Military Review

Pros and Cons of the Missile Battleship

107
Pros and Cons of the Missile BattleshipOn Friday 24 October, the heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARK) "Admiral Nakhimov" (formerly called "Kalinin") was transferred from the wall of Sevmash, where it was located from 1999, to the bulk basin of this enterprise, where the 11442M project should be carried out . Originally, they wanted to carry out this operation at the end of the summer, then transferred it to September 25. But it was not possible to meet this deadline either. Then they set a new date - in the middle of October. And only now docking took place.

ALMOST ON PLATONOV

Why did you need to move “Admiral Nakhimov” to the bulk pool? The fact is that on Sevmash there is no normal dry dock where it would be possible, by all the rules of ship repair science, to put a ship with a displacement of about 24 tons, 000 meters long, 251 meters wide and 28,5 meters draft. The filling pool is artificial the water area, into which previously built submarines were lowered into Sevmash. It can be drained, and then it turns into a platform where ships can be repaired and modernized. So it was, for example, with the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral fleet Soviet Union Gorshkov ”, which, through the efforts of the Sevmash residents, was turned into the light aircraft carrier“ Vikramaditya ”of the Indian Navy.

But in order to get "Vikramadityu", "Admiral Nakhimov" or any other large ship in the bulk basin, you need to reduce, and quite significantly, its draft, since you want to carry it through the threshold of the harbor - a special hydraulic device that locks the entrance to the pool.

That is why pontoons are welded to the bottom of the ship, allowing the cruiser to be raised. At "Admiral Nakhimov", the pontoons of the starboard were first installed, and then on the port side. And only then it became possible to guide the ship into the bulk pool.

If we consider that the work on the modernization of TARK began in January of this year, it is easy to imagine how troublesome this undertaking, which in its plot more and more resembles the gloomy surrealism of Andrei Platonov's "The Pit". After all, it is absolutely clear to any unbiased person today that it will not be possible to transfer the Admiral Nakhimov fleet in 2018 year, as the leaders of the Navy and USC say. The deadline will be shifted over the 2020 year, and quite likely closer to the 2025 year. And this will inevitably entail additional costs and will create grounds for all sorts of corruption schemes, “cuts” and “kickbacks”.

Now they are referring to the fact that Sevmash gained a lot of experience during the modernization of Vikramaditya. It really is. But in this experience there are not only good sides, but also bad ones. The ship was delayed by delivery to the customer for five years, and the project was unprofitable for Russia, and the costs were repaid at the expense of Russian taxpayers.

Now it is preparing to enter the factory trials of the frigate "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" - the head project of 22350, which is under construction for eight years! And yet it’s not a fact that it will be handed over to the customer next year, since the tests may well reveal flaws, deficiencies, etc., not to mention weapons systems that have never been fired. That is why for four years to bring to mind such a much more complex ship, like the "Admiral Nakhimov", will not succeed.

CALCULATE ADVANTAGES AND MINUSES

I foresee the objections of the naval community, which loves large surface ships and strongly advocates for them. At first glance, her arguments sound convincing. They say that after modernization the Russian Navy will receive a powerful cruiser, which in the West is often classified as a “battle cruiser” (battlecruiser), and some Russian authors even speak of it as a “missile battleship”.

Indeed, the composition of the weapons of “Admiral Nakhimov”, which he can receive as a result of modernization, is impressive: the Onyx and Caliber-NK 80 missiles, which can hit not only sea, but also coastal targets at a distance of more than 1500 km (according to a number of sources - up to 2600 km), as well as about a hundred anti-aircraft missiles of the Poliment-Redut air defense system. This is without regard to the CIRC "Palash" or "shell", as well as anti-submarine missiles.

By the way, even before the modernization, the Admiral Nakhimov, as well as his younger brother Peter the Great, carried very serious missile weapons: the 20 PKR Granit, the 96 Assault Fort, the 40 Assault Wasp and the 20 PLUR The Waterfall "That is, 176 units of guided missile weapons, not counting the "dirks" and unguided RBU missiles.

Surely the newest 152-mm Coalition-F twin artillery or Armat 130-mm AU A-192M Armat and possibly 12-30-mm Duet automatic rifles will be part of the weapons of the modernized Admiral Nakhimov. Naturally, the ship will receive the most modern electronic equipment: automated combat control, communications, radar, sonar and electronic warfare. Helicopters will also be based on it. TARK will be a great command post for Russian Navy ships operating in remote areas of the World Ocean. Thanks to the nuclear power plant, the cruiser has an unlimited navigation area. In other words, in the aggregate of its capabilities, the Admiral Nakhimov will be second only to American nuclear aircraft carriers.

According to the official wording, the Admiral Nakhimov is intended to impart combat stability to fleet forces operating in remote areas of the seas and oceans, attacking aircraft carrier strike groups and destroying the antisubmarine forces of the enemy, nuclear submarines and surface ships, as well as providing convoys and airborne troops on crossing the sea and in landing areas. And now, obviously, this list should also include the delivery of high-precision strikes on coastal facilities, including government and military authorities, military bases and warehouses, strategic enterprises and infrastructure facilities. We will not forget such an aspect of naval activity as demonstration of the flag, that is, the country's military capabilities on the near and distant shores. Finally, TARK-type “Orlan”, to which the “Admiral Nakhimov” belongs, perform the function of super-armed yachts, on which the heads of state and government like to visit the fleets, and from which they often sound important provisions of the naval construction of the Russian Federation and its military doctrine. All Russian presidents were aboard the Peter the Great. And for Dmitry Medvedev, the ship was even driven into a semi-circular light from Severodvinsk to Vladivostok and back.

However, the question arises about the ability of the cruiser to perform in full the above tasks. Both in the west and in the east of Russia oppose a coalition of highly developed naval states. On their side is a significant superiority in surface ships with significant impact and defensive potential. And now, not in the foreseeable future, this situation in Russia will not be reversed. These same coalitions have powerful air forces trained to operate over the sea and against surface targets. The means of space and electronic reconnaissance will allow tracking the movements of the “missile battleship” in real time from the moment of separation from the wall and beyond. Therefore, no matter how powerful and good the “rocket battleship” is, it is doomed in wartime. And just can not perform the tasks assigned to him.

Opportunities for the demonstration of the flag in surface ships with nuclear power plants are quite limited. Under pressure from greens, not all ports are allowed into them. So, the same “Peter the Great” had difficulties even when visiting Cape Town in a friendly South Africa.

It is no coincidence that shipborne nuclear power plants have a rather limited “circulation”: they are expensive, their operation and maintenance require special conditions, which also leads to an increase in costs. AUU entrenched only on submarines, icebreakers and aircraft carriers, that is, on those ships to which they are urgently needed and give a fundamentally new quality. Thanks to the AEU, submarines can run for a long time underwater at high speed and carry powerful weapons. Nuclear installations allow icebreakers to destroy the most powerful ice. And on aircraft carriers, they produce unlimited amounts of steam for catapults, which increases the number of sorties from the decks of floating airfields and a half to two times compared with aircraft carriers equipped with conventional GEM. Possessing enormous power, nuclear power plants enable new-generation aircraft carriers to use advanced electromagnetic catapults.

But on cruisers and destroyers, nuclear power plants do not provide any particular advantages, except for an unlimited navigation area. Moreover, they can turn into a disaster, not a boon. If an enemy missile hits the reactor compartment, the ship and its crew will be doomed.

Returning to the theme of the demonstration of the flag, one cannot but admit that the “eagles” make an impression abroad not only on the military, but on the inhabitants. And in NATO countries, for example, the propaganda machine uses their appearance in the adjacent waters as a clear demonstration of the “Russian threat”. Thus, the growth of military spending in the North Atlantic Alliance is stimulated.

We must not forget also that the "Admiral Nakhimov" is a middle-aged ship. He entered the naval force in the 1988 year, that is, 26 years ago - during the heyday of the restructuring, when the quality of work at defense enterprises fell rapidly. True, the ship served not very active and short-lived. Already in the 1997 year, he was withdrawn from the operating structure of the Northern Fleet, and on August 14, the 1999 cruiser arrived at Sevmash "for repair and modernization". Two slightly older TARKs - “Admiral Ushakov” (formerly “Kirov”) and “Admiral Lazarev” (formerly “Frunze”), which were also previously planned to be modernized, due to poor technical condition, including their AEU, were disposed of. The technical condition of “Admiral Nakhimov” after 15 years of inactivity can hardly be considered brilliant.

We should not forget that Sevmash is the leading and today the only enterprise of the Russian shipbuilding industry for the construction of nuclear submarines. The modernization of “Admiral Nakhimov” will inevitably divert the currently scarce intellectual and labor reserves from the creation of nuclear-powered ships that are so necessary for the country and the fleet, that is, to slow down their rhythmic surrender. AND история with the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya this thesis confirms.

PRICE OF THE QUESTION

Two years ago, when the contract for “Admiral Nakhimov” was only being worked out, the price for the upcoming modernization was announced at USC. At that time, Anatoly Shlemov, the head of the state defense order department of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, said that TARK would need 50 billion rubles to repair, upgrade and re-equip TARK. According to him, “the cost of only restoring the ship exceeds 30 billion rubles, and taking into account the installation of new weapons, the upgrade will cost about 50 billion rubles.”

But this is only a rough outline. The final technical modernization project is not ready. It cannot be until the disassembly and unloading of outdated and outdated equipment from the ship’s hull is completed. This process will end only after the cruiser is placed in the bulk pool. And then, quite possibly, it turns out that 50 billion rubles. for the reconstruction of "Admiral Nakhimov" is not enough.

In other words, we are talking about a very rather big amount. For comparison, we note that the cost of measures for the import substitution of military products previously shipped from Ukraine (and these are ship gas turbine power plants, missile guidance systems, etc.) is estimated by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation at the same 50 billion rubles.

Note that since the announcement of Anatoly Shlemov’s data on the cost of upgrading the Admiral Nakhimov, two years have passed. Unfortunately, during this time, inflation in Russia has accelerated, oil prices have fallen, and with them the ruble. That is, we can now talk about about 60 billion rubles. on the restoration of the ship, the benefits of which are highly questionable. In this regard, it is worthwhile to listen to the words of the Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation Anton Siluanov, who said, speaking in the Federation Council: “A new armament program will be prepared now. Within the framework of this new armament program, we already want to revise the amount of resources spent to make it more realistic ... Now we simply cannot afford it and will work with the Ministry of Defense to determine the costs that the budget can finance ". In turn, President Vladimir Putin ordered to present the most balanced version of the resource support for the new state armaments program, which should fully take into account the tasks in the field of military construction and, at the same time, proceed from the country's financial and economic capabilities. It is completely obvious that the Bolivar of the Russian budget will not be able to withstand the burden of financing the modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov.

WHAT IS AN ALTERNATIVE?

It seems that the Russian naval commanders are too carried away with a demonstration of the Russian flag in the oceans. But the tasks of defense of their shores and measures to counter the aggression against our country clearly faded into the background. There is no need to go far for examples. Take the Gulf of Finland. The small, but well-balanced Finnish Navy, staffed including shock ships, today have an undeniable superiority over the forces of the once powerful Leningrad naval base, which now include only a few small anti-submarine ships of the 1331М project and about a dozen raid ships minesweepers.

The future of the Russian Navy will undoubtedly be determined not by “missile battleships”, but by nuclear and non-nuclear submarines, frigates of projects 22350 and 11356P / M, corvettes of projects 22385 and 22386, as well as small missile ships of project 21631. They are armed with the same “calibers” but they will be able to strike more efficiently, since they can be hidden under water, dispersed over different water areas and covered with coastal air aviation. The fleet urgently needs a new generation of mine ships, as well as missile boats to protect the interests of Russia not somewhere in the unknown seas, but near its shore.

And what about the "Admiral Nakhimov"? It is good that the ship was transferred to the Sevmash bulk basin. There it can be disassembled into metal.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2014-10-31/1_linkor.html
107 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. Wiruz
    Wiruz 12 November 2014 08: 26
    0
    The future of the Russian Navy will undoubtedly be determined not by “missile battleships”, but by atomic and non-nuclear submarines, frigates of projects 22350 and 11356P / M, corvettes of projects 22385 and 22386, as well as small missile ships of project 21631

    So I understand that we will not see the destroyer in the next 10 years. Sadness.
    1. Gans1234
      Gans1234 12 November 2014 22: 09
      +1
      By 25 year we can expect the lead ship Leader
      Best case scenario...((((
    2. Yaroslav83
      Yaroslav83 13 November 2014 04: 24
      +2
      I’ll tell you a terrible secret, I won’t tell the source. The repair of Nakhimov, the purchase of Mistralek and the construction of Varshavyanka are part of one plan.
  2. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 12 November 2014 08: 35
    -9
    It’s good that the ship was transferred to the Sevmash bulk basin. There it can be disassembled into metal.

    And instead, build a modern cruiser!



    1. Kars
      Kars 12 November 2014 08: 42
      +1
      I read the headline - I hoped that your work.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 12 November 2014 09: 02
        +13
        And I heard such a topic

        If Russia does not support us from the air, we will have to retreat from Brooklyn to Long Island
        - special message I.I. Strelkova from 5 November 2016 year
        1. Kars
          Kars 12 November 2014 11: 05
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          - special message I.I. Strelkova from 5 November 2016 year

          better say the dollar
          1. Nagaibak
            Nagaibak 12 November 2014 11: 31
            +16
            Kars "better tell the dollar rate."
            One gets the feeling that the dollar against the ruble is more interested in the inhabitants of Ukraine.))) Well, it’s still the rain channel.))) And we? And we are working.)))
            It is better to have gas, oil, coal, etc. and everything will be in order with the course.))) But when there is nothing.))) Then sadness. I remember a couple of years ago in Belarus a little pig fell somewhere.))) The crisis! A crisis! And what ? Yes, everything is fine. Everything how it worked and works.))) But, this is if industry is in the country ...
            1. Kars
              Kars 12 November 2014 11: 53
              +1
              Quote: Nagaibak
              Kars "better tell the dollar rate."
              One gets the feeling that the dollar against the ruble

              Why did you decide that I am interested in the ruble?
              1. Nagaibak
                Nagaibak 12 November 2014 13: 36
                +1
                Kars "How did you decide that the ruble interests me?"
                Hmm ... why do you need the dollar exchange rate?))) I wrote in general about the residents of Ukraine.))) On other sites it is visible. Slightly, that your course has slipped, and your course has slipped.))) If you didn’t mean it then milpardon.))) By the way, minus is not mine.)))
              2. Indigo
                Indigo 12 November 2014 13: 43
                +8
                On (in) the outskirts "swept away" from exchangers everything and everyone, incl. and rubles (which are falling), and the hryvnia is a guarantee of stability, eprst ..
                1. Koresh
                  Koresh 12 November 2014 16: 25
                  +3
                  Yesterday, the National Bank officially announced Black Tuesday, after a sharp drop in the hryvnia, today the hryvnia fell even more ... every day there is a new "change" !!! I'm already afraid to look at the prices for gasoline, which will fly upwards for a dollar. This is what Poroshenko's "life in a new way" means !!!
              3. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 12 November 2014 14: 03
                +3
                Quote: Kars
                Why did you decide that I am interested in the ruble?

                If we have it, then everything is stable, 10700 per dollar, and the autumn distribution of the government for the failure to fulfill any plans.
            2. Cristall
              Cristall 12 November 2014 12: 26
              +3
              Quote: Nagaibak
              One gets the feeling that the dollar against the ruble is more interested in the inhabitants of Ukraine.))) Well, it’s still the rain channel.))) And we? And we are working.)))

              yes we too. We have the same picture on the exchanger is not encouraging. We would be glad not to look there and not ask you about the ruble. But demonstrators and pictures about the ruble are full of all entertainment resources. Russians (well, so as not to think that Ukrainians are muddied)
              Personally, the fall of the ruble does not please me. Our two currencies sagged, countries are in conflict - but in the world everything is fine.
              1. Nagaibak
                Nagaibak 12 November 2014 13: 49
                +1
                Cristall "and the world is doing well."
                Why do you think so? Of course you can not compare with the war in Ukraine. But, in Europe, not everything is going smoothly. Yes, and in America, too.
                Cristall "I am personally not happy with the fall of the ruble. Both our currencies have sagged, the countries are in conflict."
                Countries are conflicting; this is not good.
                But, in your place, I would be worried not so much about the exchange rate, but about the fact that Russia has launched an import substitution program. These will have real consequences for the industry of Ukraine. Denying this is stupid. Do not think that I want to scare that everything will be bad for you, etc. You shouldn’t worry about the port in Odessa, it will feed you.
                But, it seems to me that Russia was more worried about your industry.))) And the currency dipped today, rose tomorrow.))) Everything will be fine, I think so.)))
            3. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 12 November 2014 20: 19
              +2
              Quote: Nagaibak
              I remember a couple of years ago in Belarus a little pig fell somewhere.))) The crisis! A crisis! And what ?

              There, the people paid for everything.
              1. Nagaibak
                Nagaibak 13 November 2014 15: 51
                +2
                saturn.mmm "There people paid for everything."
                And where do people not pay? Common people always pay. In Europe, too.)))
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 13 November 2014 21: 58
                  +2
                  Quote: Nagaibak
                  And where do people not pay? Common people always pay. In Europe too

                  This is when people can pay.
                  In Ukraine, the situation is complicated, there isn’t enough for all the people's money.
          2. Juborg
            Juborg 12 November 2014 13: 25
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            - special message I.I. Strelkova from 5 November 2016 year

            better say the dollar

            And what will this dollar exchange rate give you? If you have a pair of Lyams in Russian rubles in your stocking, then the tady "YES!", In dollars, then the tady "O-O!", If the Mongolian tugriks, then "you are to blame!" In general, for the average man in the street, me, you and many in Russia, this still does not touch much, except for those who go on vacation, and the prices in the shops, in principle, remain the same, despite the speculation on the course and the petrol collusion. I think everything will remain within the framework.
            1. Kars
              Kars 12 November 2014 15: 22
              +1
              Quote: juborg
              In general, for the average layman,

              how to say with my hobby and income in the hryvnia is very affected. the hope of the IS-7 and Peony disappears. glad that local fruits and vegetables remain available.
        2. Rus2012
          Rus2012 12 November 2014 11: 59
          +5
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And I heard such a topic

          If Russia does not support us from the air, we will have to retreat from Brooklyn to Long Island
          - special message I.I. Strelkova from 5 November 2016 year

          ... which seems like a fairy tale today, tomorrow it may turn out to be a harsh truth: if on 3,14, XNUMXth the day falls apart, we and the Chinese will have to take control of their entire nuclear missile economy, together with nuclear submarines and strategic aviation. By the way, the Yankees had such a plan for the USSR, but the Union collapsed peacefully and Russia managed to cleverly clean up the entire nuclear missile economy before it "crawled" ...
          As the knowledgeable say, not everything went very smoothly with the Ukrainians - under the noise of the Ukrainians, the khokhly fists almost seized the old atomic bombs, the existence of which everyone forgot. But, they were huge, and at the last moment they still managed to drag them out from under the noses of greedy Ukrainians in an unconventional way ... But the "mock-ups" of knapsacks (without active filling, which has a very short service life) remained in warehouses .. . :)))
    2. Sivan
      Sivan 12 November 2014 21: 38
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      And instead, build a modern cruiser!


      Comrade, was that sarcasm, or did you get the roof from Zumwalt? Do you even understand that developing and building such a thing is much longer than restoring Nakhimov? And there is no money for that. Inappropriate.
  3. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 12 November 2014 08: 40
    +7
    The fact is that on Sevmash there is no normal dry dock where, by all the rules of ship repair science, a ship with a displacement of about 24 tons, 000 meters long, 251 meters wide and 28,5 meters draft can be put.
    A logical question arises: when will they get such a dock on Sevmash? hi
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 12 November 2014 12: 03
      +1
      Quote: Gomunkul
      A logical question arises: when will they get such a dock on Sevmash?

      alas, it’s not just one day or a year ... IMHO a decade will be required. Such a dock only in Nikolaev was ...
      1. Val_y
        Val_y 12 November 2014 15: 15
        +4
        Not only in Nikolaev, now Russia has in Sevastopol 300 meters in length at the Sevmorzavod, but thanks to exhausting work and the complete absence of proper renovation in 23 years, it turned into ... (you could look at tropical rain and sky from the bootport) now giant reconstruction. But now everything will be rated laughing By the way, the author is a provocateur and an all-shiver angry
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 13 November 2014 00: 37
        0
        Such a dock was in Kerch. And now, together with Crimea, it was received by Russia
    2. pts-m
      pts-m 12 November 2014 16: 01
      +5
      Yes vukrov should be invited to dig out a dry dock. Experience is, the Black Sea dug at a time. Hai lads clatter.
    3. Gans1234
      Gans1234 12 November 2014 22: 10
      0
      By 25-30 they must build - then they are going to build new ships of 1 rank, and without a new dock it will be very difficult
  4. mpa945
    mpa945 12 November 2014 08: 48
    0
    The author needs to go to school, learn math. That would not work from 1988 to 2014 - 26 years. Although ... maybe a Freudian slip of the tongue? There was a guy left in the 90s, that's why he wants to cut everything.
    Article minus. To the author 2 for mathematics and 1 for "Khrushchevschina"
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 12 November 2014 09: 03
      -4
      Quote: mpa945
      and 1 for "Khrushchevschina"

      And what kind of concept is this? Tell us more
      1. mpa945
        mpa945 12 November 2014 09: 43
        +8
        In the discussion of your articles, this phenomenon was repeatedly mentioned in relation to a certain period in the history of our country and its Navy. This figure also believed that for the sake of promising, from his point of view, projects, it is necessary to destroy all others, and quite "fresh".
        The author’s position that missile boats are more efficient and necessary than missile cruisers is quite correlated with this phenomenon.
    2. Artem1967
      Artem1967 12 November 2014 10: 25
      -2
      You need it at school (26 years have passed since 1988 years). Questions in the article are posed quite timely. The reason is this: better than the latest submarines and ships to ensure their deployment than one expensive monster.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 November 2014 10: 34
        +9
        Quote: Artem1967
        better more recent submarines


        Which in their positional areas without cover will be countered by the anti-submarine aviation of a potential enemy, and the missiles that are not conquered will be shot down by ships controlled by the constantly improved Aegis system
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 12 November 2014 11: 08
          -3
          therefore it is necessary to swell billions and years into the old cruiser, which even does not reach the line of attack?
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 12 November 2014 14: 17
            +3
            Quote: Tlauicol
            therefore it is necessary to swell billions and years into the old cruiser, which even does not reach the line of attack?

            After checking the condition of the corps, Nakhimov said they would last another 40 years.
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 12 November 2014 13: 00
          +4
          Quote: Spade
          Which in their positional areas without cover will be countered by the anti-submarine aviation of a potential enemy, and the missiles that are not conquered will be shot down by ships controlled by the constantly improved Aegis system

          Mr. Lopatov, I am wildly sorry, but the author wrote in Russian in white that formidable frigates, corvettes and the world's most powerful MRK ave. 21631 would come and shoot like chickens of all adversaries in the deployment area! Well what are you right word! recourse
      2. mpa945
        mpa945 12 November 2014 11: 00
        +2
        and ships ensuring their deployment than
        and what is it? Can you give the composition of weapons, autonomy, displacement, tasks to be solved?
        Does it mean that to ensure deployment, it is necessary to counteract enemy aircraft, ships and submarines? It remains to determine how far we will deploy ... And I'm afraid I will get Orlan, or an aircraft carrier.
        Or do you think we’ll get along with a corvette?
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 12 November 2014 11: 55
          +7
          Or do you think we’ll get along with a corvette?
          Looking at the article, the thought arises: the author will completely manage with a funny face.

          And in NATO countries, for example, the propaganda machine uses their appearance in adjacent waters as a clear demonstration of the “Russian threat”. Thus, the growth of military spending in the North Atlantic Alliance is stimulated.
          Here is the pearl !!! The Norwegians didn’t even bother with the Eagles even now. They came up with a submarine. which no one has ever seen. And more than enough.
          Better to let them see a visual demonstration in the metal.
      3. Serg65
        Serg65 12 November 2014 12: 53
        +12
        Quote: Artem1967
        You need it at school (26 years have passed since 1988 years). Questions in the article are posed quite timely. The reason is this: better than the latest submarines and ships to ensure their deployment than one expensive monster.

        Well, in the first place the monster is not one, but the second! Secondly, please explain to me, the old collective farmer, how frigates, corvettes, and especially MRK pr.21631 will ensure the deployment of nuclear submarines? Or is this deployment planned to be carried out near the wall ??? After reading the article, I understood only one thing ... due to the fact that in Russia everything is terribly bad, there’s nothing and there’s nothing to try to build something serious, because this serious thing will also be disgustingly bad, due to the fact that, but the lapnik can do something good ! what crying
  5. tchoni
    tchoni 12 November 2014 09: 06
    +9
    Therefore, no matter how powerful and good the "missile battleship" is, in wartime it is doomed.
    - Any AUG is doomed for the same reasons.
    The future of the Russian Navy will undoubtedly be determined not by “missile battleships”, but by atomic and non-nuclear submarines, frigates of projects 22350 and 11356P / M, corvettes of projects 22385 and 22386, as well as small missile ships of project 21631. They are armed with the same “calibers” , but they will be able to strike more effectively, since they can be hidden under water, dispersed over different water areas and covered from the air by coastal aviation.

    The trouble is that they can be covered from the air only in coastal areas. A TAPK can provide a very good air defense connection. Not an aircraft carrier is a fact, but not a naked priest above the moon, like a boat. Plus, do not forget how Comrade Comrade Carriers use mattresses - as a means of projecting power. So it turns out TARK + Mistral + a pair of boats + a destroyer of the 956 project + a couple of BODs - a completely balanced grouping will turn out. And, as I understand it, the leadership of the Navy wants to have one such group in the north and Pacific Fleet.
    1. Cosmos1987
      Cosmos1987 12 November 2014 09: 14
      0
      And what role will Mistral play in such a group, and even in the Northern Fleet? Landing in Norway to land ?!
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 12 November 2014 12: 10
        +4
        The Mistral ship is very versatile (see small English aircraft carriers in the Falkland conflict). You can fight boats (with the help of carrier-based aviation), you can conduct long-range reconnaissance using the DLRO helicopter, you can actively fight boats with the help of anti-submarine aircraft. Yes, and the same landing can be landed. Just because a northern fleet does not mean that it cannot sail in the Mediterranean Sea. But Mistralka is needed not so much in the Northern Fleet - there is its own aircraft carrier cruiser, but in the Pacific Fleet.
  6. Good cat
    Good cat 12 November 2014 09: 20
    +8
    The old song "What kind of Russian fleet needs coastal or oceanic?" And the answer has long been: ocean! And "Eagles" are needed !!!
    1. Zerstorer
      Zerstorer 12 November 2014 10: 04
      +1
      They are needed more for foreign policy. My opinion is that if we want to build a balanced fleet, then sooner or later we will come to the maximum unification of the ships. This will reduce the cost of operating the fleet and simplify the retraining of personnel. I mean unification to a reasonable extent - no one suggests unifying SSBNs with a BDK.
      The slogan "Good ships, more and different" is just a slogan. And don't use it as a guide to action.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 12 November 2014 13: 07
        +4
        Zerstorer ... sorry Dmitry, what does "unified ship" mean ????
        1. Zerstorer
          Zerstorer 13 November 2014 13: 36
          0
          Quote: Serg65
          and what does "unified ship" mean

          This means that combat information systems, armaments, communication systems, sonar systems, etc. will be brought to uniformity. Management of ship systems should be uniform.
  7. tlauicol
    tlauicol 12 November 2014 09: 23
    +1
    at least one sober author was found
    1. Gans1234
      Gans1234 12 November 2014 22: 17
      +1
      A sober is a valid criticism of a combination of factors.
      And here a lot of positive aspects and moments are simply thrown overboard and not taken into account, because it balances and destroys the whole negative
  8. avt
    avt 12 November 2014 09: 41
    +17
    “It seems that the Russian naval commanders are too carried away by the demonstration of the Russian flag in the World Ocean. But the tasks of defending their shores and measures to counter aggression against our country have clearly receded into the background. You don't have to go far for examples. Take the Gulf of Finland. The small but well-balanced Finnish Navy, including strike ships, today has an undeniable superiority over the forces of the once mighty Leningrad naval base, which now numbers only a few small Project 1331M anti-submarine ships, the Vyborg diesel-electric submarine and about a dozen raid minesweepers. "--------- The quintessence of the ENTIRE article. Indeed, why go further than the Gulf of Finland? The guys got carried away! True, when they really needed to be present in the Arctic, but when they turned a civilian ship with weapons for Assad, it immediately became clear that ,, there is nothing to attend and the ships of 1966 construction went to the entrance. Oh yes! Let's build a new one! Do you have a project? Well, except for the American picture posted by Oleg? Is it really nuclear-free? It will take a long time to repair Orlan, the author has moved it as far back as the 20th year. And how many 4000 tons of frigate were built, which went out to the running? And the corvettes? So at least there was a finished project. I won't talk about the pros and cons - in the article, apart from general phrases expressing the author's rejection of Orlan as a class, there is nothing concrete about which one could argue. Yes! The aircraft carrier was built at a loss! laughing laughing This despite the fact that Babal was regularly cut down from the Indians. I will even believe that the author tried to knock out a figure from open sources. My dear current - ask any accountant from almost any LLC, JSC, etc. - all as one will say, “we are working at a loss, or with minimal profit.” And the hop on the pocket through the gaskets left this aircraft carrier - “no a crime that the capitalist would not commit for the sake of 300% profit. "What else? Ah, they won't be allowed into the atomic port! Well, the Japanese, for example, regularly "did not let" the Americans in - they organized demonstrations in Soviet times. laughing A strong fleet will have a strong Russia - those who fear, will not blather, will let out of fear, those who respect, will let them out of respect.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 12 November 2014 10: 15
      +1
      ambition is good, but look at the problem soberly, rationally. What benefits will the 50 billion (minimum) of those thrown into the manger, the years of reanimation of the old ship and the inhibition of the construction of nuclear submarines bring to the Homeland and Navy? what is all this for? what is the result?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 12 November 2014 11: 02
        +12
        Quote: Tlauicol
        the years of reanimation of the old ship and the inhibition of the construction of nuclear submarines? what is all this for? what is the result?
        Who and what will cover the nuclear submarine, do submarines alone decide everything in operations at sea? For many years the Soviet Union learned to build a fleet, in particular, for projects of new destroyers, cruisers and battleships, the USSR collaborated with Italy before the war. Experience and technologies are acquired for a long time, but it is easy to lose them, few countries are able to build large warships, we ourselves cannot actually build them now, we have been making corvettes for years, if we do not modernize the Orlans, we will remain in the near future with a bare bottom ships of the oceanic zone, without ships of the 1st rank. How long can you sing about "cheap and angry", well, "ride a bike yourself", and not on a more serious car, one "mosquito fleet" and hiding submarines will not solve all problems at sea. Peter I directly linked the development of Russia with access to the seas and the creation of a strong military fleet, although, according to the logic of some, even then Russia would have had enough a lot of boats, surface and hidden, instead of frigates and battleships. The fleet can be strong only by being full-fledged and balanced in structure and classes of ships, for this we need modernization of the Orlans. It is sad that the rot on aircraft carriers and the unique Arctic "Sharks" that "do not fit in the sea" has now been replaced by raids on nuclear cruisers, as soon as the matter moves forward and the mattress covers become worried. Presumably, this is how they will get to the destroyers with frigates, and then they will begin to prove that Russia is a "land" country, which will have enough patrol boats, and how expensive it is, to have and maintain a military fleet.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 12 November 2014 11: 10
          +1
          Our fleet, in principle, cannot solve all the problems at sea. and the priority is to protect the maritime borders - and a dozen corvettes-frigates are now needed than one gold cruiser
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 12 November 2014 12: 03
            +5
            Quote: Tlauicol
            and a dozen frigate corvettes are now more needed than one gold cruiser
            Indeed, now it is very difficult for our fleet to solve all tasks at sea, and not to a small extent because, first of all, the most high-tech ships were destroyed, with long construction periods, our fleet and shipbuilding were destroyed in general. We needed "corvettes-frigates" so much to guard the maritime borders that a whole squadron was built for the export of some frigates, and thanks for the fact that even though the factories and shipyards worked for them, they did not completely lose their personnel. The cruiser is, indeed, golden for us, in a good sense of the word, a miracle that the Eagles did not have time to destroy, and they will still serve the power. Yes, if, indeed, our ships were so worthless, American "friends" would simply persuade us to go broke in such a fleet, and not insist on destroying the same "Sharks" with all their might.
            1. PROXOR
              PROXOR 12 November 2014 12: 09
              +3
              Quote: Per se.
              Indeed, now it is very difficult for our fleet to solve all tasks at sea, and not to a small extent because, first of all, the most high-tech ships were destroyed, with long construction periods, our fleet and shipbuilding were destroyed in general. We needed "corvettes-frigates" so much to guard the maritime borders that a whole squadron was built for the export of some frigates, and thanks for the fact that even though the factories and shipyards worked for them, they did not completely lose their personnel. The cruiser is, indeed, golden for us, in a good sense of the word, a miracle that the Eagles did not have time to destroy, and they will still serve the power. Yes, if, indeed, our ships were so worthless, American "friends" would simply persuade us to go broke in such a fleet, and not insist on destroying the same "Sharks" with all their might.

              YES NO NOW IN RUSSIA corvettes and frigates. NO !!!! The first 22300 just went to the test. And yet it is unclear how many tests will pass. You explain the main thing to me, fans of the mosquito fleet. What flagship will you place?
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 12 November 2014 12: 34
                0
                Quote: PROXOR
                You explain the main thing to me, fans of the mosquito fleet. What flagship will you place?
                If you, dear PROXOR, ask me, I will say that on a nuclear cruiser, as I stand for it, not being a fan of the "mosquito fleet".
          2. igor36
            igor36 12 November 2014 16: 56
            0
            Quote: Tlauicol
            Our fleet, in principle, cannot solve all the problems at sea. and the priority is to protect the maritime borders - and a dozen corvettes-frigates are now needed than one gold cruiser

            If you just count the money, then you are probably right. But the specifics of the work is such that it is necessary to build three ships or upgrade one, and different specialists are needed, and other production capacities, and related enterprises too. defense shipyards are currently loaded. and besides, if the fleet is introduced at the same time, it is aging at the same time and then it is also necessary to upgrade
          3. avt
            avt 12 November 2014 16: 58
            +3
            Quote: Tlauicol
            Our fleet, in principle, cannot solve all the problems at sea. and the priority is the protection of maritime borders

            The task of border protection is solved by the border guard ships. The fleet’s task is precisely the presence in the zones of interests of Russia in the World Ocean due to the class-balanced ship composition, and surface ships and aviation, as one of the tasks, provide cover for strategic nuclear submarines at the basing and entry points, it’s good to support them in the position area .By the way - presence is not a simple display of the flag, which the Angles showed themselves in the Falklands-Malvins.
            Quote: Tlauicol
            - And a dozen corvettes-frigates are now needed than one gold cruiser

            Look at things soberly - it’s really faster to get two Orlans by the year 20 with long-range weapons and already in the series of nuclear submarines and SSBNs than the mythical dozen of the other corvettes and frigates.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 12 November 2014 17: 20
              -3
              during the USSR they wanted it — one Orlan each to support the nuclear submarines — total: 40-50 pieces. counted and wept. And now what, Nakhimov immediately a dozen boats will output: here we are! or one Donskoy? What tasks can he perform in peacetime or wartime?
              border protection for border guards? yeah, well, well .. and the army and navy should wash their boots in the Persian Gulf and no less ..
              (C) "Look at things soberly - it is really faster to get two Orlans by 20 with long-range weapons and nuclear submarines and SSBNs that have already entered the series than a mythical dozen other corvettes and frigates" - do you seriously believe in this? So far, I see that he has occupied the filling pool for the nuclear submarine (already behind schedule, by the way) and ate 2.7 billion simply for developing the project - bon appetit, Serdyukov's heirs. The feeder is already working

              and frigates (TFR) and corvettes we have already launched in a series
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 12 November 2014 19: 52
                +1
                Quote: Tlauicol
                during the USSR they wanted to - one by one Orlan to support the nuclear submarines

                You do not know, but initially it was supposed to build ships with a displacement of 8000 tons. No Eagles were discussed.
              2. Gans1234
                Gans1234 12 November 2014 22: 24
                0
                A couple of clarifications:
                Corvettes launched in a series - yes
                Frigates - we are still establishing
                Donskoy - not a combat submarine - D. Donskoy - a testing ground for missiles
          4. Chifka
            Chifka 13 November 2014 20: 28
            0
            It reminded me of one of the underground kitchen grievances of my childhood: "There is sausage in the country on coupons, and they launch rockets into space! Yes, instead of one rocket .." And then recalculation into megatons of sausage.
            There will be no Russia without access to the World Ocean. Another thing is that the issue must be resolved in a complex, without excesses. IMHO.
        2. mabuta
          mabuta 12 November 2014 12: 59
          0
          Not special. But here I agree with you. And, in my opinion, the developed coast guard will cope with the protection of sea borders. In the north, isn’t that what they are doing? From the Crimea, any port is shot through.
        3. Gans1234
          Gans1234 12 November 2014 22: 21
          0
          I agree.
          And we never forget about the school of construction - this is one of the most important moments in my opinion with this modernization
      2. mpa945
        mpa945 12 November 2014 11: 21
        +4
        ambition is good, but look at the problem soberly, rationally. What benefits will the 50 billion (minimum) of those thrown into the manger, the years of reanimation of the old ship and the inhibition of the construction of nuclear submarines bring to the Homeland and Navy? what is all this for? what is the result?

        And the submarine?
        What's the alternative? IMHO - at least three frigates (each "sharpened" for its own: PLO, air defense, anti-ship missiles) support vessel, and a tanker. Again, the location ... KON ... Price and terms? And this is one Orlan. And for less than a quarter of the Olympics. Well, it will certainly benefit the Motherland ...
      3. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 November 2014 11: 57
        +2
        What benefits will the 50 billion (minimum) of those thrown into the manger, the years of reanimation of the old ship and the inhibition of the construction of nuclear submarines bring to the Homeland and Navy? what is all this for? what is the result?
        Katz offers to give up ... offers to give up ...
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 12 November 2014 12: 07
          -3
          I'm not Katz - take a look at my LC.

          I suggest building a fleet, not a ship
          AIRCRAFT, NOT PLANE
          ARMY, NOT TANK

          and you suggest spending time and money - so I ask: for what? answer articulate
          1. PROXOR
            PROXOR 12 November 2014 12: 13
            +2
            Quote: Tlauicol
            I suggest building a fleet, not a ship
            AIRCRAFT, NOT PLANE
            ARMY, NOT TANK

            and you suggest spending time and money - so I ask: for what? answer articulate

            Every army and navy begins with a soldier, a tank, a ship, and an airplane.
            On your second question. These are the flagships. The core of the shock group and at the same time its floating headquarters. We need ships that would be equal to AUGs. Frigates and corvettes will not cope with the AUG. But with the support of Orlan, firepower increases many times over. In Orlan, in addition to the AUG, there are no opponents in the water, and in the AUG, there are no opponents except the Eagles.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 12 November 2014 13: 40
              -4
              Orlan will not cope with the AUG - do not flatter yourself. will not guard the border either. cannot be present in 10 places at the same time - and yes, the corvettes and frigates built instead of him! it is useless in peacetime and during war. it's just a matter of prestige - like the Olympics or the diamond in the crown - that's all. no practical value - one hemorrhage. The fleet now needs other ships.

              it’s easy to make loud statements: we need ekranoplanes, atomic cruisers and 2-3 AUGs per fleet - it’s the same: it’s better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick - just go down to the ground and stop puffing your cheeks

              “There are three completely unnecessary things in the world: the Egyptian pyramids, the Great Wall of China and the battleship Yamato ... The battleship has sunk - do you want to take its place?
              1. PROXOR
                PROXOR 12 November 2014 14: 41
                +4
                Quote: Tlauicol
                “There are three completely unnecessary things in the world: the Egyptian pyramids, the Great Wall of China and the battleship Yamato ... The battleship has sunk - do you want to take its place?

                You dear are really inadequate. The appointment of the Egyptian pyramids went into oblivion like the whole Egyptian empire. The Chinese wall carried a fully conscious defensive character of its time. And Yamato was used just too late, the same fate was shared by Tirpitz. Drawing an analogy, we don’t need the pyrmernically 50 ICBM RS-20 Voivode, nicknamed Satan by mattresses.
                Now what about the dispute between AUG and Oralan. Who told you, or rather why you decided that he could not cope with an aircraft carrier. All the wing could not intercept all anti-ship missiles issued by Orlan. In the dispute of the shock grouping of the Russian Federation, led by Oraln and AUG of the mattresses, the latter, in light of the recent problems in the fight against our electronic warfare equipment, have less chance of survival. All their eulogized Eagins is not the first time messes up. I don’t remember what the conflict was, but in history there is a case when the class destroyer Arly Burke was rescued by an old English destroyer. There was only one subsonic anti-ship missile in his direction, but he could not destroy it.
                And the last one. Your conversations are very reminiscent of the nonsense of Nemtsov, Chubais and Silver Rain.
                At the same time I will repeat to you 100 500 times. Orlan-class cruisers are the core of the strike group of ships. All talk about the victory of approximately equal opponents is purely subjective. It all depends on the conditions and application area of ​​both. And what is more real, their clash is unlikely. They are akin to constraints against each other.
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 12 November 2014 16: 52
                  -5
                  you are inadequate if you do not even know this phrase "There are three completely unnecessary things in the world: the Egyptian pyramids, the Great Wall of China and the battleship Yamato"

                  in order to strike anti-ship missiles on mattresses, one must approach the distance of launching anti-ship missiles to aircraft carriers. dot

                  that incident occurred with an old battleship, not Arly Burke or Aegis. EW battleship easily led Termite to the side. And the second Termite was hit by the British after a minute and a half - also flew into milk

                  I repeat once again: we need a fleet - Eagles are not needed! and don’t spend money and time on a populist project to feed the new Nemtsov, Chubais. Serdyukov was expelled - but the feeding trough remained - and the Nakhimov project will fill it to capacity
              2. Dart2027
                Dart2027 12 November 2014 19: 54
                +1
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Pyramids of Egypt

                Which feed the whole of Egypt for about fifty years.
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Great Wall of China

                At one time, it was not unnecessary.
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 12 November 2014 13: 35
            +6
            Quote: Tlauicol
            I'm not Katz - take a look at my LC.

            I suggest building a fleet, not a ship
            AIRCRAFT, NOT PLANE
            ARMY, NOT TANK

            and you suggest spending time and money - so I ask: for what? answer articulate

            I will answer articulate, I will begin with the last of your suggestions.
            What is an ARMY? The army is a combination of military formations, the task of these formations in cooperation with each other is to destroy the enemy. Can infantry destroy the enemy without the support of artillery and tanks? Can a tank formation solve this problem alone?
            Aviation. Agree that building a transporter is much cheaper than a fighter-bomber, but will it be called aviation in this case?
            Fleet. The nuclear submarine is a formidable force and it holds back many attempts of the enemy. For the deployment of submarine formations, areas are selected in relative proximity to the potential enemy, this is done so that the "partner" has a minimum of time to react. And now the question is whether a tank is needed to break through and enter the operational space, or will we get by with cheaper infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers? Do you need a ship that will provide air defense and the absence of enemy anti-submarine ships in the deployment area? Frigates and corvettes, these are naval infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, and MRKs are a "jihad mobile". Hope I have explained it clearly. soldier
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 12 November 2014 13: 59
              -4
              it is about resuscitating an ancient ship for fabulous money. at the same time, over the course of this number of years, it will occupy the pool and production facilities of the nuclear submarine construction center - which is far from ice. As a result, after many, many years we will get ONE expensive old ship, which in wartime will not be able to get close to the AUG, and in peacetime to guard the borders. Catch pirate boats racing with 300 ton Swedish corvettes?

              this project will damage the fleet and the economy, and time will be irretrievably lost!
              1. PROXOR
                PROXOR 12 November 2014 14: 46
                +5
                Quote: Tlauicol
                this project will damage the fleet and the economy, and time will be irretrievably lost!

                Then now you can easily call us a ship in the Russian Navy line that can replace Orlan. Here again. This is the same story as with the TAVKR project 1143. They cut their own for the high cost, bought a pelvis called Mistral. And at one time, here are people like you screaming EXPENSIVELY !!! OUTDATED !!!! You don’t see anything for money. And as the ending to you. Let me remind the child of the mattress-shipbuilding program. Build zumwalt from a good life?
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 12 November 2014 18: 08
                  -1
                  I’ll just tell you: we don’t need the White Elephant! and a replacement for the White Elephant is not needed! what is not clear? Build the necessary ships, not ships to develop the budget

                  if I were a "child of the mattress shipbuilding program" (easier in terms, by the way) - I would now shout about building 30 cruisers and 60 destroyers for support. so which of us is still a child
      4. Dart2027
        Dart2027 12 November 2014 19: 51
        0
        Nuclear submarines are already being built.
  9. Vadim237
    Vadim237 12 November 2014 09: 47
    +4
    There is no alternative to these ships and is not expected in the next ten years, so it is better to invest in restoration and repair.
  10. jayich
    jayich 12 November 2014 09: 56
    +6
    According to Admiral Lazarev nothing has been decided yet, the point was to put him in the dock.
    1. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 12 November 2014 11: 40
      0
      Apparently, they decided something all the same.
    2. Gans1234
      Gans1234 12 November 2014 22: 28
      0
      Assess the degree of "life" of the case, how damaged it is - count the tanks and then decide on the facts - what to do with it next
      Everything is logical
  11. bob
    bob 12 November 2014 10: 08
    +3
    but in my opinion such ships are needed
    1. Artem1967
      Artem1967 12 November 2014 10: 31
      -3
      If you have enough money to upgrade and maintain these monsters.
  12. Lopatov
    Lopatov 12 November 2014 10: 27
    +4
    Take the Gulf of Finland. Small but well balanced Finnish Navy ...


    Well, yes ... The author, it seems, is not entirely aware of what tasks the Russian fleet must perform. Finland does not have a nuclear triad, therefore its "small but balanced" does not have the task of ensuring the possibility of its use.

    Well, and the tasks performed by "small but balanced" Russia is able to solve without surface ships at all.
  13. Crang
    Crang 12 November 2014 10: 34
    +6
    The future of the Russian Navy will undoubtedly be determined not by “missile battleships”, but by nuclear and non-nuclear submarines, frigates of projects 22350 and 11356P / M, corvettes of projects 22385 and 22386, as well as small missile ships of project 21631.

    This is all to the long-standing dispute about which is more efficient - huge superdreadnoughts or squadron battleships. I always thought that armadillos. Due to their smaller size and greater numbers. However, there is a saying: "there is no reception against a scrap if there is no other scrap". In other words, if we cannot oppose the enemy adequate fleet, then it will be doomed in any of its configuration. Similarly, 10 frigates pr.2235.0 and 1135.6-P / M will not be able to do anything if NATO has 100 frigates against them. Author you are a little off topic. Of course shock the strength of the fleet will be MRK and SKR with a certain number of destroyers. But such ships as Project 1144 are also needed. Some. One or two for each Russian fleet.
  14. Severomor
    Severomor 12 November 2014 10: 45
    +3
    Author, if the "Small but Well Balanced Finnish Navy" ceases to exist, no one will notice. And Russia has 3 oceans nearby, and the 4th (Indian) one is just a stone's throw away.
  15. PROXOR
    PROXOR 12 November 2014 11: 27
    +6
    Until the first four ships of the "Leader" project entered service, I consider all talks about the need for the Oralnovs to be a provocation of the 5th column and the decedents. Since 2000, the power of the Russian Federation has grown incredibly. We will not grow to the level of the USSR, but we can be a real force in the world.
    According to SABZH. In addition to mattress AUGs, there are no threats to 1144 in the world's oceans. But the AUG itself will shit with bricks when Orlan sees it on its radars, if it suddenly turns out to be a SU-24 or a TU-22M3 with a new electronic warfare system. Then they will see the Orlan for a short while and will continue to write a report about the write-off ashore.
    Eagles is a kind of long-range artillery during the Second World War. In direct confrontation, she could do little, but working from a long distance made it possible to stop the enemy tank wedges.
    1. Crang
      Crang 12 November 2014 14: 06
      +3
      Quote: PROXOR
      We cannot reach the level of the USSR, but we can be a real force in the world.

      But we must try to grow and outgrow.
      1. PROXOR
        PROXOR 12 November 2014 14: 49
        +1
        Quote: Krang
        But we must try to grow and outgrow.

        I would like to see my starna with an army no less powerful than in the USSR, but I must understand. In the current form of the political structure of our country, this is impossible. We add here the wild corruption in our country.
      2. avt
        avt 12 November 2014 17: 06
        +2
        Quote: Krang
        But we must try to grow and outgrow.

        Add-due to quality, not quantity. The fleet is too expensive a pleasure for any country to save on it or thoughtlessly waste money.
  16. bmv04636
    bmv04636 12 November 2014 11: 42
    0
    I think he will not go alone, but to accompany the frigates, cruisers. Interestingly, it will be possible to install the RS-26 on it. The size boundary should be entered. And this Orlan will play in a completely different way.
  17. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 12 November 2014 11: 57
    -8
    Any actions of Russia can be stopped or neutralized by a couple of phone calls from the regional committee to the Chubais, Grefs and other nabibulins. At least 50 eagles build sense will not. Rather than argue over trifles, think about what you personally will do after Khodorkovsky becomes democratically elected president. Will you go to ter. battalions, fight "for a united and indivisible Russia", or "terrorists" of local "people's republics."
    About the modernization of Nakhimov. As they write it is intended to "give combat stability to the forces of the fleet operating in remote areas of the seas and oceans" and so, there is nothing to give stability, because we do not have any forces in these most remote areas. Well, no, you can of course cover up our BOD or TFR in the Indian Ocean, which are now chasing pirates in shifts, maybe, by the way, Nakhimov himself can drive them. Or cover the BDK at the exit from the Bosphorus and escort it to Syria. It is possible, accompanied by icebreakers, to send Nakhimov along the NSR, in August, it will also cover something from something. In general, there are no surface forces requiring cover in remote areas, and submarines do not require such cover. Therefore, the modernized Nakhimov will be of value only for our concerned ship modelers and "Internet experts".
    1. ArcanAG
      ArcanAG 12 November 2014 12: 38
      +2
      Not. Not any. Otherwise, they would not have soared now with sanctions and were not hysterical about the Crimea.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 12 November 2014 12: 59
        -1
        But then there was nothing. Despite Putin's statements in April, in the DPR and LPR we have what we have and not even talk about any novorosii from Kharkov to Odessa now. This is "Russia's actions have been stopped." As soon as it calms down in Donbass and he returns to Ukraine, or is in the position of Transnistria, the actions of the "world community" will begin to return Crimea. This, by the way, is not hysteria, but the maintenance of the situation in a tense situation and a signal that the issue has not yet been resolved.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 12 November 2014 19: 58
          0
          Quote: chunga-changa
          now there’s even no talk

          Conversations are just conversations.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. nnz226
    nnz226 12 November 2014 12: 38
    0
    Actually, the name "Admiral Nakhimov" is not very happy for the ships of the Russian fleet! All previous ships and vessels with this name ended badly. Having nothing against the famous admiral - the hero of Sevastopol - P.S. Nakhimov - can he still take into account naval signs and not give the ship this name? And then an accident on a nuclear cruiser or its death (God forbid!) - it will be cool!
  19. okroshka79
    okroshka79 12 November 2014 13: 21
    +3
    Well, it is not necessary to disassemble this ship into metal, it is not necessary to enter it into the loading basin, it can be done afloat. At least, I saw with my own eyes how the battleship Sevastopol, commensurate with the Nakhimov, was cut in bays in the city of Sevastopol). Secondly, when a decision on construction is made, first an operational-tactical justification is made (i.e. what and what needs the ship is needed for, for how long, etc.), then its tactical and technical characteristics are determined based on the availability of available and promising developments of military equipment. I am sure that such studies have been made before starting the process of designing and building a ship or repairing it with deep modernization. Otherwise, it's just nonsense. Therefore, as they say,
    "We were not asked ..." The author of the article focused mainly on what this ship would be bad for, but almost did not highlight what it would be good for. And to agree on "super-armed yachts", so it will not go into any gate. You might think that the act of surrender of Japan was signed on an unarmed pleasure yacht. I personally would be ashamed to write that. In my opinion, this article is no analysis, sheer verbiage. Bold minus.
  20. xomaNN
    xomaNN 12 November 2014 15: 43
    +2
    I disagree with the author in many ways. Having a ready-made hull platform + EI slightly lively + general ship systems, you can build a good strike unit of the fleet with a new URO. But with "0" something like that to build will be too expensive. And such a nuclear-powered battleship-cruiser will become the backbone of the squadron, put it in the desired area - a potential adversary will think about his plans. fellow
  21. Tektor
    Tektor 12 November 2014 15: 43
    +1
    It is clear that the cruiser type Orlan will attract an armada. This is his dignity! Any admiral can immediately easily predict the initial actions of the enemy ... And the enemy, in order to only get closer to Orlan, will have to fuss. This is a bargaining chip, not a loser. And such pieces would be necessary 5. And the missile defense it should have from the A-235 system, with the ability to shoot down nuclear warhead satellites at a distance of 1500 km.
  22. korjik
    korjik 12 November 2014 16: 33
    +2
    Do not understand? the cost of repair and modernization of 50 lard rubles? is it in euro 1 lard? Is it the cost of one Mistral?
    It turns out that having bought two toilets for admirals, we lost three missile battleships? Am I mistaken somewhere? feel free to correct.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 12 November 2014 19: 59
      0
      Quote: korjik
      I'm wrong somewhere

      We do not have the opportunity to simultaneously upgrade all the Eagles. Just nowhere.
      1. korjik
        korjik 12 November 2014 22: 10
        +1
        This is another question! Why nowhere, nothing and no one to upgrade ships. I asked about the price of the issue.
        The price of Mistral = the price of modernization of Orlan? If yes, then why still people who have done this business are not sitting at stake. am
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 12 November 2014 23: 03
          +1
          Quote: korjik
          This is another question.

          This is the main question. Money is a means to facilitate commodity exchange, but it costs nothing if there is no product. To modernize all Orlans, you immediately need to pre-build the necessary production capacities at the construction plant, find people who will work there, perform similar actions at counterparty enterprises ... In short, the issue price is at least an order of magnitude higher and will take more than one year.
          Quote: korjik
          Mistral Price = Price of Orlan Modernization

          In fact, not one, but two.
  23. Throw
    Throw 12 November 2014 18: 35
    0
    Let's consider the problem without touching on the Eagles specifically, so that there are no irrational emotions like "sorry for the bird."
    So, one ship 24 thousand tons, or, for example, two on 12? The armament is placed on them with approximately the same characteristics (the quantity is different only). Speed, range, autonomy are comparable and sufficient to solve problems. So what is better?
    Here is the time to recall Lanchester's law for modern wars, when "not one-on-one", but "when fighting
    units of sides are separated from each other and lead
    aimed fire, they are capable of striking
    multiple targets, and may be hit with
    several directions. "
    This law says that under these conditions, the combat effectiveness of a group of combat units is directly proportional to the effectiveness of each unit, and SQUARE is proportional to their number ...

    So think what matters more, size or quantity, combat effectiveness or "presidential yachts" ... Especially with a limited budget.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 12 November 2014 20: 02
      0
      Quote: Lance
      Lanchester's law for modern wars

      Is there any reason to consider this law to be valid?
      1. Throw
        Throw 12 November 2014 21: 30
        0
        Sometimes it's better to google than write)
        Lanchester is not a member of the Legislative House of Lords, but a member of the Royal Society of Science and mathematically substantiated the law in the discipline of Operations Research.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 12 November 2014 22: 10
          +2
          Quote: Lance
          and a member of the Royal Scientific Society and mathematically substantiated the law

          As a practical engineer, I can assure you that the theoretical foundation and practice of life are far from the same thing. As they say:
          "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines"
          1. Throw
            Throw 12 November 2014 23: 46
            0
            Forgot. But they forgot from both warriors). Mathematics is a formal description of the model. And there are ravines - other things being EQUAL.
        2. mpa945
          mpa945 12 November 2014 22: 25
          +1
          Sometimes it's better to google than write)
          Right! Over the past month two examples have been clear repeat
          So, one ship 24 thousand tons, or, for example, two of 12?
          Ready to name something specific at 12 kilotons? Or is it still 3 to 8?
          Well, it seems like the total is the same ... only ...
          Speed, range, autonomy are comparable and sufficient to solve problems.
          Never hit. Speed ​​is relatively short, range and autonomy are not even discussed. A plus
          The armament is placed on them with approximately the same characteristics (the quantity is different only)
          And that means the plus of the supply court and their escort. But not only...
          For it is necessary to cover both from air and from the surface and from under it.
          And then yes ... There are no competitors to Monster, except for even more monstrous ones.
          And to sharpen the "baby" for the effective versatility is not a trivial task. hi And will it be cheaper? Or 6 gas turbines from Zaporozhye will be quickly delivered? By the way, the "Monster" does not have this problem.
          1. Throw
            Throw 13 November 2014 00: 59
            0
            Exactly. One googled about ekranoplans in response - underdogged ..

            And why a specific one? turn off this "specific engineering" thinking. Otherwise, you can't see the forest behind the leaves ..
            And then you will find that the vessels of the tonnage are of the same order - the armament and performance characteristics are also of the same order.

            But specifically? Zamvolt! ;)

            Escort +? Of course. And for monsters especially, they are few!
            To Australia, our boats are rowing not in the autonomous region, but with a lifeguard and a tanker ...
            1. mpa945
              mpa945 13 November 2014 09: 25
              0
              And why a specific one? turn off this "specific engineering" thinking. Otherwise, you can't see the forest behind the leaves ..
              Specifically, it is necessary because even in the project there is nothing larger than 8 kilotons. Only a project - money and time ... Plus a new GTU production plant ... And R&D on them ...
              And then you will find that the vessels of the tonnage are of the same order - the armament and performance characteristics are also of the same order.

              Sort of
              So, one ship 24 thousand tons, or, for example, two of 12?
              Or is it "big", but "anew"? Like for the sake of "economy"?
              But specifically? Zamvolt! ;)
              But this is to the point ... 1. Much more expensive. 2. PLO is absent as a class. 3. Weak against RCC. 4. Against NK, he is also not imprisoned, such as invisible (hiding) TOTAL: The deployment of Zamwalt must be provided with the "umbrella" of "Uncle Bush". Undoubtedly a "cheap" and "effective" solution. laughing
              1. Throw
                Throw 13 November 2014 09: 58
                0
                And what, "big" (Orlanov for example) from the submarine and AUG do not need to cover? But, in fact, they cover up ..

                And who said that 8 thousand tons is bad? The question is what and how to put there

                And the IDEA is that 3 is eight more effective than one, but at 24 at the price of three at 8 ...
                1. mpa945
                  mpa945 13 November 2014 10: 10
                  0
                  And what, "big" (Orlanov for example) from the submarine and AUG do not need to cover? But, in fact, they cover up ..
                  Few are imprisoned for PLO as well as Orlan.
                  And who said that 8 thousand tons is bad? The question is what and how to put there
                  Not bad, but with completely different performance characteristics. And yes, 2x8 anti-submarine, perhaps more effective than one Orlan ... But, air defense - 2x8 more, anti-ship missiles - 2x8. The cost of increasing efficiency.
                  1. Throw
                    Throw 13 November 2014 21: 23
                    0
                    Exactly. Better to pay for efficiency and combat stability than for one large basket of eggs. Let it be beautiful.
                    Therefore, I concretize, I am not against the Eagles, 1-2 flagships "for the demonstration of the flag" are needed. But then the money must be invested in other baskets. Look, for example, at the performance characteristics of Atlantis ..
  24. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 12 November 2014 19: 49
    0
    If "Nakhimov" is being modernized as planned, then it would be necessary to change its name. For example, "Alexander Nevsky" would be nice.
  25. Starley from the south
    Starley from the south 12 November 2014 20: 22
    +1
    Honestly, I do not understand the author. Either he is not far from the mind, or he writes under the dictation of American grantors. One negativity in the article would at least suggest something useful. Worst of all, that confuses the truth with ... fiction, for greater persuasiveness. negative
  26. looker-on
    looker-on 12 November 2014 21: 42
    0
    All ships built in the USSR were built without regard to the economic part of the project. The cost of maintenance and modernization is unreasonable with a simple a priori: the enemy will abandon everything there is to destroy it even at the pier. To the author plus. If a person says that something is wrong or wrong in his country, it doesn’t mean at all that he does not like his fleet country and that he is not a patriot
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 12 November 2014 22: 38
      0
      All ships built in the USSR were built without regard to the economic part of the project. The cost of maintenance and modernization is unreasonable

      Whether it’s the matter of incredible friends ... For the price of the zs more than one, Orlanov built one ... Without anti-aircraft defense, practically without anti-ship missiles ... An effective solution to air defense + missile defense tasks and ... shooting along the shore (popuars) so that it doesn’t shake ... Otherwise, the poits will have time to scatter laughing
      1. Gans1234
        Gans1234 12 November 2014 23: 27
        0
        If it was a stone in the garden of Zumwalt, then I agree.
        Beautiful - yes.
        Modern - yes.
        It is drop dead of the road that even the Americans were stunned - a thousand yes.
        Balanced by performance characteristics, impregnable, inconspicuous and generally a new ocean imba - big, big question
        1. mpa945
          mpa945 12 November 2014 23: 52
          +1
          If it was a stone in the garden of Zumwalt, then I agree.
          And how did you guess? recourse
          Really it seems described? Right now Kaptsov will be offended ... wassat
          1. Gans1234
            Gans1234 13 November 2014 00: 15
            0
            Described very, very accurately)
  27. Gans1234
    Gans1234 12 November 2014 23: 22
    +4
    In my opinion, I already read an article similar in content, and in many phrases 100% deja vu was felt in general.
    I will not analyze every moment of the article, I do not completely agree. Just a couple of points.

    1) What will be the flagship of the squadron, if not Orlan and not an aircraft carrier ??? Frigate, corvette? It’s funny.

    2) An air defense umbrella for connecting Orlan ships will provide much better than the 2 frigate for the same money - at least there are more missiles and radars on Orlan.

    3) We are much less vulnerable than the same AUG of the Americans - the aircraft carrier does not have its own air defense, but it will be larger in size. In the battle, who else is the big question, who is stronger - a hundred missiles on an aircraft carrier and our electronic warfare and air defense against their missiles - come on, the American planes will hit the missiles and Aegis the vaunted one, who in one of the single combat cases has already crashed and the US ship grabbed cabbage.

    4) Ship modernization - SCHOOL! And very good for our shipbuilding. Personnel, experience is lost, re-qualification is already a lot. About the fact that this pleoe business - I do not agree. Build all the electronics, weapons, etc. into a huge, single, living organism is a very difficult task. In fact, besides the buildings of the hull, superstructures and bulkheads - everything is new, everything is from scratch.

    5) What will we swim on ??? BOD and Saryche barely breathe. There are few new frigates - we are slowly building up as far as physical. opportunities at this stage of the restoration of the fleet. And the new destroyer will be at least 10 years old, a couple of destroyers - by 30. 15 years without a world ocean ??? With a bare booty? I do not agree.

    6) Demonstration of the flag. And very spectacular. So big and beautiful. Unique. And who knows how much this brings political and moral dividends when Orlan comes to a foreign port. But it brings - a fact. And it costs a lot.

    7) About the fact that the green ones are not allowed into the ports. Yes and figs with this. He can swim as far as he wants - there he can stock up on grub and water + supply ships for what they are done. In the military sense, this is not important at all - Orlan should bomb the ports, and not enter them.

    8) Crew death and environmental pollution from a reactor explosion. Let's go into delusional extremes.
    Soldiers can die in battle, they can kill and save / protect - this is the triad of the whole point of military service to the country.
    Pollution - so can we give up nuclear power plants, the nuclear arsenal of strategic deterrence? After the use of missiles and people and the nature of Amba.

    9) Operating experience in modern realities. It is quite possible that we will come to the conclusion that we really do not need such ships. And in the next state. the program will not build anything larger than destroyers. Or maybe vice versa - what are needed. In any case, it will no longer be fortune-telling "on the coffee grounds"
    10) I have always considered our country to be oceanic - no one has such an exit to the ends of the world (except perhaps the USA). So - the ocean fleet is needed, whatever one may say. Expensive - yes. And the fleet is always and in everything - expensive. That’s why it isn’t there now - they managed to get through so much. And it’s always more difficult and expensive to restore.

    10) The number of missiles that will be installed on the ship, as long as my memory serves me, significantly exceeds the number indicated in the article. And this is also an indicator characterizing the arguments presented in the article.
  28. Gans1234
    Gans1234 12 November 2014 23: 23
    +4
    There is much more to write.
    And a lot of things in the article warped. Not because of ololo patriotism: "ours are cooler, we will tear everyone apart."
    And not because the author says this, that means he does not love his country and understands nothing.
    And because of the author’s categorical rejection, the initial rejection of ships of rank 1 is expensive. And that’s it. Rebuilding the fleet and shipbuilding is always expensive. And its restoration is priceless.
    And also in the article, even in the "pros and cons" section, in fact, not a single plus is given.
    Initially, everything is on the negative, and everything that can be opposed to the minuses is on the side because "everything is bad" destroys the oil painting. Why do we need Orlan, but they will plunder everything and everyone .... Why - in the directive and even in the article it is written. About stealing is a question. On such high-profile projects to steal is not to value yourself.
    This article is pessimistically negative in nature.
    It is not constructive in my opinion, although the author tried to disguise the negativity under examples and comparisons, which were often simply not correct. Accordingly, it cannot be critical. I love and value constructive criticism, for it inspires thought and reflection.
    This article is not from that opera at all, and that's why I put a minus to it.
  29. NEXUS
    NEXUS 12 November 2014 23: 45
    +1
    The author was right about 10 years ago. I will explain why. Having presented the combat clash of the AUG with the group led by our cruiser, the development would take place in several directions ... First, this is a salvo of "granites" at the aircraft carrier group. But the cruiser must come up to the target launch range "Granites" and this is 600 km. Question-And will our group be allowed to get so close? For example, they went to the calculated distance to the target, fired a volley, and how does this group of missiles work? Distributes targets. And the distribution is such that the covering ships are destroyed first .Some missiles will break through the echeloned defense of the grouping and hit the aircraft carrier. But to sink such an airfield, you need from 6 to 12 hits of "granite" missiles. Do not forget that with all this, our group of ships heroically fights off enemy aircraft. Option number two: our nuclear submarine swims up to the launch range. But even here not everything is smooth, as the AUG has its own underwater security, helicopters, etc. ... and the third option: this is a raid on the AUG with Tu-22 bombers, but this is it's a different story ... So, these scenarios were described, except for the use of a nuclear charge. Someone can say, why not then? I will answer this way, If the application is, then World War III will begin, and then no one is anywhere rides ... These scenarios were relevant at that time. Now completely different weapons, radars, etc. and so on will be put on such ships ... That is, it will not be that "Orlan", model of 3, but completely different a new ship with an order of magnitude higher capabilities. And therefore, most of that scribble in the article, this reading material was 1988 years late for the occurat, or maybe more
  30. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 13 November 2014 09: 07
    0
    But why drown him, I recall the story of the valiant pilot of the United States Navy, John Ma ** his McCain, that ordinary air tanker accidentally launched air on the deck and almost the whole aircraft carrier was burned or rather put on a major overhaul. I’m not special, but even having generally not bad strategic aviation, it was always not very easy to find an aircraft carrier in the world’s oceans, but remind me how much time Petrush hid undetected from a storm in the Chatland bays, this is what they will track movements in real time. Although, to be honest, I emphasize again that I am not a special submarine, I personally see much more priority in the field of combat effectiveness. Answer if I'm wrong.
  31. Seregatim86
    Seregatim86 13 November 2014 21: 43
    +1
    For me, this article is nonsense and a provocation, and a low-standard one. And this is putting it mildly, and here's why: 1) The modernized "Orlan" will cost as much as 2 new frigates, but in terms of missile armament for short-range and long-range air defense and missile defense it is much more powerful (even before modernization it carried 97 S-300 missiles) it will carry more than 300 missiles, not counting the short-range air defense, and the PLO, God forbid, 2) He will not fight unaccompanied, but only as part of a squadron, in which there will be frigates and submarines, and if they upgrade 3-4 "Orlan "as planned, the squadrons of 2" Eagles "with escort will be a very significant force, which if it can be overcome, then at the cost of great losses, so they will be a good" sobering "factor. 3) The fleet needs to be raised and the modernization of the "Orlans" is a good start, and an effective one, too. 4) In operation, the nuclear-powered ship is much more profitable and cheaper than other options, if the ship is destroyed, then it will be difficult for the crew to survive anyway, and as I said, these ships are a deterrent. 5) Demonstration of the flag is also important and necessary. 6) The article was generally written initially with the aim of moaning and throwing mud at a good and important business and there is no objectivity in it, only its imitation, far-fetched.
  32. aov89051612380
    aov89051612380 13 November 2014 23: 58
    0
    In any case, import substitution must be done.
  33. Tishka
    Tishka 14 November 2014 16: 20
    0
    Sorry for being in this area, not competent, and correct the amateur! But in 1937, we, too, insisted on cavalry, at least the “greens” did not shout that exhaust fumes spoil the environment! Although all of Europe began to make tanks, we all relied on raids on the rear, with drafts on the back! That's at 41 and got it, almost to Moscow itself the Nazis reached! So, it’s better to drown the enemy in neutral territory, not allowing them to reach their native shores, not even a cannon shot! And the mosquito fleet will not help here, and coastal aviation will not cover it. So, we need not only the "Eagles", but also aircraft carriers. and other ocean-class ships! As far as I remember, there is also little hope for long-range aviation, how many Tu-22m have their refueling systems cut in the air so that they are not considered missile carriers in long-range aviation? According to the “White” swans, I am generally silent, there are not more than a hundred of them, one hope for the “Bears” is still flying, and they can hit something not only in the coastal zone! So, in my opinion, the amateur, such ships as the “Eagles,” must be restored, if we can’t do it, and it is desirable to equip them with aircraft carriers to defend the enemy’s aircraft, and a couple, three submarines, in a campaign to probable opponents wept with bitter tears, close to the elbow. But to bite, it’s more expensive, you break all your teeth! Then no one will blather, whose Crimea, and whether it is worth imposing sanctions, otherwise, a couple of such armada will come and show the next “Kuzkin” mother!
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 17 November 2014 21: 26
      +1
      Quote: Silence
      But in 1937, we also insisted on cavalry

      It is not so simple. The cavalry was such only in name, and used horses mainly to move long distances, since there were few cars. At the same time, cavalry divisions were armed with artillery, tanks, and some even aviation.
      I don’t know the truth or not, but German generals considered the refusal to use horses to be Hitler’s mistake, because in the open spaces of the USSR the horse often had better cross-country ability.
      1. Tishka
        Tishka 18 November 2014 00: 30
        0
        Of course, when Blitz Krieg did not work out, and autumn came, then on our roads, only horses could pass! The equipment simply got stuck in the mud, this is not Europe, where the Wehrmacht tanks rolled along good roads, to bravura marches, and when winter came, and the German command, not counting on such frosts, did not provide the soldiers with felt boots and short fur coats, then we were on horseback ! As far as I read the archives, 70 percent of aviation was destroyed at airfields, artillery was sent to summer camps, but they weren’t given shells, and they simply lost it, and the tanks were mostly light, military, with a weak gun that didn’t posed a threat to the German tigers. Thank you for all the headquarters that threw cavalry and carts on German tanks! So, the question is quite controversial, if the Germans had kept within the summer company, then it is not yet known. how things would turn out! The main miscalculation was that any Russian person could be a hero, and fight alone, with a crowd of enemies! Only at the expense of the heroism of the people did we win this war, when even a burning tank continued to fight, and rammed the enemy, when the pilot ran out of ammunition, he went to ram, or lined, dived onto enemy echelons, or columns! That's where the Germans had a miscalculation!
    2. BIG
      BIG 18 November 2014 07: 12
      0
      Quote: Silence
      But in 1937, we also insisted on cavalry,

      Quite the contrary, before the war, cavalry was reduced and emphasis was placed on the mechanization of the army.
      If you carefully study the payroll of the Armed Forces, you will see that during the war both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht increased the number of cavalry units and formations. Life made.
      1. Tishka
        Tishka 18 November 2014 16: 53
        0
        Yes, life made, given the major losses in both people and technology! Therefore, I stand for the fact that these missile cruisers are not expensive, they have the right to be in the service of the fleet, and to them, in addition, aircraft carriers are needed, so that again, life does not force to urgently revive what else can be restored and to build! By the way, at the end of the war, the Wehrmacht was urgently needed as in armored vehicles. so in people. plus, the loss of territories where all this was done. plus loss of fuel, that's why they switched to cavalry, if there was an alternative, then this replacement would simply not have happened. By the way, in Germany itself, the trucks were converted to firewood, and also not from a good life! This does not mean that steam is much better than a gasoline engine, although it has its advantages!
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 19 November 2014 20: 47
          0
          Quote: Silence
          and to them, in the appendage, we need aircraft carriers

          It should have been, but Ulyanovsk was cut on the slipway, thanks to the Democrats.
  34. Tishka
    Tishka 20 November 2014 11: 47
    0
    Democrats got a lot of fun, one. sold to India, instead of building new ones. last sell, expensive! Unfinished, Ukraine sold to China. and those are not fools. quickly completed it. and build their own on its basis! And we, all argue, are needed, are not needed, and as everything is expensive, it’s nice to remove some foam from our oligarchs. and there it’s typed not only on new aircraft carriers, but also on the ocean fleet, otherwise they already began to cover the yachts with gold!
  35. red_october
    red_october 11 December 2014 22: 33
    0
    Therefore, no matter how powerful and good the "missile battleship" is, in wartime it is doomed.

    The conclusions are strange, one "Orlan" and the entire US fleet are taken, from where the conclusion is drawn. that in wartime he is doomed. Look, for a change, the composition of the US 6th Fleet, how many real combat ships, how many escort ships, etc. Can they harm our heavy cruiser? - Definitely yes. Can ours do harm? Yes, too. Especially with its new missiles with a range of 1500-2500 km. Do the Americans understand this? - Yes, they do. The same aircraft carrier "George Washington" flew into a pretty penny.

    Well, more than 20 "Ticonderogs" and more than 60 "Arlie Burks" will not collide head-on with "Admiral Nakhomov"!
    The United States is spraying its ships across the oceans, but China also needs to be pulled in time.

    However, there is also unverified information that NATO viewed the Soviet squadrons, led by Project 1144 Orlan cruisers, as very dangerous rivals for their carrier formations. In theoretical exercises to destroy such a squadron, groupings of four aircraft carriers were exhibited, of which only one was supposed to stay afloat. Air groups of three aircraft carriers were supposed to be almost completely lost. http://ship.bsu.by/ship/100027


    There is no concrete outcome of the battle without a specific maritime theater, with its own specific conditions !!!

    And 1144 should go in the same operational-tactical group with Admiral Kuznetsov, reinforced with another cruiser of project 1144 or 1164 - and at least in the Arctic Ocean and in the North Atlantic there will be a fleet that will have to be reckoned with, at least in the next 20 years. And in 20 years a lot can happen ...
  36. red_october
    red_october 11 December 2014 22: 51
    0
    We must not forget also that the "Admiral Nakhimov" is a middle-aged ship. He entered the naval force in the 1988 year, that is, 26 years ago - during the heyday of the restructuring, when the quality of work at defense enterprises fell rapidly. True, the ship served not very active and short-lived. Already in the 1997 year, he was withdrawn from the operating structure of the Northern Fleet, and on August 14, the 1999 cruiser arrived at Sevmash "for repair and modernization". Two slightly older TARKs - “Admiral Ushakov” (formerly “Kirov”) and “Admiral Lazarev” (formerly “Frunze”), which were also previously planned to be modernized, due to poor technical condition, including their AEU, were disposed of. The technical condition of “Admiral Nakhimov” after 15 years of inactivity can hardly be considered brilliant.

    This "nine" 1988 release is not young. There are other measures for alloys for warships.
    For example, there are now 22 Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers in the US Navy, launched between 1985-1994.
    In the same USA, in 1982-88, 4 Iowa-class battleships were reactivated, launched in 1942-44!
    Installed "32" Tomahawk, fortunately, there was enough space. something else and sent to serve.

    In the case of the "eagles" it is necessary to look at the actual state of each ship.