The mystery of the death of the Russian gunboat Donets. One thousand rubles for the nuclear missile carrier Cable ships of project 1274 Inguri
The Kamchatka Transport Prosecutor's Office completed an investigation into the collision of the Donets vessel with a submarine in September last year. The ship's captain was found guilty of violating navigation rules and fined.
Let us recall the circumstances of this incident. The RS “Donets” (LLC “Rybolovnoe”) operated in coastal fishing mode: it went fishing at night, and returned to the city with the catch in the evening of the next day. On September 21, another flight awaited him. At about 2 a.m. he left berth No. 10, located in Mokhovaya Bay. At that time, the nuclear submarine "St. George the Victorious" was stationed in the bay. It was less than a mile from the shore.
At 02.10 the hulls of the seiner and the submarine touched.
Fortunately, none of the crew members of the ship or the nuclear submarine were injured. The submarine received minor damage.
“St. George the Victorious,” like all Soviet nuclear submarines, has two hulls. Ballast tanks are placed between them, with the help of which the boat sinks and floats up. As a result of the incident, a crack formed in the main ballast tank between the hulls and on the outer side of the submarine. Repair work to restore the tank's tightness cost approximately 27 thousand rubles.
It is worth emphasizing that the nuclear submarine was preparing to go to sea. This forced the military to carry out repairs in a short time. If they had more time, the submarine would probably be docked, which is much more expensive, and these costs would fall on those responsible.
“Donets” turned out to be stronger. No damage to the hull plating or welding seams in the area of impact (at a depth of 0.4 m from the waterline) was found.
How could the collision happen?
According to the seiner's crew members, events developed as follows. The running watch on the bridge was carried out by the 2nd mate and the watch sailor-helmsman. They did not observe any indicating lights on the submarine. The boat was not reflected on the radar screen. When the fishermen finally saw the submarine, there were 100-150 m left to it. The helmsman was given the command “right on board”. However, given the speed of the vessel (5 knots per hour), it was not possible to avoid touching the hull of the nuclear submarine.
However, this story did not sound very convincing. As fishermen from another vessel (MRTK “Kormchiy”), which was moving in the opposite direction at the time of the incident, said, a yellow flashing light was burning on the submarine. It was visible at a distance of at least 5 miles. Visibility was complete. The nuclear submarine was clearly observed visually and displayed on the radar screen.
Maybe the equipment on the Donets was faulty? The check showed that the communications, surveillance and navigation equipment was in good condition.
As a result, after assessing all versions of what happened, it was concluded that the cause of the incident was the improper organization of watchkeeping and navigation at the Donets RS. In particular, a lookout sailor was not assigned to the watch.
The Kamchatka Transport Prosecutor's Office opened an administrative case against the ship's captain, K. Gaidamovich, under the article "violation of navigation rules." The case was considered by the administration of the seaport of Petropavlovsk. The captain was fined one thousand rubles. In addition, on the recommendation of the transport prosecutor's office, he was brought to disciplinary liability.
On October 29, 1914, during the First World War, she was sunk in Odessa. gunboat "Donets" by a Turkish destroyer under strange circumstances.
To this day, it is not entirely clear who was pleased with the death of the Russian gunboat Donets.
Then 30 Odessa sailors died. Until now, submariners in Odessa honor the memory of those who died. On October 29, at the Odessa Second Christian Cemetery near the memorial to those killed on the Donets boat, the Association of Submariners named after. A. I. Marinesko with the participation of cadets of the Nautical School named after. A. I. Marinesko ONMA organizes a memorial meeting.
Surprise attack
On October 16, 1914, according to the old style, the Turkish destroyers Muavenet and Gayret, belonging to the German-Turkish fleet, entered Odessa Bay under cover of darkness and easily sank the gunboat Donets. 30 crew members were killed, 107 people were on the shore at the time of the shelling. At the same time, the Donets boat was part of the defense detachment of the northwestern region of the Black Sea, that is, its mission was to defend Odessa and the sea approaches to it.
The strangeness of what happened is that on that ill-fated night, as usual, “Donets” was in contact with observation posts located on the shore, on the Bolshoi Fountain. That is, information about the movement of ships at sea should have been received. It was known that there were Turkish ships in it, according to scientists of the last century. All measures to protect the boat were taken. At least, that’s what the commander wrote in his report after the attack and death of “Donets”.
Then why was most of the crew on the shore and why, when a possible attack by Turkish destroyers was announced, no measures were taken to strengthen security?
Then in October 1914, the commander of the Turkish fleet, German Admiral Souchon, who wanted to drag Turkey into the war, led all available high-speed ships of the fleet to Russian ports.
The attack on all ports was supposed to begin almost simultaneously, but the commander of the destroyer detachment, Corvette-Captain Mudlung, rushed to attack Odessa much ahead of schedule, which aggravated the situation, Odessa naval historian Igor Alekseev justifies the situation.
And Odessa submarine sailors, led by Evgeniy Livshchits, believe that the cause of the tragedy is banal. War is war, the attack was sudden.
Negligence or political move?
Maritime historians of the last century were much more strict. They did not spare the Black Sea Fleet in their criticism, calling it helpless. For example, in the 30s of the twentieth century, historian Nikolai Novikov took up the investigation of the death of “Donets”. His book “Fleet Operation Against the Coast on the Black Sea in 1914-1917.” was very popular and went through more than one edition.
At about 2:30 am, the signalmen of the Bolshoi Fontan observation post noticed an unclear fire in the sea through the darkness, which remained in one place for a long time, Novikov says in the book.
The foreman of the post reported this to the coastal department of the port, from where they replied that at the moment two steamships were leaving Odessa and, probably, the fire of one of them was visible to the post.
Despite the fact that the signalmen were inclined to attribute the fire they noticed to a boat or low-sided vessel, the foreman did not attach any importance to this phenomenon and was content with the answer from the coastal department, why he did not report anything to the Donets. At about 3:20 a.m., the silhouettes of two ships appeared from behind the Vorontsovsky lighthouse, sailing with all their running lights installed. The actual identification that these were destroyers occurred only at the moment when the latter had already entered the harbor and were abeam of the Donets.
As soon as the watch commander of the latter sent to warn the commander about this and he himself rushed to the left 152-mm gun, one of the destroyers, "Gayret", fired a torpedo at the "Donets" from a distance of no more than half a cable, which exploded in the bow boiler room, forming a hole near 1 sq m, with a strong tear in the adjacent sheathing sheets.
The explosion occurred at 3:25 am. The boat quickly sank with its nose and, tilting to the left side, began to sink so quickly that the personnel who jumped up were no longer able to offer any resistance and had to worry about their salvation.
After all the circumstances of the Turks’ attack on Odessa residents were restored, the author concluded:
The security measures taken on the ships of the Odessa detachment and approved by the command, with their primitiveness and naivety, particularly clearly indicate the inability of the local naval command to take into account the situation and find the right solution.
In the Odessa part of the fleet, they find themselves completely unprepared to establish the simplest types of security for themselves and their bases. The Black Sea command had enough time to perceive these instructions and introduce them into the consciousness of the command staff.
Why the fleet and the Donets crew behaved strangely, whoever wanted it, is not completely clear. It’s a shame if the really dead sailors became victims of carelessness, and perhaps pawns in political games.
Thirty sailors from the sunken boat “Donets” are buried in the Odessa Second Christian Cemetery. The grave was abandoned for many years. But thanks to the efforts of the Odessa Association of Submariners named after. The A.I. Marinesko Memorial was restored several years ago. Every year memorial meetings are held there.
Snezhana Pavlova
Photo from the archives of the Association of Submariners named after. A. I. Marinesko
Historical background
Gunboat "Donets"
TTD:
Displacement: 1280 tons.
Dimensions: length - 67.2 m, width - 12.2 m, draft - 3.7 m.
Maximum speed: 13 knots.
Cruising range: 2100 miles at 6 knots.
Power plant: 2 horizontal triple expansion steam engines, 4 boilers, 2 propellers, 1819 hp.
Armament: 2x152mm, 1x120mm, 2x1 75mm and 4x1 47mm guns, 2x1 7.62mm machine gun.
Crew: 137 people.
Ship history:
Ordered as part of the 1895 shipbuilding program. It was built according to the drawings of the gunboat "Manjur". A total of 6 ships were built, differing in the main mechanisms, the design of the chimneys, the sail size and the general layout of the premises.
She was included in the list of ships of the Black Sea Fleet on January 30, 1886, laid down on May 21, 1886 at the boathouse of the Nikolaev Admiralty in Nikolaev, launched on November 30, 1887, and entered service in 1889.
Periodically it was part of the Mediterranean squadron and the practical squadron of the Black Sea. In 1891 she participated in complex oceanographic research.
She underwent a major overhaul of the hull and mechanisms in 1900 at the Black Sea Plant in Nikolaev with the replacement of fire tube boilers with water tube boilers, replacement of the spar and flooring of the upper deck. In addition, cargo booms for mines were installed.
Since 1901 she was used as a training ship. A repeated major overhaul took place in 1912 in the Sevastopol port with rearmament. On October 29, 1914, she was sunk in Odessa by a Turkish destroyer. In December 1914, it was raised and, after repairs, put back into service.
During the First World War she was part of a guard detachment on the northwestern coast of the Black Sea. From August 1916 - part of the Danube Flotilla. On January 18, 1918, she went over to the side of Soviet power. On May 1, 1918, it was captured by German troops in Sevastopol, in November 1918 by the White Guards, and in December 1918 by the Anglo-French interventionists. Since April 1919, it was part of the naval forces of the South of Russia.
In May 1919, it sank during a storm near the Tendrovskaya Spit.
On November 28, 1921, it was raised and put into storage at the port, and in 1928 it was dismantled for metal.
A conceptual design for a cable vessel has been developed
A conceptual design of a cable vessel has been developed. Specialists from the 5th department of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Krylov State Scientific Center" within the framework of the Federal Target Program "RGMT 2009-2016" have developed a conceptual design of a multi-purpose cable vessel with a modern integrated control system to ensure underwater work on laying cable communication lines and carrying out underwater work at sea .
The main task carried out by the Krylov State Research Center was the development of documentation for the conceptual design of a cable ship, analysis of the existing national and foreign scientific, technical and technological background on technical solutions, configuration of cable ship equipment and related systems in terms of experience in the design, construction and operation of cable ships.
During the work, design documentation was developed for the conceptual design of the cable vessel. The appearance of cable vessels for the marginal seas of Russia and the Arctic has been clarified. The main design decisions are justified. A list of components has been prepared. Calculations of mass load, stability and unsinkability, propulsion, fuel consumption in the main operating modes of a cable vessel were carried out.
Proposals have been prepared for inclusion in the feasibility study for the creation of a domestic cable ship and proposals for the fundamental construction technology. A technical specification for the development of a technical design for a cable vessel has been prepared. Methodological solutions and modern trends used in the design of cable ships and equipment for them and a study of the world technical level for the proposed technical solutions have been identified.
During the development of the conceptual design, the main characteristics of the large cable vessel were determined. The length of the vessel is 133.5 m; width – 21 m, draft – 6 m, displacement – 10274 tons.
During the development of the conceptual design of the cable vessel, its appearance was formed.
The vessel is an icebreaking type and has a developed superstructure, in which hangars for working with cables, technical and living quarters are located. In the upper part of the superstructure there is the main wheelhouse and a reception area for helicopters of the Ka-27 type. In the aft part of the superstructure there is a backup navigation bridge with control posts for cable-laying equipment.
The vessel is equipped with a set of cable-laying equipment that provides automated cable laying from the stern of the vessel and cable repair from the bow. A set of equipment is also provided that supports and is involved in the process of cable-laying work in ice conditions.
To store the cable being laid, two main cable containers and two reserve ones are provided; the total weight of the loaded cable reaches about 5500 tons. The main characteristic feature of cable tenks is its water resistance. The need to create a waterproof storage is due to cable testing by filling the tenx with water.
The developed cable vessel, unlike foreign analogues, is distinguished by its ability to carry out work in ice conditions, the coastal zone of the Arctic shelf of Russia, as well as the Far East. In addition to the increased class of ice reinforcements, a cable vessel, which provides not only the ability to carry out work in ice conditions, but also, if necessary, hidden installation of special equipment. The presence of developed technological equipment and a sufficiently large number of premises for command and maintenance personnel, if necessary, allows the use of this vessel as a research vessel, in a number of options as a diving vessel and, if necessary, a headquarters vessel with appropriate additional equipment.
The features of the developed cable vessel distinguish it from typical cable vessels, in particular those offered by foreign companies, and give it the status of “Unparalleled in its class.” The work was carried out within the framework of the Federal Target Program "Development of Civil Marine Equipment 2009 - 2016" on the basis of Agreement No. 167-52/12 dated July 30, 2012, concluded between the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Krylov State Scientific Center" and OJSC "Research Institute "Atoll".
Text: Press service of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Krylov State Scientific Center"
Illustration: Press service of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Krylov State Scientific Center"
SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
DEFINITION
Case No. 71-B07-9
The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, consisting of:
presiding Zelepukin A.N.,
judges Gulyaeva G.A.,
considered in a court hearing on August 3, 2007 a civil case based on P.’s claim against the State Institution - the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Baltic Urban District of the Kaliningrad Region for the recognition of the right to assign an early retirement pension and the recovery of compensation for moral damages based on P.’s supervisory complaint. to the resolution of the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court dated September 11, 2006, which canceledthe decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of second instance regarding the recognition of the right to assign an early retirement pension in old age and a new decision was made to refuse to satisfy the claims in this part.
Having heard the report of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation G.A. Gulyaeva, Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
installed:
P. brought this claim to court, citing the fact that on August 11, 2005 he applied to the State Institution - the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Baltic urban district of the Kaliningrad region with an application for the appointment of an early retirement pension on the basis of subparagraph 9 of paragraph 1 of Article 27 Federal Law of December 17, 2001 N 173-FZ “On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation”Federation." However, by the decision of the pension authority dated September 12, 2005, the application was refused with reference to the lack of the required special work experience. Moreover, the special work experience that gives the right to early assignment of an old-age labor pension does not include the period of his work on the crew of the cable company. vessel "Donets" from January 1, 1998 to August 11, 2005, since there is no information confirming special working conditions.
The defendant did not admit the claim.
By the decision of the Baltic City Court of the Kaliningrad Region dated December 21, 2005, P.’s claims were partially satisfied. P. has been recognized with the right to an early retirement pension in old age on the basis of subparagraph 9 of paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law of December 17, 2001 N 173-FZ “On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation” from August 12, 2005 and to the State Institution - Management The Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Baltic urban district of the Kaliningrad region has been charged with assigning P. early employment old age pension from August 12, 2005; the claims for compensation for moral damage were rejected.
By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Kaliningrad Regional Court dated February 8, 2006, the decision was left unchanged.
By a resolution of the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court dated September 11, 2006, these court decisions were canceled in terms of recognition of the right to an early retirement pension in old age, and a new decision was made to refuse to satisfy the claims in this part.
In the supervisory appeal, P. asks to cancel the decision of the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court of September 11, 2006 and to uphold the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of second instance.
By the ruling of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 6, 2007, the case was requested to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and by the ruling dated June 28, 2007, it was transferred for consideration to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Having checked the case materials and discussed the arguments of the supervisory appeal, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds it subject to satisfaction.
In accordance with Article 387 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the grounds for canceling or changing court decisions in the manner of supervision are significant violations of substantive or procedural law.
When considering this civil case, a significant violation of the norms of substantive law was committed by the supervisory court.
Canceling the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of second instance in part and refusing to satisfy P.’s demands for recognition of the right to an early retirement pension in old age, the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court proceeded from the fact that, on the basis of subparagraph 9 of paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law dated December 17, 2001 N 173-FZ "On labor pensions in the Russian Federation" lawfor the early assignment of an old-age labor pension arises in connection with special working conditions, and therefore only those periods when ships of the sea, river fleet and fishing industry fleet were at sea, and the work of the crew of these ships was associated with special climatic working conditions, long separation from the shore, in difficult weather and climatic conditions.
The panel of judges finds this conclusion of the supervisory court illegal, based on incorrect application and interpretation of substantive law.
In accordance with subparagraph 9 of paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law of December 17, 2001 N 173-FZ “On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation,” an old-age labor pension is assigned before reaching the age established by Article 7 of this Federal Law for men upon reaching the age of 55 years , women upon reaching the age of 50, if they have worked for at least 12 years and 6 months respectivelyand 10 years as a crew member on ships of the sea, river fleet and fishing industry fleet (with the exception of port ships permanently operating in the port waters, service and auxiliary and traveling ships, suburban and intracity vessels) and have an insurance period of at least 25 and 20, respectively years.
Based on the literal interpretation of this norm of the Law, the crew of ships of the sea, river fleet and fishing industry fleet enjoys the right to early retirement, regardless of the type of work performed (transportation of goods, passengers or production of fish, seafood, acceptance of finished products in the field or other work), from the name their professions and positions. The departmental affiliation of the relevant courts, as well as the organizational and legal form and form of ownership of the shipowner does not matter.
In this case, it is necessary to provide documentary evidence that the employee’s position belongs to the seafaring crew, and the vessels on which he worked do not belong to port vessels, those constantly operating in the port waters, service and auxiliary vessels, traveling vessels, suburban and intracity traffic.
Previously existing pension legislation contained similar provisions, which directly follows from the meaning of subparagraph “i” of paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On State Pensions in the Russian Federation” of November 20, 1990.
It should also be taken into account that in accordance with paragraph 9 of the instructions of the Ministry of Social Protection of the Russian Federation of April 20, 1992 N 1-28-U “On the procedure for applying the RSFSR Law “On State Pensions in the RSFSR” when assigning pensions in connection with special working conditions and pensions for length of service years" in special experience along with periods of work as a member of the sea and river fleet vessels for the transportation of passengersand cargo or as part of the fishing industry fleet for the extraction and processing of fish and seafood, as well as other work during the voyage, some periods immediately preceding or immediately following such work are included. Pre-deployment of the ship's crew to perform a voyage assignment includes a paid reserve and periods when a crew member is used in his specialty for repairs and other work necessary to send the ship on a voyage. The following periods after the end of the voyage include the following periods: the vessel's stay in the port for loading and unloading operations, inter-voyage maintenance of the vessel or its repair, the presence of crew members at the end of the voyage on main and additional leaves, paid reserve and time off, paid maternity leave parental leave until reaching the age established by law (but no later than October 6, 1992, when Article 167 of the Labor Code came into force as amended, excluding this possibility), temporary disability, being on business trips, as well as other periods when not requires transfer to another job.
When resolving the dispute, the court of first instance established that P. has been working as the second electrician of the cable ship "Donets" since November 10, 1994. The position of the second electromechanic is included in the staff of this vessel, in connection with which the court came to the correct conclusion that the position held by P. belongs to the crew of the cable vessel "Donets".
Also, the court of first instance established that the cable ship “Donets”, in terms of its tactical and technical characteristics, belongs to the category of naval vessels and its status during the disputed period, i.e. from January 1, 1998 to August 11, 2005, did not change. During the specified period, the ship "Donets" was continuously in the campaign (constant operational readiness No. 1), and P., during a full working day, performed work in his specialty on repairs and other work necessary to send the ship on its voyage.
Under such circumstances, the court of first instance came to the correct conclusion about inclusion in the special work experience, which gives the right to early assignment of an old-age labor pension on the basis of subparagraph 9 of paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law of December 17, 2001 N 173-FZ "On Labor Pensions in Russian Federation" during the period of P.'s work as the second electrician of the cable ship "Donets" from January 1, 1998years to August 11, 2005.
Taking into account the above, the Judicial Collegium recognizes the decision of the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court dated September 11, 2006 regarding the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the second instance court and the adoption of a new decision as illegal, and the decision of the Baltic City Court of the Kaliningrad Region dated December 21, 2005 and the ruling of the judicial panel in civil cases of the Kaliningrad Regional Court of February 8, 2006in terms of satisfying P.’s requirements as correct and subject to upholding.
Guided by Articles 387, 390 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
determined:
Resolution of the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court dated September 11, 2006 regarding the cancellation of the decision of the Baltic City Court of the Kaliningrad Region dated December 21, 2005 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Kaliningrad Regional Court dated February 8, 2006 and the adoption of a new decision to refuse to satisfy P. on the recognition of the right to assign an early labor pension in old age to cancel. Uphold the decision of the Baltic City Court of the Kaliningrad Region dated December 21, 2005 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Kaliningrad Regional Court dated February 8, 2006 regarding the satisfaction of P.’s demands for recognition of the right to an early retirement pension in old age.
- Published: 10/22/2015 19:44
- Views: 132693
- " onclick="window.open(this.href," win2 return false > Print
Page 21 of 25
Base system support vessels.
Base system support vessels primarily include: cable vessels
(KBS), killers (KIL), port icebreakers (PTLD), port (road) tugs (RB) and floating barracks (PKZ).
The main purpose of the KBS is the laying, lifting and repair of submarine communication cables. These vessels service cables not only for military purposes. The construction of the KBS for the USSR Navy was carried out in Finland.
The rapid development of the Northern and Far Eastern regions required the creation of a large KBBS (BCBS) for the development of a system of long underwater communication lines. This KBS was designed in the late 50s at the Vyartsilya shipyard according to the specifications of the USSR Navy and under the supervision of its specialists. The vessel's carrying capacity was determined to be 2,400 tons of cable and 270 tons of other cable equipment. The total displacement of the BKBS reached 6,810 tons. The BKBS was equipped with two bow 20-ton winches and two mobile winches. BCBS equipment made it possible to work at depths of up to 2,500 m.
The main power plant was two-shaft, diesel-electric, providing a speed of more than 15 knots. The head BCBS was built in 1962 and received the name "Ingul". In total, until 1978, 8 BKBS were built at this shipyard. Moreover, the last three had an increased carrying capacity of 2,800 tons of cable and a slightly larger displacement.
The cable ship "Inguri", built in Finland for the USSR Navy in 1978... Main characteristics: Standard displacement 3,770 tons; total 7,031 t; Length - 130.4 m; Width 16.03 m; Draft 5.22 m; Power 2 x 2 150 l. With.; Maximum speed 15.7 knots; Cruising range - 4,000 miles at 13 knots; Navigation autonomy 30 days; Crew 188 people.
After the completion of the construction of the BKBS, a decision was made to build small KBS (MKBS) for laying and repairing submarine cables in the inland seas of the USSR. MKBS pr.1122 was designed and built at the same shipyard (Vyartsilya). The carrying capacity of this vessel was more than 700 tons, and the total displacement reached 2,145 tons. The MKBS was equipped with two 10-ton winches. The equipment made it possible to work at depths of up to 1,000 m. The lead vessel, project 1122 "Emba", was built in 1980, and until 1987, 5 more MKBS were built. The last two were 10 m longer and had a total displacement of 2,400 tons.
Small cable vessel of project 1122 "Donets"
For receiving from the shore, transporting, staging and retrieving raid equipment, special vessels with powerful crane equipment were created - killers (KIL). In fact, these are seaworthy and relatively high-speed floating cranes. All post-war KILs built for the USSR Navy were created in the GDR
The first KIL pr.706 was built at the Neptune shipyard in 1955 according to the specifications of the USSR Navy. This KIL had a bow crane with a lifting capacity of 75 tons, a total displacement of 1,256 tons, and a full speed of more than 11 knots. The depth of work was allowed at 40 m. In total, until 1959, 10 KIL of this project were built. The next KIL project already had a stern cargo device with a lifting capacity of 115 tons. The displacement increased to 3,150 tons. The depth of work was allowed up to 300 m. The head killer KIL-1 was built at the same shipyard in 1965. In total, until 1976, 10 KIL were built under this project.
Keel-tower vessel "KIL-25" of project 419. Was laid down at the Neptune shipyard in the port of Rostock (GDR), serial number 149/1244, launched on 01/17/1969, became part of the USSR Navy on 08/30/1969. into the Black Sea Fleet. Main characteristics: Displacement: 3151 tons; Dimensions: length - 87.3 m, width - 14.8 m, draft - 5.01 m; Full speed: 13.2 knots; Cruising range: 4000 miles at 10 knots; Powerplant: diesel-electric, 2 shafts, 1770 hp; Load capacity: 65 tons; Crew: 45 people.
Since in many cases the project numbers for all ships built abroad are
were appointed after their acceptance into the Navy, very often the construction number of the lead ship was used as the project number. This was widely used by design specialists in their everyday life, and higher authorities later legitimized it. Therefore, KIL-1 was widely used to receive project number 145, which actually corresponded to the construction number of the lead ship.
In the mid-80s, construction began on the latest series of KIL of the USSR Navy, Project 141.
The maximum lifting capacity of the stern crane equipment was 150 tons, the total displacement reached 5,250 tons. Unlike its predecessors, this COIL could support (short-term) autonomous underwater vehicles weighing up to 70 tons. Thus, this KIL could be used to some extent as a search rescue vessel. In total, until 1991, it was possible to build 9 KIL of this project.
