Military Review

The most absurd ships in the history of the navy

208
The most absurd ships in the history of the navy



Torment with springboard

Demolish can not be left. The command of the Australian Navy still can not decide where to put a comma.

The helicopter carrier “Canberra” is an export version of the UDC “Juan Carlos I” from the Spanish company “Navantia”.

Inherited from the “Juan Carlos” Australian UDC got a bow springboard, which the Spaniards use to facilitate take-off of the VTOL “Sea Harrier”. Springboard - a characteristic feature UDKV of this type. It expands the tactical capabilities of “Juan Carlos” and allows you to use the ship as a light aircraft carrier.



And here a paradox arose. Deck aviation The Australian Navy is represented exclusively by rotorcraft, for the operation of which it is preferable to have a flat deck. Landing a helicopter on a 13-degree springboard is not an easy task.

All plans for the modernization of “Canberra” under the basis of promising F-35B remained unfulfilled. The military came to the conclusion that this would require serious reworking of the project, incl. taking measures to increase aviation fuel supplies, increase the lift capacity of the elevator and install a heat-resistant coating with a cooling system on the flight deck.

At the same time, the dismantling of the springboard, which occupies the flight deck 50 meters, is also considered an extremely heavy technical task.

As a result, possessing large dimensions and displacement, the Australian “Canberra” has no advantages in terms of composition of the air group over UDKV of other countries.

Separately, there is the question of the justification for acquiring UDKV from the point of view of the small Australian Navy. 1,5 billion dollars for a low-speed “barge” without any weapons, means of detecting and controlling fire. Where are the Australians going to land? For the delivery of soldiers to Afghanistan, it is enough to order a charter flight.

“The terrible“ Yak ”-“ Yak ”is flying in the sky about the deck .... (shmyak)”.

Heavy aircraft carrier cruisers pr. 1143

The Americans were afraid of Soviet submarines, and they taunted TAVKR, calling them the surrogate brainchild of Admiral Gorshkov.

And there was something to laugh about. The hybrid of a missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier turned out to be completely inefficient, like a cruiser, and completely inefficient as an aircraft carrier.



In terms of their composition, the formidable TAVKR corresponded to a large anti-submarine ship - despite a six-fold difference in their displacement! With the appearance of the RKR “Glory”, the comparison generally lost all meaning, due to the incomparable capabilities of TAVKRs and “normal” cruisers armed with 16 “Basalts” and the long-range anti-aircraft system C-300F.

The TAVKR carrier-based aviation is the “Yak-38 top mast guard aircraft” with an 10-minute fuel reserve. About the combat capabilities of the Soviet "verticals" says a simple fact - they did not have radar. Detection of the enemy was carried out in a visual way, which in the coming era of the fourth generation of fighters meant a sudden death in a battle against a medium-range (long-range) URVV.

Moreover, unlike the British Sea Harrier "Sea Harrier", for which a shortened "springboard" take-off was envisaged in order to increase their combat load, the layout of the Russian TAVKR excluded, in principle, the presence of any springboard.

In general, the sailors had a lot of fun, throwing a dozen or so full-blown Soviet rubles into the wind. Only positive news lay in the fact that despite the overwhelming number of accidents, the loss of flight personnel were calculated in units. Forced ejection system Yak-38 compensated for all the shortcomings of this stupid attraction.

Super Cruiser

He was created as a fighter of enemy cruisers. Especially for it, 305 mm rapid-fire gun mounts and a completely non-cruiser armored system with 229 mm belts and an armored deck system whose total thickness reached 170 mm were developed!

In the end, “Alaska” was too big for a cruiser, but not strong enough to compete with battleships. The Americans had to come up with a new classification and write down “Alaska” in “big cruisers” (СB).

Admirals came to their senses too late. Construction was halted on the third building (CB-3 “Hawaii”), when it was ready 85%.



No less sad was the fate of two built “big cruisers” - “Alaska” and “Guam”. After serving less than two years, the giant ships, whose length reached a quarter of a kilometer, were taken to the reserve. Subsequently, various plans to turn the Alasok into missile cruisers were discussed, but none of the proposals was made. Having stood in reserve for 15 years, both giants went for scrap.

Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters (Goya)

In addition to the general absurdity of the project, Alaska is criticized for unforgivable mistakes in its design. With such dimensions (34 000 tons) it was possible to provide much better security (for example, the German “Scharnhorst”). And, nonsense by the standards of 40's, the almost complete absence of anti-torpedo protection! The super cruiser had a good chance to tip over from hitting just one torpedo.

No, for all its flaws, Alaska was not a bad ship. I will say more - under other circumstances, acting under a different flag, “Alaska” would become the flagship and pride of the majority of the fleets of the world. But for the Americans, who had a clear concept of using the Navy and experience in building balanced TKR and LC, the adventure with the construction of such an awkward ship looks like sheer insanity.

Cabin carrier "Ural"

The super-ship, to the creation of which the 200 research teams of the USSR were involved, made the only trip during its career - the transition from the Baltic to the intended duty station, to the Pacific Ocean. After that, forever out of order.

265 meters of length.

Full displacement 36 000 tons.

Combined power plant of two nuclear reactors and two boilers for fuel oil.

Due to the exorbitant complexity of its design, it was still in the process of building that the “Ural” received a steady lurch in 2 ° to the left side.

What was this paranormal ship built for?

The only purpose of the “Ural” was to monitor the missile range on the Kwajalein Atoll. Obtaining reliable information about the warheads of American missiles, their size, characteristics and behavior in the final segment of the trajectory, using radar and optical means.



The more information about this project is revealed, the more bewildered is this stillborn child of a dying USSR.

In fact, the capabilities of Ural corresponded to the capabilities of the upgraded Aegis system (the most famous episode: interception of a space satellite at an altitude of 247 km). Moreover, the first "Aegis" was installed on a serial warship seven years before the appearance of the "Ural", in 1983 year. Neither then nor now nuclear reactors were required for the operation of Ajis. Also, as they are not required for the operation of the giant sea pro-radar SBX.

Of course, in our day the restoration of a large intelligence ship “Ural” does not make sense. Installed on board the computer "Elbrus" inferior in performance to any smartphone. And the radar complex is morally obsolete with the advent of modern radars with active phased arrays.

Masterpiece? Sure! “Ural” has once again proved what the victory of technology over common sense leads to.

Atomic cruiser "Virginia"

The most useful member of this list. And not only because he launched two Tomahawks on Iraq. Unlike other irresponsible projects, “Virginia” at the dawn of her career really was of military value and was considered almost the key element of the AUG air defense.

However, this история It had a standard for all monsters end.



Four atomic giants, having served less than half of the planned period (“Texas” - just 15 years!), Ended up in a landfill. Why?

In the presence of advanced engine-building and excellent shipboard gas turbines, the decision to build cruisers with nuclear power plants was initially at least controversial. It is worth noting that this was not the first American experience in creating nuclear cruisers, while all previous experiments did not end with anything good.

The beginning of the end of the Virginia was the appearance of cruisers equipped with the Aegis system and underdeck launchers with a wide range of ammunition used.

The calculations made in 1996 year showed that the cost of operating a nuclear cruiser (40 million dollars per year) is almost twice as high as Ajis cruisers and destroyers, with an incomparable difference in their capabilities. The cost of upgrading Virginia to turn it into Ages cruiser was as the construction of a new “Tikondery”. However, even in this case, the modernized Virginia would be inferior to the new ship.


"Virginia" on recycling, the beginning of the 2000's


The list of stupid and absurd inventions in the field of the Navy is not limited to the five ships represented. Albert Einstein said: “There are two endless things in the world: the Universe and human stupidity. Although I'm not quite sure about the Universe. ”
Author:
208 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ruslan
    Ruslan 6 October 2015 07: 11 New
    12
    in principle, I agree, especially with 1143, that normal aircraft carriers could build. the more so, and examples were: fosha and clemenceau. Ural is also strange. were there really no other ways to follow? cheaper and simpler?
    1. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 6 October 2015 07: 27 New
      56
      Quote: ruslan
      Ural is also strange. were there really no other ways to follow?

      The Urals are normal, even more than.
      It’s just that some people don’t understand how to use such objects for the benefit of their homeland.
      1. Ruslan
        Ruslan 6 October 2015 07: 33 New
        +1
        the reactor confuses me in it. why is it needed? earlier reconnaissance ships were built without them. why did it suddenly come to build with a nuclear power plant?
        1. pv1005
          pv1005 6 October 2015 07: 55 New
          63
          Quote: ruslan
          the reactor confuses me in it. why is it needed? earlier reconnaissance ships were built without them. why did it suddenly come to build with a nuclear power plant?

          And you will find in the Pacific Ocean a couple of points of the MTO fleet, and all questions will disappear by themselves. I hope the concept of autonomy of swimming is not necessary to chew?
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 6 October 2015 08: 35 New
            +4
            Sorry, but you wrote such nonsense that you don’t want to comment on it, but you have to. The solarium is perfectly pumped from a tanker, especially since the entire system is exceptionally peaceful.
            1. HMR333
              HMR333 6 October 2015 10: 43 New
              25
              he just did not write nonsense, but you yes! firstly, that there are tankers across all the seas and oceans, or is he always swimming nearby! and the reactor is scientific progress and testing and studying new technologies for their further improvement! ....
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 6 October 2015 15: 09 New
                +2
                Do you have any idea how much more complex a nuclear power plant is than any other and how much its life cycle costs? And do you think that in the really operating in the ocean squadrons only warships? Well, familiarize yourself with the fact that at least near Syria, find several supply ships, this is a normal practice. Wonderful people, by God. The atomic propulsion system on surface warships has long proved its worthlessness, the Peter the Great and the Moskva are excellent examples, for 40% of the Eagles' displacement they managed to get 80% of their capabilities.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 6 October 2015 16: 25 New
                  12
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  A nuclear power plant on surface combat ships has long proved its worthlessness,

                  You, most importantly, do not tell the Americans. And then they were very happy that ships with nuclear power plants, unlike ships with traditional power plants, can make long-distance transitions at speeds close to maximum. They liked very much that it is possible to drive aircraft carriers from ocean to ocean with an average speed of 28-30 knots.
                2. Tiamat2702
                  Tiamat2702 6 October 2015 22: 58 New
                  +4
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  The atomic power plant on surface warships has long since proved its worthlessness, the Peter the Great and the Moskva are excellent examples, for 40% of the Eagles' displacement they managed to get 80% of their capabilities.
                  Excuse me, have a nuclear engine been installed in Moscow long ago?
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 6 October 2015 14: 00 New
              +9
              Quote: EvilLion
              Sorry, but you wrote such nonsense that you don’t want to comment on it, but you have to. The solarium is perfectly pumped from a tanker, especially since the entire system is exceptionally peaceful.

              Gorgeous. Do you offer regular tankers from Vladivostok to drive to Frisco or Pearl Harbor?

              In addition, the nuclear power plant is a source of energy not only for the propulsion device, but also for the numerous onboard REO.
            3. Serggii
              Serggii 7 October 2015 23: 15 New
              +1
              The brother on which box he served in what sea went and if the sea did not smell
          2. Santa Fe
            6 October 2015 08: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: pv1005
            And you find in the Pacific Ocean a couple of points of the MTO fleet

            Do you want to say that the super ship designed by 200 teams needed a dock repair every 30 ship pitches?)))

            And here PMT?
            How does this relate to the Ural nuclear reactor?
            Fuel autonomy? The Kriegsmarine diesel raiders have plowed the Pacific and Indian Oceans for months. A modern linear container ship can go around the globe at one gas station
            1. pv1005
              pv1005 6 October 2015 10: 48 New
              28
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Quote: pv1005
              And you find in the Pacific Ocean a couple of points of the MTO fleet

              Do you want to say that the super ship designed by 200 teams needed a dock repair every 30 ship pitches?)))

              And here PMT?
              How does this relate to the Ural nuclear reactor?
              Fuel autonomy? The Kriegsmarine diesel raiders have plowed the Pacific and Indian Oceans for months. A modern linear container ship can go around the globe at one gas station


              1. I didn’t drink at the Brudershaft, so let’s go at YOU.
              2. About dock repair after 30 days no one spoke.
              3. All the same, you have to chew "Autonomy of navigation (abbreviated autonomy) - an element of tactical and technical data characterizing the time (in days) during which the ship is able to be at sea, performing its assigned tasks, without replenishing supplies of drinking and industrial water, provisions and consumables not related to the movement, as well as without changing personnel.
              The autonomy of the ship is set during the design, while taking into account the tasks assigned to the ship and navigation areas. Autonomy is ensured by the reliability of technical means, the creation of the necessary living conditions for the crew and the placement on the ship of the material reserves required for the functioning of the ship.
              Unlike the cruising range, which can be practically unlimited (for nuclear-powered ships), autonomy always has a limit. "
              3. From clause 2 answers follow about PMTO and a nuclear reactor.
              4. The Kriegsmarine mostly plowed the Atlantic, and even there it seems to me that they somehow replenished supplies. About maintaining the Kriegsmarine database in the Pacific and Indian oceans ???? where did you get this? request
              5. A modern container ship, yes it can. But count the electricity consumers on the container ship and on the scout. recourse If all consumers of the reconnaissance ship are put on a container ship, then it will be blown away after "a couple of hundred" nautical miles.
              hi
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 7 October 2015 22: 35 New
              +6
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The Kriegsmarine diesel raiders have plowed the Pacific and Indian Oceans for months.

              Yes it is.
              BUT! Oleg, having said "A", must say "B"! Why slyly keep silent about the German large submarine tankers ("cash cows"), which were engaged in supplying the wolf pack with fuel and even (!) Torpedoes ...
              In terms of armament, the formidable TAVKR corresponded to a large anti-submarine ship - despite the six-fold difference in their displacement!
              But one cannot agree with this!
              URPK "Vikhr" - 16 anti-submarine missiles with a vigorous head! And the helicopter squadron on board ... Well, which BOD had such weapons? After all, only helicopters could take contact with the submarine in the DZAO! And this despite the fact that GAS "Orion" was the most powerful of all sub-killer stations. And the spaced "Platina" could determine D to an underwater target in the SHP mode. There is a separate conversation about missile weapons and avionics.
            3. 9lvariag
              9lvariag 19 February 2018 00: 53 New
              0
              Hmm nonsense rolls over. We survived with clip thinking. Instead of sorting through the portal: - "Where, who and when and most importantly - why!" , we sharpen spherical assumptions in a vacuum.
              Actually, and where in this crap (I can’t name this scribble otherwise), is it true besides clips removed from the history?
              Where is the most useless passenger ship of all time - the Titanic? Where is the most useless and coolest first RRC in the world from the United States, which did not even develop its speed (with the characteristics of the 30s) even with cut-off GK towers and with gutted armored cellars? Where is the coolest WWII supercarrier from Japan - the same "Sinao", drop dead useful boat in WWII? :) Where is the coolest Yamato superlinkor? Where are rotten torpedo boats of Poland? Where in this article is the most awesome English minesweeper, who was blown up by a mine from the times of WWII and was scrapped, in it all the equipment and assemblies were torn off the fastener so cool from the explosion! Where is the useless and stupid frigate "Stark" that the Americans did not know how to use? Where is the English destroyer, which turned into a floating coffin in the Gulf of Aden due to a software error. And they who burned like matches on the Fonkled. Oh yes I understand because of the place of residence of iksperd LOW of our tailors to bones and write the truth.: D
          3. Sasha_Sar
            Sasha_Sar 1 December 2016 11: 08 New
            +1
            Gentlemen-comrades, you see, anchor-hooks are welded up in the Urals, so that the anchor does not break the fairing of the GAS, and the fairing is there oh-go-go. From here a conclusion, tracking not only missiles but also nuclear submarines. The roar of diesel engines reduces the range of the gas. They put a turbine, if steam is produced on this turbine using fuel oil or puts a gas turbine in a solarium, you can forget about the autonomy of the range of walking. Nuclear reactors measure was correct, only everything was done in the late 80s through one place.
        2. Santa Fe
          6 October 2015 08: 23 New
          +2
          Quote: ruslan
          the reactor confuses me in it. why is it needed? earlier reconnaissance ships were built without them. why did it suddenly come to build with a nuclear power plant?

          SBX Marine Radar Base
          basis - the Russian oil platform
          under the dome - active HEADLIGHT with an area of ​​384 m2

          Where there antediluvian Urals




          And somehow it does without a nuclear reactor
          SBX Powerplant - Six Caterpillar Diesel Generators
          1. FID
            FID 6 October 2015 09: 31 New
            +7
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            SBX Powerplant - Six Caterpillar Diesel Generators

            Oleg, what about sanctions? It’s with great pleasure that I follow your publications, but remember our butts on ekranoplans ... I don’t exclude that the ekranoplans are a dead end, but the prospects are huge ....
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 6 October 2015 15: 10 New
              +1
              Huge as the number of existing ones.
          2. pv1005
            pv1005 6 October 2015 11: 11 New
            14
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Quote: ruslan
            the reactor confuses me in it. why is it needed? earlier reconnaissance ships were built without them. why did it suddenly come to build with a nuclear power plant?

            SBX Marine Radar Base
            basis - the Russian oil platform
            under the dome - active HEADLIGHT with an area of ​​384 m2
            Where there antediluvian Urals
            And somehow it does without a nuclear reactor
            SBX Powerplant - Six Caterpillar Diesel Generators


            Marine? Yes.
            Radar? Yes.
            HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE YOURSELF? NO.
            So what else will we compare? SPRN Don, Voronezh, they also do not have nuclear reactors. hi
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 6 October 2015 16: 05 New
              +2
              In general, the Pacific Ocean independently crosses the bubble. request
          3. Papakiko
            Papakiko 6 October 2015 12: 37 New
            28
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Where there antediluvian Urals


            Do you love sir "to measure with pussies".
            And what is it?
            99.9% of visitors to VO "Ural" only know from pictures and the same 99.99% know what it was "stuffed" with and what it was intended for.
            Elbrus computers are inferior in performance to any smartphone
            You once could sell a little soul for Intel486TM and the whole WORLD considered him the height of perfection !!
            Can you simulate a nuclear explosion on tablets, purely for scientific purposes?
            Moreover, the first “Aegis” was installed on a serial warship seven more years before the appearance of the “Urals”, in 1983.
            And what was she like with SOI screams?
            (the most famous episode: the interception of a space satellite at an altitude of 247 km)
            Who knows?
            Zadolizam and other hangers-on from the pot of NATO countries, them !?
            In fact, the capabilities of the Urals corresponded to the capabilities of the modernized Aegis system
            These are your words!
            Tests on the Aegis program began in 2002. As of 2014, 29 successful target captures were carried out. On February 21, 2008, the SM-3 missile launched from the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) missile cruiser in the Pacific Ocean hit the USA-193 emergency reconnaissance satellite at an altitude of 247 km.
            So it turns out that URAL was 20 years ahead!

            You are Oleg, at least read the creations of your "hands".
            Hope to write yourself wink
          4. IAlex
            IAlex 6 October 2015 14: 06 New
            +1
            If it was built in the 80s, then there would have been much more generators needed with their voracity and power to power antediluvian electronics of those years :))))
          5. user1212
            user1212 6 October 2015 16: 45 New
            11
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And somehow it does without a nuclear reactor
            SBX Powerplant - Six Caterpillar Diesel Generators

            Don't take bread from taxi drivers. Only they are supposed to know how to govern the country and what intelligence ships the Navy needs. After all, only they have reliable information about the complete list of tasks and capabilities of the "Ural", a list of all equipment, calculated consumers on the ship, and they made the only correct decision about the required type of energy source. Where there are two hundred specialized institutes. Where did you get all this information necessary for analyzing developer errors, I do not know. Has the taxi driver blabbed it out? laughing
            1. SeregaBoss
              SeregaBoss 7 October 2015 06: 56 New
              +1
              For sure either taxi drivers or my father-in-law whispered, too, was in a hurry of all time!
            2. SSeT
              SSeT 17 November 2015 23: 22 New
              0
              At that time there were simply NOT sufficient sources, as now, however, there is no GTU. OR have you not heard about the atomic "Leaders" ?? news to you?
            3. SSeT
              SSeT 17 November 2015 23: 31 New
              +1
              I have information from technical forms, I served on it. Where are you from, taxi driver?
          6. SSeT
            SSeT 17 November 2015 23: 18 New
            0
            Well, the times are different - everything there for the radar power supply is imprisoned, moreover, by orders of magnitude different. And the Urals is something more in terms of consumption and consumers
          7. Oprychnik
            Oprychnik 29 November 2016 15: 57 New
            0
            It seems to me that Kaptsov went too far with regard to belittling the capabilities of most of the declared "superliners", spitting down on the search for designers of that time from the height of the XXI century. You can also make fun of caravels and galleons, which are no longer in use, or torpedo boats made on the basis of a seaplane float. Do you, Oleg, look like an iPhone 7? Haven't exploded yet? Oh well.)
          8. 9lvariag
            9lvariag 19 February 2018 00: 56 New
            0
            What a great goal, even PRR is not necessary. They themselves will not be missed on such a colomibine.
        3. Bayonet
          Bayonet 6 October 2015 10: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: ruslan
          the reactor confuses me in it. why is it needed?

          After arriving at the base site (Strelok Bay, Pacific Village, Pacific Fleet), the crew began preparations for a military campaign in the area of ​​the US missile defense test range at Kwajelein Atoll. However, this campaign did not take place. For a long time, the crew, even with the help of specialists from the Baltic Shipyard, could not fix the malfunction in the cooling system of the ship’s nuclear installation.
          Read in full: http://yablor.ru/blogs/atomniy-korabl-radioelektronnoy-raz/3704432
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 7 October 2015 22: 57 New
            +2
            Quote: Bayonet
            even with the help of specialists from the Baltic Plant, he could not fix the malfunction in the cooling system of the ship’s nuclear installation.
            "Ural", while still on the roadstead of Baltiysk, fonned like an Alladin lamp. But he was pushed out of harm's way to the inter-naval transition ... So, everything went on as usual: the state acceptance system was rotten and was ready to put signatures on documents on orders from above. Therefore, the Pacific Fleet accepted the sounding strategic reconnaissance officer into its composition without even making a sound.
        4. venik
          venik 8 October 2016 14: 44 New
          0
          Quote: ruslan
          the reactor confuses me in it. why is it needed? earlier reconnaissance ships were built without them. why did it suddenly come to build with a nuclear power plant?

          ====
          Unfortunately, one simple thing did not "reach" Oleg Kaptsov. Unfortunately, you did not understand it either .... To power all that gigantic radar facility, a megawatt power plant is needed. A conventional gas turbine is ill suited for these purposes - very powerful turbines are needed ... And this is a huge fuel consumption! Therefore, apparently and stopped at the nuclear power plant.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Mera joota
        Mera joota 6 October 2015 08: 19 New
        -11
        Quote: prosto_rgb
        The Urals are normal, even more than.

        Well, of course, I went camping once and enough of what to do there at sea ... After all, you can also monitor the adversary from the raid ... True, it was possible on the shore too, in this case, the equipment could be mounted powered by a local thermal power station, and the operators were normal to build ... But we don’t look for easy ways and we don’t think people’s money, it’s all stupid bourgeois ... And so the floating barracks turned out, and tons of copper, drag metals from the circuit boards made it possible to survive the difficult 90s ...
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 6 October 2015 08: 51 New
          12
          Sharks, too, can get all the charge from the base in the USA and what .. wasn’t it worth it? Oleg directly wrote to you why he needs this Urals, and told the whole truth !? But how honestly can he know his real purpose, said a senior officer marine intelligence?
      4. avt
        avt 6 October 2015 08: 59 New
        +2
        Quote: prosto_rgb
        The Urals are normal, even more than.

        Than what ?? What is a government hostel on the shore?
        Quote: ruslan
        the reactor confuses me in it. why is it needed?

        Well, it’s just understandable if you look for and find out the quantity and quality of equipment on it and again the energy intensity for servicing the crew on a long voyage, and they planned to hang out in the ocean for more than one day, so one of the admirals ordered an atomic one by analogy with Premier League. Well, that in their opinion would not bother with
        Quote: EvilLion
        The solarium is perfectly pumped from a tanker, especially since the entire system is exceptionally peaceful.

        During peacetime, I will say this - such smaller ships belonged to the KGB under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, and since the times of Liberty with tracking and communication systems with spacecraft, they secretly kept them not childish, at least for the first time. Well, in general, no nuances of the type ----- ,, There is a separate question about the justification of the acquisition of UDKV from the point of view of the small navy of Australia. " since the Second World War, in the USA Navy system. So if the Australians did not buy at least old Harriers "it is not a problem for Carlos" as a project, but the customer's stupidity, as in the case of even greater stupidity with our project 1143.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 7 October 2015 23: 10 New
          +3
          Quote: avt
          as in the case of even greater stupidity with our project 1143.
          Shark, you are a strange person!
          Where did emeralds come from railway station if the country at that time did not have carrier-based aviation, and the industry could build what it built at the Nikolaev plant.
          At the same time, the Brilliant Headquarters determined the main task for the Navy to combat the Yankees SSBN. So the hybrid was born: RKR + BOD + VN = TAKR. In addition, he also dragged vertical lines. Bad and good are the second question, but one way the men were mentally prepared to fly, including with the product.
          This is so, by the way.
      5. Bayonet
        Bayonet 6 October 2015 10: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: prosto_rgb
        The Urals are normal, even more than.

        Well, tell us what is normal in him, what makes him so good - maybe the author is really wrong. hi
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 6 October 2015 21: 21 New
          10
          Quote: Bayonet
          Well, tell us what is normal in him, what makes him so good - maybe the author is really wrong.

          Well, Mr. Kaptsov is a populist. it is without a doubt!
          First, the prehistory of the appearance of the 1941 project (this is to anticipate any dreamers like "need not needed").
          In 1968, in the Strategic Missile Forces of the USSR, the R-36 missile system took up combat duty, in the enemy classification SS-9 "Scarp" (sharp) carrying 3 warheads of 2,3 MT each. The missile could successfully overcome enemy missile defense. That is, the Russians had a small northern fluffy animal in their hands! Our future "partners" of course responded to the rudeness of the Russians, starting in 1973 work on the creation of their little animal MX missile with 10 warheads of 300 CT each and very quickly, after some 13 years, put the first 50 missiles on alert.
          The fact is, dear friends, that the marine measuring complexes available at that time, namely "Academician Sergei Korolev", "Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin", "Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov", did not have the opportunity to control the Kwajalein atoll, where the rocket was tested. " friendly country ".
          Now directly about CER-33.
          In the absence of the USSR’s naval bases in this region, a ship was needed that could go indefinitely without refueling in neutral waters near the US coast and electronically cover American intercontinental ballistic missile bases and strategic airfields. But the capabilities of such a ship could be significantly expanded: it could collect comprehensive information about any subcosmic object. The task of the new air defense missile system was to fulfill the function of the advanced floating center for strategic missile defense of the USSR. The main "stuffing" of the Urals was electronic intelligence equipment with real-time processing of the received information. The Coral system included seven of the most powerful electronic complexes. To process the received information, a unique computer complex was mounted, consisting of two Elbrus computers, each of which performed up to 12 mil.operations per second. With the help of these supercomputers, it was possible to decipher the characteristics of any space object at a distance of up to 1,5 thousand km, determine the fuel composition of ballistic missiles by their exhaust gases and the composition of the thermal protection of nuclear warheads. The ship’s reconnaissance equipment included a “camera” with a lens diameter of about 1,5 meters.
          The greatest damage to the "Ural", oddly enough, was caused not by periodically arising fires, but by the law "On military duty" adopted in 1989 by the Council of Ministers of the USSR, according to which all "Pindjaks" were exempted from military service, and there were an overwhelming number of them in the "Urals" ! At one point, the ship was left practically without specialists, who could not be replaced by anyone. hi
          1. max702
            max702 6 October 2015 22: 06 New
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            The greatest damage to the "Ural", oddly enough, was caused not by the periodic fires, but by the law "On conscription" adopted in 1989 by the Council of Ministers of the USSR, according to which all "Pindjaks" were exempted from military service, and there were an overwhelming number of them in the "Ural" ! At one point, the ship was left practically without specialists, who could not be replaced by anyone

            I heard a story about the fact that "Ural" ruined the demobilization from the sunny Caucasus, like he had to go on a campaign, but these demobilization was then postponed ... How much I really do not know .. But from my own life experience I met a Dagestan who served in the Northern Fleet on BPK "Admiral Chabanenko" Duc it was there to speak Russian to read and write small-mala taught .. and served not in the MP, but in some kind of warhead .. Frankly speaking, the guy did not shine with intelligence and ingenuity and what he could do on a modern the ship is a mystery to me .. So this version does not cause complete rejection.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 6 October 2015 22: 20 New
              +4
              Quote: max702
              so it is there to speak Russian to read and write, more or less taught

              Somehow two Uzbeks came with the replenishment "Orus do not ponemay", I had Article 2, the commander of the department of deck electricians, after 4 months for demobilization. I told him ... if you don’t want to write off to the shore at 22,00 on December 31, then here are two fighters and two days deadline, on Friday I want to hear from them "Eugene Onegin" with your Volga accent, and after all, he fulfilled my order for a year laughing I’ve never heard such an Oegin good
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 7 October 2015 23: 23 New
              +3
              Quote: max702
              I’ll tell you frankly that the guy didn’t shine with his mind and quick wits, and what he could do on a modern ship is a mystery to me ..
              There is no mystery. At a straight * pointing finger * from above, the Dzhigits were sent to serve where there were no small arms and weapons of the ground forces. This was done in order not to train fighters with skills in handling weapons and knowledge of the basics of tactics of offensive / defensive combat of a detachment, platoon, company.
              And with a "torpedo" over the mountains you do not run a lot: you get tired of carrying. And not every warrant officer / midshipman could steal it and sell it even at that difficult time.
              So the navy suffered with this exceptionally sensible audience.
      6. serega.fedotov
        serega.fedotov 6 October 2015 10: 45 New
        -8
        Quote: prosto_rgb
        The Urals are normal, even more than.

        In my opinion, "Ural" is a command ship, needed primarily for large-scale landing operations!
        And since the USSR was for world peace, it was "camouflaged" as a scout!
        See for yourself, excellent (at that time) communication and intelligence systems, reactors will provide energy to any needs of the headquarters, and a large number of premises will allow you to comfortably accommodate generals and their "retinues"
        1. dokusib
          dokusib 6 October 2015 11: 02 New
          +9
          Ural spy ship. There is no place for generals and their retinue
      7. rumpeljschtizhen
        rumpeljschtizhen 6 October 2015 11: 03 New
        -8
        Ural is a complete absurdity. There have already been many articles on Vo on this subject ....
        and you prove its usefulness
      8. Very old
        Very old 6 October 2015 12: 58 New
        14
        "URAL" = even more than just normal

        HERE (clickable):
      9. DiKoff
        DiKoff 31 July 2017 13: 44 New
        0
        Acre metal has nothing valuable in it, a stupid development with billions of money spent - rocket launches and what was happening on the atoll could be worked out from space, the slope of the trajectory and other parameters too - the only benefit of this project is that about 70 workers, engineers and scientists received a salary, and the latter also completely satisfied their ambitions and curiosity at the state expense, that is, for ours and we accelerated the process of the collapse of the USSR)))
    2. 27091965
      27091965 6 October 2015 10: 21 New
      14
      Quote: ruslan
      in principle, I agree, especially with 1143, that normal aircraft carriers could build.


      1143 was designed as an anti-submarine cruiser and its tasks were appropriate. The change in classification and tasks performed, adopted in 1977, relates more to the third ship of Project 1143M. It was planned that on its board there will be, is the landing, heavy transport helicopters and the developed Yak-38P fighters.

      Yak-36, I think it’s worth starting with it, it was developed as a light attack aircraft and its mission did not include air cover for formations. The main goal was to be low-maneuverable targets, anti-submarine helicopters, AWACS aircraft, striking at enemy ships and the coastline.

      I think it’s simply not possible to compare this project with aircraft carriers. The tasks are different.
      1. Ruslan
        Ruslan 6 October 2015 10: 46 New
        +4
        so if the "Russian foch" were built, the ship could also perform all the tasks described by you, but only much more efficiently. and 16 mih-29kub (or su-25) it would be much better to shoot down and bomb everything. plus 12 helicopters for plane or landing. the more the Yak-38 is absolutely incapable of performing the tasks described by you. how will it shoot down low-maneuverable targets without a radar? the more drills to which you still need to fly, and then break through the defense from f-14, 18? therefore, I also consider pr. 1143 to be an erroneous waste of time and resources that could have been usefully spent.
        1. 27091965
          27091965 6 October 2015 11: 45 New
          +3
          Quote: ruslan
          Moreover, the Yak-38 is absolutely not able to perform the tasks described by you. how will he shoot down maneuverable targets without radar?


          “The flight-navigation and sighting equipment of the aircraft ensured the fulfillment of combat missions during the day in simple and difficult weather conditions over land and over the sea. In conditions of poor visibility, a short-range navigation indicator was used, operating from the Luch naval drive radar.
          The plane had only suspended weapons: air combat missiles R-60. unguided missiles in launch containers, 23 mm outboard cannon mounts, FAB-500 bombs and X-23 air-to-surface missiles.
          For firing at ground, surface and air targets on the Yak-38 mounted collimator sight ASP-PF-21. In addition to the fire control system, a Delta system unit was designed to control X-23 missiles. The maximum combat load during vertical take-off was 1000 kg. ”

          This aircraft was developed in the 60s and it was planned to release not a large number of combat training vehicles, but after the tests they decided to arm Project 1143 ships with them. A preliminary design for making this decision was already ready. It just happened to strengthen the aviation group. Initially, they did not intend to build an aircraft carrier. That was in 1969.
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 7 October 2015 23: 44 New
          +5
          Quote: ruslan
          much more effective. and 16 mig-29kub (or su-25) is much better
          Who is arguing? Only in 1976 Kiev already switched to the Northern Fleet, and in 1977 it entered the 2nd BS in Middle-earth. And the Mig-29 only in July 1983 entered service (Su-25 - from 81g.)
          Tell how the ship is designed, how many years before its launch, TTZ is issued for weapons and technical equipment. facilities? What kind of MiG-29 could be discussed in the 70s of the last century?
          If you want an objective analysis - delve into the topic, return to the time of the design and construction of the ship, and do not look at its predecessors from the height of modern times. Then you will not write nonsense!
          1. DarthVedro
            DarthVedro 14 October 2015 13: 16 New
            0
            In fact, in the USSR, deck ships were designed, for example, the MiG-23E8, and the full-fledged aircraft carrier "Soviet Union" at the design stage was supposed to be equipped with shipbuilders based on the same 23s. But another thing is that it was impossible to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier, primarily due to the lack of funds for a full support fleet, so they built a large ship that, like a goose, could do everything, but badly. With the entry into service of the new generation VTOL aircraft, the 1143 would no longer be so useless, there would remain one real drawback - a small radius of radar helicopters compared to full-fledged American AWACS
      2. Severomor
        Severomor 6 October 2015 12: 18 New
        14
        Quote: 27091965i
        I think it is simply not possible to compare this project (1143) with aircraft carriers. The tasks are different.
        I completely agree

        In defense of the TAKRs, forgive me for a long time, otherwise the TAVKRs are somehow yapping))))

        Comrades, well, you at least read when and why they were created. And then immediately "under-carrier" or "under-cruiser." Everyone can offend, but objectively ....
        Originally conceived as an anti-submarine cruiser, further development of pr. 1123 Moscow.

        With the task of finding and detecting submarines, the cruisers of pr. 1143, or rather the flagships of the squad of ships, coped with "excellent".

        Government Decree No. 2-1968 of September 685, 251 adopted a joint proposal by the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Justice Industry to start building anti-ship missiles "1143 Kiev" with aircraft weapons.
        The following tasks were assigned to the ships of this project:
        1. Covering ship formations from air strikes, their anti-submarine and anti-boat support;
        2. Ensuring combat stability of the SSBN Strategic missile submarine cruiser in combat patrol areas;
        3. Ensuring the deployment of submarines;
        4. cover for marine missile, anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft in the reach of naval fighter aircraft;
        5. search and destruction of enemy missile submarines as part of heterogeneous anti-submarine forces;
        6. defeat the enemy surface ship groupings;
        7. Ensuring the landing of naval assault forces.
        I focus on paragraphs 2 and 3.

        Only the lazy one does not speak about airplanes, well, and I’m too lazy ... .., but do not forget that, unlike American practice, the composition of the air group of the ship "1143 Kiev" was not constant and could change depending on the task. One option provided for 20 vertical take-off and landing aircraft and two rescue helicopters, the other - 20 anti-submarine helicopters and two rescue helicopters.

        Of course, a volley of 8 missiles is smaller than a volley of 16 missiles from Project 1164, and the cellar for reloading cruise missiles is somehow not very ... .. an additional volley ... I doubt something. But already at “Baku” we are observing 12 containers.

        I think for its time, project 1143 was still good.

        Yes, and in June 1977. all ships "1143 Kiev" were officially reclassified from anti-submarine cruisers to heavy aircraft carrier (aircraft carrier) cruisers - TAKR. Accordingly, their main purpose was formulated somewhat differently: now the role of the "1143 Kiev" ships was to "give combat stability to the SSBN Strategic Missile Submarine Cruiser, groupings of surface forces, submarine Submarine and MRA in the areas of combat deployment." That is, among the tasks of cruisers in the first place was no longer the hunt for enemy submarines, but, on the contrary, covering our submarines from enemy anti-submarine aircraft.

        And the project came to naught also due to the lack of a normal infrastructure. If there is no berth for the ship, and he is forced to stand on the roads (photo), then there will be nothing good ....
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 October 2015 14: 16 New
          +3
          Quote: Severomor
          Only the lazy one does not speak about airplanes, well, and I’m too lazy ... .., but do not forget that, unlike the American practice, the composition of the air group of the ship "1143 Kiev" was not constant and could change depending on the task.

          In fact, American ABs in the 70-80s had 3 typical composition of air wings to solve different problems.
          At first, the wings were divided into shock and anti-submarine, shock and anti-submarine. Then they were replaced by multipurpose, medium-range strike and long-range strike.
        2. avt
          avt 6 October 2015 18: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: Severomor
          Comrades, well, you at least read when and why they were created. And then immediately "under-carrier" or "under-cruiser." Everyone can offend, but objectively ....

          "Objectively" Ridiculously simple. Grechko was alive - he ordered just not to think too much, but to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier, but under Ustinov they suddenly decided to embody Pushkin's fairy tale, he is our everything ,,, About the priest and his worker Baldda "Well, like I need a worker ... Yes, there is also Yakovlev drew with a vertical, in the end the fairy tale turned out, but another, or rather an excerpt from it - "The queen gave birth to a son, or a daughter, not a mouse, not a frog, but an unknown animal." But they didn’t drown it in a barrel, but proudly called TAVKR and spawned a series, so dashingly that the seal of “birth trauma” was applied to the next project, two ships of which sail under our and Chinese flag. And actually normal ships dismantled the future great ukry on the slipway.
        3. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 8 October 2015 00: 27 New
          +2
          Igor, the comment is good, I put "+". But there are some inaccuracies.
          Quote: Severomor
          on the beginning of the construction of anti-ship missiles "1143 Kiev" with aircraft weapons.
          Probably all the same "Anti-submarine cruiser with aircraft weapons" - at least that was written on the mortgage board of "Kiev" (located on the platform of the right ladder near the control room).
          Quote: Severomor
          Unlike American practice, the composition of the 1143 Kiev air group was not constant and could change
          Amerikosy also changed the composition of the wing, depending on the tasks. Here they were the trendsetters (for well-known reasons).
          Quote: Severomor
          The role of the "1143 Kiev" ships was to "give combat stability to the SSBN Strategic Missile Submarine Cruiser. That is, among the tasks of cruisers, the first place was no longer the hunt for enemy submarines, but, on the contrary, covering our submarines from enemy anti-submarine aircraft.
          But this does not at all preclude the search for and destruction of enemy submarines in dangerous directions, and thereby ensuring the anti-submarine defense of rpkSN-s. Not a single submariner will trample into the area of ​​the PLC, and even with PLO helicopters. And they are perfectly audible in the sea. Yes, and RDO about the actions of enemy forces in the area you get.
          So, the tactics of the action of the forces can sometimes block the performance characteristics of the weapon carrier ... whether it be NK, PL or LA.
    3. HMR333
      HMR333 6 October 2015 10: 37 New
      +1
      and the Urals here, and what the ministry ordered was that it was a helicopter carrier in general and built it in order to put yaks on it with a vertical meter just then the yaks were abandoned and the sea helicopters also didn’t, and after all, the crisis did! he was a novelty at that time and technologies were being worked out on it
    4. azazello11
      azazello11 6 October 2015 11: 55 New
      -3
      laughed)))
      and the fact that "basalt / granite" with yabp are based on it is a trifle, and yaks are intended only for air defense and close reconnaissance is also nonsense)))
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 October 2015 14: 22 New
        +2
        Quote: azazello11
        but the fact that "basalt / granite" with yabp are based on it is a trifle

        To base these missiles, it is not necessary to build a ship with 32 kt of displacement. 1164 is three times less, but carries more RC and has better air defense.
        Quote: azazello11
        Yes, and the yaks are intended only for air defense and close reconnaissance - also nonsense

        And why else can a subsonic KVVP aircraft be used without radar and armed only with "cast iron" and "close combat" RVV. The Yak-38 is not even a harrier.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 6 October 2015 14: 55 New
          +2
          38, in general, was not much inferior to Harrier (if we compare the modifications by years), and the fact that 41 did not replace him as planned was not the fault of the ship.

          By the way, the YAK is a light attack aircraft - and it was armed not only with "pig-iron" ... The X-23 is certainly not a wunderwaffe, but also not a "free-fall bomb" - at least for the fight against PLO aviation and in order to drive off light ships Yak completely good for himself.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 6 October 2015 15: 07 New
            +2
            Quote: Taoist
            38, in general, was not much inferior to Harrier (if we compare the modifications by years), and the fact that 41 did not replace him as planned was not the fault of the ship.

            Ahem ... how do you compare the P-60 with the Sidewinder? wink
            Quote: Taoist
            By the way, the YAK is a light attack aircraft - and it was armed not only with "pig-iron" ... The X-23 is certainly not a wunderwaffe, but also not a "free-fall bomb" - at least for the fight against PLO aviation and in order to drive off light ships Yak completely good for himself.

            The Kh-23 is a rocket in the style of "and now, balancing on a ball, we scratch our right ear with our left foot."
            After launching the rocket, the pilot had to simultaneously combine the central mark of the sight with the images of the rocket and the target, monitor the situation and control the aircraft.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 6 October 2015 18: 34 New
              +1
              Well, the P-60 is better then what?
              As an attack aircraft, the Yak-38 Harrier-1 was significantly superior, but in the version of the fighter it was not - the Yak-41y was already made.

              The same "Slick" was used, and had to pass over the target.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 6 October 2015 18: 53 New
                +3
                Quote: Scraptor
                Well, the P-60 is better then what?

                Oh yes ... a missile with 10 km of maximum range and 3,5 kg warheads is undoubtedly better than a missile with a range of 18 km and 8,3 kg warheads. To know more - in what reference frame?
                Quote: Scraptor
                and in the version of the fighter it was not - the Yak-41y was already being made.

                Gorgeous. That is, from the time of construction until the end of the 80s, aircraft-carrying cruisers of fighters on the deck did not have. There were only attack aircraft with the possibility of self-defense. Nothing to say - an equivalent replacement ...
                1. maximghost
                  maximghost 6 October 2015 19: 58 New
                  +3
                  Oh yes ... a missile with 10 km of maximum range and 3,5 kg warheads is undoubtedly better than a missile with a range of 18 km and 8,3 kg warheads. To know more - in what reference frame?

                  The maximum flight range of the sidewinder, BUT the real range of application for them with the P-60 is approximately the same, because everything rests on the sensitivity of the GOS, the ability to maneuver (when flying at ranges close to maximum, it will be no) and much more than that.

                  Regarding warheads, everything here is also not so simple, we must take into account not only the weight of the explosives, but also the type of warheads + again the capabilities of the missile itself (with a direct hit, a lower warhead can do more damage). Unfortunately, I know too little to judge, Mr. M. knowledgeable people put everything on the shelves?
                2. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 6 October 2015 22: 00 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Oh yes ... a missile with 10 km of maximum range and 3,5 kg warheads is undoubtedly better than a missile with a range of 18 km and 8,3 kg warheads. To know more - in what reference frame?

                  The Blue Fox Radar Ferranti had some drawbacks, primarily the lack of the ability to detect air targets against the background of the land / sea, and the power was rather weak.
                  So, Sidewinder missiles were most often used within the limits of visual visibility, and at such distances the P-60 was preferable (smaller, faster, more maneuverable, easier).
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 6 October 2015 23: 29 New
                    +1
                    Until 1985, the Harriers did not carry anything from the RVV except the Sidewinders with the IR-GOS ... Radars were just panoramic.
                3. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 6 October 2015 23: 19 New
                  0
                  Sidewinders are also different in range.
                  P-60 is undoubtedly better in angle and target capture speed

                  That is - yes, politicians have decided so. They (the cruiser) did not receive them at all ...
    5. Serggii
      Serggii 7 October 2015 23: 10 New
      0
      Love your country God’s creation as a mother, do not love
    6. Sasha_Sar
      Sasha_Sar 1 December 2016 11: 20 New
      +1
      At that time, we had no experience in building aircraft carriers. If someone thinks that an aircraft carrier can be built as easily as a cruiser, they are deeply mistaken. At that time, we had experience in building artillery cruisers 68 bis W 15-18000 tons, and Kiev already 40000 tons. If anyone paid attention to the heating mains, how they are laid with "zagulinami". This did not break them, and after laying on the ship initially straight (without bends), they began to tear. And Admiral Gorshkov gave an excuse to the Central Committee of the CPSU that aircraft carriers are weapons of the imperialists, the aircraft carrier is enough for us. Something like that.
  2. ImPerts
    ImPerts 6 October 2015 07: 13 New
    +2
    The Americans were afraid of Soviet submarines, and they taunted TAVKR, calling them the surrogate brainchild of Admiral Gorshkov.

    I admired them when I was a child. Having matured, he began to be more critical. The thought did not leave me that it was a beautiful and expensive club for the opportunity to "take on fright" wink.
    Elbrus computers installed on its board are inferior in performance to any smartphone

    Slander phrase smile. Could you even play Tetris?
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 6 October 2015 07: 39 New
      14
      Quote: ImPerts
      Could you even play Tetris?

      Probably, it is possible, "Tetris" appeared in the mid-80s ... But just remember any "komputer" of the early 90s and compare it with your current one. I have quite a budget phone with its dual-core process and 1 gig RAM, with a 16 gig flash drive will plug any fancy IBM of those times into the belt.
      Oleg's article is controversial, as usual, but indicative enough. Again, if the Yak-141 project had not been hacked down, our same non-aviation carriers Minsk, Novorossiysk and others like them would have shown themselves from a completely different side. The Sea Harrier was not an outstanding machine at all, just our Yak-38s were even worse, frankly damp machines. A change in wing would have changed a lot in the tactics of using our aircraft-carrying cruisers.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 6 October 2015 08: 28 New
        +7
        Quote: inkass_98
        Again, if the Yak-141 project had not been hacked

        Hacked up? Oh, how ... Does the fact that the experimental machine failed the GSI in the worst form mean nothing to you? Is the fact that Yakovleva Design Bureau pulled a bagpipe from the Yak-141 repeatedly disrupting all the planned dates for the transfer to the ICG, is this normal?
        Yakovlev Design Bureau could not create an aircraft that meets the requirements of TTZ, it could not be operated in combat units, if the test pilot could not cope with the machine, what can be expected from combat pilots?
        17 years of work on a car with a catastrophe at the GSI, how many more years did you need to give for revision?
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 6 October 2015 08: 38 New
        +1
        Thank god it is Yak-141 died. Now all that remains is to sit and laugh at the "penguin", having normal Su-27 derivatives.
      4. ImPerts
        ImPerts 6 October 2015 09: 47 New
        10
        The point of application for these computers is different. And therefore it is not entirely correct to write about Elbrus and a smartphone. bully
  3. Alex_59
    Alex_59 6 October 2015 07: 17 New
    20
    The only purpose of the “Ural” was to monitor the missile range on the Kwajalein Atoll. Obtaining reliable information about the warheads of American missiles, their size, characteristics and behavior in the final segment of the trajectory, using radar and optical means.

    The most absurd ships in the history of the navy

    The more information is revealed about this project, the more perplexed is this stillborn child of a dying USSR
    I don't even want to comment on this nonsense. I recommend the author to read the book: "The area closed for navigation. Series" Ships of the Soviet fleet "Kurochkin A. M., Shardin V. E. - M .: Voennaya kniga, 2008
    1. igorka357
      igorka357 6 October 2015 08: 53 New
      +6
      It’s true that I wrote above! Oleg threw the phrase away and carried the Ural, but he doesn’t even know a bit about it))!
  4. tihon4uk
    tihon4uk 6 October 2015 07: 27 New
    +6
    TAKVRs, of course, were premature carriers, but Basalt could well pat any large ship and it is a pity that they did not manage to bring to mind the yak -141, it was a good car.
    1. Santa Fe
      6 October 2015 08: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: tihon4uk
      but basalt could well pat any large ship

      The cruiser "Slava" carried 16 Basalts (versus 8-12 for the TAVKR) and the S-300F air defense missile system, not counting other weapons
      with a displacement of 11 thousand tons (TAVKR ~ 45 thousand tons! What's the point?)
      Quote: tihon4uk
      and it’s a pity that they did not manage to bring to mind the yak -141, the car was good.

      Not good. This is confirmed by its absence, while other developments of the Soviet period perfectly live and evolve (Su-27 and its derivatives)
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 6 October 2015 08: 28 New
      +6
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Not good. As evidenced by its absence,
      F-35B.
      OKB them. Yakovleva collaborated on the subject of the Yak-141 with Lockheed Martin in the 90-ies, after which Lockheed Martin creates his F-35B, suspiciously similar in design to the Yak-141.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 6 October 2015 08: 39 New
        0
        If in the USA are fools, then what to take from them.
      2. Santa Fe
        6 October 2015 08: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        F-35B.

        What is similar to F-35B and Yak-141

        Visibility reduction technology?
        A trapezoidal wing with stealth technology? (parallelism of leading and trailing edges to other aircraft lines)
        Radar AN / APG81 with active HEADLIGHT?
        The world's most powerful Pratt-Whitney jet engine F135 with a thrust of 13 tons
        AN / AAQ-37 Infrared Observation System

        "cold" lift fan? - against two jet engines, hidden in the womb of Yak-141

        Suspiciously similar to F-35B


        The similarity of Yak and F-35B is a stupid bike designed for viewers of the 1 channel
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 6 October 2015 09: 39 New
          +7
          Quieter quieter uncle ... the layout is the same, since ... and the silhouette with the Yak-43 is painfully similar, but it's not very much like the 141st, so cool down! The blue is not ours, our red ... it's for viewers of the TV channel "rain"! hi
          1. Serggii
            Serggii 7 October 2015 22: 59 New
            0
            Firstly, Yakovlev Design Bureau in the 90s sold those documentation for Yak 41 among other things to the winner of the JSF competition Lockheed or Yak 141 like anyone But this is the first supersonic back in 90 to overcome Sinitsyn and the full profile flight is also our vertical take-off supersonic vertical landing when the reptiles are nicknamed F 35 was not even in the project. The fact that 41 cars drove in the horizon 2 rd 41 as a load then amers useless screw rotator is no less weight. Another rotary nozzle RD 79 is ours and the layout, weight distribution is that the projections coincide, here aerodynamics dictate their laws.
            1. maximghost
              maximghost 8 October 2015 00: 38 New
              +1
              vintilator not less than weight

              More and weight and dimensions. + fan reliability is greatly exaggerated. So having solved a couple of old problems, they earned a whole bunch of new ...
        2. FID
          FID 6 October 2015 09: 39 New
          14
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The similarity of Yak and F-35B is a stupid bike designed for viewers of the 1 channel

          Well, since I know a few in aviation ... Pay attention to external contours, forget about the motors, our motors are a separate conversation, BUT, the Americans REALLY took advantage of the Yakovlev design and development of draft thrust vector .... Believe me, I’m in course ...
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 6 October 2015 13: 39 New
            -4
            Quote: SSI
            Americans REALLY took advantage of the development of Yakovlev Design Bureau for the layout and deviation of the thrust vector .... Believe me, I am aware ..

            And can you more accurately indicate what exactly from the design the yak141 entered the design of f35? And how do you rate this as a percentage of direct borrowing from the entire aircraft structure?
            The design of the nozzle is somehow clear. But according to the layout, as they say, this is the same as having a lifting fan and placing it behind the cockpit. But, at the same time, the Yak141 does not have a fan there, but 2 lifting engines, which is somewhat different.
            Of course, this shows the level of work of the Yakovlev bureau if the Americans borrowed something / bought documentation. On the other hand, it seems that the significance of the yak141 project for f35 is greatly exaggerated.
            1. FID
              FID 6 October 2015 14: 22 New
              +4
              Quote: sevtrash
              On the other hand, it seems that the significance of the yak141 project for f35 is greatly exaggerated

              And I do not assert about the "significance", I just write that they took advantage of it. It is not at all necessary to "rewrite" the project, there are enough ideas laid down in the initial stage ... The Su-34 is a deep modernization, you know what? And what happened?
            2. maximghost
              maximghost 6 October 2015 14: 59 New
              +5
              If I’m not mistaken, the option with a fan for the yak was also worked out and bought these developments too. But what’s better, there’s still a big question ... Two engines give more traction, while they weigh less and take up less volume than a fan (and the fan itself and the drive on it are quite complicated).
            3. Scraptor
              Scraptor 6 October 2015 15: 12 New
              +8
              The layout is not the presence of a fan, this is the assembly. Nodes are connected. For SKVVP layout is very difficult to achieve.
              Americans took without exception everything except the fan. Ventialtor from their old XV-5. Even the operation of this fan is controlled by the Soviet system.
              Access was not only to the documentation for the entire technology (and not only to the aircraft itself). Lokhidovtsy roamed around the factories and were obliged to provide advice if something was not clear to them.
              Despite this, it was necessary to subvert Yak in F on a subcontract to the surviving Russian specialists, both in the Russian Federation and in the USA (some even moved there temporarily, then almost all were thrown out).
              Then they almost exactly the same in the 90s sucked up almost the rest of the aerospace and defense.
              Prior to this, Harrier was also copied by the British.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 6 October 2015 15: 41 New
                +3
                ... the Americans copied. And no American court naturally decided anything. The British then prudently withheld one detail and therefore 75% of the engines on the American copies of Harrier are still purchased (the Americans fought too often due to loss of traction from breakdowns).
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 6 October 2015 14: 50 New
          16
          Maybe someone else here does not shine with reason and conscience? The F-35 is a lapped Yak-41, which was stealthy, and in which the outboard engines are replaced by an ancient fan from the XV-5 (which is simply absent on the F-35A / C).

          The article is another "tempest in a glass" from a battleship lover and a hater of Soviet verticals ...

          National Interest Majumdar smokes on the sidelines:
          0. the first photo would have looked better than some cropped semi-turretized Washington battleship "if not for the author's priorities,
          1. Allied Harriers can still be used from Canberra. There is a heat-resistant coating for them, or maybe. quickly installed. Any western UDC can be used as an SCVVP aircraft carrier.
          2. A veiled mat in the headings of sections of articles on the site has already become the norm? Or specifically only on this occasion?
          For example, the French had similar hybrids - Jeanne dARC
          Do "normal" cruisers have a large air wing?
          Why didn't they include Project 1123 in the article? It is much more "interesting", because in the absence of a solid (at least a corner) deck, it is much more difficult to use the SCVVP from it.
          About the "10-minute fuel supply" - continue, as with the rest, to disgrace yourself ... Harrier in the attack aircraft version also does not have a radar. It is not the radar that saves the GOS from the radar, but the radar warning system.
          At the same time, a springboard on "Vikramaditya" and on Hermes "somehow" was installed, although at first it was not on them.
          The overwhelming number of both air accidents and disasters (with casualties) was among the British and the Americans.
          If someone is shameless or stupid himself, then what would he understand in the rides ...
          3. Besides the "super cruisers" there were also air defense cruisers with even smaller cannons ... there was room for innuendo!
          4. The reconnaissance / space "Ural" (which for some reason is compared to the combat Aegis) missed the moment that it would be nice to book its nasal dome, pecked by a seagull. The smartphone will not count what Elbrus will count - calculations are different, especially multi-threaded. Even they know that. As well as the fact that the Pacific and Indian Oceans are large and besides Kwajalein there are many atolls and continents in it.
          How much did the author see the headlamp for communication with deep space?
          According to the technology of the FAR, the USSR was the leader and the Americans first half stole it for their radars and then half bought it.
          5. Do not confuse the type of power plant, generations of avionics and types of ships, especially "in comparison" ...

          When will the site cease to spoil people's minds with such perversions over common sense and deliberate lies, because the history of "cooperation" between Yak and Lockheed in 1992-1994 has been explained to this greyhound, like a number of other anti-Russian trolls on duty, more than once ?!
        4. Scraptor
          Scraptor 6 October 2015 16: 28 New
          +5
          Threat. according to comment
          1. The most powerful jet engine is the NK-32 from the Tu-160, on the Yak-143 it was like that.
          2. The decrease in visibility on the F-35 is quite mediocre, very much spoils the aerodynamics and in itself, in comparison with the supersonic SCVVP-technology, which together with the aircraft was taken from the "Russians", there is nothing daunting.
          Russia has AFAR, they got it from the USSR, it was in the USA that they appeared on planes only after 2006 (even just a FAR). The Yak-41 is a 1978 aircraft.
          Is it so difficult to circle an airplane around a Go-Pro with IR cameras?
          3. What does the "coolness of the fan" have to do with it? The exhaust from the rear swivel nozzle (impact on the runway), as it was hot, remained ... On the Yaks, there was no interference between the out-of-cockpit and sustainer engines (suction of the mid-flight exhaust from the outboard engines).

          Let's better talk about armored battleships than about "penguins" flying belly forward, and about what kind of Americans are "saints" ...
        5. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 6 October 2015 16: 41 New
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          "cold" lifting fan? - against two jet engines hidden in the belly of the Yak-141

          Somewhat surprising.
          The nozzle of a hefty dvigun is directed down to the deck, and you focus on the cold lift fan.
          Too many controversial and controversial points in the article in my opinion.

          With all due respect to the author, it seemed to me that the article was somewhat frivolous.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 6 October 2015 21: 09 New
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Too many controversial and controversial points in the article in my opinion.

            That would not be unfounded.
            About the Yak which is shmyak on the deck.
            This was especially noticeable in the first
            High Harrier development period and
            "Jacob." So, by May 6, 1978 in Vooru-
            the forces of England and the USA were
            215 Harriers delivered first
            generations, and in the Navy of the USSR - 45 Yak-38.
            Of these, 46 Harriers and 6 were lost.
            Yak-38. Killed 19 English and Ame-
            Rican pilots. Of the 27 catapults
            Only 19 were successful (of
            9 vertical bailouts
            only two were successful).
            We have all four bailouts
            were successful and not a single pilot
            was lost.
            Only in the United States ILC (in which
            about half of all were delivered
            serial "Harriers") since
            adoption in 1970 until the end
            2002 (for 31 years of operation), in
            riyah and catastrophes (excluding military
            losses) on the "Harriers" of all modi-
            katsii killed 45 combat pilots and
            143 aircraft were lost. On the "Yaks"
            from 1975 to 1991 (16 years of operation)
            11 combat pilots died.
            Many of the Harrier Pilots
            could stay alive if on
            these planes were a system of auto
            math bailouts like
            on the "Yaks". Only from April 1975 to
            July 1985 in emergency situations
            38% of pilots were saved on the Yak-80,
            and in English and American "Har-
            rier "only 50%

            2009 “Wings of the Motherland”
        6. anti-Semite
          anti-Semite 6 October 2015 17: 37 New
          0
          Are you closer to the echo of Moscow?
    3. Alex_59
      Alex_59 6 October 2015 08: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      If in the USA are fools, then what to take from them.

      And I'm not saying that they are smart. Or that "verticals" are good and useful.
      Just a fact - the design of the Yak-141 has followers, it has not disappeared.

      Well, if it comes to that, the Americans use "vertical aircraft" in the role of an aircraft for direct support of the MP, and not as a means of air defense of a ship formation. And in this role, it is for the United States (not for us) that "vertical" in the form of a descendant of the Yak-141 is not the worst idea. If you use them, as they did in the USSR, then of course this is a dead end (with all due respect to the sailors and pilots of our Navy who love the Yak-38).
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 6 October 2015 10: 04 New
        +4
        Quote: Alex_59
        If you use them, as they did in the USSR, then of course this is a dead end (with all due respect to the sailors and pilots of our Navy who are dear to the Yak-38).
        There was no dead end, there was the development of a new type of technology. Everything once began, was ridiculous, the same first airplanes, later, jet aircraft.
        The authors of some publications argue that the development of VTOL aircraft was the wrong direction, that they would never achieve the performance characteristics of conventional takeoff and landing aircraft. This is not entirely true. VTOL is an aircraft that has received new properties, and therefore new opportunities, compared to a conventional aerodynamic airplane. So, for example, the experience of the combat use of the AV-8В Harrier airborne combat helicopter showed that when using tactical helicopter tactics in close air combat, it is 2-3 times superior to the F / A-18 Hornet fighter-attack aircraft and F-14A " Tomcat ”, although in long-range combat loses to them with the ratio 1: 4.
        With the further development of the design of the Yak-41M type aircraft, the aerodynamic schemes gained the right to life, by implementing which you can get an aircraft that is not much inferior to an ordinary (classical) plane, but has several advantages. Such schemes were later to be implemented in aircraft such as the Yak-141M, Yak-43, etc. These schemes were presented at various exhibitions and published in a number of scientific and technical journals.
        In the projects of promising aircraft V / KVP worked out issues of increasing their combat effectiveness. To this end, it was proposed to follow in the direction of a significant increase in the combat range and time of locking in a given area, increasing the mass of the payload, increasing the range of weapons and improving fire control systems, reducing radar and infrared visibility. This is confirmed by the calculations, according to which the tactical and technical characteristics of the promising Yak-141М aircraft differ for the better in comparison with the Yak-141.
        When a path of development of a direction is broken, inevitably there is a slowdown in progress in science, technology and knowledge, a loss of scientific, technical and technological reserve, as well as trained personnel of scientists, designers, engineers and other specialists.
        At the beginning of the 1990-s, the accident of the Yak-41M aircraft was only a "clue" to curtail all work on the topic of creating new generation V / KVP aircraft. The supersonic Yak-41M was on the verge of future ocean voyages, which were prevented by the changed socio-political and economic situation in the country, which led to the collapse of the USSR and the failure to implement many plans for creating new-generation aviation systems
        Aviamaster magazine # 3 2003 Vadim Kolnogorov "The last plane of the Soviet Union". Online http://hisofweapons.ucoz.ru/publ/rossija_sssr/sovremennaja_aviacija/istrebitel_j

        ak_141_jak_41m/48-1-0-115
    4. Alex_59
      Alex_59 6 October 2015 09: 02 New
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The similarity of Yak and F-35B is a stupid bike designed for viewers of the 1 channel

      Undoubtedly, 2 also :-) Go ahead!
    5. Alex_59
      Alex_59 6 October 2015 10: 27 New
      -1
      Quote: Per se.
      There was no dead end, there was the development of a new type of technology. Everything once began, was ridiculous, the same first airplanes, later, jet aircraft.

      Well, here you see what’s the matter. In my understanding, it’s better to master the technique on prototypes, and not on combat units. But we hurried to say that we are no worse than the British, and their Harrier. I believe that the adoption of the Yak-38 and the 1143 ship system for them was an inadequately expensive experiment and a waste of money (but this is my opinion, nothing more). No complaints against sailors and pilots - they squeezed out everything they could from technology. But the Yak-141 is already a serious device, which actually (as I again think) had to wait, bringing to mind the experienced Yak-38 not starting their mass production, and even more so not building such expensive and complex ships for them. And the saddest thing is that when we got the Yak-141, we turned off the topic of VTOL. They achieved what they dreamed about, and nailed the direction. Although it’s precisely the Yak-141 that can already compete with conventional aircraft in many respects.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 6 October 2015 11: 10 New
        +6
        Quote: Alex_59
        In my understanding, it’s better to master the technique on prototypes, and not on combat units.
        I agree with you here, but depending on what is considered to be prototypes, the same Yak-38 was put into service after passing through a test cycle. The fact that the machine was far from perfect, so in fact, it was our first serial VTOL aircraft, even the Yankees did not create their first VTOL aircraft for the Marine Corps themselves, but bought a license for the Harrier from the Britons. At that time, there were two serial VTOL aircraft in the world, ours and the British. If you remember how jet aviation began, and even earlier aeronautics in general, you can find a lot of more crude and emergency models of aircraft, which did not prevent them from being mass-produced, being in service. As for the ships of project 1143, I personally think that it would be better, indeed, we were building UDC then than such aircraft-carrying cruisers, especially since the topic of VTOL aircraft could be developed on the UDC. But, there was then a policy when the word "aircraft carrier" in the USSR was a curse, "a weapon of imperialism" moreover, that nothing prevented later from converting these "half-aircraft carriers" into full-fledged aircraft carriers (like "Gorshkov" for the Indians) or, by a cheaper method, into the already mentioned UDC. Whatever it was, but without "Kiev" would not have come to "Ulyanovsk", and without the Yak-38 to the Yak-141. Convertoplanes and VTOL aircraft are developing and will continue to develop, improve, if our navels do not catch up with defense, we will lag behind here forever, and with the Yak-141 we were in the lead, having far ahead of us. No need to giggle at the F-35 and the "stupidity" of the Americans in this, it is high time to return to work on tiltrotors and VTOL aircraft.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 October 2015 15: 04 New
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          As for the ships of project 1143, I personally think that it would be better, indeed, we were building UDC then than such aircraft-carrying cruisers, especially since the topic of VTOL aircraft could be developed on the UDC. But, there was a policy then, when the word "aircraft carrier" in the USSR was a curse, "a weapon of imperialism", the UDC also seemed to be something superfluous

          Not everything is so simple.
          The UDC was designed in the USSR, and more than once. Moreover, the UDC even got into the resolution of the Central Committee - and it was with the help of the UDC that "boots" and Amelko, who joined them, almost hacked down the construction of "the second ship of project 1143.4 (1143A)" (this was how the future "Kuzya" was denoted in a catchy way).
          Quote: Per se.
          Whatever it was, but without "Kiev" would not have come to "Ulyanovsk", and without the Yak-38 to the Yak-141.

          Historical determinism is not our method! smile
          If not for 1143, we would have had the "Eagle" 1160 or 1153. And we would have received a normal AV fleet. Without 4 expensive "successive approximations", which neither a candle nor a damn poker.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 6 October 2015 20: 31 New
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            If not for 1143, we would have had the "Eagle" 1160 or 1153. And we would have received a normal AV fleet. Without 4 expensive "successive approximations", which are neither a candle to God, nor a hell of a poker.
            Everything is so, Aleksey, but when I said that it would be better if we were building the UDC, I meant that instead of the first four "successive approximations", we would immediately build what later resulted in the UDC of project 11780. On this we would gain experience, moving on to full-fledged aircraft carriers. I am aware of the intrigues with the UDC that the slipways could take. It is a pity that it was only from Ulyanovsk that they came to a nuclear power plant, and not from Kuzi, as well as the fact that they did not immediately start with Ulyanovsk, if they were not ripe for an analogue of American nuclear aircraft carriers. Although, if we really regret here, then first of all, about the collapse of the great country, the Soviet Union. One can only guess where our scientific and technological development, the power of our country, and the fleet in particular, would come, instead of Gorbachev, come a strong personality, a true patriot and a wise leader.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 7 October 2015 10: 01 New
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              Everything is so, Aleksey, but when I said that it would be better if we were building the UDC, I meant that instead of the first four "successive approximations", we would immediately build what later resulted in the UDC of project 11780. On this we would gain experience, moving on to full-fledged aircraft carriers.

              Since such a booze has gone... then it would be better if Gorshkov brought Project 85 to the hardware (they would call it something like "a carrier of light missile carriers" - and slip through). It would be best to work out technologies and applications on these "kids".
  5. Felix1
    Felix1 6 October 2015 07: 36 New
    0
    It seems the Urals I saw in some Hollywood movie, I remember this ball in front. whether he was a ghost ship or simply lost, I don’t remember already.
    1. Santa Fe
      6 October 2015 08: 16 New
      +8
      Quote: Felix1
      Ural seems I saw in some Hollywood movie

      Virus, 1999

      But there was lit up "Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin", a real-life research vessel designed to control spacecraft, to perform trajectory and telemetric measurements, to maintain communication between ground-based flight control points with the crews of spaceships and stations. The largest and most powerful ship in its class. Named in honor of Yuri Alekseevich Gagarin by decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 112-41 of February 10, 1969.

      Built on the basis of the tanker pr. 1552, without nuclear reactors and unnecessary show-offs. Despite its solid dimensions, the Gagarin was a relatively simple and effective floating repeater, which coped with its task brilliantly. Tokam, like the ships of the measuring complex of the Navy, pr. 1914 ("Marshal Nedelin").
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 6 October 2015 08: 39 New
        0
        As required.
    2. gfs84
      gfs84 6 October 2015 08: 36 New
      +3
      It seems the Urals I saw in some Hollywood movie, I remember this ball in front. whether he was a ghost ship or simply lost, I don’t remember already.


      Apparently you mean the 1999 film "Virus", if yes then I will disappoint there, even the plot meant the research vessel "Cosmonaut Vladislav Volkov", in the role of which USNS General Hoyt S. Vandenberg was filmed - a tracking ship.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. gjv
        gjv 6 October 2015 08: 57 New
        +3
        Quote: gfs84
        there, even the plot implied the research vessel Cosmonaut Vladislav Volkov, in the role of which the USNS General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, a tracking ship, starred.

        Exactly. And "Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin" after the collapse of the USSR went to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and was sold for scrap and disposed of in 1996, three years before the film was shot.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 October 2015 08: 52 New
      0
      But I realized something else about aliens. The virus seems to be called.
  6. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 6 October 2015 07: 39 New
    0
    The price of the ship and the list of tasks are not entirely good. Helicopter nose with such features is cheaper. but the aircraft carrier does not pull. As I understand it, no one could repeat the success of the British with Harrier, including the United States and France. And before Yak 141 the USSR and the ships did not survive.
  7. sevtrash
    sevtrash 6 October 2015 07: 54 New
    +6
    It is possible that the creation of such products is just a fee for the development of scientific and technological thought. Something turns out, something is not, a natural course of evolution. Well, or the struggle for leadership, priority, budget, etc. That is an eructation of scientific and technological progress. But not without good. At least from the realization of a dead end branch of development. Although Canberra does not seem so absurd, because initially it was a landing ship, a little later - an aircraft carrier.
    You can still add candidates for absurdity, although, perhaps more correctly, for an unsuccessful weapon option for one reason or another.
    Artillery submarines from the British X1, the French Surkuf, the Japanese I 1-4, for example. Or an underwater aircraft carrier I400. Or water-related H4 Hughes or a super-giant ekranoplan of 550 tons of Alekseev.
    1. Santa Fe
      6 October 2015 08: 20 New
      -2
      Quote: sevtrash
      just a fee for the development of scientific and technological thought

      Scientific and technical thought is real existing and developing technologies.

      And everything listed in the article is stupid crafts. What was new in the same "Alaska", compared to normal battleships?
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 6 October 2015 08: 31 New
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And everything listed in the article is stupid crafts. What was new in the same "Alaska", compared to normal battleships?

        Well, actually, cruisers like Alaska were conceived as fighters of Japanese heavy cruisers, for which they were created. For the battle in a squadron battle, especially with battleships, they were not created.
        1. Miner
          Miner 6 October 2015 14: 01 New
          +2
          A strange feeling arises after reading the text of the note.

          It is said that Alaska was created to crush Japanese heavy cruisers.
          And then a hasty conclusion follows - they say they’ve got garbage.

          At the same time, the note does not really say anything about what was wrong with the ships, in terms of the possibility or impossibility of completing the tasks that were set before their creators?


          Of course, we are a little aware of the fact that "Alaska" turned out to be too big and, as a result, very much too expensive to operate.

          But this is another matter.

          And for the solution of these ships put before the developers, "Alaska" and "Guam", judging by theirs, TX seemed to fit.

          Is not it so?
  8. Mera joota
    Mera joota 6 October 2015 07: 56 New
    +2
    The absurdity of Virginia-class cruisers in the absence of a full-fledged helicopter hangar. In general, for the 70s, this series was not bad. "Aegis" also "killed" not only the "virgins", but also the cruisers of the Legi, Belknap, and Spruens-class destroyers. They instantly became obsolete and turned into scrap metal (that's where the destruction of the fleet took place, which exceeded our losses at times).
    P.S .: on account of pr.1143. On the basis of Spruyens, Americans developed (traced more precisely) on the topic Sea Control Ship - SCS aircraft-carrying cruisers of the type pr.1143 with a corner deck and based on VTOL aircraft and helicopters. This is a displacement of 9000 tons of Spruens! In fairness, for the sake of further drawings (unfortunately I can’t attach) they did not go, but gave birth to UDCs like Tarava and Vasp ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. gjv
      gjv 6 October 2015 09: 04 New
      0
      Quote: Mera Joota
      Sea Control Ship - SCS aircraft carrier cruiser type pr.1143 with a corner deck and based on VTOL aircraft and helicopters. This is a displacement of 9000 tons of Spruens! In fairness, for the sake of further drawings (unfortunately I can’t attach)


      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 6 October 2015 09: 43 New
        0
        No, not that picture. I'll try to stick
        Length Over All (LOA): 606 feet
        Beam (hull and sponsor): 66 feet

        Overall beam (width) with the ducted uptakes and angled fight deck: 87 feet

        Fight deck length: 470 feet and can support simultaneous takeoff of 5 medium-sized helicopters

        Weapons: 1- 5 inch / 54 dual purpose gun
        4-30 mm General Electric GAU 8 (a) guns
        1 Harpoon launcher (An ASROC could be substitute)
        1 Basic point defense missile system

        Elevator measures: 62 x 26 feet

        Embarked aircraft: 12 medium-sized helicopters or 8 medium-sized helicopters and 4 Harrier-type aircraft
    3. Santa Fe
      6 October 2015 09: 13 New
      -4
      Quote: Mera Joota
      but also a cruiser such as Legi, Belknap

      They were killed by time
      By 30 years in military service
      Quote: Mera Joota
      destroyers such as Spruens.

      Served by 25-30 years
      and some still serve
      Quote: Mera Joota
      gave birth to UDC type Tarava and Vasp ...

      still those freaks
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 6 October 2015 11: 17 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        and some still serve

        Not in its own hypostasis, but as a pilot ship.
        And at the expense of 30 years ... The thirty was exchanged only by the head USS Spruance DD-963, the rest were unlucky, many barely passed the twenty, and for example, the USS Ingersoll DD-990 retired at the age of 18!
        And what is 30 years for the US Navy? For example, the USS Cowpens CG-63 on September 25 started modernization and its service life will be extended to 44 years, and on September 30, USS Gettysburg CG-64 started modernization.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        still those freaks

        Yes, yes ... I am aware of your hatred of any aircraft carrier.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 6 October 2015 22: 26 New
          0
          But what about the battleships? They carried 4-6 eroplanes ... crying And they had catapults (that's bad luck) for their launch. lol
  9. big4tune
    big4tune 6 October 2015 07: 59 New
    12
    The Elbrus computers installed on its board are inferior in performance to any smartphone.
    And how do you think it characterizes it? What's the point of comparing it with modern computing power at all, if even the supercomputers of those times are inferior to ordinary modern workstations. In military equipment, reliability is important, while productivity is secondary in most cases, if Elbrus was there, then its performance was sufficient for the assigned tasks. Well, if it is necessary to increase the computing power, it can be replaced with Elbrus-8C or Elbrus-16C to which "any smartphone" is like walking to the moon.
  10. freerider
    freerider 6 October 2015 08: 14 New
    12
    laughing having already read the title of the article, I realized who the author is
    1. Babalaykin
      Babalaykin 6 October 2015 19: 18 New
      +2
      not you alone))
  11. 76rtbr
    76rtbr 6 October 2015 08: 19 New
    +5
    Quote: ruslan
    the reactor confuses me in it. why is it needed? earlier reconnaissance ships were built without them. why did it suddenly come to build with a nuclear power plant?


    In addition to the above, look at how much energy-intensive equipment there is, at that time it was not sickly eating energy !!!
  12. mosquit
    mosquit 6 October 2015 08: 25 New
    +7
    Deck aviation TAVKR - “aircraft mast top mast” Yak-38 with a 10-minute supply of fuel. A simple fact speaks of the combat capabilities of the Soviet “vertical bars” - they did not have radars. Detection of the enemy was carried out in a visual way, which in the approaching era of the fourth generation of fighters meant a sudden death in battle from a medium-range (long) long-range missile.

    "Witty" ...
    On December 27, 1967, the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR No.1166-413 on the creation of light attack aircraft GDP of the Yak-36M. The same Decree provided for the creation of a combat training option and, in the future, a fighter.


    No matter how easy an attack aircraft a radar is a priori ...

    aircraft carrier cruiser of the project 1143.3 of the Black Sea and Pacific Fleets of the Navy of the USSR (USSR Navy) in 1978-1991.
    Designed to search and destroy submarines, launch missile attacks on surface ships as part of a group.

    What do you want from this ship? He has the appropriate composition of weapons ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mera joota
      Mera joota 6 October 2015 08: 32 New
      0
      Quote: mosquit
      No matter how easy an attack aircraft a radar is a priori ...

      Well, for land vehicles, maybe yes, you can use advanced aircraft guides for guidance, but at sea how? On an inflatable boat PAN run with a radio station? How is it without radar in the sea to look for goals? To the touch?
      1. mosquit
        mosquit 6 October 2015 08: 52 New
        0
        In general, a helicopter was designed to search for targets ...
        Target designations were transmitted to the attack aircraft, the ammunition power was enough to compensate for the accuracy ...
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 6 October 2015 13: 05 New
          0
          Quote: mosquit
          In general, a helicopter was designed to search for targets ...

          I wonder which one? If you are about the Ka-31, then when it was accepted by all the ships, all ships of pr.1143 were withdrawn from the fleet (Baku nominally), and someone (Novorossiysk) was already towed for cutting.
          Therefore, I repeat the question, which helicopter made a search for targets and guidance on the Yak-38?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2015 13: 14 New
            +2
            Quote: Mera Joota
            I wonder which one? If you are about Ka-31

            Obviously, this is the Ka-25RTS, which had the function of issuing CO for RCC
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2015 13: 14 New
            0
            Quote: Mera Joota
            I wonder which one? If you are about Ka-31

            Obviously, this is the Ka-25RTS, which had the function of issuing CO for RCC
            1. Mera joota
              Mera joota 6 October 2015 19: 27 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Obviously, this is the Ka-25RTS, which had the function of issuing CO for RCC

              Well, if you use the Yak-38 as an anti-ship missile ... well, like a "divine wind" in the back and forth ... then yes ...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2015 21: 15 New
                0
                Quote: Mera Joota
                Well, if you use the Yak-38 as an anti-ship missile ... well, like a "divine wind" in the back and forth ... then yes ...

                why so? From an altitude of 3 km, the Ka-25RC fully gave an overview of 250 kilometers, i.e. rising above the deck TAVKR could give the coordinates of the target for Yak to the full combat radius laughing
                And having received the coordinates of the target, this Yak, having minimal navigational aids, could very well have reached. Under no circumstances did he shine back.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 6 October 2015 22: 04 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  From a height of 3 km, the Ka-25RTs gave an overview of 250 kilometers,

                  And this is how you calculated? And where is such data from the Yak-38? bully
                  You know, something like the radar, and even in the piston era flew and returned back ... Maybe you do not know what? lol
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2015 23: 35 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    And this is how you calculated?

                    I am simply aware of the distance from which the Ka-25RTs could detect air targets. (250 km) And the formula for calculating the radio horizon (4,124 * square root of the height of the antenna) suggests that it is physically possible at about three kilometers - given the fact that the radar is able to detect the ship a little further than the radio horizon (add-ons stick out of the horizon)
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    And where such data from the Yak-38

                    On vertical takeoff, the combat radius is less than 200 km. Well, on a short run - it will be more, but taking into account the fact that the first take-off to wait for the terminal - and so it will come out approximately. Although we have EMNIP more than 150 km to attack did not plan to send.
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    You know, something like the radars, and even in the piston era flew and returned back ...

                    And how does this "discovery" contradict what I wrote?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And having received the coordinates of the target, this Yak, having minimal navigational aids, could very well have reached.

                    What specific word do you not understand?
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Maybe you don’t know what?

                    Yes, I don’t know much. But from the height of my erudition, the difference between you and Alexander Druz is decidedly invisible laughing Bye!
                    Z.Y. And yet, yes, if you start to object again - start by indicating the source from which I pulled off my last sentence - about erudition :))) Let's see if the schoolchildren read the classics.
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 7 October 2015 00: 01 New
                      -3
                      This formula is from another and out of place here. In general, the radar detection range also depends on the EPR of the target. laughing

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      On vertical takeoff, the combat radius is less than 200 km. Well, on a short run - it will be more, but taking into account the fact that the first take-off to wait for the end - and so it will come out approximately.

                      Menne 200 is written for only one, the very first modification - for the rest there is no data.
                      Harrier-1 has even less (even less than 100).
                      And why vertical take-off in general, when you can take off like that? what
                      All SKVVP from the deck even with a short take-off take off much faster. Especially sit on it.

                      The height of your erudition is clearly not enough. Grow more! fool
                      1. maximghost
                        maximghost 7 October 2015 00: 23 New
                        +1
                        All SKVVP from the deck even with a short take-off take off much faster. Especially sit on it.

                        Not really, much depends on the size of the deck: for example, the same harriers need to teleport to the stern, while yaks can take off almost from the seridine. Well, on a normal aircraft carrier, you should put the plane right behind the one that is at the starting position (although if the gas shield breaks down it will be fun), well, plus the size of those. positions, etc. etc.
                        In general, if yaks from Kiev can rise faster than say the hornets, this does not mean that harriers from Invisible will also take off faster than the hornets. Well, + there is the number of finished aircraft on the deck (read the number of technical positions ...
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 7 October 2015 01: 19 New
                        -1
                        Harriers that from Invincible (Giuseppe-Garibaldi, Cavura, Chakri-Naruebet, Juan Carlos, Canberra and other UDCs), and even more so from Tarav / Wops, take off much faster than F-18s, which lead to a catapult. But slower than the Yaki, especially the 41st. The number of technical positions is simpler and is better increased by the addition of one more deck nearby, preferably in an "anti-nuclear" order, because cluster bombs or warheads also cover it worse. what laughing
                      3. maximghost
                        maximghost 7 October 2015 01: 45 New
                        +1
                        Harriers from Invincible (Giuseppe-Garibaldi, Cavour, Chakri-Naruebet, Juan Carlos, Canberra and other UDC), and even more so from Taraw / Wops take off much faster than F-18

                        I didn’t specifically ask this question, but do hornets from 4 positions take off more slowly than harriers from 1? Well, another question arises: with 36 yaks on board a cretchet and 36 hornets on Nimitz, how many planes from each ship can simultaneously take off in 2 spheroconic situations (reflection of enemy aircraft attack and attack of a spheroconic target) + their take-off speed at different time intervals (i.e., in the case when the aircraft are in readiness at the starting positions and technical positions, and when the aircraft from the previous paragraph have already taken off). The same question is also true for carriers with carriers, I just do not know the number of aircraft on ships in this case. To clarify this issue, it is necessary to delve into the net and other sources for a long and tedious way and not the fact that there is an answer, so I propose to use in disputes only the take-off speed of only those aircraft that are on technical and starting positions.
                      4. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 7 October 2015 02: 01 New
                        0
                        Slower, and moreover, many times ... By the way, Harriers usually take off from two "ledges to the left".
                        Why 4 positions on the 1st deck if you can make the 1st position on four? And it is easier to build ships and will not burn / drown everything at once. More does not always mean better.
                      5. maximghost
                        maximghost 7 October 2015 02: 11 New
                        +1
                        Why 4 positions on the 1st deck if you can do the 1st position on four

                        Well, I only compare existing ships (there are just 4 catapults on the Nazis), but the idea is interesting. In 30 years there were two-tier aircraft carriers, it would be necessary to refresh in memory why they did not take root. Although, probably, in this case there will be little length for the armored personnel carrier, and flying in half profiles limits the vertical capabilities.
                      6. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 7 October 2015 02: 30 New
                        0
                        Not two-tiered, but simply two small aircraft carriers near the take-off distance in its entire length.
                        The size is limited by an emergency horizontal landing in the catcher net "by plane" in fact. In combat, a shrapnel or a projectile can damage the flap of a conventional aircraft, which will increase the landing speed, the landing hook may not come out, or the gas-jet control system, which will make a vertical landing impossible. Or they may refuse due to a technical problem.

                        That is, an aircraft carrier for airplanes based now on the same supercarrier can make a maximum length in its corner deck (on which the same Superhornets sometimes crash into the network in a similar way) ...
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2015 08: 10 New
              +1
              Quote: Scraptor
              This formula is from another and out of place here

              This is a formula that determines the radio horizon depending on the height of observation and it is very appropriate here. Out of place your attempts to look smarter than you really are.
              Quote: Scraptor
              In general, the radar detection range also depends on the EPR of the target.

              EPR warship imagine? :) Of course not. Otherwise, you yourself would have realized how much what you wrote was out of place.
              Quote: Scraptor
              Menne 200 is written only for one, the very first modification - for the rest there is no data

              Google banned you?
              http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak38m.html
              Combat radius of action, km 250-380. But this is bad luck, the combat radius is calculated for one aircraft. And deck cars fly in groups, so the first take-off has to wait for the rest and burn fuel, which reduces the combat radius from the table
              Quote: Scraptor
              And why vertical take-off in general, when you can take off like that?

              Can. But it's slower
              Quote: Scraptor
              All SKVVP from the deck even with a short take-off take off much faster.

              Faster than what?
              Quote: Scraptor
              The height of your erudition is clearly not enough

              Clearly, the Strugatsky generation did not read the Pepsi.
            3. Scraptor
              Scraptor 7 October 2015 11: 01 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              This is a formula that determines the radio horizon depending on the height of observation and it is very appropriate here. Out of place your attempts to look smarter than you really are.

              I know. Practical ceiling Ka-25 4000m. By the way, do not confuse it with the Ka-27. Watch what and how? If optimal for low-altitude small-sized and attacking.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              EPR warship imagine? :) Of course not. Otherwise, you yourself would have realized how much what you wrote was out of place.

              More to the place of the EPR of the aircraft, maybe you even know how much it differs from the EPR of the ship. They are those that are not space, always military.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Combat radius of action, km 250-380. But bad luck ...

              At what take-off (nature of use)?
              The bad thing is that you yourself immediately write something else lower ...

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Can. But it's slower

              Slower slightly. And that is not a fact laughing

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Faster than what?

              Than non-SKVVP.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Clearly, the Strugatsky generation did not read the Pepsi.

              What Zionist waste paper is still busy?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Bye!

              You kind of said goodbye? repeat
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 6 October 2015 13: 05 New
    0
    Quote: mosquit
    In general, a helicopter was designed to search for targets ...

    I wonder which one? If you are about the Ka-31, then when it was accepted by all the ships, all ships of pr.1143 were withdrawn from the fleet (Baku nominally), and someone (Novorossiysk) was already towed for cutting.
    Therefore, I repeat the question, which helicopter made a search for targets and guidance on the Yak-38?
    1. maximghost
      maximghost 6 October 2015 14: 24 New
      +2
      We are talking about the Ka-25ts. In general, this is a target designation helicopter for granites / basalts, but as a primitive (it did not have direct communication with airplanes, only with a cobal), attack guns could also be used.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 6 October 2015 19: 29 New
        -2
        Quote: maximghost
        It's about the Ka-25ts

        And how would he help? He had a data transmission system on the Yak-38?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2015 21: 17 New
          0
          Why would he? Ka gives the coordinates of the target on the TAVKR, and the Yaks go ... but at least on the radio compass, or something. I am not good at navigational aids and don’t understand what all of these PNP-72-6M and KPP-1273-SI mean, but in my opinion, even with an ordinary compass, reaching a target of 200 kilometers with an error of + - 10 km is not a very difficult task.
        2. maximghost
          maximghost 7 October 2015 00: 26 New
          +2
          He could transmit the info to the ship, and from the ship he would already be transferred to the yaks. Not the most effective guidance method, but can provide sufficient accuracy of guidance.
  • Santa Fe
    6 October 2015 09: 20 New
    -1
    Quote: mosquit
    on creating a lightweight GDP stormtrooper

    Wow

    and whom he was going to storm - with the mournful capabilities of his avionics, the lack of the ability to use high-precision weapons and 10-minute reserve of fuel
    1. mosquit
      mosquit 6 October 2015 14: 11 New
      +3
      In the course of combat service, combat pilots acquired piloting skills in various geographic and climatic zones. On December 30, 1977, in the Bay of Biscay, Kiev pilots performed 10 flights to test their aircraft after a severe storm and commission young pilots. In the Mediterranean, the number of departures per flight shift reached 18, and this was not the limit. By the end of the year, 34 pilots were already flying into the regiment. During the cruise of "Kiev" from Severomorsk to the Mediterranean Sea and back in the period from December 15, 1978 to March 28, 1979, 355 flights were performed. I would especially like to note the accurate shooting of the pilots at the breaker target2. As a rule, it was destroyed from the first, in extreme cases, from the second call. The special team did not have time to launch new targets overboard to ensure live fire according to the planned table

      Just compare the nomenclature of ur ...
      Su-25 (Combat load (maximum) - 4340 kg at 8 (10) suspension units, normal load - 1340 kg)
      air-air R-3 or R-60
      air-surface 25ML X-X-C and 29L 25L
      Yak-38 (maximum - 1500 kg combat load, with GDP -1000 kg)
      air-air R-3 or R-60
      air-surface X-23

      The Kh-25 rocket (product 69) was created on the basis of the Kh-23 design, equipped with a 24N1 laser seeker developed by the Geofizika Central Design Bureau (chief designer D. M. Khorol)

      X-29L - a rocket of a different caliber, launch weight more than 600 kg
      S-25L - NAR remodeling under laser guidance
      The question of the absence of a laser guidance system on a light attack aircraft must be considered in the effectiveness of the use of the X-23 and X-25 missiles.
      If the Navy was satisfied with the effectiveness of the X-23, then the need to include in the nomenclature of weapons of the X-25 and the necessary sighting system disappeared.

      lack of ability to use precision weapons

      What in your understanding in 1974 could be a "precision" weapon in the SA nomenclature? And what characteristics of it should classify it as "high-precision" at that time?
      10 minute supply of hot

      Combat radius
      Su-25 at an altitude of 1250, near the ground - 750 km (take-off standards - 14600)
      Yak-38 250-370 km. (normal GDP - 10300)
      If so, then the ground combat radius of a classic aircraft with a larger mass is 1,5 times greater than the SVPP 2 times.
      It’s not clear where the figure of 10 minutes comes from ...
      www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak38.html
      www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/su25.html
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 October 2015 22: 08 New
      +2
      And how did the A-4 Skyhawks storm? And with what reserve of fuel? bully

      And how do you see the Marine Corps behind the first hill without an attack aircraft, especially on their return ramps? Using RCC? Or m. GC battleship?

      He could use precision weapons.
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette 6 October 2015 08: 34 New
    +1
    In general, military sailors had a great time by throwing tens of billions of full-weight Soviet rubles into the wind. The only positive news was that despite the overwhelming number of accidents, the loss of flight personnel was calculated in units. The Yak-38 forced bailout system compensated for all the shortcomings of this stupid attraction.


    The author scoffs at the tragedy. Either from ignorance, or for some other reason. The Yak-38 is a tragedy for the Soviet fleet, for all sailors and pilots. Those who flew them were not having fun, but were on the other side of life. They are all heroes. And suicide bombers. Real samurai. In Tikhookeansk and Severomorsk, there are two cemeteries for the fallen Yak-38 pilots. But often there was nothing to bury there. All that remained of the chief of flight safety was a helmet with a piece of skull. He was buried. My first lieutenant's impression of Texas was the funeral procession. Ahead they carried a small box, covered with red chintz; behind it, with bowed head, walked a young wife with two small children. That was the "attraction".
    1. Santa Fe
      6 October 2015 09: 17 New
      +3
      Quote: Silhouette
      In Pacific and Severomorsk there are two cemeteries of the dead YAK-38 pilots.

      Lies

      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_потерянных_Як-38
      here is a list of lost Yak-38, with a detailed description
      there are practically no fatalities among the flight crew
  • mosquit
    mosquit 6 October 2015 08: 50 New
    +6
    The author mocks the tragedy.

    The author is not far ..
    How can you call the first attempt to build and operate the first aircraft carrier ship in Russian history an attraction ...
    According to the logic of the Author, if a small child filled himself with a lump (God forbid that he broke), then this is an attraction ...

    "Smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines" - this is true for any new business or undertaking ...
    1. Santa Fe
      6 October 2015 09: 04 New
      +3
      Quote: mosquit
      How can the first attempt to build and operate the first aircraft carrier ship in Russian history

      The first were the very successful helicopter carriers "Moscow" and "Leningrad"

      The fact that the TAVKR with VTOL aircraft would turn out to be a weak cruiser and a useless aircraft carrier could be understood before bookmarking, simply by comparing known facts


      In this case, they continued to make a mistake four times in a row
      Quote: mosquit
      The author is not far ..

      Commenters, too, do not shine with the mind
      1. mosquit
        mosquit 6 October 2015 10: 18 New
        +2
        Do you think that a helicopter and VTOL aircraft are essentially equal in nature to their aircraft?
        Do you consider the implementation of a helicopter and VTOL in metal to be comparable in complexity?
        Do you consider the complexity of the task of placing a helicopter and an aircraft (even VTOL) a ship?
        The fact that the TAVKR with VTOL aircraft would turn out to be a weak cruiser and a useless aircraft carrier could be understood before bookmarking, simply by comparing known facts

        So this project is not a cruiser or an aircraft carrier ...
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 6 October 2015 22: 23 New
        0
        Oh, brilliant mind, in what 1123 were more successful than 1143?
        A helicopter does not need a large ship at all. The big ship is a big target (and kirdyk to all helicopters and the entire crew at once).
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 6 October 2015 09: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The first were the very successful helicopter carriers "Moscow" and "Leningrad"
      It is interesting by what criteria they were not just successful, but even very successful. The tracking time for the submarines was ridiculous and constantly overestimated for reporting, so that the command did not upset. That of the ship itself, that of the air group. My uncle served just in the TEC of the air group, and then in the Omega Bay at the helicopter repair plant.
      It is strange that 1143 are very unsuccessful ships, and 1123 are very successful ... They are both mediocre. What happened is fine. Although beautiful, earlier it was impossible to imagine Sevastopol without the silhouette of "Moscow".
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 October 2015 15: 11 New
      0
      Quote: mosquit
      How can you call the first attempt to build and operate the first aircraft carrier ship in Russian history an attraction ...

      Ahem ... and this is nothing at the time of construction the first aircraft carrier ship in the USSR already had a huge world experience in the construction and use of such ships?
      But no, we went again unique and unparalleled in the world through - and on the fifth attempt, they invented a bicycle.
      1. mosquit
        mosquit 6 October 2015 17: 46 New
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Ahem ... and is it nothing that at the time of the construction of the first aircraft carrier ship in the USSR there was already a huge world experience in the construction and use of such ships?

        So what? At the time of the loss of your virginity, billions of men had sexual experiences, richer than yours, did he help you in life, for the first time? hi
        What do you think "primers" will help you to create technical "masterpieces" right away?
        It may not seem strange to you that the PRC, using the technological potential (albeit not the most advanced), transmitted by the "West" still cannot "simply" raise the resource of the copied turbojet engines to 200-500 hours ...

        Quote: Alexey RA
        But no, we again went in a unique and unparalleled way in the world - and from the fifth attempt we invented a bicycle.

        We used all the resources we had at that time - information (scientific and technical), material and human ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 October 2015 18: 07 New
          0
          Quote: mosquit
          So what? At the time of the loss of your virginity, billions of men had sexual experiences, richer than yours, did he help you in life, for the first time?

          But yak! At least I learned the technique of the process of intercourse for visual aids. smile
          And our designers, if we use the comparison so beloved by you, began to create a technique for doing this "in a standing position on the head", and even in the wrong hole.
          Quote: mosquit
          What do you think "primers" will help you to create technical "masterpieces" right away?
          It may not seem strange to you that the PRC, using the technological potential (albeit not the most advanced), transmitted by the "West" still cannot "simply" raise the resource of the copied turbojet engines to 200-500 hours ...

          What does a masterpiece have to do with it? No one requires a masterpiece on the first try. But the same Chinese as a result make a normal turbojet engine. And they are not trying to put the tail rotor from the helicopter into the combustion chamber and stick powder rockets to the turbojet engine.
          Quote: mosquit
          We used all the resources we had at that time - information (scientific and technical), material and human ...

          No. All available resources were used in the development of the "Eagle" theme. And 1143 is the result of cutting off a normal aircraft carrier with MO boots.
          1. mosquit
            mosquit 7 October 2015 20: 29 New
            0
            Do not "juggle"! wink
            What does a masterpiece have to do with it? No one requires a masterpiece on the first try. But the same Chinese as a result make a normal turbojet engine.

            What is normal? "Full-scale working exhibit"?
            No. All available resources were used in the development of the "Eagle" theme. And 1143 is the result of cutting off a normal aircraft carrier with MO boots.

            ..............................
        2. strannik1985
          strannik1985 6 October 2015 18: 17 New
          +2
          We used all the resources we had at that time - information (scientific and technical), material and human ...

          Namely, in 1969-1972, the Nevsky Design Bureau carried out research work. An order for research and development on the military-economic substantiation of the creation and operation of the aircraft carrier pr.1160. In the framework of Project 1160, preliminary designs of a catapult, an aerofinisher, and an emergency barrier were completed. Under the preliminary project, more than 900 documents were issued, interaction with subcontractors was worked out. It was assumed that at the beginning of the design of Project 1160 in 1973, the first ship could go into operation in 1981. A series of three aircraft carriers from autumn 1973 to 1986. The project hacked Ustinov.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 6 October 2015 08: 57 New
    +8
    For the Urals alone, a fat minus to the ignorant author! No respect for domestic designers and engineers. If a person himself has not done anything in this life, then he cannot respect the work of other people. Without the Yak-38, there would have been no Yak-141! Although this does not tell you anything. The Urals, being in the Pacific Ocean, could control the entire territory of the United States! If our Ural is absurd, then why is the American "analogue", which appeared much later, is not absurd? Just because he's American, right?
    1. ivanovich
      ivanovich 6 October 2015 10: 32 New
      -1
      The Urals, being in the Pacific Ocean, could control the entire territory of the USA!


      can point the proof to your ingenious sofa fabrication?
      here is my link that really controlled the whole US territory is the Radio Electronic Center in Lourdes in Cuba:

      From this key listening post, the Soviets monitor US commercial satellites, communications from military and merchant ships, and NASA's Space Programs at Cape Canaveral. With Lourdes, the Soviets can also wiretap in the United States.
      - From a joint report by the US Department of State and the Department of Defense, 1985
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 6 October 2015 10: 50 New
      -2
      Quote: Engineer
      . Were it not for the Yak-38, there would be no Yak-141!

      Of the 4 built Yak-141, only 2 flew. The program is closed.
      Quote: Engineer
      The Urals, being in the Pacific Ocean, could control the entire territory of the USA!

      When the “Urals” arrived at their base in the Pacific Settlement, nicknamed the Texas sailors. No one could have imagined that the first trip of the monstrously expensive unique ship would be the last.
      Read in full: http://yablor.ru/blogs/atomniy-korabl-radioelektronnoy-raz/3704432
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 6 October 2015 09: 02 New
    22
    It’s one-sided, you, Oleg, approach to writing your articles. That's the only way.
    In the case of Canberra, the ship was built according to the customer's conditions. And if there is a bow springboard, then its presence implies the use in the future not only of helicopters. Have you thought about it? Moreover, Australia plans to purchase the F-35. Where is the "ugliness" ???
    In the case of "Gorshkov", is the presence of a kind of universal ship also "ugliness"? Another thing is that they could not create a sensible plane in time. And that's another story. And the large displacement turned out due to the need to accommodate the air group. Formally, the development of Project 1123. What's wrong with that? The ship was created for certain functions and it turned out so due to the presence of certain weapons at that time. This is also a different question. What do you think is such a concept flawed? It's just that sometimes you need to put yourself in the shoes of the people who lived and worked at that time! Then many things will become clearer. wink
    Nuclear cruisers of the Americans. They were created as an escort for nuclear aircraft carriers. But they miscalculated in service. A large ship is economically more profitable than a small one. Does that also make them "freaks"? Then the atomic "Leader" we are designing should be recognized as a "freak". Or not ????
    "Alaska" Well, yes, they did it with an American approach. But they were created to combat Japanese heavy cruisers. Consequently, they had thicker armor, larger artillery, and powerful machines capable of giving an adequate speed for size, which also ate up the percentage of displacement. And if there was a battle, where opponents would meet face to face with a predictable result? Then what, did the concept come true? And they would not be "white elephants". That is why, in your opinion, they are "ugly" because they did not sink a single Japanese cruiser! Although, to be honest, I don't like them either wink
    "Ural". What? It was created for specific purposes. Now we have different views of the world. Other ships. And earlier they were designing on the basis of what they had! They lagged behind in the development of electronics, received such ships. They did not lag behind in the development of electronics - there would be other ships!
    The bottom line! It is not necessary to consider as "ugly" that which cannot be understood during creation! Otherwise, ships without armor will soon begin to consider ships without armor as "ugly" ... repeat lol
    Best regards hi
    PS At the end of your articles, in my opinion, you just need to add that this is your personal opinion, then the opinion of an individual person will be interesting to read and understand that this is just the opinion of an individual person, and not an affirmation of something smile
  • tchoni
    tchoni 6 October 2015 09: 04 New
    +1
    Engineering miscalculations take place at Vmech, it’s just that they are the most expensive for sailors
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette 6 October 2015 14: 34 New
      +2
      The most ridiculous serial ships in the history of our fleet were not included in the review. These were the round battleships "Popovka" - "Mermaid" and so on. The author minus.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 7 October 2015 18: 20 New
        +1
        "Mermaid" did not belong to the "popovka". And there were two "popovoks" - "Novgorod" and "Kiev". hi
  • mosquit
    mosquit 6 October 2015 09: 07 New
    +3
    Well, about the Yak-38

    According to TTT, "the Yak-36M light attack aircraft with vertical take-off and landing" was intended "for air support of combat operations of ground forces in the tactical and immediate operational depth of the enemy's location (up to 150 km from the front line), as well as when the aircraft is based on ships of project 1123 for the destruction of surface ships and coastal objects in naval operations and for conducting visual aerial reconnaissance. The main task of the aircraft is to destroy mobile, stationary ground and sea objects of the enemy in visual visibility. In addition, the aircraft should be used to combat air targets such as military transport aircraft and helicopters, as well as to combat AWACS aircraft and helicopters and anti-submarine aircraft. " The tactical and technical requirements for the training version were approved by the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force for armaments M.N. Mishchuk on March 4, 1971.
    In the course of combat service, combat pilots acquired piloting skills in various geographic and climatic zones. On December 30, 1977, in the Bay of Biscay, Kiev pilots performed 10 flights to test their aircraft after a severe storm and commission young pilots. In the Mediterranean Sea, the number of departures per flight shift reached 18, and this was not the limit. By the end of the year, 34 pilots were already flying into the regiment. During the cruise of "Kiev" from Severomorsk to the Mediterranean Sea and back in the period from December 15, 1978 to March 28, 1979, 355 flights were performed. I would especially like to note the accurate shooting of the pilots at the breaker target2. As a rule, it was destroyed from the first, in extreme cases, from the second call. The special team did not have time to lower new targets overboard to ensure live fire according to the planned table.
    Tempting prospects were also opened by the theoretical possibility of operating the Yak-38 not only from aircraft-carrying cruisers, but also from civilian vessels - container ships and dry cargo ships. In order to test the practical feasibility of this idea, in September 1983, by order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, for the first time in the USSR, the pilots of the combat unit of the naval aviation landed military aircraft on a civilian ship - the "Agostinho Neto" motor ship of the "RO-RO" type. The first to land on September 14, 1983 was the senior pilot-inspector Colonel Yu.N. Kozlov, who received a memorable address from the captain of the ship A. Latyshev for this. Colonel G.L. Kovalev, Lieutenant Colonels V.I.Kuchuev and V.N. Pogorelov landed behind it. Until September 29, 20 flights were performed. State tests (18 flights) were carried out by V.V. Vasenkov and A.I. Yakovenko from the Nikolay Cherkasov container ship. They showed that boarding a vessel of this type is very difficult due to the limited possible approach trajectories. Big problems were also caused by the tightness of the area (18x24 m), surrounded by ship structures, allocated for the landing of VTOL aircraft. However, the idea itself was not rejected, and in the future the possibility of using civilian ships as "mini-aircraft carriers" was not denied.

    The armament of the aircraft is suspended on four underwing pylons that can carry:
    guided missiles R-60, R-60M or Kh-23M (Kh-25MR) with a Delta-NG2 gondola;
    blocks of the UB-32A, UB-32M and UB-16-57UMP type with unguided missiles of the S-5 type;
    B8M-1 blocks with unguided missiles of the S-8 type;
    unguided missiles S-24B;
    bombs P-50Sh, OFAB-100-120, OFAB-100NV, OFAB-250-270, OFAB-250M-54, FAB-250-230, FAB-250M-62;
    one-time bomb cartridges RBK-250 GPAB-2 / 5M, RBK-500 ZAB-2,5SM, RBK-500 SHOAB-0,5M;
    incendiary tanks ZB-500;
    unified cannon containers UPK-23-250;
    filter gondolas of the K-513D type;
    500 l outboard fuel tanks.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Avenich
    Avenich 6 October 2015 09: 42 New
    12
    Nedo-carriers, nedocruisers ... I didn't like the boat in the photo ... in the furnace. Yes, he has two, TWO, Karl, reactors on board, obviously an under-explorer ... in the furnace. Yak-38 was served ... and how many, Olezhek, planes with the magic letter "Fy" "fell". In short, as always, ... minus. Once I offered to stir up a series of articles for Oleg under the title of the type: "Self-propelled artillery system, under-equipment.", "P-N transition is a transition to nowhere." etc. I wish the author creative success.
  • Peterhof 73
    Peterhof 73 6 October 2015 09: 53 New
    0
    And I like the naval-folk name "Ural" -KAYUTONOSETS. How does ah sound? Two nuclear reactors and a roll of 2 degrees. delicious. Correctly the author wrote, the victory of technology over common sense.
  • Selevc
    Selevc 6 October 2015 10: 04 New
    0
    In general, military sailors had a great time by throwing tens of billions of full-weight Soviet rubles into the wind.

    I think that it is not so much the sailors who "had fun" as the country's top leadership !!! The appearance of the Tavkr and the Urals is a strategic erroneous decision made at the very top ... Such decisions usually lay the direction of entire branches of the military-industrial complex for decades to come. Someone at the top got carried away with economy in one industry and gigantomania in another and decided to spend more money on the construction of nuclear submarines and save on aircraft carriers ... So the result is "hybrids - semi-aircraft carriers, semi-cruisers" and "super-reconnaissance" ...
  • Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 6 October 2015 10: 36 New
    +4
    TAVKRs may have been unsuccessful as aircraft carriers, but as carriers of anti-submarine helicopters were at their best. And the aircraft carriers of the USSR were unnecessary, unlike the Americans, who carried aggression through the "big puddle" (for the same reason, for example, there was a significant difference in the number of the USSR and US marines). But anti-submarine defense was (and remains) very relevant.
    The Ural first of all fell victim to the consequences of the "stormy" anti-state activities of the political leadership of the USSR in the mid and late 80s.
    1. Peterhof 73
      Peterhof 73 6 October 2015 10: 53 New
      +3
      I remember that the phrase "aircraft-carrying cruiser" was chosen as a forced measure, since under international maritime law, the passage of aircraft carriers through the Turkish straits is prohibited. And the TAVKRs were built in Nikolaev. With this name, they did not fall under the ban on the passage of the straits.
      1. Severomor
        Severomor 6 October 2015 12: 34 New
        +3
        Until June 1977 ships of pr. 1143 were called anti-submarine cruiser. Nobody made them aircraft carriers.
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 6 October 2015 12: 11 New
    +5
    I did not see a single ugly ship. All are built on the basis of completely pragmatic considerations. For example, an Australian ship. Yes, now they do not have the appropriate aircraft, but the ship lives not a single year. Can buy. Those. it is a reserve for the future. It's silly to laugh at it.
  • seregggca
    seregggca 6 October 2015 12: 39 New
    +3
    There is no bad technique. There is an improper use of it.
  • remy
    remy 6 October 2015 12: 45 New
    +1
    but for me it would be better to reanimate Bison ...
  • Maxwrx
    Maxwrx 6 October 2015 13: 20 New
    -2
    Nuclear engines should only be installed on aircraft carriers and ocean-going submarines. For everyone else, they are too expensive to build, operate, and dispose of. This increases the displacement. We make great I.R. , but we absolutely do not know how to do GTD. After they quarreled with Ukraine, now "Zarya" cannot even put on its bad engines. Here is the new cruiser Leader with y.r. We step on the same rake. I read and bought engines in Europe (primarily in Germany), now even from China we buy. Ashamed comrades.
  • Zoilent
    Zoilent 6 October 2015 14: 10 New
    +1
    "Elbrus computers are inferior in performance to any smartphone" - okay !?
  • Taoist
    Taoist 6 October 2015 14: 20 New
    +7
    Again Kaptsova flattens ... Damn, well, that's why he never puts IMHO? But in fact, all his "analyzes", if they say anything, only about the author's personal preferences (and delusions) ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 October 2015 15: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Taoist
      Again Kaptsova flatters ... Damn well, that's why he never puts IMHO?

      But why?
      To everyone who read his articles and comments to them, the presence of an invisible IMHO is already obvious. smile
  • Taoist
    Taoist 6 October 2015 14: 24 New
    +4
    I don't even want to comment on the TAKR project 1143. For I am also biased, since these are my "products" for which I was prepared and for which I myself have applied the TS. hand. But I advise the author to remember the simple truth that if he personally "does not see the gopher" then this is not a guarantee that he is not there.
  • Greyjojo
    Greyjojo 6 October 2015 15: 06 New
    +3
    1) TAVRK project 1143 are very different ships. Formally, the author lied 1143.5 "Admiral Kuznetsov" carries a group with planes of normal takeoff and landing, and also has a springboard, which supposedly is not there.
    2) what the author wrote refers to 1143.1-4 all the criticism refers not to the ship, but to the Yak-38 aircraft. What does the ship have to do with it? modify our Yak-141 and most of the "flaws" would disappear.
    In addition, it is a lie that the YAKs could not take off with a short run. Yes, there was no springboard, but a short run was introduced and allowed to increase the load capacity by 1000-1100 kg.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 October 2015 15: 18 New
      -1
      Quote: GreyJoJo
      what the author wrote refers to 1143.1-4 all criticism refers not to the ship, but to the Yak-38 aircraft. What does the ship have to do with it? modify our Yak-141 and most of the "flaws" would disappear.

      In 1143, the problem was not in the Yak-38. The problem was the artificially shrunken nomenclature of aircraft of the air group. Without the same AWACS aircraft - even the Yak-141, even the Su-35, land on the deck, and the air defense capabilities will be several times less than those of an AB with an AWACS.

      Further, let's say we replaced the Yak-38 with the Yak-141. Will our AB with such an air group be able to fulfill the standard task of the USA AUG - striking a ship group at a distance of 600 miles? With covering the strike group from the air and providing its actions with electronic warfare equipment?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 6 October 2015 15: 39 New
        +5
        TAKR is "NOT AIR CARRIER"! And nefig to demand from the car what it was never intended for.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 October 2015 16: 27 New
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          TAKR is "NOT AIR CARRIER"! And nefig to demand from the car what it was never intended for.

          Then why is he needed? If he cannot use on-board weapons before they start gouging them? In terms of strike capabilities and air defense, the same "small" 1164 covers 1143 like a bull a sheep.
          PLO? 32 ct anti-submarine? But will it not be bold? And most importantly - where will he look for his goals? Near the Yankees? Or in the area of ​​their AUG? Then he himself will have to be covered up - and very preferably by normal fighters. A miracle is wonderful, marvelous and marvelous - an aircraft-carrying cruiser, covered by coastal or even aircraft carrier aircraft. smile

          And also about "not an aircraft carrier". If that were so, the fleet would not have become painful. but systematically and steadily to grow from 1143 exactly normal AB. First with a springboard, and then with a catapult.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 6 October 2015 21: 30 New
            +1
            Remind you about the "gopher"?

            In general, simplifying Project 1143, this is primarily an "anti-submarine" ship. His task was, first of all, to cover the areas of deployment and access to the positions of our submarines. And in this context, its armament, both naval and aviation, is completely adequate. He could drive frigates and "Vikings" with Orions just like an elephant in a china shop. Do not forget this for the conditions of that time.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 7 October 2015 10: 25 New
              0
              Quote: Taoist
              In general, simplifying Project 1143, this is primarily an "anti-submarine" ship. His task was, first of all, to cover the areas of deployment and access to the positions of our submarines. And in this context, its armament, both naval and aviation, is completely adequate. He could drive frigates and "Vikings" with Orions just like an elephant in a china shop. Do not forget this for the conditions of that time.

              Which of the deployment areas? And even here, even in the 80s, the SSBN were on duty off the coast of a likely enemy - remember the boat of Britanov.

              As for the "Orions" with the "Vikings" ... the first one can come alone. But it is hard to believe in a single "Viking" - this machine (in the 70s) is part of the AB strike-anti-submarine or anti-submarine wing. And in general, it is difficult to imagine that a breakthrough to the areas of deployment of our submarines would do without AUG. So the enemy of 1143 in this case will be a full-fledged AB.

              In fact, even in the conditions of that time 1143 could cover the deployment and access to the positions of our submarines only within the radius of their coastal aviation. Isn't it easier to drive Orions in this area right from the shore?
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 7 October 2015 10: 57 New
                +1
                The deployment area is not a positional area.

                Not easier, especially while there were no coastal Su-27s.
            2. Severomor
              Severomor 7 October 2015 13: 03 New
              +2
              His task was, first of all, to cover the deployment areas and gain access to the positions of our submarines. And in this context, its weapons, both ship and aircraft, are fully adequate

              Right! Built like an anti-submarine cruiser. Others, 1143 initially had tasks, there were no goals to fight AUG.
              about Yaki:
              "In this regard, the main purpose is to be noted - the destruction of AWACS aircraft. That, when applied to the interests of the USSR Navy, could mean only one thing - the priority destruction of AWACS patrolling over the Norwegian Sea in case of war in order to ensure the deployment of Soviet strategic submarine cruisers. the task, taking into account the huge distances to potential targets, could only be carried out by ship-based fighters. a few minutes.It is also impossible not to take into account the presence of a strong fighter cover at the targets of the attack.And nevertheless, it was theoretically believed that in the event of a massive use of the Yak-36, the assigned task could be completed.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 7 October 2015 13: 56 New
                +1
                Everything is correct. And the 38th for these products was considered "intermediate" - more likely for experimental combat operation. They were supposed to be replaced by the 41st ... And there was already a completely different picture ... 41e any anti-submarine barrage was carried out with a guarantee. It is worth remembering that they were preparing for a global war, and therefore even 38x had a chance to open the "red packages" ... It was not for nothing that the suspension of "special items" was provided for on them.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 7 October 2015 14: 05 New
                  +1
                  Why is the Yak-38y worse than the F-104G which were used in an interesting way at a low altitude above the Baltic? By the way, these offspring of Lockheed crashed in percentage terms much more ...
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 6 October 2015 15: 46 New
        0
        It can - the Yak-41 has a longer range than the MiG-29, the same avionics and almost the same weapons.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 October 2015 16: 34 New
          0
          Quote: Scraptor
          It can - the Yak-41 has a longer range than the MiG-29, the same avionics and almost the same weapons.

          It is difficult to name an aircraft whose range would be shorter than that of the MiG-29 - "fighter conquest air supremacy over middle-range drive". smile

          And yet - a typical task: to strike at the enemy's AUG at a distance ... well, 400 miles. The range of the Yak-141 with a load of 1 ton is 2100 km. This means that the real combat radius is 600-700 kilometers (taking into account the gathering of the group, flight in formation and maneuvering when breaking through the air defense lines). 325-375 miles. And one ton of combat load. Minus 2 * R-73 - we get 780 kg of "shock load". Whom are we going to hang?
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 6 October 2015 16: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            It’s difficult to name a plane whose range would be less than that of the MiG-29

            And yet, in fact, the combat radius of the Yak-141 is the same as that of the F-18 ... The MiG-29 is a "front-line fighter capable of being based on dirt roads." In the USA, the A-10 can of course also, but ... laughing
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 6 October 2015 17: 28 New
              0
              Quote: Scraptor

              And yet, in fact, the combat radius of the Yak-141 is the same as that of the F-18 ...

              The maximum possible combat radius of the Yak-141 is 900 km. Suspension - 2 P-73, 2 X-25, 1 PTB 2000 l.

              F-18E has 390 nautical miles with suspension:
              four 1,000 lb bombs, two Sidewinders, and two 1,818 liter external tanks, navigation FLIR and targeting FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red, hi-lo-lo-hi

              That is, on the suspensions we have 4 bombs of 454 kg each, 2 "sidewinders", 2 tanks of 1818 liters each and 2 FLIR containers. Flight profile - "high-low-low-high".
              Plus, F-18s have the ability to refuel each other with the help of American counterparts UPAZ.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 6 October 2015 18: 58 New
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The maximum possible combat radius of the Yak-141 is 900 km.

                Is this from the Russian-speaking Dikipedia? There Ukrainians write about the Su-25 ... This has a combat radius of 1065, and the modern MiG-29 1030 (airfield). The speed is also 1,8 Mach and not 1800 km per hour.
                And why do you think that the Yak-141/143 would not know how to refuel? On airplanes, this device (rod) and PTB are put and removed without problems.
                This is Hornet vryatli when he learns to sit upright. laughing
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 6 October 2015 19: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Is this from the Russian-speaking Dikipedia? There Ukrainians write about the Su-25 ... This has a combat radius of 1065, and the modern MiG-29 1030 (airfield).

                  With what load and at what flight profile?
                  And then the same "Hornet" has as many as 3 combat radius.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 6 October 2015 19: 50 New
                    0
                    And with the same, and the combat radius of Hornet is about the same - 1065 km.
                    For the Yak-141, if it is less than 15 km, for the MiG-29 - another 30. Less than 1000 km only for field modifications. And if Hornets have to wait for each other for a long time when collecting a group, then SCVVP take off and land much faster. And in the event of a sinking or fire on an aircraft carrier that is "hooked", the Hornets will have nowhere to land. sad

                    The meaning of this small difference in radius is that classic deck aircraft should withstand large vertical and horizontal (from the hook) overloads. But the NKVVP is not needed - it sits softly, just like a helicopter or an airfield plane on a large runway. This strengthening of the design of aircraft landing in an arrestor is to the detriment of their aerobatic performance and possible fuel supply. Unlike the MiG-29, the F-18 also has an unregulated air intake, for example ...
          2. maximghost
            maximghost 6 October 2015 19: 49 New
            +1
            The Yak-141 was necessary to ensure air defense of the compound, if with their help they would attack water targets, then only those that feel sorry for granite (or a mosquito from a neighboring destroyer).
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 6 October 2015 22: 47 New
              0
              It was universal, but with a focus on work on the ground. SKVVP gaining superiority in the air was its predecessor, the Yak-41 (even before it, the subsonic Yak-39). Then they increased the wing, and introduced the like. changes.
              1. maximghost
                maximghost 7 October 2015 00: 46 New
                +1
                It was universal, but with a focus on work on the ground.

                No, 141 is primarily needed precisely as a fighter; work on ground and water targets is secondary tasks. The combat load, EMNIMP, is only 2,5-3 tons, without taking into account the ventral ptb.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 7 October 2015 01: 06 New
                  0
                  Yak-41y more like a fighter, Yak-141y with an enlarged wing - more to work on the ground.
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost 7 October 2015 01: 55 New
                    +1
                    The fact that the aircraft was added versatility, expanding its capabilities against ground targets does not mean that they intend to use it mainly against them. The main task 141, as before, was to be air defense units, everything else - according to the situation. There is an analogy with the su-34: it seems that it can carry medium-to-short-range air-to-air missiles and conduct a relatively effective air battle, but its main task is to strike at ground targets ...
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 7 October 2015 02: 12 New
                      0
                      A fighter-bomber is always worse as a fighter than a fighter of gaining air superiority.
          3. Taoist
            Taoist 6 October 2015 21: 32 New
            +1
            You do not see any other purpose for aviation apart from the "strike on AUG"?
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 6 October 2015 22: 48 New
              0
              Why should he? A-1 "Skyraders" and S-3 "Vikings" were probably also designed to strike at AUG or TAVKR.
            2. Scraptor
              Scraptor 6 October 2015 23: 27 New
              +1
              The trouble is direct, here the Taraws and Invincibles did not carry anything except the Harriers, but what is the demand from them?
          4. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 7 October 2015 13: 31 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Range Yak-141 with a load of 1 t - 2100 km.

            The same with the F-35 and they consider this a great achievement.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 7 October 2015 13: 53 New
              +1
              What is characteristic ... wink But in general, the F-35 has a smaller radius (the Wikipedia on Yak now shows the wrong one).
  • IAlex
    IAlex 6 October 2015 15: 16 New
    +7
    Here some talked about the Yak-38 and how bad it is ...

    How can it be bad if he got the design from the Yak-36, and the Yak-38 was released to work out decisions on the Yak-36 program so that all official grandmas would not be buried in the ground at the end of the Yak-36 program.

    The Yak-36 generally appeared due to the fact that the foreigners were carrying out design work on the charriers, and ours took a look and created a barely fit in weight and thrust engine for installing GDP in the aircraft ...

    The Yak-36 was a purely experimental machine, which took many years to create a general aircraft GDP. Its useful reincarnation of the Yak-38 could only appear after the vertical take-off engine created and tested on the Yak-36 could modernize and increase its power. Anyway, the Yak-38 was created thanks to the appearance of the ships of the project 1143 strike and defense ships with a small aviation wing to protect against submarines ...

    Since the USSR economy was not rubber, the territory was huge, and the strategy was designed for defense, the USSR spent colossal headstock on land resources, for the defense of its own borders and naval means of deterrence. Ships 1143 appeared as a result of scientific research in several areas during the Vietnam War when the United States used aircraft carriers as well. Since the country needed 1123 ships to protect, but the Yak-36 was touched, it was decided to create an advanced generation of helicopter carriers with auxiliary aviation weapons. Since the main task was 1143 to protect their own waters, as a result they were not very large, they received full-fledged weapons and boiler turbine plants, all the more so this option close to the aircraft carriers was shoved to stake out a place for the future creation of aircraft carriers based on 1143 helicopter carriers. At the same time in the USSR, universal DK 775 series are being created, for the support of which ships of the 1143 series with the Yak-38 would fit perfectly.

    As a result, the Yak-38 essentially performed the functions of a light attack aircraft of the Su-25 type, since in the USSR there were no normal long-range air-to-ground missiles, and the engines were weaker than on the Su-25, he did not receive radar and reservations although the radius with unguided missiles was quite acceptable 450 km. Later, when they tried to update it by installing a radar, it was necessary to remake almost the entire aircraft, because it was necessary to change the engine to a more powerful one with a change in weight distribution, which required the creation of a new airframe and electronics. Actually, since the ships of Project 1143 were anti-submarine for their own defense, and the Yak-38 was an appendage to helicopters, there was simply no reason to remake them. For these purposes, another Yak-141 aircraft was simply created, for the designed Ivan Tarava, where he could fully be realized ...

    When the USSR needed full-fledged aircraft carriers, full-fledged versions of the Su-25 and Su-33 aircraft were developed to gain air supremacy and work on ground targets, and the carrier based on project 1143 was also doped for them. And still, even projects 1143.5 were defensive, therefore, they developed purely as a continuation of previous helicopter carriers.

    For the offensive, the project 1143.7 was to become a full-fledged aircraft carrier, but it did not work out ...

    Therefore, it is funny when someone says that they were aircraft carriers, the 1143 first revisions were generally scattered defensive helicopter carriers to work out the backlog of shipbuilding and aviation that had accumulated at that time and nothing more.

    In general, it is extremely sad that the Yak-141 blueprints were sold to amers, with the modern economy of the Russian Federation, it was unrealistic to build and maintain full-fledged aircraft carrier connections, but UDC-type surf with the functions of guarding the Mi-28 and Yak-141 in order to assault and support the landing of the Russian Federation It would be quite drawn ...
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 October 2015 15: 52 New
      0
      Yak-41 is a fighter and not a ground attack aircraft.
      The Yak-36 was not an experimental aircraft - it just did not go into production. LTH look at it properly. When taking off with a short mileage, then everything was fine with them.
      The problem is to land the plane, especially if it is an ultra-short strip or a deck of limited size.
      Test aircraft were Bell X-14 and Rolls-Royce "TMR"
      Does Harrier look like a prototype? The problem with the Yak-36 was that it had two marching engines (one powerful which then stood on the Yak-38 was still in development, but it could be put on the Yak-36).
      1. IAlex
        IAlex 6 October 2015 16: 24 New
        +2
        Yak-141 was developed as a universal aircraft, including for the application of ground strikes.
        The Yak-36 was a purely experimental vehicle, for a military vehicle that cannot bear the combat load and was created in 4 exams is not serial ...
        The problem with aircraft is GDP at the moment when there is no lift on the wing (already or yet), but it is kept in the air and maneuvers ...
        And you do not confuse the case of experimental, serial and experimental, no? (I give 98% that you belong to the humanities and never did you do a real technical project from idea to sample) ...

        The Yak-36 / Yak-38 had no problems, because it and the designers were not required to what you want from him ...
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 6 October 2015 16: 46 New
          0
          Yak-41 - as a fighter (this is not the same thing, but the predecessor of the Yak-141). As a fighter Yak-141, due to its versatility, worse.
          The Yak-36 was created in 6 copies, or more ... For even an ordinary plane can be easily launched with a short take-off, Difficulties with short / vertical landing (see the 3rd minute) on a landing pad or runway of limited size.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q
          1. IAlex
            IAlex 6 October 2015 20: 56 New
            0
            The Yak-36 was not an experimental aircraft, because it was already proved on the basis of 1127 that it was possible to make a GDP aircraft, at a time when the Anglo-Saxons were making prototypes of the Harierra (I emphasize the word "experienced" for those who do not know, these are pre-production aircraft for working out solutions and design documentation, which, in case of non-compliance with the requirements or difficulties, simply may not go into series, after several created samples / prototypes) in the USSR, in order to catch up with the Anglo-Saxons, the prototypes of the Yak-36 were immediately muddied (since no one in the USSR could really say about the prospects of these samples), on which the GDP technologies were worked out, on this he died ...

            "As a Yak-141 fighter, due to its versatility, it is worse." - what does it mean worse ??? It can't be worse, it's like a shovel or a bayonet shovel - they are simply different and for different tasks, none of them is worse than the other. Airplanes are the same, they are for different tasks, and their characteristics change to meet specific needs ...

            I don’t know about any Yak-41 and their fantasy predecessors because I saw only the live Yak-141, and to it guided missiles for air targets, bombs and unguided missiles that are used on ground targets ...

            "For even an ordinary plane is easily launched with a short take-off run" - of course it starts, only one needs 0 meters, another 500 and the third 3000 m ...

            How is "mazahism with perversion" connected and aircraft not intended for landing and takeoff from fucking short runways and aircraft with GDP, for example, Osprey and Harier? As they planted hercules in advertising, you can also plant 747, make a wrong loop in the air and do not level the plane at the exit from it, but straight at full speed with the nose into the ground, but no one can surpass in the length of the run along the lane with approach ...
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 7 October 2015 00: 45 New
              0
              The Yak-36 was in a state of readiness for serial production in the troops. Then, when the powerful engine was ready to replace the previous two through the Y-fork, an order was received to remake it in the Yak-36M more similar to the VFW-Fokker VAK 191 B ... Because then the British were actually catching up, and also because the Yak- 36 in the long run, as would Harrier, it would be difficult to become supersonic.

              At the expense of the shovels, let others explain those who know how to use them, and the Harrier-FA fighter has a smaller wing than the AV-8B (boiled with the Harrier-GR), with the same load as the Harrier-FRS.1

              Of the non-fantasy predecessors, besides the Yak-41, there were also the Yak-39 (radar) and the Yak-38M (marine). Aircraft Yak-40 - civilian kakbe, does not count. Guided air-to-surface missiles were still on the MiG-23, not like the MiG-29.

              35m is enough for anyone if the glider can withstand overload.

              Quote: IAlex
              make the wrong dead loop

              Well, the S-130 is not an SKVVP - the successful landing shown in the video will not be vertical, and they have only one approach to landing using this technology.
  • Peacemaker
    Peacemaker 6 October 2015 16: 50 New
    +1
    Ural impressed! Too bad this ship. His fate would have been different; he could have served having unique opportunities.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 6 October 2015 17: 16 New
    +4
    Another article by Mr. O. Kaptsov is pure trolling in relation to the sailors of our fleet. I do not consider the technical side of the ships in my comments. As it turns out, there are more than enough specialists here. I will only write about the moral. For "Ural" I can not say anything, I have not seen it, and I am very far from intelligence. But for the absurdity according to Kaptsov for our ships, etc. 1143, I can say that it is difficult to come up with more dirty attacks. Not having served in the navy for a day to write all sorts of nonsense about ships, well, it's even fashionable nowadays. Fortunately, scoop everything from the Internet Wikipedia, like from a trash heap. whatever, and the "people" who "grab it", as you can see, will always be found. Obviously, for a huge number of minuses, this flatters his sick vanity. And, nevertheless, those who served in our fleet at the time of these ships were very proud that there are such ships in our fleet and very much hoped that they would develop into the construction of real aircraft carriers with horizontal take-off with catapults. Just give me a time! Yes, this would be our first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk" if the course of history had not changed dramatically. And without comprehending, designing, building and operating the "Kiev" and its sisterships, nothing would have happened in the future. Those who did not serve on these ships looked with quiet envy at those officers who had a bird with an anchor spread out in flight on their jackets on their right side in clawed paws made of gilded thread. We understood perfectly well that our science and industry had invested in these ships all the best that was in our country. And so it was. And the modern insinuations of new-made "specialists" are stupid and immoral. I am deeply convinced that such commanders of these ships as Gokinaev, Yasnitsky or Sanko would have challenged the author of this article to a duel, and the officers from these ships would have simply cleaned their beaks for Mr. Kaptsov for a sweet soul. I have the honor!
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 October 2015 17: 34 New
      0
      Yes, but, you know, the Indians asked to remove the whole rocket crap from the tank of one such ... A lot of officers (especially from pilots) would also clean up the beak of those who scientifically put all this in there.
    2. mosquit
      mosquit 6 October 2015 17: 54 New
      -1
      Not in the eyebrow, but in the eye! good
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 October 2015 17: 57 New
      0
      Quote: okroshka79
      And without comprehending, designing, building and operating "Kiev" and its sisterships, nothing would have happened in the future.

      Was it possible to comprehend the experience without throwing away people's money for the construction of four huge ships of unknown purpose? For example, by building a normal aircraft carrier instead, at least on the "Eagle" theme?
      And even if not to fall into gigantomania - after all, the French in the same displacement could make a full-fledged AB for jet aircraft, and even equip it with catapults. Despite the fact that the only existing French-built AV before that was only the unfortunate "Bearn"
      1. mosquit
        mosquit 7 October 2015 20: 39 New
        0
        Tell me the coefficient - Mooring at the pier (in the dock) / Combat duty at this "gravicap" (De Gaulle)? laughing
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 6 October 2015 18: 50 New
    +1
    Dear Scraptor! You would, in an amicable way, indulge in your thoughts on some of your American website. But I will still answer you. You, like many here, are trying to drag a ship, sharpened for the tasks of those years and a completely specific enemy, into the tasks of today and a completely different enemy. Namely: these ships were indispensable participants in the OS RUS (operational formation of heterogeneous strike forces) and anti-ship missile weapons were vital to the fight against the aircraft carrier forces of the NATO Navy. Since before the Soviet Navy, one of the first tasks with the beginning of the war was the task of combating the enemy aircraft carrier forces. But this is already from the field of operational art. From the pilots of these ships, with whom I personally had to communicate on "Kiev" and "Baku", I have never heard that the RK launchers somehow interfered with them. But the island, this one, yes, interfered. But without him, such a ship can not. I would also like to add for modern military experts that these ships had the most powerful FKP (flagship command posts), striking the imagination with their size and richness of control facilities suitable for controlling all the forces of the fleet at sea. And yet, it somehow did not reflect here, but these ships carried even the most powerful anti-submarine missile weapons, which were simply not available on other projects of our ships. Therefore, these ships were completely universal. The Indians now have different tasks at sea, and the time is different, and the methods of armed struggle at sea have changed. And there are some Hindu arguments too. Therefore, these launchers with anti-ship missiles, they apparently do not need anything.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 October 2015 19: 27 New
      0
      Quote: okroshka79
      Namely: these ships were indispensable participants in the OS RUS (operational connection of dissimilar strike forces) and anti-ship missile weapons to combat the carrier forces of the NATO Navy on it was vital.

      The trouble is that the Basalt's firing range is shorter than that of the AUG air wing. While the 1143 approaches the launch range, the Intruders accompanied by the Prowlers and Hornets will visit it more than once. How will we fight back? "Wave" and "Volkhov"? Or P-60 with Yak-38?
      Quote: okroshka79
      And yet, it somehow didn’t reflect here, but these ships carried an even more powerful anti-submarine missile weapon, which was simply not on other projects of our ships.

      Even at 1134A / B?
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 6 October 2015 23: 08 New
        0
        S-300F, Osa-M yet ... Hornets were not quoted, F-14 - yes. S-200 shot them well ...
        The R-60 will also take it. In addition to supporting the landing, the Yak-38s were supposed to drive anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft of a potential (still) enemy. Or the same Intruders. You see, with the help of artillery systems and anti-ship missiles, the landing force, when it moves a little from the beach, is not very well supported. It's better than nothing ...
        For that matter, then compare with Harrier. The latter, as a ground attack aircraft, was worse and his maximum speed was 100 km an hour less, that is, the Yak could leave him without getting involved in the battle for the umbrella of his naval air defense.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 7 October 2015 12: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: Scraptor
          S-300F, Osa-M more ...

          S-300F while developing the concept of 1143 is not yet.
          Quote: Scraptor
          The Hornets were not quoted, F-14 - yes. S-200 shot them well ...

          Hornets (or Phantoms) will go to cover the Intruders. In the 70s and early 80s, their Sparrow modifications are still quite effective. Hunting for sitting ducks ...
          Quote: Scraptor
          In addition to landing support, the Yak-38 should also drive anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft of a potential (so far) enemy. Or the same Intruders.

          The problem is that both "Vikings" and "intruders" will not go out to a fair battle 1: 1. It is not the glands that are fighting, but the structures. Structurally, attack aircraft and PLO aircraft are part of the AB air wing, which undoubtedly organizes cover for them from full-fledged fighters. Or even send out a clearing team.
          And instead of drive anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft, Yak-38 will be thinking about how to dodge the RVV, which they will shoot from outside the range of the R-60.
          Quote: Scraptor
          For that matter, then compare with Harrier. The latter, as a ground attack aircraft, was worse and his maximum speed was 100 km an hour less, that is, the Yak could leave him without getting involved in the battle for the umbrella of his naval air defense.

          Why compare with "Harrier"? RN would not be the opponent of 1143, but USN.
          Or did we build 1143 to butt exclusively with RN?
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 7 October 2015 12: 22 New
            -1
            The S-300 concept appeared even earlier ...

            The hornets are too far away. In war conditions, the Yak-38 would operate near its missile umbrella from the ships, during the threatened period they would chase and interfere with the PLO in which the range is much wider than even that of Tomket.

            Then what type is this. Attack aircraft with attack aircraft and air defense system with air defense system. RN was also an adversary. The 1143 building was already written by many (but not all) for what.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 7 October 2015 01: 37 New
      0
      Do you respect the great Icelandic people? wassat
      The anti-ship missiles (and everything else) could be placed on a dry cargo ship or in another "Moscow" next to it.
      There was no need for pilots to go there (especially when they launched anti-ship missiles), so they didn’t interfere. And from the first two positions, Yaki would be blown away (as with all of modern Kuznetsov). With the invention of TV cameras and periscopes, an island on a ship on which there was nothing but aviation was no longer needed. Thus - or as the reconstruction was done in Indian, or TAKR could be without damage to its actions the size of its corner deck, that is, almost 2/3 of its length. And such a ship is much easier to build.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 6 October 2015 19: 06 New
    0
    Here are some more arguments - Ustinov "hacked to death", other "boots" of something were cut off. Dear! Defense Minister Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov had a headache for all the Armed Forces and all their types, which needed to be armed and equipped with modern weapons. The defense budget, although the leadership of the CPSU said that we would spend exactly as much on defense as necessary, was not a rubber one. It is necessary to somehow feed the people and build housing for them. Medicine, education, social services, etc. Do not attack Ustinov, he is not at all to blame for this. Although, he had excesses, but in another. My personal impression is that he made the military dependent on industry, but not vice versa. But that's a completely different story. M. b. someone will write a smart and really useful article on this topic.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 6 October 2015 19: 57 New
      +1
      Dear! Defense Minister Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov had a headache for all the Armed Forces and all their types, which needed to be equipped and equipped with modern weapons. The defense budget, although the CPSU leadership said that we would spend exactly as much as needed on defense, still the rubber was not

      In 1989, the total military budget of the USSR amounted to 77 million rubles, including the budget of the Navy of the USSR - 294,2 million rubles. Of this amount, the sea budget for new military shipbuilding was spent 12 million rubles, and for technical equipment of the Navy - 090 million rubles. The total amount allocated for military shipbuilding was less than 2993 percent. funds from the total arms and equipment purchases by the USSR Ministry of Defense.
      Of the total funds for the new military shipbuilding in 1989, about 60 percent was spent on the construction of nuclear submarines, and only 10 percent was spent on the construction of aircraft carriers (despite the fact that three aircraft carriers were simultaneously under construction in 1989!).
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 7 October 2015 12: 21 New
        +1
        Ooh ... and I was waiting - when quotes from the famous post of uv. Exeter about the alternative development of the USSR Navy with the construction of 10-12 full-fledged AUGs.

        There was even further about grunting about the cost of a fleet of tankosecks. smile
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 7 October 2015 13: 04 New
          0
          This can be said "flowers", the conclusions of Kuzin / Nikolsky that the USSR spent 1,5 times more money on the construction of ships of the main classes than the USA is more interesting. They still have to check what
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 October 2015 21: 50 New
      0
      I’ll keep it in a comment - it’s just that someone suggested to him that the USSR steam catapult (in honor of something) that had just switched from steam locomotives to electric traction, could not be mastered. wink
      In addition - "aircraft carriers are weapons of aggression" ...
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 6 October 2015 22: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        steam catapult

        pardontel - steam engine laughing laughing laughing
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 6 October 2015 19: 49 New
    +1
    For Alexey RA! Let me remind you, or explain, OS RUS is called OS RUS because, in addition to surface strike ships, it also included MPA and spaceplark connections, which were the main striking force, and then the NKNK. Of course, various options for the use of our weapons were laid down and calculated in the decision to battle the OS RUS, including the possibility of covering our forces from the air of the Air Force IA from our coastal airfields. And, of course, the tactical capabilities of attack aircraft of the enemy and his other forces and means. Therefore, it’s not right to reason like that just like you. The second one. Yes, even 1134A / B.
  • Old26
    Old26 6 October 2015 19: 56 New
    +1
    Quote: Petergofsky73
    I remember that the phrase "aircraft-carrying cruiser" was chosen as a forced measure, since under international maritime law, the passage of aircraft carriers through the Turkish straits is prohibited.

    There were no such prohibitions. The ban was only on the use of aircraft during the passage of the straits. In addition, many provisions of the convention did not apply to the Black Sea countries ...
    But the fact that our political leadership, starting with Khrushchev, considered aircraft carriers to be a weapon of aggression is clear. And suddenly calling a new ship - an aircraft carrier - that would be politically incorrect
  • Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 6 October 2015 21: 13 New
    +2
    Uv.Kaptsov, you are well done, your articles are read and waiting, continue in the same spirit, most importantly, play with your own equal, ignore incompetents. praise and slander were received indifferently, and do not dispute the fool.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 October 2015 22: 38 New
      0
      Come to Kiev and ask who Panikovsky was before the revolution? lol (or ask google) bully
  • Taoist
    Taoist 6 October 2015 21: 23 New
    +4
    Quote: Alexey RA
    No. All available resources were used in the development of the "Eagle" theme. And 1143 is the result of cutting off a normal aircraft carrier with MO boots.


    You are not right. Etc. 1143 was never designed as an aircraft carrier. It is the logical development of anti-submarine cruisers of helicopter carriers of the type Moscow in the direction of greater universalization and expansion of capabilities of airborne aircraft.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 October 2015 12: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      You are not right. Etc. 1143 was never designed as an aircraft carrier. It is the logical development of anti-submarine cruisers of helicopter carriers of the type Moscow in the direction of greater universalization and expansion of capabilities of airborne aircraft.

      Speaking about circumcision AB, I had in mind the topic AB in the Navy of the USSR as a whole, and not specifically the design of 1143.

      1143 is the result of cutting off the normal AB in the sense that instead of the normal 1160/1153, these aircraft carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic had to be built.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 7 October 2015 00: 25 New
    -3
    The sailors scolded the Yak-38, they said that this was just self-indulgence. "Do you know the nickname Yak-38? Peacemaker. It could either be fully fueled or carry weapons. It had a ridiculous combat range and had no radar - only unguided weapons. In good weather, it could not take off. The Americans knew that if" Minsk "he came with helicopters, then he will do business, and if with yaks, he will be tormented by foolishness and can be ignored." - almost literally.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 7 October 2015 01: 00 New
      -1
      And they did not scold helicopters? Guided weapons were. Such a nickname was his predecessor. All he could. When the ship came with Yaki, they were going to see it, because they didn’t have such an airplane yet (later they copied English unlicensedly).
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 7 October 2015 14: 00 New
      +2
      Don’t tell me fairy tales - I served them ... Unlike Harrier, a yak could just take off vertically with full tanks and combat load. The thrust-weight ratio allowed. It was hard to pilot them with a full load - that's why they were not refueling for training flights.
  • serverny
    serverny 7 October 2015 13: 47 New
    +4
    A strange jumble of criticism of Jacob, misclassification of ships, praise of the Americans, then cursing the Americans at all for something that is worth scolding for. Comparison of ancient "Elbrus" with modern smartphones ...

    What kind of vinaigrette is this? What is the meaning of the article?
    Or did the author just have an attack of graphomania and he threw out an incoherent stream of thoughts "on paper"?
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 7 October 2015 13: 51 New
      +1
      A very characteristic set of signs ... I forgot about the batteries.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 7 October 2015 14: 30 New
    +1
    By the way (here I will add IMHO) personally, it seems to me that just the concept of TAKRs was optimal in those days and even more optimal in modern conditions.

    1) It was unrealistic to build full-fledged AUGs in quantities comparable with the USA for the USSR and even more so for the Russian Federation - and the 1-2 ships still did not solve anything. We cannot quantitatively catch up with superiority either.

    2) In addition to actually confronting other AUG, our fleet has no tasks for them. There is no such number of "overseas territories" to project the force on them ... And we cannot project all of the same on the "main enemy" - see paragraph 1.

    3) TAKR - a heavy universal combat unit that is able to both provide support (combat stability) of lighter forces and act in a "single" mode to solve local problems. Changing the composition of the airborne wing depending on the goals. PLO, air defense, AWACS connections. (I am aware that we do not have the required aircraft in the series - but they were created in due time and can be developed and refined today - especially if we take into account the capabilities of modern UAVs). The aircraft carrier does not require an entire squadron to ensure its combat service, this simplifies and reduces the cost of its operation.


    Modern TAKR is 25-30 with a tonnage of displacement (possibly a catamaran scheme) - an angular flight deck with the deployment of an air group in the 10-15 WRC + UAV DRLO and reconnaissance + helicopters (PLO and TD) with placement under the UVP PKR-ZRK deck.
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 7 October 2015 14: 59 New
      0
      May I add?
      4. Abolish the barrels in the raid and build normal berths.
      And if your IMHO comes true, then the fate will be the same with the new TAKRs
      Good luck
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 7 October 2015 15: 50 New
        0
        Well, the lack of normal coastal infrastructure is our eternal misfortune. And if you already build a new fleet, then you need to start from the coast. True, in Novorossiysk it seems to have turned out well ...
      2. pacific
        pacific 7 October 2015 21: 00 New
        +1
        At the TAKRs during raid parking, they developed the MCO resource. After all, I had to constantly drive 2 of the 8 boilers available.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 7 October 2015 22: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: pacific
          After all, I had to constantly drive the 2 boiler out of the existing 8.

          George, have you served in Novorossiysk since the flag was raised? I’m talking about this, in 1983, Novorossiysk was in Sevastopol and often stood at the float. I moored on Ugolnaya, as far as I remember, he ate from the shore column ... or not ???
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 7 October 2015 21: 25 New
      0
      The modern aircraft carrier is a 120-200m long conversion vessel of the "Atlantic Causeway" type with a continuous flight deck (it can be specially built for the best maximum speed). There is no need for him to go in solitary, for his protection of NK and nuclear submarines the fleet already has.
  • pacific
    pacific 7 October 2015 20: 57 New
    +5
    It is a pity that my respected Oleg Kaptsov, who always wrote interesting and informative articles about the fleet, suddenly gave birth to such an article.
    Although, I think that it is worth changing the name and everything will fall into place, at least with regard to Soviet ships and Canberra. At least - "Ships, whose capabilities were not able to properly use."
    However, the aircraft carriers and the Urals should still be excluded from this list. TAKRs were used for their intended purpose, taking into account their capabilities. I myself served in the mid-80s in Novorossiysk: they went out alone to "drive" Midway across the Sea of ​​Japan. They did not go far from the base - the range of the Basalts was quite enough for the entire sea from the Tatar Strait to Tsushima. Just do not think that we were heroes, and the command was idiots. From the shore we had cover and all the necessary information from ground-based radars.
    I know less about the Urals, but more recently I watched an interview which talked about the Urals. The general meaning is that they managed to use the unique technique only once during the inter-naval transition to the Pacific Fleet. And then with the collapse of the Union, the tasks for which a unique complex was created became irrelevant. Now, it seems like he is needed again, but alas - already stolen. And there is nothing to replace it with.
  • mosquit
    mosquit 7 October 2015 20: 58 New
    +3
    I never received answers from the author to questions ..
    Do you think that a helicopter and VTOL aircraft are essentially equal in nature to their aircraft?
    Do you consider the implementation of a helicopter and VTOL in metal to be comparable in complexity?
    Do you consider the complexity of the task of placing a helicopter and an aircraft (even VTOL) a ship?

    Well, about weapons ("high-precision") and about 10 minutes ...
    And for a "snack" A-4 was in service with the US Navy until 2003 ... Where is the "precision" weapon? !!!!
    One of the destinations of the A-4 was to deliver short-range nuclear weapons, but in the end, almost 3000 manufactured aircraft solved many other tasks.
    Armament: two 20-mm guns Mk.12 with 200 rounds per gun.
    The combat load - 2268 5 kg hardpoints
    3x 907 kg bombs Mk. 84, 9 454 kg bombs Mk. 83,
    14x 227 kg bombs Mk. 82,
    3 containers SUU-23 / A with M61A1 gun with 1200 rounds,
    2 containers of Hughes Mk.4 with a 20-mm gun with 750 rounds.
    4 launchers LAU-3 / A with 19x69 (85) mm NUR, as well as
    BLU napalm bombs, CBU cluster bombs

    The author is not far off ...
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 October 2015 14: 10 New
    +2
    All of these "ridiculous" ships
    relate to the period of the cold war.
    Cold is better than hot, but tested
    ships only in hot wars. And it may turn out that
    the ridiculous and ugly ship is the most useful, and the "logical" handsome
    drowns in five minutes.
    Nevertheless, experimental ships need to be built - who does not
    takes risks, does not drink champagne.
    Although, it is advisable not to make them giants - out of savings in public funds smile .
  • Shnd
    Shnd 11 October 2015 21: 06 New
    +1
    "The only purpose of the Ural was to monitor the missile range on the Kwajalein Atoll."
    And I think it could still be used for other purposes.
  • Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 5 October 2016 14: 50 New
    0
    EvilLion,
    Due to the fact that people like you and go on fuel oil, atomic energy should be used on all ships of this displacement and for autonomy, including
  • tundra
    tundra 6 October 2016 22: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    two Uzbeks came "Orus do not ponemay"

    The deputy politician played in our country.
    Tajiks were brought to us to the point, he leads them to stations like look here.
    They come to us at the public transport center, and our bulbs are blinking, the morse code is beeping, something loud is croaking.
    Everyone says here we want to serve, and in our own way, because in Russian no gu gu.
    Well, the desire of the draftee, the law!
    Someone at the household yard, which is typical of pigs, someone in the bath attendants someone in stokers.
  • Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 15 October 2016 09: 31 New
    0
    The author measures all by himself. The author of the article, a man who is poor in mind, is not given to understand that many points in science cannot be understood until you try to touch them. All of these ships, regardless of whether they were used or not, left their contribution to world shipbuilding. Their experience is taken into account in the future. The author - a couch analyst - is simply angry with the whole world for not sitting in the design chair and raking in fame and money, he is angry that he has no place other than his own sofa and keyboard.