Military Review

Whistle everyone at the shipyard


In July, President Vladimir Putin approved the "Foundations of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030 of the year". The document identifies the main threats to national security, emanating primarily from the United States because of their desire for sole dominance in the oceans. Therefore, the main subject of the document is the Russian Navy.

Despite the significance of The Fundamentals ..., not all of their chapters are absolutely flawless. There are controversial points that require some clarification, because if not errors, then the document has not escaped ambiguities in its interpretations. In general, a topic for discussion, an occasion to reflect on the construction of our military fleet on the face.

Hero but second

Most of the questions are the head of 39. It sounds like this: "The Russian Federation will not allow the substantial superiority of the naval forces of other states over the Navy and will strive to secure it in second place in the world in terms of combat capabilities."

It turns out that our Navy initially at the legislative level is being prepared for a secondary role in the oceans. It is extremely clear to everyone that the first place is assigned by default to the US Navy. That is, according to the logic of the authors, it turns out that our fleet is unable to resist the Americans. In the "Basics ..." given a priori wrong and strategically harmful message, pre-programmed defeat in a military confrontation with the "number first."

The question immediately arises: is it necessary to determine the position of our fleet in the world at all and is it not better to confine ourselves to a phrase like “Russia will not allow any fleet to dominate in the oceans”? This is more than enough to understand the meaning of the installation.

In order to visually show how harmful such messages are, let us give an example from another field of activity, from sports. Before the competitions of any rank, the coaches set up the athletes only to win, otherwise they will not be able to give all their strength, they will not give everything in full. And who will be the most worthy of gold, the competition will show. Victory is possible only when you believe in it.

One gets the impression that the compilers of “Fundamentals ...” have become adept in jurisprudence, but they are not innovators in the field of military thought and are used to measuring the power of fleets, guided by purely quantitative criteria. To destroy their arguments, one example is enough. It’s no secret that, in addition to the usual, the Russian fleet also has a nuclear weaponwhich makes no difference - destroy one ship or the whole carrier-based connection. It operates according to the principle: the thicker the grass, the easier it is to mow. Therefore, no state dares to openly attack our fleet, knowing that it can receive in response. Hence the conclusion: it is unbecoming with such and such power to give the opponent first place without a fight. Especially fix it documented.

And the compilers of such doctrines want to give good advice for the future. Before you take on such a serious matter, look at the old Soviet film "Admiral Ushakov." Then surely there will be inspiration, and in your heads there will immediately appear the correct vector of work.
Legs and clothes

The development strategy of the new Russian Navy is generally chosen correctly. First of all, this is expressed in the developed scientific approach to naval construction, which can be designated by the formula “from simple to complex”. The emphasis is not on the number of combat units and the total displacement of ships, the optimality and effectiveness of the ship’s personnel are put at the center.

When, with the advent of 2000, funding for the purchase of naval armaments was resumed, they first began to build ships of auxiliary fleet (tugs, supply and support vessels), then boats for various purposes (counter-sabotage, etc.), later it was the turn of minesweepers and small artillery ships . The real rebirth of combat power began with the launching of new corvettes. There are a lot of ships of this class, so their creation is actively conducted simultaneously in several shipyards, including the Northern, Amur and Zelenodolsk shipyards. The creation of a new series of stealth corvettes project 22800 "Karakurt" is planned. The construction will involve the Pella plant in the Leningrad Region, enterprises in Kerch and Feodosia.

Behind the corvettes came the turn of larger ships - frigates of the new generation. The Baltic Shipyard has already created three samples of the 11356 project for the Black Sea Fleet. Unfortunately, the series has slowed down due to the failure of the Ukrainian manufacturer to supply turbine installations.

A completely new frigates project 22350 using stealth technology builds the Northern shipyard. The work is not without difficulties, with delays due to the complexity of integrating the latest weapons systems. Nevertheless, it is expected that already this year the Admiral Gorshkov, the lead ship of the series, will be part of the Navy. Such frigates are very necessary for the renewal of the composition of the Northern and Pacific fleets, so it would be reasonable for the Northern shipyard to concentrate on building this series for at least a dozen years without switching to other projects.

Race for the "Leader"

In the near and medium term (10 – 30 years), the destroyers of the 23560 project, which are being designed in the Northern Design Bureau on the subject “Leader”, should become the main striking force of the Russian surface fleet. The new destroyers with nuclear power plants are conceived as universal ships of the far sea zone, designed to replace several old projects that are retiring by age. "Leaders" will carry several hundred missiles of various purposes and types, including hypersonic "Zircons". It is possible that on board these ships will appear weapons based on new physical principles, such as laser and electromagnetic installations, as well as drones. Moreover, some samples have already been created and are being tested, the other is in development, but will be ready for the appearance of promising destroyers.

According to preliminary information, it is planned to build 12 units of this project. So that the adoption of this complex type of ships did not stretch out for many years, it seems reasonable to conduct their construction at two production sites at once. The first is the Far Eastern shipbuilding complex Zvezda, located in the Bolshoy Kamen Bay of the Primorsky Territory. The company has recently been experiencing rapid technical re-equipment and today it is capable of producing both large oil tankers and gas carriers and warships. Nuclear submarines are also being repaired and modernized. And the plant has a wealth of experience in disposing of decommissioned nuclear icebreakers. In general, there would be orders, and the performer is ready to join the work. The tandem of the Baltic Plant (St. Petersburg) and the Northern Machine-Building Enterprise (Severodvinsk) may become the second production site. At the Baltic Shipyard, with its experience of building large ships, the corps of new destroyers would be formed, which would then be distilled to Sevmash for final completion.

Taking into account the international situation, at least two thirds of the total number of “Leaders” is logical to send to serve in the Pacific Fleet, to the region where the world center of the economy, finances and, consequently, military activity is gradually moving. Based on the sad experience of the past years, when the ground infrastructure of our fleets constantly lagged behind the commissioning of new ships, it is necessary today to begin preparing the home base of future supersmighters on the Far Eastern coast, at least to make design estimates.

Save the "Sharks"

The new Russia received a huge submarine fleet from the Soviet Union. By the beginning of 90's, the number of atomic submarines was measured in dozens, and the diesel score went up by hundreds. However, it should be noted that by that time most submarines were morally and physically obsolete, requiring replacement and disposal. Dozens of submarines got amused.

Whistle everyone at the shipyardDismantling the submarine turned out to be difficult and troublesome, ship repair plants were not ready for it either technologically or financially. As a result, the process stretched for decades. Money was collected by the whole world. Among the investors were the USA, Canada, Japan, Norway and other countries that willingly allocated funds, if only to quickly and safely for the environment to cut the old NPS for scrap.

But the question arose: what will come to replace them? It is good that at the beginning of 2000's, funds for new naval armament began to appear in the state budget and the development of the submarine fleet resumed. The long-awaited replenishment of the shipbuilding enterprises came down to the water, primarily the strategic missile carriers of the Yuri Dolgoruky type, the multi-purpose Yaseni, and the upgraded diesel submarines. However, it becomes clear that the line of submarines under construction should be more diverse. Along with the huge dimensions and impact capabilities of the Severodvinsk, new small and relatively cheap submarines with a displacement of four to five thousand tons are needed. This is nothing new - submarines of this dimension were produced serially in the Soviet era.

It is also logical to resume the construction of modernized small diesel submarines of the project Piranha 865. Two of them entered service in the late 80-x, but for someone's stupidity hastily disposed of. However, life and military practice show that the submarine with a displacement of hundreds, or even just tens of tons today is very much in demand in combat service. For example, North Korea has an impressive number of small submarines, and their opponents are forced to reckon with this factor.

The Baltic and Black Sea fleets control areas with shallow depths. It is here that small submarines are able to show their best qualities and demonstrate an advantage over large-sized equipment.

Some submarines that are in service or retired will be seriously upgraded. To a greater extent, this concerns the submarines of the 971 and 945 projects, which in the coming years will have to be renovated and updated. And the submarines still serve the fleet. The designs of these boats are very successful, and they have far from exhausted their modernization potential.

The 941 “Shark” nuclear submarines deserve special attention, two of which (Severstal and Arkhangelsk) are now awaiting a decision of their fate at the pier in Severodvinsk, and the third, Dmitry Donskoy, is formally listed as part of the Northern Fleet. Today, it’s enough just to throw a cry that we need money to dispose of them, as Western "friends" will line up in order to get rid of these submarines, which terrified our opponents, as soon as possible. So it was in 90, when the United States paid for the destruction of three such boats, and another unfinished was cut right on the stocks.

However, these are unique submarines, which currently do not require scraping, but repairs and upgrades. After all, it is quite realistic to make relatively inexpensive repairs with partial reworking of launch canisters under the Bulava SLBMs. Having 20 such missiles on board, the boat for dozens of years can carry combat service. Let it be not long hikes, but patrols along the Northern Sea Route under the reliable protection of the ships of the Northern Fleet. Or take, for example, the White Sea, which is internal, military ships of foreign countries cannot enter here, it is large enough and there are no critical depths. And rockets from here are guaranteed to reach any potential enemy.

There is another important point that is put at the forefront in planning the use of strategic nuclear forces. Given the emergence of a layered missile defense in the United States, missile launches should be made as far as possible from the missile defense system of a potential enemy. Patrolling submarines near enemy shores becomes irrelevant for the reason that warheads, along with means to overcome missile defense, must have time to turn in all their glory. Therefore, the closer the boats are to their native shores, the safer and safer for them and their more effective combat use. Five to ten extra minutes of flight time do not matter. That is why it is necessary with two hands to vote for the return of 941 submarines of the project to military service.

Cook like a champion

As early as the 19th century, American admiral Alfred Mahan stated: "Who owns the sea, he owns the world." At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin echoed him: “There can be only one slogan, only one password -“ Forward ”in the re-creation of our sea power, our sea power. And it was an absolute truth, because in those times it was the fleet that was the most mobile type of armed forces capable of projecting power into any part of the world.

Of course, times are changing and the primacy in speed and mobility has long passed to aerospace systems. To fight in this area created a new kind of armed forces. With a certain reduction in the defense budget, the fleet will inevitably have to move, so many expensive ship programs will either be postponed to a later date, or closed altogether. What kind of aircraft carriers are there ?! Most likely they will remain a pipe dream. It would be nice to overpower the destroyers. Although China, for example, is able to allocate any amount for the construction of its ships of various types. To the question “What to do?”, As the classic said, “there is only one answer”: to develop the country's economy. If one more time to double the GDP in the next ten years, one can also threaten aircraft carriers. Only then it will be possible to talk not about the struggle for the notorious second place in the ocean, but really and without a doubt claim for gold.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. alekc73
    alekc73 12 October 2017 15: 30 New
    The economy is the basis of everything. We put things in order in the economy, money for the Navy appears. When the profits in offshore will be an eternal lack of funds. hi
    1. vladimirvn
      vladimirvn 12 October 2017 15: 41 New
      Oh, my native country, the land of mysteries and miracles
      Where else is such happiness, where else is such progress ..
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 12 October 2017 16: 38 New
        Quote: vladimirvn
        Oh, my native country, the land of mysteries and miracles
        Where else is such happiness, where else is such progress

        Mind does not understand Russia ...
        Until zero-five is drunk
        And if you drink zero to five,
        that thing seems not tricky ...
        BUT to better understand
        liter is already required drinks
    2. 11 black
      11 black 12 October 2017 21: 19 New
      Yes, we do not need to chase the United States in this matter! There is no need to answer them symmetrically - everything is correct, which immediately outlined the framework for development - including on this the Union was burnt in due time. And the American fleet must be drowned by other means.
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 13 October 2017 08: 18 New
        Quote: 11 black
        Yes, we do not need to chase the United States in this matter! No need to answer them symmetrically.

        You don’t need anything at all! Neither aircraft carriers, nor destroyers ... Money only needs to be taken offshore! A trillion dollars have been withdrawn over the past 20 years !!! And why aircraft carriers? You will bring them out!
        1. 11 black
          11 black 13 October 2017 15: 34 New
          Quote: Stas157
          You don’t need anything at all! Neither aircraft carriers, nor destroyers ... Money only needs to be taken offshore! A trillion dollars have been withdrawn over the past 20 years !!! And why aircraft carriers? You will bring them out!

          We do not need aircraft carriers and destroyers, we need a lot of other things.
          Where did the delusional numbers come from? This is the first.
          Tens of billions of dollars (+/-) will be spent only on creating a small group of aircraft carriers, not to mention destroyers and cruisers - this is the second.
          Even then, these forces will lose to the NATO naval forces - this is the third.
          It’s better for our country to spend tens of billions on tanks and planes - that’s all I wanted to say. And therefore I am glad that we did not go by the mistakes of the Union, but made the right decision.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 14 October 2017 20: 48 New
            Quote: 11 black
            Tens of billions of our country is better spent on tanks and planes
            You are ours one-armed! What, for more fantasy is not enough?
            But what about space?
            With the fleet - everything is clear. He will be built for the tasks that the General Staff will cut him. Somehow: 1) the destruction of important administrative, political and military centers of the enemy; 2) destruction of naval naval forces and coastal objects of military strategic importance; 3) destruction of SSBNs and SSBNs amov and K *; 4) destruction of ships, carriers of sea-based missile defense, carriers of the CRBD, aviation and AVM; 5) Defeat KON, DesO, ObK enemy; 6) PLO problem solving; ABM / air defense from maritime directions, the implementation of the PDO of its coast, and so on ....
            For all these tasks, fleet forces are needed, because tanks on the bottom will long reach the assigned RBDs! laughing
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 14 October 2017 20: 27 New
        Quote: 11 black
        And the American fleet must be drowned by other means.

        I wonder which ones? The RV and Strategic Missile Forces have different goals and objectives ... The Air Force - goals are also set ... And not every land flyer can work on the sea, especially at night, in calm ...
        So, the enemy fleet is the task of our Navy. But what it should be like is a matter of strategic vision of its place in the country's defense system. But it must be a marine anti-ship system. yes
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2017 08: 12 New
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          And not every land flyer can work on the sea, especially at night, in calm ...

          A rare bird will fly to the middle of the Dnieper laughing In general, the Second World taught, taught, but some people skipped lessons, the Air Force cannot work on the sea, and in all countries where the tasks of naval aviation were assigned to the Air Force, uniform thrash, fumes and sodomy took place over the sea .. .
  2. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 12 October 2017 15: 44 New
    [quot] With a certain reduction in the defense budget, the fleet will inevitably have to move, so many expensive ship programs will either be postponed to a later date or closed completely. What kind of aircraft carriers are there ?! [/ quote]
    Of course, while such "patriots and ingenious figures of RUSSIA" as shuvalov will reduce their budgets and insist on austerity, veto anti-offshore law keeping 700 million green rubles there, we can’t build such ships, how many corvettes can be built only for his grandmother angry
    PS "for his grandmother" - read for the people
  3. Sailor
    Sailor 12 October 2017 16: 22 New
    Typhoons are likely to be cut, although for the ship of the arsenal of the Kyrgyz Republic the marine analogue of X-101,102. ideal, but pr.945 is a pity that they will not upgrade, the titanium case is almost eternal.
    1. Grits
      Grits 13 October 2017 08: 44 New
      Typhoon is an ideal carrier of "calibers". In place of ICBM mines, embed launchers for the Kyrgyz Republic, install the equipment of a new missile system, do a little magic over the systems for holding and stabilizing tanks, shamanize obsolete equipment and a beautiful ship is ready. will be even better than the ones passed by Ohio from the mattresses.
      All the talk about the noisiness of such a large ship flies into the furnace - in peacetime such a ship is a unique way to scare popuars and barmales and it can make noise even across the ocean and go around the seas without diving. Indeed, in Syria, bearded men also do not hear and do not see Varshavyanka, and this makes it no easier for them.
  4. kig
    kig 12 October 2017 16: 36 New
    The document, which the author is so indignant at, is entitled "................. Until 2030 year". After that, there will be another program in which the results of the previous one will be taken into account. And then, maybe, words about the first place will appear there. Although it is unlikely that the fleet is an expensive business. In the meantime, to get to the 2nd place, need to overtake the Chinese.
  5. FORCE 38GB
    FORCE 38GB 12 October 2017 18: 04 New
    If 941 is thrown at the needles ... It remains only to face our "reformers" in the face. Well, we’ll stick a knife in our backs !!! Why are you creating "Effective" you are our traitors ...
    1. Sharansky
      Sharansky 16 October 2017 20: 25 New
      What does it mean if they let me go? 3 pieces were utilized, two rusted “in reserve”, the sixth Mace was tested. Why the hell do these monsters need these days?
  6. cedar
    cedar 12 October 2017 18: 21 New
    Quote: FORCE 38RUS
    If 941 is thrown at the needles ... It remains only to face our "reformers" in the face. Well, we’ll stick a knife in our backs !!! Why are you creating "Effective" you are our traitors ...

    These are not our reformers ... These are foreign and abandoned ...
    See at the root, dear.

  7. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 12 October 2017 19: 43 New
    After all, it is quite possible to make relatively inexpensive repairs with a partial alteration of launch containers under the Bulava SLBM.

    10-15 years old sucks and relatively inexpensive repair somehow weakly combined.
    We already had the experience of "inexpensive repair" - on "Gorshkov". It all ended in an increase in terms and cost at least twice as compared to the signed contract.

    And most importantly - why for the "mace" "water carriers"? Their construction and operation were somehow justified in the presence of the Makeevsky monster R-39. And to reanimate 2 huge SSBNs built 30 years ago, so that they carry 20 “light” SLBMs - only 4 more than half the size of the Boreas — why?
    1. San Sanych
      San Sanych 12 October 2017 20: 48 New
      for the “mace" it’s probably not worth the candle, and for the "calibers" like an arsenal ship, the "Typhoons" would be very useful
  8. Admiral Ben Bow
    Admiral Ben Bow 12 October 2017 20: 16 New
    All this is from the category of dreams. But the reality is that there is no money, and there is no production capacity yet ... Those production capacities that are now there. loaded with orders for many years to come. As for the destroyers with nuclear installations, the Americans at one time built such cruisers, but practice forced them to abandon. Against the AUG with AWACS aircraft, what can such a destroyer be able to do? Almost nothing ... In general - a chicken in the nest, a testicle in ........
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2017 22: 14 New
    Horror. That's not a word, then a "masterpiece". Now it’s too late to write a devastating commentary, I want to sleep, maybe tomorrow, but the author has no idea what he is writing about.
    I was always surprised - you don’t know the topic, don’t know, not a single person can know everything. But why grab a pen and carry fierce nonsense to the masses? Was it really too lazy to at least SURFACE to get acquainted with the topic?
    1. NikWik
      NikWik 13 October 2017 18: 54 New
      I agree. many frank blunders and complete ignorance of the topic.
  10. Captain Nemo
    Captain Nemo 13 October 2017 00: 57 New
    Does the position number two abhor the author? Even if it is an objective fact? Raise the fleet from oblivion, this is not every budget will pull
  11. Grits
    Grits 13 October 2017 08: 50 New
    I understand that after the scandal with the Mistrals, the UDC was already safely forgotten and no one stutters that we really need them. And I remember just recently they shouted so loudly, they say, what for are these French troughs to us - we ourselves can rivet such pieces in a year and a half a few pieces for each fleet. I was still grinning at such applicants, knowing that they couldn’t. They have already forgotten slowly.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 October 2017 10: 06 New
      Someone shouted like that, yes. But the question is that we don’t need ships of this class from the word “in general”. Neither Mistral nor UDC of its own production, and I sincerely hope that they will not get into GPV 2025.
      They can get there only because someone from the military who assented about terribly necessary Mistrals at one time will be afraid to abandon their own words and will lobby UDE
  12. Ulan
    Ulan 13 October 2017 17: 00 New
    I don’t understand, is the Black Sea shallow? The author did not confuse anything?
  13. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 13 October 2017 19: 22 New
    submarines and minesweepers are needed, and destroyers the leader and the storm, of course, are not needed