Military Review

Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 5. Specialty boats and this weird EGSONPO

103
The story of the submarines will not be complete without mentioning the special purpose boats belonging to the Russian Navy. The purpose of these boats is mostly secret and is not disclosed to the general public. Currently, the Russian Navy has seven nuclear deep-water stations, including:


Station project 10831: AC-12, in the ranks with 2004 g .;

1910 project stations: AC-13 (1986 g), AC-15 (1991 g) AC-33 (1994);

Project stations AC-21 (1991 g), AC-23 (1986 g), AC-35 (1995 g).

Little is known about them. These are small submarines with a surface displacement from 550 to 1600 tons with a crew of 25 to 35 people, all of them are part of the Northern fleet and are used in the interests of the Main Directorate for Deep-Water Research of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (GUGI).

What is gugs? This is one of the most secret organizations of our armed forces - according to some data, the percentage of Heroes of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation among the personnel of the GUGI is comparable to that in the cosmonaut detachment. GUGI is engaged in hydrology and hydrography - there is no need to explain how important the maps of the underwater situation are for the crews of our submarines, including strategic missile submarines. Of course, a detailed knowledge of the hydrology of the northern seas will give our ships very great advantages in confronting any foreign submarine fleet - in essence, this can be compared with the opposition of two armies, one of which has a complete set of military maps, and the second - an atlas for elementary school. However, in addition to science, even if in its most applied variety in the interests of our fleet, the GUGI is also engaged in other activities, including:

1) Collect intelligence information about enemy vehicles;

2) Protection and maintenance of deep-water communication lines;

3) Lifting from the bottom of the remnants of secret equipment remaining after tests or accidents.

There are some suspicions that the term “service of deep-water communication lines” refers not only to Russian, but, first of all, to foreign fiber-optic lines laid across the ocean floor. But here it is only possible to guess and envy the descendants about the possibilities of the GUGI: there is no doubt that in the distant future, when the activity of the GUGI is declassified, they will learn a lot of interesting and unusual things.

According to the speculations of the open press, our nuclear deep-water stations are capable of sinking to a depth of six kilometers (at least some of them), but they cannot independently go far into the ocean on their own. Accordingly, as part of the Russian Navy there are two nuclear submarines-carriers of deep-water stations and underwater vehicles. This is about:

1) BS-136 "Orenburg" project 09786. Boat converted from K-129 - SSBN project 667BDR, was put into operation in 2002 g



2) BS-64 "Moscow region" project 0978. Converted from K-64 project 667BDRM to 2015.

There are no data on the technical characteristics of these ships, but they are used, of course, in the interests of the same GUGI. So, for example, the bmpd blog in 2012 g reported:

"27 September 2012 of the BS-136 nuclear submarine of the 09786 project with the nuclear deep-water station of the grade AC-12 of the 10831 project reached the North Pole during the Sevmorgeo expedition. The Sevmorgeo expedition carried out to clarify the high continental shelf boundaries in order to clarify the high continental shelf, the North Pole expedition aimed at refining the high continental shelf to make the North Pole. rock samples were taken to collect evidence of the Lomonosov and Mendeleev ranges to the Russian continental shelf. The results are planned to be submitted to the UN Commission on the Law of the Sea in 2014 year. "


The representative of "Sevmorgeo" reported additionally:

"During the expedition, we drilled three wells at a depth of 2-2,5 kilometers and took three cores (rock columns), which are removed by the drill - ed.). One core is 60 centimeters long, the second is 30, and the third is 20 centimeters. Unhindered The silt layer at the bottom, which reached five meters in thickness, interfered with hard rock


Well, we wish our submariners from GUGI further success, and in any case not to stop there. Since they were able to substantiate the belonging of the Lomonosov and Mendeleev ranges to the Russian continental shelf, it would be quite good to present irrefutable evidence that Alaska is no more than one of the peaks of the above-mentioned ridges ... (it was a joke - approx. auth.)

In addition to the above ships, which are part of the Russian Navy, today two more nuclear-powered special-purpose submarines are being built, namely:

1) К-329 "Belgorod", which began to be built as the SSGN of the Antey 949 project, but December 20 of 2012 was refilled according to the 09852 design. Entry into service is expected before the end of this year.

2) Submarine project 09851 "Khabarovsk". This submarine was laid 27 July 2014 g in the highest secrecy in the shop number 50 ON "Sevmash". According to some reports, the entry into the fleet should be expected in 2020.

The purpose of these boats is secret. It has been suggested that Belgorod will become the carrier of the once acclaimed Status 6 system - a giant deep-water high-speed torpedo with a nuclear warhead intended for the destruction of coastal cities. Foreign sources see Belgorod as an all-rounder that can not only threaten with a Status blow, but also carry the newest harpsichord-2P-PM deep-water submersibles, as well as Shelf nuclear power plants for powering the network of underwater sensors.



The latter are worth to dwell on them in more detail. "Harpsichord-2P-PM" is a deep-sea uninhabited apparatus. According to Igor Vilnit, developer and general director of the Rubin Central Design Bureau, “Harpsichord-2Р-ПМ” is capable of performing work at depth 6 000 m.

Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 5. Specialty boats and this weird EGSONPO

"Harpsichord-2P-PM"


But almost nothing is known about the purpose of this device, except to the question of the correspondent: “We also wrote about robotic complexes for the protection of sea areas and the continental shelf in the Arctic. Is this also “Harpsichord”? ”, I. Vilnit answered:

It's still a slightly different family.


As for the "Shelf", this is a very interesting and extremely necessary undertaking for the domestic fleet. According to American experts at HI Sutton, Russia is preparing to deploy a network of naval facilities designed to detect and identify foreign submarines in the Arctic Ocean. In their opinion, Russia's goal is to build a system, like NATO's SOSUS, but more modern and at the best technological level, such that it will allow you to control the movement of the latest submarines in real time. The system architecture includes underwater sensors-hydrophones, the energy supply of which will be performed by special underwater nuclear power plants of low power.



Nuclear reactors for such stations have already been developed and are called “Shelf”.



But we will return to the underwater lighting systems, but for now let us return to the Belgorod nuclear submarine. Another intended method of its use is the use of geophysical towed antennas for the exploration of mineral resources located under the seas and oceans.

According to the author of this article, Belgorod is being created to replace the BS-136 Orenburg. The fact is that K-129, which was converted into “Orenburg”, was commissioned by the Soviet Navy in 1981, respectively, in 2021 g, it will celebrate its fortieth anniversary. This is a lot for a Soviet submarine, since it was assumed that their service life should not exceed 30 years. Of course, in the course of large-scale re-equipment and modernization the boat will be able to serve more, but nevertheless it’s time for her to “retire” in the very near future. Therefore, the most likely destination of Belgorod will be the transportation and management of crew-less and robotic deep-water vehicles of a new generation, it is also possible to lay cables for various purposes under the ice.

As for the Status-6 super-torpedo, its existence or development is in serious doubt. Of course, the task for which the “Status-6” is allegedly created is extremely important - in the event of a full-scale nuclear conflict, the destruction of major US port cities will be a terrible blow for Americans, as it paralyzes external sea transportation, which will interrupt foreign trade and prevent the transfer of troops to Europe . But still this task can be completely solved by conventional means, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles of land or sea-based and the creation of a separate, fairly complex and expensive weapon system that requires special carriers does not look reasonable. In addition, there are big questions to the media. No matter how modernized the Belgorod is, it will still remain the 3 generation's boat, and far from the quietest among its peers. "Belgorod" does not need to be called a "roaring cow", but it repeatedly loses in the secrecy of modern nuclear submarines and SSBNs, and does it make sense to install strategic weapons on it? The author is inclined to assume that the Status-6 project is, rather, a means of information warfare, and is intended to force Americans to spend money on protection against a non-existent threat.

... although, of course, it cannot be ruled out that the author of this article fulfills the instructions of the Russian Defense Ministry and convinces Americans that “Status-6” is a fake. And then, when Armageddon blows out, Belgorod and Khabarovsk will come out on the line of attack and kaaaak ....

As for the submarine project 09851 "Khabarovsk", then absolutely nothing is known about this boat.


One of the fantasies about how Khabarovsk will look


There were a variety of opinions about its purpose, including that the boat will be:

1) carrier of deep-sea vehicles

2) Multipurpose atarinas, less expensive than "Ash"

3) Ship for long-range sonar watch

4) Experimental platform for testing GAK and armament for submarines 5-th generation

5) And finally, that this is not a submarine at all, but a large nuclear deep-water station.

The first option raises certain doubts, because it is unlikely that the Russian Federation is experiencing the need to have as many as three large submarines - carriers of deep-sea vehicles. It is expected that Khabarovsk will be put into operation in the 2020 year and it can hardly be assumed that it is needed to replace the Moscow Region, which has returned to service after the conversion to 2015.

The second option - a cheap multi-purpose submarine - is also very unlikely and there are two reasons for this. First, the design of “cheap Ash” would most likely be trusted to the developer, i.e. CB "Malachite". Khabarovsk, as it became known, was developing the Rubin Central Design Bureau. Secondly, it is known that the development of a boat of the 5 generation has been started in the Russian Federation, and the head boat is planned to be laid closer to the 2025 year. Against this background, financing the development and construction of the second type of MAPL 4 generation looks like a waste of money. The version of the deepwater station is also somewhat doubtful, because the Russian Federation has recently clearly favored relatively small, unmanned deep-sea apparatuses. According to the author, the versions of the ship of the long-range sonar watch, or an experimental boat for testing the MAPL technology of the 5 generation, look the most likely, but by and large all this is fortune telling on the coffee grounds.

In addition to numerous nuclear submarines and stations, a special-purpose diesel submarine is also part of the Russian Navy: B-90 "Sarov" of the 20120 project, which was commissioned in 2008,



This boat is also at the disposal of the GUGI, but probably its main profile is testing various weapons and equipment for non-nuclear and atomic submarines.

In general, we can say that with the special purpose submarines of the Russian Navy, the situation is quite good. What, alas, cannot be said about the underwater lighting system, the deployment and operation of which our underwater commandos could well provide.

A long time ago, 4 March 2000 was signed and adopted the document "Fundamentals of the policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities up to 2010 year." In accordance with it, the construction of the Unified State System for Lighting Surface and Underwater Situation (EGSONPO) was supposed. The importance of this task for the country is difficult to overestimate, especially in the context of the continuing reduction of the fleet.

The ancient Romans used to say “Praemonitus praemunitus”, which means “who is forewarned is armed” in Latin. There is no doubt that in modern naval war, knowledge of where the enemy ships are located would be for our small fleet the most important advantage that can at least largely compensate the numerical superiority of the enemy. This is also because in the seas washing our shores the enemy cannot have such information about our fleet. And besides, operational knowledge of the location of enemy nuclear submarines would practically guarantee the invulnerability of our submarine strategic missile carriers.

Unfortunately, the construction of EGSONPO in the Arctic before 2010 g was completely failed.

Then, at the end of 2010, the creation of EGSONPO was included in the “Strategy for the Development of the Maritime Activity of the Russian Federation before 2030 of the Year”. According to this strategy, the UGSONPO should have covered the Arctic direction by 2012% for 30 and by 2020% for 50. As far as today can be judged, these figures are completely not met. Moreover, judging by the publications in the open press today there is not even an understanding of what should be EGSONPO.

Thus, for example, Rear Admiral S. Zhandarov, in his article “The Homeless Arctic”, published in 2015, indicates that, instead of deploying the currently existing developments, the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation has continued to invest all kinds of experimental design work on this topic. Moreover, according to Rear Admiral, for the most part these OCDs are of a very dubious nature:

“Each State Armaments Program (HPV-2015, 2020, in the project - and 2025) begins with large-scale billions of billions of R & D to cover the situation in the Arctic region. Through the Federal Target Program “Development of OPK-2020” from 2011 to 2014, 3,2 was spent a billion rubles to organize the groundwork for creating an “Integrated Network-Centric Underwater Surveillance System”. But not a single square kilometer under water in the Arctic, in the exclusive economic zone as a result of this work, has been illuminated. ”


At the same time, the rear admiral states that (at the time of writing this article, that is, 11 in February, 2015 d) only one sonar complex was adopted, but it is not deployed in positions either.

As far as can be expected, this is the MGC-608M system, which provides for the placement of bottom-passive sensors connected in a single network and powered by energy from underwater reactors. According to Rosoboronexport's advertising brochure, a similar system (ICG-608E North-E) can include from 8 to 60 sensors and detect objects with noise levels from 0,05 to 0,1 Pa over an area from 1000 to 9000 square kilometers, but let's say , objects with noise in 5 Pa - to 300 000 square kilometers.

On the other hand, even the MAPL of the 3 generation (if the data for the “Pike-B” is correct) had about 60 dB of noise, and this is just 0,02 Pa. Will the "North-E" "catch" submarines 4-th generation? It is not known, but one should not forget that “E” in the name of the system most likely implies “Export”, and in our country sometimes the potential of export products is reduced.

But in general, it can be assumed that Rear Admiral S. Zhandarov proposes to rely on stationary hydroacoustic complexes. Obviously, S. Zhandarov knows about their capabilities not by hearsay, since he himself was a military sailor in the past, and later - the director of defense at the Atoll research institute, which is engaged in the development of MGC-608M. By the way, because of this, “on the Internet” he is reproached for not taking care of the good of the business, but defending the interests of his institute, but is this reproach deserved?

Other well-known specialists in hydroacoustics - Valentin and Viktor Leksiny, in their series of articles “Does Russia have modern hydroacoustic armament?” Believe that such a system should be not so much stationary as mobile and include not only stationary (near-bottom) sonar complexes , similar to MGC-608M, but also a large number of their mobile analogues, i.e. a network of remote receivers that can be quickly deployed in the right areas when the need arises. Valentin and Viktor Leksiny, at the same time, consider stealth as an extremely important factor for the survival of such systems and suggest concentrating on passive sonar.

But M.Klimov, in his article “Hydroacoustic Sadness”, on the contrary, believes that passive sonar cannot provide an opening of the underwater environment, and that it must be supplemented with an active one.

There are other authors who propose other ways to solve the underwater situation, and they also contradict each other and the above points of view. In addition, the author of this article is forced to state that very often publications on hydroacoustic topics are kept in the style of “only I know how to do it right, and the rest are deeply mistaken”, and even worse - there are frank accusations of forgery and corruption. It must be said that the topic of hydroacoustics is extremely difficult for a non-expert, and it’s completely impossible to understand it without being a hydroacoustics professional with real work experience at sea. Probably, some of the authors are really right (they all cannot be right, as they express polar points of view), but in general, there is still a feeling of corporate struggle between developers.

However, almost all publicists agree on one thing - no EGSONPO, we have no system for covering the underwater situation, and it is unclear when it will appear. What does this mean in practice? As Rear Admiral S. Zhandarov writes:

“From February 11 to August 13, the New Hampshire submarine 2014 uncovered all the strategic containment activities of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea.”



The same SSN-778 "New Hampshire"


In other words, in case of aggravation of international relations and the emergence of an armed conflict between the Russian Federation and the United States in 2014, Russian SSBNs would have been destroyed before they used ballistic missiles. It is clear that the one and only New Hampshire is incapable of this, but the Americans in the 2014 g had nine submarines of this type, and at the end of the year one more was added to them.

Of course, the SSN-778 "New Hampshire" is an extremely formidable opponent - this is the fifth boat of the "Virginia" type, and the first boat of the Block-II modification, but you need to understand - today and in the future we will be confronted by an even more formidable opponent. And we should be ready for this yesterday, but alas, we are not ready today and it’s not a fact that we will be ready tomorrow.

There is one more important aspect in the EGSONPO problem. Although in the open press attention is not focused on this, but EGSONPO should extend not only to the Arctic, but also to the waters of the Far East, where we also have strategic submarine-launched cruisers.

Can we handle it all before 2025? Are the EGSONPO fully aware of the importance of the government? It is known that V.V. Putin personally participated in the meetings on the non-working Polimet-Reduta, an anti-aircraft missile system, whose problems prevented the delivery of the main frigate of the 22350 Gorshkov project. But the solution to our problems in hydroacoustics is much more important than even the entire series of these frigates.

The conclusion from the above is very simple. Today we are experiencing a total shortage of modern multi-purpose nuclear and non-nuclear submarines. To this is added the absence of systems for controlling the underwater situation, which further complicates the deployment of our SSBNs in a threatened period. No matter how sad it is to admit it, but today, in the event of an exacerbation of relations with NATO, we will send our submarine strategic cruisers to the unknown, in the hope that their low noise, sonar and crew experience will allow them to slip past the American cordons and yet the red button will be pressed to fulfill its purpose. In essence, today the fate of a third of Russian strategic nuclear forces is entrusted to the Russian “avos”. And, what is even sadder, there are no guarantees that during the 2018-2025 years. our position will change for the better.

To be continued ...

Previous articles of the cycle:

Russian Navy. Sad look into the future
Russian Navy. A sad look to the future (part of 2)
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 3. "Ash" and "Husky"
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 4. "Halibut" and "Lada"
Author:
103 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alex_59
    Alex_59 23 January 2018 07: 10
    27
    If you unwind the ball further, it will become obvious that a state with only a very strong economy can solve all these problems. It may not be equal to the United States, but comparable. Because even the USSR solved such problems at the cost of an incredible strain of forces and economy. At the next round of the "tangle" we look at our government ... and peering at these courageous patriotic faces we understand that nothing shines on us.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 January 2018 09: 41
      11
      Quote: Alex_59
      Because even the USSR solved such problems at the cost of an incredible strain of forces and economy.

      Well, the Soviet Union had the sun simply not comparable with the Russian Federation. We would have had a piece, but ...
      1. Sevastiec
        Sevastiec 25 January 2018 16: 43
        +2
        Moreover, the Russian Federation, unlike the USSR, is not burdened with gigantic injections of money into “friendly” regimes, the development of communism around the world and, for a moment, financing 14 republics. Let me remind you that the only, NOT subsidized republic was Belarus. So actually, as smart people say, money in Russia is everything, the main problem is their inefficient use.
        1. kig
          kig 26 January 2018 14: 39
          +5
          But the Russian Federation, unlike the USSR, is saddled with such a phenomenon as the "oligarch". And from the Russian Federation, unlike the USSR, every year a certain number of billions flows, measured not even in rubles, but in the so-called convertible currency.
    2. Chertt
      Chertt 23 January 2018 10: 29
      +6
      Quote: Alex_59
      If you unwind the ball further, it will become obvious that a state with only a very strong economy can solve all these problems. May not be equal to the United States, but comparable

      Consequently, since Russia has a "comparable" economy to the United States, objectively, there is not and will not be who would not be in power. Then, in your opinion, does Russia have no prospects? An example of other military branches of the Russian Federation shows that skillful use, even of relatively small funds from the military budget, can produce a discouraging result for a "potential adversary". Practice shows that in matters of confrontation with a “richer” opponent, it is necessary to think not linearly
      1. a.sirin
        a.sirin 23 January 2018 16: 06
        11
        Yes, indeed, the Russian Federation has no prospects. True, you can reassure yourself with stupid things about the "discouraging effect" for a potential adversary, it looks especially cool in the headlines for particularly gullible.
        Russia's GDP is just over $ 1 trillion. If you look at China with its $ 17 trillion, then, according to the Chinese themselves, they are far from the USA ... If you add the Russian trillion to 17 Chinese, then it will be ... 18. Not very different from 17, to be honest. And less than 20 anyway. By the way, considering the United States as the "aggressive core of the hostile West," we should remember about $ 24 trillion. The European Union (though they say it will fall apart soon), Japan, Canada, Australia, all sorts of small ones ...
        Non-linear thinking ... non-linear thinking ... non-linear ...
        1. Chertt
          Chertt 23 January 2018 16: 11
          +2
          Why write so much, add up the numbers in one line, there’s still no thought
          1. a.sirin
            a.sirin 23 January 2018 16: 32
            +2
            Excuse me, please ... I will try to correct myself ...
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          23 January 2018 16: 25
          +9
          Quote: a.sirin
          Russia's GDP is just over $ 1 trillion.

          Significantly more. You can’t take GDP in rubles, divide by the dollar and compare with other countries. GDP should be considered at purchasing power parity
          1. Chertt
            Chertt 23 January 2018 16: 45
            0
            Independent economists have always reacted very negatively to the methodology for calculating GDP, believing that in total GDP shows only the speed of movement of virtual financial assets, and has little to do with real industry. Things are a little better when calculating GDP (PPP), but such an area as the defense industry is generally difficult to compare with money.
          2. a.sirin
            a.sirin 23 January 2018 17: 01
            +1
            Dear Andrey! You are a very good person. But here I am - a very good economist. Both in the theory of this matter and in practice. Read - I beg you - here it is: http://sgolub.ru/vcollege/vvp-gdp-pps-ppp/
            I will not say that everything written there is very good, but the essence is correct.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              23 January 2018 17: 46
              14
              Quote: a.sirin
              Dear Andrey! You are a very good person. But here I am - a very good economist.

              Well, it’s nice to meet a colleague :))) You see, I’m an economist by training, and I had to be the director of economics and finance of enterprises with a staff of over 6 thousand people. So in theory and practice of economics, I dare to think, I understand something.
              And I disagree categorically with this article. You see, the article is built on evidence that calculating PPP GDP suffers from a set of incurable vices. So who would argue? The only question is that the GDP indicator without PPP has an even greater number of these same flaws and in its current form does not make sense at all for comparing the economies of different countries. PPP GDP is not applied because it is good, but because the rest is even worse
              1. Cat
                Cat 23 January 2018 18: 03
                +4
                Dear Andrey, sincere thanks!
                The author has always been systematic and consistent in the presentation of the material! So I pour hope that the next article will please the content.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  23 January 2018 18: 12
                  +4
                  And thank you with a kind word! From the next article I turn to the surface fleet :)
              2. a.sirin
                a.sirin 23 January 2018 18: 28
                +1
                OK. There is such a point of view
              3. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 00: 13
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You see, I’m an economist by training, and I had to be

                You see, colleague. Your professionalism in this case is not a plus for you. It makes you admit that your participation in the PPP GDP witness club is explained not by illiteracy, as in most cases, but by some kind of malicious intent.

                You certainly know that a significant part of the Russian economy is the exchange of natural resources for beads Bentley Specifically, the DPI and trade sectors are unusually large in the structure of GDP. By recounting these sectors in PPP, you get a barrel for 200 PPP dollars. Which, of course, is good, but, alas, far from reality.

                This, of course, is a private claim, but more understandable "on the fingers."

                For comparability, the military-industrial complex needs to recalculate the output of the Russian military-industrial complex in export prices. Unfortunately this is not possible.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  24 January 2018 01: 56
                  +2
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  You see, colleague. Your professionalism in this case is not a plus for you.

                  My heart is broken :)))) Well, I'll go cry in the corner ...
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  You certainly know that a significant part of the Russian economy is the exchange of natural resources for Bentley beads. Specifically, the DPI and trade sectors are unusually large in the structure of GDP.

                  In numbers, please. I understand that "everyone knows" - this is just a super-argument, but here I would be pleased with the numbers. With an indication of the method by which you considered GDP and an explanation of how you magically managed to cram oil barrels there
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 02: 21
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Well, I'll go cry in the corner ...

                    At your discretion.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I understand that "everyone knows" is just a super-argument

                    I did not use this formulation.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    With an indication of the method by which you considered GDP and an explanation of how you magically managed to cram oil barrels there

                    Sorry? You do not include the cost of oil in GDP, I understand correctly? None of the 3 methods?
                    But I do not do independent calculation of GDP; I have a slightly different functionality.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      24 January 2018 09: 47
                      +2
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Sorry? You do not include the cost of oil in GDP, I understand correctly? None of the 3 methods

                      So tell me how it goes there :)))) You are a connoisseur! :)))))))
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      But I do not do independent calculation of GDP; I have a slightly different functionality.

                      In this case, your functionality was to make a self-confident (and rarely absurd) statement, and then disappear from the horizon.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 14: 42
                        +3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You are a connoisseur !:

                        No. I’m a little curious.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Tell me how she goes there:

                        Want to have a moment of economics for the little ones? OK.
                        In order not to copy-paste the chapters of textbooks, it is extremely rude and on the fingers. GDP (calculated by the income method) is the amount of income received during the year by all economic agents - people, companies, and the state. This amount also includes income from the sale of oil (even Russia’s GDP is insignificant, not more than 10% of GDP, 6 million bbl / day when it was last interested).
                        This income comes to Russia (actually not), is torn apart by participants in the economy (state / legal entities), and then it is re-recorded as employee income, revenue of company contractors, budget beneficiaries, etc., i.e. it is multiplied.
                        The PPP concept assumes that every dollar passing through this chain in Russia costs 3 times more than a dollar in America. That is, the state can buy 3 times more medicine, education, roads, equipment companies, private individuals - iPhones and Parmesan.
                        Consequently, the “correct” volume of Russia's GDP is not 1.3 trillion, but 3,6, so it is not the size of Ohio, but California.

                        It looks beautiful, but to a person related to the real economy, a nuance is visible. Approximately the same people consider the real purchasing power as the cost of living at 9600. In fact, the state buys, for example, roads (bridges, stadiums) are not 3 times cheaper, but usually much more expensive than anyone else. Equipment for enterprises imported almost everything (or competes with imported equipment, including at the price of, say, Chetra and Kat), and only fans of hawthorn can appreciate the high purchasing power of the ruble in the grocery basket. For a relatively average (poor by American standards) households, goods and services often cost no less, but more, than for an American. This is summarized in the text by the link a.sirin
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        24 January 2018 15: 08
                        +1
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        GDP (calculated by the income method) is the sum of income

                        Oh, Mine Gott! laughing Sorry, but this is a classic student-quartet answer (usually the whole audience laughs at it)
                        You know, you could at least go to Wikipedia and look at the formula for calculating GDP by the income method
                        GDP = National income + depreciation + indirect taxes - subsidies - net factor income from abroad (BHF) (or + net factor income of foreigners working in the country (BHF)), where:
                        National income = wages + rents + interest payments + corporate profits.

                        That is, there are no "incomes" in GDP, but only salaries and corporate profits. Do you understand the difference between profit and income? Judging by your
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Including this amount includes income from the sale of oil (even Russia’s GDP is insignificant, not more than 10% of GDP

                        You don't understand it
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 15: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        classic student-quartet answer (usually the whole audience laughs at it)
                        You know, you could at least go to Wikipedia and look at the formula for calculating GDP by the income method

                        You, I look, did you decide to stick to the methodology? And do you take Vika as a basis? Oh, these CFOs.

                        OK, if for you a multiple change in the cost of goods sold does not affect the components of GDP in any way according to the scheme you took, let’s leave it. I am not a supporter of scholasticism; it is usually of little interest.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        24 January 2018 15: 53
                        +2
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        You, I look, did you decide to stick to the methodology?

                        And so it is always - when you take a person and in a nutshell explain to him the whole depth of his wrongness, it begins about “stubborn methodologists”.
                        My dear man, you will first learn at least the basics of the subject on which you are going to speculate, and then serve with a smart look.
                        I’m really interested here - you really don’t know how to understand that before you write something about GDP you need to at least find out how it is calculated? :)))))
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And do you take Vika as a basis?

                        You can easily find the same formula in Economics by Bru and McConnell, just a wick is more convenient for you. I doubt that Economics is your handbook laughing
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        OK, if for you a multiple change in the cost of goods sold does not affect the components of GDP

                        That is, even after my explanations, you are not able to understand where the cost of goods sold and where - the GDP?
                        And with such and such “knowledge” you climb to talk about
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        PPP Witness Club

                        For some reason, the immortal comes to mind
                        ... and you, in the presence of two people with a university education, allow yourself with swagger absolutely unbearable to give any advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic same stupidity about how to share everything ...

                        Do not know why? laughing
                      5. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 16: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        when you take a person and in a nutshell explain to him the whole depth of his wrongness, it begins about "stubborn methodologists."

                        Sorry, but what is there to discuss? Your trump ace - that my explanation "on the fingers" would not have been accepted in the exam on macroeconomics - you have already laid out (and this is true, of course), copy-paste special questions (such as the ratio of "income" and remuneration of owners of production factors at the macroeconomic level ) I am not interested.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        where is the cost of sales and where is the GDP?

                        Here, about that too. Copy-paste, what is income, what is value, what is added value, how was it all distributed according to the SNA, what for is it to me?
                        If you consider it necessary - tell us, let it be here. At the same time, you can screw on and about PPP, for example, say, interest payments.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Do not know why?

                        Apparently because, instead of justifying your position on teaching staff, it’s more interesting for you to take my words on a related issue and compare them with the textbook? No, you guessed wrong?
              4. ssergn
                ssergn 26 January 2018 11: 50
                0
                Andrei, I join your opinion, I absolutely agree with your conclusions on the calculation of GDP. I read Golubitsky’s article a lot earlier, I’m just reading this author, he has a lot of interesting thoughts.
                Well, just like you, I have some knowledge of economics and finance by virtue of my profession and education, 17 years fin. Director / Deputy for Economics and Finance.
          3. ZVO
            ZVO 24 January 2018 13: 29
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: a.sirin
            Russia's GDP is just over $ 1 trillion.

            Significantly more. You can’t take GDP in rubles, divide by the dollar and compare with other countries. GDP should be considered at purchasing power parity


            Not certainly in that way.
            It must be clearly understood that the role of materials in production processes has an exchange price.
            Yes, only our salaries can be calculated according to the ruble scheme.

            But all the metals, materials - alas, stock.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 January 2018 14: 33
              +1
              I apologize, but everything you wrote about GDP has nothing to do
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 24 January 2018 14: 57
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I apologize, but everything you wrote about GDP has nothing to do


                The increased cost of all military equipment many times, including and for our own production compared to Soviet times, just a consequence of exchange pricing.
                Accordingly, our costs in proportion will be much greater than it seems ...
                Whether we want it or not, but we, the Israelis, and the Americans, we spend about the same $ 2,5 million on a tank box (meaning a chassis + tower).
                For at one level of technological production, the cost of materials - and the cost of the box will be approximately the same.

                The same applies to submarines ... AFAR, etc.

                Therefore, hoping that Orly Burke built in Russia will be cheaper than built in America is nonsense. Only by 1-3%, for such is the share of the difference in salaries in the total value of ships.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  24 January 2018 15: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: ZVO
                  Therefore, hoping that Orly Burke built in Russia will be cheaper than built in America is nonsense.

                  Nevertheless, in 35, the Su-2015 was sold for about $ 35 million for the Russian Ministry of Defense :))))))) Do not tell me the imported plane, which would be purchased at a similar price? :))))))
                  in fact, you are both right and wrong at the same time, but if you want, I’ll explain in detail later
              2. Nekarmadlen
                Nekarmadlen 25 January 2018 00: 51
                0
                Sorry for the naive question, but does the shadow economy take into account your methods of calculating GDP ..)? The housing rental market for 90 percent is shadow, gray salaries, corruption schemes, millions of illegal migrants from Central Asia, retail trade hides part of the proceeds, despite online booking offices, and there are many more different examples ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  25 January 2018 12: 01
                  +2
                  Quote: Nekarmadlen
                  Sorry for the naive question, but does the shadow economy take into account your methods of calculating GDP ..)?

                  No, that’s why it’s also a shadow one, which is hidden. And the methods for calculating GDP are not mine - but the fact is that the shadow, in fact, indicates the underestimation of GDP
    3. silver_roman
      silver_roman 24 January 2018 17: 57
      +1
      in order to meet the US Navy, we need to have a much stronger economy than the USA, because due to geography, it is extremely difficult for us to operate fleets over tens of thousands of kilometers. It seems to me that if the Russian Navy stuffed the arrow of the US Navy, say somewhere in the Atlantic, then we would be able to respond with dignity by building a state program for this scenario. By the way, the states are preparing for this scenario: the Atlantic or Asia-Pacific. but we must protect ourselves both on the Black Sea, and on the Baltic Sea, and the Asia-Pacific Region, and the Arctic North .... and also show a flag somewhere in Argentina. You just need to make strong friends. Imagine that the United States’s NATO allies are represented by the armed forces of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc., and we have Turkey, Germany, France, England according to the Collective Security Treaty Organization ... then we would stretch!
  2. Fedorov
    Fedorov 23 January 2018 07: 56
    +5
    Some kind of gloomy end to the article.
    As always, we want everything at once - with a dozen atomic submarines, a supercosmic group, three bases closer to the states, at least three aircraft carriers ...
    But there are no miracles in the world. But still, gradually Russia is moving in the right direction, leaps will not work here. Of course I would like to quickly ..
    So Andrey, without panic, you are from Chelyabinsk wink
    1. The Siberian barber
      The Siberian barber 23 January 2018 09: 38
      11
      Objective reality, rather ..
      Regarding the fact that "we are moving forward slowly," there is a matter of priorities. 1/3 SNF, without cover - an expensive “roulette”, nevertheless.
      One gets the impression, sometimes, that the concept of the development of the Navy, if not absent, is then very slurred, i.e. there is no clear understanding of what is needed first, second, etc. Some sort of shy from side to side. The author gave a good example with the development of EGSONPO. Unfortunately, the example is not an isolated one (the "admiral" series, in support of
      Thanks to the author, with uv.)
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 January 2018 09: 40
      10
      Quote: Fedorov
      As always, we want everything at once - with a dozen atomic submarines, a supercosmic group, three bases closer to the states, at least three aircraft carriers ...

      No, we just want a third of Russia's nuclear potential to be protected.
      Quote: Fedorov
      But there are no miracles in the world. But still, gradually Russia is moving in the right direction

      So I describe how she does it. The result is that neither today nor after the implementation of the rearmament program until 2025, our strategic nuclear forces did not have protection, nor will they have it. If this is the right direction, then I am a Japanese ballerina
    3. Alex_59
      Alex_59 23 January 2018 10: 12
      15
      Quote: Fedorov
      But still, gradually Russia is moving in the right direction, leaps will not work here. Of course I would like to quickly ..

      If you run slower than everyone else, then it doesn’t matter whether you run at least somewhere, or stand still, or go backwards. The essence is the same - you are behind. This is your status.
      It’s not enough “slowly but surely” to move in the right direction. It must be done faster than competitors. Or even at least. And we just need it faster than others, given the fact that all of the 90 and 00 were caught with a butterfly net on a chamomile field (i.e., they were engaged in garbage)
    4. axxenm
      axxenm 23 January 2018 13: 40
      +2
      Quote: Fedorov

      As always, we want everything at once ... at least three aircraft carriers ...

      those who want aircraft carriers are enemies of Russia ...
      Even Americans who, by virtue of their "island" geographical position, seem to be useful to aircraft carriers, may understand this:
      “After 100 years of its history, the aircraft carrier is rapidly approaching sunset as a strategic tool,” summarizes the captain Hendricks. “Achievements in areas such as surveillance, reconnaissance, global positioning, missile weapons and high-precision weapons of destruction show that not only the war at sea is being transformed, but also all forms of warfare.”
      In Russia, aircraft carriers, like other large and long-term military ships,
      only thieves, stupid and despicable politicians, their PR sixes and sofa geostrategists suffering from megalomania are needed.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 23 January 2018 15: 11
        +6
        Quote: axxenm
        In Russia, aircraft carriers, like other large and long-built military ships, are needed only by thieves, stupid and vile politicians, their PR sixes and sofa geostrategs suffering megalomania ..

        Bravo! One question - which of the above categories would you attribute to Admiral Gorshkov?
        And yes, are you ready to spend several times large sums of money on covering the defense-free frontiers of defense positions of the SSBNs? wink Because the farther the ship’s group is from the airdrome, the greater the aviation forces needed on the shore to cover it. And in our Norths, the boundary of the PLO should be put forward to a minimum in the Medvezhye district.
        1. axxenm
          axxenm 23 January 2018 15: 22
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: axxenm
          In Russia, aircraft carriers, like other large and long-built military ships, are needed only by thieves, stupid and vile politicians, their PR sixes and sofa geostrategs suffering megalomania ..
          Bravo! One question - which of the above categories would you attribute to Admiral Gorshkov?

          Do you understand what you wrote?
          Gorshkov was an opponent of aircraft carriers (he was a good fellow in this), but unfortunately he was not consistent enough and built respectable ones. I’m not afraid of this word, TAVKRy.
          In addition, he spread absurd diversity in the construction of fleet ships.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            23 January 2018 15: 31
            11
            Quote: axxenm
            Gorshkov was an enemy of aircraft carriers

            wassat URGENT to learn materiel. Gorshkov was probably the most consistent supporter of aircraft carriers in the USSR Navy and was pushing for their construction with all his might. Against was Ustinov. Despite the fact that, in fact, Ustinov also considered aircraft carriers necessary, but he fell for Yakovlev’s noodles, which promised to make VTOL aircraft, according to the performance characteristics of the same as conventional aircraft.
            That is, the leadership of the USSR at the level of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy - the Minister of Defense clearly saw the usefulness of the AB but did not agree on what exactly they should be
            1. The Siberian barber
              The Siberian barber 23 January 2018 16: 21
              +1
              I completely agree with the opinion of Andrey and Alexey! Carriers are needed, and a couple for the fleet, ideally)) Another question is that in the near future, we will not have them, due to many factors (here, money, technology, shipyards, infrastructure and much more)
              But, most importantly, at this stage, there should be an absolutely clear understanding of: what tasks are set for the fleet, and what ships and how many should be, respectively, to perform these tasks. Tough discipline in the implementation of the shipbuilding program !! And then, it turns out that the BDK has been "tormented" for decades, and then there are attempts to swipe at the construction of atomic destroyers and aircraft carriers, without attaching importance to the fact that even a normal escort was not built)) Well, there is no sequence, we have!
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 00: 18
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Despite the fact that, in fact, Ustinov also considered aircraft carriers necessary, but was seduced by Yakovlev’s noodles

              And here Yakovlev is to blame. What are you going to do!
            3. Serg65
              Serg65 24 January 2018 12: 33
              +4
              hi Welcome Nikolaich !!!
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              URGENT to learn materiel

              No, no, no need !!! ETOGES is the perfect cure for ... the sadness from a long business meeting laughing
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              That is, the leadership of the USSR at the level of the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the Minister of Defense, clearly saw the usefulness of

              laughing But the young man claims that the leadership of the USSR is definitely ...
              Quote: axxenm
              thieves, stupid and vile politicians, their PR sixes and sofa geostrategists suffering megalomania ..

              recourse and now I have a divergence of opinion, or people, without even knowing it. framed the communists, roofing felts ..
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              URGENT to learn materiel

              what Although the name of the cycle crushes my pride, the essence of what is written ... like a classic? "Next time, let's go without allegories with specific surnames" bully
              Article +
              Thank you drinks
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                24 January 2018 14: 58
                +2
                Quote: Serg65
                Thank you

                And thank you! drinks
                Quote: Serg65
                No, no, no need !!! ETOGES is the perfect cure for ... the sadness from a long business meeting

                So he still doesn’t listen laughing
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 23 January 2018 19: 28
            +3
            Quote: axxenm
            Gorshkov was an opponent of aircraft carriers (he was a good fellow in this), but unfortunately he was not consistent enough and built respectable ones. I’m not afraid of this word, TAVKRy.

            This is how popanians from parallel worlds scorch. smile
            Gorshkov pierced the projects of full-fledged AB 1160, 1153. And it was Gorshkov who hacked the Khalzans, who almost devoured the next TAVKR.
            And for the TAVKR, I must say a special thanks to comrades Ustinov and Amelko, who struggled to either drown the projects of full-fledged ABs, or to dilute their aviation component with numerous edits and cuts. Do you know that Kuznetsov, before the edits of Ustinov-Amelko, had to have catapults and be 10 tons more?
            Quote: axxenm
            In addition, he spread absurd diversity in the construction of fleet ships.

            The reason for this heterogeneity is an acute reluctance to write off ships. The fleet held onto the same “thirty bis” with all its claws. And so, within one generation, the diversity was not very large.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 24 January 2018 12: 36
              +4
              hi Welcome Alex!
              Quote: Alexey RA
              This is how popanians from parallel worlds scorch

              crying Stirlitz has never been so close to failure !!!
              laughing drinks
          3. Serg65
            Serg65 24 January 2018 12: 23
            +5
            Quote: axxenm
            Do you understand what you wrote?
            Gorshkov was an enemy of aircraft carriers

            good Thank you, young man, you brought me back to life !!!!!!!!
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 00: 16
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          ... only thieves, stupid and vile politicians, their PR sixes and sofa geostrategas suffering megalomania are needed ...

          Which of the above categories would you attribute to Admiral Gorshkov?


          To the first, of course, but not in the current cache form. In the USSR, it was called "narrow departmental interests," it seems. Very often.

          An example in the American version can be called, say, carrier-based carriers of nuclear weapons of the pre-launch era.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 24 January 2018 10: 07
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            To the first, of course, but not in the current cache form. In the USSR, it was called "narrow departmental interests," it seems. Very often.

            Hardly reliable cover 25-30% nuclear shield of the motherland is departmental interests. For the AB fleet wanted first of all for this.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            An example in the American version can be called, say, carrier-based carriers of nuclear weapons of the pre-launch era.

            And the supercarrier who made his way under this business United Statesruined by Herods from the Air Force who did not have enough money for the new B-36. smile
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 18: 39
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              For the AB fleet wanted first of all for this.

              A little more if you can. Where did this AB think to be in order to reliably protect?
              Quote: Alexey RA
              supercarrier United States ruined by the Herods

              This is yes, an epic thing
  3. Aleksandr21
    Aleksandr21 23 January 2018 08: 31
    +8
    An excellent series of articles, thanks to the author for a detailed study of questions regarding our Navy. I will wait for a sad look into the future on the surface fleet .... here there really will be a sad future (IMHO of course).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 January 2018 09: 41
      +7
      Quote: Aleksandr21
      here there really will be a sad future (IMHO of course).

      Definitely worse than underwater. But in the underwater, alas, not good
      1. avt
        avt 23 January 2018 10: 19
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Definitely worse than underwater. But in the underwater, alas, not good

        In addition to the Burilichev fleet bully Its surface part is being updated at a frantic pace, as well as the underwater part was repaired, according to open sources.
  4. sevtrash
    sevtrash 23 January 2018 09: 49
    +5
    We need money from a working economy - for many years, to create and support personnel, R&D, production, and service. Or focusing on some breakthrough, new project. But miracles do not happen and even they need some kind of base, fundamental scientific research, on the basis of which something new may appear. And these studies are also money and big. Starting from education in schools, universities, science in the same place.
  5. Gray brother
    Gray brother 23 January 2018 09: 53
    +1
    Mina, is that you? laughing
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 January 2018 10: 10
      +3
      No, it's not me. That is - not him. Well, in general, you understand. Me and Mina are three different people
    2. axxenm
      axxenm 23 January 2018 14: 24
      0
      Quote: Gray Brother
      Mina, is that you? laughing

      Mina would not put a shameful aircraft carrier in his avatar
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        23 January 2018 14: 34
        +7
        Quote: axxenm
        Mina would not put a shameful aircraft carrier in his avatar

        I feel that your hatred of aircraft carriers is something personal :)))
        Quote: axxenm
        Even Americans who, by virtue of their "island" geographical position, seem to be useful to aircraft carriers, may understand this:

        For my fourth decade, Americans have been hanging noodles on the ears of everyone who wants to listen to what kind of outdated atomic carriers these four hundred-year-old laughing
        But themselves, crap, for some reason continue to build them.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 23 January 2018 15: 34
          +4
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          For my fourth decade, Americans have been hanging noodles on the ears of everyone who wants to listen to what kind of outdated atomic carriers these four hundred-year-old

          Hehehehe ... and also regularly offer projects of cheap small AVs in return for these same expensive and inefficient atomic AB. But for some reason, they themselves do not want to switch to these small AVs.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 23 January 2018 22: 53
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            But for some reason, they themselves do not want to switch to these small AVs.

            Americans want to have a full-fledged F-35V in service with the fleet, because basing such aircraft on landing helicopter carriers, in principle, turns the latter into light aircraft carriers
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 24 January 2018 10: 53
              0
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Americans want to have a full-fledged F-35V in service with the fleet, because basing such aircraft on landing helicopter carriers, in principle, turns the latter into light aircraft carriers

              So UDC is one thing, the main task of which is to land the Marine Corps, but which can be used in addition to classic ABs: as carriers of KVVP vehicles or as a command ship and carrier of PLO helicopters in anti-submarine groups covering the same transfer of forces and MTO from the USA to Europe.
              And another - specialized lightweight AV in return "expensive and inefficient large" AB.
              The USA did not build the UDC instead of the Nimitsevs. smile
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 24 January 2018 17: 52
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The USA did not build UDC instead of "Nimitsev"

                I do not argue.
                But fishlessness and cancer are fish. If the views on waging war at sea are changing along with the economy, then such ersatz aircraft carriers for budget missions are very welcome. request
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 24 January 2018 18: 52
                  0
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  If the views on waging war at sea are changing along with the economy, then such ersatz aircraft carriers for budget missions are very welcome.

                  The ambush is that in the long run, such small ABs are more expensive than large ones. Because the modernization potential of small ABs is extremely small, and the capabilities of the stripped-down air group on KVVP machines are limited. And where “Midway” will live from “skyraders” to “hornets”, small AV will have problems already when replacing “harriers” with “lightning-2”.
                  The same limes, after playing with the “invincibles,” made every effort to introduce large ABs into the RN. And the Italians also tried by hook or by crook to push a larger aircraft carrier through parliament.
                  1. Rurikovich
                    Rurikovich 24 January 2018 19: 42
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The ambush is that in the long run, such small ABs are more expensive than large ones.

                    I don’t argue, Alexey, I agree. But in the short term, it’s all cheaper to send a light aircraft carrier in a dozen VTOL aircraft to pacify a vassal thread on the islands than to drive Carl Vinson there. Moreover, the presence in the fleet of suitable UDCs with a through flight deck everyone has such a saving.
                    Personally, I would do that request - modernize several units to use VTOL and increase the variability of a more rational use of naval forces to solve problems at the local level. Moreover, for their intended purpose, no one forbids using them if there is no need for additional aircraft carriers hi
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The same limes, after playing with the “invincibles,” made every effort to introduce large ABs into the RN. And the Italians also tried by hook or by crook to push a larger aircraft carrier through parliament.

                    Well, an adequate ship needs an adequate opponent. The British in the conflict with Argentina clearly did not have enough aviation for their tasks, therefore they made conclusions. Well, the Americans to drive atomic power to pacify the Papuans, this is what to beat flies with a sledgehammer. I’m already silent about pasta - in the absence of overseas colonies, Italy itself is an unsinkable aircraft carrier, because they are likely to have a large ship lol
  6. arkadiyssk
    arkadiyssk 23 January 2018 11: 45
    +3
    Unfortunately I can not understand the legal status of this system EGSONPO.
    All that is further than 20 miles from the shore is an international space where anyone can swim and find in advance everything that we don’t put. And at the right time to destroy overhead charges such as min.
    In addition, explain the game about installing underwater nuclear reactors to power this system not in the country, i.e. in international waters. How to protect them and how to avoid their inspection and incapacitation?
    I would agree that the reactor can be put on the Earth by Fra Joseph and then cable all the sensors along the perimeter of the Barents Sea, but damn it is just to put a nuclear reactor in the sea (ocean) without protection - it runs into provocation. There will be an alleged accident arranged by the Americans and then an international condemnation of us because it is our reactor. What are smokers in MORF?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 January 2018 11: 57
      +4
      Quote: arkadiyssk
      All that is further than 20 miles from the shore is an international space where anyone can swim and find in advance everything that we don’t put.

      I wonder what.
      Quote: arkadiyssk
      In addition, explain the game about installing underwater nuclear reactors to power this system not in the country, i.e. in international waters. How to protect them and how to avoid their inspection and incapacitation?

      Explain how you imagine inspecting an object located, say, at a depth of 2 m
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 00: 22
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Explain how you imagine inspecting an object located, say, at a depth of 2 m

        And what, Americans do not drown?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 January 2018 01: 58
          +2
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          And what, Americans do not drown?

          If we help the torpedo, then they will certainly be drowned. In general, answering a question with a question is not good.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 02: 14
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In general, answering a question with a question is not good.

            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 January 2018 09: 48
              +1
              Exactly. Now imagine how this device searches the bottom of the Barents Sea in search of our network :)))))
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 24 January 2018 14: 27
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Exactly. Now imagine how this device searches the bottom of the Barents Sea in search of our network :)))))


                Well, they also had NR-1 10 years ago ... It is likely that something was built / are being built to replace ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  24 January 2018 14: 33
                  +1
                  Naturally. But do you imagine the possibilities of these devices? :))) yes, if there are exact coordinates of the object, they will go down and do everything that is needed. And how do they know these coordinates? Deployment is secret. Hydrophones are passive; they cannot be detected by their own radiation. Those. Americans will just need to methodically scour the bottom of the Barents Sea ... The task is completely unsolvable
                  1. ZVO
                    ZVO 24 January 2018 15: 03
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The task is completely unsolvable


                    They need active food :)
                    And power supplies are well "noisy" in different ranges.
                    And live cables are detected too.
                    For some reason, it seems to me that equipment that detects power cables from a distance can be carried by someone like Connecticut or Carter ...
                    Having made a map of power cables - they will send there the updated NR-1 or their drones under construction for a more accurate analysis.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      24 January 2018 16: 00
                      +1
                      Quote: ZVO
                      They need active food :)
                      And power supplies are well "noisy" in different ranges.

                      Not anymore :))) In essence, today, for submarines of the Ash type, they are indistinguishable from ordinary sea noises.
                      Quote: ZVO
                      And live cables are detected too.

                      This is how, let me ask?
                      1. ZVO
                        ZVO 24 January 2018 17: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                        Quote: ZVO
                        And live cables are detected too.

                        This is how, let me ask?


                        Changing the electromagnetic field, maybe?
  7. Nitochkin
    Nitochkin 23 January 2018 12: 05
    0
    Achipyatka in title.
  8. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 23 January 2018 12: 09
    +6
    Here the other day just in my circle of contacts, with the former army of the Russian Federation (although I know, I know, the military are never former) they discussed this topic, after which I was recognized by them as a full-blown and stupid civilian, because I do not understand anything in the realities of modernity laughing For
    - barges (in the sense of ships) become obsolete in principle;
    - there is no need to cover the deployment of the SSBN, in case of war everything will be fast and the Americans will not be able to do anything;
    - American AUGs, in which case they will be seeded with nucleobatons, and nothing will help them, in extreme cases, they will launch a dozen calibers, they will melt the whole AUG;
    - The immediate future for the UAV, aircraft carriers are not needed;
    - all calculations like yours are the theory of 60's, at best 70's, now everything is different.
    From the point of view of the military of the Russian Federation (at least, the land explorers - and they have historically been a priority for Russia, alas - sometimes too much), the fleet is not needed by Russia at all now, only the SSBN, and then as some kind of useful bonus wassat It’s just the tradition, s., To neglect the fleet. And as long as such an attitude exists in a society that gives the state generals, admirals and ministerial cones who are involved in organizing the army and navy, the Russian fleet will have problems and there will be "swings" - that’s the navy, sorry , in the priest, somewhere nearby, then on the rise - otherwise it is going somewhere unknown ... Adequate progressive development is not for us, it is necessary to rush to extremes.

    During the dispute, by the way, he also referred to your work - the reaction was interesting laughing Although in general it came down to the above points. Well, and where do we, simple civilians, understand such complex matters as the navy in the modern world from the point of view of the army bully
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 January 2018 12: 30
      +6
      Quote: arturpraetor
      From the point of view of the military of the Russian Federation (at least, the land men - and they have historically been a priority for Russia, alas - sometimes too much), now the Russian fleet is generally not needed

      And why not surprised? :)))))
      The rest, alas, is not amenable to comment. I simply note that, due to the peculiarities of military education, a land explorer often knows about the fleet as much as a graduate of the Faculty of Economics.
      Quote: arturpraetor
      During the dispute, by the way, he also referred to your work - the reaction was interesting

      I'm even afraid to be interested in the details :))))
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 23 January 2018 12: 50
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I simply note that, due to the peculiarities of military education, a land explorer often knows about the fleet as much as a graduate of the Faculty of Economics.

        But how much conceit is in some of the navigators simply because they served! Since they served, then a priori they understand everything better than cunning civilians, even in molecular physics laughing And you can’t even explain to them that they build their theories on complete ignorance of the materiel of the morphlot - they served, they know best, and the materiel is for wimps. No offense to the military servants present and here, of course, people are different.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I'm even afraid to be interested in the details :))))

        Yes, everything is as usual - you write not what they imagine without knowing the materiel from the word at all, so you are civilian, and civilians cannot understand the armed forces better than the military, this is simply the law of the universe bully
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 January 2018 16: 21
      +6
      Quote: arturpraetor
      - barges (in the sense of ships) become obsolete in principle;

      But they do it much slower than the same aircraft. smile
      AB in this sense is a very good example: the hard worker Midway started with piston machines in the air group, and resigned with the air group from F / A-18.
      Quote: arturpraetor
      - there is no need to cover the deployment of the SSBN, in case of war everything will be fast and the Americans will not be able to do anything;

      Yeah ... a flock of "Virginia" and "moose" will really do everything quickly.
      Quote: arturpraetor
      - American AUGs, in which case they will be seeded with nucleobatons, and nothing will help them, in extreme cases, they will launch a dozen calibers, they will melt the whole AUG;

      I organized a check on how people read literature. Only the individual commanders of the central administrations, the individual senior officers of the headquarters, and only the individual employees of the grassroots apparatus are acquainted with the literature of the 5th Directorate. Some publications are kept for 3-5 months in a safe, which makes it impossible to introduce the necessary circle of commanders to this literature. They do not read literature such as the combat manuals of France, the condition of troops, etc., not to mention literature of indirect relevance.
      © Head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff, 1940.
      This is to me that the army did not read anything about the “Crossroads” operation, nor do they know the characteristics of the “calibers”.
      Quote: arturpraetor
      - The immediate future for the UAV, aircraft carriers are not needed;

      Yeah ... only if RTR and EW are banned through the UN as an inhumane weapon. smile
      Quote: arturpraetor
      From the point of view of the military of the Russian Federation (at least, the land explorers - and they have historically been a priority for Russia, alas - sometimes too much), the fleet is not needed by Russia at all now, only the SSBN, and then as some kind of useful bonus

      At the same time, they do not want to understand that without normal support for leaving the bases and moving to areas where the database is carried out, as well as without defense of positional areas, these SSBNs will be destroyed right at the piers.
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 23 January 2018 17: 02
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        But they do it much slower than the same aircraft

        No, you did not understand. Ships become obsolete in principle as a class of weapons, even 10-20 and the Navy will become completely useless and not needed laughing That was what I was voiced.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Yeah ... a flock of "Virginia" and "moose" will really do everything quickly.

        What are you, they won’t even go to the SSBN deployment areas, these areas are unknown to the Americans bully
        Quote: Alexey RA
        This is to me that the army did not read anything about the “Crossroads” operation, nor do they know the characteristics of the “calibers”.

        Specifically, those army men do not know anything about the AUG tactics, nor even the flight profiles of subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles and the features caused by this. Everything is simple for them - it’s all an old theory, everything could have done something before the AUG, but now the “Gauges” and hypersonic missiles, it’s turned on in the news and military reviews, it’s all ultramodern and easily covers the AUG, why should they materiel know? yes
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Yeah ... only if RTR and EW are banned through the UN as an inhumane weapon

        When I said something similar in the course of the dispute, a universal excuse was voiced - nuclerenbaton, EMR, burnt electronics, you can do anything with AUG. This is a universal remedy, when there is nothing to object to the fact - the nuclerenbaton will come, it will restore order wassat
        Quote: Alexey RA
        At the same time, they do not want to understand that without normal support for leaving the bases and moving to areas where the database is carried out, as well as without defense of positional areas, these SSBNs will be destroyed right at the piers.

        And here the phenomenal usually follows - and why defend the SSBN deployment areas? So Americans Know Where They Deploy? And if they don’t have time, the RPKSN of the Russian Federation will be completely in short position, and well, stupid Americans are just leaving their bases request

        Sometimes such disputes are even funny, but the fanaticism of opponents (and often - cheers-patriotism and the position "everything is so good with us") can be pretty outrageous. And the main emphasis is even a little scary - after all, we are not even talking about attacks by enemy SSBNs, but in protecting our own, i.e. about defense. But as soon as it comes to the fleet in matters of defense - nothing is needed, everything is so good, why build more, better, newer.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 24 January 2018 10: 58
          +2
          Quote: arturpraetor
          No, you did not understand. Ships become obsolete in principle as a class of weapons, another 10-20 years and the Navy will become completely useless and not needed laughing. I voiced just that.

          I should have reminded them of "the death of classical artillery and the transition to rockets"in the 50s or continuing for half a century"tank funeral". laughing
          Quote: arturpraetor
          When I said something similar in the course of the dispute, a universal excuse was voiced - nuclerenbaton, EMR, burnt electronics, you can do anything with AUG.

          As I understand it, the EMP does not act on UAVs so beloved by the army team - it strictly selectively burns out electronics only at AUG. smile
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor 24 January 2018 11: 55
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            They should have been reminded of the "withering away of classical artillery and the transition to rockets" in the 50's or the "funeral of a tank" that has been going on for half a century.

            I just said that a land army is not needed at such a pace - nuclear weapons will do everything for people)) After all, its presence is considered by many to be the main argument against the fleet.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            As I understand it, the EMP does not act on UAVs so beloved by the army team - it strictly selectively burns out electronics only at AUG.

            Absolutely right. And I still don’t remember how easily they were going to detect AUG in the sea in order to bomb it with nuclear battons.
    3. Odysseus
      Odysseus 23 January 2018 18: 10
      +6
      Quote: arturpraetor
      with the former army of the Russian Federation (although I know, I know, the military are never former) discussed this topic, after which I was recognized by them as a full-fledged and stupid civilian, because I do not understand anything in the realities of the present For

      This is an interesting topic. I’ll say frankly, army men generally do not like the fleet. It has always been (in my memory), but now it is especially noticeable. Moreover, the reasons for this are not related to specific arguments about calibers, nuclear weapons, etc. Causes
      1) CSKA consider it generally completely useless for Russia. And in general, there is a truth to it. The fleet does not participate in specific wars waged and waged by Russia. The army is fighting in Chechnya, Georgia, Donbass, and so on. Where is the fleet? Even in such a specific operation as the Syrian fleet participation is limited to transport functions.
      2) The "Sukhopchiki" are the most underfunded part of our army. Namely, they bear all the hardships of real wars. And if they agree on spending on the Strategic Missile Forces (there is general agreement), then even spending on aviation is not enthusiastic, and about the fleet (especially above-water) and there is nothing to say. From their point of view, they are simply thrown out money. And at this time, the fighters howl at BMP-2 and BRM-1, God knows what years. And about Almaty and Boomerangs they are only shown on TV.
      You may not agree with this point of view, but the fact that you finally need to focus on the ground forces and rearm them is beyond doubt.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        23 January 2018 19: 13
        +2
        Quote: Odyssey
        You may not agree with this point of view, but the fact that you finally need to focus on the ground forces and rearm them is beyond doubt.

        I absolutely agree.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 00: 34
        +1
        Quote: Odyssey
        You may not agree with this point of view, but the fact that you finally need to focus on the ground forces and rearm them is beyond doubt.


        There were even more radical statements. That the Russian ground forces are a badly damaged Soviet Army. It can fight only against the paramilitaries or another Soviet army, even more heavily eaten by moths, such as the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

        From a real army - NATO, the IDF - it differs qualitatively. She must not rearm, but completely change, create from scratchstarting with military education. 20 years minimum. Unless, of course, set yourself landmarks like the NATO armies.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 January 2018 02: 00
          +2
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          That the Russian ground forces are a badly damaged Soviet Army. It can fight only against the paramilitaries or another Soviet army, even more heavily eaten by moths, such as the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

          Saving, what a cheap provocation ...
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 24 January 2018 02: 11
            0
            OK, it was a flood.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 24 January 2018 11: 31
        +2
        Quote: Odyssey
        And if they agree with the spending on the Strategic Missile Forces (there is general agreement), then even spending on aviation does not cause enthusiasm, let alone the fleet (especially the surface).

        The ambush is that the fleet today is almost half the combat units of our strategic forces:
        At each of our SSBNs, 16 of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is located, and in total, it turns out, 176 ICBMs. Considering 4 warheads for each rocket, we get 704 warheads. According to the START-3 agreement, the Russian Federation (as well as the USA) has the right to keep 1 550 combat units deployed. It is easy to calculate that the number deployed on submarines is 45,4%. Almost half of our strategic nuclear forces!
        © uv. Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So spending on the fleet is spending on the marine component of nuclear forces. True, in this case, the fleet development strategy should be focused primarily on the withdrawal of the SSBNs in position areas and on their defense. Not on presence in remote areas of the oceans. sad
    4. ZVO
      ZVO 24 January 2018 14: 47
      +2
      Quote: arturpraetor

      - barges (in the sense of ships) become obsolete in principle;
      - there is no need to cover the deployment of the SSBN, in case of war everything will be fast and the Americans will not be able to do anything;

      It looks like your friends are completely off topic ....
      They need to know what a “launch corridor” is, how long the boat goes along it, and at what speed, how long it takes to prepare for launch, what speed missiles launch.
      Alas. but this is not one minute.
      But the enemy hunting submarine, which is on the tail, at the distance of the “pistol”, needs no more than 1 minute to sink the SSBN / SSBN.
      Starting depth (corridor) is a very characteristic thing. It is controlled by the hunter always and everywhere ... This is one step, the last before launching the missiles.
      And repeatedly, our boats, while working on the launch corridor, heard the noise of torpedo tubes being opened. Foreign devices. Very close. For such is the rule.
      I think that our submarine also has such a task. In this case, you can "open up."

      Well, the fact that our submarines had hunters hanging with enviable regularity on the tail - there is little doubt

      Quote: arturpraetor

      - American AUGs, in which case they will be seeded with nucleobatons, and nothing will help them, in extreme cases, they will launch a dozen calibers, they will melt the whole AUG;

      How many carriers of edrenbatons we have that can destroy aircraft carrier groups do your friends know?
      How many Caliber carriers do we have?
      How many intelligence tools do we have that can target targeting an aircraft carrier group?
      How many ships in a carrier group?
      They don’t know anything about the campaign ...

      Quote: arturpraetor

      - The immediate future for the UAV, aircraft carriers are not needed;

      UAVs launched from an aircraft carrier are much more dangerous than strategic UAVs. They can be collected at the right time in huge concentration in the right place, which is much more difficult to get from ground airfields.

      Quote: arturpraetor

      - all calculations like yours are the theory of 60's, at best 70's, now everything is different.
      :

      In general, your friends are at level 60 ... Alas ... but they just won’t even cook borsch in this thread ...
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 24 January 2018 16: 15
        0
        Quote: ZVO
        It looks like your friends are completely off topic ....

        In the modern fleet, their knowledge of materiel is only the most general, none of them specifically studied this topic - only at the level of well-known (and not always true) moments.
        Quote: ZVO
        They don’t know anything about the campaign ...

        They don’t know, and during my attempts to explain something to them, they make fun of anything. For example, once there was a “caliber srach” with them - it was argued that the “Caliber” would easily hit the AUG if it slipped into the Black Sea. The fact that the AUG does not even have to go into the Black Sea for actions against the Crimea, and that the AUG has the epic potential of opposing missiles launched from afar, is always ignored by them, or rather, laughs, because this simply cannot be, since they think so .
        Quote: ZVO
        UAVs launched from an aircraft carrier are much more dangerous than strategic UAVs. They can be collected at the right time in huge concentration in the right place, which is much more difficult to get from ground airfields.

        They simply ignore the shorter response time of carrier-based aviation, even in the form of UAVs, as well as the fact that UAVs capable of carrying sane anti-ship missiles will be very long, which means that they will require a large length of the take-off deck of the carrier ship. Those. just keep it up, and aircraft carriers are still needed, even with an UAV, even without. It seems that they imagine the future in the form of a total dominance of PC-bearing quadrocopters request
        Quote: ZVO
        Alas ... but they just won’t even cook borsch in this thread ...

        I have understood this for a long time, but periodically similar topics in our circle of friends come up again and again, and I have to repeat the same thing 100500 times, and at the same time listen to not very pleasant evaluations of me personally when their arguments end. Plus, it works against me that they are the former military of the Russian Federation, and I am a civilian from Ukraine bully And, in addition, I work poorly with sources - I know the materiel myself, but I can rarely provide proofs if necessary, because the sources of information are quickly forgotten.
  9. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 23 January 2018 12: 14
    +5
    As for the submarine project 09851 "Khabarovsk", then absolutely nothing is known about this boat.

    Heh heh heh ... remember, Oleg Kuleshov laid out a photo of a pen with the silhouette of Khabarovsk:

    Everyone knows that the Khabarovsk submarine is project 09851, but no one knows what it looks like. Today, by a lucky coincidence, I became the owner of three ballpoint pens that were given to the bookmarkers of the submarines: Khabarovsk, Prince Oleg and Krasnoyarsk. I saw them in a gift shop and immediately bought, as it turned out the last.

    In short, another Borey, T-50 or Armata - the appearance will be known only after the construction is completed.
    1. jjj
      jjj 23 January 2018 15: 55
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      appearance will be known only after completion of construction.

      And it would be better if no one else had seen
  10. Tektor
    Tektor 23 January 2018 16: 22
    +2
    An ANPA Surrogate is interesting, which can imitate a different type of submarine. If our submarine cruiser will have such an apparatus on board that, in case of danger, can be detached from the surface and, deflecting to the side, will cause fire on itself, then it will contribute to the safety of the boat under its cover.
  11. looker-on
    looker-on 23 January 2018 17: 19
    0
    Quote: a.sirin
    Excuse me, please ... I will try to correct myself ...


    Do not correct, well-written)
    1. Rushnairfors
      Rushnairfors 23 January 2018 17: 58
      +3
      Hello hello. Thank you very much for another interesting article. As always, I read and cannot come off, I learn a lot of useful and necessary information about our fleet.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        23 January 2018 18: 11
        +2
        And good evening to you, dear Rashnairfors! hi
        Quote: Rushnairfors
        Thank you very much for another interesting article.

        It is very nice to know that you consider it as such. Thank you for your kind words.
  12. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 23 January 2018 20: 10
    0
    it is definitely necessary to create gobleclovd systems abandoning udk, destroyers and cruisers
  13. exo
    exo 24 January 2018 21: 25
    +1
    A good, balanced continuation of the series of articles. And the absolutely correct thought: only specialists can speak about hydroacoustics and lighting systems for underwater conditions, although it is great temptation to put everything in its place., On the basis of often superficial articles.
    To the author, once again, Thank you.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 January 2018 12: 02
      +2
      And thank you for your kind words!
  14. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 25 January 2018 23: 05
    0
    The look is really sad.
    So you don’t need to catch up, you need to develop the latest systems on new breakthrough technologies.
  15. 3danimal
    3danimal 26 January 2018 15: 17
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    PPP GDP is not applied because it is good, but because the rest is even worse

    Can be made simpler: compare country budgets. Russia 2018 - $ 230-250 billion, Japan 2018 - $ 840 billion (of which 230 are for social programs), the United States - $ 5500 billion. It’s better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick, but ..
    Perhaps we need to change the paradigm of development and become richer? And then acquire foreign policy ambitions.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      26 January 2018 15: 22
      +2
      Quote: 3danimal
      Can be made simpler: compare country budgets.

      Can. By purchasing power, please :))))
      Quote: 3danimal
      Perhaps we need to change the paradigm of development and become richer? And then acquire foreign policy ambitions.

      Maybe. It is still possible to read the article and realize that this is not about foreign policy ambitions, but about the security of strategic nuclear forces