Military Review

Atomic Squadron of Admiral Gorshkov

37



Revival of the Navy fleet The USSR is directly connected with the events of the winter of 1955-1956. - the rapid resignation of Admiral N.G. Kuznetsov, followed by the assumption of the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Sergey Georgievich Gorshkov. The new commander-in-chief chose a firm course towards the creation of an ocean nuclear missile fleet. For the first time since the beginning of the XNUMXth century, our sailors managed to declare themselves far from their native shores.

From high Arctic latitudes to the warm Indian Ocean, Admiral Gorshkov's ambitions grew in proportion to the ambitions of the Soviet Union. Strengthening the value of the fleet as a tool of geopolitical influence, coupled with rapid scientific and technical progress, allowed Gorshkov to "knock out" funds for the creation of extreme samples of marine weapons. The Soviet commander-in-chief seriously expected to become the lord of the five oceans!

Already in the first half of the 60-s in our country began the design of surface ships of the ocean zone with nuclear power plants: heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers, missile cruisers and anti-submarine ships. With 70-x began their active incarnation "in the metal." If everything had turned out as planned by Gorshkov, by the end of the century a squadron would appear in our country, having no equal in combat power.

Heavy nuclear aircraft carrying cruiser "Ulyanovsk" (project 1143.7)

The first Soviet ship of this type and the first nuclear aircraft carrier built outside the United States. Even now, despite all its obvious weaknesses and atavisms of design, the 1143.7 project inspires respect with its huge size and stately, majestic silhouette.

Of course, Ulyanovsk was inferior to its main and only rival - the American aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type. The domestic aircraft carrier had a smaller displacement by a quarter, carried a smaller wing and had more constrained conditions for the deployment of aircraft. Only two starter catapults against the Nimitz’s four, three aircraft lifts instead of four, a smaller hangar (almost 1000 square meters).



Missing catapults were partially compensated by a nasal springboard with two starting positions. Such a decision saved millions of Soviet rubles, but caused new difficulties. Taking off from a springboard is only possible for aircraft with very high thrust-to-weight ratio - but even for powerful 4 generation fighters, such a focus is fraught with severe limitations on take-off mass and combat load. Finally, the springboard made the entire nose of the ship unsuitable for parking aircraft.

The solution with placing on the 12 aircraft heavy aircraft anti-ship missiles P-700 “Granit” - the underdeck launch system for 7-tonnage missiles “ate” the precious space and reduced the already small hangar looks rather meaningless. An additional link of "Dry" would be much more useful than these huge one-time "blanks" with a length in excess of 10 meters.

Atomic Squadron of Admiral Gorshkov

Open launchers P-700 "Granite" on the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov"


But the “first pancake” was not a “lump”! The Ulyanovsk possessed a pleiad of remarkable virtues — like all Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers, the 1143.7 av. Had inherent excellent self-defense systems. 192 anti-aircraft missiles Zerk Dagger + 8 modules ZRAK Kortik (however, you should not overestimate Ulyanovsk’s air defense, Dagger and Dirk, this is the last echelon of defense, the maximum range of missile launch does not exceed 12 km).

The complex of radio detection equipment planned to be installed on Ulyanovsk is a song! Mars-Passat radar with four stationary HEADLIGHTS, an additional far-range radar “Podberezovik”, a pair of radars for detecting high-speed low-flying targets “Podkat” ...

Such a multifunctional radar complex promises to appear only on new American aircraft carriers like the Ford (it’s not worth scoffing about problems with the capricious and unreliable Mars-Passat) - the modern American Dual Band Radar is also far from achieving operational readiness).

According to the widespread data, the composition of the Ulyanovsk wing was as follows:
- 48 fighter MiG-29K and Su-33;
- 4 Yak-44 long-range radar detection aircraft (“flying radar”, AWACS);
- up to 18 anti-submarine and search and rescue helicopters of the Ka-27 family.



In reality, such a number of aircraft was excluded. On board at the same time could be no more than half of the specified number of aircraft, otherwise the flight deck and hangar would become an impassable warehouse of scrap metal (the same is true for the "Nimitz" with its 90 aircraft).

The Ulyanovsk air wing did not include a variety of attack aircraft, tankers, and anti-submarine aircraft — only powerful fighters and AWACS. Soviet lag in the field of maritime aviation suddenly became an advantage!

As practice has shown, the shock capabilities of even the most powerful aircraft carrier are negligible. The only priority task of the "floating airfield" is air cover of the squadron on the ocean communications. In matters of air combat, the Ulyanovsk wing of air could give odds to the wing of any Nimitz and Enterprise: F / A-18С had no chance to resist Su-33.

The final was sad. After 4, after the laying, the unfinished Ulyanovsk building was dismantled for metal. As of the end of 1991, its availability was estimated at 18,3%.

Heavy nuclear missile cruiser project 1144 (code "Orlan")

Superavian needs superexort! The task of the zonal air defense was assigned to the atomic “Orlan” with “gloated” C-300 systems. In fact, this ship was created as an autonomous combat unit with a full-fledged composition of attack and defensive weapons - the embodiment of the dream of an “ocean bandit” capable of dealing with any adversary.

The atomic cruiser carried the full range of weapons of the USSR Navy, with the exception of ballistic missiles. At the time of the launch of the head "Kirov" (1980 year), many of its innovations did not have analogues in the world: underdeck launchers, heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles, long-range anti-aircraft systems, advanced fire detection and control systems (such as the Polynom GAS or radar ZR-41 "Wave" of the C-300F complex), a system for obtaining target designation from MKRTS satellites, armor belts and horizontal protection ... The creators of the Orlan despised any compromises and selected only the best technologies for their ship.



The "Eagles" turned out to be huge, complex and monstrously expensive ships: with a length of a quarter of a kilometer and a total displacement of 26 thousand tons. Nevertheless, nuclear-powered cruisers are the only component of the super-squadron that received a “start in life”. In the period from 1973 to 1998, four such ships were built, each of which had noticeable differences in the composition of weapons and radio systems.



At the moment, two cruisers - "Admiral Ushakov" (formerly "Kirov") and "Admiral Lazarev" (formerly "Frunze") are withdrawn from the fleet and put in sludge. "Admiral Nakhimov" (formerly "Kalinin") is undergoing intensive modernization at Sevmash. It is planned that the cruiser will return to service in the 2018 year. The fourth and most accomplished Orlan, the flagship ship of the Northern Fleet, Peter the Great, regularly participates in long-distance ocean voyages, speaking in the framework of the concept of the “superiority ship at sea” concept.

Large anti-submarine ship with a nuclear power plant project 1199 (cipher "Anchar")

Perhaps the most mysterious element of the Soviet super squadron is the atomic anti-submarine ship in the security of atomic aircraft carriers of the 11437 Ave.

Work on Anchar was carried out in the Northern Design Bureau since 1974, but the atomic BOD project was never realized. The reason is exceptional cost with unobvious advantages. A nuclear power plant has large weight and size characteristics and a higher cost compared to a conventional gas turbine. The complex design with several reactor cooling circuits and biological protection systems, fuel and further problems with its disposal - all this left a negative imprint on the size and cost of operating the Anchar itself.

According to the official TTZ of 1976, the standard atomic BOD displacement should not exceed 12 thousand tons. But even with such a “restriction”, the nuclear anti-submarine ship turned out to be two times larger than the usual BOD or the destroyer of that time!


Model atomic BOD "Anchar"

However, they also didn’t refuse to use the conventional power plant: one of the priority options for the layout of the future BOD was a scheme with a PPE of economic progress and afterburner gas turbines to accelerate the ship to speeds above 30 nodes. It is easy to imagine how much this technical “misunderstanding” would cost the budget!

However, the nuclear reactor was not the only “stone on the neck” of the “Anchar” project. Much more serious is the fact that the designers and developers deliberately did not seek to limit the displacement of their ship. As a result, repeated история with "Orlan" - "Anchar" received all new systems and weapons, which raised the cost of an already expensive BOD to the skies. The large anti-submarine ship turned into a multi-purpose nuclear-powered cruiser, more focused on the performance of air defense functions than on the defense of the compound against enemy submarines.


The standard displacement is 10 500 t. Main dimensions: maximum length - 188 m, width - 19 m. Main power plant atomic-gas turbine (in power n / d): 2 VVR, 2 PPU, 2 GTZA, 2 reserve and afterburner GTU. The highest speed is 31 knots, autonomy is 30 days, crew is 300 ... 350 people.

The armament was presented: 3 air defense system short / medium range "Hurricane"; 8 supersonic anti-ship missiles "Mosquito"; 5 combat modules DIRECT "Dirk"; automated twin AK-130 caliber 130 mm; 2 x RBU-6000; Ka-27 anti-submarine helicopter.


As a result of all discussions, it turned out that the Soviet Navy is not at all interested in nuclear BOD. Seafarers need "workhorses" - cheap BOD and destroyers suitable for large-scale construction.

It was not possible to fill the ship with super-expensive atomic BOD. And to include in the forces of the aircraft carrier escort ships with conventional GEM would practically mean to level all the advantages of Anchar in autonomy and high speed. Also, it was not worth forgetting that autonomy is limited not only by fuel supplies, but also by food supplies, ammunition, reliability of mechanisms and endurance of the ship’s crew. According to these parameters, "Anchar" had no advantages over the usual destroyer.

Based on the research, a pure gas turbine project BOD 11990 was developed. The refusal of a nuclear reactor allowed to improve the combat qualities of the ship. The released space and load reserve was spent on installing more powerful weapons. In the end, the choice was nevertheless stopped on a combined power plant: YPUPU + afterburner GTE.

The head "Anchar" was planned to be laid on the Nikolaevsky CVD them. Communal 61 at the end of 1980's. However, soon all the work on the BOD was stopped, and according to unconfirmed data, the GEM already prepared for it was decided to be used to equip the Varyag missile cruiser under construction (1164 Ave.). With the beginning of perestroika, it completely disappeared ...




A note on "Anchar" in the "Red Star"


Based on:
http://forums.airbase.ru
http://militaryrussia.ru
http://otvaga2004.ru
http://voinanet.ucoz.ru
http://www.wikipedia.org
Author:
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 18 March 2014 08: 12
    +14
    Hmm ... A country of about ten years was missing and the Navy would have reached a technically new, higher level!
    1. Canep
      Canep 18 March 2014 08: 46
      +6
      Quote: Rurikovich
      A country of about ten years was missing and the Navy would have reached a technically new, higher level!
      Even if it were enough, everyone labeled with a drunk would be cut into scrap.
      1. Santa Fe
        18 March 2014 08: 51
        +8
        Quote: Canep
        labeled with an alcoholic everyone would have been cut into scrap.

        There is no third, last on your list

        They cut more with him than with Gobachev and EBN combined
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 18 March 2014 09: 09
          +3
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Hmm ... A country of about ten years was missing and the Navy would have reached a technically new, higher level!


          Quote: Canep
          Even if it were enough, everyone labeled with a drunk would be cut into scrap.

          Some four years, which were not enough to complete the construction of "Ulyanovsk" - threw us back several decades! Well, I won't talk about perestroika, and everything is clear!
          Thanks Oleg for the work, I read it with pleasure! hi
          Good day to all, FRIENDS !!! drinks
          1. Tyler Durden
            Tyler Durden 18 March 2014 19: 02
            +1
            At the time of the launch of the leading Kirov (1980), many of its innovations had no analogues in the world: under-deck launchers, heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles

            Launcher technology itself came from the submarine fleet. Before launching the granite rocket launchers had to be filled with sea water, since there was not enough time for surface ship versions, so Bazalt missiles were installed on project 1164. wink They were in a hurry. smile
          2. The comment was deleted.
  2. from punk
    from punk 18 March 2014 08: 27
    +1
    more. more boxes
  3. Nayhas
    Nayhas 18 March 2014 08: 28
    +8
    Cognitively, of course, for beginners, moreman, but where are the findings? I see at least two:
    1. Gorshkov, in a marasmic delirium, wasted folk remedies bringing out the classic "white elephants" without commensurate with the capabilities of the military-industrial complex with his (precisely his) needs;
    2. Gorshkov unrecognized genius who saw the real future of the Navy;
    This would be a topic of debate, but only a statement of known facts ...
    1. Santa Fe
      18 March 2014 08: 40
      +11
      Quote: Nayhas
      1. Gorshkov, in a marasmic delirium, wasted folk remedies bringing out the classic "white elephants"

      You probably don’t know what kind of shelters you planned to build overseas (and did!) - CSGN project, Long Beach and all 9 atomic cruisers, air waffles
      Quote: Nayhas
      not commensurate with the capabilities of the military-industrial complex with its own (precisely its) needs;

      From what. The scientific, technical and industrial level allowed
      Quote: Nayhas
      That would be a topic of contention.

      There is nothing to argue about. Interesting projects from the past.

      In any case, these wunderwaffes would be better built than the oligarch’s yachts.

      Russian Zamvolt - 130-meter beauty "A". Owner - Andrey Melnichenko
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 18 March 2014 09: 43
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You probably don’t know what kind of shelters you planned to build overseas (and did!) - CSGN project, Long Beach and all 9 atomic cruisers, air waffles

        A series of nuclear cruisers / frigates in the United States is undoubtedly known to me, but they thought better of it and sent them to where they belong. All of their projects and projects resulted in a cruiser type Ticonderoga.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        From what. The scientific, technical and industrial level allowed

        Please recall why between Kirov and Andropov there is such a difference in the nomenclature of weapons. Why did Uduloy and Novorossiysk die without the Dagger air defense system, why Undaunted is still without Uranus missile defense, how much did Moskit anticipate the modern missile defense?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In any case, these wunderwaffes would be better built than the oligarch’s yachts.

        If such beauties were built in Russia, then I would not mind, but this vessel made by Blohm & Voss ...
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 18 March 2014 10: 58
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          If such beauties were built in Russia, then I would not mind, but this vessel made by Blohm & Voss ...

          At "Sevmash" was built by order of Blohm & Voss, in my opinion the project is more interesting, you can see the slides inside if you are interested
          http://www.h2yachtdesign.com/agat/
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 18 March 2014 11: 43
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            At "Sevmash" was built by order of Blohm & Voss, in my opinion the project is more interesting, you can see the slides inside if you are interested

            Only part of the hull was built at Sevmash, then it was driven to the Blohm & Voss shipyard and completed there.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 18 March 2014 12: 57
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              Only part of the hull was built at Sevmash, then it was driven to the Blohm & Voss shipyard and completed there.

              Was this part driven away or did it leave on its own?
              The factory claims:
              The yacht was launched on September 4. Throughout the autumn, the yacht successfully passed the "Marine Exams", and by the beginning of December the program of the declared tests was fully completed.Then the yacht headed for Italy, where it will be finished in the interior. I’m sure that Sevmash could have done it himself, but the customer’s requirement is the law. So now - the course to Italy.
              1. kanifas
                kanifas 18 March 2014 16: 42
                -3
                Sevmash’s interior decoration of the yacht was never performed by the same production culture and they never worked in this area.
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 18 March 2014 21: 59
                  +2
                  Quote: kanifas
                  Sevmash’s interior decoration of the yacht was never performed by the same production culture and they never worked in this area.

                  Do you work at Sevmash or does your company cooperate with the plant that you know the plant’s capabilities so well?
        2. Santa Fe
          18 March 2014 14: 33
          +2
          Quote: Nayhas
          but they thought better of it

          In the sense changed your mind? They built them for a quarter of a century - 1957 (LB bookmark) to 1980 (Texas or whatever). During this time, they gave birth to 3 "white elephants" and 6 more small-scale bobcats. They exploited them until the mid-90s, LB tried to seriously modernize (Aegis), but they did not allocate money

          They tried to build CSGN and CGN-42 (Virgin with Aegis), but got horns from Congress

          So the Yankees didn’t go far by squandering from Gorshkov (and even further)
          Quote: Nayhas
          why between Kirov and Andropov such a difference in the nomenclature of weapons

          Tika arr. 83-go is very similar to the last ships of the project?
          Quote: Nayhas
          Why Uduloy and Novorossiysk died without an air defense system Dagger

          Why didn't the seven Sprouts wait for the UVP?

          The lead ships often do not have time to get the whole range of weapons and systems
          Quote: Nayhas
          If such beauties were built in Russia

          We can’t do that. Either atomic waffles - or yachts with gilded railings similar. For me, the first option is preferable - because in this case there is benefit for all the inhabitants of Russia
    2. Arberes
      Arberes 18 March 2014 09: 17
      +3
      Quote: Nayhas
      Gorshkov, an unrecognized genius who saw the real future of the Navy;

      Personally, I adhere to the second! He looked far into the future!

      Quote: Nayhas
      This would be a topic of debate, but only a statement of known facts ...

      The debate about whether we need aircraft carriers? We have already argued everything in full and both parties to the debate remained, as they say in their opinion. The most annoying thing is that nothing depends on our disputes and opinions! hi
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 18 March 2014 09: 47
        +1
        Quote: Arberes
        The debate about whether we need aircraft carriers?

        Not really. About the direction in the development of the fleet. But this topic is rather complicated for such a resource.
    3. sso-xnumx
      sso-xnumx 19 March 2014 21: 54
      0
      the second one. Knowing and anticipating is worth a lot ...
      He still had an idea - an ekranoplan-aircraft carrier
  4. Internal combustion engine
    Internal combustion engine 18 March 2014 09: 17
    -1
    Nemchura, agents entrenched at the tsarist throne during the time of Nicholas II, managed to divert military construction in Russia to the expensive and costly surface fleet of crazy steel dreadnoughts to the detriment of the development of weapons for the land theater of war and the submarine fleet. It cost us dearly in the First World War. And they tried to lead the country along the same path before the Great Patriotic War. What did our battleships do in the Great Patriotic War? We stood at the pier. And agents of world imperialism wanted to do something similar with us in the Brezhnev era. But, thank God, the "comrades" were not led to this, and now we have a more or less sane army and a serious strategic submarine fleet. Oceanic surface leviathans are needed primarily by predatory, aggressive countries. We herbivores don't need them. We need a weapon to stop them - anti-car missiles.
    1. creak
      creak 18 March 2014 11: 04
      +3
      ICE

      Do you have official data on the agents of world imperialism in the leadership of the USSR in Brezhnev times, because it determined the development of the Soviet armed forces? I can remind you who stood at the leadership of the time - Andropov, Ustinov, Gromyko, Suslov ... Specific names and documents, please, you are our vigilant .... And the Germans among them probably already were not like the tsar. truth?
    2. Dimon-chik-79
      Dimon-chik-79 18 March 2014 11: 39
      -3
      If you can’t disagree, if you separate the hackneyed conspiracy theology, then such a ground power as Russia, it is necessary to bring the ground forces to a higher quality modern level, finally complete the full-scale modernization of the army and rearm it with modern weapons. Also, do not forget about ordinary citizens of the country and prevent tensions in society, maintaining the well-being of the population in the country at the proper level, thereby counteracting all sorts of attempts to undermine the power from the inside. And only then if it is within the means of building giant ocean cruisers and aircraft carriers. That is, you need to learn from your mistakes and not jump on the same rake.
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 18 March 2014 11: 55
      +8
      ICE. Well, let's say that the presence of 4 battleships on the roadstead of Helsingfors was one of the reasons for the Germans' refusal to cross the Gulf of Finland! And the action of "Slava" in the Gulf of Riga for two years confused the plans of the German General Staff. Soviet battleships are tsarist heritage, they were not built during the Soviet Union. Yes, the "October Revolution" and "Marat" were at the pier, because in the battle with the "Tirpitz" and "Admirals Scheer" they had no chance because of their old age. But “Sevastopol” a couple of times supported the defenders of the city of the same name. Regarding the damage to the development of ground weapons, I apologize, I somehow did not understand what exactly is the defect? Well, a strong country (and Russia is a strong country !!) needs a strong fleet and the state's predation is not in any way here! hi
  5. ybrcfy27
    ybrcfy27 18 March 2014 09: 29
    +5
    If Russia was a herbivore, we would still be sitting in Kiev and it would have been all to us, and we always fought, we didn’t have time to organize the same Oleg, but we already went and Constantinople won and imposed a tribute, although then the Byzantine Empire was the most powerful country in Europe
  6. AlexA
    AlexA 18 March 2014 10: 03
    +3
    Quote: ICE
    serious strategic submarine fleet.

    What "serious" one?
    Here at the VO there was once an article that there were no more than a dozen left after the combat-ready SSBNs. Or so.
    Condition - alas! - sad ...
    1. Patriot
      Patriot 19 March 2014 00: 47
      0
      well, even though it remains, I generally wonder how everyone did not saw it in the 90s
  7. svp67
    svp67 18 March 2014 11: 15
    +2
    We need the shipyards of Nikolaev ...
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 18 March 2014 16: 43
      +2
      What for? The Zvezda shipbuilding complex is being reconstructed in the Far East. http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/43538/

      After completion of work, it will produce tankers with a displacement of up to 350 KT, gas carriers, ice-class vessels, special vessels, elements of offshore platforms and other types of marine equipment. Is 350 thousand tons of displacement enough for an aircraft carrier? :)
  8. Kornilovets
    Kornilovets 18 March 2014 14: 03
    0
    It seems that they raised the question of what is now in Russia capacity ..
    1. Billy Bones
      Billy Bones 18 March 2014 17: 36
      +2
      The capacity is there. There are no professionals. The French built two Mistrals in three years, and we rejoice at the launch of the corvette laid down in the early 2000s.
      1. Patriot
        Patriot 19 March 2014 00: 50
        0
        Yes, there are few professionals, this is definitely necessary. First of all, school education should be reoriented to technical sciences. These subjects were poorly taught in our school.
      2. Russkiy53
        Russkiy53 19 March 2014 01: 35
        0
        Power-power ... MONEY !!! in them, s ... ka, the question !!!
  9. Voenruk
    Voenruk 18 March 2014 14: 29
    0
    Everywhere you need a strong-willed decision, in any matter.
  10. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 18 March 2014 16: 50
    -1
    Khrushch, with his "experiments", destroyed Stalin's economic legacy, and Gorshkov, under his leadership, destroyed plans to create, if not the most advanced, but powerful, numerous and cheap ocean-going fleet. Massively built cruisers are precisely the oceanic fleet. Instead, he developed a vigorous activity to create an incomprehensible colossus that could not solve a single strategic problem. Remember the Caribbean crisis. Our dry-cargo ships broke through the blockade of Cuba without the cover of their NK, the Stalinist cruisers who would have done an excellent job have already sawed off, and the latest advanced megaprojects were in full swing, and the naval leadership was not up to breaking some kind of blockade. Remember the war in Vietnam, the Soviet fleet did not play any role at all. But it was, and it was really big and powerful, but it did not solve the problem, unlike the American one, which actively used outdated ships of the Second World War. Diversity and raznosortitsa reigned, small series of expensive dubious mega projects, with almost complete absence of coastal infrastructure, and as a result, all these unique pieces were burned at anchor. Allegedly, the merits of Gorshkov in creating a powerful nuclear submarine fleet suffered from the same shortcomings. A huge amount of various machinery, of all possible varieties and qualities. Nobody except us built so many different narrowly specialized, and at the same time. Some projects tried to compensate for the shortcomings of the surface component of the fleet, with separate ones - the shortcomings of the underwater one. In general, our fleet was good in peacetime, in the event of war it would be impossible to cope with all this variety of narrow specialization and compromises, divided into several isolated theaters of operations. In general, under Gorshkov, instead of creating an inexpensive, effective fleet, they were very expensive, probably all possible schemes and directions were implemented in scanty quantities, up to exotic (ekranoplanes), but at the end, the benefits for the state were zero. As soon as a really effective work of the fleet was required to protect current interests, all this colossus disappeared somewhere and the TFRs went to work.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 March 2014 02: 47
      +1
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Gorshkov, under his (Khrushchev) leadership, destroyed plans to create, if not the most advanced, but powerful, numerous and cheap ocean fleet.

      In order.
      1. The country entered the era of the threat of nuclear weapons against it. In reality, we could only answer the amers with the P-7 and a warhead on it. For economic reasons, the country was not able to build rockets and navy at the same time. I had to abandon aviation and large ships. It’s bad that they didn’t put on conservation. But what has been done is done.
      2. The "not the most advanced" fleet had nothing to do against the US fleet, which had experience of strategic use against the Japanese fleet. Not the weakest fleet of the time. A fleet without air cover on the high seas is doomed. We had no aircraft carriers.
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Instead, he developed a vigorous activity to create an incomprehensible colossus that could not solve a single strategic task.

      Gorshkov built a large series of BODs (1 and 2 ranks: pr 1134 and 1135), 2 helicopter carriers (pr 1123), armed missile boats with the KR, created MRA. Thus, the fleet was able to move the combat patrol areas of SSBNs with Polaris and Poseidon SLBMs from the country's terrorist forces. At the same time, construction began on the 1st generation submarine. The strategic task of neutralizing American SSBNs was accomplished to the extent that it was possible to solve it at that time. Maneuvers "Ocean" (1970) unpleasantly surprised the States. The USSR fleet went into the ocean.
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Remember the Caribbean crisis. Our bulk carriers broke through the blockade of Cuba without covering their NK

      "Anadyr" - The operation for the covert delivery of the USSR Armed Forces group to Cuba was carried out throughout the classic conspiracy. Therefore, our dry cargo ships did not break through any blockade. And when it was announced, the crisis entered a decisive stage.
      Quote: chunga-changa
      the naval leadership was not up to breaking through some sort of blockade there.

      Well, you are wrong. 69 BrPL submarine fleet went to Cuba under the wise guidance of infantry generals from the USSR Ministry of Defense, who seriously believed that the sub pr641 are atomic ...
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Remember the war in Vietnam, the Soviet fleet did not play any role at all.

      Again by. Our RZK constantly notified the air defense of the DRV about the impending raid. And then, what tasks the fleet set - such and solved. There was no order to attack US ships, but the tracking of all AVUs was established and never failed.
      1. Santa Fe
        19 March 2014 06: 55
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        I had to give up aviation

        From this moment more detail

    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 March 2014 02: 50
      +1
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Gorshkov’s alleged merits in creating a powerful submarine fleet,

      These merits, even the enemies of our homeland are not disputed, unlike you.
      Quote: chunga-changa
      under Gorshkov, instead of creating an inexpensive, efficient fleet,

      The fleet cannot be inexpensive at all, and even less effective. And vice versa.
      Quote: chunga-changa
      at the exit, the benefits to the state are zero.

      Fully click! The fleet was and remains a deterrent to the hot Yankees. If they were sure that all of our rkkSN were monitored, then perhaps they would have put into practice their carbon plans for the first disarming strike. With this, even the Yesh Strategic Rocket Forces V. Yesin agrees.
      Quote: chunga-changa
      As soon as the truly effective work of the fleet was required to protect current interests, all this colossus disappeared somewhere and SKRs went to work.

      I won’t even refute it. Think of the 5 OpESk, 8,10 squadrons, our missile submarines from anti-aircraft divisions. The operational utilization (tension) coefficient of our rkSN reached 82%. What else is there to talk about?
      Quote: chunga-changa
      A variety of types and raznosortitsa reigned, small series of expensive dubious mega projects, with an almost complete absence of coastal infrastructure and as a result, all these unique pieces burned at anchor.

      There is nothing I can object. I remember that I myself suffered from coastal infrastructure.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 19 March 2014 12: 31
        -1
        Your position is clear to me. As far as I understand, you personally participated in the process and perceive everything that happened positively, agreeing with minor flaws. This is a normal human reaction - something in which good people sincerely and heartily participate cannot be bad. I'm not saying that it was bad, I am saying that it was not organized correctly. Just for the successful, sustainable development of something, the past experience should always be considered strictly critically. Look for the slightest mistakes and figure out why they have arisen in order to eliminate and prevent them in the future. This is what the Americans do. The Americans plan a fleet to achieve their strategic goals, and we plan a fleet to counter their fleet, don't you think this is strange? What is most interesting, in spite of our "opposition", with the help of their fleet, they achieved all the set strategic goals. And we? And why? This is the very efficiency that the fleet did not provide.
        The most interesting thing is that without such analysis, modern naval commanders who grew up under Gorshkov are trying to continue the same line now. Thank God there is not enough money for all plans, but the construction of parallel ships of different types for one task is underway right now. And it is not visible that someone is struggling with this, on the contrary, the number of projects is growing rapidly, and soon again each plant will build its own ship.
        Moreover, life insistently indicates the path that you need to go - a massive, if possible cheap, one-type ship. Although not the most advanced and armed, but constantly being modernized and actively fulfilling its role, the fleet, plus numerous military units abroad. Instead of super-mega-best ships that are built piece by piece and divert a lot of time and money. In the future, they mainly use tasks to fulfill them, which are insignificant for their capabilities, because these tasks also need to be performed by someone. For example, our BODs drive pirates on motorboats, and the atomic cruiser monitors the transportation of chemical weapons. If this does not stop, then the money will go nowhere again, with zero result. The Americans are bending someone again, but we can’t do anything, but the retired officers will retain the warmest memories of the service. Is a fleet being built for this?
  11. xomaNN
    xomaNN 18 March 2014 17: 39
    0
    It may not be bad that the nuclear-powered Ulyanovsk by 91 was only a quarter or less ready. Otherwise, they would have invested money in it for another five years and towed it to some Chinese or to scrap metal. If only creatively the design experience was taken into account in the construction of new aircraft carriers. All the more so if the French, in fact, will not give the Mistrals to the Navy am
  12. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 18 March 2014 18: 16
    +1
    Of course, YaSU on destroyer class ships is an unconditional moviton. And in this I completely agree with the author and support this point of view ...
    But the concept of the ships of Project 1199 (or 11990) Anchar is quite interesting in itself. I think that there is something to take from it when developing new warships and, in particular, a new destroyer for the Russian Navy ...
  13. barbiturate
    barbiturate 18 March 2014 21: 03
    +6
    cool article) I was pleased with the next kicking of an aircraft carrier) and it’s not true about the number of aircraft, there was already a debate about it and everything was arguably proved and shown, about insignificant shock capabilities in general at the level of anecdote, as soon as an aircraft carrier begins to be considered as a ship armed with aviation, and not a conqueror countries and continents, then everything falls into place. In this case, the author would also have nodded at the ship with good strike capabilities, otherwise the nuclear squadron, and at the head of the ship with WITHOUT !! shock capabilities, here are foolishly unreasonable sailors). Only what epithet to choose for other ships, if the carrier's strike capabilities are insignificant)) the author would have said so, the aircraft carrier are insignificant, and the cruiser, obviously inferior in all respects, they are smaller, not insignificant, but ...)))
    Well, at least then the author received his sight, hallelujah !! he finally realized that the task of conquering multimillion countries is not at all for an aircraft carrier) Finally, he writes "The only priority task of a" floating airfield "is air cover for a squadron on ocean communications" This is a victory of reason, well, finally)) The aircraft carrier is classified as a ship)
    And it’s really more convenient to smash countries from three to four kilometer-long concrete runways, but what does it have to do with a carrier carrier?
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 18 March 2014 22: 21
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      Well, at least then the author received his sight, hallelujah !!

      Can the author know a little better
      http://topwar.ru/14781-avianosec-ulyanovsk-kakim-by-on-byl.html
  14. Russkiy53
    Russkiy53 19 March 2014 01: 44
    0
    I’m not a sailor, but I understand: an aircraft carrier is the most power !!! there’s nothing to argue about! I saw aviation in a real battle with infantry ... we were dust! Ground-based air defense can’t ... heh!
  15. Red Army of the USSR
    Red Army of the USSR 19 March 2014 02: 03
    +1
    Yes, it hurts to read all this, I hope the drunk there is fried from firewood of black and mahogany according to the blat, next in turn is a tenacious tagged pancake.