Russian Navy no longer need ships
Weapon, without the ability to use it - a pile of scrap metal.
Exposure of liberal myths about the weakness of the Russian Navy, obsolescence of the shipboard in the absence of a replacement under construction, slow construction of ships and general futility fleet.
Dilemma: high quality, fast and cheap. Choose two of the three. Not easy? And who is easy!
BDK "Ivan Gren" was forced to return to the shipyard after finding flaws in the design and protection system against magnetic mines
“This is one of the“ black sheep ”of Russia. This ship is another example of delays. ”- commented the military analyst Jörgen Elving (Jörgen Elfving) in an interview with SvD.
As the classic said: I myself know about the troubles of the fatherland, but it is annoying when a foreigner shares these feelings with me. But did military analyst J. Elving never hear about the PSA procedure, which all new American ships are undergoing. Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) - mandatory return to the shipyard after the first months of service? What for? Yes, then the same as our “Ivan Gren”!
I wonder how the analyst would comment on the following paragraph:
"It has been a month for 23 since it entered service, but the fleet never received an efficient ship."
“Ivan Gren” has nothing to do with it. This is the Pentagon’s claim to the Northrop shipyard, signed by the head of the naval forces D. Winter (2007).
As you may have guessed, the complaint was left without attention. The functionality of the landing ship "San Antonio" continued to fail over the years.
2008 year. The ship did not go on the march due to the breakdown of the wall of the dock. Arriving late in the Persian Gulf again failed (urgent repairs were needed in Bahrain). Another failure of the GEM control system occurred when passing through the Suez Canal: the engines spontaneously switched to reverse, which almost led to a navigation accident with unpredictable consequences.
The little-known episodes of the San Antonio service are an example of that “tin” that occurs where, in theory, this should not be.
On more epic cases, you probably already heard before reading this article. “Zamvolt”, stalled in the Panama Canal. The epic with the aircraft carrier “Ford” (launching - 2013, for the first time was able to crawl into the sea on its own turbines only in 2017, real combat readiness - 20 ... the twentieth year), it is infinite.
But France, with. At the very first sailing of the newest aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the propeller blade fell off. All subsequent combat training campaigns ŠDG began and ended the same way: complaints and failure. 2002 year - radiation accident, the crew receives fivefold doses of radiation. 2008 - aircraft carrier suddenly broke down three months after the overhaul. 2010 - led a squad of warships. The next day, crawled to Toulon in tow: the whole power supply system was out of order at de Gaulle.
These are the "successes". Want more?
French super class barracuda. The fourth generation of unique features. What is the reality? The head Suffren has not been launched yet. Although from the moment of laying the PLA, exactly ten years have passed! N-yes ... In Russia, strategic rocket carriers are being built in less time.
K-551 “Vladimir Monomakh”. Bookmark - 2006. Launching - 2012. In December, the St. Andrew's flag was raised on the ship 2014.
SSB “Prince Vladimir”. Laid to 2012. Launched 17 Nov. 2017.
The 955 (955A) “Borey” SSBN has 170 meters of length. A battle clot weighing 15000 tons. Against the background of such a mass, the French “Barracuda” is just a little one: the 3,5 has a smaller displacement times, no launching of any 30-tonnage missiles from the submarine is even possible.
Cycle built 6 years. Too much by Western standards, correct the next “analyst”. The Americans launch their Virginia in three years. Only it is necessary to specify that three years - from the moment of installation of ready-made modules (sections) of the future submarine on the slipway. The real beginning of construction, cutting of metal and the manufacture of mechanisms for American submarines, usually begins three years before its official bookmark.
A much more serious point is the number of ships under construction. Here, the American shipyards in the clean “do” domestic “Sevmash” and “Yantar”. Line production, the annual commissioning of several large combat units - nuclear ships, destroyers, amphibious ships.
The more pennants, the stronger the fleet. On the one hand, yes. And on the other - not so simple.
Large closet falls louder
In its current state, the US Navy is redundant. Recalls the situation with the Soviet tanks in 1941 year.
Billionaire contracts, the newest ships. And the real increase in combat readiness is a penny.
Ships enter service without equipment provided for in the project. The newest “Zamvolt” was built without a long-range radar, it was even embarrassed to equip it with a short-range defense system. The rest of the 2010's built destroyers have a reduced composition of weapons. The reasons - cost savings, as well as the lack of technical readiness of promising systems.
At one time, the same practice “sinned” the Soviet Navy, which it is customary to build into the standard. The head BOD Ave. 1155 (“Deleted”) went to the end of his days without air defense. The second ship of the series (“Vice-Admiral Kulakov”) also entered service with one air defense missile system, instead of the two. He received an additional air defense system only in 30 years: during the modernization in 2010, the “Bending-2” complex, which was generally meaningless as the main air defense, was installed on it.
BOD "Admiral Kulakov", in front of the setting, two starting blocks of the air defense missile system are visible (in fact, the Igla MANPADS)
By the way, the modern Russian Navy does not commit such nonsense. On the contrary, military experts express concerns about the congestion of ships with various weapons. Often not appropriate in their power to the official rank of the ship.
The “Gremyashchyi” corvette’s armament (20385 Ave.) includes the Redut air defense system (the range is dozens of kilometers), eight Calibrov, artillery and anti-submarine weapons, a helicopter, and three (!) Sonar stations. By its capabilities, the Russian “corvette” (TFR, ship of the 3 rank) approaches the western destroyers.
Our “incredible allies” have all the moorings filled with ships for which today there are no combat missions. Following the number of crews, the number of admiral posts is growing. A level of training of personnel is reduced. Ships managed by horrible; in 2017 alone, three incidents with destroyers thundered.
The Russian Navy has a reverse problem. The number of tasks is increasing every day: “Syrian express trains”, a battle group in the Mediterranean, Baltic shoal, “Calibrov” launches, the Arctic and the Far Eastern frontier, then - everywhere. A ship is clearly not enough.
But this is only at first glance. Despite endless complaints, any objective objective gets a decent solution from the Russian Navy.
The support of the military operation in Syria is that the elderly BDK do better than the 11 of the notorious AUGs and the armada of amphibious forces of the US Navy. Or does anyone have doubts about this?
Unanimously.
And if so, then the current fleet composition corresponds to the tasks before it. According to the plans, the re-equipment is underway, the fleet receives new ships (about this - just below).
The conclusion is consistent with the numbers. As of November 2017, there were 211 pennants in the Navy. These include 48 nuclear submarines, 6 missile cruisers (one in the process of modernization), 16 large anti-submarine ships (BOD) and destroyers - surface ships of the ocean zone. And also 21 large landing ship.
Part of the ships is under repair. This is normal. Those same Yankees can hardly simultaneously bring into the sea five out of ten “Nimitz”.
The 211 figure of combat units in itself refutes any myths about the weakness and insignificance of the Russian fleet.
The Navy even has its own aircraft carrier. It is a real and combat-capable aircraft carrier. Last winter, the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR wing dealt 1,5 thousands of strikes against IG terrorists (prohibited in Russia).
On the way to Syria, TAVKR set up a thick smoke screen over the English Channel. Only the lazy did not laugh at the Russian “chimney”. But “Kuznetsov” is not alone. The French “de Gaulle” also had a problem: on the move vibration and noise in the rear part reached 100 dB, a third of the new ship was not suitable for habitation.
Better let's laugh together at the “Orlan”, which does not leave behind a smoke plume.
Rearmament. Frigates instead of cruisers
Which country's fleet over the past 5 years has received a squadron of submarine missile carriers? The only country I know is Russia.
Together with three strategic-purpose submarine cruisers (+ 1 under construction, in a high degree of readiness), the ship composition was supplemented with a multi-purpose nuclear submarine (K-560, 885 Ave. "Ash"), six diesel-electric submarines and three frigates (actually 4, Admiral Kasatonov is ready to the passage of the State. tests).
These are only the most significant projects. Stars of the first magnitude.
Now many will say that the frigate is not at all what the Russian Navy deserves. Where is the power, where the cruisers and destroyers?
It is hard to believe from the outside, but the 5000-ton frigate of the beginning of the XXI century. superior to combat capabilities missile cruisers built 80-ies.
What is not on the frigate “Admiral of the Navy Gorshkov”, what could 11000-ton cruisers of the 1164 avenue (Moscow, Marshal Ustinov, Varyag) be proud of?
Instead of 16 “Volcanoes” in two rows, behind the frigate’s peaceful bulwark are the 16 covers of vertical launchers. In each - the CD of the “Caliber” family with a target range of 2500 km. Or - anti-shipping option. At the same time, it is far from obvious that it represents a great danger to the enemy - the Soviet supersonic anti-ship missile or the subsonic Caliber flying above the water, accelerating when approaching the target to a speed of ~ 3 Mach.
Anti-aircraft armament - 32 launchers “Reduce”, instead of 8 drum PU complex C-300F, with an ammunition 64 SAM. Despite the reduction in ammunition, new missiles can hit targets at twice the distance. A multifunctional radar "Polyment" has twice the channels of control ZUR and has no restrictions on the sector of the review (4 fixed phased antennas, oriented along the horizon).
On the cruiser there are two short-range air defense systems of the type “Osa-M”.
Modern frigate thanks to UVP has a considerable flexibility in the use of weapons. Part of the cells can be used for the deployment of 9М100 short-range missiles (four in each cell, which will increase the ammunition much.)
In view of the foregoing, one can speak of the superiority of frigates over cruisers of the Soviet era. And the frigates Admiral Gorshkov and Admiral Kasatonov themselves can be considered direct rivals of American destroyers with the Aegis system.
The designers of the frigate probably saved on the habitability of the personnel. Of course, saved. After all, the number of crews of the new ship is only 200 people. against five hundred on board the RRC.
Autonomy? Satisfies modern standards for destroyer class ships. 4000 miles - enough to go across the ocean.
Is seaworthiness worse? Hmmm ... Do you know how long Christopher Columbus’s karakka was? About 30 meters. Tell those sailors about the 135-meter frigate.
Not convinced? Then another example: the displacement of the "Pots" is three times larger than the British destroyers, covering the Arctic convoys.
By the way, on modern ships there are no combat posts on the upper deck. A battle in a 9-point storm is excluded for reasons of common sense.
The process of reducing ships over the past 70 years is an inevitable consequence of automation, the development of electronics and rocket weapons. The current heroes are miniature “shells” against the backdrop of the cruisers of the 68-bis Ave. (built at the end of 40-x - the beginning of 50-x.). 18 thousand tons of full I / O - against 11 thousand from the missile cruiser “Glory” and 5 thousand from the frigate.
To summarize
The loud title “Russia does not need ships” can be rephrased as follows: “Russia does not need ships, except for those that are part of the Navy and are scheduled for construction in the coming years.”
Complaints about the lack of adequate replacement for obsolete ships of the Soviet era can be left at the entrance of the General Staff. The real state program of fleet re-equipment was created taking into account all existing geopolitical conditions, the tasks of the Navy and the capabilities of the military-industrial complex.
Replacing the main missile system on the atomic cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov". After upgrading, the cruiser’s combat value compares with a squadron of American destroyers.
Launch of the small rocket ship "Uragan" (22800 "Karakurt" Ave.), 2017
Leave alone the dream of “atomic supersubmitters and a promising aircraft carrier.” Constructed when this appears at least some adequate need and meaning. At present, we are witnessing the obvious (for someone - the incredible): modest ships cope with serious strategic tasks better than all the fleets of “incredible allies.”
If we already started talking about prospects, then, objectively, the only type of large surface ship that could prove himself fully in the conduct of hostilities (on the example of recent events involving the Navy - Syria and South Ossetia), is the American concept of the shock “Zamvolta”. I’m not even talking about how much noise such a gunboat could make in the Baltic, overwhelming our Baltic neighbors.
Otherwise, what's the point of building ships without having a clear concept of their use?
Well, I said everything I wanted. Now is the time for your fair criticism.
Information