Military Review

Heavy nuclear missile cruisers project 1144 "Orlan"

104
Domestic cruisers of the 1144 "Orlan" project is a series of four heavy nuclear missile cruisers (TARK), which were designed in the USSR and built at the Baltic plant from 1973 to 1998 years. They became the only surface ships in the Russian Navy, equipped with a nuclear power plant. According to the NATO codification, they received the designation Kirov-class battlecruiser, after the name of the first ship of the cruiser "Kirov" series (from the 1992 of the year "Admiral Ushakov"). In the West, they were attributed to the battle cruisers due to the exceptional size and armament of ships. The chief designer of the nuclear cruisers of the 1144 project was Boris Izrailevich Kupensky, the deputy chief designer was Yukhin Vladimir Evgenievich.


Cruisers "Kirov" have no analogues in world shipbuilding. These ships could effectively carry out combat missions to destroy surface ships of the enemy and his submarines. Missile weapons installed on ships made it possible to ensure the defeat of large surface enemy strike groups with a high degree of probability. The ships of the series were the largest non-propelling shock warships in the world. For example, US nuclear-powered cruisers of the Virginia type URO were 2,5 times smaller in displacement. The cruisers of Project 1144 "Orlan" were designed to engage large surface targets, protect compounds fleet from air attacks and submarines in remote areas of the oceans. These ships were armed with almost all types of military and technical equipment that were only created for surface ships in the USSR. The cruisers' main missile weapons were the Granit anti-ship missile system.

26 March 1973 of the year at the Baltiyskiy Zavod the laying of the first lead ship of the 1144 project, the heavy nuclear missile cruiser Kirov (from 1992 of the year Admiral Ushakov), took place. 27 of December 1977 of the year was launched, and 30 of December 1980 of the TARK was transferred to the fleet. On October 31, the second ship of the series, the Frunze TARK (from the year Admiral Lazarev), entered service. December 1984 The third ship, the Kalinin TARK, was handed over to the fleet (Admiral Nakhimov since 1992). And in 30, the plant started the construction of the last ship of this series - the TARK “Peter the Great” (originally they wanted to call it “Kuibyshev” and “Yuri Andropov”). Construction of the ship had a difficult period in stories country. The collapse of the USSR led to the fact that the construction was completed only in 1996 year, and tests in 1998 year. Thus, the ship was accepted into the fleet through 10 years after the laying.

TARK project 11442 "Admiral Nakhimov" under repair


To date, of all the four in the ranks, there is only the heavy nuclear missile cruiser “Peter the Great”, which is the most powerful strike warship not only in the Russian Navy, but throughout the world. The first ship of the series "Admiral Ushakov" is in the sediment from the year 1991, in the year 2002 was withdrawn from the fleet. His fate has already been decided - the ship will be disposed of at the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center in Severodvinsk. According to experts, the disposal of this TARK will cost approximately 10 times more expensive than the dismantling of the largest nuclear submarine, as there is simply no technology and experience to dispose of such warships in Russia. It is very likely that the second ship of the series, the cruiser Admiral Lazarev, will suffer the same fate; the ship has been slumped in the Far East since 1999. But the third cruiser of the 11442 project “Orlan” “Admiral Nakhimov” is currently undergoing repairs and modernization at Sevmash. It will be returned to the fleet at the turn of 2017-2018, previously called 2019 year. At the same time, according to Mikhail Budnichenko, General Director of Sevmash, the life of the cruiser after the completion of repairs will be extended by 35 years. It is assumed that the repaired TARK "Admiral Nakhimov" will continue to serve in the Pacific Fleet of Russia, and "Peter the Great" will remain the flagship of the Russian Northern Fleet.

Heavy nuclear missile cruisers of the 1144 “Orlan” project did not have and have no direct analogues abroad. The atomic American cruisers of Long Beach type (17 500 tons) decommissioned at the moment were 1,5 times, and the Virginia (11 500 tons) were 2,5 times smaller and had much weaker weapons, both quantitatively and quantitatively. This could be explained by the different tasks that confronted the ships. If in the American fleet they were only an escort for multi-purpose aircraft carriers, then the Soviet fleet was the creation of nuclear surface ships as independent combat units that could form the basis of the ocean fighting forces of the fleet. The various weapons of the 1144 TARK project made these ships multi-purpose, but at the same time they complicated their maintenance and created some problems with the definition of their tactical and technical niche.

The history of the creation of cruisers project 1144

In 1961, the first nuclear-powered cruiser of the Long Beach BWU became part of the US Navy, this event was the impetus for the resumption of theoretical work on the development of a combat surface nuclear-powered ship in the Soviet Union. But even without taking into account the Americans, the Soviet Navy, entering into those years in the period of its rapid development, objectively needed ocean-going ships, which would be able to act for a long time apart from the coastal bases, the nuclear power plant contributed best to the solution of this task. Already in the year 1964, in the USSR, research began again to determine the appearance of the country's first military atomic surface ship. Initially, the research ended with the creation of a tactical and technical assignment for the development of a project for a large anti-submarine ship with a nuclear power plant and a displacement of 8 thousand tons.

Heavy nuclear missile cruisers "Peter the Great", "Admiral Ushakov", winter 1996-1997


When designing the ship, the designers proceeded from the fact that the solution to the main problem can be achieved only if sufficient combat stability is ensured. Even then, no one doubted that the main danger to the ship would be aviationTherefore, the creation of a layered air defense system for the ship was originally envisaged. At the initial stage of development, the designers believed that it would be very difficult to combine all the necessary equipment and weapons in one hull, so the option of creating a pair of two nuclear surface ships was considered: the BOD of project 1144 and the missile cruiser of project 1165. The first ship was to carry anti-submarine weapons, the second - anti-ship cruise missiles (RCC). These two ships were supposed to operate as part of the compound, covering each other from various threats, they were equipped with anti-aircraft weapons on an equal footing, which should have contributed to the creation of a strong layered air defense. However, as the project developed, it was decided that it would be most rational not to separate the anti-submarine and anti-ship functions, but to combine them in one cruiser. After this, the design work on the atomic cruiser of project 1165 was stopped and all the efforts of the developers were redirected to the universal ship of project 1144.

In the course of the work, the increasing requirements for the project led to the fact that the ship received a growing range of weapons and various equipment - which, in turn, was reflected in the increase in displacement. As a result, the project of the first Soviet atomic surface warship quickly moved away from the narrow anti-submarine functions, acquiring a multi-purpose orientation, and its standard displacement exceeded 20 thousand tons. The cruiser was supposed to carry all the most modern types of combat and technical equipment that were created in the Soviet Union for combat surface ships. This evolution was reflected in the ship’s new classification - the “heavy nuclear missile cruiser”, which was assigned in June 1977 of the year, already during the construction of the lead ship of the series, which was laid as the “anti-nuclear cruiser”.

In its final form, the technical design of the new atomic surface ship was approved in 1972 and received the 1144 cipher "Orlan". The project of the first Soviet surface combat nuclear-powered icebreaker was developed in the Northern Design Bureau in Leningrad. The chief designer of the 1144 project was B. I. Kupensky, and from the USSR Navy the captain of 2 rank A. A. Savin was the main observer of the design and construction of the cruiser from the very beginning to the transfer of the ship to the fleet.

The lead ship of the series, the cruiser of the project 1144 "Kirov".


From the very beginning, the new nuclear-powered icebreaker became the favorite child of S. G. Gorshkov, who served as commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy. Despite this, the design of the ship was difficult and slow enough. The increasing displacement of the cruiser as the design requirements were revised and modified, forced the designers to look for new and new versions of the main power plant of the ship - first of all, its steam generating part. At the same time, Gorshkov demanded to place on the cruiser a backup power plant that would work on organic fuel. The fears of the war years could be understood: the Soviet and world experience of operating nuclear-powered ships in those years was not large enough, and even nowadays, accidents with reactor breakdown occur from time to time. At the same time, a surface combat ship, unlike a submarine, can afford to switch from an atomic reactor to burning ordinary fuel in fireboxes - it was decided to use this advantage in full. It was assumed that the backup boiler will be able to help in ensuring the parking of the ship. The underdeveloped basing system of large warships in the Soviet Union was for a long time a sore spot for the navy.

While the lead ship of the series was still on the stocks, an improved project was created for the next cruiser, which received an 11442 index. It provided for the replacement of some models of weapons and equipment with the latest at that time systems: the Kortik anti-aircraft artillery complex (ZRAK) instead of the turret 30-mm six-barreled machine guns; “Dagger” air defense missile system instead of “Osa-MA” air defense missile, universal 130-paired AK-130 installation instead of two one-gun 100 mm AK-100 turret on Kirov, Vodopat anti-submarine complex, RBU- jet bombers 12000 instead of RBU-6000, etc. It was planned that all the ships of the series following the Kirov cruiser would be built according to an improved project, however, in fact, due to the unavailability for the mass production of all the planned weapons, they were added to the ships under construction as development was completed. In the end, only the last ship, Peter the Great, could correspond to the 11442 project, but even with reservations, the second and third ships Frunze and Kalinin were in an intermediate position between the first and last ships of the series.

Description of the design of cruisers project 1144

All cruisers of the 1144 "Orlan" project had a hull with an extended (more than 2 / 3 of the total length) low-forecastle. The hull is divided into 16 main compartments with watertight bulkheads. Throughout the hull of the TARK go 5 decks. In the bow of the ship under the bulb fairing there is a fixed antenna of the Polynom hydroacoustic complex. In the stern of the ship there is an underdeck hangar, which is designed for the permanent deployment of Ka-3 helicopters, as well as storage rooms for fuel and a lift, used to deliver helicopters to the upper deck. Here, in the stern of the ship, there is a compartment with a lifting and lowering device of the towed antenna of the Polynom sonar complex. Advanced superstructure heavy cruisers are made with the extensive use of aluminum-magnesium alloys. The main part of the armament of the ship is focused on the stern and in the bow.



The 1144 project cruisers are protected from getting damaged by anti-torpedo protection, double bottom throughout the hull, as well as local booking of vital parts of TARK. As such, there is no belt armor on the 1144 “Orlan” cruisers - armor protection is located in the depth of the hull - but along the waterline from the ship’s bow to the stern there was a thicker 3,5 meter covering sheath (including 2,5 meters above the waterline and 1 meters below the waterline) which plays an important role in the constructive protection of the cruiser.

TARK project 1144 "Orlan" became the first warships after the Second World War, the project which was laid sufficiently developed booking. So the engine rooms, the rocket cellars of the Granit complexes and the reactor compartments from the sides are protected by 100-mm (below the waterline - 70 mm) and from the side of the deck by 70-mm armor. Armor protection was also provided to the premises of the combat information post of the ship and the main command post, which are located inside its hull at the waterline level: they are covered with 100-mm side walls with an 75-mm roof and traverses. In addition, in the stern of the cruiser there is armor on the sides (70-mm) and on the roof (50-mm) of the helicopter hangar, as well as around the ammunition storage and aviation fuel. Local reservations are available above the tiller compartments.

The nuclear power plant with KN-3 reactors (core type VM-16), although based on ice-breaking reactors type OK-900, has significant differences from them. The main thing is in fuel assemblies that contain uranium with a high degree of enrichment (approximately 70%). The lifetime of such an active zone until the next recharge is 10-11 years. Installed on the cruiser double-circuit reactors, thermal neutrons, water-to-water. They use bidistillate, a high-purity water, which circulates through the reactor core under high pressure (approximately 200 atmospheres), providing boiling of the second circuit, which eventually goes to the turbines as steam, as a coolant and moderator.



The developers paid special attention to the possibility of using a two-shaft power plant of the cruiser, the power on each shaft of which is 70000 HP. The complex-automated AEU was located in 3-x compartments and included 2 nuclear reactors with a total thermal capacity of 342 MW, 2 turbo-gear units (located in the bow and stern from the reactor compartment), as well as 2 stand-by automated KVG-2 boiler, mounted in turbine units. When only a backup power plant is in operation - without using nuclear reactors - the 1144 “Orlan” cruiser is able to develop 17 nodes speed, fuel reserves will be enough to pass 1300 nautical miles at this speed. The use of nuclear reactors provides the cruiser with a full stroke speed of the 31 node and an unlimited navigation range. A power plant installed on the ships of this project would be able to provide heat and electricity to a city whose population would be 100-150 thousands of inhabitants. And the well-thought hull lines and large displacement provide the TARK 1144 "Orlan" with excellent seaworthiness, which is especially important for warships of the ocean zone.

The crew of the TARK project 1144 / 11442 consists of 759 people (including 120 officers). There are 1600 rooms, including 140 single and double cabins for officers and military commanders, 30 cabin for sailors and foremen on 8-30 people each, 15 shower rooms, two saunas, sauna with 6 XX2,5 pool meters, a two-tier medical unit (outpatient, operating room, infirmary isolators, X-ray room, dental office, pharmacy), gym with exercise equipment, 3 saloon for midshipmen, officers and admirals, as well as a lounge for rest and even its own cable television studio I.

Armament cruisers project 1144 "Orlan"

The basic one weapons These cruisers were PKR P-700 "Granit" - the third-generation supersonic cruise missiles with a reduced profile of the flight path to the target. With a launch mass of 7 tons, these missiles developed speeds up to 2,5 M and could carry conventional warheads with a mass of 750 kg or a nuclear monoblock power up to 500 kt up to 625 km. The length of the rocket is - 10 meters, diameter - 0,85 meters. 20 anti-ship cruise missiles "Granit" were installed under the upper deck of the cruiser, with an angle of elevation 60 degrees. The SM-233 launchers for these missiles were manufactured at the Leningrad Metal Works PO. For the reason that the Granit missiles were originally intended for submarines, before launching the missile, the installation must be filled with seawater. According to the experience of operational and combat training of the Navy, it is very difficult to shoot down the Granit. Even if the anti-ship missile hits the anti-ship missile missile, due to its enormous speed and mass, it can retain enough momentum to “reach” the target ship.

Launcher ship Fort-M ZRK


The basis of the 1144 “Orlan” anti-missile armament of the cruisers was the C-300F (Fort) missile system, which was located below the deck on spinning drums. Complete ammunition complex consisted of 96 anti-aircraft missiles. On the only ship of the Peter the Great series (instead of one C-300F complex), the unique C-300FM Fort-M bow complex, which was produced in one copy, appeared. Each such complex is able to simultaneously fire up to 6 maneuvering small-sized targets (accompany up to 12 targets) and direct 12 missiles at them simultaneously in the conditions of active and passive jamming by the enemy. Due to the design features of the C-300FM missile complex, the Peter the Great's ammunition rifle reduced by 2 missiles. Thus, the Peter the Great TARK is armed with one C-300FM complex with 46 48H6X2 missiles and one C-300F complex with 48 48H6E missiles, the full ammunition consists of 94 missiles. "Fort-M" was created on the basis of the army air defense complex C-300PMU2 "Favorite". This complex, unlike its predecessor, the anti-aircraft complex “Fort”, is able to hit targets at a distance of 120 km and successfully fight enemy missiles at altitudes up to 10 meters. The expansion of the affected area of ​​the complex was achieved by improving the sensitivity of the receiving channels and the power characteristics of the transmitter.

The second echelon of the air defense of the cruiser is the Dagger air defense missile system, which was included in the 11442 project, but in fact appeared only on the last ship of the series. The main objective of this complex is the defeat of air targets that broke through the first line of the air defense of the cruiser (“Fort” air defense missile system). The basis of the "Dagger" are solid-fuel, single-stage, remote-controlled 9М330 missiles, which are unified with the Tor-M1 ground defense system of the ground forces. Rockets fly up vertically with an inactive engine under the action of a catapult. The missile recharging is automatic, the launch interval is 3 seconds. The target detection range in the automatic mode is 45 km, the number of simultaneously fired targets is 4, the response time is 8 seconds. SAM "Dagger" works offline (without the participation of personnel). According to the specification, each 11442 cruiser of the 128 project should have 16 of such missiles in 8хXNUMX installations.

The third air defense boundary is the Dirk “Dirk”, which is a short-range defense system. It is designed to replace the ordinary 30-mm six-barreled artillery systems AK-630. The Dirk "Dirk" in the television-optical and radar modes is able to provide full automation of the combat control from the detection of a target to its defeat. Each installation consists of two 30-mm six-barrel automatic machines AO-18, the total rate of which is 10 000 rounds per minute and two 4 units of two-stage 9М311 rockets. These missiles have a fragmentation-rod warhead and a proximity fuse. In the turret section of each installation is 32 such missiles in transport and launch containers. The 9М311 missiles are unified with the Tunguska 2C6 land complex and are able to fight anti-ship missiles, guided bombs, helicopters and enemy aircraft. The range of the missile part of the DIRECT "Dirk" is 1,5-8 km, the shot from 30-mm artillery installations is conducted at a distance of 1500-50 meters. The height of the air targets hit is 5-4000 meters. In total, each of the three cruisers of the 11442 project was supposed to contain 6 of such complexes, the ammunition of which consisted of 192 missiles and 36 000 projectiles.

ZRAK "Dirk"


As a universal artillery system, the 11442 “Orlan” cruisers received one AK-130 turret, which has two 130-mm automatic guns with 70 barrel lengths of caliber. AK-130 provides firing rate at the level from 20 to 86 shots per minute, and, in addition to air targets, can be used to fire various sea and coastal objects, to support the landing of assault forces. The ammunition of a universal artillery unit consists of several types of unitary shots - for example, high-explosive fragmentation shots with remote, shock and radio fuses. The firing range of this artillery unit 25 km,

The anti-submarine armament of the 1144 cruiser was represented by the Metel complex, which in the 11442 project was replaced by the more modern anti-submarine complex Waterfall. In contrast to the "Blizzard", "Waterfall" does not need a separate PU - rocket-torpedoes of the complex are charged into standard torpedo tubes. The rocket model 83PH (or 84PH with a nuclear warhead), like an ordinary torpedo, is fired from a torpedo tube with compressed air and dives into the water. Then, when a certain depth is reached, the rocket engine is launched and the rocket-torpedo takes off from under the water and by air delivers the warhead to the target area - up to 60 kilometers from the carrier ship - after which the warhead is separated. The UMGT-1 - 400-mm small-sized self-guided torpedo can be used as a warhead. The range of torpedoes UMGT-1, which can be installed on rocket-torpedoes - 8 km, speed - 41 node, depth - 500 meters. In ammunition cruisers to 30 such rocket-torpedoes.

The RBU-6000 twelve-barrel rocket launcher, like the torpedo tubes, was received by all the ships of the series, but starting from the third, they began to be supplemented with a more modern 10-charge anti-torpedo bomb launcher RBU-12000 Udav-1. Each of these installations has a conveyor reloading and is able to both charge and shoot torpedoes going to the cruiser in automatic mode. The reaction time "Boa" 15 seconds, the maximum range is 3000 meters, the minimum is 100 meters. Ammunition for two such installations is 120 deep-seated jet bombs.



All cruisers of the 1144 (11442) project were provided with a permanent base up to the X-NUMX Ka-3 helicopters in the anti-submarine version. To ensure the air group's deployment on the stern of the cruiser, a landing platform is equipped, there is a special under-deck hangar and helicopter lift, as well as the necessary radio navigation equipment and an aviation control post. Soviet heavy nuclear cruisers of the 27 "Orlan" project - for the first time after the era of artillery ships - in the design process received an adequate displacement reserve to protect the armor and cover the Ka-1144 helicopters themselves and fuel for them under deck.

The main characteristics of TARK "Peter the Great":

Displacement standard - 23 750 t, full - 25860 t.
Length - 250,1 m.
Width - 28,5 m.
Height (from the main plane) - 59 m.
Draft - 10,3 m.
The power plant is a 2 nuclear reactor and a 2 boiler.
Power - 140 000 HP
Travel speed - 31 node.
Navigation range - unlimited on the reactor, 1300 miles on the boilers.
The autonomy of swimming is 60 days.
Crew - 760 man.
Armament: 20 PKR P-700 "Granite"; 48 of “Fort” missiles and 46 of “Fort-M” missiles; 16 PU Zrk "Dagger" (128 missiles); 6 SPORT "Dirk" (192 rocket); RBU-12000; 10x533-mm torpedo tubes; AK-130; 3 anti-submarine helicopter Ka-27.

Information sources:
http://wiki.wargaming.net/ru/Navy:Крейсера_типа_«Киров»_проекта_1144_«Орлан»
http://razgromflota.ru/statya-27-istoriya-sozdaniya-chetvertogo-korablya-proekta-1144-orlan-tyazhelogo-atomnogo-raketnogo-krejsera-petr-velikij-chast-1-stroitelstvo-i-gody-zabveniya
http://military-informer.narod.ru/PetrVelikiy.html
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-701.html
http://ria.ru/defense_safety
Author:
104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alex_59
    Alex_59 16 September 2015 06: 45 New
    +1
    As it was written somewhere by V.P. Kuzin - "1144 is the victory of technology over common sense."
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2015 07: 26 New
      +28
      Quote: Alex_59
      1144 is the victory of technology over common sense

      But beautiful...
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 16 September 2015 07: 45 New
        +25
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But beautiful...

        Do not take away ... Soviet ships have always been distinguished by grace ...
        1. Malkor
          Malkor 16 September 2015 08: 14 New
          +7
          We need two dozen of them - then there will be all the rules.
          1. Talgat
            Talgat 16 September 2015 16: 59 New
            +5
            I do not know. Of course it would be nice, but if you take into account the realities (budget constraints now and the overwhelming dominance of amers and the west in the oceans), then it is probably better to focus on atomarines and submarines with extra-high schools - they said that the navy is divided into 2 categories - submarines and targets
          2. Bersaglieri
            Bersaglieri 16 September 2015 21: 10 New
            +1
            Better, for the same money - 40 frigates and 10 ICAPLs.
            1. serg2108
              serg2108 18 October 2016 16: 55 New
              +2
              and frigates are needed and boats, but these cruisers must be the basis of the fleets!
        2. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 16 September 2015 18: 45 New
          +7
          It was beautiful when “Kiev”, “Tbilisi”, “Kirov” and “Shura Nevsky” stood on the roadstead in Severomorsk, especially when they were passing by a speedboat from Polyarny to Severomorsk, it was impressive.
          1. sandrmur76
            sandrmur76 20 October 2016 00: 29 New
            +1
            The second from the top of the photo, where it is signed, is the Heavy Atomic Missile Cruisers "Peter the Great", "Admiral Ushakov", winter 1996-1997. In the background, if you zoom in, you can see the TARK of project 11442 "Admiral Nakhimov" with number 080. How did they end up in one place together? belay
        3. user
          user 18 September 2015 10: 58 New
          +4
          Soviet ships have always been distinguished by grace ...


          It’s like in aviation, a beautiful plane always flies well. . . . (I don’t remember who said it).
          1. Bobik012
            Bobik012 12 May 2018 11: 43 New
            0
            Tupolev - ugly planes do not fly
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 16 September 2015 08: 44 New
      +26
      I would not quote Cousin. He has all the Russian ships - the misunderstandings are slabby, it’s not clear how it’s not clear why it is “multiplied by zero”. I also have an authoritative opinion.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 16 September 2015 11: 01 New
        +5
        Quote: Engineer
        I would not quote Cousin. He has all the Russian ships - the misunderstandings are slabby, it’s not clear how it’s not clear why it is “multiplied by zero”. I also have an authoritative opinion.

        Well, yes, yes ... Captain I rank, candidate of military sciences, professor, researcher at the 1st Central Research Institute of Military Education, later Head of the History Department of the Central Research Institute named after A.N. Krylova "- undoubtedly slanderer and slander.

        That's just the water mines of the Kyrgyz Republic on a surface ship that will not get away from this. As well as the rotating antenna posts of the "Fort" (which without a double overlook only two half of the horizon) - instead of the normal 4 canvases with electronic scanning. And drum rotating VPU SAM, instead of normal VPU with individual cells.
        And also the fact that the entire planned set of weapons received only the last of the 1144 built - "Petya". The rest ... the first two did not get "thick" missiles for the "fort", "daggers" and "boas", the first three - "daggers" (they had an ambush in the fleet with them - some 1155 went without an air defense system or a half staffing kit).
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2015 12: 06 New
          +15
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Well, yes, yes ... Captain I rank, candidate of military sciences, professor, scientific researcher at 1 Central Research Institute of Military Culture, later head of the department of history of FSUE Central Scientific Research Institute named after A.N. Krylova ”is undoubtedly a slanderer and a slander.

          Not that, of course, but you must admit that with Kuzin the glass is always half empty and never - half full.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Here are just the water mines of the Kyrgyz Republic on a surface ship that will not get away from this.

          This is true and the ship does not paint, but after all, missiles are also unique in their performance characteristics, which of course is a plus.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          As well as the rotating antenna posts of the "Fort" (which, without a double overlook, only half the horizon together) - instead of the normal 4-x headlights with electronic scanning.

          And here Kuzin is wrong - the "normal" HEADLIGHTS (obviously meant Aegis), having only a decimeter range, very disgustingly sees low-flying targets. Only in the 2000's the Americans were able to somehow solve this problem at the program level (peeling interference) and that is not a fact, which is good. At the same time, the presence of a centimeter radar at our posts of the FMS “Fort” allows us to see and aim weapons at low-flying targets quite perfectly :) The British implemented this principle (combining a decimeter and a centimeter radar) in Sampson radars and now their “Derings” are considered the best air defense -shnikami of the planet :) In general, the system of "general-view radars + radar control posts" of 1144 (and 1164) cruisers sees the targets better and is more noise-resistant than the American Aegis headlamp + target illumination radars. But yes, the overall size is better for the Americans, but this does not mean that everything else is better for the Ticonderoga :)
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And drum rotating VPU SAM, instead of normal VPU with individual cells.

          This is true, but it is worth noting that our drum sets appeared first. Those. in the VPU issue, we seemed to be ahead of the United States, but of course their MK41 is better.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 16 September 2015 13: 00 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            Not that, of course, but you must admit that with Kuzin the glass is always half empty and never - half full.

            Professional deformation caused by heavy and prolonged communication with the customer. laughing
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And here Kuzin is wrong - the "normal" HEADLIGHTS (obviously meant Aegis), having only a decimeter range, very disgustingly sees low-flying targets. Americans only in the 2000s were able to somehow solve this problem at the program level (exfoliation of interference) and that is not a fact, which is good. At the same time, the presence of a centimeter radar at our posts of the FMS “Fort” allows us to see and aim weapons at low-flying targets quite perfectly :)

            MGH + mechanical rotation - these are 2 problems.
            Two induced APs can simultaneously work only in half the horizon (each in the 90 degree sector). Outside of these sectors, AP has to be turned over by mechanics. And if a starry raid? We fire 2 directions, skip the third? Or are we trying to cover the entire horizon by rotating the AP left-right?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2015 13: 16 New
              +4
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Professional deformation

              I understand this very well, and this is the way to make an amendment to it when reading Cousin, to deform this one :)
              Well, I’m not saying that he is bad or a pest, just because of objective circumstances, the respected author writes a little ... subjectively wink
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Outside of these sectors, AP has to be turned over by mechanics. And if a starry raid? 2 firing directions, skip the third? Or are we trying to cover the entire horizon by rotating the AP left-right?

              Why such difficulties? The general detection radar detected some disturbances, cut the “Tackle” - ittit it! But we are attacked, however! We distributed the order of work according to goals and forth ... Ie surface control at low altitudes is controlled by Podkat in all 360 degrees, and the LMS posts "work" according to their goals, changing their position as necessary.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 16 September 2015 15: 30 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Why such difficulties? The general detection radar detected some disturbances, cut the “Tackle” - ittit it! But we are attacked, however! We distributed the order of work according to goals and forth ... Ie surface control at low altitudes is controlled by Podkat in all 360 degrees, and the LMS posts "work" according to their goals, changing their position as necessary.

                Yes, I am aware that we have DEC and guidance missiles unleashed.
                The problem is that if we healthy and rich, then it would be possible to direct missiles at once over the entire horizon, without wasting time on turning the AP and capturing the target. And with induced APs, we are forced to play "wolf and eggs", catching two 90-degree baskets of targets flying out in a random order across the horizon of 360 degrees.
          2. 78bor1973
            78bor1973 16 September 2015 23: 15 New
            +2
            The Americans simply “raped” their “Ajis,” but they did not solve the problems with “exfoliating” the interference! And on the "Peter" in my headlight stands in front, and the second was supposed to be in Utah, but for some reason they did not.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 16 September 2015 14: 13 New
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          instead of the normal 4 canvases with electronic scanning. And drum rotating VPU SAM, instead of normal VPU with individual cells.

          You still drag Aegis here, then it will turn out great.
          What nafig headlights in the 90s? And designed in general in the 80s
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2015 15: 00 New
            +3
            Quote: Pilat2009
            You drag Aegis here too

            So it is necessary to “drag it here”, I do not see the problem point blank.
            Quote: Pilat2009
            What nafig headlights in 90h years?

            Passive. Such as AN / SPY-1 of the Aegis you mentioned. Went to a series in 1983 if sclerosis doesn't lie to me
            Quote: Pilat2009
            And designed in general in 80x

            The Americans began to design their PAR (later AN / SPY-1) back in the 70's
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 16 September 2015 15: 41 New
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

              Passive. Such as AN / SPY-1 of the Aegis you mentioned. Went to a series in 1983 if sclerosis doesn't lie to me

              Do not lie. smile
              An experienced "aegis" was installed on Norton Sound in 1973. In 1981, he also received an experienced Mk41.
              The serial "aegis" came to the fleet in January 1983 on the lead "tick". Series Mk41 - in 1986 (Bunker Hill).
              1. user
                user 21 September 2015 08: 59 New
                +1
                Let's wait until the last modernization or repair ends, as you like, but we always have time to sprinkle our heads with ash.
            2. Bersaglieri
              Bersaglieri 16 September 2015 21: 18 New
              +1
              Heh. Earlier still. The first VFAR Americans on the CGN "Long Beach" put back in the early 60s.

              Materiel for links
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCANFAR
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPS-4


              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Long_Beach_(CGN-9)
              1. Bersaglieri
                Bersaglieri 20 September 2015 08: 57 New
                0
                And in the USSR, the first PFAR should have been in the Dal air defense system
        4. Dart2027
          Dart2027 16 September 2015 23: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          undoubtedly a slanderer and a denunciator

          And who was involved in their design? After all, not the people from the street. They did what the then technology allowed.
    3. Civil
      Civil 16 September 2015 21: 08 New
      0
      But so few ... why
    4. Skuto
      Skuto 16 September 2015 23: 13 New
      +2
      This was said about the 941 “Shark” strategic missile submarines of strategic purpose http://www.rg.ru/2009/05/27/akuly-site.html
  2. qwert
    qwert 16 September 2015 07: 27 New
    +22
    Ships causing a lot of controversy. Although a pair of Orlanes with Kuzey and a pair of BOD and nuclear submarines would have turned out to be a good connection. Near Cuba or Syria, it could demonstrate the flag in such a way that no unnecessary questions would arise.
    So, most likely ORLan is a good and successful ship, but it needs a fleet that could be created in the USSR. And in Russia, so far, only corvettes are riveting for themselves.
  3. tlauicol
    tlauicol 16 September 2015 07: 30 New
    +1
    "... shot from 30-mm artillery mounts being conducted at a distance of 1500-50 meters ..." - come on!? maybe 500 meters?
    1. gjv
      gjv 16 September 2015 07: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      shot from 30-mm artillery mounts being conducted at a distance of 1500-50 meters

      Yes noticed ouchheel.
      Lambs often slip through articles on VO ...
  4. kenvas
    kenvas 16 September 2015 07: 52 New
    +19
    Whatever they say, Peter the Great is a beautiful ship and a dangerous adversary against any Western pelvis. He has no one-on-one opponents! something like this ... And about the "victory of technology over common sense" this was related to the 941 Shark project, although I also disagree with this. Shark and Orlan is the pride of the Soviet and Russian Navy
  5. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 16 September 2015 08: 04 New
    +10
    Oleg Kaptsov, learn how to write articles - without praise, snot and emotions. Author and article plus.
  6. sevtrash
    sevtrash 16 September 2015 08: 17 New
    +4
    Well, where is the analysis? Where is the place of Orlan, in which group, what are the possibilities of Orlan in opposing / counteracting the enemy Navy? Opportunities before and now? What group of support ships was, is, needed. Effectiveness in an AUG attack, under what conditions?
    A set of weapons can be read on the Wiki. No matter what.
    1. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul 16 September 2015 11: 39 New
      +9
      Well, where is the analysis? Where is the place of Orlan, in which group, what are the possibilities of Orlan in opposing / counteracting the enemy Navy?
      You interested me in your questions, here's what you found:
      NATO considered the Soviet squadrons led by the Project 1144.2 cruisers to be very dangerous rivals for their aircraft carrier formations. At theoretical exercises, to destroy such a squadron, groups of four aircraft carriers were exhibited, of which only one was supposed to stay afloat. The air groups of the three aircraft carriers were supposed to be almost completely lost.
      hi
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 16 September 2015 13: 18 New
        +3
        Quote: Gomunkul
        NATO considered the Soviet squadrons led by the Project 1144.2 cruisers to be very dangerous rivals for their aircraft carrier formations. At theoretical exercises, to destroy such a squadron, groups of four aircraft carriers were exhibited, of which only one was supposed to stay afloat. The air groups of the three aircraft carriers were supposed to be almost completely lost.

        I would like a detailed analysis from the author or another knowledgeable person. After all, the essence of the question is understandable - yes, big, beautiful, but the main thing in the other is how effective? Was, is, will be? You write about the squadron of ships - but what about the composition of this squadron? Again, what composition was previously planned / was, what is now, in the future. Efficiency - cost ratio, now, tomorrow. The effectiveness of defenses - attacks change over time.
        In general, a club can be large and beautiful, whether it is equivalent to effectiveness.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2015 14: 17 New
          +10
          Quote: sevtrash
          I would like a detailed analysis from the author or another knowledgeable person

          About 3 recessed aircraft carrier - bullshit cive cable. But on the whole and in general, the ship was extremely menacing before and remains very dangerous now.
          If we consider the battle of the KUG (ship strike group), led by TARKR and the AUG led by Nimitz in a spherical vacuum, then our KUG loses outright. But life is rich in nuances of shades ... Firstly, the TARKR turned out to be an extremely dangerous means of deterrence - the AUG of the USA simply could not afford to be in the threatened period within an 550 radius of our cruiser - no matter how much Aegis connoisseurs exercise in arithmetic, but a volley from 20 RCC "Granite" is a terrible force, under which no admiral, who is in a solid mind and sober memory of his own free will, will never climb. Correspondingly, the Americans of Vollen-Nolens had to put TARKRs in priority goals, track their movements and destroy at the very beginning of the conflict, diverting forces and means from other goals.
          But in Soviet times we had a whole complex of different targeting systems in the area adjacent to our shores, so it’s not clear who will track anyone forward ... In general, the TARKR turned out to be a rather formidable weapon for defeating the AUG on the approach to our shores, in the ocean but he could “stick” to the AUG during the period of exacerbation of the situation and try to bang the aircraft carrier with the outbreak of conflict, and with good chances of success.
          Quote: sevtrash
          Cost-effectiveness ratio, now, tomorrow

          not too, since the cheaper 1164 project cruisers could have played the same role
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 16 September 2015 22: 36 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            not too, since the cheaper 1164 project cruisers could have played the same role

            In the end, apparently, he is good as a ship of projection of force. Not as much as the AUG, of course, but still. As a threat to the AUG, he loses to Anteyam and, probably, to the Tu22M3 group. And in a regional conflict its capabilities are limited.
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 16 September 2015 14: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: sevtrash
          The effectiveness of defenses - attacks change over time.

          That's right. Now, probably, there is no need to enter the air defense zone of the squadron and conduct top-bomb bombing. The attack of 20-30 b-52 strategists in the ASM carrier variant together with the ship's ASR will solve the problem remotely
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 16 September 2015 18: 27 New
            +3
            Quote: Pilat2009
            The attack of 20-30 b-52 strategists in the variant of the anti-ship missile carrier together with the strike of ship anti-ship missiles will solve the problem remotely

            The devil is in the details.

            What missiles will the “half-missiles” attack?
            Harpoons? Then they will get into the “fort” zone, because they will not be able to work at the WWII.
            Not "harpoons"? Then what? What is a long-range homing aircraft that can work due to the radius of the "fort"? Do not offer SD with GPS guidance - for the target is moving.

            Ship RCC?
            OK. What kind? Again, "harpoons"? There are no others, and until the end of development, LRASM will not be. And approach the KUG to the launch range of the "harpoons" ...
            It’s better to go to the “Cleveland” attack with clear water on the “Farragut” with top torpedoes without smoke. laughing
            1. Bersaglieri
              Bersaglieri 16 September 2015 21: 25 New
              0
              TASMs on surface ships and US nuclear submarines stood at that time. Just for the big game. With the collapse of the USSR and the collapse of the Russian fleet, they were withdrawn from service. LRASM was muddied precisely because of the appearance of goals again: the Chinese Navy and again the Russian fleet began to be built.
            2. Bersaglieri
              Bersaglieri 16 September 2015 21: 26 New
              +1
              And now - yes, only Harpoons
            3. tlauicol
              tlauicol 17 September 2015 04: 20 New
              0
              doubt that Harpoon will fly 120 km?
              1. Bersaglieri
                Bersaglieri 21 September 2015 09: 45 New
                0
                Recent models fly at 200
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Ustinov 055 055
      Ustinov 055 055 April 6 2016 11: 09 New
      +1
      Yes, what kind of analysis, ON CAL only if. Comparing the fleet now is a thankless task. The eagles are excellent ships when we were sailing along the Baltic Straits. Ustinov Peter flew off the ticonderoga from us so we just saw it, and then our NATO friends provoked them into military approaches. They are afraid of us and are doing it right. And to analyze the clueless thing before the actual clash.
    4. Ustinov 055 055
      Ustinov 055 055 April 6 2016 11: 09 New
      0
      Yes, what kind of analysis, ON CAL only if. Comparing the fleet now is a thankless task. The eagles are excellent ships when we were sailing along the Baltic Straits. Ustinov Peter flew off the ticonderoga from us so we just saw it, and then our NATO friends provoked them into military approaches. They are afraid of us and are doing it right. And to analyze the clueless thing before the actual clash.
  7. Engineer
    Engineer 16 September 2015 08: 40 New
    +3
    Oh, how I like these giants! The only pride of our surface fleet. Peter is there, Peter is here, with a visit here and there, it feels like he is alone, but in time everywhere.
  8. Saladine
    Saladine 16 September 2015 08: 42 New
    +8
    For the author. In fact, this class of ships in the Navy of the USSR and the Russian Federation has the abbreviated name "Tarkr", but not "TARK".
    1. mike_z
      mike_z 16 September 2015 12: 56 New
      +3
      And the name of the deputy chief designer is still Yukhnin V.E. and not Yukhin. But this is so, by the way ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
  9. Alex_59
    Alex_59 16 September 2015 09: 01 New
    +3
    Quote: Engineer
    I would not quote Cousin. He has all the Russian ships - the misunderstandings are slabby, it’s not clear how it’s not clear why it is “multiplied by zero”. I also have an authoritative opinion.

    A person has worked all his life in this industry, so you should still listen to the opinion, but with caution. I disagree with him a lot, for example, with criticism of the 61 or 1134Б project, but as for 1144, then he is right. Such a giant is extremely expensive and very useless (although beautiful, yes), plus the fact that in a series of 4's 1144 ships there are not even two "serial" ones - all in terms of armament and radio electronics are different. Against the background of the slender line of Ticonderoga cruisers, having only two subclasses and the total number in 27 units.
    1. mike_z
      mike_z 16 September 2015 13: 07 New
      +8
      Quote: Alex_59
      Such a giant is extremely expensive and very useless.

      I can not agree with the second part of the statement. “Peter”, and before that, “Nakhimov”, and “Kirov” faithfully performed numerous tasks with us in the Northern Fleet. “Kirov”, of course, less, because was the first and more and more fulfilled the task of mastering the technology and, to be honest, the task of excursion-show service for everyone. But all the same, his contribution to the combat effectiveness of the fleet is difficult to overestimate. I, by the will of fate (salag then) had a chance to hear the words of the chief designer about the Kirov: "This ship can do anything! But it cost me 28 thousand tons of displacement." The project seems to have been 22 thousand. And time has shown that he is right. Yes, difficulties with operation and defects - the sea! It's true. But useless to call it does not turn the tongue.
    2. mike_z
      mike_z 16 September 2015 13: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      Such a giant is extremely expensive and very useless.

      I can not agree with the second part of the statement. “Peter”, and before that, “Nakhimov”, and “Kirov” faithfully performed numerous tasks with us in the Northern Fleet. “Kirov”, of course, less, because was the first and more and more fulfilled the task of mastering the technology and, to be honest, the task of excursion-show service for everyone. But all the same, his contribution to the combat effectiveness of the fleet is difficult to overestimate. I, by the will of fate (salag then) had a chance to hear the words of the chief designer about the Kirov: "This ship can do anything! But it cost me 28 thousand tons of displacement." The project seems to have been 22 thousand. And time has shown that he is right. Yes, difficulties with operation and defects - the sea! It's true. But useless to call it does not turn the tongue.
    3. mult-65
      mult-65 16 September 2015 22: 49 New
      +1
      Well, the USA is a superpower and a winner in the Cold War, and we are only trying to get out of the anus.
    4. Dart2027
      Dart2027 17 September 2015 21: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      Against the background of a slender line of cruisers

      These are ships of different classes. Ticonderoga and Burke are ships oriented to mass production, and in 1144 no one was going to let them into a huge series
  10. Old_Python
    Old_Python 16 September 2015 09: 41 New
    +11
    To check the "uselessness" of these giants of hunters has still not been found. So maybe not so "extremely expensive"? In the end, non-combatant weapons are always cheaper, no matter how much they cost ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2015 10: 12 New
      +8
      Quote: Old_Python
      To check the "uselessness" of these giants of hunters has still not been found. So maybe not so "extremely expensive"?

      Here, I mean a slightly different one - the funds spent on TARKR could be more efficiently spent on the Atlanta of the 1164 project - they are not much inferior in power to 1144, but much cheaper, so they could be built more, and such a replacement led with the fact that with many 1164 cruisers the fleet would become more powerful than with the four 1144
      1. Old_Python
        Old_Python 16 September 2015 17: 10 New
        +4
        From a purely technical and, possibly, military point of view, perhaps yes.
        But there are other aspects? Say, the role of a kind of Godzilla, a hypertrol for an adversary? am When does the mere fact of the presence of this mega nightmare make the enemy fight in hysteria and behave inappropriately? For me it happened ... repeat
        Of course, it would be worth asking the then leadership of the Union and the Navy ... Are there spiritualists on the forum? smile
        1. Gvaeglor
          Gvaeglor 23 October 2016 06: 28 New
          0
          Fleet Admirals Kapitanets I.M., Sorokin A.I., Chernavin V.N.
        2. My doctor
          My doctor 18 February 2017 17: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Old_Python
          But there are other aspects? Say, the role of a kind of Godzilla, a hypertrol for an adversary? am

          Tirpitz, Yamato?
  11. remy
    remy 16 September 2015 09: 54 New
    +5
    Here is a photo in the subject ...
    1. remy
      remy 16 September 2015 11: 31 New
      +1
      here's another project for the modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov TARK

      so to speak, the "sparing" location of the runway
  12. dm-vladimir
    dm-vladimir 16 September 2015 10: 14 New
    +4
    If we master the modernization of Lazarev and Peter, it will be very good.
  13. Rash
    Rash 16 September 2015 10: 27 New
    +6
    Quote: Arctidian
    Oleg Kaptsov, learn how to write articles - without praise, snot and emotions. Author and article plus.


    And I like Oleg's articles - interesting, emotional, with artistic intent.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2015 10: 58 New
      +4
      Quote: Rash
      with artistic intent

      they would have less artistic fiction - there would be no price :)
  14. kvs207
    kvs207 16 September 2015 10: 28 New
    +4
    For the first time I read about Kirov in the GDR-ovskoye Marinekalendar and it was very disappointing. Secrecy is necessary, but within a certain framework.
  15. avt
    avt 16 September 2015 10: 52 New
    0
    Quote: kvs207
    For the first time I read about Kirov in the GDR-ovskoye Marinekalendar and it was very disappointing. Secrecy is necessary, but within a certain framework.

    Well, I did see a photo taken from a helicopter in an American magazine and an article in English in our KB library.
  16. Dan Slav
    Dan Slav 16 September 2015 11: 18 New
    +4
    Why dispose of?
    It would be necessary to sort out and rearm.
    Such boats can work for a hundred years, probably. Try to make such a case again.
    Put two on the slipway and repair in pairs.
    1. serg2108
      serg2108 18 October 2016 17: 02 New
      +1
      I absolutely agree with all the existing eagles in repair and modernization .. until the industry is brought to mind and by the workers will be able to design such ships and industrial capacities will be able to produce the same or better performance characteristics of ships ...
  17. Cran644
    Cran644 16 September 2015 11: 18 New
    +1
    Twice in an article about "unparalleled in the world" ... how much is it possible? Let's move away from these "definitions", the ships are wonderful, no doubt, but considering their number is only 2 units. such epithets are somewhat inappropriate.
    I’m worried about something else - well, are the 1 and 2 cases so dilapidated so that they are on needles? But what about our nanotechnology, new materials, advanced developments? Well, even though not the Chinese and Indians were again “leaked” for nothing ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2015 11: 35 New
      +7
      Quote: Cran644
      Twice in an article about "unparalleled in the world" ... how much is it possible?

      So if there really are no analogues, then now - sprinkle ash on your head?
      Quote: Cran644
      but given their total number in 2 units

      In 4 units
      Quote: Cran644
      I’m worried about something else - well, are 1 and 2 cases so dilapidated that they’re on needles

      I can’t say for sure, because I was not there, but according to rumors - yes, everything is not just bad there, but very bad, on conservation, alas, someone saved and now it seems like it’s really cheaper to build new ones.
      1. gjv
        gjv 16 September 2015 12: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In 4 units

        The development of the project for the utilization of the heavy nuclear-powered cruiser Kirov (formerly Admiral Ushakov), which is carrying unloaded fuel on the territory of Severodvinsk Zvezdochka, will cost the state corporation Rosatom 150 million rubles. The work will be performed by the Onega Research and Design Bureau, specializing in the decommissioning of the Navy facilities.
        Calling "Admiral Lazarev" and "Admiral Nakhimov" units in the fleet is also something like request .
        One so far, "Peter the Great" is part of the Northern Fleet and performs its mission. sad
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 September 2015 13: 06 New
          0
          Quote: gjv
          Calling "Admiral Lazarev" and "Admiral Nakhimov" units in the fleet is also something like

          Perhaps a misunderstanding arose here, but it was a question of having no analogues in the world, and they were built and put into operation 4 pieces. Now alive one who argues.
    2. DimanC
      DimanC 17 September 2015 08: 37 New
      0
      The answer was given by the British and Japanese in the 30s of the twentieth century, when the modernization of existing battleships came out more expensive than building new ones.
      1. serg2108
        serg2108 18 October 2016 17: 05 New
        0
        when you have developed infrastructure there are industrial facilities (in this case, we are talking about where to assemble the ships) ... then it’s cheaper to build and faster a new one, but alas, so far .... am
  18. bmv04636
    bmv04636 16 September 2015 13: 13 New
    +5
    As I understand it, with a vigorous reactor, you can kill the most powerful electronic warfare and not only
    1. serverny
      serverny 16 September 2015 15: 15 New
      +2
      Yes, only modern missile defense radars eat be healthy.
      For the same arlyberks, the power reserve drops by 2 times (maybe more, I forgot the exact numbers) when the radars are on. And the existing GEM imposes severe restrictions on modernization projects.
  19. IAlex
    IAlex 16 September 2015 15: 15 New
    +5
    As the liberals are shouting now: "For metal Orlans now, we will replace them with 4 corvettes later" ... :))))))
  20. chenderoni
    chenderoni 16 September 2015 15: 49 New
    +1
    sorry that they saw. could put a railgun or something else and they all about aircraft carriers think that in my opinion big goals and no more
  21. boriks
    boriks 16 September 2015 16: 25 New
    0
    Tell me, what is the reason for the disposal of Admiral Ushakov and Admiral Lazarev?
    1. mike_z
      mike_z 16 September 2015 17: 04 New
      +4
      According to Ushakov: The problem was in auxiliary mechanisms and pipelines of the power plant. The primary circuit in particular. The reactors themselves could still work for more than one year, and the hull was in order. But the ship was set against the wall. And then ... as always, one needs to be removed for Nakhimov, the other for Peter, the third for the destroyer, etc. Then a fire. In general, the ship put into reserve of category 2 was not returned to service, it was dragged to Severodvinsk, there was no money, the factory did not pull the repair. Well, that’s all, sailed. Reactors by that time were already banned by the nuclear safety inspection, which is not realistic to remove, too many “buts”. We, frankly, on the “Nakhimov” cross postvili after his return from the exit with the patriarch Alexy in August 1997, the salinity in the circuit then reached 3000 g Brandt. Delivered ... Dragged to Severodvinsk in the year 99-2000 (I do not remember already). I stood there all these years. But hope dies last! They took up the cruiser and promise to return it. Apparently after that they will drag Peter, it’s time for a long time. So, in the coming years, apparently we will only have one TARKr. Best case scenario.
  22. silver_roman
    silver_roman 16 September 2015 16: 25 New
    +3
    author well done. I have long been waiting for an article about these giants.
    What an indescribably beautiful power !!!
    It is a pity that the two cruisers will be the first to cut. Logically, this is understandable, because modernization is probably more expensive than building a new one.
    and by the way about this:
    If in the American Navy they were only an escort for multipurpose aircraft carriers, in the Soviet fleet atomic surface ships were created as independent combat units

    they are graves to be independent combat units ka and amer. Another thing is that as if they showed themselves in battle ...
    BUT Gorshkov, if my memory serves me, still had the dream of using 2 such cruisers as part of a cover order for an aircraft carrier of the Ulyanovsk type. For one AUG per fleet, not counting the Black and Baltic Seas by itself. There would be beauty of course. If you also take into account a pair of nuclear submarines, then in general terrible power. It would be safe to "democratize" syshya in the Stone Age laughing
    1. Gvaeglor
      Gvaeglor 23 October 2016 06: 45 New
      0
      By submarine, you mean, I hope TRPKSN pr. 941?
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 24 October 2016 14: 25 New
        0
        why: 941 - strategists. Here 949 or modern SSBN pr.885 would do.
  23. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 16 September 2015 17: 26 New
    +4
    Of the ships of the first and second rank in the ranks:
    SF-our most powerful fleet:
    1 TAKR "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov", with an incomplete air group (8 Su-233), with the missing "Granites", which 14 May launched at the 82 ship repair plant in the village of Roslyakovo (in the vicinity of Severomorsk, Murmansk region) in the dock repairs.
    1 TARKR pr. 1144.2 "Peter the Great", the second "Admiral Nakhimov" (former Kalinin "is currently not capable) is under repair and modernization before 2018 of the year." Admiral Ushakov "(former" Kirov ") has already been written off, and it is written off and "Admirla Lazarev" (the former "Frunze". Total of 4 TARKR imett 1 in the ranks and one on repair.
    3 RKR pr. 1164: 1 SF ("Marshal Ustinov"), 1-ChF ("Moscow"), 1-TOF (Varyag), of which "Marshal Ustinov" until the end of this year to repair and upgrade. His place in the end of the year was supposed to take Moscow, but because of disruptions in the delivery time of the TFR of 11356 and the fire on the BOD pr. 1134B Kerch, which led to the decision to dispose of the ship, it was decided to postpone repairs until next year.
    7 BOD Ave 1155 (3 SF and 4 Pacific Fleet), of which the Vice Admiral Kulakov (SF) was under repair, the engine was replaced and the Admiral Tributs BPO was scheduled to go out on June from repair, we will look, messages did not arrive yet. Ie .. in the dry residue 30
    1 BOD pr. 1155.1 "Admiral Chabanenko" (SF) is our only ship that can be called a destroyer under repair until the end of next year.
    3 destroyer pr. 956 (BF, SF. TOF) - due to the problems with DKU, which became in fact the ships of the near sea zone ". The Baltic" Persistent "- with tugs goes only to the landfills at Baltiysk. Severomorsky" Admiral Ushakov "do not release further Svalbard, Pacific "Fast" on Shanghai.
    2 TFR pr. 11540 (BF), from which the "Fearless" in repair and modernization until the middle of next year, and after him go to repair the "Yaroslav the Wise", those. bye one
    1 BOD Ave. 01090 "Sharp-witted", devoted to the fleet in the 1969 year, did not receive the U-KP X-35 anti-ship missile, to its launchers removed from the decommissioned РКА "Р-44" to which the cable was not even connected .
    TFR pr. 1135 "Ladny" and TFR pr. 1135М "Pytlivy" are outdated ships with weak air defense (2 SAM "OCA-MA"), scare off the adversary, and in real combat, in the best case "rocket trap"
    Total we have-19 ships, of which only 12 are in the ranks, of which 3 are completely obsolete ships ... At the same time, we write off TARKR pr. 1144-GREAT NOW ...
  24. Old26
    Old26 16 September 2015 19: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: Malkor
    We need two dozen of them - then there will be all the rules.

    No, two dozen is not enough. you need hundreds of three or four, no less ... lol
    Damn, the Union built, four, fifth were not completed, and was no longer planned, but Russia already needs 2 dozen ...
  25. mvg
    mvg 16 September 2015 23: 05 New
    0
    Quote: kenvas
    Whatever they say, Peter the Great is a beautiful ship and a dangerous adversary against any Western pelvis. He has no one-on-one opponents! something like this ... And about the "victory of technology over common sense" this was related to the 941 Shark project, although I also disagree with this. Shark and Orlan is the pride of the Soviet and Russian Navy

    Only at Berkov s are under 70 pcs, and, as far as I know, LASMs fly further than 650 km. Download Burke in the anti-ship version and Khan Pete .. Everything will not bring down. Trite. This is a one on one series. Only now, for a long time, they have not been playing by such rules. Even in the Second World War, barely seeing resistance, they called aviation, and "all at once" piled on ...
    1. mike_z
      mike_z 17 September 2015 10: 08 New
      +2
      Yes, what can I say - they unrolled the fleet in the deputy tribune and on TV shows that we have no enemies, only friends ... Remember the late Starovoitova, who then deprived the NGS in the Duma? "General! Who are you going to fight with ?!" I remember, but they don’t speak badly about the dead ...
    2. mike_z
      mike_z 17 September 2015 10: 08 New
      0
      Yes, what can I say - they unrolled the fleet in the deputy tribune and on TV shows that we have no enemies, only friends ... Remember the late Starovoitova, who then deprived the NGS in the Duma? "General! Who are you going to fight with ?!" I remember, but they don’t speak badly about the dead ...
    3. Artem Popov
      Artem Popov 1 March 2018 20: 29 New
      0
      what are you talking about ...
      what are the other “rules”, if one side of the unskillful is incompetent, then she will blame the rest for the fact that they are deft and agile, yeah.
  26. Tishka
    Tishka 17 September 2015 16: 01 New
    0
    I do not understand the leadership of the country, we cannot build such cruisers, so why cut it if it is possible to upgrade! And it will not be so expensive, because the disposal is also not cheap, or will America pay again to cut it? They won’t dispose of their submarines, put glasses in launch mines, cruise missiles at the bottom, and get a floating missile base! And for ours, just give everything to shred on needles, and instead of them, we will build fragile boats and go fishing!
    Designers from St. Petersburg “Rubin” placed a powerful attacking complex on it - 20 solid-fuel ICBMs with separating warheads. The launch mass of one such three-stage missile exceeded 90 tons. Placed in vertical shafts in two rows of ten, the missiles were capable of carrying (each!) Ten individual warhead warheads with a capacity of 100 kilotons. In terms of total combat potential, one Shark is like two regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces equipped with the Topol mine or soil complex.
    The prohibitively large weight and size characteristics of the weapon prompted the creators to use the unconventional layout of the entire submarine. It has two separate, solid hulls, each of which has its own nuclear reactor and propulsion system. Separate durable modules housed a torpedo compartment and the main command post. And all this bulky farm (172 meters long and 23 wide) enveloped a light body - like rubberized foil around four cylinders with acytylene, two large and two smaller.
    The disposal of this and the two previous ships, which were and remain the largest Soviet-built submarines, was carried out with the money of American and Canadian taxpayers - against the financial obligations of the United States and Canada under the international programs Global Partnership and Joint Threat Reduction. Back in 2002, at the G-8 summit, leaders of leading world powers decided to allocate $ 20 billion over ten years to prevent the spread of nuclear materials, ensure nuclear safety and solve environmental problems in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Or if pr is paid, and titanium is ready to be bought from us, then everything must be let under the knife?
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 17 September 2015 21: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Silence
      one "Shark" is like two regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces

      It's not about money, it's just that there is nowhere to put such a colossus. Or throw from the stocks several submarines under construction. I think that the question of their modernization will be raised when the construction of the Boreevs is completed.
      1. Tishka
        Tishka 18 September 2015 00: 14 New
        +1
        While they raise it, there will be nothing to upgrade! They have already begun to be disposed of, the West needs titanium for aircraft! A penny upgrade, in the mines to install glasses in which to put cruise missiles, as the Americans did, and go! As now, the Eagles will be cut, they say it’s expensive to restore, and they will build wooden galleys, they are simple and cheap!
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 18 September 2015 05: 46 New
          0
          Quote: Silence
          A modernization is cheap

          Any equipment has an expiration date, even when it just lies in a warehouse, so alas, not cheap.
          1. Tishka
            Tishka 18 September 2015 16: 55 New
            +1
            Given the timelines for the construction of the new Boreevs, 1 nuclear submarine, in five years, and the fact that one killer of submarines was built with difficulty in 10 years, against 19 Virginia about Sea Wolf, I’ll be silent at all, you shouldn’t let everything go ! Although not entirely successful, but a submarine, and if you stuffed with cruise missiles in the squadron, it certainly will not be superfluous! I do not propose changing the entire filling in it, it is enough to install glasses in the launching shafts, and this is not so expensive! A volley of 100 cruise missiles, not one American AUG, will not be able to repulse, especially since there will be other ships in the appendage to it. Or like with Mig 31, at first they decided to put them on needles, and then they realized that there was nothing to replace! Now they are thinking how to revive production, especially since the factories that made gliders and engines for them, for some reason sold them to the Americans for a penny! And you are not confused by the fact that America and Canada give money for recycling!
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 18 September 2015 18: 09 New
              0
              Quote: Silence
              it’s enough to install glasses in the launch mines, and it’s not so expensive

              Believe me not enough. We'll have to change the mass of electronics, and besides, a lot of the equipment has simply exhausted its resources.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2015 08: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: Dart2027
        I think that the question of their modernization will be raised when the construction of the Boreevs is completed.

        No one will upgrade them. The ships turned out to be of monstrous size, suitable for one single task - to beat the adversary of ICBMs on the cumpole, and strictly from the northern seas. But the old ICBMs have long expired, and remaking mines for new ones will cost much more than the construction of the Borea, which has over 33 advantages in terms of stealth and operating costs over the Sharks. Well, trying to create from these monsters some semblance of “Anteyev” with anti-ship missiles will not lead to anything good - again, at the monstrous cost of the alteration, we will get far from the best submarines.
        1. Tishka
          Tishka 18 September 2015 16: 59 New
          +1
          Of course, we have Boreas, they bake like pies, although they have a lot of advantages, but only unlike Komsomolets, they cannot dive deeper than 600 meters! Let not the best, but it is on the go, according to the press, even the Americans launched the AUG when they spotted the “Shark" just passing by, even though they had not had missiles for a long time! It is strange, however, why such a fear of these boats! So, hurry to shred everything on the needles, all the same, you should not! It is never too late to do this, especially since disposal is also not a penny!
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 18 September 2015 18: 12 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          stealth benefits

          It was possible to communicate with one colleague, a former submariner, and according to him, in terms of secrecy, the Sharks have no competitors. It was because of the size that it was possible to arrange such a system of damping any noise that all other boats lost outright during the exercises.
          1. Tishka
            Tishka 19 September 2015 14: 46 New
            0
            Due to the size, they have huge potential for modernization! I also heard a lot of good reviews about Sharks, so I was a little surprised that such boats were allowed to be scrapped, out of 6 only 3 remained! And they want to divide these into titanium, for the reason that titanium can be sold, and our businessmen are ready to sell their homeland for green papers! There was still an interesting submarine Lira, it could practically turn around in one place, had an underwater run of 80 knots, and this provided that the American torpedoes then accelerated to only 34 knots! When they were decommissioned, the American submariners punched all the hulls with their heads, jumping for joy! When they tried to attack her, the boat almost instantly accelerated to 80 knots. And while the acoustics were looking for her, she managed to turn around and get in the tail of the enemy! The only negative is the reactor, the first circuit was on a metallized heat carrier, and a couple of reactors were simply frozen, and from then on, even in the bases, the reactor was left to work at medium speed, which led to the rapid development of the core. Yes, the crew was 37 people, everything was automated!
          2. Gvaeglor
            Gvaeglor 23 October 2016 06: 53 New
            0
            There are no former submariners
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Artem Popov
        Artem Popov 1 March 2018 20: 32 New
        0
        it's about the money. the shelf life of the sharks is out. It is necessary to redo the mines and battle system to others (mace?). But the alteration, in conjunction with operating costs (how many rectors have passed the rector?) Will be more expensive than a new boat, more modern and with almost the same number of missiles.
  27. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 19 September 2015 08: 49 New
    +2
    [quote = Alexey RA] [quote = Engineer] I would not quote Cousin. He has all the Russian ships - the misunderstandings are slabby, it’s not clear how it’s not clear why it is “multiplied by zero”. I also have an authoritative opinion. [/ Quote]
    Well, yes, yes ... Captain I rank, candidate of military sciences, professor, researcher at the 1st Central Research Institute of Military Education, later Head of the History Department of the Central Research Institute named after A.N. Krylova "- undoubtedly slanderer and slander.

    An impressive career ending! In the army, historians translated mainly mu ... ringing, the sense of which is zero, and throwing a pity or troublesome.
  28. Tishka
    Tishka 19 September 2015 11: 21 New
    +2
    If they go to the ocean, then it’s not so bad! And then, if the receiver is out of date in the car, you should not build the car again, just replace the receiver, and it will turn out cheaper and faster. This can even be done at the outfitting wall without frying the stocks. Dolgoruky converted to a mace, and quickly enough. There were no special problems. It was written here that Kuzya and Petrusha go out into the ocean, accompanied by barges! Well, everything is clear with Kuzey, the engines are in need of repair there, and there is simply no one to accompany Petrush, but why is the Shark worse than a barge? A warship and reactors have not yet exhausted their resources, plus titanium hulls that are practically eternal, in revenge from steel ones! And besides, now there are Sineva rockets and a liner, so, at some cost, they can also be installed on the Shark! And given their size, not one at a time in the PU! So, it is an economically controversial issue, to wait until the next Borey is built in 10 years, or in a year, to re-equip the Sharks!
  29. mike_z
    mike_z 19 September 2015 13: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Silence
    It was written here that Kuzya and Petrusha go out into the ocean, accompanied by barges!

    They lie. Really lie. A tanker (if it goes far) and a lifeguard are escorted by an aircraft carrier. This is normal. "Peter" generally does not take anyone with him, as a rule. And if the group is KUG, AUG - then the group also has a supplier, the same tanker, for example. But not a barge! According to the "engines" of "Kuznetsov" - GTZA in the ranks of all four. In boilers, problems were solved. So they are solved all their life, without interruption. Now I am a little behind, but a year ago the ship was mechanically ready for work and defense.
    1. Tishka
      Tishka 19 September 2015 14: 34 New
      +1
      C Kuzey is understandable, he is not nuclear, because the tanker is justified! The problem is that we do not build an ocean ship, limiting ourselves to coastal ones! And for this reason, Peter must walk in splendid isolation! Therefore, I am opposed to cutting anything, if now there is no money, let them stand until those who come find both opportunity and money! And if this power has one goal, to protect its wealth from external aggressors and from its people, then the galleys are enough for them! God willing, they will not decay until that time, and they will be able to be restored and refitted!
  30. Shnd
    Shnd 11 October 2015 21: 18 New
    0
    It’s a pity that not all ships of this project are in service
  31. gktnytd69
    gktnytd69 21 October 2015 09: 06 New
    0
    on samizdat: Pletnev Alexander Vladimirovich "Raider. Allotment of loneliness." A better contact: Pletnev Sasha: document: "Raider ...." in short, the same thing! (In general, knowledgeable advice is needed)
  32. gktnytd69
    gktnytd69 11 January 2016 09: 00 New
    +1
    Interestingly, theoretically it is possible to "granite" to scoop Avax?
  33. serg2108
    serg2108 18 October 2016 17: 14 New
    +1
    I join the previously written comments ... to the author, many thanks to Respect and a big bold plus. I read a lot about these ships. Earlier, I really like these giants of our fleet ... it’s a pity we don’t have much of this good now. Oh, it’s like 20 pieces were useful for the eyes to restrain the amers and their sixes. Strange happens all the same in our history after the collapse of the Russian Empire, battleships 6 pieces remained in the fleet then collapse ... something like 60 years later they began to build normal ocean ships assembled 11 pieces and here again the collapse (I think our aircraft carriers and these giants) apparently this is not happening at our tops ... they cannot even comprehend that without a fleet we cannot do anything in the world and defend our interests at distant frontiers.