Large anti-submarine ships of project 61

Late 1950s and 1960s - This is an era of great changes in the history of the Navy, an era of new capabilities and new weapons. This was primarily due to the advent of sea-based nuclear missiles, which turned submarines into strategic weapons. The appearance of nuclear power plants in submarines has greatly increased their autonomy, cruising range, underwater speed and, as a result, the severity of the threat they create ^[2] .

The second major threat at sea is new high-speed jets and cruise missiles, which made traditional artillery anti-aircraft systems practically useless in a massive air attack.

As a counter to the new threats, the active development of a new missile weapon designed to destroy submarines and high-speed air targets began. Initially, air defense and anti-aircraft missile systems were installed on converted artillery cruisers during World War II, but by the early 1960s. there was a need for specially built missile ships. In the USA, depending on the specialization, these ships were called escort destroyers or missile leaders; in the USSR, these ships were assigned the name "large anti-submarine ship" ^[3] .

An important feature of this period of development of naval weapons was the short range (hundreds of kilometers) of sea-based nuclear missiles, which forced submarines to come close to the enemy’s naval borders. Thus, anti-submarine barriers near their borders before the advent of long-range nuclear missiles were an important factor in strategic deterrence. In addition, anti-submarine ships had to ensure the combat stability of their submarines deployed off the coast of the enemy. ^[3]

In the USSR, the need to create specialized anti-submarine missile ships was recognized in the late 1950s, when it became clear that our fleet did not have adequate countermeasures to modern American attack aircraft and nuclear submarines. It was decided to create a layered anti-submarine defense, where in the far zone the boats were intercepted by helicopter carriers (project 1123) and base anti-submarine aircraft, and in the near - by small missile patrol ships, the first of which was the project 61 ship ^[4] .

The design of the ship began in 1956. According to the operational-tactical task, the functions of the ship included air defense of the formations of ships from attacks by aircraft and cruise missiles, as well as anti-submarine defense. The development of the project was entrusted to the Institute of Naval Shipbuilding. ^[five]

In the process of pre-sketch design was determined by the composition of weapons and its rational layout. A linearly elevated arrangement of air defense systems and gun mounts was adopted (one SAM and one gun mount in the bow and stern of the ship); sonar to reduce precipitation, it was decided to place in a retractable fairing; anti-submarine missiles were excluded from the arms, due to which the ammunition load of anti-aircraft missiles was increased to 24; the standard displacement of the ship was 3600 tons. When approving the tactical and technical specifications, it was proposed to consider the option of using a gas turbine engine on the ship. As a result, this option, which reduced the displacement by 400 tons, was adopted. Thus, the ship became the world's first large combat ship with gas turbines as the main engine ^[6] .

After the approval of the main tactical and technical elements in early 1957, TsKB-53, headed by B.I. Kupensky, began to develop a conceptual design. The technical project was completed and approved in 1958, after which at the plant named after 61 Communards in Nikolaev on September 15, 1959, the lead ship, the Komsomolets of Ukraine, was laid down. On December 31, 1960 he was launched, and on October 15, 1962 he was transferred to the fleet for state tests. The test program was fully completed except for full-speed tests, which were postponed due to the engine’s inoperability until 1963. A lack of sufficient stability and displacement was also found, but with a discount on the ship’s fundamental novelty, the result was found to be satisfactory.

Among other, smaller remarks, which were subsequently successfully resolved, there was insufficient reliability of the first Volna air defense systems and the Turret artillery fire control system. It was noted that the small radius of detection of submarines by sonar did not allow the use of anti-submarine torpedoes and RBU-6000 bombs at maximum range. Tests have confirmed the good seaworthiness of the ship, ensuring full speed when the waves are up to 4-5 points, good work of rocking dampers. The maximum speed of the lead ship was 35.5 knots, and on all other ships of the series it did not fall below 34 knots.

On December 31, 1962, after the signing of the State Acceptance Act, the ship was enlisted in the USSR Navy. In 1966, the creators of the ship were awarded the Lenin Prize. ^[7]

Initially, ships of Project 61 belonged to the class of patrol ships (TFR), however, on May 19, 1966, all ships under construction and under construction were reclassified to large anti-submarine (BOD). 6 ships converted according to the project 61-M / 61-MP (“Discreet”, “Fire”, “Glorious”, “Bold”, “Smyshlenny” and “Slender”), were assigned to the class of large missile ships on 06/28/1977 (DBK), but on 10/14/1980 they were returned to the BOD class. In January 1992, all remaining ships in the ranks were again classified as TFR. ^[eight]

Ship hull welded from steel СХЛ-4 (10ХСНД), smooth-deck, with a characteristic elevation of the upper deck to the bow and inclined bow. To ensure a high speed, he had very sharp contours (the ratio of length to width was 9.5). The main watertight bulkheads divided the hull into 15 compartments. The double bottom occupied about 80% of the ship’s length ^[5] .

A number of features had a general arrangement. In view of the possible use by the enemy of weapons of mass destruction, the ship provided opportunities for conducting hostilities without the presence of personnel on the upper deck and bridges, as well as other measures to increase survivability: a through corridor in the superstructure for a closed passage to combat posts, gas-tight vestibules , lack of portholes in cockpits. For the first time in domestic practice, the main command post (GKP) was located on the lower deck separately from the navigation post and was equipped with all the necessary means for monitoring the situation, controlling the ship and using all types of weapons.

The ship had a 90-meter-long superstructure with two masts, two bases under the antenna posts of the Yatagan control system and two double chimneys. The exceptionally large size of the pipes lowered the temperature of the exhaust gases, reducing the thermal visibility of the ship, and also made it possible to replace the propulsion system through the hatches located in them. To reduce displacement and improve stability, the superstructure, masts and pipes were made of aluminum-magnesium alloys. Only the areas of masts, launchers, antenna posts, and also the navigation post were made of steel ^[7] .

From the very beginning, two variants of the main power plant were considered - the traditional steam turbine (PTU) and gas turbine (GTU). The latter, due to its lightness and compactness (specific gravity 5.2 kg / l. S. Versus 9 kg / l. S.) Reduced the ship's displacement from 3600 to 3200 tons and increased efficiency. In addition, starting from a cold state took 5-10 minutes at a gas turbine compared with several hours required for a gas turbine. For these reasons, a variant with gas turbine engines was adopted ^[5] .

For the melodic whistle of gas turbines, the ships of the series in the Navy were dubbed "the singing frigates."

The bow and stern engine rooms occupied one compartment. Each housed the all-mode main gas-turbine gear unit (GGTZA) M-3 with a capacity of 36,000 liters. with. production of the "Southern Turbine Plant" in Nikolaev, two gas turbine generators GTU-6 for 600 kW each and a diesel generator DG-200 / P for 200 kW. The compartments between the compartments were occupied by auxiliary mechanisms (pitch stabilizer, auxiliary boilers). The fuel was stored in tanks of double bottoms with a capacity of 940 tons, 70 tons of fresh water for the crew and 13 tons of water for auxiliary boilers were also stored there ^[7] .

The total capacity of the power plant was 72,000 liters. with. Each GTZA consisted of two non-reversible gas turbine engines (GTE) with a capacity of 18,000 liters. with. with reversible pairing gear. Each gas turbine engine had its own exhaust pipe. Each of the two shafts had a four-blade fixed pitch propeller.

The use of gas turbines required the adoption of measures to reduce noise, which included a noise absorption system in the intake shafts, shock absorption mechanisms, sound-absorbing coatings. The engines were controlled remotely from special posts located in the premises of the power plant.

The anchor device consisted of two Hall anchors. The wheel is semi-balanced.

The weaponry of the new ship was innovative. For the first time in Soviet shipbuilding, it was equipped with two anti-aircraft missile systems (M-1 Volna). Each complex was a two-girder launcher ZIF-101, a control system "Yatagan" and a store with two rotating drums for 8 V-600 missiles each. ^[9]

The artillery armament consisted of two twin 76-mm AK-726 turret mounts (rate of fire of 90 rounds / min, range of 13 km, 9 km reach, ammunition of 2,400 unit rounds) and two Turret fire control systems.

The ship had a five-pipe torpedo launcher PTA-53-61 for SET-53 or 53-57 torpedoes with a “Zummer” torpedo fire control system, two rocket-propelled bombs RBU-6000 and RBU-1000 each (192 RSL-60 and 48 RSL-10 ammunition respectively) with the "Storm" control system.

The ship provided storage for 5 tons of jet fuel and ammunition for the Ka-25 anti-submarine helicopter (anti-submarine torpedoes, depth charges, sonar buoys), however, due to the lack of a hangar, only temporary deployment was possible.

Mine rails with stingrays in the aft part have survived, traditional for Soviet destroyers. Two F-82-T launchers were provided for firing passive radar reflectors. Protection from torpedoes was provided by the towed guard BOKA-DU and the demagnetizing device.

Hydroacoustic equipment included the all-round station "Titan" and the fire control station "Vychegda", located in the under-fairing. The detection range of the submarine was 3.5 km.

Modernization of the ship began even during construction. Since 1966, one of the two Angara radars has been replaced by the Cleaver radar.

• In the years 1971-1977. several ships (Ognevaya, Slavny, Slender, Smyshlenny and Bold) were modernized under the 61MP project, during which 4 launchers of anti-ship missiles P-15 were installed, the new GAS Platinum with wing and towed by antennas, and the RBU-1000 bombers were replaced by four 30-mm Vympel six-barreled anti-aircraft guns. The autonomy of swimming was also increased. The last ship of the series (“Restrained”) was immediately completed in accordance with the modernized project 61M . The displacement of modernized ships (standard / full) increased to 4000/4975 tons ^[4] .
• In 1975, the “Agile” missile defense complex was modernized according to project 61E , in accordance with which both Volna air defense systems were dismantled, and a new-generation M-22 Shtil multi-channel air defense system was installed at the stern in order to test the latter. In addition, the surveillance radar MP-500 has been replaced by Frigate-M. At the end of the tests in 1978, it was planned to install two more Shtil air defense systems in the bow of the ship, and then upgrade 4 ships of the series in the same way, however, these plans were not implemented. The displacement of the modernized ship increased to 3810/4750 tons. The Shtil air defense system was subsequently installed on project 956 destroyers.
• In 1976-1978 5 ships for the Indian Navy were built under the 61ME project . In the process of modernization, instead of the aft 76-mm gun mount and the Turel SU, a semi-recessed helicopter hangar was placed, and instead of the P-15 PKRK aft launchers, 4 launchers for P-20 missiles were mounted in the bow of the ship. It was also planned to replace the bow 76-mm gun mount with a 100-mm gun, but for several reasons these plans were not implemented. The ship's displacement amounted to 4025/4905 tons. Project 61ME ships were the first large warships built for a foreign customer.
• In 1990, BPC “Capable” was transformed into a pilot ship for testing new towed ASGs. The modernization was not completed, and in 1993 the ship was withdrawn from the fleet.
• The last major modernization under the project 01090 was carried out in 1990-1995 at SKM “Shrewd”. Instead of a stern artillery mount and helipad, a MNK-300 non-acoustic submarine detection complex was installed with a 300-meter towed antenna that receives the thermal, radiation and noise signal of the submarine. In addition, two 4-container launchers of anti-ship missiles “Uranus” (a close analogue of the American Harpoon missiles) were installed at the site of the RBU-1000 bombing raids, jammers-directors PK-10 and PK-16 were placed in the pilothouse, several new radars and SCRC control system. The total displacement of the ship reached 4700 tons.
• Three ships, which are part of the Indian Navy (Ranjit, Ranvir and Ranvijay), are currently being upgraded under the Brasos jointly developed Russian-Indian anti-ship anti-ship missiles (installation of a vertical launch for 16 missiles at the site of the aft SAM) Wave"). At the same time, RBU-1000 mountings are being replaced by the Israeli Barak self-defense air defense system (4 air-launched missiles with 8 missiles each).
• Modernization projects 61K (1961), 61bis (1964) and 61A (1965) were not implemented.

The military representative of the 61st Kommunar plant, Nikolaev, 1st-rank captain Dragunov Genrikh Vasilievich, made an invaluable contribution to the design and reception of the Volna anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as to several other main combat complexes of the project 61, and its upgrades.

Ships of project 61 were built from 1959 to 1973 in Nikolaev at the shipyard named after 61 Communards (shipyard No. 445) and in Leningrad at the shipyard named after A.A. Zhdanova (shipyard 190).

BOD “Smely” was leased and subsequently sold to the Polish People’s Republic . The column “Decommissioned” indicates the date of transfer of the ship to the Polish Navy , where it was decommissioned on December 5, 2003.

Project 61-ME ships built for the Indian Navy were temporarily assigned to the USSR Navy . The composition of the series is given in the project description. As of 2019, 4 out of 5 ships of the project 61-ME are in service.

The ships of Project 61 were a very successful series of Soviet BOD (de facto destroyers). They represented a significant advancement in terms of defensive systems in comparison with the previous class 58.

For the first time in the world, gas turbine units were installed on serial ships as the main drive. The number of functioning rocket launchers and fire control channels was doubled, and artillery was located more rationally, which made it difficult to strike the ship with enemy aircraft.

At the same time, in fact, as anti-submarine ships, Project 61 ships at the time of their construction did not fully meet modern requirements. Although the characteristics of both used jet bombs surpassed the RUR-4 Weapon Alpha installation adopted by the U.S. Navy in 1951 (surpassing the rate of fire by almost 2 times (RBU-6000) and by a distance of 6 times), but in 1960 it was armed with the American fleet a new family of anti-submarine weapons PLURK RUR-5 ASROC . В результате, возможности ПЛО корабля не соответствовали в полной мере требованиям борьбы с современным ДПЛ и АПЛ США, хотя этот недостаток частично компенсировался наличием 5 533-мм торпедных аппаратов, с возможностью применения противолодочных торпед семейств СЭТ и ТЭСТ.

Сравнение с ближайшими аналогами

В целом, как показывает сравнение, БПК проекта 61 были примерно равноценны современным им американским ракетоносным эсминцам. Важным преимуществом советского корабля была его ГТУ, гораздо более компактная, менее шумная, и способная практически сразу после запуска выйти на полную мощность без необходимости подъема давления пара в котлах.

Оба корабля имели сопоставимое противовоздушное вооружение: наличие у проекта 61 двух пусковых установок компенсировалось большей скоростью перезарядки американских пусковых ^[10] , кроме того, RIM-24 «Tartar» был в целом более дальнобоен чем «Волна».

По противолодочным возможностям, корабли несколько различались. Проект 61 имел более мощную ближнюю противолодочную оборону за счет наличия бомбометов и 533-мм торпедных аппаратов. Американский эсминец имел только 324-мм ТА (из которых на борт могло быть наведено только три) и не имел бомбометов, но зато наличие противолодочного ракетного комплекса ASROC давало ему значительное преимущество на дистанции 5-16 километров ^[11] . Кроме того, ASROC мог быть оснащен ядерной боевой частью, что позволяло эсминцам типа «Чарльз Ф. Адамс» наносить ядерные удары по подводным и поверхностным целям.

Несомненным и значимым преимуществом проекта 61 было наличие посадочной площадки для вертолета. Американские эсминцы, которые, как предполагалось в то время, должны будут действовать либо в составе авианосной группы (и прикрываться палубными вертолетами и самолетами авианосца) либо в составе противолодочного соединения фрегатов (несущих палубные вертолеты) подобного оснащения не имели, что в перспективе стало их значимым недостатком.

По возможностям поражения надводных и береговых целей, «Чарльз Ф. Адамс» существенно превосходил советского аналога, за счет наличия 127-миллиметровых АУ. В некоторой степени это компенсировалось наличием на БПК проекта 61 крупнокалиберных торпедных аппаратов, пригодных для стрельбы противокорабельными торпедами. Также оба корабля могли применять свои ЗРК для поражения противника. В целом, существенные различия в боевых возможностей кораблей объяснялись большей специализированностью БПК проекта 61 на противолодочной обороне и автономных противолодочных операциях, в то время как американский эсминец создавался как универсальный эскортный корабль, с меньшими противолодочными возможностями но большей универсальностью применения.

• Костриченко В.В., Простокишин А.А. Поющие фрегаты. Большие противолодочные корабли проекта 61.. — М. : Моделист-Конструктор, 1999. — 35 с.
• Заболоцкий В.П.; Костриченко В.В. Гончие океанов. История кораблей проекта 61.. — М. : Военная книга, 2005. — 192 с. — ISBN 978-5-902863-03-1 .
• Apalkov Yu. V. Ships of the Navy of the USSR. Справочник в 4 томах. - SPb. : Галея Принт, 2005. — Т. III. Противолодочные корабли. Часть I. Большие противолодочные корабли. Сторожевые корабли. - 124 p. — ISBN 5-8172-0094-5 .
• Апальков Ю. В. Противолодочные корабли. — Моркнига. — М. , 2010. — С. 147. — 310 с. - 1000 copies. — ISBN 978-5-903080-99-1 .
• Васильев А. М. и др. СПКБ. 60 лет вместе с флотом. - SPb. : История корабля, 2006. — С. 3. — ISBN 5-903152-01-5 .
• Заблоцкий В. П. Универсальный проект. СКР, БПК, БРК, ЭМ и фрегаты проектов 61, 61М, 61МП, 61МЭ. В 2 частях // Морская Коллекция. 2009 № 10. С. 1 - 32; № 11. С. 1 - 32. .
• Коваленко В. А., Остроумов М. Н. Справочник по иностранным флотам. — М. : Военное издательство, 1971.
• Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1947—1995. — Annapolis, Maryland, USA: Naval Institute Press, 1996. — ISBN 1557501327 .