Does Russia have 100 ships for action at distant shores?
Admiral Vladimir Korolev, Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, I confess, puzzled with one figure. Speaking in St. Petersburg at the celebrations dedicated to the 320th anniversary of the founding of the Russian fleethe said the following:
"Near 100 ships today perform their tasks in the Far-Eastern and Maritime zone, continuing more than three centuries of glorious history Russian fleet. "
The figure is significant. And it gave rise to the expected reaction on both sides of the information front. Someone was really glad that the history of the Russian fleet, as the commander-in-chief said, continues, someone began to count in order to prove that this is a lie.
After carefully analyzing all the pros and cons, I came to the conclusion that Comrade Admiral still slandered, losing sight of the context (the journalists didn’t pull out, checked on the website of the Ministry of Defense) the word “courts”.
Indeed, today it is quite normal that about a hundred ships and vessels carry out the tasks assigned to them. Exactly. It is in the marine (first of all) and Far Eastern zones.
Why exactly in this order, and not like the Queen?
It's simple.
It is necessary to take into account our specifics. No matter how it sounded, but the Russian fleet cannot be considered as a whole for many reasons. And in the first place - it is the isolation of the component components.
Let us take as an example our eternal potential adversaries, that is, the USA. They have two operational-tactical connections.
The US Navy Atlantic Fleet, which includes the 2, 4 and 6 operating naval fleets of the United States and the US Navy Pacific Fleet, which includes the 3, 5 and 7 operating fleets.
And if necessary, the forces of operational fleets may well cover areas of responsibility.
The Russian fleet is simply scattered around isolated theaters of operations. In fact, these are five operational connections, united by a common command. Four fleet and Caspian flotilla. And there's nothing to be done about it, this is our country. Huge. And if ground forces can still be maneuvered, then, as we see today, the transfer of naval forces from one theater of military operations to another is a matter of a fair amount of time.
Now about the far-ocean zone of action.
It immediately becomes clear that this zone is exclusively under the jurisdiction of two fleets: the Northern and the Pacific. And it’s not even the fact that the oceans are quite far from the Black Sea, but the fact that in the Baltic and the Black Sea we don’t have too many ships capable of performing any tasks far from our shores.
Speaking seriously about the warships of the far sea zone, excluding those under repair (which is also important), the picture will not be very pleasant. We are talking about large, I emphasize, warships. Landing ship capable of moving a company of marine corps and several tanksas an object of fulfilling tasks in the Far Ocean zone somehow does not look serious.
Pacific Fleet:
Large surface ships: Varyag missile cruiser; the destroyer "Fast" of the 956 project (two more, "Stormy" and "Bezvyaznenny" under repair); BOD project 1155 ("Marshal Shaposhnikov", "Admiral Tributs", "Admiral Vinogradov" and "Admiral Panteleev").
Total 7 units.
Plus submarine forces:
Strategic missile submarine cruisers ("George the Victorious", "Podolsk", "Ryazan", "Alexander Nevsky", "Vladimir Monomakh") - 5 units.
Nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (SSGN) - 3 + 2 (“Tver”, “Omsk”, “Tomsk” in the ranks, “Irkutsk”, “Chelyabinsk” under repair).
A submarine with missile-torpedo armament of the project "Pike-B" ("Kuzbass" in the ranks, 4 boats under repair).
Total 15 units.
In total, the Pacific Fleet will be able to put no more than 15 ships into the Far-Eastern zone.
And this is despite the fact that the Pacific Fleet is the second largest fleet after the Northern Fleet.
With regards to the Northern Fleet, the numbers are slightly higher, but in general it is unlikely that more 25 units will turn out.
If we add a few more ships of the DMZ (far sea zone) with the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet, we will get a number in the 45-50 ships.
However, do not forget that even connecting to 3-4 of surface combat ships requires a serious escort. In the form of auxiliary vessels. Tankers, radar reconnaissance vessels, killers and others. Yes, these are not warships, but without them (especially without tankers) the performance of tasks in the DMZ is somehow poorly represented.
Now just about the sea zone. Near.
International law interprets this question in such a way that territorial waters are 12 miles, followed by an exclusive economic zone (200 miles). Further away - the shelf and the open sea. Territorial waters we do not take. The EEZ is closer to the topic of the marine zone. 150 or 200 miles (for example) - this is enough to say that the ship or ship performs the task in the sea zone. The distance is clearly not coastal.
And here we have a fairly large number of ships capable of performing combat missions. There is no point in citing lists, as with large ones, it is enough to name the classes.
These include small rocket ships (the Gadfly, Sivuch, and Buyan projects), small anti-submarine ships of the 1124 (Albatross) project, sea minesweepers (the Aquamarine, Rubin projects), rocket boats. With a cruising range from 1500 to 4000 miles. And we have ships of these classes, albeit not so much as we would like, but there are.
And, if we, having applied the head, simply unite the ships of the DMZ and the MH, then at the exit we can get a figure even exceeding that voiced by Korolev.
It turns out that, if we bear in mind the possible tasks of our fleet in the DMZ, then yes, 100 ships and vessels is the real figure, and here Korolev did not lie at all. So, a deceiver.
Another question: is it necessary?
What did our ships forget in the DMZ, and even in such quantities? What goals can they pursue and what tasks to perform?
"Show presence"? If you translate, then “spend money taxpayers”, right? Apply "official friendly visits"? No, I agree, Peter the Great looked in the Panama Canal, and there is no dispute on the roads of Caracas. But in our reality it would be possible to drive away (if it burns deeply) even smaller shit.
If you really look at our defensive concept, the creation of the fleet, which in the DMZ will be able to counteract the US fleet somewhere in the Mariana Islands or the Chinese fleet in the Yellow Sea, is not so necessary.
The “spreading” of our naval forces, primarily due to our geographic location, provides for a comprehensive opposition to the likely enemy, relying not so much on the forces of the fleet, as on the forces of all our armed forces.
Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the Northern and Pacific fleets, because it is there that it is possible (on the Northern to a lesser extent) opposition to the likely enemy. But if we are talking about the game "from defense", then an integrated approach is really needed.
So that the forces of the same fleets of the United States, when approaching our frontiers, meet not only our ships, but also VKS, air defense and tactical missiles. Then, in principle, we are not afraid of any fleet.
Thus, the number 100, voiced by the Queen, is twofold. Either very little, or more than enough, if we are talking specifically about the tasks in the DMZ. It all depends on how you look at the angle.
If you look exactly from the angle that is voiced in our defense doctrine, then on the whole it is enough to train crews on long hikes and to denote “presence”.
True, this does not negate the naval problems that we have today. But that's another story.
And I would like to finish today's story, if not on the most optimistic note, but somewhat calm those who scream that we have no ships. The ships, as practice shows, we have. Yes, not as much as I really would like. Need more, I agree. And I think that the ships will be. But not in order to “mark the presence” of the devil in the kulichka, far away, but in order to fulfill the real tasks of protecting the security of our borders.
"Near 100 ships today perform their tasks in the Far-Eastern and Maritime zone, continuing more than three centuries of glorious history Russian fleet. "
The figure is significant. And it gave rise to the expected reaction on both sides of the information front. Someone was really glad that the history of the Russian fleet, as the commander-in-chief said, continues, someone began to count in order to prove that this is a lie.
After carefully analyzing all the pros and cons, I came to the conclusion that Comrade Admiral still slandered, losing sight of the context (the journalists didn’t pull out, checked on the website of the Ministry of Defense) the word “courts”.
Indeed, today it is quite normal that about a hundred ships and vessels carry out the tasks assigned to them. Exactly. It is in the marine (first of all) and Far Eastern zones.
Why exactly in this order, and not like the Queen?
It's simple.
It is necessary to take into account our specifics. No matter how it sounded, but the Russian fleet cannot be considered as a whole for many reasons. And in the first place - it is the isolation of the component components.
Let us take as an example our eternal potential adversaries, that is, the USA. They have two operational-tactical connections.
The US Navy Atlantic Fleet, which includes the 2, 4 and 6 operating naval fleets of the United States and the US Navy Pacific Fleet, which includes the 3, 5 and 7 operating fleets.
And if necessary, the forces of operational fleets may well cover areas of responsibility.
The Russian fleet is simply scattered around isolated theaters of operations. In fact, these are five operational connections, united by a common command. Four fleet and Caspian flotilla. And there's nothing to be done about it, this is our country. Huge. And if ground forces can still be maneuvered, then, as we see today, the transfer of naval forces from one theater of military operations to another is a matter of a fair amount of time.
Now about the far-ocean zone of action.
It immediately becomes clear that this zone is exclusively under the jurisdiction of two fleets: the Northern and the Pacific. And it’s not even the fact that the oceans are quite far from the Black Sea, but the fact that in the Baltic and the Black Sea we don’t have too many ships capable of performing any tasks far from our shores.
Speaking seriously about the warships of the far sea zone, excluding those under repair (which is also important), the picture will not be very pleasant. We are talking about large, I emphasize, warships. Landing ship capable of moving a company of marine corps and several tanksas an object of fulfilling tasks in the Far Ocean zone somehow does not look serious.
Pacific Fleet:
Large surface ships: Varyag missile cruiser; the destroyer "Fast" of the 956 project (two more, "Stormy" and "Bezvyaznenny" under repair); BOD project 1155 ("Marshal Shaposhnikov", "Admiral Tributs", "Admiral Vinogradov" and "Admiral Panteleev").
Total 7 units.
Plus submarine forces:
Strategic missile submarine cruisers ("George the Victorious", "Podolsk", "Ryazan", "Alexander Nevsky", "Vladimir Monomakh") - 5 units.
Nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (SSGN) - 3 + 2 (“Tver”, “Omsk”, “Tomsk” in the ranks, “Irkutsk”, “Chelyabinsk” under repair).
A submarine with missile-torpedo armament of the project "Pike-B" ("Kuzbass" in the ranks, 4 boats under repair).
Total 15 units.
In total, the Pacific Fleet will be able to put no more than 15 ships into the Far-Eastern zone.
And this is despite the fact that the Pacific Fleet is the second largest fleet after the Northern Fleet.
With regards to the Northern Fleet, the numbers are slightly higher, but in general it is unlikely that more 25 units will turn out.
If we add a few more ships of the DMZ (far sea zone) with the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet, we will get a number in the 45-50 ships.
However, do not forget that even connecting to 3-4 of surface combat ships requires a serious escort. In the form of auxiliary vessels. Tankers, radar reconnaissance vessels, killers and others. Yes, these are not warships, but without them (especially without tankers) the performance of tasks in the DMZ is somehow poorly represented.
Now just about the sea zone. Near.
International law interprets this question in such a way that territorial waters are 12 miles, followed by an exclusive economic zone (200 miles). Further away - the shelf and the open sea. Territorial waters we do not take. The EEZ is closer to the topic of the marine zone. 150 or 200 miles (for example) - this is enough to say that the ship or ship performs the task in the sea zone. The distance is clearly not coastal.
And here we have a fairly large number of ships capable of performing combat missions. There is no point in citing lists, as with large ones, it is enough to name the classes.
These include small rocket ships (the Gadfly, Sivuch, and Buyan projects), small anti-submarine ships of the 1124 (Albatross) project, sea minesweepers (the Aquamarine, Rubin projects), rocket boats. With a cruising range from 1500 to 4000 miles. And we have ships of these classes, albeit not so much as we would like, but there are.
And, if we, having applied the head, simply unite the ships of the DMZ and the MH, then at the exit we can get a figure even exceeding that voiced by Korolev.
It turns out that, if we bear in mind the possible tasks of our fleet in the DMZ, then yes, 100 ships and vessels is the real figure, and here Korolev did not lie at all. So, a deceiver.
Another question: is it necessary?
What did our ships forget in the DMZ, and even in such quantities? What goals can they pursue and what tasks to perform?
"Show presence"? If you translate, then “spend money taxpayers”, right? Apply "official friendly visits"? No, I agree, Peter the Great looked in the Panama Canal, and there is no dispute on the roads of Caracas. But in our reality it would be possible to drive away (if it burns deeply) even smaller shit.
If you really look at our defensive concept, the creation of the fleet, which in the DMZ will be able to counteract the US fleet somewhere in the Mariana Islands or the Chinese fleet in the Yellow Sea, is not so necessary.
The “spreading” of our naval forces, primarily due to our geographic location, provides for a comprehensive opposition to the likely enemy, relying not so much on the forces of the fleet, as on the forces of all our armed forces.
Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the Northern and Pacific fleets, because it is there that it is possible (on the Northern to a lesser extent) opposition to the likely enemy. But if we are talking about the game "from defense", then an integrated approach is really needed.
So that the forces of the same fleets of the United States, when approaching our frontiers, meet not only our ships, but also VKS, air defense and tactical missiles. Then, in principle, we are not afraid of any fleet.
Thus, the number 100, voiced by the Queen, is twofold. Either very little, or more than enough, if we are talking specifically about the tasks in the DMZ. It all depends on how you look at the angle.
If you look exactly from the angle that is voiced in our defense doctrine, then on the whole it is enough to train crews on long hikes and to denote “presence”.
True, this does not negate the naval problems that we have today. But that's another story.
And I would like to finish today's story, if not on the most optimistic note, but somewhat calm those who scream that we have no ships. The ships, as practice shows, we have. Yes, not as much as I really would like. Need more, I agree. And I think that the ships will be. But not in order to “mark the presence” of the devil in the kulichka, far away, but in order to fulfill the real tasks of protecting the security of our borders.
Information