We built aircraft carriers.

The film "We built ships - aircraft carriers," according to one of the film's authors, Valery Babich, is story how Nikolaev and shipbuilding arose, how this industry developed. "The film works on the prospect of cooperation with Russia," says Valery Babich.

In total, 7 aircraft carriers were built at the Black Sea Shipyard in Nikolaev: Kiev, Varyag, Kuznetsov, Baku, Novorossiysk, Minsk, and Moscow. The film tells the story of the unfinished aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, which was left unfinished due to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The first aircraft carrier "Kyiv" was built in 5 years under the director of ChSZ Boris Gankevich and was delivered in 1975. But the plant workers did not know that they were building an aircraft carrier, since the project was partially classified and it stated that the ship was not an aircraft carrier, but an anti-submarine one. And only in 1977 the anti-submarine ship was renamed an aircraft carrier. It was intended for landing MI-29 and SU-27 aircraft. The first landing of an SU-27 aircraft on board an aircraft carrier was made on November 1, 1989. This was the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov".

In the film, there are stories and opinions of veterans of the shipbuilding industry, among them Igor Ovdienko, Ivan Vinnik, Valery Babich, Oleg Hotlubay and others.

Duration of the film - 35 min.
Produced by Nikofilm studio with financial support from the Nikolaev-2000 charity foundation.
Director: Bayram Gadzhiev

Comments

[123_123]

There were times of cooperation. And times when it was one.

[opera fan]

It's time to create museums dedicated to the era of "Highly Developed Civilization." Take schoolchildren there and show them what their ancestors achieved.
Even for me, a 55-year-old, Soviet achievements like the 1966 landing of the Venera-3 spacecraft on Venus now seem like the unattainable fantasy of the Strugatsky brothers. Yet in my bright Soviet youth, such space and other USSR records were seen as routine.
I would rather believe in the military's "We can do it again!" Berlin 1945 and Paris 1814 than in Roscosmos, which will be able to repeat the Soviet achievement of 1966 with the Venera-3 spacecraft.

[yuriy55]

We built aircraft carriers.

Not us!!! But the older generation of Soviet citizens...
We have witnessed the cynical sale and theft of military and other property...And we are also becoming convinced of the leadership's inability to adequately repel enemies at sea...

[commander]

Why did we build aircraft carriers? How did we plan to use them? Surely, a commander on such a ship felt like a giant!

[ZAV69]

It's easy and simple to make fun of these days, it even comes out beautifully. During the Soviet era, tactics and strategy have already changed five times. And they'll change again. But in 1975, everything looked completely different. And our aircraft had a point. It's good to have them, and bad to not. Look at the Americans, they turned all their WWII battleships into museums instead of selling them on needles. So there's some point to it? They could have made a profit otherwise; there's a lot of metal there.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: ZAV69

And there was a point in our aviks

It still exists.
Patrol the seas to protect your trade.
Because even though an aircraft carrier is slow, it has a large radius of impact on the face due to the planes.
And this can be done quickly.

Quote: ZAV69

The Americans turned all their battleships from World War II into museums instead of selling them on needles.

I never understood why they used needles, but yes, the husbands did it AT THEIR OWN.
But there are 3-4 Soviet "missile carriers" floating around (and only 1 in Russia(!!!)) and at least 1 is a museum/amusement park. In China(!).
By the way, it would seem that it would be really possible to put tourists from Europe in Kaliningrad...
No, they sold it.

Fools at the helm, nothing less.

Not only did they move everything of value to their country before the collapse, but they also squandered everything that was left in the country.

Quote: ZAV69

So there is some meaning to this?

Yes. But this will take a long time.
Well, there is education, and profit is also in the long run.
But the buyers and sellers wanted it quickly and without thinking, without effort.
It's like the standard "close a factory, rental space, shopping mall, or development."
The era of stupid cheapies.

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: ZAV69

And our aviacs made sense. It's good when they exist and bad when they don't.

And you compare the American aircraft of those years and ours.

[bayard]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

And you compare the American aircraft of those years and ours.

Even the first four Krechets looked quite impressive against any carrier-carrying group. Because these weren't pure aircraft carriers, but aircraft-carrying cruisers, with heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles on board. If a Krechet had an additional missile cruiser in its escort (not counting other escort ships (anti-submarine, etc.)), their combined salvo would have been sufficient to guarantee the destruction of any carrier-carrying group at a range of 500-800 km. And if our carrier-carrying group also included one SSGN (say, Project 949), then even more so. Even without the use of nuclear warheads, which would hardly have been possible in a war with the US – against the US, only with nuclear weapons.
But the capabilities of American carrier-based aviation were, and remain, quite high. But we are comparing completely different ships and the combat tactics of naval groups based on them.
As for the Krechet air wing, it's important to understand that they weren't built as carriers for the Yak-38/39 (an interim variant), but for the advanced Yak-41—a supersonic, maneuverable, 4th-generation fighter, a VTOL aircraft at that, with combat performance even slightly superior to that of the contemporary MiG-29. But it was delayed due to engine readiness. Had the USSR not collapsed in the 1990s, all Krechets would have been armed with the Yak-41, which, as an air fighter, was at least in no way inferior to the Hornet. Considering that the Kuznetsov and Varyag carried the Su-33 and MiG-29K, and the Ulyanovsk, which was under construction, would have entered service in the mid-1990s (four of these were on order), which was already quite/almost on par with the Nimitz. So, in the 2000s, the USSR could easily have matched the US in the number of aircraft carriers, even though the weaker Krechet carriers (four of them), and even the Kuznetsov and Varyag, were armed with heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles, which seriously compensated for the weakness/small number of their air wings.
Regarding AWACS aircraft, we were developing the very promising Yak-44, whose propeller-fan engines had enough power and thrust to take off from the Kuznetsov or Ulyanovsk, even without a catapult. In other words, we had a better platform for a carrier-based AWACS aircraft in the future. I can't comment on the quality and capabilities of the radar and its hardware, as work on it was still in progress.
So, everything seemed to be going well with our aircraft carriers, but the well-known British naval saying goes: "A fleet takes a long time to build." So the USSR simply didn't have time to implement its plans and programs.
Speaking only of what actually happened, the Americans themselves admitted that they treated our ships with heavy anti-ship missiles... with due respect for their capabilities. It's just that our concept of naval warfare back then wasn't offensive/expansionist, but rather defensive, and our technical solutions were asymmetrical to those of the Americans. And it worked.

Quote: Panin (Michman)

Compare the American Avik of those years and ours.

So, compare our submarines of that period with those of the US. We had a class called the SSGN, while the US had nothing even close (they developed one a little later, but it was different). And if you look at our Project 941 "Akula"... Such a colossus could have stunned anyone. We didn't duplicate the US fleet; we were looking for our own paths, and the basing conditions of our fleet (freezing ports!!) were very different from the American subtropics. So don't be surprised by the differences in the fleets. Besides, the understanding of WHAT kind of fleet the USSR should have developed around the mid-80s. I looked at the ship designs, at the projects to modernize Project 1155 and the Sarych into carriers of the Onyx and Granat (the father of the Kalibr)... it was very interesting. We also worked on an analogue of the American AEGIS, installing a prototype on the Krechet to test the technology and software.
By 1988, the USSR had more than one and a half times more nuclear submarines than the US (almost twice as many), with our SSBNs carrying 950 SLBMs versus 600 on American SSBNs. We had SSGNs armed with monstrous supersonic anti-ship missiles, something the US didn't even have. But in terms of naval surface forces, we planned to reach parity with the US by around 2000. And we would have achieved it.
Minus is not mine.

[ada]

Quote: bayard

... And they would come out. ...

Hello!
The issue is complex and multifaceted, but the "damaging factor" of targeted ideological influence on the population of the USSR, used by the enemy against the potential of the post-war generations of the country as the engine of its development and, in particular, the disruption of the planned construction of the Armed Forces, is here - it caused significant losses among the ranks of the builders by the end of the 80s.
I worked with missile cruisers in the waters of the Nikolaev shipbuilding corps, while the names of the nearby heavy cruiser "BREZHNEV" and another ship were already being painted over. I also worked with heavy cruisers and missile cruisers in the Far East. My impressions were not the best. After all, shipbuilding is a much more complex and even more extensive research and production complex than civilian shipbuilding. It's not enough to simply develop its foundations; it must be integrated into the fabric of the country, with as much ramification and duplication as required by the level of resilience of the state structure under the impact of war. The difficulties with the construction and operation of large oil ships, including their basing, are indicative here due to the visibility of the facilities. But the same applies to everything similar in the country, with the rare exception of highly profitable enterprises. For now... with the rare exception.
I've already given you the timeframes and periods for the expected (probable) event; they haven't changed. Under these anticipated (probable) conditions/expected circumstances, the state will require a completely different approach to shipbuilding. And here, the same problem arises: the military challenge of finding a form for this process and ways to increase the resilience of the shipbuilding complex and fleet bases in combat situations, both on land and in coastal areas. And, if necessary (subject to the implementation of planned activities for the first and subsequent periods), even in remote areas of the seas/oceans.
This problem needed to be addressed proactively, and it always had to start with human resources. It is human resources that require high levels of resilience, as without them or their inadequacy, everything else loses its original meaning and leads to a loss of position on the global stage.
There's no time, or rather, there never is (although it truly does exist, precisely as a physical phenomenon), but we must begin merging military and civilian potential in every industry and every social subsystem of statehood. There are no other options for raising the country's overall scientific, industrial, military, social, and moral-legal standards, and there never have been any for such a spatially structured state. There is an external auxiliary mechanism for meeting needs in the pre-war and war periods, and a possible post-war one – a military bloc and a military-economic alliance of friendly countries. But! Regardless of its size and the full scope of its relationships, its potential is the defining condition of the future.
An abstract question: is the situation on the ground unchanged? Is there any progress with the water supply?

[Sensor]

The Americans turned all their battleships from World War II into museums instead of putting them on the market.

Russian ships museums https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9,_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8

[Akuzenka]

During the SVO, tactics and strategy have already changed 5 times.

No tactics or strategies changed in the SVO. They were all used during WWII. From assault group operations to clearing buildings. Just look at what happened in the USSR: squad (platoon) actions in attack and defense. Supporting attacks and setting up ambushes. And that's just tactics. There simply wasn't a single strategic or, in my opinion, even operational operation in the SVO. Perhaps only the initial battalion group surge and retreat (almost flight) because they "were tricked." And even then, it was all based on surprise.

[Sokolov_Vladimir]

The most trivial mission is anti-submarine warfare, dispersing enemy aircraft to allow our submarines to deploy. The photo shows the Vikramaditya, which, more as a compromise, has had its sonar antenna removed from its bulbous hull.

[papas-57]

But now they're proudly announcing the transfer of a patrol boat to the navy. It might even lead to inflatable boats.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

Soon, the sloop "Turboyak," owned by explorer Fyodor Konyukhov, will proudly represent the Russian Navy. Of course, this is a bitter joke.

[ZAV69]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

And you compare the American aircraft of those years and ours.

The Americans had been building aircraft carriers and fighting with them since the 30s. They even dragged the Pacific War into the hands of aircraft carriers. Our first aircraft carriers actually appeared in the 70s. They were practically experimental ships. So comparing them is pointless. The unfinished Ural, for example, could have been used. But... it wasn't finished.

[Akuzenka]

As the joke about the goldfish goes: "Man, you had it all!"

[Idle_piston]

[Quote]We built aircraft carriers.
The current state has already accustomed us, and we are accustomed to the past tense of "built, produced, led, were the first."

[Comrade]

In total, 7 aircraft carriers were built at the Black Sea Shipyard in Nikolaev: Kyiv, Varyag, Kuznetsov, Baku, Novorossiysk, Minsk, and Moskva.

Author, at least read Wikipedia, don't disgrace yourself and don't disgrace the site.
"Varyag" was not completed, even children know this.
And why did you classify a helicopter carrier cruiser as an aircraft carrier? But even if that's true, where is the Leningrad, a sister ship to the Moskva?

The Soviet Union built two helicopter-carrying cruisers and five aircraft-carrying cruisers. The unfinished Varyag was acquired by Ukraine, which sold it to China for twenty million dollars. This is the official price; only a select few know the actual figure.