Military Review

Right, America, the seas ...

35
Right, America, the seas ...In an effort to “make America great again”, the new US President Donald Trump has actually begun to implement a large-scale military construction program, which, according to the White House and the Pentagon’s strategists, should preserve for the foreseeable future the status of the main military machine of the planet for the US Armed Forces, able to solve a wide range of tasks in different parts of the world. Not the last place in these plans is given to building up the combat power of the US Navy, which over the past decades has “wrinkled” like shagreen leather. President Trump’s new shipbuilding program can be briefly called “Fleet in 350 Pennants”. However in stories The US Navy already had an episode when Washington tried to implement an even more ambitious program called the "600 Pennant Fleet." It ended not quite successfully: to solve the problem posed by the American military-political leadership fleet and the shipbuilding industry then fully failed. It is possible that the same fate awaits the current ambitious program of Donald Trump.


OCEAN SCARES AMERICA

In the spring of 1970 of the year, from 14 of April to 5 of May, a large part of the vast oceans - in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans and eight seas - with the participation of the forces and means of all four navies of the USSR naval forces , which became the first truly oceanic maneuvers of the Soviet nuclear-missile fleet and vividly demonstrated its substantially increased combat potential.

The maneuvers led by the Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy, Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Sergei Gorshkov, were attended by a total of several hundred submarines and surface ships of all classes, combat boats and auxiliary vessels, the forces of the Sea aviation (more than 20 aviation regiments) and coastal fleet forces (2 marine regiments and a number of units and subunits), as well as long-range aviation (8 air regiments) and the country's air defense forces (3 corps and 3 divisions, including 14 anti-aircraft missile brigades and regiments, as well as 13 fighter aviation regiments, a squadron of AWACS aircraft and 7 radio engineering brigades and regiments). At the same time, about 80 submarines were deployed in remote areas of the ocean and sea zones, including 15 nuclear submarines (including nuclear submarines with ballistic and cruise missiles that were involved in such exercises for the first time in the history of the Russian Navy), 84 main surface combat ships and 45 auxiliary vessels.

As part of the Ocean maneuvers, 31 tactical and command-staff exercises (SF-11, TOF-8, BL and CHF-6 exercises) were conducted in aggregate, and the warships carried out about 1000 combat exercises (rocket firing - 64, artillery firing - 430, torpedo firing - 352, depth bombing - 84), during which 68 rockets, 416 torpedoes, 298 sea mines, etc. were used

In the course of these large-scale exercises, the coherence of the headquarters and the interaction of the fleets of the Navy with the operational formations of other types of the USSR Armed Forces, as well as the naval forces of a number of friendly states of the world in order to solve the tasks of searching for and destroying the enemy’s underwater strategic missile groups and formations , landings and convoys, as well as the destruction of enemy coastal facilities for various purposes, including those located deep in the enemy's territory. It should be especially noted that the exercise was managed from a single command post.

“This exercise impressed the US Navy,” writes George W. Baer, ​​a prominent American naval historian and expert in the field of naval strategy, at that time the head of the strategy and policy department and professor of naval issues. strategy of the US Naval College, in his work "The Centenary of Maritime Power: The US Navy in 1890 – 1990 years." - More than 99% of Soviet warships and submarines (who took part in the exercises. - V.SH.) were less than 20 years old. On the contrary, a significant part of the American forces (fleet) was ready for scrapping, and more than half of the American surface ships and vessels had served for over 20 years. The exorbitant costs of the Vietnam War and the very costly rearmament of 30 submarines from the Polaris missiles to the Poseidon literally ate up the shipbuilding budget of the US Navy. ”

In general, as George Baer points out, the 1970 Ocean Ocean maneuvers “opened their eyes” to the command of the US Navy and the Pentagon’s leadership on the true state of affairs in the vast oceans. And soon the American sailors were able to feel the changed balance of forces at sea, as they say, the hard way. So, in the 1973 year, after the US showed clear support for Israel during the next escalation of its confrontation with the neighboring Arab countries, the Soviet command sent a large grouping of warships to the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea and concentrated considerable aviation forces on the airfields of Egypt and Syria.

"The Soviet fleet sent here four anti-aircraft (ship) groups that accompanied each of the three strike aircraft carriers of the 6 fleet and the amphibious group," writes George Baer in the above-mentioned work. - By the end of October, the 1973 of the Soviet Mediterranean Fleet (meaning 5 (Mediterranean) Navy Squadron of the USSR. - V.SH.) counted 95 warships “capable of using 88 cruise anti-ship missiles, 348 torpedoes and 46 anti-aircraft guided missiles in the first strike rockets. " For the first time in the area of ​​crisis, the Soviet fleet outnumbered the American fleet by a third. In addition, the Soviet command could strike at 6 fleet and with the help of coast-based aviation, and from four directions at once: from Yugoslavia, Egypt, Syria or the Crimea ... As a result, the United States had to accept the Soviet ultimatum for Israelis allowed to leave surrounded by the Egyptian 3-th Army ".

In this regard, Admiral Elmo Russell Zumvolt Jr., the youngest naval operations commander in the history of the American Navy (commander) of the US Navy, said: “I doubt that since the end of World War II, the US Navy has found itself in such a tense situation 6 fleet in the Mediterranean ".

Five years later, from 3 to 21 on April 1975 of the year, the Soviet Navy holds new grandiose naval exercises - “Ocean-75”, only slightly inferior to the 1970 maneuvers of the year. This time, the Northern and Pacific fleets were almost fully deployed and the interacting formations and units of the Baltic and Black Sea fleets, as well as formations and units of Long-Range Aviation, air defense forces, Strategic Missile Forces and the Leningrad Military District. The “northern” and “southern” forces included 76 surface ships, 35 submarines, including 11 nuclear, 28 auxiliary ships, as well as 168 airplanes and 44 helicopters from 11 aviation regiments.

The maneuvers tested the main provisions of the operational art and tactics of the types and types of troops, the transfer of the Navy from peace to martial law, the covert deployment of forces and their support, ensuring the unloading of their submarine strategic rocket carriers, disrupting naval communications of a potential enemy, and conducting combat operations using conventional and nuclear weaponsthat were used to strike warships and coastal targets of the enemy. In this case, the defeat of enemy aircraft carrier and various naval strike groups and groups of its anti-submarine forces in the North-East Atlantic and the Norwegian Sea, the conquest of domination in the Barents Sea and the disruption of enemy ocean traffic in the Atlantic Ocean, and the destruction of its SSBN in areas their combat patrols and in the bases - in cooperation with Long-Range Aviation and the Strategic Missile Forces.

Changing the paradigm and a major shift in the naval balance of forces was considered in Washington and the beginning of the operation of the Soviet Navy base Cam Ranh (Vietnam), built earlier by the Americans themselves. But the last straw that broke Washington’s patience was the fact that Soviet warships began to appear, as they say, in America’s “backyard” - in the Gulf of Mexico. In the period from 1969 to 1981, the Americans spotted 10 of such visits, and once the Soviet ships approached 20 miles from the coast of the continent. Among the "trespassers" of the American tranquility were including 20 surface ships with rocket weapons and 6 submarines.

NEW PRESIDENT - NEW MINISTER

In January, 1981, a new owner appeared in the Oval Office of the White House - the new US President Ronald Reagan. Uncompromisingly and decisively, like his heroes from dashing westerns, in which he, among other things, was filmed during his acting period of life (although during military service during the Second World War, Reagan never left the continental states, "fighting fearlessly" on the ideological front , but then, incidentally, told the exact opposite), a staunch anti-communist and anti-Soviet, Reagan took up the fight against the threat posed by the “evil empire” - such a title he assigned to the Soviet Union.

And this former Feborian “seksot”, becoming the full owner of the Oval Office, decided that the US military strategy became ineffective and even, one can say, amorphous, and therefore it should be urgently reviewed, making it more aggressive and able to reliably restrain America’s main enemy. The leadership of the White House and numerous American military experts made conclusions about the fallen combat potential of the national armed forces on the basis of the analysis of the experience of the participation of the US armed forces in the Vietnam War, which turned out to be very ambiguous, to some extent even negative.

Naturally, all of the above concerned the American naval strategy. To implement the idea of ​​"crushing the bastions of the Soviet fleet" was supposed to be the new US Navy Minister - John Francis Lehman.

The new minister was young - just 38 years (!) - and came to the fleet from consulting: since 1977, he headed the consulting company Abington Corporation founded by him, among whose clients were not one company of the American military-industrial complex, including example, the corporation "Northrop Grumman." However, John Lehman was not, as it may seem at first glance, very far from the fleet - by that time he had already served 12 for years in the US Navy Reserve, where he reached the commander - a military rank, generally corresponding to the Russian rank of captain 2 rank. And before that, since the time of training in Cambridge, the future naval minister was in the US Air Force Reserve.

Thus, Minister of Naval Forces John Lehman, occupying this high post, at the same time was the commander of the reserve of the US Armed Forces species subordinate to him. Looking ahead, I note that he remained an officer of the Reserve Navy after 1987 resigned from the post of minister in the year, deciding to devote himself to entrepreneurial activity. And two years later, Lehman received the military rank of captain - corresponds to the military rank of captain 1 rank in the Russian Navy. In total, Lehman, therefore, served as a reserve officer for three decades.

That's exactly this man that President Reagan commissioned to build a renewed, more powerful and numerous - in 600 pennants - the US Navy, and also to develop a new naval strategy, which then became better known as the “strategy of progressive action” with the Soviet Navy in the entire ocean and even near the shores of the latter. With regard to the submarine forces of the US Navy, the concept of "advanced action" meant penetration into the "bastions" of the Soviet Navy - in contrast to the task of "holding the lines", which the American submariners had solved before.

It should be noted that John Lehman proved himself in the military field not only as one of the developers of the new naval strategy of the United States. He was also inspired by the idea of ​​a highly ambiguous strategic concept, called to give an “adequate response” to a possible Soviet military invasion of Western Europe and called the Lehman Doctrine.

In short, the essence of this “genius” plan, promulgated in 1987, was simple: while Soviet troops, invading Western Europe, were moving towards the English Channel, American troops were supposed to land on the Far Eastern coast of the Soviet Union, where, according to Lehman, the defense of the enemy was much weaker, and then advance along the Trans-Siberian Railway in a westerly direction with the ultimate goal - Moscow. Today, knowing how powerful the grouping of forces and means of the USSR Armed Forces was concentrated beyond the Urals, and particularly in Primorye, and also realizing that in the event of such a large-scale invasion in the Far East, the Soviet military-political leadership would inevitably give good to the use of tactical nuclear weapons (this at best, and could well have reached the strategic nuclear forces), in which we still surpass the entire NATO bloc, the future of the Lehmann plan looks very unpresentable. However, since the military invasion of Soviet troops in Western Europe existed, apparently, only in the virtual megablokter scenario, concocted by the former actor Ronald Reagan playing the role of the US President and his surroundings, the Doctrine of Lehman remained unfulfilled, and the minister himself left state service for free of bread.

17 February 1987 of the year Navy Minister John Lehman filed a letter of resignation addressed to the president, noting that he was going to take a leadership position in the non-state sector of industry. A little earlier, 6 February, he announced his decision in an interview with the Minister of Defense Caspar Weinberger. President Reagan accepted this resignation, but, as indicated, with great regret, describing Lehman as an "outstanding minister." It should be noted that one of the achievements of the “outstanding minister” was that a very large part of the budget estimated at 1 trillion dollars allocated at the Reagan’s request to increase America’s military power went to the needs of the fleet — ships and aircraft.

Lehman emphasized that the moment for his resignation is very appropriate: he spent years in the post of 6, “creating conditions for the implementation of the concept of the fleet in the 600 pennants”, and the fleet and marines are currently in “good shape”. At the same time, he noted that the White House approved the addition of new combat ships to the 75 fleet, and in the 1989 fiscal year (FG), the shipbuilding program will be fully operational, which will allow reaching the milestone in 600 ships, the key goal of President Reagan. “Maintaining the fleet’s combat readiness today costs 60% of the Navy’s budget,” he added.

Lehman also noted that the United States should, in any case, continue to build new ships - even if the future president and Congress decide to reduce the target level in the 600 pennants. “If the presidents think in the future that the threat has decreased and that we can fulfill all our commitments in the Atlantic and the Pacific, the Navy will be smaller, then all that needs to be done is simply to write off the oldest ships a little earlier,” Lehman emphasized. “If you do not build new ships, you will simply deprive yourself of the future.”

The “strategic talent” of Lehman, which he showed in the past, seems to have been appreciated because, being engaged in the investment business, he does not drop out of the political cage, cooperating and being part of various military-political and so-called strategic working groups, institutions, etc. P. For example, the Heritage Foundation, the Institute for Foreign Policy Studies, the Center for Security Policy, the New American Century project, and others. The November 2001 attacks gave new impetus to this direction of Lehman’s activities - he is a member of a special commission investigating those events. It was rumored that work in the commission was a springboard to a high position in the administration of President George W. Bush (he was chosen to be director of the Central or National Intelligence or head of the Pentagon). None of these predictions came true. However, John Lehman still worked as an adviser to senators John McCain and Mitt Romney during their presidential election campaign.

FLEET IN 600 LAMPS

"Being once the undoubtedly dominant force at sea, the United States Navy over the past two decades due to the rapid growth in the numerical and qualitative terms of the Soviet Navy lost this advantage," the authors of the analytical study "Building a fleet of 600 ships: cost, timing and alternative approaches ”Prepared by the budget department of the US Congress in March 1982. - The Soviet fleet over the past 25 years has grown substantially in scale. Only the number of combat surface ships of the main classes and amphibious ships increased from approximately 1960 to 1980 units from the middle of the 260-s to the 362 of the year. ” On the contrary, “in the period from 1970 of the year to 1980, the number of ships in service of the US Navy fell from 847 to 538, and the number of personnel decreased from 675 thousand to about 525 thousand people”.

“However, the concern about maintaining the necessary balance in the naval area is caused not only by a simple comparison of numerical characteristics. The reason is in the qualitative changes and trends, in the rapid evolution of the Soviet Navy from a fleet of limited capabilities, focused on ensuring the defense of its coast (brown water navy), to the modern ocean fleet (blue water navy), which could pose a threat to the US Navy anywhere in the world. ” , - the authors of the report emphasized.

“During the 1970s, the Soviet Navy received for the 12 new classes of warships in the oceanic zone with modern weapons and radio-electronic systems,” says the said study. - The Soviet Union demonstrated its increased naval power and new tactics during large-scale exercises "Ocean", during which coordinated strikes were carried out against "enemy" forces, clearly designed to imitate American aircraft carrier groups. At the same time, a key element of the Soviet tactics was the use of cruise missiles, carried by airplanes, submarines and surface ships, for strikes at a long range. ”

In order to restore the national naval power and ensure the superiority of the US Navy over its main adversary - the Soviet Navy - the American military-political leadership in the person of President Reagan and the Navy Minister Lehman developed and launched 1980 in the beginning of the new naval Strategies are strategies for “advanced presence” and a very ambitious shipbuilding program associated with it. Their implementation, according to the calculations of American experts, would allow the US Navy to maintain global dominance in the expanses of the oceans.

The basic components of the new fleet construction program that the Reagan administration intended to implement were:

- a significant increase in the construction of new warships and auxiliary vessels, as well as the purchase of an additional number of aircraft and helicopters of coastal and ship-based naval aviation;

- increase the service life of old ships and auxiliary vessels;

- the return to service of the Iowa type battleships;

- acceleration and increase in the volume of construction of nuclear aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type, so that the Navy at every single moment of time would have 15 combat-ready attack aircraft carriers.

At the same time, one of the most important indicators of the new shipbuilding program was the need to bring the number of the US Navy's ship crew to at least 600 pennants in a fairly short time. Achieving this target in the most favorable situation was outlined in 1989 FG. And, although the ambitious program of naval construction was still complex, including not only actions to simply increase the number of the naval fleet, the term "600 fleet of ships (pennants)" (600-ship Navy) became the most popular unofficial definition of the main goal this program. Note also that the authorship of this ambitious plan is usually attributed only to the Navy Minister Lehman, although in reality the main provisions of the new naval strategy and shipbuilding program should probably be considered the result of “collective intelligence”.

It is necessary to point out that the new naval strategy and shipbuilding program had both influential supporters and numerous opponents. And if the former claimed that, if implemented, the “strategy of advanced action (presence)” and the new “Fleet in 600 pennants” would keep America’s strategic superiority over the Soviet Union, the latter, on the contrary, warned that the plan of Minister Lehman was too expensive and It is designed to build up manpower and resources in the area where the United States has already achieved military superiority, and also indicated that the strategy proposed by Minister Lehman did not at all take into account the urgent need to strengthen Lenia groups allied army and air force, which is vital for the successful defense of the European theater of war (HPT).

Of particular note is the fact that the new ambitious program of military shipbuilding, which had the goal of bringing the number of the US Navy ship staff to “600 +” pennants, was one very valuable feature. This program would actually save the entire US shipbuilding industry, which at the turn of 1970 – 1980-s was in a rather unpresentable state.

Thus, in the above-mentioned analytical study “Building a fleet in 600 ships: cost, time and alternative approaches” from 1982, it was stated: “The main problem of the shipbuilding industry today is not whether its physical capabilities correspond to any naval naval construction plan, and in order to keep working at all due to reduced demand from civil shipowners. For example, while in 1972 and 1973, American shipbuilders received new orders for 48 and 43 civilian ships with a displacement of 1000 of gross tons and more, respectively, then in 1980, only 7 ships were ordered, and in 1981, 6. As of 31 December 1981, orders in the civil shipbuilding sector for all American shipyards accounted for the entire 33 vessel with a total tonnage of 705 thousand gross tons. So already placed by the US government at the end of 1981 of the year or an order ready for placement in the near future to build 98 warships and ships for the Navy and 9 ships for the coast guard became an industry driver from an economic point of view. ”

However, the Pentagon and the White House failed to fully implement the plan to create the “Fleet in 600 pennants”. Mostly for economic reasons, this ambitious Reagan-Lehmann program was too expensive. Solving the task of reducing the budget deficit, the Congress with F 1986 f. began to gradually reduce national defense spending. As a result, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger was forced to resign in 1987 after fruitless attempts to “conciliate” congressmen.

Prior to that, at the beginning of that year, Navy Minister John Lehman resigned. Yes, and his successor, James Webb, briefly held out on this post, retiring the following year (was in office from 1 in May 1987 of the year to 23 in February of 1988 of the year). The reason for this was the disagreement with the new Minister of Defense Frank Carlucci, who decided to reduce the financing of the program of construction of 16 frigates. It is noteworthy that President Reagan regarding the resignation of Webb 22 February 1988 of the year noted the following: “The current Minister Webb resigned because of disagreement with the reduction of budget expenditures. I do not think that the fleet will regret his departure. ”

On the other hand, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the American fleet received the first strategic missile carriers of the new generation of the Ohio type, which became the “largest and deadliest” submarines ever built in the United States; programs for the serial construction of nuclear aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type and multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Los Angeles type were significantly accelerated, while other American aircraft carriers went through a program to extend their service life; and finally, in the US Navy surface forces, the first Ticonderoga type URO cruisers appeared with the unique Aegis multi-purpose command and control system. Also, the Iowa-type battleships, which received during the modernization of the BGM-109 "Tomahawk" cruise missiles, the Harpoon anti-ship missiles RGM-84, the rapid-fire anti-aircraft artillery systems "Phalanx" and other newest weapons and equipment, and allowed for some time to keep the veterans of the Second World War as a powerful tool for dictating Washington their will in the vast world ocean. In turn, the Reagan Naval Aviation received the F / A-18 "Hornet" carrier-based fighter-bomber and the upgraded versions of the Intruder A-6 "Intruder" and the F-14 "Tomket" fighter, as well as the EE EA-6 " Prowler. By the way, it was President Reagan who resumed the program for the serial construction of the strategic bomber B-1В and sent the Pershing II missiles to Europe - to frighten the "Russian bear".

The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to all ambitious programs of military construction (including in the part related to the US Navy), launched under President Reagan. The “Iowa” type battleships finally went on a well-deserved rest, but the serial construction of the unique Sivulf-type multipurpose nuclear-powered submarines, for which there was no enemy, was discontinued. Do not step on this rake again.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2017-09-01/6_963_america.html
35 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. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 2 September 2017 08: 10
    +4
    status of the main “military machine” of the planet

    Who doesn’t dream of his forces being powerful and “overwhelming” other forces. But you cannot forbid dreaming even by proclaiming that we (the United States) are the most. the most. For some reason, the question immediately arises - what are you the most about. the most? What great war did you win? Which state was set on the path of "true"? Further, even asking questions to this "state" is useless - "exclusivity" immediately comes out (Greg Weiner showed up as a simple Jewish emigrant).
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 2 September 2017 10: 37
      +6
      But you cannot forbid dreaming even by proclaiming that we (the United States) are the most. the most.
      That's what the states of America would not dizzy from their own exceptionalism ... we need to develop our fleet! I do not call for the construction of destroyers, aircraft carriers and submarines in the same quantity as theirs.
      Minimum sufficiency (I can not find another term) and the balance of our Navy!
      In the Atlantic and the Pacific, off the coast of a potential adversary, our multi-purpose boats must be on a permanent basis! At least two or three in each group. Our assault cruisers or destroyers (if they are to be launched anyway) and frigates with cruise missiles having a nuclear warhead should regularly walk off the coast of the hegemon.
      Flight time is a very significant factor in any war or conflict! There are no bases near America, so there should be our ships and submarines off their coast!
      I do not care so much about the power of the US Navy as the state of our Navy!
      Good afternoon, dear rotmistr60 hi
    2. MadCat
      MadCat 3 September 2017 02: 53
      +4
      Quote: rotmistr60
      For some reason, the question immediately arises - what are you the most about. the most? What great war did you win?

      and what kind of war did they lose? And if they had lost, they would hardly have built a fleet of 600 pennants.
      An illustrative example, Iraq chatted and was very proud of the Gardens, the greatest ancestors who conquered half the world under the king of peas, nevertheless, this did not stop the Americans from skating their entire army with history ... so you don’t have to flirt with this, you run the risk of really flirting.
      1. Brs2
        Brs2 1 March 2018 11: 17
        0
        And that Iraq was a powerful army?
    3. NEOZ
      NEOZ 27 March 2018 13: 45
      0
      Quote: rotmistr60
      What great war did you win?

      and what did they lose?
      as I understand it, they won all the significant wars.
  2. Tsoy
    Tsoy 2 September 2017 08: 18
    +5
    "Wrinkled" like shagreen


    Everyone would grimace so ...

    Do not step on this rake again.


    Is it that the type of the main opponent will fall apart or what? laughing


    The US Navy has a safety margin in 10-20 years ahead. A large series of destroyers who continue to build are still in service. Numerous submarine and carrier fleet. Ship aviation. But their recent projects are dubious. Zumwalt, UDC America, littoral fleet, problems with RCC.
  3. 1536
    1536 2 September 2017 08: 25
    +1
    Paranoids are sitting in the USA. After all, every day they go around and think about how to destroy the world, and survive on their own. Perhaps with the advent of Reinan, this paranoia began.
    1. To be or not to be
      To be or not to be 2 September 2017 09: 16
      +2
      Red Black will surpass ??? Yes, and Gorbachev, probably too? Goodbye America! Good bye!
      It is unlikely that it will be possible to become leaders again in the US military economy. A lot of strengths have appeared. And muscles have grown in others
      Regarding the economies of different countries, the well-known Russian blogger burckina-new did a curious manipulation - he compared the countries ’GDP by excluding the service sector indicator. The picture immediately changed quite sharply. China left the United States almost three times, and India almost caught up with America. Russia was in fourth place in the world. Japan and Germany collapsed significantly below the Russian Federation. It turns out that if we are talking about the production of what you can "feel with your hands" - industry and agriculture - then economic power Western countries are not as impressive as they seem.

      Almost 80% of the US economy is in the service sector, but this indicator is, in fact, inflated. ""
      http://www.imperiyanews.ru/details/791efa3a-4c8f-
      e711-80e2-020c5d00406e
      And the sanctions .. this is from the ENERGYNESS OF THE DEMON ..
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 2 September 2017 21: 18
        0
        Quote: To be or not to be
        Regarding the economies of different countries, the well-known Russian blogger burckina-new did a curious manipulation - he compared the countries ’GDP by excluding the service sector indicator. The picture immediately changed quite sharply. China left the United States almost three times, and India almost caught up with America. Russia was in fourth place in the world. Japan and Germany collapsed significantly below the Russian Federation. It turns out that if we are talking about the production of what you can "feel with your hands" - industry and agriculture - then economic power Western countries are not as impressive as they seem.

        So it is, GDP is a hoax, you need to look at real production indicators, not in dollars, but in pieces, tons, liters, and then it is immediately clear that now there is one industrial superpower in the world - China.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Brs2
          Brs2 1 March 2018 11: 22
          0
          Well, you turned down ... that China is the only prom superpower. China is still not an independent technological zone. In the entire recent history of such zones there were 5 - England, Germany, the States, Japan and the USSR.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 1 March 2018 13: 15
            0
            Quote: Brs2
            Well, you turned down ... that China is the only prom superpower. China is still not an independent technological zone. In the entire recent history of such zones there were 5 - England, Germany, the States, Japan and the USSR.

            China 24% of all production in the world.
            USA 10%
            India 7%
            Russia 3.6%
            Japan 3.5%
            Indonesia 1.3%
            Germany 1.2%
            from world production
  4. San Sanych
    San Sanych 2 September 2017 10: 05
    +4
    Why does the US need such a fleet? Now, when there is no “Warsaw Pact”, when the fleet of modern Russia has significantly decreased and cannot be compared with the times of the USSR? Isn’t it impossible to find another application for these means? Why do they need 15 aircraft carriers? At a time when no country in the world has more than two aircraft carriers? This is some kind of insanity
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 2 September 2017 11: 01
      +4
      Quote: San Sanych
      Why does the US need such a fleet?
      They have written in the marine doctrine that the presence of coastal bases at different points of the earth, strong strike, landing, transport capabilities of the fleet and MP will allow the United States in the 21st century to freely project its military force where necessary. And since their area of ​​interest is the whole world, the seas and oceans are very convenient for the rapid transfer of forces to crisis points. As the Vikings want to sit in warm California, making constant raids into other territories. In addition, China should not be discounted, which is trying very hard and saturated tons of its coastal zone and ocean trade routes with its ships and ships in hefty quantities.
    2. Brs2
      Brs2 1 March 2018 11: 23
      0
      They will collapse under their own weight.
  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 September 2017 10: 26
    +10
    What's what ... What is the article about?
    There were indeed performances against the 600-ship program, but the main reason for abandoning it was the collapse of the USSR and the death of the USSR Navy. Today (as always after WWII), the US Navy complies with the multi-state standard, i.e. stronger than all the rest of the world Navy combined. What are we discussing?
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 2 September 2017 10: 46
      +2
      What's what ... What is the article about?
      Well, maybe this is a transparent hint to our government?
      Let them increase the allocation to our Navy!
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk good afternoon, friend! hi
      Long time I did not meet you !!! drinks
      How are you?
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 2 September 2017 11: 07
      +6
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      What's what ... What is the article about?

      This article should generally go through the "History" section. To be honest, I wanted to look at the author’s view on naval forces and their combat capabilities today. But in the end, he received a retrospective of the Oceans and a warning to the States not to step on the same rake again.
      Disappointed, damn it!
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 2 September 2017 12: 01
        +4
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Disappointed, damn it!

        hi Приветствуем!
        The article is really not about anything! .... Horses mixed in a bunch, people ...!
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        To be honest, I wanted to look at the author’s view on naval forces and their combat capabilities today

        laughing Andrey, you demand from the author of the impossible! Even the uncles from the Arbat Red Banner separate VO do not have a look at naval forces and their combat capabilities, and not that the author!
        Here comrade offers
        Quote: Arberes
        Minimum sufficiency (I can not find another term) and the balance of our Navy!

        Maybe someone will tell the old collective farmer what kind of beast this is - the minimum sufficiency ???
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 2 September 2017 13: 39
          +2
          Quote: Serg65
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Disappointed, damn it!

          hi Приветствуем!
          The article is really not about anything! .... Horses mixed in a bunch, people ...!
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          To be honest, I wanted to look at the author’s view on naval forces and their combat capabilities today

          laughing Andrey, you demand from the author of the impossible! Even the uncles from the Arbat Red Banner separate VO do not have a look at naval forces and their combat capabilities, and not that the author!
          Here comrade offers
          Quote: Arberes
          Minimum sufficiency (I can not find another term) and the balance of our Navy!

          Maybe someone will tell the old collective farmer what kind of beast this is - the minimum sufficiency ???

          Yes, I kind of revealed his concept in my comment?
          Well, if you do not understand, it is my fault (you need to express your thoughts more clearly)!
          No need to try to catch up and overtake the US fleet.
          A new arms race is of course unnecessary to us.
          Adequate ships of the first rank and multi-purpose submarines for permanent presence off the coast of the United States.
          For this, it’s not necessary to rivet hundreds of ships?
          That's about like that. At the expense of the collective farmer - it's you in vain!
          This is me amateur hi But something tells me that our Fleet deserves more! This is a great argument for our "partners."
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 2 September 2017 14: 15
            +4
            Quote: Arberes
            Adequate ships of the first rank and multi-purpose submarines for permanent presence off the coast of the United States.

            My friend, for a permanent presence off the coast of the United States in the first place, you need to reanimate the basing system off your coast, as well as in Camran and Cienfuegos.
            Secondly, to fulfill the presence, developed marine, air and space components in the form of reconnaissance and target designation are needed.
            Quote: Arberes
            For this, it’s not necessary to rivet hundreds of ships?

            No, my friend, everything is exactly the same! To mark your flag off the coast of America (let's say off the Pacific coast), you need to have at least 5 KUG at the positions + 5 of replaceable KUG and + 5 KUG under repair. Total 15 shock groups at least! And also to cover your coast, and also to cover the SSBN, and also the escort service, and also .... yes, what the hell!
            recourse That's how brilliant ideas are broken about harsh reality request
            The ocean fleet is a very expensive toy, so the question is, what do we want from the fleet?
            hi
            1. Arberes
              Arberes 2 September 2017 14: 29
              +3
              The ocean fleet is a very expensive toy, so the question is, what do we want from the fleet?
              Thank you, dear Serg65 for the detailed answer! hi
              I also guess that everything is not so simple. At least deploy a base in Cuba or open in Nicaragua. Another question: will these countries want our presence? and the most important question is where to get the money for all this?
              The economy does not allow, and I understand that perfectly. I’m not saying that immediately take it out and lay it down.
              Personally, I want from our fleet that HE be close to the coast of our main opponent.
              Thanks for the conversation, dear Serg65 hi
              I understand everything perfectly, but you can’t save on the fleet! He will pay for himself sooner or later!
              ECONOMY LIFT NEEDS!
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 2 September 2017 14: 41
                +3
                Quote: Arberes
                you can’t save on the fleet!

                My friend, this topic is very complex and, God forbid, the modern leadership of Russia and the Russian Navy will not have mistakes in the construction of the fleet made in the Soviet era!
                Quote: Arberes
                Thanks for the conversation, dear Serg65

                And thank you hi
                1. Arberes
                  Arberes 2 September 2017 14: 46
                  +2
                  and God forbid, the modern leadership of Russia and the Russian Navy will not have mistakes in construction
                  Do you know what worries me the most right now? Here the States will withdraw from the INF Treaty and drag their Pershing back into Europe or whatever else they have there. How can we answer (at least asymmetrically) ????
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 2 September 2017 14: 52
                    +2
                    Quote: Arberes
                    Do you know what worries me the most right now? So the States will withdraw from the INF Treaty and drag their Pershing back into Europe or whatever else they have there. How can we answer (at least asymmetrically) ????

                    laughing You know how it does not sound corny .... Gauges, i.e. with all criticized Karakurt and Buyans, this is the only thing that we can rivet like pies wink
                    1. Arberes
                      Arberes 2 September 2017 15: 01
                      +2
                      Karakurt and Buyan,
                      And how do you personally think, how many first-rank ships are needed for our fleet? (frigates are also an option)
                      I understand - the question is naive in a childish way and yet? "Karakurt" is not intended for long ocean voyages.
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 2 September 2017 22: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Arberes
                        And how do you personally think, how many first-rank ships are needed for our fleet? (frigates are also an option)

                        None, it is necessary to distribute the functions of a large ship into several small ones, as far as seaworthiness allows.
      2. Russian whale
        Russian whale 7 September 2017 09: 57
        0
        Fair reproach, BUT:
        1. If you knew how this material was prepared, then you would put it forward to the Nobel Prize in literature :) I will not tell you, so as not to disgrace the publication and not violate the rules of the forum about profanity ...
        2. Slowly the issue of the prospects of the US Navy is considered in the journal Review of the Army and Navy, if the adequacy returns to NVO - and there it will be. But as it is rightly said, the topic is so global that specialized institutions do not always cope :)
        PS Himself disappointed, yes ....
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 2 September 2017 11: 41
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      What are we discussing?

      hi Welcome Andrew!
      And we argue about ...
      Quote: Arberes
      Let them increase the allocation to our Navy!

      Those. about pulling the Russian Federation into a new arms race!
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The main reason for abandoning it is the collapse of the USSR and the death of the Soviet Navy.

      So the question arises ... what is the name of this rake, which we should not step on ??? !!!
    4. demiurg
      demiurg 2 September 2017 11: 46
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The U.S. Navy complies with the multi-state standard, i.e. stronger than all the rest of the world Navy combined. What are we discussing?

      About China for example. The speed with which they bake ships, planes and tanks should alert everyone.
      But in principle, the fleet is Russia, that the USA is equal. Both that and that can wipe the opposite side from the face of the earth. And what is most interesting, can not interfere with the enemy fleet.
      Here the Russian Navy in a hypothetical conflict of the non-aligned war can neutralize the French or British SSBNs. The United States in the next 5-10 years will be able to neutralize the Chinese.
      But all 11 American aircraft carriers will not give even a 50% guarantee that no SLBMs will throw their warheads over the territory of the United States.
      So my opinion multi-power standard not respected from the word at all.
    5. Brs2
      Brs2 1 March 2018 11: 25
      0
      the USSR had a fleet of 1500 units (all together). The same achievement for me ...
  6. Dedrusav
    Dedrusav 2 September 2017 15: 29
    0
    "The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to all the ambitious military construction programs (including those related to the US Navy) launched under President Reagan. The Iowa-type battleships and the serial construction of unique multipurpose nuclear submarines of the final type went deservedly. "Sivulf", for which there was no enemy, was stopped. Not to step on this rake again. "

    I did not understand who the rake was for. For the US Navy? For the bloody subhuman Reagan?
  7. Proton
    Proton 2 September 2017 17: 18
    +1
    Yes, by and large, a large fleet and a large stone, as they say laughing with the appearance of nuclear weapons, any surface fleet is destroyed completely, along with bases and docks, so the “rulers” in striped trousers do not really have to pout their lips and wave their arms.
    It’s necessary to develop your fleet, but someone else’s like a thread, yes, we’ll cut it, the case is that laughing
    1. Turist1996
      Turist1996 3 September 2017 19: 50
      0
      "Ocean-70", and then "Ocean-75" just provided for adequate opposition to such actions.
      See the objectives of the exercises clearly described in the article.
  8. Turist1996
    Turist1996 3 September 2017 19: 42
    0
    "In the course of these large-scale exercises, the coherence of the headquarters and the interaction of the Navy fleets with the operational associations of other types of the USSR Armed Forces, as well as the naval forces of a number of friendly states of the world, were worked out in order to solve the problems of finding and destroying the enemy’s submarine strategic missile carriers, defeating their aircraft carrier strike groups and "formations, landings and convoys, as well as the destruction of enemy coastal targets for various purposes, including those located deep in the territory of the enemy."

    This was the most valuable thing in these exercises - training in the use of diverse forces and means to achieve a clearly defined goal !! And just the result then plunged into despondency our "potential" partners! Or, in fact, a potential adversary.
  9. Turist1996
    Turist1996 3 September 2017 19: 56
    0
    But it became approximately clear when the true Yankees came down from the “scene”, and the cautoranges of the reserve with a “hand” in the shop under the loud name “congress sga” began to rule the ball. :);)
    And having their own personal "selfish" interest.
    1. Turist1996
      Turist1996 3 September 2017 20: 10
      0
      Waiting for the negative ...