Military Review

Sea gendarme

94
To a large extent precisely on navy holds all the military power of the United States. Possible reductions in the defense budget will affect this type of aircraft to the least extent.


In organizational terms, the US Navy is divided into the command of the Navy (formerly the Atlantic Fleet), the Pacific Fleet, and the command of shipping. The latter does not include warships, therefore it is not considered here.

The naval command (for simplicity, we will call it the Atlantic fleet or AF) includes three operational fleets: 2 (North Atlantic), 4 (South Atlantic), 6 (Mediterranean). The Pacific Fleet also includes three operational fleets: 3 (east and central Pacific), 5 (Indian Ocean), 7 (northwest Pacific). Operational fleets do not have a permanent ship composition; they are formed from the AF and Pacific Fleet compositions with constant rotation of the ships.

In addition, the US Navy has a 10-th operational fleet responsible for waging cyber warfare. There are no warships in it.

Submarine and aircraft carrier

The naval component of the US strategic nuclear forces includes the Ohio type 14 (6 on AF, 8 on Pacific Fleet). Each carries a 24 SLBM Trident 2, all in all approximately 400.

Another 4 SSBN type "Ohio" under the START-1 contract converted into SSGN (for 2 on AF and TOF). 22 mines for Tomahawk SLCMs (7 SLCMs each) and 2 gateway for combat swimmers are installed on each of them. Accordingly, each SSGNC carries over 154 SLCMs.

By the number of multipurpose PLA US Navy occupy the first place in the world. The most advanced of them are 3 submarines of the type “Sea Wolf” (all of them are part of the Pacific Fleet), but because of the very high price, the construction of the remaining submarines of this type (they were supposed to have 32) was canceled. Instead, at present, Virginia-type submarines are being built with lowered performance characteristics, but cheaper ones. In total, they are planned to be built from 30 to 40. Currently in the US Navy 13, the Virginia-type PLA (9 on AF, 4 on Pacific Fleet). In addition, as part of the Navy, the Los Angeles 39 submarines (16 on AF, 23 on Pacific Fleet) remain, which are gradually being written off. The Los Angeles 16 submarines are still in the sludge, but their return to service is excluded because nuclear reactors are cut out of the buildings.

All American multipurpose SSNs can launch not only ordinary torpedoes, but also Garpun and Tomahawk SLCM through their torpedo tubes. In addition, all Virginia and Los Angeles submarines of the type Los Angeles have 30 vertical mines for Tomahawks.

The symbol of the US Navy and the basis of combat power - aircraft carriers. Today in the 10 system are nuclear powered ships of the type “Nimitz”, according to 5 at AF and TOF (for more details, “Battle of aircraft carriers”, “MIC”, No. 16, 2016). Forged 2 aircraft carrier type "Ford". In fact, this is a significantly improved version of the Nimitz. In total, it is planned to build at least 3 ships of this type. In the sediment 3 aircraft carrier with the usual EU: "John Kennedy", "Kitty Hawk", "Independence."

Former "security"

Until the middle of the 80-x cruisers, destroyers and frigates of the US Navy were essentially aircraft carrier guards, not playing an independent role. The situation has changed with the adoption of the universal Aidzhis CIU, which provides simultaneous tracking and hitting targets at long ranges on land, in the air and at sea. The most important addition to this system is the Mk41 UVP, which has 29 or 61 (in the latest versions - 32 / 64) a cell, in each of which either “Tomahawk” or “Standard” or “Asrok” PLUR can be placed. Cruisers and destroyers with the Aegis system and the Mk41 air defense system were able to deliver massive strikes against coastal targets, carry out air defense and missile defense systems of ship formations and even in some cases of groups of troops on land. Due to this, former guards can complement and sometimes replace aircraft carriers as the main striking force.

Sea gendarmeToday, the US Navy 22 has a Ticonderoga type cruiser (10 on AF, 12 on TOF), each of which is equipped with the Aegis system and has an 2 41 unit in each 61 system. Thus, each cruiser carries 122 missiles of three classes. On 5 cruisers (2 on AF, 3 on Pacific Fleet) the Aegis system has been upgraded to solve missile defense tasks. There are still 3 Ticonderogs of the first modification

The basis of the surface forces of the US Navy today are the destroyers of the type "Arly Burke". Now they are available in the 62 line (27 on AF, 35 on Pacific Fleet), in total there will be built from 75 to 99 ships of this type, which will serve until the end of 2070-x. Each of them carries 2 UVK Mk41 - nasal (29 cells on the first 21 destroyer, 32 on the next) and aft (61 and 64 cells, respectively).

Destroyers of the Zamvolt type of futuristic appearance and with a significant number of technical innovations are being built in the USA. Each such destroyer can carry 1 DPS on 80 missiles. It was originally intended to build an 32 destroyer of the Zamvol type, but due to the very high price they would be all 3. The first has already been commissioned, the second is being tested.

Oliver Perry type frigates with sufficiently large sizes have very weak weapons and are considered the most unsuccessful ships of the US Navy for the entire post-war period. history. Therefore, they were quickly withdrawn from the Navy. Now in the ranks of the frigates of this type there, in the sediment 30 ships, they are supposed to be sold or disposed of as possible.

Corvettes are the most common class of warships in the world, but they were absent for a long time as part of the US Navy. Only in this century began the construction of "coastal warships." For the Navy, two projects were proposed: Freedom and Independence. The command could not make a choice, so they began to build both. Now in the fleet of the 3 corvette "Freedom" and "Independence" (all on the Pacific Fleet). Note that those and others have a very high price with a rather weak weaponry.

The minesweepers in the US Navy are represented by 13 ships of the type "Ewendzher" (all on the Pacific Fleet).

The landing forces of the US Navy, the largest in the world, are comparable in capacity to the other fleets combined. Now the fleet includes 1 newest UDC of the type “America” (on the Pacific Fleet) and 8 UDC “Uosp” (on 4 on the AF and Pacific Fleet). In the sediment 3 ship type "Tarawa." Further construction of UDC “America”, which are fully-fledged aircraft carriers in size, is underway. DVKD (amphibious assault ship docks) are represented by 9 by the ships "San Antonio" (4 on AF, 5 on Pacific Fleet) and one Austin (on AF). The reserve still 6 DVKD type "Austin". There is a 8 DTD (amphibious assault dock) "Whidbey Island" and 4 "Harpers Ferry" (in 4 and 2 on AF and TOF).

Despite the large number and considerable amphibious assault capability, ships can transfer at the same time only a small part of the marines and the more so the US Army. Therefore, for massive transfer of troops and equipment to remote theaters, the American command charters civilian cargo ships from commercial shipping companies.

Sea eagles

Aviation The US Navy is divided into naval and marine corps and two reserves (fleet and marine corps). Each of the four components is divided into Atlantic and Pacific.

A significant number of naval aviation vehicles are in storage at the Davis-Montan base (repair and restoration group of aviation and space technology - AMARG), from which many of them can be returned to service.

The main combat aircraft of naval aviation - F / A-18 "Hornet". Machines of modifications A, B and C are gradually transferred to AMARG, while E and F continue to enter service. F / A-18E / F is significantly improved compared to the original version (and therefore is called the “Super Hornet”). Now in service with US naval aviation 1087 F / A-18.

The second-largest naval aviation is the AV-8 "Harrier." This aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing, is in service only in the Marine Corps. It was produced in the United States under a British license, but then underwent purely American modernization. Now in service with the 128 "Harrier": 33 AV-8В, 79 В +, 16 training and combat TAV-8В. On the AMARG is the 1 TAV-8A, as well as the 58 English “Harriers”, which the United Kingdom sold to the USA in 2011 for parts.

All "Harriers" and F / A-18A / B / C / D are supposed to be replaced by the fifth-generation fighter F-35. It is planned to purchase X-NUMX decked F-260C for the fleet, and for the Marine Corps-35 similar F-80C and 35 short-take-off and vertical-landing F-340В aircraft. So far, this program is developing with a large backlog of schedule and with an even more significant excess of the original price. Marines received 35 F-51В and 35 F-5С, fleet - 35 F-22C.

In the US naval aviation, as in the Air Force, there are squadrons, “aggressors,” imitating the actions of probable opponents in the exercises. Armed with these squadrons are "land" fighters F-16 and F-5. There are 14 F-16 (10 A, 4 B) built for the Pakistan Air Force, but left in the United States because of the temporary embargo imposed on this country by Washington after the 1998 nuclear test of the year. In addition, the “aggressors” imitate up to 46 F-5.

The most modern anti-submarine aircraft of the United States Naval Aviation are the Poseidon Р-8А, based on the Boeing-737. They were adopted by 43 (1 is still in storage), it is planned to build 117. They will replace the famous Orion P-3. Currently in the US Navy aviation remains the 95 P-3C, on the AMARG still 95. Deck anti-submarine S-3 "Viking" removed from service, the replacement of it has not been created.

The main deck aircraft EW - EA-18G, created on the basis of F / A-18F. In service with 116 such aircraft. They replace the EA-6B, which 23 remains.

The E-2 “Hokai” remains the DRLO deck aircraft. In service with their 77.

The ground-based fleet aviation has X-NUMX EP-13E electronic reconnaissance aircraft (also AMNG 3) and 4 ECP-16B.

The USA has the only carrier-based transport aircraft C-2А in the world in its class, which is used to transport people and cargo from the ground to aircraft carriers and back. Their 35.

Ground-based naval transport aviation includes 20 C-130T, 3 C-12C, 26 UC-12 (on AMARG still 25), 12 UC-35A, 2 U-6A, 6 C-26D, -NNXX, NNXX, 7 U-20A, 4 C-37D; 2, 9 C-9B (military version of the passenger DC-17, on the AMARG still 1 and 3 – XNUMX on the storage of the Navy).

MV-22V Osprey convertible planes can be based both on aerodromes and on aircraft carriers and UDC. In service with 258 such machines.

On the basis of the C-130 “Hercules” aircraft, the KS-130 tankers were created. Now in the ranks of 77 such machines.

Combat helicopters AN-1 "Cobra" are in service only in the Marine Corps. Now their 175 (123 W, 52 Z). The number of AH-1Z will increase as the production of new machines, and through the conversion of AH-1W.

The main multipurpose naval aviation helicopter is the Black Hawk UN-60. In the 255 MH-60S, 216 MH-60R, 1 UH-60L. Remains in service with 124 UH-1Y "Iroquois".

As an anti-submarine used modification of the "Black Hawk" SH-60F. Such helicopters remained in the 12 ranks.

The shortage of the minesweeper ships in the US Navy is compensated by the presence of helicopters with the same functions. In service with the 26 MH-53E, on the AMARG 3 – 4 MH-53E, to 8 MH-53J, to 9 MH-53М, 7 RH-53D.

Transport helicopters in the US naval aviation should be largely replaced by tweeterplanes. So far, however, a significant number of them remain in service.

Black berets

Marines are actively used in all conflicts involving the United States. The level of its combat training is higher than in the ground forces. Marines include 4 divisions, 2 on AF and TOF.

The Navy SSR is an integral part of the command of the USA SSF and at the same time a separate branch of the Navy. Include 4 group MTR - actually the Navy and MTR of the Marine Corps.

In the foreseeable future, the US fleet will retain its dominant position in most oceanic theaters, with the exception of the seas adjacent to the coasts of Russia and China.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/33788
94 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. knn54
    knn54 26 November 2016 06: 40
    +6
    The fleet, from the time of Peter the Great, was and will be the guarantor of the power of the state - who owns the sea, owns the world
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 26 November 2016 07: 21
      +15
      Quote: knn54
      who owns the sea, owns the world

      Oh really? request
      1. Tatyana
        Tatyana 26 November 2016 08: 15
        +3
         Vladimir
        Quote: knn54
        “Who owns the sea, owns the world
        Oh really? request

        Imagine, Vladimir, that’s exactly it! Naturally, the fleet must be militarily well equipped and invulnerable.
        Since ancient times (since the time of Queen Elizabeth 1) it was just like that! Who owns the sea, he owns the sea trade routes, coastal zones of other states, locking them in the land, - which means it prevails in the economy of the whole world.
        Historically, the first requirement of all Western intelligence services (England, USA, France) for their foreign agents in the preparation and unleashing of world wars has always been the DESTRUCTION of the fleet of rival countries - under any guise! The fleet of rivals was drowned, the military personnel - the officers - were destroyed in a "revolutionary" and pseudo-revolutionary way.
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 26 November 2016 08: 22
          +7
          The article is very relevant and professionally competent!

          To the author from me +
          1. Pulya
            Pulya 27 November 2016 11: 34
            +1
            Quote: Tatiana
            The article is very relevant and professionally competent!

            To the author from me +


            I do not agree with you, namely, that this is the Analytics section! And the article is dry statistics taken (copied) from open sources.
            Analytical effort - 0
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 27 November 2016 12: 11
              +2
              Pulya
              I do not agree with you ...
              Victor! Analytical articles on sites for the general reader are generally not thick, but very few. There are even fewer statistical articles. And without statistics there can be no analytics - in principle. Otherwise, there will be "fortune-telling on the coffee grounds", and not analytics, as such.
              In addition, there is a specificity on the site - the size of articles should still be limited within reason, and the professional training of readers must be taken into account.
              The site has sections for "opinions" and "analytics". Statistical article for the section "opinions" is also not very suitable. And what, in your opinion, leave readers without statistical information at all? Or still place this article in the "analytics" section? I think that the admins made the right decision in this case.
              You yourself can continue this topic if you own analytical information and consider it necessary. Write your analytical article and send it to admins. If everything in your article is normal in the sense of scribble itself, then your article will be published. I wish you success!
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 08: 41
          +4
          Quote: Tatiana
          Imagine, Vladimir, that’s exactly it!

          It would be strange if it were otherwise - today the EMNIP of about 80-90% of all international trade goes by sea.
          1. Tatyana
            Tatyana 26 November 2016 08: 56
            +4
            And now the active forces in the world and at sea from the West are the Windsor or the Rothschilds - the elite of the British Empire, these are the American neocons (Finintern) that control all American politics and the Fed, as well as the old continental elites of Europe coordinated by the Vatican.
        3. PSih2097
          PSih2097 26 November 2016 08: 50
          +1
          Quote: Tatiana
          Imagine, Vladimir, that’s exactly it! Naturally, the fleet must be militarily well equipped and invulnerable.

          especially if you recall the English rule of double standard ...
          The definition of "TWO POWER STANNDARD", as a measure of British requirements for assessing naval power, is usually attributed to Lord J. Hamilton. Yes, it is true that in his speech on the submission to Parliament of the "Act on Naval Defense of 1889." Hamilton, then First Lord of the Admiralty, said: "... the basic idea ... is that our naval staff should be at a level that is at least equal to the naval power of any two countries." ... However, back in December 1888. Admiralty Secretary Forwood has spoken to Parliament that the Royal Navy should have a power greater than any two European powers. "In any case, Hamilton's words did not imply that he was defining a new standard. He made it clear that his predecessors had adopted the point of view that the Royal Navy should equal the strength of the "united fleets of any two countries."
        4. sabakina
          sabakina 26 November 2016 09: 53
          +2
          Tatyana, call me at least one major naval battle of World War 2?
          1. Tatyana
            Tatyana 26 November 2016 10: 35
            +2
            sabakina
            Tatyana, call me at least one major naval battle of World War 2?
            Ha! Well, you are a honey! And why are you examining me all?
            But you better tell me what "geopolitics" is? And what is the difference between the SEA civilization and the SUSHI civilization? And then why should we be exchanged for particulars!
            1. My doctor
              My doctor 27 November 2016 12: 44
              0
              Quote: Tatiana
              But you better tell me what "geopolitics" is? And what is the difference between the SEA civilization and the SUSHI civilization? And then why should we be exchanged for particulars!

              To the bonfire of you, Tanya, for such primitivism. Also say that the Earth is on three elephants, whales and a turtle.
              1. Tatyana
                Tatyana 28 November 2016 16: 58
                0
                My doctor
                Quote: Tatiana
                what is "geopolitics"? And what is the difference between the SEA civilization and the SUSHI civilization?
                To the bonfire of you, Tanya, for such PRIMITIVISM. Also say that the Earth is on three elephants, whales and a turtle.
                Wow "PRIMITIVISM" !!!
                Well-known authors devote whole books and historical research to this actual "PRIVITINISM" at present !!! And they, of course, are not about "three elephants, whales and turtles", as you think, but about the all-embracing geopolitics of the "collective West", which did not pass in the USSR and practically do not pass in the Russian Federation now. And how this geopolitics of the Western elites is carried out in the world in historical details.
                Cm. :
                1. Starikov Nikolay. Geopolitics. How is this done .- SPb .: Peter, 2016. -368 with
                2. Starikov Nikolay. 1917. The answer to the “Russian” revolution. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2015. -416 with
                3. Starikov Nikolay. Who made Hitler attack Stalin. Hitler's fatal mistake .-- St. Petersburg: Peter, 2015. -368 sec
                4. Starikov Nikolay. Who is financing the collapse of Russia? From the Decembrists to the Mujahideen. - SPb .: Peter, 2016. - 288 sec.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 11: 11
            +3
            Quote: sabakina
            Tatyana, call me at least one major naval battle of World War 2?

            The battle of Calabria. Pearl Harbor. Battle of Midway. Battle of the Coral Islands. The battle of Matapan. 3 battles at Guadalcanal (although it would be more correct to say that there the whole history of his defense is one continuous naval battle). Battle of the Mariana Islands. Battle of Leyte Gulf.
            Still?:)))
            And this I am listing only those battles in which the main forces of the fleets were involved on both sides. Such "minor" battles, like the battle in the Java Sea, for example, I ignored :))))
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 26 November 2016 11: 45
              +1
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              .....................................
              Thank you for the tip! But all this is on the Internet, as the United States strangled in 1944 the naval attack of Japan in 1941, which was rising economically and suffocating from a lack of natural resources. Then the USA finished off Japan with nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and “ironed” the rest of Japan with conventional bombing from edge to edge.
              I do not understand why the member of the forum "Sobakin" had such a strange question for me. What is his objection to my point of view on the issue of Western geopolitics? After all, generally speaking, the "West" usually means the United States and the "collective West"; countries of Western Europe. Although in the EXTENDED version it can be all NATO countries.
              1. sabakina
                sabakina 26 November 2016 15: 03
                +1
                What? Do you consider the beating of babies a major naval battle? belay
                Wow! Ushakov with his battles at Fedonisi, Kerch, Sinope, Tendre silently smokes on the sidelines! am
                1. Tatyana
                  Tatyana 26 November 2016 15: 23
                  +1
                  sabakina
                  Wow! Ushakov with his battles at Fedonisi, Kerch, Sinope, Tendre silently smokes on the sidelines!

                  Dear "Sobakina"! Take a look at your question!
                  Sobakina
                  Tatyana, call me at least one major naval battle World War 2?

                  Quickly, you already forgot it! belay
                  Yes-ah! My memory is "bad" crying and you have worse repeat!
                  Better let's "make up"! drinks And then we will make the whole site laugh! stop
                  1. sabakina
                    sabakina 26 November 2016 15: 38
                    +1
                    I did not understand what a BIG naval battle of World War 2 I forgot? belay
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 15: 58
                      +4
                      Quote: sabakina
                      I did not understand what a BIG naval battle of World War 2 I forgot?

                      Actually, your question was answered :) It is not clear why you ignore it.
              2. sabakina
                sabakina 26 November 2016 15: 09
                +1
                Quote: Tatiana

                I don't understand why the member of the forum "Sobakin"

                I actually have a name given to me at birth. If you are too lazy to see my profile, this is your problem!
                1. Tatyana
                  Tatyana 26 November 2016 18: 44
                  +1
                  sabakina
                  I actually have a name given to me at birth. If you are too lazy to see my profile, this is your problem!
                  Yes, I looked into your profile - and more than once! There you do not have a name, but a surname - moreover, a female! And all your posts previously come from a male person. We have already discussed this somehow.
                  There are forum users who use other people's profiles - i.e. profiles not of their registration, but of their acquaintances, friends, or members of their family, wife, husband. And they even write letters to me. And what follows from this? Be surprised? I am not surprised.
                  1. sabakina
                    sabakina 26 November 2016 20: 14
                    +1
                    I apologize for viewing the profile, hi after breaking the site, I did not look there. Now you have to look for a password to change.
                    About the sea battles.
                    Pearl Harbor. - was it a battle? belay
                    The Battle of Midway. - Did the Americans tell you this? wink
                    The battle of Calabria. Battle of the Coral Islands. The battle of Matapan. 3 battles at Guadalcanal. Battle of the Mariana Islands. The Battle of Leyte Gulf. Where is it at all?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 21: 20
                      +7
                      Quote: sabakina
                      Pearl Harbor. - was it a battle?

                      No, these are the children playing in the sandbox. Naturally, a battle.
                      Quote: sabakina
                      The Battle of Midway. - Did the Americans tell you this?

                      This battle, for a second, determined the course of the war in the Pacific. And they said yes, the Americans. And the Japanese.
                      Quote: sabakina
                      The battle of Calabria. Battle of the Coral Islands. The battle of Matapan. 3 battles at Guadalcanal. Battle of the Mariana Islands. The Battle of Leyte Gulf. Where is it at all?

                      March to learn materiel. Since you are not even familiar with these names, why do you even need to judge something about the fleet?
                    2. dokusib
                      dokusib 28 November 2016 15: 09
                      +1
                      Sabakina do not disgrace
                  2. sabakina
                    sabakina 26 November 2016 20: 45
                    +1
                    Tatyana
                    Yes, I looked into your profile - and more than once! There you do not have a name, but a surname - moreover, a feminine one!

                    My surname Agarkov, I hope, when reading, you will not call me Stub, as in childhood? wink
                2. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 26 November 2016 20: 10
                  0
                  Quote: sabakina
                  I have a name,

                  Dear dog, in the profile your name is dog, you yourself have chosen such a nickname, there is nothing personal to you, these are not your problems ...
                  dog or dog
                  1. sabakina
                    sabakina 26 November 2016 20: 18
                    +1
                    Regarding my profile, I answered above. For you, dear, I explain my name Vyacheslav. It’s not my fault that after the site’s redesign, something has changed in the profile. Yours faithfully hi .
                    1. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 26 November 2016 20: 27
                      0
                      Quote: sabakina
                      For you, dear, I explain my name Vyacheslav.

                      You see Vyacheslav, every time you write something over what you wrote will be "doggy", you have to be more careful with the choice of nickname.
                      1. sabakina
                        sabakina 26 November 2016 20: 30
                        +1
                        Sorry, but you have one unknown in your profile. hi
                        And NICK is taken from the game. I personally do not bother, and you?
                    2. Tatyana
                      Tatyana 26 November 2016 21: 00
                      0
                      sabakina
                      my name is Vyacheslav.
                      Well, we met, Vyacheslav! hi
                      It’s not my fault that after the site’s redesign, something has changed in the profile.
                      Only in this you are mistaken. In the profiles - after the alteration of the site - nothing has changed.
                      I personally testify to this. For I personally congratulated our esteemed female forum women on March 8, 2016, and made lists for a whole month. I checked your profile and your posts too. In your profile you already were only sabakina. (You, Vyacheslav, are simply inattentive.) And in posts you already wrote before on behalf of a man. Therefore, I did not include you in the congratulatory female list by March 8! You can verify this yourself - you really are not there - not because your real name is Vyacheslav, not because your profile only contains sabakina, but because your posts were on a man’s behalf.
                      1. sabakina
                        sabakina 26 November 2016 21: 21
                        +1
                        Tatyana, if I have a picture of my cat in my headband on my phone that has gone to another world, who am I? Zoophile or necromancer?
                      2. Tatyana
                        Tatyana 26 November 2016 21: 35
                        0
                        Well, I, Vyacheslav, could not congratulate a man on March 8, if in fact he is not a woman! In addition, I learned one secret in the team of our forum. Some members of the forum sent me letters after March 8 confessing that they are women too, despite the fact that they have male nicknames and they write in secret posts on behalf of men. That they deliberately decided to do this - they are hiding out of fear of suffering from the presence of male chauvinism on the male site "VO". We agreed not to divulge their secret, but to leave everything as it already happened, because the stars on their shoulder straps have already been recruited. Well, they don't want to start all over again.
                        And your cat just shine! Beauty!
              3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 22: 47
                +2
                Quote: Tatiana
                Thank you for the tip!

                Yes, not at all :))) However, the opponent is ... strange. The feeling is that he knows nothing about the war at sea
          3. KaPToC
            KaPToC 26 November 2016 20: 05
            +1
            Quote: sabakina
            Tatyana, call me at least one major naval battle of World War 2?

            Why so stupid questions if you can just use the search engine?
        5. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 26 November 2016 17: 20
          +1
          Quote: Tatiana
          Imagine, Vladimir, that’s exactly it!

          Wow, how categorically.
          Quote: Tatiana
          Since ancient times (since the time of Queen Elizabeth 1) it was just like that!

          For England this is exactly so, for an island nation the lack of control over the surrounding seas is death.
          Quote: Tatiana
          Who owns the sea, he owns the sea trade routes, coastal zones of other states, locking them in the land, - which means it prevails in the economy of the whole world.

          Previously, this was so, the BASIC mass of goods was delivered by water, there was simply nothing more to deliver a large number of goods. Land caravans could not take as much as one ship could take, since then the transport structure has changed, although now the sea freight turnover is basic, but it is no longer the only one.

          Quote: Tatiana
          Historically, the first requirement of all Western intelligence services (England, USA, France) for their foreign agents in the preparation and unleashing of world wars has always been the DESTRUCTION of the fleet of rival countries - under any guise! The fleet of rivals was drowned, the military personnel - the officers - were destroyed in a "revolutionary" and pseudo-revolutionary way.

          A historical excursion is interesting, but much has changed since then, don’t you?
          England needed a fleet, as the United States is now. But there is such a continent of Eurasia, located on which countries can be self-sufficient and carry out commodity circulation by land. yes
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 21: 30
            +1
            Quote: Vladimirets
            It used to be, the BASIC mass of goods was delivered by water, there was simply nothing more to deliver a large number of goods

            Now exactly the same
            Quote: Vladimirets
            But there is such a continent of Eurasia, located on which countries can be self-sufficient and carry out commodity circulation by land.

            But, crap, for some reason they spend the sea laughing And I’ll even tell you why - the ship as a vehicle is much and many times more efficient than the railway. And aviation has only the advantage of speed, but the cost of delivery scales
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 26 November 2016 22: 12
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But, crap, for some reason they spend the sea And I will even tell you why - a ship as a vehicle is much and many times more efficient than a railway. And aviation has only the advantage of speed, but the cost of delivery scales

              You are absolutely right, BUT, the lack of sea routes is not fatal for many countries of Eurasia and Russia in particular. Difficulties, yes, but not fatal.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 22: 42
                +1
                Quote: Vladimirets
                BUT, the lack of sea routes is not fatal for many countries of Eurasia and Russia in particular. Difficulties, yes, but not fatal.

                This is a policy issue. Well, China does not want to reorient to railway transport and prefers to drive its consumer goods by sea. Who controls the sea, controls the export of China. The one who controls the land ... alas, nothing controls. Political buns for controllers, I think, no need to explain?
                1. Vladimirets
                  Vladimirets 26 November 2016 22: 50
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  doesn't want

                  It does not want and cannot be two big differences. England, historically, had to control the seas, for it was vital for her, she could not receive resources otherwise than by sea. In the same way, the USA cannot receive resources otherwise than by sea (those that are not on the mainland). Russia, and China, in principle, can get them by land. More expensive? Perhaps, but it is real.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2016 00: 43
                    +2
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    It does not want and cannot be two big differences.

                    Of course. Any man can sleep with another man - there are no physiological barriers. But the vast majority for some reason do not want laughing
                    China can trade through land - then its trade will be controlled by the Russian Federation. China can trade across the sea, and then its trade will be under US control, but it will be cheaper. Can you name the reason why China will have to trade by land? :))))
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    England, historically, had to control the seas, for it was vital for her, she could not receive resources otherwise than by sea.

                    I apologize, but stop confusing God's gift with scrambled eggs. England was more than capable of receiving everything; she lacked it even without dominance over the oceans. The only reason she strove for this was colonial policy, i.e. it is control over world trade.
        6. KaPToC
          KaPToC 26 November 2016 20: 04
          0
          Quote: Tatiana
          Imagine, Vladimir, that’s exactly it!

          Who owns the sea - that owns shipping, no more. Who owns the land - that owns Eurasia and Africa, and this is more than 80% of the population and industrial potential of the planet. In the modern world, the role of the surface fleet has been reduced to auxiliary functions.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 21: 23
            +1
            Quote: KaPToC
            Who owns the sea - that owns shipping, no more. Who owns the land - that owns Eurasia and Africa,

            Nonsense, I'm sorry. From the word - "complete"
            Quote: KaPToC
            and this is more than 80% of the population and industrial potential of the planet

            In-in. Accordingly, no country on these continents can have absolute dominance. Accordingly, a power with a fleet is building an alliance of weak countries against a stronger one. And they are biting with each other, while dividends are being cut overseas. So it was when the seas ruled Britain, and when the United States
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 27 November 2016 00: 38
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In-in. Accordingly, no country on these continents can have absolute dominance.

              This is nonsense, Russia has been dominating in Eurasia for more than three hundred years, during the Crimean War the alliance of the strongest empires in the world could not cope with Russia.
              1. Morrow
                Morrow 27 November 2016 16: 10
                +2
                What nonsense are you talking about?
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 27 November 2016 20: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Morrrow
                  What nonsense are you talking about?

                  You sort through the points of my ... nonsense.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 26 November 2016 12: 12
      +1
      It’s good to write such articles. Take any newspaper binder for the last 50 years and you're in chocolate. And 100 years ago the same thing was written about the British. And all this together is the colonial economy of the exceptional.
    3. Winnie76
      Winnie76 26 November 2016 14: 54
      +1
      Quote: knn54
      who owns the sea, owns the world

      What for the Russian Federation to own the world? Such "owners" end up sadly. Russia does not critically depend on sea trade. Its land is immeasurable. The resources are all right. On the mainland, it will conventionally endure almost anyone, perhaps even China. Unconventional - the whole ball is at gunpoint. It is clear that the ocean-going fleet is needed, but the ground forces, the air force and air defense should be a priority.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 16: 00
        +1
        Quote: Winnie76
        What for the Russian Federation to own the world?

        Prestigious :)))
        Quote: Winnie76
        Such "owners" end up sadly.

        The Dutch, the British, now the Americans ... I don’t see anything sad
        Quote: Winnie76
        On the mainland, it will conventionally endure virtually any

        And if there was a fleet - in general, even a conversation would not be worth it. As, for example, now there is no question of the invasion of our ground forces in the United States
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 26 November 2016 18: 05
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          there is no question of the invasion of our ground forces in the United States

          But you must? belay
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 21: 26
            +1
            Quote: Vladimirets
            But you must?

            Imagine for a second that Russia suddenly miraculously gained control of the seas. What do you think, in how many days will NATO fall apart when it suddenly becomes clear that the Americans are not able to transfer the army to Europe? Europe is now looking into the mouth of the United States, And would have looked - to us. In general, if we had such a fleet, Eurasia would be civilization, Russia would be the center of civilization, and the USA would be the outskirts of the backyard. Schoolchildren in Europe would have confused her with Greenland.
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 26 November 2016 22: 30
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              What do you think, in how many days will NATO fall apart when it suddenly becomes clear that the Americans are not able to transfer the army to Europe?

              I think that the integrity of NATO does not depend on the control of the seas, and I also think that in a few years we will see it.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2016 00: 46
                +1
                Quote: Vladimirets
                I think NATO’s integrity does not depend on control of the seas

                Well, in vain. Start thinking at least by studying the plans for the deployment of NATO troops in the war against the USSR.
                Quote: Vladimirets
                I also think that in a few years we will see it.

                So you want to say that in a few years we will gain control of the sea? laughing
                1. bk316
                  bk316 28 November 2016 20: 49
                  +2
                  If we had such a goal, then yes

                  It costs not very expensive, well, at least much cheaper than all this armada.
                  The deployment of nuclear weapons in space is called.
                  So the one who controls space controls the sea.
            2. cast iron
              cast iron 26 November 2016 23: 21
              0
              Imagine for a second that thanks to Stalin and the Communists, Russia has nuclear missiles, bombs and delivery vehicles. And for everything else, we were not eager to be a world hegemon. The question of the transfer of US divisions to Europe is not worth it. As soon as they transfer their divisions for war, they will immediately work on them with nuclear missiles. The US fleet in the form in which it exists now is not capable of any serious influence on the policies of countries such as China, Russia, India.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2016 00: 47
                +1
                Quote: cast iron
                Imagine for a second that thanks to Stalin and the Communists, Russia has nuclear missiles, bombs and delivery vehicles.

                Why imagine? They are already there.
                Quote: cast iron
                And for everything else, we were not eager to be a world hegemon. The question of the transfer of US divisions to Europe is not worth it. As soon as they transfer their divisions for war, they will immediately work on them with nuclear missiles.

                No pink fantasies. Take the trouble to explore REAL NATO deployment plans in the event of a global nuclear missile war. And the USSR, by the way, or else blurt out that they say NATO plans are a disa ...
        2. KaPToC
          KaPToC 26 November 2016 20: 12
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And if there was a fleet - in general, even a conversation would not be worth it.

          Actually, it’s time to build spaceships.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 21: 27
            0
            Quote: KaPToC
            Actually, it’s time to build spaceships.

            No time. No technology to make it worth it
          2. cast iron
            cast iron 26 November 2016 23: 24
            0
            Well, build, who's stopping you? )))) Have seen enough "Star Wars" and think that you can attach a couple of rockets to the body with guns and you can fly from planet to planet like a bicycle.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 27 November 2016 00: 43
              0
              Quote: cast iron
              They think that you can attach a couple of rockets to the body with guns and you can fly from planet to planet

              For example, I know how to control gravity, is that enough?
              Anticipating I’ll say that I’m busy with more important things: I built a house, planted a tree, here my sons are growing.

              P.S. about gravity it was not a joke
              1. cast iron
                cast iron 27 November 2016 16: 02
                0
                Well, tell me something like how to manage it then? And then he threw in a lure and arrows on the house, a tree and sons immediately transferred))))

                And then there Chelomey, Keldysh, Korolev and Chertok thought and thought and never came up with how to control gravity. Missiles both fly by the principle of jet propulsion and mass rejection, and fly. Ion engines and nuclear engines exist only in theory so far. And even they will not bring us closer to the sane cost of delivering large-capacity cargo from planet to planet in the next 100 years.
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 27 November 2016 20: 27
                  0
                  Quote: cast iron
                  Well, tell me something like how to manage it then? And then he threw in a lure and arrows on the house, a tree and sons immediately transferred))))

                  I’ll write to you in a personal, buzz?

                  no, better so

                  I give a tip - the directed motion of the electrons generates an electromagnetic field, the directed motion of the neutrons generates ... yes yes - gravitational. Take an ordinary conductor of neutrons - for example, an uranium isotope, wind a coil, I certainly exaggerate, but I think the principle is clear?
                  1. cast iron
                    cast iron 27 November 2016 22: 23
                    0
                    What prevented scientists from repeating this experiment of yours?
                    1. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 27 November 2016 22: 57
                      0
                      Quote: cast iron
                      What prevented scientists from repeating this experiment of yours?

                      Nobody cares? Moody thinking? How do you know that you didn’t repeat it?
                      And yes, this is not an experiment.
    4. kuz363
      kuz363 26 November 2016 15: 42
      +1
      Yes, Russia has never been a sea power (meaning participation in major naval battles). Yes, under Peter and a little after there were maritime successes in the war with Turkey, Sweden. And that’s all. Since the 19th century, Western countries have already outpaced Russia. Crimean War of 1854 - lost outright. Tsushima is also. World War 1 - no brilliant successes, except for the flooding of its fleet in Novorossiysk in 1918, so that the Germans did not get it. WWII - in addition to the mediocre evacuation of troops from the Crimea, there is nothing to remember. Yes, the sailors fought heroically, but only on land. The Baltic fleet was locked up by mines and participated only in the defense of Leningrad. The Northern Fleet - yes, participated in the Allied convoys, but it can hardly be called great naval battles. And the real naval powers with participation in grand naval battles were the USA, Japan, Germany, England. Well, Italy is a stretch.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 16: 01
        +2
        Quote: kuz363
        World War 1 - no brilliant success, except

        the perfect naval warfare by the Black Sea Fleet.
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC 26 November 2016 20: 17
        0
        Quote: kuz363
        Crimean War of 1854 - lost outright.

        Yes, where do you come from such "connoisseurs of history". Do you think that the fact that the allies took PART, not all, of Sevastopol, and then retreated, is a defeat for Russia? Russia did not lose the war, but lost under political pressure, like the Russian-Japanese one. Despite the Tsushima victory, the position of the Japanese was not so rosy. Do you know how much the Japanese owe to world financiers in the end for this "victory"?
      3. sabakina
        sabakina 26 November 2016 20: 27
        +1
        Quote: kuz363
        The Northern Fleet - yes, participated in the Allied convoys, but it can hardly be called great naval battles.

        In fact, the Federation Council did not let the Germans out of the word at all.
    5. tk451
      tk451 28 November 2016 18: 05
      0
      Well, a lot of time has passed since Peter's times) Ships are needed! Ships are needed! The future for ships! For spaceships !!! For in the new time the following will be true: He who owns the cosmos, owns the world!
  2. SPB.RU
    SPB.RU 26 November 2016 06: 44
    +6
    Glory to the US Navy!
    1. aszzz888
      aszzz888 26 November 2016 07: 22
      +6
      SPB.RU Today, 06:44 AM New
      Glory to the US Navy!


      And why then the Russian flag on the headband? angry
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 26 November 2016 20: 22
        0
        Maybe this fame?
  3. Same lech
    Same lech 26 November 2016 07: 00
    +4
    In the foreseeable future, the US fleet will retain its dominant position in most oceanic theaters, with the exception of the seas adjacent to the coasts of Russia and China.


    Yes, of course ... for the war with the aborigines who do not have the means to combat the AUG, all this armada is imprisoned to fight.
    Russia and China need to improve BALLS, ONYXES, CALIBERS, GRANITE and hehe future ZIRCONS as well as submarines ... the main enemies of the AUG of the USA.
    1. knn54
      knn54 26 November 2016 08: 37
      +3
      - Same Lech: Russia and China need to improve
      Today, the water element is no longer just a field of power clashes. These are: trade, migration, smuggling and the ENERGY component (RESOURCES). AND ONYKS ... CALIBERS will not be enough.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 08: 40
      +6
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Yes, of course ... for the war with the aborigines who do not have the means to combat AUG, all this armada is imprisoned to fight

      Blessed is he who believes
  4. aszzz888
    aszzz888 26 November 2016 07: 25
    +4
    Black berets


    I would not put OUR next to it, my native black beret is the Marine Corps, for association with merikatos. Moreover, they have never had such a thing. Let them drag their hats, caps, caps.
  5. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 26 November 2016 07: 45
    0
    In foreseeable future the American fleet will maintain its dominant position.
    Important - In the foreseeable future, then they hope that humanity has a future!
  6. Altona
    Altona 26 November 2016 07: 50
    +6
    According to the description, the US Navy is an impressive force. However, expeditionary forces now can not do. For our country, all this striking power does not present any danger. At a huge operational distance, she will not be able to act, except with cruise missiles. Therefore, apparently the United States and build a network of bases around the world as a set of bridgeheads with the aim of appearing under a specific theater. In general, it is clear what tasks the US Navy performs — projecting forces on recalcitrant and controlling sea lanes.
  7. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 26 November 2016 08: 29
    +5
    At the fortuneteller.
    -Hello, my name is Barack and until recently I thought I controlled the world.
    -And?
    - It turns out the world is ruled by a completely different person !! What should I do???
    -Well do judo, hockey, swimming, and perhaps someday you will manage at least the area. (C) Ural Dumplings.
  8. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 26 November 2016 11: 02
    0
    Quote: Vladimirets
    Quote: knn54
    who owns the sea, owns the world

    Oh really?

    It is strange that you do not agree (or maybe agree on the contrary). I believe that this is your irony of what has long been known. Or am I wrong?
  9. Normal ok
    Normal ok 26 November 2016 13: 57
    +1
    Khramchikhin - well done. His articles (even controversial) always have a good knowledge of the topic.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2016 22: 49
      +1
      Quote: Normal ok
      His articles (even controversial) always have a good knowledge of the topic.

      :))))) Alas.
  10. Old26
    Old26 26 November 2016 14: 11
    +5
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    Yes, of course ... for the war with the aborigines who do not have the means to combat the AUG, all this armada is imprisoned to fight.
    Russia and China need to improve BALLS, ONYXES, CALIBERS, GRANITE and hehe future ZIRCONS as well as submarines ... the main enemies of the AUG of the USA.

    Yes, stop, Alexey, every time to blame the fact that the American fleet is "sharpened" for the war with the Papuans. And ours, which is sharpened to fight the US fleet? The Soviet, like the American fleet, in the fight against each other, were sharpened to fight only in a nuclear war. When using conventional weapons, our fleet was losing to the American, both Soviet and Russian. We lost unequivocally in quantitative composition, periodically and in quality composition. There were certain periods when we had more new ships than the Americans. But this is only in certain periods. And it was about such periods that the American magazine "Army" wrote in 1966, describing the fleets

    If you enter the port and there is no way to determine nationality by flags and pennants, then select the most beautiful, cleanest and New ships and nine tenths of them will be Russian

    Alas, the Russian (imperial, Soviet, Russian) fleet has never been among the strongest.

    Very beautiful and patriotic to mention
    BALLS, ONYXES, CALIBERS, GRANITES and hehe future ZIRCONS
    but you have to be realistic. In order to hit any of these missiles, the ship (submarine) has to approach very close from a tactical point of view. In addition, there is practically no target designation structure. Well, "BAL" is, of course, a very terrible weapon for the AUG. Subsonic "Calibers" of course are also the most terrible threat to the AUG. The Onyxes with their 300 kg warhead were originally designed to defeat destroyer-cruiser-class ships (maximum). The only complex that could pose a threat is the Granites. But again, without target designation, their effectiveness decreases.
    Do not forget that the AUG order is a circle with a radius of about 100 km. In addition to 1-2 cruisers and 4-6 destroyers, the order also includes nuclear submarines. Surface ships generally have no chance of approaching the AUG. The radius of patrolling of AWACS aircraft is about 400 km from the AUG with a detection range of 600 km ... So you should not engage in harshness. This usually ends badly for our country. You have to be realistic. After all, it was not for nothing that a couple of Tupolev regiments were allocated to defeat the AUG
    What concerns the possibility of hitting an aircraft carrier with a cruise missile. Admiral Kapitanets has the EMNIP book "War at Sea", where he very clearly writes how many X-22 class missiles (and in terms of warhead weight) it is equivalent to "granite" required to destroy and destroy (sink) an aircraft carrier. Offhand 8 for defeat and 11 for sinking. And this is with a 1000 kg warhead with 600 kg of explosives. Are you planning to drown them with missiles whose warhead weighs 300 kg, of which 150 kg is explosive? Do not be so thoughtless about the enemy number 1 for us


    Quote: avg-mgn
    In foreseeable future the American fleet will maintain its dominant position.
    Important - In the foreseeable future, then they hope that humanity has a future!

    good
  11. Tolik_74
    Tolik_74 26 November 2016 14: 40
    +1
    Counted-counted lope at the p.i.nd.so.s.o.s. in the ships, and went astray. The main thing is not quantity, but crew training. One SU-27 was frightened by a super-duper boat, Donald Cook, who, at the most, was filled with the most modern electronics and the most interesting thing, was that this vessel was specially designed for conducting electronic warfare. So all this pack of ships is no more than a pile of targets for Caliber, Onyx, etc. And these rockets shoot for sure
    1. Locomotive
      Locomotive 26 November 2016 16: 22
      +4
      Do not read sovetsk newspapers at night, yeah lol
    2. My doctor
      My doctor 27 November 2016 13: 28
      +1
      Quote: Tolik_74
      One SU-27 was frightened by a super-duper boat, Donald Cook, who, at the most, was filled with the most modern electronics and the most interesting thing, was that this vessel was specially designed for conducting electronic warfare.

      The training of American military personnel focuses on the ideas of behaviorism. Where the response is fixed for each stimulus with the expectation that in a critical situation the subject does not need to strain the brain, but trust the reflexes.
      In short, there are such impressionable people whom it is dangerous to tell a joke.
  12. Locomotive
    Locomotive 26 November 2016 16: 21
    +3
    Dear Experts, you should at least take an interest in your own horizons, how many percent of GDP Russia exports / imports in the waters of the oceans ... it will immediately decrease enthusiasm.
    1. Retvizan
      Retvizan 27 November 2016 14: 50
      0
      Quote: Steam Train
      how many percent of GDP Russia exports / imports in the waters of the oceans ... immediately the enthusiasm will decrease.

      . The share of sea transport in freight turnover is 8%(with a world average of more than 60%), although mass of transported goods - less than 1% of the total. This ratio is achieved due to the largest average transportation distance - about 4,5 thousand km. Passenger transportation by sea is negligible.

      On a global scale, maritime transport ranks first in terms of cargo turnover, distinguished by the minimum cost of cargo transportation. In Russia, it is relatively underdeveloped, since the main economic centers of the country are remote from the sea coasts. In addition, most of the seas surrounding the country are freezing, which increases the cost of using sea transport. A serious problem is the country's outdated fleet. Most ships were built over 20 years ago and should be decommissioned by world standards. There are practically no ships of modern types: gas carriers, lighter carriers, container ships, ships with horizontal loading and unloading, etc. There are only 11 large seaports in Russia, which is not enough for a country of this magnitude. About half of Russian cargo from sea transport is served by ports of other states. These are mainly ports of the former Soviet republics: Odessa (Ukraine), Ventspils (Latvia), Tallinn (Estonia), Klaipeda (Lithuania). The use of seaports of other states leads to financial losses. To solve this problem, new ports are being built on the shores of the Baltic and Black Seas.

      At present, the Far East is the leading marine basin in Russia. The main ports in it are rarely freezing Vladivostok and Nakhodka. Near Nakhodka, a modern Vostochny port was built with terminals for exporting coal and timber. Of great importance is also the port of Vanino, located on the final section of the Baikal-Amur Railway. This port has a ferry connecting the railway network of mainland Russia with the network of Sakhalin Island (port of Kholmsk).

      In second place in terms of cargo turnover is the Northern Basin. The main ports in it are: Murmansk (ice-free, although it is located beyond the Arctic Circle) and Arkhangelsk (timber export, both sea and river). Large ports also operate at the mouth of the Yenisei. This is Dudinka, through which ore concentrates are exported from Norilsk, and Igarka, through which wood and forest products go. The section of the Northern Sea Route between the mouth of the Yenisei and Murmansk is year-round, which is ensured by the use of powerful icebreakers, including nuclear ones. Navigation east of the mouth of the Yenisei is only 2-3 months in the summer

      The third most important is the Baltic basin. The main ports in it are St. Petersburg (freezing) and Kaliningrad (non-freezing). Using the convenient Kaliningrad port is difficult, as it is separated from the main part of Russia by the territories of foreign states. Near St. Petersburg there is a small port of Vyborg, through which mainly timber cargoes go. The ports of Ust-Luga and Primorsk are being built.

      In fourth place in terms of cargo turnover is Cheriomorsko-Azov basin. Two non-freezing oil export ports are located here - Novorossiysk (the most powerful in Russia) and Tuapse. Sea transport also includes transport along the Caspian Sea. The largest here are the ports of Astrakhan (sea and river at the same time) and Makhachkala, through which mainly oil cargo goes.

  13. Operator
    Operator 26 November 2016 16: 51
    +1
    author - US military power rests on strategic nuclear forces (all of a sudden).
  14. Old26
    Old26 26 November 2016 16: 59
    +6
    Quote: Tolik_74
    Counted-counted lope at the p.i.nd.so.s.o.s. in the ships, and went astray. The main thing is not quantity, but crew training. One SU-27 was frightened by a super-duper boat, Donald Cook, who, at the most, was filled with the most modern electronics and the most interesting thing, was that this vessel was specially designed for conducting electronic warfare. So all this pack of ships is no more than a pile of targets for Caliber, Onyx, etc. And these rockets shoot for sure

    Already SU-27? the TU-160 will probably appear soon? Even the SU-24 did not have the Khibins, of which everyone says that they were the ones who sent the entire Cook crew to the latrine. They were installed only on the SU-34 ...
    yes, of course enemy ships are just a "pile of targets". especially the subsonic "Caliber" against a ship with a hundred missiles .... laughing
    There is no need for too much patriotic remarks and hatred. Hatchery usually ends badly
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. sabakina
    sabakina 26 November 2016 22: 09
    +2
    Tatyana,
    Thanks for the complement. By the way, the name was Chucha. Generally interesting story with her. I got a job in my office in 1993. The office was on the third floor of a bourgeois house. In the second year of work, one grandmother offered a kitten. I took. Brought in a company car. My sister called Chechurepolo, Chuch took root. But, what’s most interesting, according to my mother’s stories, she felt my approach at the stage of my opening the doors in the entrance! She lived for 18 years. After the death of 5-7 days, she had to lie on the balcony (March month, the earth did not dig). By the way, a German shepherd named Zeta ... Day lay on the bed where she died, her hands did not rise to bury, so became a member of the family. I still don’t understand how the cat felt my approach?
    Sincerely, Vyacheslav A. Agarkov.
    1. Tatyana
      Tatyana 28 November 2016 18: 11
      0
      I greet you, Vyacheslav Anatolyevich!
      Both cats and dogs - and animals in general - are very smart! They have a memory. If you communicate and talk with them, they understand human speech and voice intonation, as well as facial expressions of a person. She herself was convinced of this more than once.
      For instance. We had a 4-year-old cat Timosha at our dacha across the street and one of our neighbors had a plot. The children brought their grandchildren to the dacha and another - their own - a younger cat, who drove Timosha out of his area. Once, I saw, Timosha was sitting on my porch railing and eating from a bowl phytafluoric tomatoes, which I was going to throw away - in general, behind the plots of our garden. He was so skinny and didn't even scare me out of hunger. And before he - such a handsome man (long-haired, dark brown with a white "shirt-front" and in white "slippers") - did not let anyone near him! I looked at him attentively: he had already started vitamin deficiency from hunger, and his eyes were festering. I had to process his eyes and feed the cat for real. I told Timosha's owners about this, and they asked for the second cat to keep Timosha with us all summer. So he lived with us. And the next summer, everyone was waiting for us on the porch. The neighbors told us about it. So it was until we ourselves stopped going to the dacha to live in the summer.
      On the first night of his constant life, it was interesting with us. Fed Timosha left in the evening and didn’t come back a night ago. At 5 o’clock in the morning I hear the drummer of the orchestra playing on the plates at our front doors, and next to them were the windows of the veranda. And they play with a break several times - and only one drummer. I got up - went to see - and I see. Timosh’s cat sits on the railing of the porch and, bending into a string, knocks his paw at our window. Like, open it - I'm back! As soon as he saw me, he smiled happily! It turns out that cats smile just like dogs! Timosha saw that I was going to open the door for him, immediately jumped off the railing and waited. And his owners then told us that he always asked them to open doors for him. But in this case, it was the cat who was RAD that THIRD people in my face correctly understood his “conversation”! More than once I saw how dogs teach their owners what they need. Explain to people their desires and intentions and patiently pedagogically show this several times. Like, do it the way I do! That's what I want from you!
  17. Vadim_2
    Vadim_2 28 November 2016 07: 08
    +1
    The main strength of the USA is the printing press.
    The rest is only secondary derivatives.
  18. MaksoMelan
    MaksoMelan 28 November 2016 11: 15
    0
    I think how counteraction to the American fleet is necessary to erase missile-carrying ekranoplanes. They will be able to get out of the frozen ports because there is no difference flying over water or is it necessary to ice? This means freedom of maneuver at any time of the year. The fleet certainly will not replace. But there is no opposition to this yet. And it’s cheaper than building hundreds of ships.
  19. yehat
    yehat 28 November 2016 15: 09
    0
    a little mischievously said about an amphibious assault ship like America
    its dimensions are close to an aircraft carrier, it is, but it does not have the ability to base heavy aircraft
    and the base of the F-35 is somewhat limited in comparison with the aircraft carrier.
    Therefore, it does not fundamentally differ from the same tarava.
    The use of drones can change the situation, but this is not yet today or even tomorrow.