Military Review

Russian Navy no longer need ships

213

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.
Author:
213 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. komvap
    komvap 27 November 2017 07: 07 New
    15
    The fleet is needed!
    But without big and meaningless long-term monsters - toys of politicians and cutters.

    The emphasis on submarines and the minimum allowable ships for seaworthiness (500-2000 ships according to the SAR scheme) surface ships.
    Maximum 8000 VI for surface ships.
    Continuous modernization both in electronics and weapons.
    To carry it out on small ships is cheaper and faster, without risk of making a big mistake affecting the entire fleet.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 27 November 2017 08: 06 New
      34
      We need such ships at sea,
      So that we can argue with any wave.
      Lighthouses are needed and we need a locator,
      And we need loyal guys.

      We need hikes to serve at sea,
      And greetings from home in distant waters
      And so as not to waste minutes free
      Of course, we need a guitar in the cockpit.

      We need anchors and cables for service,
      We need a charter that all sailors remember.
      Need a flag that flies above the blue wave
      And all the most needed is the Motherland-Russia!
      1. Logall
        Logall 27 November 2017 10: 42 New
        34
        Vladimir, beautiful poems!
        Interesting article, But most of all I liked this phrase
        - 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.
        Straight to the point ...
        1. Juborg
          Juborg 27 November 2017 16: 23 New
          11
          Oleg Koptsev, another brain explosion! You read more of this Russophobe and will soon come to the conclusion that it’s not time for Russia to surrender to America, and for all of us to enroll in the slaves of a super nation and die in their backyard and bury ourselves. It’s enough for admins to post articles of this disgusting person, scribbling his libel almost daily. He became prolific, with ................. negative
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 27 November 2017 19: 04 New
            19
            Quote: juborg
            You are more than this Russophobe

            Why did you get that Oleg Russophobe?
            Quote: juborg
            It’s enough for admins to post articles of this disgusting person, scribbling his libel almost daily.

            And I like Kaptsov’s articles and read them with pleasure, in this he pitched notably.
            The extravaganza of the article on its course and content was the ending, I could not resist and broke into a smile from ear to ear.

            If we already started talking about the prospects, then, objectively, the American concept of shock “Zamvolta” "
            1. Juborg
              Juborg 28 November 2017 14: 22 New
              +4
              You saturn.mmm did not go far from him. You and your kind like to spit in the direction of Russia, with your bile, because of your worthless, weak little soul. You can’t imagine anything by yourself, so you’re even trying to declare yourself behind the computer’s monitor. But yours and your kind are worthless and so on the surface. DO NOT choke in your anger towards Russia.
              1. silver_roman
                silver_roman 28 November 2017 17: 42 New
                11
                I apologize, but it seemed to me personally that the author, on the contrary, defended our Navy and the concept of commissioning warships. And I must say that there is logic in words. Also familiar with Oleg’s articles. There are controversial, there are fair, but in general they are objective.
            2. Botanologist
              Botanologist 28 November 2017 14: 34 New
              +1
              Comparison with the ship of Columbus is somehow incomprehensible. In those days, ships built on 1500 tons were completely built (7 times larger than Mary). But it never occurred to anyone to give Columbus a battleship to travel. So Koptsov got into the wrong steppe a little.
          2. aleksander.kalabanov. 2015
            aleksander.kalabanov. 2015 1 December 2017 14: 02 New
            +3
            and not a Russophobe of any kind, and I liked the article - it’s something that’s happening to you, my friend.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. vadivm59
          vadivm59 28 November 2017 14: 35 New
          +2
          it’s a song. It was played on TV back in the 70s.
          1. Svarog51
            Svarog51 30 November 2017 02: 47 New
            +5
            Vadim hi Here you are. good
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 November 2017 14: 44 New
        +2
        And then water is like earth to us.
        And then we have a family crew.
        And then any of us do not mind-
        Although all his life to serve in the navy.
        © smile
        1. jjj
          jjj 27 November 2017 14: 48 New
          +5
          The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy said that now Russia has at sea as many pennants every day as the USSR had during the years of its highest power
      3. Meshchersky
        Meshchersky 27 November 2017 20: 47 New
        0
        And then water is like earth to us,
        And then we have a crew - a family!
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 November 2017 08: 48 New
      +9
      Quote: komvap
      Continuous modernization both in electronics and weapons.

      This problem can only be solved with full modularity.
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather 27 November 2017 10: 42 New
        +7
        A much more serious point is the number of ships under construction. Here, the American shipyards “clean up” domestic “Sevmash” and “Amber”
        Now let's look at the Chinese ... oops ... they "do" everyone. recourse
        1. IL-18
          IL-18 27 November 2017 14: 02 New
          +8
          I almost agree, but not a single work of the Chinese military shipbuilding has yet manifested itself.
          1. andy.v.lee
            andy.v.lee 28 November 2017 12: 38 New
            0
            At the same time the quantity!
        2. astankard
          astankard 1 December 2017 18: 44 New
          0
          Here, without any "UPS" - They SIMULTANELY build 12 destroyers + 3 frigates ...
  2. Titsen
    Titsen 27 November 2017 07: 15 New
    15
    Kaptsova sways from side to side ...

    If you try to compare articles over the past six months ...

    Articles for the sake of the article!
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 27 November 2017 07: 39 New
      11
      but would you like to find out once and for all: Kaptsov is a spy and provocateur or patriot? can throw a slipper at him or is it better to raise a toast? Double agent? request Maybe just a pragmatist?

      Oleg, Gorshkova has already calculated what? Yes, and many of the nuclear submarines and destroyers are "under repair" - in perpetual repair, to be precise. 6 cruisers?
      1. seos
        seos 27 November 2017 13: 06 New
        +5
        Oleg rather Troll, for the concept of srach ... wassat
    2. Okolotochny
      Okolotochny 27 November 2017 19: 59 New
      +7
      Or maybe a person just constantly doubts? Looking for?
  3. DesToeR
    DesToeR 27 November 2017 07: 51 New
    28
    And I liked the article. Everything about the case, and most importantly there is a comparison.
    1. Now we are free
      Now we are free 27 November 2017 11: 13 New
      10
      Greetings DesToeR hi
      I agree with the comment, but the article gives a little # urapatriotism from which many members of the forum (who have gray matter in their heads) have got tired of it recently, but it is written in style easily, so to speak, touching the “tops” and showing the concept of the development of the world fleet globally and domestically fleet in particular, focusing on the demand for "screws" and their real performance and not on the number and tonnage.
      On the whole, the article on apparent ease and technocratic patriotism was written sensibly with examples and explanations of what was happening and why ...
      If there is (as the author said) a different opinion such as # Pro ... heavy polymers or just constructive criticism that not everything is so rosy with us in the Navy and we are not going there, then the cards are on the table comrades, only from those. references and analytics, but just blah blah blah no one needs. hi
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 27 November 2017 12: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: Now we are free
        If there is (as the author said) a different opinion

        what LVVPU of the Order of the Red Star ...... Nah?
      2. Wreaper
        Wreaper 28 November 2017 13: 09 New
        +1
        “showing the concept of the development of the world fleet” is not a concept of the development of the world fleet, but a game “from defense”, huge seaworthiness for the Mediterranean and the Red Sea is not needed, all major “floating fortresses” are in the north and east. On the Black Sea, I would even remove the cruiser altogether. It's like with hornets, it’s kind of small, and when they are 3-4 they can kill. Let's say that 6 corvettes went to the AUG during protection, i.e. fuel and support at maximum. A-100, some kind of IL-38, helicopters, a satellite in space, as well as submarines, fly in the air, and now the corvettes will LET 16PU 32rak (2 each). and FOR EXAMPLE TARKR which has 96 launchers (produces 4 for EXAMPLE). And with equal detection powers, it’s easier to find a “floating island” than a smaller boat with less noticeability. And here is the first salvo of 12 missiles from corvettes 4 from TARK, but when drowned in one corvette, the onslaught power drops by 1/6 and Tarka by 1. This attack requires islands and fortresses off the coast of another country across the ocean, and when you defend you need the other way around Separate and divide into many strong points of defense, because there is such an opportunity.
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 28 November 2017 17: 52 New
          0
          typical "mosquito tactics" described by you. So it was planned earlier to "meet friends" in the Black Sea)
      3. ver_
        ver_ 29 November 2017 05: 27 New
        +1
        ... miscalculation, between us girls, speaking mustache, dinosaurs — rock shakers and sea monsters — became extinct .. Evolution made its choice .. but bugs and fleas were indestructible - even radiation should not be taken .., and if they throw the bed out in the cold, - drag it back ..
  4. tlauicol
    tlauicol 27 November 2017 08: 01 New
    +6
    S: "The dilemma: high-quality, fast and cheap. To choose two points from three. Isn’t it easy? And for whom it is easy!"

    Here's another dilemma: "The real state program for re-equipping the fleet was created taking into account all existing geopolitical conditions, the tasks of the Navy and the capabilities of the military-industrial complex." choose two items from three recourse
    1. andj61
      andj61 27 November 2017 11: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: Tlauicol
      S: "The dilemma: high-quality, fast and cheap. To choose two points from three. Isn’t it easy? And for whom it is easy!"

      Here's another dilemma: "The real state program for re-equipping the fleet was created taking into account all existing geopolitical conditions, the tasks of the Navy and the capabilities of the military-industrial complex." choose two items from three recourse

      This is not a dilemma at all!
      The dilemma in mathematics and logic is an inference containing two mutually exclusive provisions that do not allow the possibility of a third.

      Dilemma - this will be the choice of one of two. request
      Interestingly, what will be called the choice of two out of three? what
      Yes, even those that do not contradict, but harmoniously complement each other? repeat
      Here it will be closer to the Monty Hall paradox, although this paradox is still from a slightly different opera. hi
  5. Sailor
    Sailor 27 November 2017 08: 29 New
    +6
    What happened to the author? After the articles about the superiority of the Western fleets, we are suddenly on top.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 27 November 2017 08: 46 New
      18
      Quote: Sailor
      What happened to the author? After the articles about the superiority of the Western fleets, we are suddenly on top.

      But isn't the US fleet superior to the Russian fleet? In my opinion it is superior, and perhaps even multiple. But the question is different - do we need a comparable fleet or do we need a fleet to provide the real tasks that are set before it?
      It seems to me that the author tried to explain that the existing GPV fully provides the Russian Navy with what it needs, and it makes no sense to chase the United States.
      1. 34 region
        34 region 27 November 2017 10: 47 New
        +3
        Trapper7 Today, 08:46. The question is interesting! Or maybe we really do not need a lot of floating targets? Maybe enough submarines and strategic planes! And what? The submarines are secretive. Flying faster. Maybe it is better to produce trans-atmospheric missile carriers than aircraft carriers?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 November 2017 11: 03 New
          +7
          Quote: Region 34
          Or maybe we really do not need a lot of floating targets? Maybe enough submarines and strategic planes!

          As if with “strategic airplanes” it did not come out even more expensive.
          The nuclear submarines cannot operate completely autonomously, they must be protected from anti-submarine forces and weapons. Or apply exclusively in the reach of your own coastal aircraft, including fighter. What is clearly an incomplete use of the capabilities of nuclear submarines.
          You can try to cover them with “strategic planes”, but this means a large number of such planes on combat duty in the air, the creation of a fleet of tanker planes, the creation of “strategic planes” that can effectively deal with carrier-based and base enemy aircraft, which is at the current level of technological development possible, but very, very expensive.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 27 November 2017 11: 08 New
        +3
        Quote: Trapper7
        I think the author tried to explain that the existing GPV fully provides the Russian Navy with what it needs,

        what I apologize, but where did the author explain this to the GPV?
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 27 November 2017 11: 52 New
          +3
          Quote: Serg65
          Quote: Trapper7
          I think the author tried to explain that the existing GPV fully provides the Russian Navy with what it needs,

          what I apologize, but where did the author explain this to the GPV?

          Here:
          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.”

          They are planned just in the state armament program. Of course, I am not special, but an amateur, so if something is not correctly understood and expressed I think it will be excusable.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 27 November 2017 12: 05 New
            12
            Quote: Trapper7
            Of course, I am not special, but an amateur, so if something is not correctly understood and expressed I think it will be excusable.

            Yes, of course excusable drinks
            And here I am from what the author cited. I understood only one thing ... "We will catch up and overtake, comrades, but we will catch up with what we have, and this, dear comrades, you yourself well know what is planned! It’s planned, comrades, that you also need to make decisions of the previous congress, comrades, you are very well aware of the direction of our movement !!! (prolonged applause, turning into a storm of applause) " hi
            1. Trapperxnumx
              Trapperxnumx 27 November 2017 13: 20 New
              +2
              Quote: Serg65
              Quote: Trapper7
              Of course, I am not special, but an amateur, so if something is not correctly understood and expressed I think it will be excusable.

              Yes, of course excusable drinks
              And here I am from what the author cited. I understood only one thing ... "We will catch up and overtake, comrades, but we will catch up with what we have, and this, dear comrades, you yourself well know what is planned! It’s planned, comrades, that you also need to make decisions of the previous congress, comrades, you are very well aware of the direction of our movement !!! (prolonged applause, turning into a storm of applause) " hi

              Long and prolonged applause, turning into a storm of applause)))) good
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 27 November 2017 14: 46 New
                +4
                Quote: Trapper7
                Long and prolonged applause, turning into a storm of applause)))) good

                You forgot: Everybody get up. smile
          2. Town Hall
            Town Hall 27 November 2017 12: 10 New
            +3
            Quote: Trapper7
            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.”
            They are planned just in the state armament program. Of course, I am not special, but an amateur, so if something is not correctly understood and expressed I think it will be excusable.




            With such oratory techniques you can "prove" anything. Replace the word Ships with Aircraft ..or Roads, Salaries, Schools, Health .... Will it convince you just as easily?
      3. Setrac
        Setrac 28 November 2017 00: 02 New
        +2
        Quote: Trapper7
        But isn't the US fleet superior to the Russian fleet? In my opinion it is superior, and perhaps even multiple.

        Question - by what parameters? The American fleet is imprisoned for the control of maritime communications and work along the coast, the Russian fleet (not counting the strategic component) - for the destruction of the American fleet.
        The main weapon (not strategic) of the American fleet is tomahawks, the main weapon (not strategic) of the Russian fleet is anti-ship missiles.
      4. Sailor
        Sailor 30 November 2017 21: 19 New
        0
        Did I in my comment dispute the power of the US Navy? I just pointed out that the author has changed his point of view. And we need a fleet, not a mosquito, but a full-fledged balanced ocean, but unfortunately there are no technological capabilities or money for this.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 27 November 2017 11: 07 New
      +3
      Quote: Sailor
      After articles on the superiority of the Western fleets, we are suddenly on top.

      Have you read the 3 quote below? No need to think badly about Kaptsov wink
  6. venik
    venik 27 November 2017 08: 39 New
    13
    Often criticized Oleg, but in this case, I can not agree (+) !! In the article, everything is correctly and clearly laid out "on the shelves." Does Russia need BIG ships? Yes - we need! But just as much how much is NECESSARY, and "not a dime more!" Gone are the days when the USSR could afford to “butt” with the states on the principle of “who has more” .... Today, building impressive vessels, whose task is to “demonstrate the flag” is too wasteful. These are states - they can afford it, they print money, and the rest of the world is engaged in providing coverage.
    Of course, I would like to see the Fleet and large ships, for which "Pride takes!", But ... The main thing is to ensure the SECURITY of the Country, and in the most effective ways!
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 27 November 2017 11: 17 New
      +6
      Quote: venik
      exactly as much as REQUIRED

      And how much is needed ???
      Quote: venik
      Today, building impressive vessels, the task of which is to “demonstrate the flag,” is too wasteful.

      laughing You are absolutely right - you can arrange a “demonstration of the flag" on a torpedo boat, but what? Cheap and most importantly BEAUTIFUL good
      Quote: venik
      The main thing is to ensure the SECURITY of the Country, and in the most effective ways!

      what Oh my friend, would you still know what it is-SECURITY in the most effective way?
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 27 November 2017 12: 11 New
        +2
        Quote: Serg65
        Today, building impressive vessels, the task of which is to “demonstrate the flag,” is too wasteful.
        You are absolutely right - you can arrange a “demonstration of the flag" on a torpedo boat, but what? Cheap and most importantly BEAUTIFUL




        The main thing is that the flag is not very large)
        1. venik
          venik 27 November 2017 16: 41 New
          0
          Quote: Town Hall
          The main thing is that the flag is not very large)

          =========
          A big flag - you can hang it on a torpedo boat (which the Navy is doing now, by the way!), Well, the specialists will comment on the fleet’s efficiency!
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 November 2017 14: 49 New
        +3
        Quote: Serg65
        You are absolutely right - you can arrange a “demonstration of the flag" on a torpedo boat, but what? Cheap and most importantly BEAUTIFUL

        Bggg ... an hour, didn’t they remember Kolbasiev? wink
        - The flag? asked the tall one softly.
        - The flag! - Sitnikov repeated in a full voice, and Vaska pulled the halyard. The red bundle, taking off, turned around with a huge cloth that covered almost half of the mast.
        - Important! - thought out loud Sovchuk. - What is your demonstration!
        The flag really was not for the ship. Stretched out by a board in a crosswind, it burned with unbearable redness and suppressed by its size. All "Budyonny" disappeared behind his running folds.
        The tall one looked inquiringly at Sitnikov.
        “There were no others,” he answered. - Not allowed, it means that the commander himself went on small ships.
        © Sergey Kolbasiev. Sled.
        1. venik
          venik 27 November 2017 16: 44 New
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Kolbasiev Sergey. Sled.

          =========
          ABOUT! At least one man was found who remembered Kolbasiev !! Some "users" - it would not hurt CLASSIC to read! Although, there would be a collection of "Turn" all of a sudden "" .....
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 27 November 2017 18: 25 New
            +2
            Quote: venik
            Some "users" - it would not hurt CLASSIC to read! Although, there would be a collection of "Turn" all of a sudden "" .....

            And also Sobolev - "Overhaul". smile
      3. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 27 November 2017 18: 39 New
        +1
        And how much is needed ???
        And it is necessary as much as the desire to beat our sworn friends "try us on the tooth." For exact numbers, contact the General Staff.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 27 November 2017 19: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: venik
      These are states - they can afford it, they print money, and the rest of the world is engaged in providing coverage.

      And Russia helps them, throws them 100 billion each, the main thing is that the partners feel good and the fact that they have small boats is nothing, then they will catch up.
    3. xtur
      xtur 29 November 2017 22: 35 New
      0
      > Gone are the days when the USSR could afford with the states "butted" on the principle of "who has more".

      According to the IMF, the PPP of the Russian Federation is the fourth country in the world, second only to China, the USA, and India
  7. solovald
    solovald 27 November 2017 08: 44 New
    +1
    The fleet is needed solely to confront the United States, all other tasks can be solved by improvised "watercraft" (for example, the "Syrian express" method). Hence it is necessary to dance, i.e. give priority to invisible submarines capable of delivering a decisive nuclear strike (preemptive or .. retaliation strike).
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 27 November 2017 11: 18 New
      +6
      Quote: solovald
      The fleet is needed exclusively to confront the United States, all other tasks can be solved by improvised "watercraft"

      Nice to see great admirals on these pages. soldier
    2. venik
      venik 27 November 2017 16: 47 New
      +4
      Quote: solovald
      The fleet is needed exclusively for the confrontation of the United States

      =========
      Respected! The fleet is needed, "not for confronting" mattresses ", but for SUPPORT Security и Of interest STATES!!
      1. Paranoid50
        Paranoid50 29 November 2017 01: 20 New
        +2
        Quote: venik
        "not to confront the" mattresses ", but to ENSURE the Security and Interests of the STATE !!!!!

        In this case, "ensuring the security and interests of the State" intersects with confronting "mattresses". Here they go (semi) with a trailer, "nimble my Americans ... tanned, white-toothed, strong, good
        ".
        laughing They are at the door, they are at the window, and even through the roof (the Arctic) they strive. It seems that for a long time we will be like a "little scoop with a masherochka." But, damn it, but in good shape (the movement is not weak, in particular, with the renewal of the fleet), we would have vegetated in a peaceful Bose, stupidly trading in raw materials and occasionally quarreling with neighbors. yes
  8. groks
    groks 27 November 2017 08: 51 New
    +5
    Crap anti-Soviet. Starting with the fact that in the first photo the author pokes at Rastrub-B, which is not MANPADS at all, but PLUR. And the SAM they have a dagger, which from this angle and can not be seen.
    Elections are approaching. Agitation rod.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 27 November 2017 09: 04 New
      0
      And you look carefully
      1. groks
        groks 27 November 2017 09: 15 New
        +1
        What to consider? 8 pieces Sockets stick out from under the bridge.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 27 November 2017 09: 47 New
          +1
          and you look at Bending
          1. groks
            groks 27 November 2017 10: 34 New
            +1
            We do not look the dagger The dagger is not visible - it is logical.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 27 November 2017 12: 25 New
              0
              but it’s visible to Bending. Therefore, the author speaks of MANPADS instead of Daggers.
              It was he who modestly kept silent about the absence of low-flying air targets detection and target designation on a number of BOD radar yes
              1. groks
                groks 27 November 2017 12: 54 New
                +1
                Well, the trees are sticks - there are daggers. Launcher Gauges also do not stick out at all small-sized ones - what are they also missing?
                At the time of the release of these BODs with low-flying, it was generally not very simple, just in view of the general development of radar. It is necessary to modernize, and not to blame. There tanks poked out and threatened to leave some bodies from the 80s.
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 27 November 2017 13: 12 New
                  0
                  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/
                  8a / Vice_Admiral_Kulakov-4-Upperworks.JPG

                  BOD Kulakov for 30 years walked with one dagger complex instead of two (sheath, that is, dagger net). The wise sawyers “fixed” the problem by attaching MANPADS. Everyone is happy, with money and at large.
                  This little figovina to the left of the sailor will “destroy” enemy missiles and fighter-bombers!

                  1. groks
                    groks 27 November 2017 16: 59 New
                    0
                    Not this crap. This one is Flexible.
                    What kind of heresy has a commentator already? One Dagger - 32 4x8 missiles.
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 27 November 2017 17: 13 New
                      0
                      oh, you still saw her? Congratulations !
                      the photo is not attached, but Kaptsov’s article also showed it to everyone except you
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 November 2017 14: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: groks
      Crap anti-Soviet. Starting with the fact that in the first photo the author pokes at Rastrub-B, which is not MANPADS at all, but PLUR. And the SAM they have a dagger, which from this angle and can not be seen.

      You cannot see what is not. For the nose dagger "Dagger" in the first 1155 was not originally (and on the head 1155 there was no air defense at all) - our industry was not able to manufacture it in sufficient quantities. And “Kulakov” had to first go with half the kit (leaving the bow KUs unprotected - because it doesn’t work through the radar add-on), and then instead of a full-fledged air defense system get “bend”, which can only be shot from helicopters.
      At 1155 with a standard set of 2 air defense systems on the site above the bridge there is a "dagger" antenna post.
      1. groks
        groks 27 November 2017 17: 02 New
        0
        People! What are you? Why should the radar stand directly on the launch mines?
        Once again. If we are planning to upgrade several thousand tanks, then why doesn’t anyone want to modernize the BOD? Which now and there is nothing to replace.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 27 November 2017 17: 26 New
          +1


          what mines, sober up already! Do you see such empty pancakes on the bow and stern superstructures? - there they should have been
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 27 November 2017 17: 35 New
          +1


          upgrade slowly. while there was enough money to carry everything unnecessary. give more money bully
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 November 2017 10: 08 New
          +2
          Quote: groks
          People! What are you? Why should the radar stand directly on the launch mines?

          What are the launch mines? The bow AP “Dagger” on normal 1155 is located on the site above the bridge. It was in his place on the “Kulakovo” stuck “Flexible” - instead of the design of the second air defense system.

          That is, the nose KU on the “Kulakovo” is covered only by this multiply-charged MANPADS.
          1. groks
            groks 2 December 2017 10: 23 New
            0
            You are already somehow coordinated. And then one is in place of the Gibka locator, and the second one has “empty pancakes”. But now you can see the starting Daggers. Nasal anyway.
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2017 09: 55 New
    15
    Fierce pseudo-patriotic delirium
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 27 November 2017 10: 04 New
      +1


      lol people like when the "border is locked"
      1. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 27 November 2017 18: 43 New
        +1
        Yes. loves, but it does not like the enemies of Russia and all sorts of singers.
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 27 November 2017 10: 25 New
      +2
      That's just such nonsense can bring to Tsushima ...
      It is evident that the author did not serve in the Navy, and he should have tried.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2017 10: 46 New
        14
        Quote: Cympak
        It is evident that the author did not serve in the Navy, and he should have tried.

        Yes, he is a troll simply, the article is clearly provocative in nature. Well, the number of distortions per square centimeter of text is a record, even for Oleg
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 27 November 2017 11: 00 New
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: Cympak
          It is evident that the author did not serve in the Navy, and he should have tried.

          Yes, he is a troll simply, the article is clearly provocative in nature. Well, the number of distortions per square centimeter of text is a record, even for Oleg



          I agree with your assessment of this opus.


          PS Your masterpiece about aircraft carriers is written in the same way and with the same goals. And it suffers exactly the same "sores." And it pursues the same goals.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 27 November 2017 11: 26 New
            +3
            Quote: Town Hall
            Your masterpiece about aircraft carriers is written in the same way and with the same goals. And it suffers exactly the same "sores." And it pursues the same goals.

            belay So you understand what Andrei’s article was about ???? Enlighten, be so kind!
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 27 November 2017 11: 54 New
              +2
              Quote: Serg65
              So you understand what Andrei’s article was about ???? Enlighten, be so kind!



              In my opinion, this kind of article (regardless of the authors) is written not "about something" but "for something".

              Basically, to achieve the "movement" on the site. The recipe is a simple-evergreen of aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs, yellowstone, tectonic faults and other ingredients. And fun for a couple of days is provided)
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 27 November 2017 12: 20 New
                +5
                Quote: Town Hall
                In my opinion, this kind of article (regardless of the authors) is written not "about something" but "for something".

                what I understood that you didn’t understand anything ... unfortunately!
                For the accompanying tinsel in the form of faults, volcanoes, candy wrappers and balls, you did not see the main line of this article! Washed off articles did not consist of carpet bombing, but the need for aircraft carriers! Only Andrei gave these aircraft carriers a slightly different role in a future war. Since the second half of the 20th century, Americans, and it was believed that aircraft carriers in the future war will play the role of convoy aircraft carriers and defend transatlantic convoys, and the Soviet Navy will try to destroy these convoys! That's something like that, my friend, and you are talking about some kind of volcanoes!
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 27 November 2017 12: 30 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Serg65
                  For the accompanying tinsel in the form of faults, volcanoes, candy wrappers and balls, you did not see the main line of this article!



                  Aqvila non captat muscas
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 27 November 2017 12: 36 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    Aqvila non captat muscas

                    Ahh, yes, yes, yes ..... fly high?
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2017 11: 29 New
            +7
            Quote: Town Hall
            PS Your masterpiece about aircraft carriers is written in the same way and with the same goals. And it suffers exactly the same "sores." And it pursues the same goals.

            I knew that for many he would be perceived that way. Well, it’s not easy for people to part with the illusions about the omnipotence of our nuclear arsenals. And that all Americans live in four large cities with a population density of 100500 people per square meter. m. :)))
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 27 November 2017 12: 00 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Well, it’s not easy for people to part with the illusions about the omnipotence of our nuclear arsenals. And that all Americans live in four large cities with a population density of 100500 people per square meter. m. :)))



              You yourself confirm my words. The article was formally about the misuse of aircraft carriers in the form of transports and repair shops. But actually ...)

              Kaptsov has the same thing. You do not seriously admit that he does not know how things are with Piment-Redoubt when he describes the combat capabilities of miracle corvettes ..... The passage about the Columbus caravels and their seaworthiness is generally beyond good and evil and is an attempt to rape intelligence in a particularly perverted form .... but wrote the same)
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2017 12: 17 New
                +8
                Quote: Town Hall
                You yourself confirm my words. The article was formally about the misuse of aircraft carriers in the form of transports and repair shops. But actually ...)

                But in fact, the article was about the fact that
                1) The nuclear missile armageddon will not wipe everything off the face of the earth and the war will continue to field it using conventional weapons and nuclear weapons
                2) In this war, carrier-based aircraft removed from under the influence of strategic nuclear forces can play a key role.
                But the first thesis is unacceptable for most readers, very, very many believe that after the strategic nuclear forces the whole world is in ruin. Therefore, a significant part of the article is devoted to explaining why this is not so. And it is based on facts, not on
                Quote: Town Hall
                Passage about the caravels of Columbus and their seaworthiness
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 27 November 2017 12: 32 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  But in fact, the article was about

                  Well, they love us, Andrei Nikolaevich hi , think without thinking, analyze without thinking, draw conclusions without analysis .... what
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 27 November 2017 11: 21 New
      +5
      hi Приветствуем! drinks
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Fierce pseudo-patriotic delirium

      laughing No, but what, funny, very, very! bully I even remembered my political officer !!!!
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2017 11: 30 New
        +4
        Quote: Serg65
        I even remembered my political officer !!!!

        Exactly! :)))))
    4. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 27 November 2017 19: 27 New
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Fierce pseudo-patriotic delirium

      This is a feuilleton type.
    5. xtur
      xtur 29 November 2017 22: 40 New
      0
      > Fierce pseudo-patriotic delirium

      I completely agree in the assessment of a recent article on nuclear war and aircraft carriers. And here is the usual trolling, but with a hint
  10. Galleon
    Galleon 27 November 2017 10: 07 New
    +8
    Rare in its incoherence and fragmentary thoughts, an article in which, like a cherry on a cake, is a photo of a cruiser with a nuclear power plant, on which it is proposed to find smoke. I am not saying that there can be no smoke over the Eagles. Maybe he saw. But not on the go, when the power plant is working, not an auxiliary one.
    The proposed name should, according to the author’s intention, carry a daring challenge and a certain outrage, in some way characterizing the personal qualities of himself - the audacity and non-triviality of thinking - but it carries only absurdity, because in the final, it all comes down not just to the banality of this name, but ... better read it again:
    The loud headline “Russia does not need ships” can be rephrased as follows: “Russia does not need ships, except those that are part of the Navy and are planned for construction in the coming years”.
    .
    I recall the brilliant M.M. Zhvanetsky: "Writing, as well as writing, is necessary only when you can’t.
    Oleg, sorry for such a review - but what article ...

    Now let's try a few words about the serious: why do not we need ocean ships? Not to fat. Missile attacks on Syria were carried out by ships having 10 days of autonomy - the Buyan and Buyan-M projects. - the fleet can dodge and use these kids even in the Mediterranean, having Tartus. If a base appears in Sudan, all the tasks can be solved there without the ship’s personnel at all, covering the entire Red Sea with a pair of Bastion complexes, as in the Kuril Islands. We are solving coastal problems — the task of disrupting the enemy’s ocean communications from the fleet has been removed. When such a need arises, Onyxes will be launched by aviation. And, of course, 4 fleets of 18 Karakurt corvettes are not enough for 22800 fleets. I think their construction program is limited in this way because by the end of the construction of this series, after 10 years of change the world will push science to create new projects of warships.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 27 November 2017 12: 35 New
      0
      Quote: Galleon
      When such a need arises, Onyx will be launched by aviation.

      at least once run (about the Indians, I know, if that). apparently no need request ? where is he, aviation Onyx?
      1. Galleon
        Galleon 27 November 2017 23: 24 New
        +1
        “Onyx” is RCC. And so far no one is substituting us for RCC.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 28 November 2017 05: 13 New
          +1
          Yes, I'm talking about testing and adopting the Onyx aviation version. one talk
  11. lazy
    lazy 27 November 2017 10: 30 New
    +1
    but here I’ve never guessed the author. straight offensive. and there’s nothing to criticize. the only question is how much the "caliber" is an equivalent replacement for large missiles when it comes to the goal of an aircraft carrier class?
  12. MARINIR
    MARINIR 27 November 2017 10: 40 New
    +2
    I did not understand what the article was about, we have American ships in operation or we sold them ships for operation, or we don’t need a fleet at all, I didn’t understand anything.
  13. Anton Yazov
    Anton Yazov 27 November 2017 10: 41 New
    +3
    where do you get the fucking strategists from?
  14. Vitas
    Vitas 27 November 2017 10: 43 New
    +2
    The faster they build, the less they steal!
  15. Sergey Cojocari
    Sergey Cojocari 27 November 2017 10: 49 New
    0
    An article from the President said series.
  16. Galleon
    Galleon 27 November 2017 10: 52 New
    +7
    Quote: lazy
    the only question is how much the "caliber" is an equivalent replacement for large missiles when it comes to the goal of an aircraft carrier class?

    The question is not simple. The "Caliber" warhead weight is up to 400 kg "depending on configuration", as I understand it. How many pieces do you need to disable a target? And given the use of missile defense and electronic warfare? Watching where you get. For the sake of increasing survivability, this reptile does not even have its own weapon, and aviation ammunition and fuel are all under the water line, where you can’t get a rocket! The most realistic way to disable it is by hitting the central command post or disable all 4 aircraft elevators. But command posts are always duplicated. Think about it ...
    1. your1970
      your1970 27 November 2017 11: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Galleon
      . Think about it ...
      - and McCain lol I didn’t think he just stupidly burned the Forrestal and burned it with just one aviation missile ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 November 2017 15: 16 New
        +3
        Quote: your1970
        - and McCain didn’t think lol, he just stupidly burned the Forrestal and burned it with just one aviation missile ...

        Not him, but the “phantom” opposite.
        McCain was injured there: a rocket from the “phantom” hit the skyhawk adjacent to his car, and the “younger” barely managed to get out and crawl along the nose cone - because the fuel was already burning on the right.
        And the gunsmiths were guilty of everything, rudely violating several instructions at once.
        1. your1970
          your1970 27 November 2017 20: 51 New
          0
          So 400 kg in caliber is obviously enough for the same layouts
          1. Galleon
            Galleon 27 November 2017 23: 32 New
            +3
            In the days of the USSR, aircraft carriers hoped to kill with an X-22 missile: weight 5780 kg, length - 11.6m, width 0.9m, warhead weight 960kg, HE-explosive (explosive mass 630kg). Or special warhead from 350kt. In a conventional warhead, the cumulative jet was oriented downward (why - I wrote above). One such ordinary one would not be enough. You see, his task is to launch and receive aircraft, and it is very difficult to disrupt this task with one missile on board with a length of 430 m.
  17. Serg65
    Serg65 27 November 2017 10: 55 New
    10
    In its current state, the US Navy is redundant

    I read it to the end and when I saw the name of the author, I almost fell off the chair belay . Moreover, the intrigue remained until the last line good
    bully Well, if this is Oleg, then God himself ordered ...
    Now is the time for your fair criticism.

    Well, pray and begin .....
    Zamvolt stalled in the Panama Canal.

    laughing wassat There are finally no comments
    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?

    what Of course, Oleg, there are doubts! The only justification for this quote is that you worked for the public, because you know perfectly well what our DBK is doing, what does the Military Sealift Command do for the Americans or do you doubt the capabilities of this command? And even more so, you are well aware that BDK should not be engaged in cargo transportation!
    And if so, then the current composition of the fleet corresponds to its tasks

    I would like more detail about the tasks of the fleet in your understanding !?
    As of November 2017, there were 211 pennants in the Navy

    Great numbers for reporting .... unless of course go into details recourse
    At one time, the Soviet Navy “sinned” the same practice

    I won’t even argue here, for it’s a true truth!
    5000-ton frigate of the beginning of the XXI century. superior in combat capabilities to missile cruisers built 80's.

    I already realized that Ostap suffered, but you need to know the measure! The tasks of pr.1164 and pr.22350 are completely different, so comparisons are unnecessary!
    Conclusion
    If you already started talking about prospects, then, objectively, the only type of large surface ship ......... is the American concept of strike “Zamvolta”.

    what But no, everything fell into place! I apologize Oleg! good
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 27 November 2017 11: 29 New
      +3
      Quote: Serg65
      I read it to the end and when I saw the author’s surname, belay almost fell off the chair. Moreover, the intrigue remained until the last line of good

      Zrav bumo, boyar! drinks hi
      And after the second paragraph, I already knew the author! wink yes
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 27 November 2017 11: 34 New
        +3
        Quote: Rurikovich
        And after the second paragraph, I already knew the author

        crying Be be be .... I don’t play like that!
        lol have a nice one you too!
        1. IL-18
          IL-18 27 November 2017 14: 19 New
          +1
          While you are calculating the author here, they showed that the bottle on the board of the Typhoon did not break.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 27 November 2017 19: 37 New
            +1
            Quote: IL-18
            While you are calculating the author here, they showed that the bottle on the board of the Typhoon did not break.

            Nonsense, there Michelle Obama bent the floor of the boat while it broke the bottle and the boat still runs without problems.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 27 November 2017 19: 35 New
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        And after the second paragraph, I already knew the author!

        Until the falling cabinet, I thought that an article by Roman Skomorokhov.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 27 November 2017 19: 40 New
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Until the falling cabinet, I thought that an article by Roman Skomorokhov.

          Nah, the second paragraph about the dilemmas believed me in the authorship of Oleg good drinks This is Easy yes
          Roman writes more restrainedly request
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 27 November 2017 13: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: Serg65
      I read it to the end and when I saw the name of the author, I almost fell off the chair. Moreover, the intrigue remained until the last line

      What a fall, Sergey. How is that possible? I immediately found out. By picture and title ...
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 27 November 2017 14: 06 New
        +3
        Quote: Alex_59
        What a fall, Sergey

        hi Greetings, my friend Alexey! drinks
        Initially, I also thought that Kaptsov, but Zamvolt failed, I did not expect such dirty tricks from Oleg - to find such a wonderful ship to fault! But when at the end of the article everything fell into place, then the shroud out of sight laughing
  18. sergo1914
    sergo1914 27 November 2017 10: 58 New
    +6
    “They started talking about patriotism, probably stealing again”
    Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin (1826 - 1889)
  19. Twodi
    Twodi 27 November 2017 11: 11 New
    +2
    I agree, but only partly. A pair of atomic aircraft carriers is still necessary if the state is considering the use of force abroad. Operations like the Syrian but for example in South Africa or South America, and maybe northern)))). Distances are increasing at times, and even the redeployment of aircraft to local aerodromes can cause enormous and even surmountable difficulties. And if you imagine that initially the airfield must be recaptured ????? MOT simply can not do without aircraft carriers. Plus the same landing ships. Now imagine how much easier it would be for our Navy if he had at his disposal 4 ships of the Mistral type. But they are in all respects better than our Soviet BDK. Whatever one may say, large vessels of the oceanic sea zone are also necessary, the author himself says that the same Nakhimov will cost several US destroyers ... Another question is quantity, but in Russian realities it is unlikely that we will have surplus ship personnel, and even 1-2 ranks.
  20. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 27 November 2017 11: 17 New
    +4
    Russia, quite reasonably, is now focusing on small rocket ships,
    because there is no money for big.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 27 November 2017 12: 09 New
      +2
      The fleet’s geopolitical tasks fit a wallet in the style of “this grape is green”
      1. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 27 November 2017 18: 59 New
        +1
        The main task is to ensure the security of the country, and by what means it will be done, "prestigious" or not, it does not matter. It is foolish in the current situation to give the states a symmetrical answer, there is no way to do it, but not symmetrical, but effective, for example, the British looked down from their battleships and heavy cruisers on Germany’s tin tadpoles before 1 MV submarines as a military weapon, for which they then paid bitterly.
    2. IL-18
      IL-18 27 November 2017 14: 25 New
      +1
      Money, of course, is the most important issue. But what to do the fleet further than 200 miles from their native coast in 10-15 years is also no less difficult than finding money.
  21. spech
    spech 27 November 2017 11: 26 New
    +2
    Kaptsov Troll, competent and stubborn!
  22. Nemesis
    Nemesis 27 November 2017 11: 57 New
    +7
    Gentlemen, no matter how negatively I feel about Sobchakk and the like, this is not a reason to hush up and enjoy the frank jambs of the GDP and the company ... 1) Abramovich’s yachts, by the number, are noticeably ahead of the number of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation ... This is not normal. .. VVP and the company think differently .... 2) The basis of the Russian Navy, as before, consists of the legacy of the USSR, which is not becoming younger and more efficient. New ships are being built excessively small and are often built not what is needed. Soon there will not be a single combatant destroyer left in Russia, they have not even begun to build a new one. The frigates are in trouble because they fed Ukraine with orders for 20 years, instead of developing domestic industry and Kremlin wines here is obvious to everyone except the Kremlin itself. Corvettes 20380 in the Russian Federation are being built longer than in the USA and China, destroyers. This is also not normal .... 3) An attempt to replace frigates and destroyers of MRKs with neither air defense nor anti-aircraft defense indicates the incompetence of those who make such decisions.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 27 November 2017 12: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: Nemesis
      Gentlemen, no matter how negative I was

      Ahhh, so Kaptsov meant you ??
      Exposing liberal myths about the weakness of the Russian Navy
      1. seos
        seos 27 November 2017 13: 31 New
        0
        The myth is not liberal ... our fleet is weak, but so far it is enough to protect the coast, provided it is covered from the air.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 November 2017 15: 21 New
          +6
          Quote: seos
          The myth is not liberal ... our fleet is weak, but so far it is enough to protect the coast, provided it is covered from the air.

          Simply put, the fleet can operate where there are 200-250 airdromes within a radius of 3-4 km. That is, we now have a defense fleet not even of the coast, but of naval bases.
      2. Nemesis
        Nemesis 27 November 2017 20: 26 New
        +3
        I don’t know who he meant, but to say that Russia today has a strong fleet means lying ...
  23. Stalnov I.P.
    Stalnov I.P. 27 November 2017 12: 00 New
    +4
    Good questions, a good article, an example of small rocket ships that pulled "on barmaley" in Syria, why the squeal of the West began, but all these boats can enter the reservoirs of the western part of Russia, the Volga, Kama, other rivers, through the channels into large lakes, not to mention the Caspian, and look for them in OUR open spaces, and the firing range of the Caliber is 2,6 thousand km., is this stated? And the actual? Even at this range we cover the British island, all of Europe under fire, part of Africa, part of Asia. The author correctly noted that you need to be thoughtful about creating weapons, this is not a button, although technologies are also needed to create them, and the more technologically advanced they are, the greater the likelihood of a malfunction. It is not in vain that the GDP holds meetings on the military-industrial complex twice a year, the results are visible, and the Minister of Defense, the Chief of the General Staff, and all the other deputies are constantly on business trips, not to mention designers, technologists, directors, workers of Science, starting from academicians comrades work, work and it pleases. Yes, there are drawbacks, but the example of Crimea when the system of accessibility was created, the example of Syria inspires good OPTIMISM. Prudence, thoughtfulness, taking into account all the challenges, professionalism, talent of everyone who creates weapons in conjunction with the skill, will and dedication of our military creates the MOTHERLAND shield.
    1. seos
      seos 27 November 2017 13: 28 New
      +3
      About
      small rocket ships that pulnal "on barmaley"
      :
      “Buyan” as well as “Buyan M” is an unsuccessful project, the cannon Buyan is generally nonsense, and “Buyan M” at a rather high price has low efficiency, it was possible to shoot calibers on barmails and from the raft ... (Karakut, by the way, is cheaper and seaworthiness higher, because they are built)
      The Buyan M is a minor support ship and in order to attack it, in any case, it needs external target designation. In the case of the appearance of sea drones or helicopter carriers, the effectiveness of "Buyan M" and "Karakut" will increase sharply ... but in this direction everything is deaf ...
      Today, our fleet is better off not getting involved in naval combat ....
  24. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 27 November 2017 12: 02 New
    0
    “Russia does not need ships, except thosethat are part of the Navy and are scheduled for construction in the coming years ”

    excellent article, which of course is not to the liking of our sofa electorate
  25. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 27 November 2017 12: 06 New
    +6
    Kaptsov hi , Russia for the most part is just a land power, the Navy is an addition to it. Therefore, the tasks set by the Marine Doctrine in terms of border defense and the protection of the Nazinteres do not envisage stopping the construction of new ships. Moreover, already built ones have the property of aging, and the Soviet backlog is no longer young. Because what you offer is tantamount to betrayal yes Ships are built for specific tasks, and not just like that, if only to build, and therefore have their own tasks for each type separately. And it is utter nonsense to write about the lack of a concept for using ships in the Russian Navy. We stuff kids with weapons to the eyeballs, and do not let out half-empty underloaded boxes (which you, by the way, have already written about)
    There is nothing to write about shipbuilding capacities, especially when comparing with America. Budgets are not comparable (marine especially)! But this does not mean that it is necessary to fold the legs and stop development. The military industry is the engine in the development of technology. The Fed stamps candy wrappers, the Pentagon requires more money - that’s why America will rivet its “Orly Burke” and your beloved “Zamvoly”. And Russia is developing its fleet based on the capabilities of the economy (at the same time reaping the fruits of the liberal 90s), and therefore they build what they can. They will plant oligarchs and nationalize the national wealth - there will also be "Leaders" with nuclear aircraft carriers. But this is a problem for the leadership of Russia, and not for shipbuilders and sailors. In the meantime, the Gorshkovs and the Guardians, Buyans and Karakurts are being built - they will be built, because there will always be a need to change ships
    1. groks
      groks 27 November 2017 12: 22 New
      +4
      But it doesn’t seem like they’ll be planted. So it will not.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 27 November 2017 12: 28 New
        +2
        Well then there’s nothing to be surprised that we get it

        instead of this

        repeat
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 27 November 2017 13: 30 New
      +2
      Rurikovich. You are absolutely right: "stretching legs on clothes" and with ships. The fleet needs to be updated, so that Kaptsov does not say which ships to build is another matter. In the 90s, they understood that you couldn’t go far on the Soviet legacy, and the Kasatonov’s money didn’t allow you to, and now we’re trying
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 27 November 2017 19: 48 New
        +3
        Quote: Monarchist
        Rurikovich. You are absolutely right: "stretching legs on clothes" and with ships.

        And no one wondered why the Americans, having a debt of 20,5 trillion dollars, are building a powerful fleet and Russia is buying American papers instead of a fleet of money earned?
        1. xtur
          xtur 29 November 2017 22: 53 New
          +1
          > why Americans, having a debt of 20,5 trillion dollars, are building a powerful fleet and Russia, instead of a fleet with the money earned, buys American paper?

          So this is not a question, but a causal relationship :-(
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 30 November 2017 00: 21 New
            0
            Quote: xtur
            So this is not a question, but a causal relationship :-(

            It’s for sure who claims debt when you have 11 AUGs.
  26. astankard
    astankard 27 November 2017 12: 14 New
    +8
    One should not rejoice at the failures of the enemy, but at his success! ...If they are ..
    And to write that - “According to its capabilities, the Russian“ corvette ”is approaching Western destroyers.” - complete nonsense ... unless of course they meant the "Oliver H. Perry" taken out of service.
    No need to exalt the "mosquito fleet" because of the inability to build destroyers "Leader".
    Fables about the equality of the corvette with the destroyer - what's this? A lack of money? Roughness of the project? Or uselessness based on the long-term and constant presence of theft?
    About "Admiral Nakhimov" ..... this is generally not what I want to say - they gathered, swore and swore to restore all three ships - blah, blah, blah ....
    Best defense is attack .
    And we are again going to fight on our territory .....
    1. seos
      seos 27 November 2017 13: 17 New
      +1
      The destroyer "Leader" is a dull G created by designers in order to cut down the dough ... its combat effectiveness is extremely low ... in a battle against an aircraft carrier group, its chances are zero ...
      1. astankard
        astankard 27 November 2017 15: 28 New
        +3
        Talking about what you don’t know is shit.
      2. Galleon
        Galleon 27 November 2017 23: 39 New
        +5
        In the tactics of the Navy (there is such a science) there is no concept of “battle of a ship with enemy aircraft” - there is a concept of “reflection of the strike of enemy aircraft”. Not every country can stand the battle with the AUG, not like a ship or a squadron. You do not understand what you are talking about. Your statement is equivalent to saying that a naked Russian can not stand the frost on the street. And who can stand it?
        1. astankard
          astankard 30 November 2017 18: 52 New
          0
          Absolutely at the top.
        2. seos
          seos 1 December 2017 17: 15 New
          +1
          The construction and maintenance of a large destroyer requires a lot of money, with this money you can equip the army and navy with effective weapons or merge them into shit ....
          For example:
          1) Nuclear-powered cruise missiles are a very strong deterrent. Their massive purchase will ensure that no one dares to attack us. This is a more flexible and advanced weapon.
          2) Fleet - I see only 1 way to strengthen the fleet, the construction of submarines of various classes including mini submarines. Strengthen the surface fleet with CHEAP helicopter carriers, not UDC, but pure helicopter carriers, whose function is to protect the fleet and the fleet’s striking power ... like American carrier groups, where the carrier is based on the carrier and the rest of the garbage is a useless appendage to protect the aircraft carrier.
          Helicopter carrier with KA-52K is able to effectively engage in combat with aircraft and sea targets, as well as carry out attacks on ground targets ....
          In such a concept, there is no place for expensive destroyers all the functions a helicopter carrier can take on.
          Moreover, in a 1-on-1 battle, the helicopter carrier will come out victorious with any destroyer, because he will detect it earlier and quickly destroy it with the help of KA-52K
          There is another way - a more expensive one, namely the destroyer-helicopter carrier like the Japanese Izumo. Which has an advantage over any destroyer but is quite expensive.
          That's why a pure “Leader” is a mega-shit, he is blind and unable to fight ... their appearance will not give the fleet anything.
          You can also add about sea drones that can take off from helicopter carriers.
          The leader of the last century is his analogue of the Second World War of Battleship, unable to fight in the presence of enemy aircraft.
          1. astankard
            astankard 1 December 2017 18: 50 New
            0
            And do not "for the money"! The construction of a destroyer is one money, equipping the army with another, retirement for retirees — third, building a school — fourth money, and not moving one pile from one place to another.
            And destroyers are needed and aircraft carriers and other ships. Each has its own capabilities and tasks. Until now, no one canceled!
  27. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 27 November 2017 12: 16 New
    +2
    Quote: DesToeR
    And I liked the article. Everything about the case, and most importantly there is a comparison.

    Article Pts. sensible! The only IMPORTANT aspect is MANDATORY not affected - naval aviation, including HYDROAVIATION, and its SYMBIOSIS (not only interaction) with the surface and UNDERGROUND heterogeneous and "complex" fleet. The fact that this SYMBIOSIS has already been incorporated in the design of most new ships gives all the reasons for convincing the necessity and modernity of the Russian fleet. By the way, the Americans believe that its composition is not 211, but more than 422 pennants. I personally think so too, because I believe that during the construction of civilian vessels, primarily the icebreaking and port (base) fleets, their design also includes wartime tasks. Yes, and fishing vessels should be built taking into account these possible tasks, as well as tasks for interaction with maritime aviation, including SUPER SMALL AVIATION and UAVs.
  28. exo
    exo 27 November 2017 12: 21 New
    0
    There is sound grain. Considering the financial capabilities of the country, we have to admit that the fleet will not be number one priority for a long time. Excluding, of course, the SSBN.
    Under the current conditions, one could agree about the redundancy of the American fleet, if one does not take into account the fact that a large part of their ships is a missile defense system, that is, it allows you to move the interception mode from the United States.
  29. prodi
    prodi 27 November 2017 12: 27 New
    +1
    But I didn’t understand at all what prevents the sticking of "calibers" on a medium-sized tanker? Only the presence of "calibers"?
    1. seos
      seos 27 November 2017 13: 15 New
      +1
      You can stumble, but you can use such a trough to attack ground targets with previously known coordinates ....
      In a naval battle, such a trough will be sunk even by Ukrainian armored boats ....
      In general, it costs a lot, but combat effectiveness 0
      1. prodi
        prodi 27 November 2017 14: 15 New
        0
        I don’t think, because no naval battles from the “central disposition” have been observed for a long time. But to shoot back from the position of the "tsatoy" order unit and even be sunk with the crew is a good exchange
  30. viktorch
    viktorch 27 November 2017 12: 30 New
    +5
    a raw material superpower does not need warships, tankers are needed to send raw materials to the owners across the ocean,

    you are confusing the present USSR with the great USSR, the darkest one said that there will be no return to the past, which means we need a fleet as in a banana republic, and the army is purely ostentatious to beg for better prices from the owners, for that we need powerful internal troops to spread rot ,
    so we are heading for Honudras.
    1. Monarchist
      Monarchist 27 November 2017 15: 13 New
      +2
      1) we were at the level of Honduras, and now we return to the proper place and the behavior of the United States is confirmation of this. When we entered for Assad, that Anal and Benedict said: Assad could not be rescued and even thought that Kuzya was sent to take out Assad. 2) we just do not have modern tankers, but how many warships have already been launched? 3) still not tired of repeating horror stories about Rosguard? 4) they say to the people: “you will not enter twice in one stream” and with the Union: IN THE FORMER VIEW IT DOES NOT BE BUILT
      1. viktorch
        viktorch 27 November 2017 15: 27 New
        +6
        1) as we descended to Honduras after 91-93, we didn’t come up to anywhere, disassembling with assad is the same kindergarten as in pristina with the introduction of the airborne assault, the east as it blazed and will continue to blaze, the assad held on is certainly good , it’s just that it’s not visible that the parmas of their barmalei would stop supplying them, in the global sense they don’t care whether the Assad will sit for another 10-15 years or not, it will not relieve tension in the east, in any way, they did not achieve a specific tactical goal in Syria, but the strategy burning east is quite working.
        ps do not confuse the natural rotation of weapons, which is not sufficiently active by the way, with the buildup of military power.
        2) there are already plans for the construction of gas carriers; there will be the only large post-Soviet shipbuilding surface.
        3) what does the Russian Guard have to do with it? don’t call the dog - it has one or two functions to bark and bite, the general principle of the incredible growth in financing of the secret police is important, to the detriment of a normal army against an external enemy.
        4) oh well, these are the tales of the oligarchs of their paid talking heads and fools repeating this nonsense, a socialist turn is not just possible, this is the only right step for our country, at least according to the Chinese model, what is the point in patriotic speeches, if the so-called national capital already sold everything that is possible to the west, and is negotiating the sale of all that is impossible? and these sales are declared national achievements, cunning plans of the darkest, victories, etc.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 November 2017 16: 08 New
          +1
          Quote: viktorch
          as we went down to Honduras after 91-93, we didn’t come up to anywhere, disassembling with Assad is the same kindergarten as in the pristina with the introduction of the airborne assault, the East as it was blazing and will continue to blaze, it’s good that Assad held on, only something is not visible so that the pendants of their barmalei cease to supply

          Ahem ... so that the situation in Syria reminded Pristina, our VKS, after being transferred to Khmeimim, had to leave without a single shot, surrendering Syria and Assad to the barmaley. So far, for our aircraft, even an official reduction in presence on Khmeimim regularly leads to an increase in the number of flights and sorties. smile
          Excessive attacks by SLCMs and ALCMs can be considered a showcase in Syria, but on the other hand, it’s better to spend expensive KRMs for real purposes than let them go at fully studied training grounds.
          Quote: viktorch
          there are already plans for the construction of gas carriers; there will be the only major post-Soviet shipbuilding large surface.

          I.e. when gas carriers are building for the USA, this is diversification of the economy and capture of markets. And when for the Russian Federation-it’s all gone, putinsil, a gas-filling country. smile
          Quote: viktorch
          What does the Russian Guard have to do with it? don’t call the dog - it has one or two functions to bark and bite, the general principle of the incredible growth in financing of the secret police is important, to the detriment of a normal army against an external enemy.

          Are you talking about the 31st division of the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs? wink
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 November 2017 15: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: viktorch
      you confuse with the great USSR the current color,

      Great USSR sold his bowels in the same way - at an accelerated pace. You know, I remember with what fanfare they reported on the construction of the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod gas pipeline. Gazprom, with its export gas pipelines, was not formed from scratch - at one time Chernomyrdin made the former Ministry of Gas Industry of the USSR with only three signatures.
      And with the money raised, the Union bought grain, among other things. Because I have safely fallen in love with my agriculture.
      1. viktorch
        viktorch 27 November 2017 15: 35 New
        +1
        And in the USSR they didn’t sell iPhones,
        but now instead of grain we are buying premium class yachts and cars with airplanes
        ps you forgot to mention what exactly the USSR spent the bulk of foreign exchange earnings on, grain there was not at all the main import item
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 November 2017 15: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: viktorch
          and in the USSR did not sell iPhones

          And even in the USSR, even sports and tourist bikes were sold primarily to war veterans or blockades. I do not slander and denigrate: father in 1988 to go to the garage (5 years in line for a car, 4 years built a garage) needed a normal bike, so he had to buy it through his blockade grandmother.
          And I still don’t remember about refrigerators and TVs ... smile
          Quote: viktorch
          ps you forgot to mention what exactly the USSR spent the bulk of foreign exchange earnings on, grain there was not at all the main import item

          In 1988, the import structure was occupied by:
          machinery, equipment and vehicles - 41,4%,
          food and manufactured goods - 29,1%,
          ores, metals - 8,1%,
          chemical products - 5,3%
          fuel and electricity - 3,9%,
          wood, paper - 1,2%,
          other goods - 11,0%.

          Special chic was considered to "save" on installation supervision, commissioning and maintenance - after which the whole lines either quietly rusted right in the package, or stood half-assembled at the plants.
          Oh yes, here is the export structure of the USSR:
          In 1988, in the export structure were:
          fuel and electricity - 46,5%,
          machinery, equipment and vehicles - 15,5%,
          ores, metals - 8,5%,
          food and manufactured goods - 4,0%,
          chemical products - 3,4%,
          wood, paper - 3,3%,
          other goods (including weapons) - 22,8%.
          1. viktorch
            viktorch 27 November 2017 15: 51 New
            0
            just one question, are you in 91-95, have you bought a lot of cars, bicycles, garages, refrigerators, etc.?
            and you can also compare 2017 and, say, 1947 in terms of the structure of accessibility of food and consumer goods
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 27 November 2017 15: 58 New
              +1
              Quote: viktorch
              just one question, are you in 91-95, have you bought a lot of cars, bicycles, garages, refrigerators, etc.?

              Why such a time frame? You wrote:
              Quote: viktorch
              you confuse with the great USSR current color

              And then you take the darkest time of the Russian Federation. Let us then compare with the USSR of the period 1922-1927 ... or 1945-1950.
              1. viktorch
                viktorch 27 November 2017 16: 06 New
                0
                okay, recall on what fronts of the civil war you fought in the 91st, and how you lived with your family in that locality.

                ps such a framework because the global economy was in roughly the same state with respect to Russia as in 1988 to which you are appealing.
                With known tolerances at the moment, one can compare the “socialist” China of 2017 and the “specifically capitalist” Russia of 2017.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 27 November 2017 16: 29 New
                  +1
                  Quote: viktorch
                  okay, recall on what fronts of the civil war you fought in the 91st, and how you lived with your family in that locality.

                  You inattentively look at the framework - I specifically took 1922. There is no longer civil, in the country of NEP and devastation, the complete collapse of pre-existing economic ties. It is the same as in 1991, when it suddenly turned out that the former republics are close abroad, and CMEA is generally distant.
          2. xtur
            xtur 29 November 2017 22: 59 New
            0
            > And in the USSR, even sports and touring bicycles were sold primarily to war veterans or blockade soldiers.

            Druk, did you happen to fall out of bed today? Bicycles were always available in sports shops in Yerevan
  31. Livonetc
    Livonetc 27 November 2017 12: 34 New
    +2
    Quote: spech
    Kaptsov Troll, competent and stubborn!

    You confuse concepts a little.
    Yes, partly provoking.
    However, he writes and we read.
    If the quality of his material did not have any value, then the comments here would be an order of magnitude less, and the articles most likely did not pass the exit control of the site administration in such quantity.
  32. Pushkin
    Pushkin 27 November 2017 12: 41 New
    +2
    Quote: Logall
    Vladimir, beautiful poems!
    Interesting article, But most of all I liked this phrase
    - 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.
    Straight to the point ...

    The phrase is really beautiful, but not everyone knows in what context Pushkin said it: - "I, of course, despise my fatherland from head to toe - but I am annoyed if a foreigner shares this feeling with me. You who are not on a leash, how can you stay in Russia? melancholy and rage at me. ”In the fourth song of“ Onegin, ”I depicted my life; some day you will read it and ask with a sweet smile: where is my poet? Paris and never to return to accursed Russia - oh yes, clever. "(Letter to P. A. Vyazemsky, May 4, 27 from Pskov to St. Petersburg)
  33. Anyone
    Anyone 27 November 2017 12: 42 New
    +2
    I just didn’t understand why suddenly the author of the article decided that delivering military supplies to Syria to the BDK is good, but at the annual exercises to ensure the safety of the Northern Sea Route, landing on the islands of the Novosibirsk archipelago was practiced on the "Vice Admiral Kulakov", which never adapted to participate in landing operations. It is clear that we do not have in our fleets modern specialized auxiliary vessels. There is no proper amount of modern recreation centers and BDKs, and even better - UDCs. No wonder we tried to buy the Mistral. We need ships of this class.
  34. yoyo1984
    yoyo1984 27 November 2017 12: 50 New
    0
    again this finished ...! read the title and immediately went to see the author, well, he did not disappoint ...! =))))) already again flowed into the fleet) yeah, apparently the scraper is a vocation
  35. Monarchist
    Monarchist 27 November 2017 13: 05 New
    0
    [quote = komvap] A fleet is needed!
    But without big and meaningless long-term monsters - toys of politicians and cutters.

    The emphasis on submarines and the minimum allowable ships for seaworthiness (500-2000 ships according to the SAR scheme) surface ships.
    Maximum 8000 VI for surface ships.
    Continuous modernization both in electronics and weapons.
    To carry it out on small ships is cheaper and faster, without risk of making a big mistake affecting the entire fleet. [/ Quote
    "tyulkino fleet" three times "Hurray"
  36. amba1960
    amba1960 27 November 2017 13: 06 New
    +3
    The author of the article, Oleg Skaptsov, in my opinion, either does not agree on something or does not understand something. At one time, we cut the barrel artillery, our very best, who was at the very top, believed that in a modern war (70s) missiles would more than replace airplanes and barrel artillery and tanks (the truth is nothing about the construction battalion I didn’t say), but it turned out ... I won’t express myself in Russian, as it should in such cases, but I’ll just say, don’t touch the “muhanism” while it works. There are specially trained people who must anticipate ahead of time (for this they receive money) the development of weapons of war strategy and tactics. It is possible that soon those who will spend longer at the keyboard will win the war. I’ll explain, someday, somewhere (it would be better, of course in our territory) some kind of bright head (it would be better, of course, of our compatriot and patriot of our country) will derive such a formula, write such a piece of paper (armor, not a piece of paper), according to which military operations will not be needed, because wars are fought over resources and territories. I just clicked the button and you need a resource. Example Ukraine (the hand does not rise to write its name with a capital letter (my teachers forgive me)) - they wanted lace panties, and then the poor Ukrainians ran for the ghostly happiness of Yavropu, we de tepericha Russia is no match, we are not brothers to us, we are tepericha sign that we have Yavropa, but now we have everything in a circle - but we don’t have a country, there’s some kind of county for the starving people, they won’t conquer them, show them the crust of bread agree. The country is not, with whom to fight it?
    Continue to continue ...?
    I repeat do not touch the "muhanizmu". Large ships are needed and small are needed and medium. Everything should go along the evolutionary path - from pedestrian traction to horseback, from horseback to steam, from horseback to oil and gas and nuclear, all changes should occur when these changes are historically justified, and ideas like ... we will completely destroy the old world and on its wreckage we’ll build a new one we have already passed.
    It is necessary to strengthen and improve what is, and the unnecessary, for example, as trebuche disappeared in due time and the ballista itself will disappear. But talk about what they say is why our fleet consider large ships provocative.
    So here, uncle ...
  37. seos
    seos 27 November 2017 13: 12 New
    +2
    The fleet in the USSR and Russia has always been secondary, and rightly so .... everything is decided on earth ...
    The fact that we do not need new destroyers and cruisers I completely agree .... let the old ones upgrade ...
    But let's say 3-4 helicopter carriers with KA-52K could strengthen our fleet by 50%, with minimal financial impact.
    The problem is that everyone is obsessed with flawed troughs such as UDC, which are so universal that they cannot adequately perform any task ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 November 2017 15: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: seos
      But let's say 3-4 helicopter carriers with KA-52K could strengthen our fleet by 50%, with minimal financial impact.

      How will helicopter carriers strengthen the fleet? Where and why are you going to apply them?
      Judging by the events in Yemen, over-the-horizon operation and full-fledged air defense / missile defense are now necessary even in the event of a conflict with a third world country, because China and Iran did the “budget” coastal SCRC.
    2. komvap
      komvap 27 November 2017 21: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: seos

      ... which are so universal that they cannot adequately perform any task ...

      That's right - but in order to abandon universality, you need a lot of specialized ships, and in order to have a lot of them and not spend more on them than on other defense projects, they should be small.
      With a small size, seaworthiness and the ability to carry a helicopter suffer.
      The only way out of this limitation is ships according to the ATS scheme (vessel with outriggers).

      1. komvap
        komvap 27 November 2017 21: 49 New
        +2
        The huge advantage of the fleet of a large number of ships SAR VI 500-2000 tons,
        - the speed of construction is somewhat higher than one large same total combat ability and VI.
        -cheaper due to modularity, unification and mass character
        -Modernization is much faster and does not entail a sharp decrease in ships on combat duty.
        -the possibility of experiments with equipment and weapons, and real-world comparisons of their various schemes with the subsequent selection of the best, and then modernization of the remaining ships according to its model.
        - the ability to place a helicopter on any, even small (500-800 t.VI) ship due to a dramatic decrease in pitching amplitude and increase in deck area, will dramatically increase the number of helicopters in the fleet, which will lead to a fundamental increase in combat capabilities. (combat awareness, shock and transport functions)
  38. Monarchist
    Monarchist 27 November 2017 14: 12 New
    +1
    In my opinion, the author got a little lost about what the article says: "The Russian Navy no longer needs ships" is how, in general, the Russian fleet is not needed. After all, every thing has a certain service life and warships too, which means that sooner or later the ship is aging and it is not possible to upgrade endlessly, which means it is necessary to build new ships. This is because the headline is a little off topic.
    Now we go further: "in the Navy there were 211 shots:" and how many of them are new? The author says the US has an excess fleet, but they don’t understand that. Poor things. And how many Chinese are building new ships? And where is the guarantee that the dragon will not come to us?
  39. Natalia777
    Natalia777 27 November 2017 14: 45 New
    +1
    Infinitely happy for Russia and the Russian Navy. The most intelligent heads in terms of weapons live in Russia.
  40. Graff77
    Graff77 27 November 2017 15: 27 New
    +1
    Just recently, there was an article in support of domestic AUGs. Three days later, an article was published against. :)
    The Russian Navy is weak. According to the statements of the same military and a number of domestic experts (Murakhovsky, for example), the current fleet is not enough even for the defense of the "bastions" and our submarine cannot feel safe there. And here the author tells how all is well.
    If (IF !!) now (2017) the fleet would have received 30 ships of Project 22350 and three or four Leaders plus two helicopter carriers plus 10-12 BDK, not counting minesweepers (which the Navy is in great trouble !!), I I agreed with the author. Everything would not be so bad. And now with the fleet of trouble. No ships. And the fact that the fleet copes with the tasks is a merit and everyday heroism of sailors and officers. But you can’t live all your life on one heroism. Therefore, we must not sing songs, as we are doing well, but think soberly that so far our Navy is very weak. However, there are good trends that, after 15 years, we will reach sufficient combat readiness.
    1. rexby63
      rexby63 27 November 2017 15: 44 New
      0
      If (IF !!) now (2017) the fleet would receive

      And you can ask who would serve them?
  41. Graff77
    Graff77 27 November 2017 15: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Town Hall
    You yourself confirm my words. The article was formally about the misuse of aircraft carriers in the form of transports and repair shops. But actually ...)

    But in fact, the article was about the fact that
    1) The nuclear missile armageddon will not wipe everything off the face of the earth and the war will continue to field it using conventional weapons and nuclear weapons
    2) In this war, carrier-based aircraft removed from under the influence of strategic nuclear forces can play a key role.
    But the first thesis is unacceptable for most readers, very, very many believe that after the strategic nuclear forces the whole world is in ruin. Therefore, a significant part of the article is devoted to explaining why this is not so. And it is based on facts, not on
    Quote: Town Hall
    Passage about the caravels of Columbus and their seaworthiness

    I don’t understand your faith in carrier-based aviation. Tell us in more detail how the F - 18 and F - 35 will iron the remnants of the Russian troops.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2017 16: 08 New
      +3
      Quote: Graff77
      I don’t understand your faith in carrier-based aviation. Tell us in more detail how the F - 18 and F - 35 will iron the remnants of the Russian troops.

      So I wrote in the article, and you saw it, isn’t it? :))) https://topwar.ru/130127-rf-protiv-nato-rol-avian
      oscev-v-yadernom-konflikte.html
      They ate in a nutshell - AB, having clogged deck aircraft to the eyeballs, go to the ocean, they are practically invulnerable there, then, after the armageddon - to the coast of Europe, there the planes fly to the remaining aerodrome network (and it will remain, in Europe under 2000 aerodromes with a solid covering) and onward ... supplies can be arranged from the USA (they have a lot of these airfields) + what Europe is rich in, aircraft carriers - as remaster craftsmen (maintenance) themselves do not go into battle.
  42. rexby63
    rexby63 27 November 2017 15: 43 New
    0
    We stupidly do not have enough people. Can you build 100500 ships, who will manage and serve them?
  43. 3danimal
    3danimal 27 November 2017 16: 44 New
    +2
    Quote: juborg
    all of us enroll in the slaves of a super nation and die in their backyard and bury ourselves. It’s enough for admins to post articles of this disgusting person, scribbling his libel almost daily. Prolific became

    It’s interesting how this hamish-cliché verbal flow compares with the text of this article?
    PS You will not appreciate, but the pluralism of opinions is a good thing. Prepare and post your article, with logical (or emotional) reasons. Do not agree?
  44. 3danimal
    3danimal 27 November 2017 16: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Titsen
    Kaptsova sways from side to side ...

    I agree, was the thought: "his account was hacked"? )))
    In some cases, a contradiction with previously recently published articles ..
  45. Vadim Sh.
    Vadim Sh. 27 November 2017 18: 30 New
    0
    The author’s thoughts are like a billiard ball - from one side to the other, no specifics. The fleet is necessary, powerful, modern - standing guard over the borders of our MOTHERLAND.
  46. 3danimal
    3danimal 27 November 2017 18: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: IL-18
    But what to do the fleet further than 200 miles from their native coast in 10-15 years is also no less difficult than finding money.

    There is nothing to do so far with the fleet of a continental country with a weak hydrocarbon economy. The only thing is the demonstration of the flag, for which the Gorshkovs are enough.
  47. Skywa1ker
    Skywa1ker 27 November 2017 18: 42 New
    +2
    It is so good that we have a truthful and objective site, like topvar !!! In just 5 minutes of reading an interesting article based solely on facts and expert estimates, I learned that our fleet is the strongest in the world !!! Why is everyone silent that we are a marine superpower? Amerikosy with their 10 AUGs and rusty General Fords - probably trembling with fear !!!
  48. 3danimal
    3danimal 27 November 2017 18: 44 New
    +2
    Quote: I.P. Stalnov.
    It is not in vain that the GDP holds meetings on the military-industrial complex twice a year, the results are visible, and the Minister of Defense, the Chief of the General Staff, and all the other deputies are constantly on business trips, not to mention designers, technologists, directors, workers of Science, starting from academicians comrades work, work and it pleases. Yes, there are drawbacks, but the example of Crimea when the system of accessibility was created, the example of Syria inspires good OPTIMISM. Prudence, thoughtfulness, taking into account all the challenges, professionalism, talent of everyone who creates weapons in conjunction with the skill, will and dedication of our military creates the MOTHERLAND shield.

    I recall the phrase classic, that some people confuse the words "fatherland" and "Your Excellency"))
    In a capitalist state, where 1% has more than 70% of total income (US 34%) there are no COMRANES, you are mistaken for a temporary period.
    RTOs are doomed as soon as they turn on the radar. There are examples (Iranian). For submarines, he is also an easy target. A watchtower with hypertrophied missile weapons (most of which cannot be guided).
    "Caliber" flies 2,6 km with special. Warhead, which is twice lighter than conventional 400 kg.
  49. The comment was deleted.
  50. 3danimal
    3danimal 27 November 2017 20: 01 New
    +2
    Quote: Rurikovich
    There is nothing to write about shipbuilding capacities, especially when comparing with America. Budgets are not comparable (marine especially)! But this does not mean that it is necessary to fold the legs and stop development. The military industry is the engine in the development of technology. The Fed stamps candy wrappers, the Pentagon requires more money - that’s why America will rivet its “Orly Burke” and “Zamvoly” your beloved. And Russia is developing its fleet based on the capabilities of the economy (at the same time reaping the fruits of the liberal 90s), and therefore they build what they can. They will plant oligarchs and nationalize the national wealth - there will also be "Leaders" with nuclear aircraft carriers.

    About power. Do you seriously think that they are measured only in money? A production culture, a huge number of trained personnel?
    About finance. Read about the market value of companies registered in the United States (and paying taxes there, by the way) and Russian. Apple costs more than the entire Russian stock market. And it doesn’t print its products on paper (I’ll make a reservation, I’m from the Samsung camp).
    About the ships. The Russian Federation will not be able to build Zamvolt or Burke (for order, for example); technological lag in this area is hindering it.
    In my opinion, the maximum possible frigates are ~ 6000 tons (requirements for seaworthiness and the deployment of weapons) a'la Gorshkov, with Caliber, Uranus missiles and, finally, brought by the Poliment-Redut air defense missile system. Plus corvettes.
    Drop the noodles from your ears about the dashing 90s and the good 00s. In the 90s, the bandits below and in power divided the assets, the country more and more fell into the oil industry, and a barrel cost $ 10-15.
    In 00x, they consolidated their status and settled in power en masse, in the economy they were almost like Saudi Arabia (absolute superiority of resources in export). In 2000 there were 4 billionaires in Russia, now there are more than 100 of them. Including people from the president’s circle. Question: where do naive dreams about "dispossessing" of oligarchs come from? Who will do this? Is that yourself))
    Nationalization alone will not guarantee that a government official will be a good manager (in Russia there is a huge share of state participation in the economy). And the additional funds that have appeared will need to be spent primarily on restoring the infrastructure (which continued to degrade in a good 00е). Not for destroyers and aircraft carriers, fabulously expensive and doubtfully in demand in the near future.