Military Review

The Russian Navy is turning into a "coastal defense fleet"

66
Russia is losing prospects as a global maritime power. At least, such conclusions can be drawn on the basis of official statements of the Ministry of Defense regarding the priorities of the development of the Navy for the next ten years. In the development of surface ships, the emphasis was laid on the construction of ships of the so-called near sea zone (BMZ). How will the Russian navy look like in the end?




On November 29, the press service of the Russian military department announced a statement by Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov at a meeting with the leadership of the Navy and representatives of the USC on the implementation of the state defense order 2017. The statement says that the key point of the marine part of the state armament program (GPV) at 2018 – 2027 will be the construction of ships of the near sea zone (BMZ) with high-precision cruise missiles, as well as strategic (SSBN) and multi-purpose submarines.

In that order: the ships BMZ, then SSBN and multipurpose submarines. Thus, the fighting surface ships not only of the ocean, but even of the far sea zone remained, if not for brackets, then on the side of the new LG. “The main provisions that we have formulated are approved,” the deputy minister summed up.

What is happening almost looks like a conspiracy against the oceanic prospects of the Russian naval fleet.

Ten years for stories God knows how long, but for an individual, a huge one (especially for a military retiree or a military-industrial complex veteran). If the former military pilots and aircraft manufacturers, tankmen and tank builders, infantrymen and many others waited for the holiday on their street, state officials (in and without shoulder straps) deprived such an opportunity. Moreover, they have for a long time (if not forever) postponed the revival and multiplication of Russia's sea power in comparison with the naval potential of the USSR. Of course, not by the number of pennants, but by the shock power, efficiency and diversity of the tasks to be solved.

More recently, nothing foreshadowed trouble. 20 July 2017 was approved by the President "Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030 year", which states that "only the presence of a strong Navy will provide Russia with leading positions in a multipolar world in the 21st century", that Russia will not allow "exceptional superiority [over its own navy] naval forces of the United States and other leading naval powers", "will strive to secure it in second place in the world in terms of combat capabilities," and repeatedly mentions the need for lnosti fleet "in the remote areas of the oceans."

30 July 2017 for the first time in our modern history was held a grand Main Naval Parade in St. Petersburg and Kronstadt and parades in Severomorsk, Vladivostok, Sevastopol and Baltiysk, which reminded the citizens of Russia that we have not just a fleet, but an ocean fleet which can be proud of. October 6 at a conference call with the leadership of the Armed Forces Sergey Shoigu recalled that "strengthening the power of the Navy is one of the priorities of the Russian military policy", October 9 meeting of the Marine Board Dmitry Rogozin declared inadmissibility of losing Russia's position in the World Ocean, October 27 again Shoigu (on the board of the Ministry of Defense): “The fleet has solved the task [of Russia's naval presence in all strategically important areas of the World Ocean]. But in an unstable military-political situation, it has acquired particular significance. ” Along with the recent raid of the ship-based aircraft carrier group led by Kuznetsov to the shores of Syria, which was widely reported in the media, and almost continuous demonstration of the flag by 1 – 2 ships of the world rank. All of this produced a sense of naval boom and movement.

And suddenly - the “near sea zone”.

The warships of the near-sea zone (approximately 500 nautical miles from the coast), currently under construction for the Russian Navy and armed with cruise missiles, include: large diesel-electric submarines (PLB, DEPL) Pr. 677 and 636.3, multipurpose corvettes, etc. 20380 and 20385, small rocket ships (MRK), etc. 22800 and 21631. Rocket complexes weapons (KRO) in modular design can potentially take on board and patrol ships (PC). 22160 Ave. - a new subclass, largely duplicating the Coast Guard of the Coast Guard of the Border Guard Service of the FSB, invented by the Navy Commissariat, which already has enough tasks to be solved with large tension forces. Ridiculous Ave. 20386 did not even want to mention because of its oversize, interim, nedoavruzhennosti and shamefully ugly appearance. All the hope that the “Bold” will be the only purely experienced “ugly duckling” in our fleet. In general, whatever was said in the promotional materials, all the projects listed are tied to the shore.

The submarines of the 636.3 Ave. (improved 877) and 677 (without an air-independent power plant, which is not there yet) have a 45 autonomy for 24 hours, but extremely low sea navigation range - 400 and 650 miles, respectively, at a speed of only 3 node. The full submerged cruise range (around 20 nodes) was not disclosed, however, according to some data, the first 877 series at the maximum speed of 17 nodes had a full battery discharge time of only one hour (17 miles!), And since has changed. Since, in a combat situation, the use of an RDP (a device for operating a diesel engine underwater), which provides a cruising range of up to 7500 miles on 7 nodes (636.3), is not possible (the secrecy decreases sharply), the boats have nothing to do except to deploy (single or in the veil) in close proximity to their bases (in BMZ) and perform tasks in a given area or at the turn, while at low speed, anchored or on the ground.

Unlike the submarine (there is no storm at the depth), small surface ships (NK BMZ) have a very limited seaworthiness on the use of weapons, propulsion (ability to maintain a given speed) and habitability (ensuring comfortable living conditions for personnel).

No innovative hull lines, brought to perfection in the hydrodynamic basins of the Krylov Research Center, no supermodern pitifulators will not allow small craft to feel confident and solve problems in the far sea and ocean zones. They will be thrown on the waves like splinters, disarmed and defenseless, and military posts, cabin and cabins will turn into torture chambers for the personnel. Even such proven first-timers as the BOD Ave. 1155, which are with the ocean for “you,” sometimes have to wait out bad weather in a safe place to avoid unnecessary problems (as was recently the case with Vice Admiral Kulakov in the North Sea).

Undoubtedly, small NC BMZs can work in distant waters (those “remote areas of the World Ocean”), however, “distant waters” and “far sea zone” (referred to as “green water” in the West and ending approximately 1500 miles) should not be confused. from the coastline). Corvettes, IRCs and PCs, accompanied by supply vessels, are capable of making long-distance crossings, clinging to the shore and waiting for adverse hydrometeorological conditions (in other words, storms), and then perform military service in the BMZ at a great distance from the permanently stationed station. This is confirmed by the “Boky” and “Savvy”, currently at a distance of about 4000 and 5500 miles from Baltiysk. However, for the normal functioning of fleet forces in remote areas of the ocean, if not naval bases, then at least logistics facilities (E & P) with the appropriate infrastructure that can provide equipment repairs, resupply and rest of personnel are necessary. And we still have only one such PMTO - in the warring Syria.

There are big doubts that in the coming years 10 will be able to organize some PMEC (at least one or two) somewhere other than Tartus. Instant (in the eyes of an astonished world) the construction of a full-fledged military air base Khmeimim makes a very strong impression, but the construction of the naval base (PMTO) is quite another matter. In addition to the very difficult diplomatic side of the issue, mini-SRZ (ship repair plants) will be needed instead of the now far from new floating workshops (of which we also have very little), floats, cranes, berths (or reconstruction of berths), fuel storage facilities, possibly dredging and pr. Basing of ships designed according to the modular principle (22160) raises the problem of building a PMEC in a square, because it requires large storage rooms for storing modules, workshops for their maintenance, additional rooms s shore and shipboard technicians. Otherwise, new-fangled multifunctional PCs will turn into highly specialized, unarmed combat units.

In the absence of naval bases or anti-tank weapons facilities abroad, BMZ ships with high-precision cruise missiles, the construction of which is based on the LG 2018 – 2027, are intended to become the basis of the coastal defense fleet. In such a fleet at risk of becoming our entire Navy, if its construction will be led by people with a land outlook. Another guise of the BMZ ships will be nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence within the range of the KNBR 3М14 KRO Caliber (2500 and 1500 km, respectively). To do this, it is not at all necessary to leave the Baltic, Black, Barents and Japanese seas (just like the SSBN Ave 955 there is no need to move far from Gadzhiyevo or Vilyuchinsk). The new “mosquito fleet” of Russia, without leaving home, will keep at gunpoint medium-range missiles with SBCh all of Europe, the entire Middle East, Japan, South Korea, and if something goes wrong, then Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong. From the unprecedented opportunities bestowed on the Navy by its current builders, it would have taken its breath away, but instead tears came to my eyes.

The basis of the country's sea power are warships of the main classes. The canonical (generally accepted) interpretation of this term is absent in nature, but it would be logical to attribute nuclear and non-nuclear submarines (except for special purpose submarines), aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers (including BOD), frigates (including TFR), large corvettes to the main classes. (say, from 2000 tons full.) and seaworthy amphibious ships (universal, helicopter ships-docks, BDK) - that is, everything that allows you to project power to remote regions of the world to one degree or another. All other self-propelled floating engineering structures of the Navy belong to the warships guarding the water area (OVR) - the same notorious BMZ (MRK, small anti-submarine ships - IPC, missile boats, minesweepers), small landing ships and boats, special purpose ships (reconnaissance, training, command complex, etc.), sea and raid support vessels.

To date, the average age of warships of the main classes of the Russian Navy has already overcome the psychological barrier in 25 years (the “normal” service life of the ship) and has reached 25,3 of the year.

At the same time, the share of ships of new projects under the age of 10 years inclusive is only 17% (17 / 103), if we assume “over the heads”, which is not entirely correct, since the aircraft carrier and the corvette with this approach have equal specific gravity. When recalculated for full displacement, the share decreases to 11%, which strongly disagrees with 53% of modern naval armaments voiced by Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov at the board of the 7 November Defense Ministry (apparently, everything was calculated there - Grachata, Raptors, raid tugs, and it is "on the head"). Attempting to evaluate the same indicators at the time of the completion of the LG 2018 – 2027 gives the following picture (assuming the preservation of the Soviet legacy and the implementation of the program at least - the transfer to the fleet of five SSBNs 955 Ave., six APCRA 885M ave. 677.1, four frigates Ave 636.3, four TFR Ave 22350, one corvette Ave 11356, two Ave 20386, five Ave 20385 and two BDK Ave 20380): the average age at the end of 11711 of the year - 2027 of the year, the proportion of new ships (by displacement) - 27,6%.

Thus, the implementation of the coastal defense fleet construction program will lead to further aging of the main ship structure (although it should be the other way around) and a negligible increase in the share of new combat units. It’s good if, immediately after the end of the next dark period in the history of the Russian fleet, new aircraft carriers and destroyers are laid, then by the middle of the 2030s we will be able to start updating the ocean component of the Navy. Until that time, the tasks of combat service in faraway waters and displaying the flag would have to be basically all the same 8 BOD, 1155, and three RRCs, 1164, whose average age is close to 2035, beyond the limits of the non-avian racers, at the end of 48. Despite the fact that these outstanding creations of the domestic shipbuilding industry with an elegant predatory silhouette will look more and more anachronistic every year, we have no other way out. To represent a great maritime state in the oceans should be large ships, respecting one of its kind. 22160, "Karakurts" and "Buyans" will not help here.

One might think that the bias towards BMZ was caused by financial difficulties experienced by the country and its Armed Forces. However, almost every day we hear that the economic situation in Russia has stabilized, the national currency is also not observed, there are no crisis phenomena, the GDP has slowly begun to grow, as well as tax collection, the price of oil exceeds the state budget, although the expenditures on defense have decreased , but not fundamentally, and then only at the expense of those types and genera of the Armed Forces, which are already largely saturated with new models of weapons and military equipment (SV, VKS, Strategic Rocket Forces, Airborne Forces). Therefore, if difficulties really exist (which is not a fact), they are most likely caused by the redistribution of funds in favor of some short-term whims of the Ministry of Defense.

It is very disappointing that in a quarter of a century since the collapse of the USSR and the formation of the Russian Federation, we have not been able to begin updating the surface forces of the ocean component of the Navy. Even more offensive is the fact that in 16 years from the tab of the “Guardian” (21.12.2001), perceived by society as the beginning of the revival of the national fleet, not a single 1 surface ship (ocean zone) was laid. Finally, with bitterness and heart-heavyness, it must be stated that the time that Emperor Alexander III and his followers, admirals von Tirpitz and Gorshkov, were enough to bring the military fleets of their states to second place in the world (by 1904, at worst they shared it with France), the modern Russian shipbuilding industry and its near-captains didn’t even have to reach the starting line. One of the shameful results of our sluggishness soon (after the transfer of the PLA Navy to 2028, two new aircraft carriers, at least four large destroyers, etc. 055 and not only) will be the loss of the second position in the table of the ranks of leading maritime powers, which at the beginning of 2017, we shared with China with a difference of some 1,3% (according to the total total displacement of ships of the main classes).

At the same time, I want to believe that the well-known Russian saying “slowly harness, but quickly travel” will turn out to be prophetic in relation to domestic shipbuilding and the construction of an oceanic Navy after 2027.
Author:
Originator:
https://vz.ru/society/2017/12/4/897894.html
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 6 December 2017 06: 16 New
    17
    And yachts of Abramovich and other axelbergs also considered?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 6 December 2017 06: 33 New
      +5
      I have been raising this topic for a long time about the yachts of the oligarchs and the Navy wink yes
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 6 December 2017 06: 35 New
        +7
        Cool would be BDK! belay
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 6 December 2017 06: 39 New
          +4
          Yes, and a lot, if all requisition. And the disguise during the capture of the Basurman port is also provided! soldier Here are just a supraise to the adversary would be provided not in the form of shlendery in a bikini, but in the face of muscular pendriki in "Warriors" laughing
        2. 210ox
          210ox 6 December 2017 08: 30 New
          0
          Vladimir hi I doubt it ... Admirals are already rubbing their hands ..
          Quote: Uncle Lee
          Cool would be BDK! belay
    2. omit
      omit 6 December 2017 09: 56 New
      +4
      Uncle Lee:
      "And did the yachts of the Abramovichs and other axelbergs also count?"
      Do not open your mouth to someone else’s bed! am
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 6 December 2017 11: 31 New
        +7
        On each mouth, you will not throw a scarf! crying
  2. 210ox
    210ox 6 December 2017 06: 37 New
    +5
    Unfortunately, we cannot quickly build ships of 1st and 2nd rank due to financial, economic and technological reasons. But this does not mean that they will not be built at all. I hope.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 6 December 2017 06: 47 New
      +6
      Quote: 210ox
      I hope.

      I also ! hi
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 6 December 2017 07: 39 New
      +2
      plans business plans of the people
      where the loot there and ideology
      to receive a pension at 45 - to endure a pitching at MRK in the Atlantic. This is better than being a teacher for 20 (?) Or a guard for 30 (?). dot
      There are no our pipelines in the Pacific Ocean and about St. Helena.
      If you build a big trough, the "partners" may be concerned about the unfriendly seizure of their "interests" in Africa and Latin America.
      27 years about friendship and openness - and turn everything towards "confrontation"?
      who will say it out loud?
      and even more so?
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 December 2017 22: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: 210ox
      Unfortunately, ships of 1 and 2 ranks cannot be built quickly ...

      I fully share your point of view, colleague! You have a big "+" from me. hi
  3. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 6 December 2017 06: 50 New
    +5
    But in the topic about repairing the TAVKR, Admiral Kuznetsov, a bunch of people with comments like: “Why do we need it?”, “I would sell it,” “I would remake it in a museum” ... I would, if only ... well. as if we had ships like mud, museum salesmen ...
    1. Evgeniy667b
      Evgeniy667b 6 December 2017 08: 55 New
      +2
      Yes, Koschey, these sellers got on VO. All translate into the loot. It’s a shame, of course, to realize that all the ships built with my modest participation (18 + 1) are already all disarmed and cut. But 20 years that have not served !. (The Ohio staff are over 40 years old and everything is in order.) How striped it was uncomfortable from their presence in the ocean! Now I don’t argue, a lot of things are being done wrong, the most important thing is how the Russian Federation positions itself and what is being done in industrial production, but there is confidence that it will shake off all this merciless scum, metalworkers with big epaulets, and will be reborn like a Phoenix from ashes . True, the price of this will be very high!
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 6 December 2017 15: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: K0
        But in the topic about the repair of the TAVKR, Admiral Kuznetsov, a bunch of people with comments like: “Why do we need it?”, “I would sell it,” “I would remake it in a museum” ... I would, if only ... well.

        A pebble in my garden laughing Yes. Why do we need this Kuzya? Over the long 26 years, once "brilliantly" participated in Syria. Efficiency is simply breathtaking. And the freshly built Buyans have already managed to show themselves.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 6 December 2017 19: 46 New
          0
          Quote: Winnie76
          Over the long 26 years, once
          And this is a question for the command of the Navy.
  4. Chertt
    Chertt 6 December 2017 06: 55 New
    +9
    The opinion of the authors, reflects one of the points of view on the Russian Navy, There are also groans that the fleet generally died. And there is a realistic view based on facts. Now in Russia are built (with varying degrees of success) ships of the project 11356, 20350 - Frigates of the far sea zone. 20385/6 - (which the author considers ugly and does not want to consider, let us leave the aesthetics of S. Dali) Corvette of the far sea zone. And projects 22800 (Karakurt) and 21631 (Buyan-m) Corvettes of the near sea zone, ... But very conditionally Two Buyan-M ships, which have the worst of all the listed projects, seaworthiness, worked out well in the Mediterranean Sea. About DEPL 636.3, the indicators indicated in the article are, to put it mildly, strange. The absence of VNEN is a problem, now it is being resolved expeditiously, but even without an anaerobic installation, Varshavyanki walk perfectly, not only in the "near sea zone" and successfully shoot
  5. komvap
    komvap 6 December 2017 07: 13 New
    11
    From the category ".. there would be no happiness, but misfortune helped .."
    For starters, Russia would reliably and without gaps protect the coastlines and the 200-mile economic zone, in which everyone is lazy to fish and rob other economic wealth of our country - from the Japanese to the Norwegians.
    We need a rejection of large military ships - they are needed only by swindlers, thieves, stupid and vile politicians, and sofa megalomaniac drochers.
    Even according to domestic experience - all the large Soviet ships simply rotted in no way affecting anything.
    Just gobbled up money.

    you need a large number of 500-2500 tons, (best of all are ATS - vessels with outriggers - to maintain seaworthiness at a small size and unification during the construction of ships of different types and purposes)
    Emphasis on reconnaissance, communications, helicopters, drones.
    And as I wrote above - only reliable protection of the economic zone will bring both economic and financial income and create the image of a Great Power, which is not available to any "super-duper majestic" delusional aircraft carriers and battleship cruisers.
    1. Evgeniy667b
      Evgeniy667b 6 December 2017 09: 08 New
      +2
      There is such a motor boat "Blegg-420, it successfully sailed along the stormy (5-6 points on the Beaufort scale) North Sea. Approximately this essence should be for ships in the Kuril Islands, as well as other operational areas of the coastal zone for Pacific Fleet. And the gigantomania, which the USSR "suffered" with, cannot do.
      1. komvap
        komvap 6 December 2017 10: 47 New
        0
        Quote: Evgeniy667b
        There is such a motor boat "Blegg-420, it successfully sailed along the stormy (5-6 points on the Beaufort scale) North Sea. Approximately this essence should be for ships in the Kuril Islands, as well as other operational areas of the coastal zone for Pacific Fleet. And the gigantomania, which the USSR "suffered" with, cannot do.

        maybe Blagg-480?
        1. Evgeniy667b
          Evgeniy667b 6 December 2017 10: 59 New
          0
          Yes of course! 420 I did for myself. As far as the dimensions of the room allow
  6. demiurg
    demiurg 6 December 2017 08: 01 New
    +8
    There is an economy, and there is a principle of reasonable sufficiency.
    Do we have a ton of interests across the ocean? Do we need a land of business to bomb Liberia or Kenya in the Stone Age?
    Or are we almost at the borders of ISIS, and have rather big chances for ground battles at the borders?
    A fleet is needed, but not as much as the modernization of ground forces.
    1. gavrila2984
      gavrila2984 6 December 2017 08: 18 New
      0
      There is an economy, and there is a principle of reasonable sufficiency.
      That's for sure. Even if you deal with purely one coast defense, how many ships do you need to set up? Offhand I won’t even say which is more, the maritime border or land. And then we still have to plow the oceans.
  7. pin_code
    pin_code 6 December 2017 08: 12 New
    +1
    The absurd Ave. 20386 does not even want to be mentioned because of its oversize, intermediateness, under-armedness and shamefully ugly appearance. All hope that the “Daring” will become the only purely experienced “ugly duckling” in our fleet. In general, no matter what is said in the advertising materials, all of these projects are tied to the shore. the author of the project 20386 corvette was ranked among the ships of the near sea zone, although he was specially designed for a larger displacement (almost like the frigates 11356) with the same armament of 8 launchers for cruise missiles. it is rather a ship of the far sea zone.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 6 December 2017 08: 36 New
      +6
      And let's not star. 20386 displacement is 2 times less than 11356. That's just, we will not mislead people.
      1. domnich
        domnich 7 December 2017 18: 44 New
        +4
        Less is, of course, less. But you must admit that the displacement in 2200 tons and the cruising range of 5000 miles still allows you to rank Corvette Project 20386 to the ships of the far sea zone. I myself managed the ship of the Navy 1500 tons of displacement, with unlimited seaworthiness and navigation area. I couldn’t get into 9 points, and 8 points were kept easily. Up to 6 points and assignment work was performed. This is me for comparison.

        Quote: pin_code
        it is rather a ship of the far sea zone
  8. EvilLion
    EvilLion 6 December 2017 08: 33 New
    +2
    And then, when the war begins, the fleet amicably repeats the "feat" of the "Varyag". Do no harm to the enemy and flood the ships.

    Yes, and who needs this fleet when there is aviation with vehicles getting on the 1000-1500 km without refueling.
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 6 December 2017 13: 59 New
      +2
      and aviation is not needed, go give up)))
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 6 December 2017 15: 08 New
        0
        Have you heard much about how the pilots blew up / burned their planes and gave them a feat for this?
      2. Winnie76
        Winnie76 6 December 2017 15: 11 New
        +2
        Quote: pin_code
        and aviation is not needed, go give up)))

        In argument
        1. pin_code
          pin_code 6 December 2017 18: 54 New
          +1
          this is not an argument, but sarcasm
  9. EvilLion
    EvilLion 6 December 2017 08: 42 New
    +2
    bitterly and heartbrokenly, one has to admit that that time, which was enough for Emperor Alexander III and his followers, Admirals von Tirpitz and Gorshkov, to bring the military fleets of their states to second place in the world


    Then to shamefully drown, or how to get out of the Germans once from the base, to see the British battleships and drape back, then to be proud of a pointless victory, which has no military significance.

    Alexander III and Tirpitz had nothing like the Su-27 and the vehicles on its base capable of flying through the Black Sea and Turkey from somewhere through the Crimea.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 6 December 2017 17: 55 New
      +1
      Yes, of course, to cite as an example of the need to build a fleet precisely those cases when the fleet, in addition to harming the state, did not bring any benefit, it is brilliant.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 6 December 2017 21: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: Cartalon
        give an example of the need to build a fleet precisely those cases when the fleet, in addition to harming the state, did not bring any benefit

        Speak - speak, but do not speak! am stop
        NAVY NEVER HARMED TO YOUR COUNTRY !!! angry
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 6 December 2017 22: 41 New
          0
          Quote: BoA KAA
          NAVY NEVER HARMED TO YOUR COUNTRY !!!

          You simply do not know, for example, battleships such as the Soviet Union.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 6 December 2017 22: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: KaPToC
            battleships of the Soviet Union type.

            And what did the ship pr 23 not please you that did not descend from the slipway?
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 6 December 2017 23: 10 New
              0
              Quote: BoA KAA
              And what did the ship pr 23 not please you that did not descend from the slipway?

              The number of forces and means invested in it.
  10. Conductor
    Conductor 6 December 2017 09: 48 New
    +1
    Does it make sense to have a fleet? Sechin to dissolve here you have a regiment and Karl to impose (s)
  11. Ivan Tartugai
    Ivan Tartugai 6 December 2017 10: 05 New
    0
    Quote from the article:
    And suddenly - the “near sea zone”.


    It not suddenly, this is an old problem, most of which was solved by Khrushchev and Zhukov. Cutting the ships for scrap.
  12. Nemesis
    Nemesis 6 December 2017 10: 24 New
    0
    This has long been understood ... The construction of the rocket corvette 20380 takes 7 years ... This is unacceptable for a long time ...
  13. Penzuck
    Penzuck 6 December 2017 10: 37 New
    +6
    The essence of the article: “the evil Shoigu”, “Putin and their ilk” will build small weak boats and a weak Russian girl will not be able to fight off the adversary.
    Only with evidence, as always, oblissimo:
    1. Apparently the evil and treacherous Putin will drive small boats to the evil despicable America, and the boats will not sail. Offensive?
    2. Of course, a large ship is awesome, and a small one, although it “floats” in the waters, will drown all one, because Russian scientists are still whipping soup. Test some stupid conduct - Offensive.
    3. Around deception, economists write that everything is OK, and the ship is netuti, and netuti aircraft carriers - Overthrow the power.
    My Conclusions:
    1. Empty populist article.
    2. Manipulation of opinion and juggling with obvious and indisputable facts.
    3. Sandbox-level argumentation.
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 6 December 2017 14: 01 New
      +2
      totally agree with you!
    2. turbris
      turbris 11 December 2017 11: 52 New
      0
      In my opinion, this article is not the first time thrown in and everything seems to have been discussed, no, again, it’s boring to someone.
  14. faiver
    faiver 6 December 2017 10: 51 New
    +4
    until they begin to shoot for theft and corruption as in China, until then we don’t have enough money for ships of the first rank and much more ...
  15. groks
    groks 6 December 2017 11: 02 New
    +1
    Without normal destroyers, the BOD will not be able to control the coastal zone. Small air defense capabilities are also limited.
    It turns out that either the revival of the normal fleet, or at least a serious increase in the number of nuclear submarines. Neither one nor the other happens. Then it turns out that partners for our ruling elite without quotes?
  16. turbris
    turbris 6 December 2017 11: 16 New
    +1
    Of course, I understand the suffering of the Soviet Navy, but there is a military doctrine of the Russian Federation, in accordance with which the construction of the Russian Navy is carried out. Do you really think that the discussion and adoption of the plans for the construction of the Navy was not attended by professionals, but simply by financiers who calculated the money and quickly distributed everything. Your opinion is of course important, but as they say it’s too late to pick apples.
  17. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 6 December 2017 12: 18 New
    0
    Is Russia worth the effort to become a global maritime power? We only have 1 ice-free seaport - Sevastopol, in the isolated Black Sea. Is it worth spending a fortune on global ambitions for months of navigation?
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 December 2017 22: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: Corsair5912
      We have only 1 ice-free seaport - Sevastopol,

      And Murmansk? Vladivostok? Find? Novorossiysk? Kaliningrad = Baltiysk?
      Did you go bad at school? Well, sorry ... bully
      1. Corsair5912
        Corsair5912 8 December 2017 18: 01 New
        +1
        I have to disagree with you all the bays, except Novorossiysk and others not so important, in the same Black Sea, freeze and cannot work without icebreakers. Read the physical geography of the RSFSR.
    2. goblin xnumx
      goblin xnumx 9 December 2017 10: 41 New
      0
      it’s precisely noticed that there are almost no professionals anywhere — only managers ... —that is the question — even just in peacetime on a ship in the ocean (underwater or surface — even in civilian) - do you need help or will we send security boats? - Or to ask Norwegians - Americans, and so on that they would help and keep secrets? I think large ships, albeit in small quantities (a poor country), are needed on the fleets, but with a deadline ... - all the same, to build a small boat for 7-10 years and missile destroyer type zamvolt for 4-5 years to launch, somehow incomparable
  18. Lena Petrova
    Lena Petrova 6 December 2017 12: 28 New
    +1
    So one big trough, it is always easier to track and try to destroy than a dozen smaller ones.
  19. ioan-e
    ioan-e 6 December 2017 12: 32 New
    +3
    Not an article, but a typical liberal nagging and manipulation of facts. Not building a fleet is bad! Build, but coastal defense is bad! They will start building the ocean (and with time they will certainly begin), they will whine: with whom to fight, where to use, expensive to maintain - again bad! Whatever they do - everything is bad! Aw authors (in another language does not dare to name), look back at the story! Shipbuilding in the USSR began with what? "Soviet Union" directly into the civilian? Followers of Nicholas II - I want a boat, big, many, and immediately! They are comparing with China, but not a word about the difference in the size of the economy!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 14: 05 New
      +6
      Quote: ioan-e
      Shipbuilding in the USSR began with what?

      With the repair and restoration of existing ships, which was completed by about 1930. RF? Nothing like this. Until now, we are finishing off the ships of the USSR and sending them to sucks. Small watchmen were built in the USSR, then-leaders and destroyers, in 1935, 13 years later, after the end of the civil war, they began the construction of cruisers.
      Since the arrival of the Darkest, it’s already 17 years ago :))))
  20. pin_code
    pin_code 6 December 2017 13: 58 New
    0
    Quote: EvilLion
    And let's not star. 20386 displacement is 2 times less than 11356. That's just, we will not mislead people.

    the first 3400t., the second 4000t. and where twice?
  21. Anyone
    Anyone 6 December 2017 14: 02 New
    +2
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    And yachts of Abramovich and other axelbergs also considered?

    Given the places of permanent residence of the above citizens, their yachts, in the event of any war, requisition the British Navy))
  22. ioan-e
    ioan-e 6 December 2017 14: 25 New
    +3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: ioan-e
    Shipbuilding in the USSR began with what?

    Since the arrival of the Darkest, it’s already 17 years ago :))))

    That is, you support the methods of rebuilding a country like that of Stalin? Personally, I am for! General collectivization, industrialization, production of goods of group A - means of production? But at the same time it is necessary to “reset” the oligarchs and agents of influence of the West! And when we are clamped down from all sides, cut off from world markets, we will again have to sell gold, objects of art! You forget only one thing: in the modern realities of the pin-up-mill, the GAZ plant will not cut our eyes, it will not sell technology and will not give it to others! Shipbuilding is a reflection of the country's economic power! And with us this very power is still very unsightly!
    Py. sy. For me it’s better to be a beggar, but proud Cuba, than to stand half-bent as in the west like Psheks and other Baltic states!
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 December 2017 22: 23 New
      +3
      Quote: ioan-e
      For me it’s better to be a beggar, but proud Cuba,

      And for me - it’s better to be prosperous, economically powerful, with a first-class Army, Navy and Air Forces, powerful Strategic Missile Forces and SPRN-PRO systems ... a global superpower.
      We will strive for this. To the best of our ability and ability, predicting the threats and realities of tomorrow. Yeah. yes
      1. sa-ag
        sa-ag 9 December 2017 10: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: BoA KAA
        And for me - it’s better to be prosperous, economically powerful, with a first-class Army, Navy and Air Forces, powerful Strategic Missile Forces and SPRN-PRO systems ... a global superpower.

        Of course, the dream is wonderful, no words, but here’s one hassle - there’s no idea for the whole nation, and not for a single handful of people who group the main resources in their hands for the purpose of personal enrichment, none of the above will come true, for the simple reason of lack of funds
  23. Wolka
    Wolka 6 December 2017 18: 39 New
    +2
    modern naval combat does not provide for visual contact with the enemy, so why build ships with a large displacement (easier to detect and destroy) if it is quite possible to effectively strike the enemy’s groupings on long-distance communications without going far from their shores, and from different locations far enough apart from a friend (Syrian experience is vivid proof of this when the RTOs launched a missile attack on ISIS factions) ...
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 December 2017 19: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: Volka
      Syrian experience is vivid proof of this when RTOs launched a missile strike on ISIS

      Excuse me, but these groups that were on the ships?
  24. MOSKVITYANIN
    MOSKVITYANIN 6 December 2017 20: 54 New
    0
    One of the shameful results of our sluggishness soon (after the transfer of the PLA Navy by 2028 year to two new aircraft carriers, at least four large destroyers, etc. 055 and not only) will be the loss of the second position in the ranking table of the leading naval powers, which at the beginning of 2017 year we shared with China with a difference of some xnumx%

    Again, the opposition screams, read the shipbuilding program for the development of the PLA Navy, it does not even begin with the “null” and not with the building of the ocean fleet, just a lot of people here need it all right now and do not give a damn about the country's economy, aircraft carriers give them, you first build docks for this though would you saturate the Navy with escort fleet ships or would you form an AUG guard order from corvettes ....?
  25. Normal ok
    Normal ok 6 December 2017 23: 23 New
    +1
    The Russian Navy is turning into a "coastal defense fleet"

    Reading, on this occasion, the "groans" of some VO commentators, one wonders: what about the rubber budget? is the economy booming? GDP like China?
    Stretch your legs on clothes!
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag 9 December 2017 10: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Normal ok
      GDP like China?

      And China was only a couple of decades in the role of catching up with the Russian Federation
  26. jonht
    jonht 7 December 2017 05: 41 New
    0
    At the same time, even this shipbuilding program can, as we like, move to the right .....
    Although I would be glad if I were wrong ..... (Yes, such a program) hi
  27. complete zero
    complete zero 8 December 2017 00: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    And yachts of Abramovich and other axelbergs also considered?

    Abramovich, as they say, “paid taxes and sleeps calmly” —that is, Romka gave everything (he’s smart) .. but others? ... and what to take from friends?
  28. Awaz
    Awaz 8 December 2017 18: 46 New
    0
    one of the few adequate and reasonable decisions of the MO and Navy. In the current situation, it is necessary to ensure the security of its borders in the first place. And garbage, in the oceans, we will toil when there will be a lot of extra money.
  29. andrew xnumx
    andrew xnumx 8 December 2017 22: 45 New
    +1
    If priorities are set correctly, then we can continue to build a fleet and we will do it. Yes, we have no money for a large ocean fleet. But if we remember that our main goal, in case of war, is to interrupt shipping in the North Atlantic, as well as effectively strike from this region, as well as from the Arctic and the northern Pacific Ocean, against the infrastructure of our potential opponents, then such a fleet, for these tasks You can build. Yes, the main component of the fleet will be submarines, most of which are the latest diesel submarines. And in the surface fleet, it is primarily universal frigates with strike potential exceeding the capabilities of cruisers and destroyers. And almost all ships and submarines should be carriers of the maximum number of cruise missiles. When the economy allows, we will begin to build aircraft-carrying cruisers.