Military Review

"Admiral Lazarev" put in the dock

54
There are photos in the network in which the 2 th cruiser of the 1144 Orlan project Admiral Lazarev (formerly Frunze) is in the dry dock of the 30 naval repair shipyard. On the ship, at least part of the bottom was cleared, the “Voskhod” radar antenna was dismantled, and it appears that they painted a part of the aft superstructure. It is possible that the ship is being prepared for the final journey (for scrap), but, quite possibly, for modernization. In any case, cleaning the bottom and cleaning the hull from the paint clearly suggests that the ship is hardly prepared for scrapping, in this case, these things would simply not bother.



The ship itself is in a rather deplorable state: both reactors were unloaded in the city of Bolshoy Kamen in 2004-2005, a lot of equipment from the ship was taken off or is in disrepair. The REV is almost completely dismantled, however, it is already outdated and needs to be dismantled in any case. In addition, in the year 2002, there was a fire in the bow of the cockpit, which did not improve the cruiser’s grave condition. Well, in the end, age: more than 26 years have passed since the bookmark (July 1978 36). Although the ship was not exploited for too long, it was commissioned on October 31 1984, and normal operation, in fact, ended with the collapse of the USSR, despite the fact that the guaranteed service life of cruisers of this type 30 years. Subject to the overhaul of the resource can be extended further.



We must not forget that the repair of such a large, complex and, frankly, "killed" ship is a very difficult and extremely expensive task. But still, personally, I hope that the ship under its own power will reach the ocean more than once, and will tickle the nerves of enemy admirals more than once!
Author:
54 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 22 September 2014 08: 22
    +32
    But still, I personally hope that the ship under its own power will go out more than once to the ocean, and more than once will tickle the nerves of the enemy admirals!
    Author Gavrilov Anton fellow absolutely agree with you! soldier
    1. Oleg NSK
      Oleg NSK 22 September 2014 08: 31
      +11
      hardly prepared for scrapping

      ... incomprehensible rantings and guesses ... in fact, he was in line for modernization ... and "Kalinin" (Admiral Nakhimov) is also on modernization ... that's just the first of the "Orlans" ... "Kirov" most likely for scrap
      ... but in the meantime only "Peter the Great" is in service ... but I think that soon we will have three "Orlans"
      1. gispanec
        gispanec 22 September 2014 09: 44
        +5
        Quote: Oleg NSK
        but I think that soon we will have three Orlans

        right after Lazarev Petya will be put up for modernization .... so soon (relatively .. repair + modif = 3-5 years) we will see 2 powerful cruisers in service .... and this will already be happiness ... Petya Sever will plow, and Lazarev most likely to the Pacific ... it’s time for them to rivet the frigates, but something is delayed .... although the submarines use a lot ...
        1. Evil Pole
          Evil Pole 22 September 2014 10: 11
          +4
          Quote: gispanec
          right after Lazarev Petya will be put on modernization

          What are you talking about? Now they are modernizing in the north of Nakhimov, and after him they will put Peter. About Lazarev in general, there is still silence and nothing is known except for this article.
          1. gispanec
            gispanec 22 September 2014 13: 33
            0
            Quote: Evil Chorus
            What are you talking about? Now in the north of Nakhimov modernize

            )) .... I agree ... We change the name, but the meaning remains the same .... quarrel ...
        2. PROXOR
          PROXOR 22 September 2014 10: 55
          0
          It seems to me that on Lazarev the whole methodology of modernization will be worked out. The Northern Fleet should not be left without a flagship. After Lazarev, Petya will be able to modernize faster.
      2. Anton Gavrilov
        22 September 2014 12: 25
        0
        In fact, he sucked all this time, they were even going to dispose of him! If I’m not mistaken in the 99 year, he was declared emergency at all! Until 2011, there were no serious conversations about the modernization of ships of this type!
    2. edge
      edge 22 September 2014 10: 50
      0
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      the ship under its own power more than once will reach the ocean expanses, and more than once will tickle the nerves of the enemy admirals!

      The eagle is a proud and high-flying bird, it is too early to put it on needles. AUG has repeatedly drifted into its pants ...
    3. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 22 September 2014 12: 21
      +2
      It is necessary to restore all the ships and Nakhimov, Lazarev and Ushakova, the supply for their modernization is huge, you don't have to go far for an example: after the second world war, when everyone sawed down the US battleships, they put them in storage and then modernized them and these ships participated in the "desert storm" in 1991 when they were 47-48 years old.
  2. fridge
    fridge 22 September 2014 08: 22
    +6
    In any case, such changes in the army are very pleasing. Exercises, adopting new ones and repairing old ones, developing new ones. One thing is clear, we are not standing still. good
  3. zao74
    zao74 22 September 2014 08: 23
    +6
    But still, I personally hope that the ship under its own power will go out more than once to the ocean, and more than once will tickle the nerves of the enemy admirals!
    Yes, we all hope so!
  4. Denis
    Denis 22 September 2014 08: 26
    +3
    That's the thing!
    We must not forget that the repair of such a large, complex and, frankly, "killed" ship is a very difficult and extremely expensive task.
    Enough cut, even if it’s cheaper
    more than once will tickle the nerves of the enemy admirals!
    Yes, for the sake of this venture
    News +!
  5. itr
    itr 22 September 2014 08: 28
    -22
    I do not agree with the author! A large cabinet falls loudly (as history shows), but with this money you can build a whole squadron with a large number of weapons and with the ensuing consequences. There is an exhaust if they make an aircraft carrier out of it!
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 22 September 2014 09: 06
      +7
      Quote: itr
      with this money you can build a whole squadron

      request Please provide economic calculations, otherwise suspicion creeps into the soul from your flag "eu" wassat place so we can make sure the cost of the "squadron", and the cost of repair ... fellow
      1. itr
        itr 22 September 2014 09: 38
        -9
        Andrey Yurievich! wrote garbage pluses received and happy
        I have a question for you: How much did Tirpets do during World War II?
        1. Andy
          Andy 22 September 2014 09: 45
          +12
          you are not only inadequate, but also a boor, once you talk about another person, "h. rnyu wrote."
          and now share your thoughts on how to make an aircraft carrier out of a cruiser. besides that the dimensions / compartments inside the ship aren’t so, it’s financially remaking SUCH volume more than building from scratch.
          1. itr
            itr 22 September 2014 09: 48
            -13
            how do the Chinese do it! Aren't you Andy ???????
            1. Andy
              Andy 22 September 2014 09: 51
              +6
              Well, how do they do it? I watched how Gorshkov was reworked - there "just something" to make a curved nose, change boilers and electronics ... he was already an aircraft carrier.
              1. itr
                itr 22 September 2014 09: 57
                -2
                Admiral Goroshkov is "Vikramaditya" for India, actually
                1. Andy
                  Andy 22 September 2014 10: 23
                  +1
                  and? since for India alteration does not count? for the Indians because ours was not necessary. alas. even if the aircraft carrier was cut down in capabilities, it would be our second ...
                2. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. fzr1000
          fzr1000 22 September 2014 09: 46
          +4
          Many, restrained the large formation of the royal fleet and scared the convoys with only one name. Maybe you were interested in Bismarck? So he sank Hood.
          1. itr
            itr 22 September 2014 09: 49
            -8
            and ????????????? what naval battle did he win?
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 22 September 2014 09: 54
              +2
              So you don’t look beyond tactics?
              1. itr
                itr 22 September 2014 09: 56
                +1
                why do you think the battle ship ????? in addition to demonstrating strength and scientific and technological progress, he must also shoot and drown
                1. RONIN-HS
                  RONIN-HS 22 September 2014 10: 17
                  +7
                  itr ... don't make a wave! stop

                  first - the dimensions of this cruiser will make it possible to accommodate well, no more than 5 modern aircraft, and even then if the entire hull is disfigured by 60%. Yes piston "Corsairs" of WW II times - there can be a dozen of these 3. We need it ...?
                  Second - The restored cruiser is a full-fledged threat to the AUG, communications and naval bases.
                  The third - restoration repair - a faster and more effective solution for strengthening YOUR fleet. And a cheaper operation than remaking a cruiser as a pre-aircraft carrier. good
                  1. itr
                    itr 22 September 2014 10: 24
                    -9
                    RONIN-HS I would like to argue with you! full-fledged threat AUG is still an underwater nuclear fleet! and who will protect this ship from the aircraft carrier group ????
                    he is troupe in Russia now tight with ships and this one will be an eyesore
                    In addition to patriotism, there should be common sense
            2. silver_roman
              silver_roman 22 September 2014 12: 48
              +2
              more important, how many naval battles did he prevent? in fact, it’s practically a deterrent!
        4. Good cat
          Good cat 22 September 2014 10: 22
          +5
          Tirpitz made one rustle of his existence in England. And about the cost, I agree with Andrei Yurievich, the calculations are approximate at least, plus or minus a kilometer, and not unfounded.
        5. mark1
          mark1 22 September 2014 10: 27
          +3
          Quote: itr
          How much did Tirpets do in World War II?

          A lot of. Due to one fact of his presence on the theater, convoy PQ17 was destroyed
        6. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 22 September 2014 11: 41
          +5
          Quote: itr
          Andrey Yurievich! wrote garbage pluses received and happy
          I have a question for you: How much did Tirpets do during World War II?

          I just wanted to ask which of the two options is economically viable, what if you are special? but after you compared the "tirpitz" with the "eagle" project ... I remove all the questions for you ... (I skip the rudeness ...)
        7. Proud.
          Proud. 22 September 2014 12: 13
          +2
          Quote: itr
          Andrey Yurievich! wrote garbage pluses received and happy

          The man with the "name" itr wrote garbage, about the "garbage" and the plus signs of Andrei Yuryevich, and is happy ... How fun is it for you to read such a comment? The question is rhetorical.
    2. edge
      edge 22 September 2014 10: 53
      +1
      Quote: itr
      A large cupboard falls loudly (as history shows)

      waiting for PEN-dos-tan loudly slam? time already, once and for all put an end to ....
    3. aleksandrs95
      aleksandrs95 22 September 2014 11: 35
      0
      you have a reason, but with a large and dense war. Less and better makes sense, but with small conflicts. One serious leader and a small retinue may well lead to a serious rustle in a not dense war. With serious use of PLA and other modern innovations, this the type of ships will serve for another decade. At the same time, the presence of such a ship does not allow the enemy to deploy at full strength, diverting serious resources to its opposition.
    4. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 22 September 2014 16: 28
      +1
      What is the squadron cost of modernization Nakhimov 50mln.rub. project 22350 if not mistaken 18m.r. even 3 ships cannot be built and I doubt very much that 3 -22350 are stronger than Nakhimov, only one advantage can be in three places, but the problem is built longer than the aircraft carrier in India is modernized. So, the conclusions.
  6. MIV999
    MIV999 22 September 2014 08: 29
    +2
    I understand that the author has warm feelings for this ship, but the main thing is that it does not happen that the restoration of this ship will cost more and will take longer than building a new one ...
    In any case, we will hope for a balanced decision on the fate of this ship ...
    1. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 22 September 2014 16: 33
      0
      The problem is just in the construction of all the capable shipyards that are building loaded to the eyeballs (well, at least how much of their capacity is enough for modern times) and repair yards are free.
  7. edeligor
    edeligor 22 September 2014 08: 30
    +2
    If I am not mistaken, earlier, an article was laid out on the project to modernize the Eagles, there they were about to remake them almost into an aircraft carrier. Maybe they decided to practice at the very old? You never know? wink
    1. alex56
      alex56 22 September 2014 08: 39
      0
      Share this article link? repeat
    2. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 22 September 2014 10: 20
      +3
      Quote: edeligor
      modernization of the Eagles, there were almost going to remake them into an aircraft carrier. Maybe they decided to practice at the very old?

      But, after all, recently there were statements that with aircraft carriers, the topic until 2020 is completely closed. Until that time, no aircraft carriers. And do not expect!
      And the restructuring of the cruiser in an aircraft carrier, no idea. It’s cheaper and better for me to build from scratch. The cost of disassembling, fitting, assembling. Better from scratch!
  8. RUSOIVAN
    RUSOIVAN 22 September 2014 08: 31
    0
    God forbid: and seven feet under the keel!
  9. lwxx
    lwxx 22 September 2014 08: 32
    +7
    "In any case, cleaning the bottom and cleaning the hull from paint clearly suggests that the ship is hardly being prepared for scrapping, in which case they would simply not bother with these things." This is more indicative of the fact that a full analysis of the hull condition will be carried out, and in consequence, a decision for the entire ship. I would like to believe that they will modernize and our fleet will receive another powerful ship
    1. Serg 122
      Serg 122 22 September 2014 10: 10
      +8
      Quote: lwxx
      I want to believe that they will modernize and our fleet will receive another powerful ship

      Which, as I understand it, will even be "cooler" than "Peter"! Once after the repair and modernization of "Admiral Lazarev", it is planned to dock "Peter the Great" ...
  10. Eragon
    Eragon 22 September 2014 08: 34
    -8
    A very strong feeling that the ships of this project turned out to be very "raw". Judge for yourself, of all the ships, only "Peter the Great" with huge problems, in dozens !!! years brought to mind. Rest actively used for five years. Then everything is for fun. But such ships can be operated for half a century (example: American battleships). So, does it make sense, at best, to repair the old hull, change all the equipment in order to end up with a 30-year-old ship? Isn't it better, taking into account all the modifications of "Peter", to build really new and more powerful ships? The costs will be about the same.
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 22 September 2014 09: 17
      +15
      most likely they weren’t raw ships, but they didn’t get the right time - they were simply abandoned during the collapse of the country, there were no time for ships, they sawed money and power
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 22 September 2014 09: 26
        +6
        Quote: Poppy
        most likely they weren’t raw ships, but they didn’t get the right time - they were simply abandoned during the collapse of the country, there were no time for ships, they sawed money and power

        exactly! a sharp bummer with financing ruined them ... hi
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 22 September 2014 13: 47
        +3
        Quote: Poppy
        most likely they weren’t raw ships, but they didn’t get the right time - they were simply abandoned during the collapse of the country, there were no time for ships, they sawed money and power

        I totally agree with you !!! Remember who's in the subject; EM pr. 30-bis were developed even before the Second World War, and the last "Reliable" project was cut as early as 1985 in Inkerman, EM pr. 56 served from the beginning of the 50s to 1989, SKR pr. 50 is the same long-liver, KR pr. 68 is already lived until the 90s! "Eagles" really not with time, not with the leaders are not lucky!
    2. K-50
      K-50 22 September 2014 09: 21
      +6
      Quote: Eragon
      So, does it make sense, at best, to repair the old hull, change all the equipment in order to get a ship 30 years ago?

      Therefore, modernization is carried out in order to gain new opportunities in the old building and with new equipment and weapons. In your opinion, it turns out that the American battleships and the corps changed, but what did they have one name left? belay
    3. ava09
      ava09 22 September 2014 09: 22
      +1
      In this matter, it is not the "very strong feelings" of amateurs that are important, but a balanced and objective approach.
    4. gispanec
      gispanec 22 September 2014 09: 52
      +6
      Quote: Eragon
      Isn't it better, taking into account all the modifications of "Peter", to build really new and more powerful ships? The costs will be about the same.

      you're wrong .... the corps of these Orlanes from special steel, which has been serving for more than 30 years, and the filling will be new ... so after modification it will serve another 30-ku for the good of the Motherland. And there is nowhere for us to build ... all the shipyards are busy ... think for yourself what prevents the 2 eagles from being used right away? .... correctly ... there is no working (free) place and PEOPLE .. PEOPLE ... SPECIALISTS !!
      1. Serg 122
        Serg 122 22 September 2014 10: 16
        +1
        Quote: gispanec (7)
        the bodies of these Orlanes are made of special steel, which has been in service for more than 30 years, and the filling will be new ... so after the modification, he will serve another 30 for the good of the Motherland.

        Moreover, as stated in the article:
        the ship was operated not so long, it was put into operation on October 31, 1984, and normal operation, in fact, ended with the collapse of the USSR
  11. Edvid
    Edvid 22 September 2014 08: 55
    +9
    Battleships of the "Petropavlovsk" type served for almost half a century (with periodic modernization). Modernization of "Lazarev" is still cheaper than building a hull of such a tonnage. Scrape off the hull, stuff it with modern weapons, and a mobile platform is ready to defend the east coast of Russia in any area ...
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 22 September 2014 09: 18
      +3
      yes, the Americans deduced and modernized their battleships several times from modernization
    2. massad1
      massad1 22 September 2014 10: 06
      0
      I agree with you, the only moment - everything will be shown by an analysis of the state of the hull, they also wanted to buy Atlant from Nikolaev, and then they got gasped when they got there. Of course, from the point of view of faster commissioning, I also think that modernization will be faster than laying a new ship.
  12. propolsky
    propolsky 22 September 2014 09: 00
    0
    Another bayonet in the ranks is not a hindrance! Reestablish.
  13. Ml555
    Ml555 22 September 2014 09: 01
    +1
    I heard that in the north there will be two boats of this project and on a quiet one)
  14. super-vitek
    super-vitek 22 September 2014 09: 01
    +3
    And I think that the ship repairers are doing the right thing, that they have taken on it. It's just that in recent years, human capital has been wasted, the pros of those who, with their eyes closed, could modernize a ship of this class. to say "live" to see this giant! Structural and technological features of the vessel. Although I cannot but agree that modernization is an extremely costly way both financially and technologically, and the time frame will definitely be delayed regarding the construction of a new vessel. But EXPERIENCE is most valuable! !!!
  15. I doubt it
    I doubt it 22 September 2014 09: 03
    +2
    To patch up the old is much more difficult and more expensive than building a new one. Checked a hundred times. And the terms are longer. New things need to be built. The only justification for the "reanimation" of the "Orlan" is the lack of suitable shipyards. Unfortunately, Nikolaev is not yet ours.
  16. Russian Uzbek
    Russian Uzbek 22 September 2014 09: 09
    +3
    "Lazarev" will be restored, "Nakhimov", it seems, too ... there is no information on "Ushakov", but two out of three will definitely be commissioned! I'll clarify info
  17. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 22 September 2014 09: 26
    +2
    Quote: Russian Uzbek
    "Lazarev" will be restored, "Nakhimov", it seems, too ... there is no information on "Ushakov", but two out of three will definitely be commissioned! I'll clarify info

    Quote: Russian Uzbek
    "Lazarev" will be restored, "Nakhimov", it seems, too ... there is no information on "Ushakov", but two out of three will definitely be commissioned! I'll clarify info

    Quote: Russian Uzbek
    "Lazarev" will be restored, "Nakhimov", it seems, too ... there is no information on "Ushakov", but two out of three will definitely be commissioned! I'll clarify info

    So they say that in terms of technical condition "Admiral Ushakov" (Kirov) will be better than "Lazarev".
  18. 00105042
    00105042 22 September 2014 09: 30
    -11
    it is completely pointless to restore this ship, now it’s just a hull burnt out from the inside. Those who at least have a little understanding of how such ships are being repaired will confirm that it’s much easier to build another ship — you won’t get anywhere from the fatigue wear of the hull, and put new reactors, new weapons- this half of the hull will need to be cut and re-welded. Martyshkin labor, and moreover, such a cruiser must go with a squadron, he is not a raider from the Second World War. But the ships of the ocean zone, thanks to the botox-on-fingers fingers Yes, and apparently, at the General Staff in general no clear concept of the development of the Navy.
    1. Alexander
      Alexander 22 September 2014 09: 34
      0
      do not wait, star-striped!
    2. Russian Uzbek
      Russian Uzbek 22 September 2014 09: 42
      +4
      and what’s interesting here, Botox? They started to cut them in 90 with the blessing of Uncle Sam, who even threw money on this matter ... and if it hadn’t been for Botox who had stopped the Sabbath, Orlanov would have been washed down!
    3. fzr1000
      fzr1000 22 September 2014 09: 49
      +1
      Specialism Xpert?
    4. Serg 122
      Serg 122 22 September 2014 10: 43
      +4
      Quote 00105042
      it is completely pointless to restore this ship ... it is much easier to build another ship ... Martyshkin labor ...

      The battleship "Iowa" in service 22.02.1943 - 26.10.1990
      Battleship "New Jersey" in the ranks 23.05.1943/08.02.1991/XNUMX - XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
      The battleship "Missouri" in service 11.06.1944/31.03.1992/XNUMX - XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Battleship "Wisconsin" in service 24.09.1944 - 30.09.1991
      Continue?!
      Read your own story, dear ...
    5. 00105042
      00105042 22 September 2014 11: 05
      -5
      I don’t have to look at my flag, but at the essence of my post, I don’t have to restore the old, but to build NEW, it will be cheaper, more efficient. That's what it’s about. And your favorite botox hundreds of billions of dollars drives into the economy of a potential enemy, but in 15 years at least one warship of the ocean zone has been built? Or at least laid down? Do you want to google how many of them were built in the USA over the years, including your taxes, pension money that went from the sun’s blessing overseas? For a half billion spent on the Mistral *, horrific boiling costs, but for small I was able to build a fraction of the purchased LOW-INTEREST government bonds of the United States and build the infrastructure for the fleet. What am I wrong about?
      1. aleksandrs95
        aleksandrs95 22 September 2014 11: 57
        +2
        Here you are right, but according to the Orlans, I want to note that no one can build such buildings, they have serious partial reservations. It’s very expensive, it’s already calculated. In modern conditions it’s even more expensive. If after analysis it is determined that they are in satisfactory condition. I think they should live. But how they correctly and fairly noticed they need serious support. Who isn’t and isn’t laying down. The Leader project, bookmarking started in 2018, even if they are built after 3. It is already 2021. The Orlans are still aging. I'm afraid they will go away in time combat and maximum effect ciency.
      2. Serg 122
        Serg 122 22 September 2014 14: 15
        +1
        Quote: 00105042
        Do you want to google how many of them were built in the USA over the years, including your taxes, pension money, which went from the sun’s blessing overseas? For one and a half billion spent on Mistral *, you are in awe, but for a small fraction of the purchased LOW PERCENT US government bonds, it was possible to build faith, and rebuild the appropriate infrastructure for the fleet. What am I wrong about?

        What is it? And the fact is that you draw your own conclusions on the basis of Google. Practices - zero. And if so, then the price of your words is the same.
        1. 00105042
          00105042 22 September 2014 16: 22
          -1
          why cling to words? Google, Wikipedia, the military encyclopedia, the Discovery channel, the essence does not change, there are no ocean ships built in Russia, apart from the dismantling of donor submarines and the assembly of new ones from them into a full-fledged production. And the potential ENEMY (let's call a spade a spade) -builds warships in dozens. Regarding practice, I worked in the production of mine-torpedo weapons and I can talk about, in principle, an adjacent area.
  19. Alexander
    Alexander 22 September 2014 09: 33
    0
    And Kirov will be cut sad
  20. JonnyT
    JonnyT 22 September 2014 10: 16
    +2
    I think that they will definitely restore it! The armament of ships of this type is more suitable than ever for the current doctrine of the Russian Federation. In the case, you can install intelligent high-precision weapons, the production of which now does not cause major complications. But the production of new buildings is a headache for our industry !!!! The fate of this ship depends on the condition and level of wear of its hull !!!
  21. Crang
    Crang 22 September 2014 10: 20
    +5
    We must not forget that the repair of such a large, complex and, frankly, "killed" ship is a very difficult and extremely expensive task.
    Everything is correct, but one must understand that having cut this cruiser now, the Russian industry is not able to build a new ship of this type at the moment. The cruiser itself is a stock version of Project 1144 carrying 156 missiles on board (as well as missile torpedoes, torpedoes and artillery). It must be brought at least to the level of the Peter the Great TARKR (it has 388 missiles). So there will be repairs and upgrades! Then we repair "Admiral Nakhimov" (there are already less hemorrhoids) and "Marshal Ustinov" (it is also easier there). And we need "Admiral Lazarev". Let it be not a nuclear option, but it is needed.
  22. Severomor
    Severomor 22 September 2014 10: 35
    +5
    The simplest thing is to loudly announce "The whole project 1144 is on pins and needles, all 4 buildings !!!!!" If YUSA starts to give a standing ovation and say that you are doing the right thing, why don't you need this junk to urgently restore and repair, maintain and operate ALL 4 CASES :)))
    Threat Oceanic fleet should be. The phrase - To build "many new ships" instead of Eagles is cheaper! "What kind of ships? For what? The mosquito fleet is certainly needed, but the ocean fleet must be re-equipped.
  23. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 22 September 2014 10: 47
    +6
    Quote: Serg 122
    Quote 00105042
    it is completely pointless to restore this ship ... it is much easier to build another ship ... Martyshkin labor ...

    The battleship "Iowa" in service 22.02.1943 - 26.10.1990
    Battleship "New Jersey" in the ranks 23.05.1943/08.02.1991/XNUMX - XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
    The battleship "Missouri" in service 11.06.1944/31.03.1992/XNUMX - XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
    Battleship "Wisconsin" in service 24.09.1944 - 30.09.1991
    Continue?!
    Read your own story, dear ...

    Rescue ship "Communa" in service from 1915 to the present day.
    1. Serg 122
      Serg 122 22 September 2014 14: 22
      0
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Rescue ship "Communa" in service from 1915 to the present day.

      And I mean it! Cutting is easy! Howling that it is expensive and long is even easier! But for this money and most importantly - time (spent on modernization), nothing can be done in return! The creation of ships of this class "from scratch" is no less expensive business. I think so hi
  24. skylare
    skylare 22 September 2014 10: 49
    +1
    Cutting up for scrap is little merit. Another question is whether Russia will be able to build the same number of ships of a similar class and in a short time? I strongly doubt it. Soviet technology has a rather long service life and modernization resource. For example, the American Missouri-class battleships, after several upgrades, are still in service. And how many Soviet battleships have survived to this day? Something like this.
  25. divangeneral
    divangeneral 22 September 2014 10: 53
    +2
    Quote: itr
    I do not agree with the author! A large cabinet falls loudly (as history shows), but with this money you can build a whole squadron with a large number of weapons and with the ensuing consequences. There is an exhaust if they make an aircraft carrier out of it!


    what other aircraft carrier from a missile cruiser?
    this cruiser, by the way, is the killer of aircraft carriers
    so, while there are no own aircraft carriers, let there be at least killers of strangers
  26. Demon0n
    Demon0n 22 September 2014 16: 11
    +1
    Next, personal opinion.
    It all depends on the condition of the metal of the case ... If the case can last more than 20 years, then on the site of the commissioners, I would do the following:
    1) everything that remains of the old equipment (which cannot be replaced due to the lack of production of old components) is torn off.
    2) in parallel, prepare a project for installing new equipment on the case (i.e. what and where to cut, what and where to weld). Even the reactors, there are no old ones, well ... with them: to calculate the possibility of installing new ones (it will be cheaper than manual assembly and production of obsolete equipment according to long-forgotten drawings). The result may not be completely optimal, but the ship is large, it should level out minor flaws (weight and balancing; it’s already less to break your head and less cost).
    3) fill the housing with new systems (i.e. relevant and manufactured).
    The only BUT (maybe I'm wrong ...), I have recently noticed hints of the principle of "disposability" of ships. Insufficient missile defense and the corresponding ammunition (in my opinion, this is a mistake). I doubt that it will be possible to correct this properly without radical changes in any of the projects (if the assessment is related to reality), but the missile defense of this ship, if possible, needs to be strengthened (if the ship remains operational after the 1st clash, then its value and danger for a potential adversary, it increases many times; with the principle of oversaturation with a sign, the answer is everything is relative, without forgetting about expediency).

    Yes! It will be expensive, but the result can be pretty good, not brilliant, but good (besides, it is not more expensive than building a new ship of a similar class from scratch, ie from a "drawing board"). In 20 years it is quite possible to prepare a worthy change (and now - not to fat).
  27. Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 22 September 2014 16: 14
    0
    In the Second World War, many ships were converted into "military" ones ... And here it is already ready ... Yes, outdated weapons and equipment, but the hull, that is ... How long does it take to build an empty hull? And what is the cost of the finished ship?

    We carried out a quick repair, crammed the CD and there will be "Peter the Great Light" ...