Svetlana" type, and only then they switched to destroyers - legendary "sevens", leaders of destroyers and cruisers ("Kirov"). Then the laying of the "Soviet Union" and "Kronstadt" followed, the completion of which was prevented by the war.
      Something similar is observed now, although the situation is better now, for all the efforts of our "sworn friends" and internal ones too, Russia has managed to preserve nuclear shipbuilding, incl. underwater.
      This is a big plus. We have not lost the skills and construction of large ships.
      So not everything is lost, the next in line is the construction of modern destroyers. I think the author is right that the main problem is cooperation and modern equipment and weapons. But this problem can be solved.
  26. Alex
    Alex 14 January 2014 15: 24
    +7
    I put the article in a plus. The author correctly raised the problem. However, the situation is actually even worse. Here the author writes: We can do everything, but do nothing ... Yes, the trouble is that we now seem to want to do it, and there is money and we can’t do it. Besides that, as the author has listed, there are still a lot of electronic systems installed on the ship, and all of them are interconnected in one way or another. So earlier this equipment was designed and manufactured by hundreds of enterprises and design bureaus throughout the Union. And where now these enterprises? I myself worked at a radio factory, so I know what I’m talking about. We had two enterprises of a similar profile in our city. One does not work at all, the other breathes incense. And the main problem is personnel. For 20 years, there are really knowledgeable specialists left a little, and universities trained only lawyers, but economists. And to prepare a competent specialist, the process is so long. Until all this is understood in the government, things will not move forward. And the ships will be built for decades.
  27. dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz 14 January 2014 16: 35
    +2
    Quote: Cristall
    I have a question, there are capacities in Russia, but they are all in the Baltic and to the north. Is there a climatic question and difficulties when building at these facilities?
    It is no secret that non-freezing seas and shipyards on such seas are more profitable. Although it may already in the past or to this day more difficult and more expensive to build?

    Nikolaev remained in Ukraine. The most powerful shipyards. There are no capacities for building 1st-class ships in Russia yet. The climate issue is not a panacea. Our fleet can go both in the tropics and in the Arctic. Science does not stand still. Build now is more expensive and even more difficult. The main thing is that experience, specialists and technologies have been lost. But we will deal with this. For a couple of years, we will begin to lay the ships of the ocean zone.
  28. nikcris
    nikcris 14 January 2014 16: 48
    +1
    Quote: vyatom
    Only multi-purpose and diesel boats built Krasnaya Sormovo (let's not forget that these boats still need to be driven over the Volga to the Baltic Sea or the Barents Sea. Although the low rate of conversion of the fleet is evident.

    Let's not forget that grandfather Stalin took care of this before us, creating a system of channels through which boats from Kr. Sormova could emerge in the most unexpected places. And they were not distilled, but dragged at night.
  29. xomaNN
    xomaNN 14 January 2014 17: 09
    +2
    It was nice to read once again about the shipbuilding yards of the shipyard; I had to visit some of them when I was a supplier of weapons systems. Of course, I remember from my practice that representatives of design bureaus and factories from all over the USSR gathered at the planning meetings. And, whatever one may say, except for the shipyard, most of the equipment was supplied from the "land" p / y. And many of them remained outside the borders of the Russian Federation. And apparently, not all of these "foreign" suppliers have been replaced by Russian ones. So at least with a Ukrainian. factories of cooperation are now clearly not out of hand.
    1. nikcris
      nikcris 14 January 2014 19: 33
      0
      Of course, if torpedoes are still riveting in sunny Kyrgyzstan))) But in Russia there was no substitution.
  30. sevtrash
    sevtrash 14 January 2014 17: 21
    0
    Once, after the Second World War, Kuznetsov wanted to launch a series production of the German "seven", a la b29. Maybe now do something like an analogue of Arleigh Burke, as other countries do. And to make an unnecessary cruiser, and there is probably no modern project, and even more so to buy an outdated one seems senseless, even stupid. Well, of course, if it’s not “mastering” the budget. Actually, the author showed that the frigate is not in a position to complete, what about cruisers and aircraft carriers or even destroyers.
    In general, is there at least some high-tech defense industry product that would be on par with the best foreign (read American) samples? The first thing that comes to mind is the Su35, so the Raptor will be cooler. Well, of course, we can say that they cannot be compared for many reasons. Well, of course - C300, C400. Patriot is probably worse. And if you compare with the RIM 161 SM3? Which shoots down targets in space while being on the same destroyer, is it true with Aegis (which isn’t there an analogue too?) And which puts upside down missile defense?
    In general, it seems the best option to concentrate on what is really needed and what can be sold, and with this money to develop the product further. And the projects of cruisers, aircraft carriers to leave the Chinese.
  31. Sour
    Sour 14 January 2014 17: 30
    +1
    Where are the cruisers being built now? Will you call such a country, gentlemen, experts?
    In the studio - a list of cruisers. built in the world over the past 15 years.
    I will get acquainted with interest.
    As far as I know, the most recent series of American cruisers (of the Ticonderoga type) was designed in the 70s and began to be built in 1981. Currently, most of the cruisers of this latest series are either cut into metal, or for conservation, or are undergoing sluggish modernization as sites for launching cruise missiles are already weapons of local wars, and it is not a fact that they will be useful there. Everyone recognizes their moral obsolescence. Many American admirals openly talk about the worthlessness of these ships.
    The French fleet has one cruiser (actually a helicopter carrier).
    The Japanese fleet has two light cruisers (in fact - light helicopter carriers, with a displacement of up to 7000 tons).
    The remaining fleets of the world, as far as I know, have no cruisers in their composition.
    Maybe it's right that we are not building? If anything, now we don’t produce carts, or reeds with chain mail.
    1. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 14 January 2014 18: 47
      +2
      On the one hand - you have a fat pole from me for your balance and sound approach. But on the other side...

      The United States continues to build aircraft carriers. And what are our missile cruisers? These are the same aircraft carriers, but with unmanned disposable aircraft - missiles. It’s much cheaper, easier, faster to build and maintain, and it’s more efficient to use 3, or even 4-5 cruisers than 1 aircraft carrier.

      But in any case, the decision on the need to build cruisers should be made by state strategists, taking into account a lot of factors and data, mathematical modeling of their promenade, etc.
      1. Sour
        Sour 14 January 2014 19: 02
        +4
        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
        And what are our missile cruisers? These are the same aircraft carriers, but with unmanned disposable aircraft - missiles.

        I do not think that the tasks of missile ships and aircraft carriers are so identical. At least because the rocket and the plane are not the same in all respects (the range of tasks to be solved, the need for support, mobility, cost, requirements for armaments, etc.)
        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
        US continues to build aircraft carriers

        In the early 90s there were 14 of them, now 10 are left.
        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
        decision on the need to build cruisers should be made by state strategists

        Here I do not mind. And I hope for the wisdom of our strategists.
        In 1913-1915, the emperor decided to give tens of millions of gold rubles for the construction of battleships. There was no benefit from them. But because of this budgetary maneuver, Russia did not solve the projectile-cartridge problem, did not update the artillery fleet, which radically influenced the course of the 1915 campaign, and ultimately influenced the fate of Russia.
        Fleet fleet, but I do not remember a single war for Russia, whose fate would be decided at sea. Even Peter, a fan of the fleet, ultimately won on land. Without the victory of Poltava, all his efforts to build a fleet would have been futile.
        And under Borodino it was not the fleet that did the weather. And Berlin in 1945 did not storm the cruiser.
        I do not deny the importance of the Navy for Russia. But let me prove that large surface ships are a decisive factor in our defenses. Taking into account our capabilities and needs, IMHO there are more important items of defense spending.
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 14 January 2014 19: 20
          +2
          If only because the rocket and the plane are not the same ...

          Both the plane and the rocket are designed to cause maximum damage to the enemy at maximum distance. Only in marine theater missiles are incomparably cheaper in all respects.

          And I hope for the wisdom of our strategists.

          I am sure of it!

          In 1913-1915 the emperor ...

          I completely agree. I will add that the armed forces must be balanced. And the victories of the fleet that influenced strategic goals were. These are the times of Catherine. Orlov, Ushakov, and after Nakhimov.

          But let me prove that large surface ships are a decisive factor in our defenses. Taking into account our capabilities and needs, IMHO there are more important items of defense spending.

          + 100500!
          If strategists decide that the cruiser needs to be built / rebuilt, then the time has come, then there is a need and it is necessary to pull up opportunities for it.
          1. Sour
            Sour 14 January 2014 19: 36
            +1
            Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
            and after Nakhimov.

            With all the splendor of the Sinop victory, I can’t understand how it affected the outcome of the war.
            Great shattered Turks. But if not, then all the same the war ended in the same time and with the same result.
            And then, too, the outcome of the war was decided on land. The same ships (Sinop winners) had to be sunk. And the famous sailor Cat became famous on land. Like then political instructor Filchenkov.
            There are examples from other countries. During the Russo-Japanese War, our fleet more and more failed, sometimes very large. But if the Manchu campaign would have ended with the victory of Russia, then all the brilliant victories of the Japanese at sea would have been fruitless. About like Sinop. They would warm the soul of descendants, but no more.
            Even in the war with the island nation, the outcome for Russia was still decided on land.
            Draw conclusions.
            Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
            If strategists decide that the cruiser needs to be built / rebuilt, then it's time,

            So far, the emphasis is on missile-carrying submarines and light surface forces. And this is understandable.
            1. Ivan_Ivanov
              Ivan_Ivanov 14 January 2014 19: 52
              +1
              So far, the emphasis is on missile-carrying submarines and light surface forces. And it is explainable

              and it is right.

              the defeat of the Turkish fleet allowed our diplomats to dictate their conditions.
              But yes. The main victories are on land. The fleet is an auxiliary weapon for now. But quite significant.
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 15 January 2014 00: 31
          0
          Quote: Sour
          Fleet fleet, but I do not remember a single war for Russia, whose fate would be decided at sea

          I support. Keeping a powerful fleet and army at the same time is very costly
          The Germans themselves could not oppose England to the sea, although they were pushing. And the army of England was initially small
    2. sevtrash
      sevtrash 14 January 2014 20: 50
      +1
      Quote: Sour
      Currently, most of the cruisers of this latest series are either cut into metal, or mothballed, or undergoing sluggish modernization as platforms for launching cruise missiles - this is already a weapon of local wars, and not the fact that it will come in handy there. Their obsolescence is recognized by all. Many American admirals openly talk about the worthlessness of these ships.

      22 Ticonderoges are active, and 12 of them in 2013 upgraded $ 250 million per ship, including radar, sonar, electronics, Aegis, RIM 162. And they will serve 35 years, until 20-26. It was from this that the satellite was shot down.
  32. bddrus
    bddrus 14 January 2014 18: 34
    +1
    on the one hand, everything is true, only who brings everything to the loss of Ukrainian shipyards? and who dreams of buying the Ukraine cruiser (except for forum experts, even those many write it off as scrap)? the author himself invented a myth and successfully debunked it. The only thing I heard about the loss of the plant in Nikolaev was the size of the slipway where the aircraft carriers were built. And there really is not enough capacity - what is left is only power - we need specialists and equipment and technologies, we will not go far in the last century
  33. okroshka79
    okroshka79 14 January 2014 19: 06
    +2
    The author of the article put himself in the image of a judge, standing above the situation in which not only our military-industrial complex is, but the entire domestic industry. The article is like a slap in the direction of our workers and engineers still remaining at the shipyard. Like, we don't build because we don't want to. Indeed, there are many problems directly with shipbuilding due to the untimely delivery of В and ВТ for ships. But is this the fault of the supplying factories, roughly speaking, the "stuffing" of the ships, when they, too, barely eke out their existence due to the general situation with the domestic industry. I want to say that new ships are like a "litmus test" that shows the general state of our industry - ie. the situation is systemic and the shipbuilders have nothing to do with it. In the article, the author made a lot of mistakes, you see, he didn't get into the problem, in particular, where and at what factories the ships for our Navy were built. Nuclear cruisers were never built at the Shipyard named after. A.A. Zhdanov, and the entire series at the Baltic Shipyard. Kaliningrad shipyard "Yantar" did not build more than 30 SKR pr. 1135 (M) for our navy, but only 19 (head BOD "Vigilant", order no. 151, last SKR "Pytlivy", order no. 169). Seven ships were built by the Kerch Shipyard named after I. Butoma, the remaining 6 - Shipyard named after Zhdanov in Leningrad. In the city of Nikolaev, aircraft carriers were not built at the Shipyard named after. 61 Communards, and at the Black Sea Shipyard, and missile cruisers are really at the Shipyard named after 61 communards. All these things are well known to any professional sailor who served in our Navy, but not to the author of this article. The article is a minus.
  34. nikcris
    nikcris 14 January 2014 19: 17
    0
    I have never been a shipbuilder, but I built factories for them in the steppes. Plants for filling. Electronic. On fences, we usually wrote - A medical equipment factory is under construction))).
    What the bodies were stuffed with - does not fit in the head. I remember how the designer, a Kiev resident, was yelling at me. There’s no metro to you if I put a two-kopeck coin in the seam between the marble slabs - hell ... all of you!
    And then, for six months, I saw the ALL liberated peoples of the East. Only the skeletons remained.
  35. nikcris
    nikcris 14 January 2014 19: 40
    0
    Quote: Professor
    About 40 people worked at ChSZ alone ...

    Oppa! Did you work in the personnel department there? 40 employees - 000 serving in wartime. Without war, more. There were no other industries?)))
  36. visuvius
    visuvius 14 January 2014 19: 49
    -1
    Yes, our pace of shipbuilding has always been amazing to change.
    And without air defense, the fleet cannot be ...
    In principle, one could order 1-2 frigates abroad only with their weapons for testing and training our military. Yes, and they would have covered the gap while our military-industrial complex is swinging.
  37. visuvius
    visuvius 14 January 2014 19: 50
    0
    Yes, our pace of shipbuilding has always been amazing to change.
    And without air defense, the fleet cannot be ...
    In principle, one could order 1-2 frigates abroad only with their weapons for testing and training our military. Yes, and they would have covered the gap while our military-industrial complex is swinging.
  38. undusk
    undusk 14 January 2014 19: 54
    +2
    Cruising is good. However, now elementary tugboats do not have enough to push the steamer into the sea (it is necessary to solicit from the neighboring garrisons), sailboats drown (holes are patched with mounting foam), coastal charging stations of the 50s were built without repair, there were no floating workshops, the landing stages were not docked for 20-40 years, etc. On the ground, order would be brought in, and only then cruisers can be dealt with.
  39. Glory333
    Glory333 14 January 2014 22: 00
    +2
    Large surface ships do not need to be built; they are too vulnerable to modern anti-ship systems. For the fleet, more submarines need to be built, and destroyers and frigates from surface ships.
  40. Megre
    Megre 14 January 2014 22: 22
    +3
    This should be asked Abramovich and his friends ....
  41. Governor
    Governor 15 January 2014 00: 40
    0
    My grandfather served on the Gagarin. Through the prism of time we see - a dinosaur, and dinosaurs tend to die out; but who will ever be able to repeat this? - They can, of course. You just need to remember that there was already a country on Earth that created all this and even more. And life goes on and Russia will have ships!
  42. The comment was deleted.
  43. joooony
    joooony 15 January 2014 00: 57
    +1
    Why ships ??? SOCHI 2014 50M $ is power!
    1. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 15 January 2014 01: 15
      +2
      Russia with difficulty began to build warships again. What is no reason to spit in your country, YES?

      Do not like Russia? Vali nah ...
      1. joooony
        joooony 17 January 2014 01: 37
        -1
        Ivan, I just adore Russia !!! With children's allowances for the poor at 200 rubles, pensions for the disabled at 7000 rubles (only an apartment 3000-4000 rubles), average pension 8000 rubles (psovskaya oblast), s / n 12000, just 75% of the poor of the country dreamed about Sochi and already bought tickets for everything! And stop talking nonsense!
    2. abdrah
      abdrah 15 January 2014 05: 08
      0
      joooony - yooonu, don’t be a yorik, they piss in our ears about the Olympiad for a reason - Russia in the eyes of its Western friends is not for it - our friends “won” us and we repent, like Germany before the arrival of Hitler, we need to put money in theirs funds, and God forbid producing sports games, games are the lot of the winners, that is, not us. The fact that after the games there will be infrastructure worth the same billions is somehow lost in comparison with the cost as a whole. I agree that it would be necessary to emasculate and feed a crowd of thieves who profit from this construction, as well as the persons who cover them, a Cossack, with a small letter, for example, blowing bubbles on the question of money, but if nothing is done, it will not be better! Let this Olympiad be the first stone laid in the foundation of a new, reborn Russia! And at the expense of mistakes in construction, we have time to debrief the start, the main thing is to pick up the pace, and then the screeching of disaffected and dissenting people will no longer matter to us when no one will slow down the train on the way, and those who slow down it will be thrown into the locomotives or roadside trees!
  44. Semenov
    Semenov 15 January 2014 06: 00
    -1
    The article is correct. A modern fleet cannot be built with a raw (backward) economy. Look around - what is produced only in Russia? "The military-industrial complex will serve as the locomotive of the industry," Rogozin said. Here the military-industrial complex is pulling what remains for 20 years of "the absence of an external enemy" and total theft to spite the liberals. The first results are already there, though they are modest, but money is allocated, the pace is picking up and there are prospects.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 15 January 2014 16: 23
      +1
      And how are you going to get money to turn into non-primary?
  45. oracul
    oracul 15 January 2014 08: 17
    +1
    Actually, the answer to the questions posed was given in his speech at the meeting of the "Mercury Club" by E.M. Primakov. 13.01.2014/XNUMX/XNUMX. Neoliberals in and around government are desperately opposed to anything that is supposed to help strengthen and flourish in Russia. Including strengthening its defenses. This is the main thing. They are ready to sell everything for a pittance. Isn't it funny - Sberbank, Rosneft, Gazprom and many other state corporations make big profits every year, but they are ready to sell them in order to get some income at once. And then some uncle will skim the cream, it's good if his own, or even a foreign one. We have already gone through all this. While all sorts of Kudrins, Dvorkovichs, Ulyukaevs, Siluanovs, etc. will put sticks in the wheels, everything will go awry. And they will do it because they are so oriented. As K. Marx noted - "the most powerful fortress is the human head."
    1. urganov
      urganov 15 January 2014 16: 58
      0
      about Ulyukaev "sovramshi uncle". Don't say something that you don't know personally. (No offense)
  46. avg
    avg 15 January 2014 11: 51
    +1
    It's all about government priorities. My neighbor's two sons graduated from the Institute of Robotics, the elder also graduated from graduate school. He went headlong into science, worked for the soul, and moonlighted with translations (3 languages ​​perfectly). I got married, a child appeared. We need money for housing. He went into business, not scientific, connected with the foreign service of our "fat cats". The youngest is also going to get married, and is already thinking of changing the laboratory to his brother's office.
    And in Soviet times, everyone sought to work in the defense industry - interesting, honorable, decent salary, social benefits. So much for the cruiser. It’s good to go on a feat having a strong rear behind.
  47. dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz 15 January 2014 14: 57
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    About 40 people worked at ChSZ alone ...

    Prof! You are unique. The exact number is 38.192.
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 January 2014 15: 13
      +2
      Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
      Prof! You are unique. The exact number is 38.192.

      The construction of the Varangian cost approximately as the entire housing stock of the city of Nikolaev at that time having a population of almost 600 thousand. This is a certificate for those who are going to build a dozen aircraft carriers. wink
  48. dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz 15 January 2014 15: 59
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
    Prof! You are unique. The exact number is 38.192.

    The construction of the Varangian cost approximately as the entire housing stock of the city of Nikolaev at that time having a population of almost 600 thousand. This is a certificate for those who are going to build a dozen aircraft carriers. wink

    So this is not news. But the trouble is that only Russia financed this project. These are our Slav brothers. And you +. I’ve just looked at this site for two years. And I repeat, you are unique !!! (In a good way)
    1. Kars
      Kars 15 January 2014 16: 09
      +1
      Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
      .But the whole trouble is that only Russia financed this project. Here are our Slav brothers


      can be more detailed? what time period are you talking about? about the RFSR? Or the USSR?
  49. dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz 15 January 2014 16: 25
    -2
    kars.RFSR-not the topic. USSR. But. For the construction of ships in Nikolaev, the money came only from Russia. I, in no case, belittle the merits of shipbuilders of the city. I was there in your experience. 1988. And in Ukraine, in Sumy, Dnepropetrovsk, Belokorovichi, I have a lot of friends. In Kiev, one of the best friends. If you got something, please forgive me. But the facts of financing the construction of ships are not a secret. Moscow gave money.
    1. Kars
      Kars 15 January 2014 16: 43
      +1
      Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
      For the construction of ships in Nikolaev, money came only from Russia

      Based on what documents do you make such a statement?
      Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
      By no means do I belittle the merits of the shipbuilders of the city.

      For the most part, I don’t care.
      Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
      Moscow gave money.

      You do not confuse Moscow with Russia? Moscow was the capital of the USSR, and controlled not the money of the RSFSR (and not Russia — there was no such country then), but the general union budget.
      But you can present a document well that the Varangian was built on tax deductions only from the territory of the RSFSR, bypassing the all-Union budget.
      1. dmitrij.blyuz
        dmitrij.blyuz 15 January 2014 19: 03
        0
        Well well. Moscow is not only the RSFSR, so by the way it is correctly spelled and said. Without a financial injection into the Ukrainian economy, there would be no Nikolaev, Antonov and others. I personally was a military representative on the VARYAG, when yours had lost everything. I beg your pardon, Kars, But it looks like you are a Russophobe. I have read a lot of your comments. And everywhere there is disdain for Russia. If you are so correct, why are you still not a president? the opinion about tanks (and only) is sometimes interesting to me. (and about "almost" - so this is ours, Baikal.
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 January 2014 19: 26
          +1
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          Well well. Moscow is not only the RSFSR

          What a debt.
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          a by the way it is correctly spelled and said

          I don `t care.
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          .Without financial injection into the economy of Ukraine, there would be neither Nikolaev, Antonov, nor the following

          What documents do you appeal for? There are balances. Are you sure that they were so vital without the USSR, in principle? Or do you think Ukraine had a need to build aircraft carriers?
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          I personally was a military representative on VARYAG, when your

          And what documents did you have that it was funded by the SRFSR before the collapse of the USSR?
          And why does Ukraine need an aircraft carrier? And the Russian Federation really took Varyag even though he stood on the slipway for 5 years after the Russian Federation stopped funding its completion.

          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          . I apologize, Kars, But it looks like you are a Russophobe.

          not worth it, anyway I will not forgive, and not a Russophobe, ................deleted by moderator Apollo
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          I read a lot of your comments. And everywhere the neglect of Russia slips
          I read even more where it’s not slipping, but it’s right that it’s like some kind of substance of waste of activity, disregard for Ukraine,

          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          If you are so correct, why aren't you still in the presidents?

          It's not over yet. By the way, are you deputy GDP already?
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          Although your opinion about tanks (and only) is sometimes interesting to me
          Well again a favor.
      2. dmitrij.blyuz
        dmitrij.blyuz 15 January 2014 19: 19
        -1
        I hope, though in vain, that you know, they are not there. You still shipbuilders. Then, as it is, your business is your truck and your tank. Here and fight on it. What kind of Russia do you like? What did they build? Nichrome. Sorry, Kars, but I had a better opinion of you. Maidan did not pass by, right?
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 January 2014 19: 32
          +2
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          I hope, though in vain, that you know, they are not

          Who is the proof of your words?
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          Then, as it is, your business is trucks and your tank. Here and fight on it

          I'm an artilleryman Hyacinth B

          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          .What do you cling to Russia

          Who is it? Where? If you are talking about cooperation in shipbuilding, it’s only for money.
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          did they build it?

          But was it necessary? Maybe Ukraine needed to finish building nuclear Ulyanovsk and include it in the Black Sea Fleet of Ukraine?

          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          Sorry, Kars, but I had a better opinion of you.
          I'm upset.

          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          Maidan did not pass by, right?

          Well then, it’s clear that you are making an opinion on what the scheme is not clear. I’ve got a minus from Ukrainophobes from the very beginning of the current career.
  50. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.