Military Review

Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Sad outcome

229
In this article, we will summarize this cycle by collecting and summarizing the data of individual articles together. We present a general, summary table of data on ships and aviation Navy of the Russian Federation: in it we will see a number of the most important, reference figures, which will show the dynamics of what is happening with our fleet. But before turning, actually, to numerical data, it is necessary to give small comments.


The first column is the number of the USSR Navy at the peak of its power - as of 1991. It takes into account the total number of ships on the fleet lists, regardless of the actual state of their combat effectiveness.

The second column is the number of the Russian Navy as of 01.01.2016. At the same time, as in the previous case, it takes into account all the ships of the fleet, including those that will never return to its current composition. Thus, a comparison of the first and second columns perfectly demonstrates what the Russian Federation started at the time of the fall of the USSR and what it came to after a quarter of a century of its existence.

The third column is information about the size of the Russian Navy as of today, 2018 g. The fundamental difference between the data in this column and the previous two is that they are cleared from ships that will never return to the fleet. That is, the ships of the existing fleet are included in this column, as well as those that are under repair or are awaiting repair, from which they will return to the fleet, and will not be scrapped. But the ships that are in reserve or in the sludge, and those that are only formally listed as repairs, were not included here. This column is designed to give an understanding of the actual composition of our Navy.

The fourth column is the forecast for 2030. I would like to note that an optimistic scenario has been taken, in which the author does not believe too much, but ... let's say that what we see in this column is the maximum we can count on.

And finally, the fifth column is the presentation of two military professionals, V.P. Kuzina and V.I. Nikolsky on the minimum required fleet. Recall that these authors advocated the unification of the ship composition: in their opinion, the nuclear submarine fleet should be represented by two types of ships - SSBNs with ballistic missiles and a universal type of torpedo submarine, non-nuclear submarines should also be of the same type. Instead of missile cruisers, destroyers and BOD, multipurpose ships (MSCs) should be built, and the coastal fleet should be represented by one type of TFR, etc. Accordingly, we ranged warships according to the classes proposed by V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky. At the same time, we did not elaborate on the composition of the USSR Navy by types of ships (it is not only difficult, but will also overload the table top of every measure), but we provide such data on the Russian Navy. And that's what we did.



And now - comments. We will not describe in detail the state of each class and type of ships, since we have already done this in the relevant articles, we will give only a brief reminder.

SSBN



Everything is more or less clear, by 2030 g the number of ships of this type will remain the same as now, but the old ships of Soviet construction will be replaced by the Borei-A. In principle, this is a completely normal and correct approach, with perhaps one exception - the Ministry of Defense refused to build more advanced Boreev-B in favor of modification “A” because “B” does not meet the “cost-effectiveness” criterion. This decision, in the light of the frank weakness of our fleet, as well as the development of the PLO and the saturation of the US Navy with the multi-purpose 4-generation submarines, does not look reasonable.

Multipurpose NPS



Even in the most remarkable (and, alas, extremely unlikely) case, in which the current plans of a large modernization of 4 boats of the 971 project and the same number of Antey SSGNs, moreover, provided that the lead ship of the Husky series is not only laid, but put into operation before 2030, the composition of multi-purpose submarines will continue to decline, while its total number will be half the minimum value. But much more likely is another scenario in which our modernization plans will be thwarted, and the Huskies will still be in construction - in this case, it is realistic to expect a reduction in multi-purpose submarines in the fleet to 14-15 units. Thus, we can safely predict a further decline in the number of this most important class of warships and state the presence in the fleet to 2030 of no more than 39-50% of the minimum sufficient number.

Nonatomic submarines



In principle, there is reason to assume that their number will remain at the current level, but this requires the fulfillment of two conditions. The first is that the existing construction program for six “Varshavyanok” for the Pacific Fleet will not be sequestered, and already after the last two “Lads” have been completed, it will be possible to build and commission more 6 boats of this or newer type. Perhaps there is nothing impossible in this, but alas, the situation is quite likely when we wait a long time for the VNEU, then rework a boat for it, or design a new one, then, in 2022, put something in the world that will take years to build. on 10 - and the number of non-nuclear submarines in the fleet will be reduced from today's 22 ships to 15 units. Total -60-85% of the minimum acceptable level.

Aircraft carriers (TAVKR)



It's all clear. Even if the work on the creation of a new ship of this class is really underway, and the lead aircraft carrier will be laid before 2030 G, and this is far from being a fact, then he will not be in time to do so. Thus, at 2030 g, we are left with only one TAVKR “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”, which is 2030% of the required level. Considering the fact that our only TAVKR does not meet the requirements for aircraft carrier, voiced by V.P. Kuzin and V. I. Nikolsky, in reality, this ratio will be even worse.

MCC



Generally speaking, V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky saw this ship as a destroyer with a standard displacement in 6 000 t. With missile armament, placed in the OHR. 3 500 - 4 500 T frigates, in their opinion, the Russian Navy is not needed: nevertheless, today we are building them and it would be most reasonable to place them in this “class” of ships.

As can be seen from the table, if everything goes well, then we will be able to keep the total number of ships at the current level by 2030. But this is only if before the 2030 we can not only commission the 3 frigate of the 22350 project, in addition to the Gorshkov, but also build a couple of the same or the newer 22350М project. And if we miraculously manage to keep the number of BOD projects 1155 / 1155.1 at the level of 7 ships.

But even in this case, instead of the minimum required 32 ships, we will have only 20, of which 7 BOD will be completely outdated, both in terms of weapons and ship systems, and in terms of resource mechanisms, and 7 frigates of the 22350 and 11356 project will be much weaker than ships , "Designed" by V.P. Kuzin and V. I. Nikolsky. The two upgraded TARKRs, however, will be much stronger, but it is obvious that this advantage will not be able to compensate for the 14 quality gap of other ships. You can count on the fact that not 2030 frigates of the 5 / 22350М project will have time to enter 22350 r, but more of them, in principle, can be, but you need to understand that there are practically no chances of retaining all existing 1155 BODs in the fleet - by 2030 The resources of their power plants will be developed, and there is nothing to change them with - the situation with the joining Admiral Panteleev will be repeated. Thus, the hope for an increase in the number of frigates, alas, is more than offset by the risks of entering the "perpetual reserve" of the BOD project 1155.

In general, it can be argued that some progress in the structure of the ship’s personnel relative to the planned figures is possible, but the total number of rocket-artillery ships capable of operating in the ocean will be at best about 62% of the minimum required need. And you need to understand that in fact the specified percentage does not show the real state of affairs - V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikol'skii determined the need for such ships based on the fleet aircraft carrier structure - that is, in their view, deck aircraft will take on the task of destroying airborne and surface targets, and the MCC are mainly needed to stabilize "floating airfields". But we do not expect new aircraft carriers before 2030 g, and in order to try to solve the same tasks, the MSC need a much larger number of them than indicated by VP. Kuzina and V.I. Nikol'skii. In other words, by 2030, we would have an ISC 62% of the minimum requirement if we have aircraft carriers, and since they are not there, the indicated percentage automatically becomes much lower.

TFR



Their total number on 2030 is calculated from the assumptions that we can:

1. Put into operation all the corvettes that are being built today and at least four more ships of the 20386 project or another project;

2. Increase the 22160 series of patrol ships from 6 to 12 ships.

As for the corvettes, it is hardly possible to expect more - of course, both 8 and 10 keels can lay them out, but given the fact that ships of this class are being built during 5-7 years, we can hardly expect them to enter in operation to 2030 g more than four. Something can change for the better except if the bookmarks of the corvettes of the 20380 project, more or less worked out in construction, will be resumed, but it is hardly possible to rely on this - the ships didn’t like the fleet. But laying another six ships of the project 22160 is quite possible.

In general, the situation seems to be quite good - although the total number of ships in the near-sea zone will decrease from 38 to 31, but this will amount to almost 75% of the minimum demand by V.P. Cousin and V.I. Nikolsky. But this is only if we forget that the patrol ships of the 22160 project do not at all meet the requirements put forth by respected authors to the TFR. Read more about the absurdities of the project 22160 wrote dear A. Timokhin in the article “Suitcases without handles. Navy buys a series of useless ships ", and we also gave these ships the most negative assessment. In short, the 22160 project is practically inapplicable in a conflict of some considerable intensity, its limit is police operations like the detention of Ukrainian armored boats, but for this purpose a better ship could be designed. In other words, although in the graph corresponding to the class "TFR" in the understanding of V.P. Kuzina and V.I. Nikolsky, we counted the 31 ship, but 12 of them are listed in them only formally, for the simple reason that they do not fit into our classification, but it was necessary to carry them somewhere. At the same time, the 22160 project is completely unable to carry out the TFR functions in the near-sea zone. With this amendment, the composition of our TFR to 2030 g - 19 ships, or 45% of the minimum required.

Small surface ships and boats



Here the situation, oddly enough, is both better and worse than shown in the table. At the beginning of 2016, the Russian Navy had 39 small rocket ships and boats of various projects, the serial construction of which began (and in most cases ended) during Soviet times. So, at present, these ships, which for the most part are rapidly losing their combat significance, are quite successfully replaced by river-sea-class MRKs “Buyan-M” (12 units in service and in construction) and a series of newest “Karakurts” 22800 project - last commissioned, built and contracted 18 units. Thus, the outdated ships are already being replaced by 39 with quite modern RTOs, and this is far from the limit. It can be assumed that, against the background of failures in the construction of larger surface warships, the Karakurt series will be increased to 30 or even 24 units - the last figure was laid down in the table, and it’s quite possible to commission this number of RTOs to 30. Although, of course, it is far from a fact that in addition to the 2030 "Karakurt", which should be replenished by the fleet, an additional, and even such a large-scale series will be contracted.

However, as we see, the total number of ISCs and combat boats will decrease, and by 2030 will not reach the number of 60 units planned by V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky. However, here it is necessary to take into account that dear authors meant the construction of very small ships, up to 60 and displacement, although they assumed to equip them with the same anti-ship missiles. “Buyan-M” and “Karakurt” are much larger and more combat-ready, so it can be stated that the “mosquito fleet” is the only component of our Navy, which by its size and combat capability fully meets its objectives. Another question is that the utility of RTOs in modern conditions is under a very big question ... No wonder that V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky, planning the construction of 25-60 ton boats, suggested, in fact, the construction of river rather than sea boat forces.

Minesweepers



As we said earlier, the state of the mine-sweeping forces of the Russian Navy is catastrophic. And this concerns both their numerical composition and equipment - both of which are completely inadequate. But first things first.

So, at the beginning of 2016, the Navy of the Russian Federation included 66 minesweepers, and by now the fleet has been replenished with the newest ship of this class, the “Alexander Obukhov”, and reliable information that some ships with 2016 have left there is no article. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the total number of minesweepers in our fleet today is 67 units. However, of these, the 31 unit is a raider minesweepers, who are completely outdated and are able to fight only the usual anchor mines, which is completely insufficient today. In essence, it can be said that their combat value is zero. All these ships are old-built, and none of them will survive until 2030 r, but today they are completely useless, so that they can safely be ignored. I must say that V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky evidently assumed that it was impossible to create a ship capable of fighting the modern mine threat in the displacement of the raid trawler, and did not plan further construction of ships of this subclass.

This is followed by the basic minesweepers, of which we currently have 23 units, including the already mentioned “Alexander Obukhov”. Here, however, it should be noted the cunning trick of our Ministry of Defense - ships of this type (the 12700 project) have recently been considered not as base, but as sea minesweepers. However, the perch, named by the pike, does not cease to be a perch from this - although the 12700 project was created with a claim to actions at sea, it was the base but not the sea minesweeper that turned out to be the output. At the same time, the ship did not receive French anti-mine complexes with which it was planned to equip it, and the domestic analogue Alexandrite-ISPUM has not yet been created, and it seems that it will replenish an endless list of domestic military development failures. As a result, Obukhov has only unmanned boats from modern anti-mine weapons, which he, moreover, can only carry in tow, and somewhere in the sea he can work only in the old fashioned way - towed by trawls. Well, the rest of the 22 domestic minesweeper of this subclass, never anything else and did not carry.

In general, the situation with the base minesweepers is awkward — the Alexandrites of the 12700 project are expensive, but do not have modern anti-mine warfare equipment, and therefore their massive construction, which has been repeatedly announced by various officials, has never been deployed, and according to the latest data apparently, the series will be limited to 8 cases, or even fewer of them. Thus, to 2030 g, taking into account the natural loss in the base minesweepers, we can not keep their number at the current level. By 2030, the city will remain approximately 15 - less than 47% of the required quantity in these ships according to VP Cousin and V.I. Nikolsky. But what is the use of numbers, if, apparently, they will not be able to deal with the modern mine threat?

As for the sea minesweepers, here we are in a better situation, because of 13 ships of this class, as many as 2 (in words - TWO) of the ship used KIA (complex mine finders), that is, equipment is more modern than towed trawls ! True, it was far from the most modern, in a number of parameters inferior to the Western counterpart, but it was! Alas, it was subsequently removed from one minesweeper. So, to date, the Russian Navy has as much as one ship capable of fighting the modern mine danger - this is Vice-Admiral Zakharyin’s minesweeper.

So, in connection with physical aging, we should expect that from the 13 of the existing MTShch to the 2030 today, the 3 will remain in the ranks. Where did the 8 ships of a new project come from then?

Alas - exclusively from the author’s gigantic optimism. The fact is that a rumor has passed about the development of a certain minesweeper for the Navy, which is being carried out by Almaz Central Design Bureau, and it can be assumed that this is exactly MTShch. And if the developers do not start again to reinvent the bicycle from scratch, if the creators of the mine-sweeping complexes can still offer normal complexes for these ships, then perhaps we can build eight such ships before 2030. Or, perhaps, they will still be able to provide such complexes for the Alexandrite, and then their series will be increased.

Alas, even the most optimistic forecasts do not allow us to expect to reach the lower threshold of the number of mine-trawling forces according to V.P. Cousin and V.I. Nikolsky - instead of 44 BST and MST, we will have 2030 only 26 of such ships, or less than 60% of the minimum requirement.

Amphibious assault ships



With them, everything is quite simple. Of the 19 BDK of two types that we have today, and provided that by 2030, all ships whose age has reached 45 years have left the system, only 8 ships of the 775 project will remain. At the same time, today, the only update of the amphibious fleet (not counting small amphibious boats) is a series of two ships of the “Ivan Gren” type, one of which has recently been commissioned, and the second is in the process of completion, highly ready and expected by the fleet In the following, 2019. I must say that the series of such ships was originally planned in 6, but then it was reduced to two.

As we all remember, the Russian Navy was to receive the 4 UDC of the Mistral type, two of which were to be built in France, but at the last moment the French refused to send us ready-made ships. This, apparently, was the cause of some stupor in updating the Russian amphibious fleet - Russia is fully capable of continuing the construction of BDK of the “Ivan Gren” type, but sailors prefer the UDC. The latter are considerably, almost five times larger than the Ivanov Grenov, and it is completely unknown when they can be started to build them, and given the domestic long-term construction, one can hardly expect that at least one such ship will be commissioned before 2030. the same time, in connection with the collapse in the number of BDK in the next decade, the possibility of laying one or two BDK under the Ivan Gren project is not excluded, but the further this decision is delayed, the less chances that the ships will have time to get up to 2030 Most likely, if you decide And it will be accepted, some “Improved Ivan Gren” will be mortgaged, which will still need to be designed, and which will be very different from the original, then we will build it for a long time ... Thus, the hope that the number of our landing fleet will be The state on 2030 G will be slightly higher than the one shown in the table, but it is not too large. And in any case, if we manage to ensure the presence of 2030 or even 12 BDK by 14, we will not have the basis of the amphibious fleet - four universal amphibious ships - under any circumstances.

naval aviation



Here the situation is as negative as in the naval composition of the fleet. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to predict the supply of aircraft to the fleet than the ship's personnel, and the data for 2030 are either not predictable at all, or are predictable, but with very large reservations or assumptions.

To date, the MA of the Russian Navy has 119 bombers, fighter-interceptors and multi-purpose fighters, including deck fighters. If the rate of delivery of aircraft of these classes will be slightly increased from the current, then, taking into account the cancellation of outdated vehicles, their number by 2030 g will be about 154 units (for more, see article “Naval Aviation of the Russian Navy. Current status and prospects. H.3 »). V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky believed that the total number of such aircraft in the Russian Navy should have been at least 500 units, which included 200 deck-based aircraft: the calculation was very simple, it was assumed that for successful defense we would need aircraft of 75% of that which could be countered from the sea is our opponent.

I would like to clarify specifically that we are talking about multifunctional fighters, and not about naval aircraft-carrying aircraft (MRA). The fact is that V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky believed that the Russian Federation would not be able to afford the construction and maintenance of an MRA of sufficient size to successfully destroy enemy carrier strike groups. Therefore, in their opinion, naval aviation, first of all, needs fighter jets to combat the means of air attack. Not to try to destroy the AUG, but to knock out a significant part of its carrier-based aviation, thereby lowering its combat stability and forcing them to retreat — this was the task of the naval aviation V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky.

One can argue about their concept of using the air force of the fleet, but one thing is beyond doubt - the country really does not have the capacity to contain numerous MPAs. Now the MPA has been completely abolished, but even if we take into account in the composition of naval aviation, the Tu-22М3, which must be modernized and will be equipped with modern anti-ship missile weapons, it will increase the strength of the latter only on 30 aircraft.

And you need to understand that the fact that we do not have 4 aircraft carriers is not a reason for reducing the total number of aircraft according to VP Cousin and V.I. Nikolsky — we will need them anyway, regardless of whether they are deck or land-based. However, as we can see, the need for naval tactical aircraft today is less than 25% satisfied, and in the future it is hardly 30% of the required values.

Everything is no less difficult with PLO aircraft - today the numerical lag behind the minimum required quantity is not so significant, 50 airplanes instead of 70, however, you need to understand that even such “rarities” as the Be-12 are included in our calculations. At the same time, V.P. Kuzin in V.I. Nikolsky, of course, talked about modern PLO aircraft, which with us, and even with a stretch, can only be considered IL-38H with the Novella complex, and we have exactly 8 units today. Before 2030, 20 aircraft must be upgraded (more precisely, they will pass it much earlier), but then everything is covered with obscurity, because the stocks of old IL-38, which could be modernized, will be exhausted, and God forbid not turned out to be less. But there is no information about the creation of new PLO aircraft, unless at the level of some general wishes - and as practice shows, with such a start, it would be extremely naive to expect that the fleet will receive new aircraft of this class in the coming 10-12 years.

It is still easier with tankers - there are no specialized airplanes of this type in the fleet, and there were no plans for their appearance. There are no data on auxiliary aircraft. As for helicopters, it should be borne in mind that their fleet is rapidly becoming obsolete physically, and the efforts of aircraft manufacturers today are directed mostly at upgrading existing machines, although there are some plans to upgrade anti-submarine helicopters. Thus, one can hardly count on an increase in the number of helicopters - it would be good to at least keep at the current level.

Coastal troops of the Russian Navy



Unfortunately, the data available to the author are very heterogeneous and cannot be reduced to comparable figures. However, I would like to make one important observation: considering the coastal missile and artillery troops of the Russian Navy for their current state and near future, we noted that in their capabilities they are not only not inferior, but will significantly surpass the Soviet Naval Forces - first of all rearmament account for the latest missile systems. However, V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky made to some extent a reasonable assumption that, in its current form, GRAVs would not be able to perform the functions assigned to it.

Dear authors rightly doubt that in the event of a large-scale war, NATO countries will conduct large-scale amphibious operations on our territory - such an opportunity is more of a hypothetical threat. On the other hand, the Brav missile systems are unlikely to be able to withstand the US AUG, even if the latter are within their reach. Logic V.P. Kuzina and V.I. Nikolsky is as follows: the launch of a limited number of anti-ship missiles in the zone of domination of the enemy wing will not be successful, and if this rule is destroyed, then the AUG will leave without waiting for the “benefits” from the RVS. It is impossible not to agree that a certain logic is present in these arguments, but still such a judgment seems overly categorical. AUG, of course, is a tough nut to crack, but it is not invincible and could well be destroyed if it is possible to gather the necessary force for this. If the AUG enters the zone of reach of the Brav, its missiles, of course, will play their part, adding to the air, underwater and other forces that we can gather to destroy it. Understand this in America, therefore, most likely, just will not enter the squadron of surface ships in range of missiles of missiles.

EGSONPO

The Unified State System for Lighting Surface and Underwater Situations (EGSONPO) should have been a system of marine intelligence and targeting of surface and underwater targets, which would provide us with a zone of complete control in our coastal (and not very coastal) waters. This system, which made it possible to open the movement of enemy warships at a distance of 1000-2000 km from our coastline, could largely compensate for the insufficient number of ships and aircraft of the Navy. Alas, for the time being, the only more or less working component of the over-the-horizon radar is that the rest (especially the controls of the underwater environment) are in the embryonic state itself and there is no hope that by the 2030 we will have in the Barents or Okhotsk seas something like American SOSUS.

The conclusions of the above are completely disappointing.

On the one hand, formally approaching the matter, the Russian Navy still holds the position of the second most powerful fleet of the world, immediately following the United States, although China is strongly “on the heels” and, perhaps, gains superiority over the Russian Navy to 2030. However, given the fact that the Russian fleet is forced to crush forces between four separate theaters, it is, unfortunately, unable to solve its main tasks in any of them.

The key task of the Russian Navy is to provide massive nuclear and nuclear retaliation in the event of a sudden attack on our country with the use of nuclear weapons. Alas, neither today nor in 2030 the fleet can guarantee the solution of this task. In essence, all that we have for this is SSBNs and ballistic missiles on them. But their withdrawal from bases and deployment in patrol areas will be extremely difficult. We do not have mine-sweeping forces capable of ensuring the safety of SSBNs when leaving the bases. We do not have a sufficient number of modern nuclear and diesel submarines, surface ships, anti-submarine aircraft, able to counteract dozens of enemy atomicines that will search and try to destroy our SSBNs. We do not have ground and deck-based naval aviation of sufficient size to ensure air supremacy and prevent enemy patrol aircraft from pursuing our submarines. The same, alas, also applies to the capabilities of our fleet to repel a non-nuclear attack by NATO squadrons. And it’s sad not even that we have come to this state, but that in the foreseeable future this state of affairs will remain unchanged, and the fleet rearmament plans currently in force will not ensure its ability to effectively solve even its most important tasks.
Author:
Articles from this series:
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"
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 5. Specialty boats and this weird EGSONPO
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 6. Corvettes
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 7. Small rocket
Russian Navy. A sad look into the future: a mine-catastrophe
Russian Navy. A sad look into the future: domestic destroyers
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Frigates
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Missile cruisers
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Coastal troops
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Marines
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Coastal troops. findings
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. A little more about cruisers
How many warships does Russia need? Opinion professionals
229 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aristok
    aristok 3 January 2019 06: 16
    +7
    The main thing is not to get involved with sawn unfinished buildings.
    First of all, no aircraft carriers.
    1. Nizhlogger
      Nizhlogger 3 January 2019 07: 17
      +7
      The Americans themselves will soon give up aircraft carriers in their current form. In America, there are now enough articles about the "uselessness" of aircraft carriers. Although they will leave a couple newer for the war with the "Papuans".
      But I think that aircraft carriers will just change the concept. In order to take off, fly 100-200 km and launch a rocket, a full-fledged plane is not needed. Need a drone. Like a cheap reusable return rocket first stage. No more. Well, we also need drones for reconnaissance and AWACS.
      For all this, the aircraft carrier is redundant in terms of both tonnage and personnel. A ship with a cruiser displacement armed with such drones will have a striking power no worse than the current aircraft carrier.
      1. spektr9
        spektr9 3 January 2019 08: 44
        +19
        The Americans themselves will soon abandon aircraft carriers in their current form

        Immediately after giving up the dollar lol
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        3 January 2019 09: 28
        +26
        Quote: Nizhlogger
        The Americans themselves will soon give up aircraft carriers in their current form. In America, there are now also enough articles about the "uselessness" of aircraft carriers.

        I'll tell you a secret - there are enough such articles, starting from the 80 of the last century :)))
        1. Sevastiec
          Sevastiec 3 January 2019 11: 49
          +6
          Well, yes, the obsolescence of some classes shows only war with an equal adversary. As it was with the battleships. On the other hand, for those wars waged by the Americans constantly, aircraft carriers are more than a convenient means.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            3 January 2019 13: 40
            +15
            Quote: Sevastiec
            Well, yes, the obsolescence of some classes shows only war with an equal adversary. As it was with the battleships.

            Yeah. Only now, let me remind you, the end of the era of battleships has been shouted since the end of the 19 century, and they fought well both in the Spanish-American, Russian-Japanese, and World War I, and only during World War II they began to lose ground, becoming extremely useful but still not the main strength of the fleet. Today, aircraft carriers are still very far from sunset
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 3 January 2019 14: 24
              +1
              Excuse me, what battleships do you mean? Sailing already disappeared, and new ones (dreadnoughts) appeared after the REV and really fought only in World War I. During WWII, I don’t remember battles of linear forces, from the useful one - the nervousness of the British and the support of the landings, which could be done by much cheaper means.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                3 January 2019 16: 49
                +16
                Quote: bk0010
                Excuse me, what battleships do you mean?

                The most battleship battleships in all their varieties. The debate about the terms in this case is dull and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. And what are you doing? Trying to show off your knowledge? This is against the background of the fact that you yourself signed in complete ignorance with the phrase
                Quote: bk0010
                During WWII I don’t remember battles of linear forces

                That is, measures to neutralize the ShiG, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Italian LK, British LK in Middle East, the battle at Matapan, the battles at Guadalcanal, the role of American LK in the battle of the Mariana Islands, the battle of Leyte, and finally, and much more - all by you ?: )
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 3 January 2019 18: 06
                  -1
                  > Dispute about terms
                  I'm not talking about a dispute about terms, I'm talking about what the "battleships" were going to replace at the end of the 19th century. I just don't see anyone who at that time could measure their strength with battleships.
                  About Pacific operations - yes, I forgot.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    3 January 2019 18: 34
                    +4
                    Quote: bk0010
                    I'm not talking about a dispute about terms, I'm talking about what the "battleships" were going to replace at the end of the 19th century. I just don't see anyone who at that time could measure their strength with battleships.

                    Well, what about? Jeune École (that is, a young school) - abandoning the general battle and armadillos in favor of high-speed light cruisers (in the 6 000 t) and then, after the widespread spread of the destroyers, they were declared a prodigy capable of annulling the armored fleets. And note, the French were having fun with these fantasies, at that time - the 2-sized fleet of the world
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 3 January 2019 20: 08
                      +7
                      Get fucked, did not even hear about this. thank
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        4 January 2019 16: 21
                        +4
                        You're welcome! hi
            2. Sevastiec
              Sevastiec 4 January 2019 07: 56
              +2
              Agree that the linear forces, nevertheless, have greatly changed with the advent of the dreadnoughts, no matter how they argue about the terms. I see it this way: it was simply the pinnacle of the development of artillery ships. As often happens, reaching the top, give way to others. Although it is possible that they will gain a second life (with Zumvolt it did not work out very well, but who knows?).
              But perhaps the aircraft carriers will also be transformed? In general, to be honest, I think it all depends on aviation. In what direction it will develop, the appearance of aircraft carriers will be formed, or it will disappear altogether. "It all depends on me" (c).
        2. DarkMatter
          DarkMatter 3 January 2019 15: 08
          +12
          Andrei, is this really the end of the series ?! I am sad.
          There are so many interesting things, for example:
          1. Hydrographic service.
          Boats and small vessels are being built new as many as three projects (23040G, 19920, 19910). Are there enough of them, what is their distribution, prospects and the total percentage of the necessary?
          But larger replacements have not yet.
          Like for example Project 862 ships

          Moreover, the largest oceanographic research vessel Admiral Vladimirsky is one of a kind, although in the 91st year there were already 6 of them.

          is that enough? Do I need a replacement? GUGI vessels included in the system are declared with the same partly functions. Does this mean that they will, in addition to their work, also carry out this work? Then how often, from time to time, from under the stick, or will it not be burdensome for them? Or is it a cover and then we need a replacement for our large hydrographic vessels? There are many questions, there is where to take a walk and think)

          2. Tankers.
          For example, now the construction of small marine tankers of project 03182 is underway. It is the same with the medium tanker of project 23130.

          What are the prospects for these series.
          Which tankers are currently available, whether other series of larger tankers will be needed to replace the aging tanker fleet (built in the 70s of the last century) and how soon, quantity. In each campaign, whether in India or somewhere else, there is always a tanker in the group of ships of the Navy, although all of them pass by and read only about the composition of warships.

          3. Multifunctional boats of projects 23370 and 23040.
          The fleet has old fire-fighting boats, rescue boats, diving boats, etc. Does it mean that several multifunctional projects can replace a huge motley fleet, thereby saving money? How much is this a justifiable move, because if earlier the failure of the fire boat did not interfere with the work of other services (rescue, diving, etc.), now the partial inoperability of these boats can affect the fleet's capabilities in this matter? Or not?
          The same issue for larger vessels, rescue tugs, etc. Many projects are declared as multifunctional - will it not be a dispersal of forces, as it is known that a highly specialized pro is better than a few average-skilled craftsmen in the matter. Or is this not the case?

          But there are also, for example, weapons transports. How much is needed, what is it for? There is a quite peppy replacement of floating cranes - it means they are needed, but many do not know about them, or maybe this is more important than any other news for the life of the fleet - it would be nice to know
          Kilektory. Such a vessel in Tartus and the Kuril Islands (Matua Island) means they are needed, but with what they are eaten, for which, etc. Or maybe I’m using it for other purposes, but because there is a lack of necessary classes, which it replaces as necessary? What are the prospects, is a replacement needed in the foreseeable future?

          And so on, there is still so much hidden from the inexperienced eyes of readers, and often no less important and critically necessary for the life of the fleet, than the hypothetical construction of some Leaders.
          Andrei, I hope there will be time and interest to illuminate, at least comprehensively and superficially, any of these issues.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            3 January 2019 18: 36
            +6
            No, Eugene, this is still the end :)))))) Maybe you yourself will do it? It seems to me that you will succeed! hi drinks
            1. Rader
              Rader 3 January 2019 21: 59
              +7
              Andrey, hello! Let me congratulate you on the end of the one-year epic. One of the most interesting series of articles on VO. Special thanks for introducing V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky. Although their ideas about "changing the sight" of aircraft from enemy aircraft carriers are controversial, to put it mildly, it is always difficult to estimate the amount of something without a standard, and in this series of articles such a standard appeared. So, like praised, thanked, now I need to scold. You need to improve your skill of involving the reader in the material, you concede to Kaptsov in this. Where, tell me, is the colorful description of the P-700 hitting Iowa? laughing
              P.S. And think about the proposal of Eugene, a very interesting addition will come out. hi
            2. DarkMatter
              DarkMatter 4 January 2019 20: 09
              +2
              Damn))) I thought to write several articles like that, but not about the fleet, but about something else. Connected with the history of our country, but he didn’t intend to, but now there’s no time. And I won’t be able to write about the fleet so well and intelligibly hi Even if I wanted to.
              Yet the syllable is important, very. I hope it will soon become boring and one of the topics will pop up, I really, really hope. And, by the way, I want to thank again, it’s hard to meet such a person in such detail and, most importantly, that he would approach the issue so thoroughly. I hope not one Andrei blushed)) Thanks for the series of articles! I believe will be continued tongue
          2. Scaffold
            Scaffold 4 January 2019 20: 32
            +3
            The case when I’m ready to put a hundred pluses for just one question! hi
      3. Charik
        Charik 8 January 2019 08: 11
        0
        Well, yes, so 2 more ordered to build
  2. LeonidL
    LeonidL 3 January 2019 06: 28
    +22
    The question itself and the comparison of the fleets of the USSR and the Russian Federation are already false and vicious. These are two completely different countries and two fleets. Two different military doctrines. Different economic and production potentials. Different political systems. A completely different geopolitical situation - the presence and complete absence of allies, constipation in the Marquise puddle and the Black Sea, a trap in the event of a global conflict in the Mediterranean, are absolutely incomparable in the quality and quantity of weapons. The Russian Federation does not need to chase the number of everything and everywhere, but to create ships for the needs of the tasks being solved by the fleets, this will eliminate gigantomania and unrealizable Napoleonic plans. Those ships that are needed on the Northern Fleet under its habitability conditions, navigation, combat missions - are not needed at all in the Baltic and the Black Sea. Ambition must meet the requirements of ammunition.
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 3 January 2019 07: 51
      +26
      I apologize in advance for being categorical, but your comment made me two-fold. Yes, on the one hand, indeed, the political and economic potential of the Russian Federation is not comparable to that of the USSR, but on the other hand, it is at least very reckless to speak on this basis of a cardinal difference in the vectors of geopolitical tasks. I will explain. We are all accustomed to the fact that, according to the materialistic approach, being forms consciousness, and the production and economic base forms a political, administrative and ethical and moralistic superstructure. Without disputing these postulates at all, I would nevertheless note that the classic was still mistaken in the percentage of these elements, and in reality, in my purely research sense, the basis is from 60 to 70%, the superstructure is 40-30%, respectively (versus 90 to 10 - from the apologists of the materialistic approach). It is this correlation that explains the existence of the concept of "double structuring" in modern political science: when the adoption of certain political and managerial decisions depends not so much on the available resources, but on the social and state institutions traditional for a given society and on the ingrained ideas about the place and role of society both within the state formation and outside it. This is briefly. And this fact really takes place.

      The author of these lines at one time defended his diploma with honors on the topic "Evolution of ideological paradigms in the foreign policy of the Russian state", where he analyzed the main foreign policy vectors in the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th century and key tasks achievements) politics in the international arena already during the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (until 1953). As you rightly noted, completely different state formations, completely different ideologies, economics, the very essence of building and the vector of building society. But it is surprising that in its foreign policy the USSR as a whole embodied all those ideas that prevailed among the political elite of the Tsarist era, and which, due to their impotence, would never have been able to independently implement them. And Soviet Russia was able, although it would seem that it absolutely does not need it, because it is a perfect excellent state, with a different goal and other tasks. But no, it was the USSR, albeit for a short historical period of time, that united most of the Slavic peoples in a single formation and even integrated part of the German state into this union. We will not start the discussion on the topic: were these tasks really a priority or their achievement is a by-product of the implementation of completely different geopolitical projects. The fact remains the fact. As one of his contemporaries, whose name, I think, is not worth specifying: "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended on the continent. On the other side of the curtain, all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe - Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna , Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia. " Personally, I tend to conclude that there are no such coincidences. The age-old dream of Russian monarchs has come true, however, as it turned out, in order to realize it, it is enough to eliminate the monarchy itself.

      All this allows us to talk about the presence in foreign policy of certain constant constants that do not change even with a cardinal transformation of states in the political, economic and geopolitical arenas. That is why the modern RF, whether it wants it or not, will have to solve all the same problems that faced both the USSR and the Russian Empire (taking into account modern realities, of course). In the end, our opponents haven't changed much. And the sooner we stop using the word "partners" in their address and call them by their proper names, the sooner an understanding of who we are in this world and what place is allotted to us will come. After all, it is not only being that shapes consciousness ...
      1. Yura
        Yura 3 January 2019 15: 07
        +2
        Quote: Dante
        In conce,

        Good comment. As an example - looking at the water, we understand and know what is in the water and at the bottom, but we don’t see, the dregs and glare interfere, but on a calm day, and from the bridge, looking at the same water in its shade, everything is visible to the pebble, to the tiniest fish.
      2. LeonidL
        LeonidL 3 January 2019 20: 41
        +4
        You missed two important components - the ideological one, thanks to which the USSR had more or less intelligible allies. In the USSR there was an ideology of socialism (communism), Russia today has no ideology yet - perhaps the vague "Russian World", but even this ideology will not provide contemporaries outside this Russian world. In the USSR, there were some bases (at a stretch) all over the world in countries with a "union" ideology, today Russia has no military bases as such. without the presence of a network of VM bases, namely, bases and not single supply points, the oceanic fleet is a fiction like a target roaming the ocean. Why an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea Fleet? Why large ships and nuclear submarines in the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Sea Fleet? Why non-ice-class ships on the Northern Fleet? And so on ... Where and for what purpose should we land the troops? So far, the BDK are performing the tasks of dry cargo ships on the Syrian express line. Where are the auxiliary vessels from the civilian fleet - they are scattered and sail under foreign flags, so you have to buy rusty Turkish troughs. There are a lot of factors and everything is difficult, and it is not worth listing.
      3. LeonidL
        LeonidL 3 January 2019 21: 06
        0
        Excuse me, but you can feel your "ideological" leaven, I don't know if you served in the navy, but your message is incorrect - Russia will simply break down today, entering the "ocean" race with NATO? What for? I am more than sure that the main potential enemy is in the East. Will the forces of the World Behind the Scenes push the PRC into a military confrontation with the Russian Federation? It is very possible. But something else is also possible - a joint strategic partnership between the Russian Federation and NATO against China, who knows? I agree that there are permanent factors that determine ... let's say, the West's "dislike" for a strong Russia since the time of Grozny. But in the West, pragmatists rule to a greater extent, and on their scales, China greatly outweighs Russia. World War II clearly showed this.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 January 2019 10: 56
      +15
      Quote: LeonidL
      The question itself and the comparison of the fleets of the USSR and the Russian Federation are already false and vicious.

      No, Leonid. The thing is that the Soviet Navy has been sharpened on the confrontation of NATO fleets. And that’s exactly what, if something happens, you’ll have to somehow do the Russian Navy. Thus, there is neither false nor vicious - we compare the 2 tool serving the same purpose.
      Quote: LeonidL
      A completely different geopolitical position

      Well, all 4 fleets + Caspian flotilla we have left
      Quote: LeonidL
      the presence and complete absence of allies

      Here I agree - for a completely correct comparison, it was necessary to indicate not the number of the USSR Navy, but the number of naval units of the ATS unit.
      Quote: LeonidL
      Ambition must meet the requirements of ammunition.

      Perhaps. So today we have ammunition, we can say that there are no ambitions, even to ensure combat stability of the SSBN
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 3 January 2019 14: 01
        +1
        Hello Andrei ! I always read your articles with interest, and for the most part I like them. However, in the course of reading this, I suddenly caught myself thinking that at first you did not intrusively introduce a large number of readers of the site to the views on the problems of creating the Navy from Kuzin and Nikolsky, and only then (not noticeable for many) they took them for, let's say - "starting point"(ie, as indisputable and the only true one), and sent their comparisons (even in the table) with the opinion of these authors ?! Or did it seem to me?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          3 January 2019 14: 31
          +3
          Quote: Vl Nemchinov
          However, in the course of reading this, I suddenly caught myself thinking that at first you did not intrusively introduce a large number of readers of the site to the views on the problems of creating the Navy from Kuzin and Nikolsky, and only then (not noticeable for many) they took them for, let's say - "starting point"

          I admit, it’s hard to understand what stealth is here. In an article on calculating the required number of fleets, I indicated that I would not undertake to evaluate it myself, but I trust the military pros. At the same time, I gave not only the bare numbers, but also the logic of Kuzin and Nikolsky, so that those who do not like the numbers would be easier to challenge them. And yet - for the same purpose - gave the current strength of the US Navy.
          Further, in this article, I do not write "the only correct ones" anywhere, but constantly mention Kuzin and Nikolsky.
          That is, I directly and completely openly emphasize that I take precisely the figures of Kuzin and Nikolsky as a starting point and constantly emphasize this. How can you not notice this - I definitely can’t imagine.
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 3 January 2019 15: 24
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Further, in this article, I do not write "the only correct ones" anywhere, but constantly mention Kuzin and Nikolsky.
            Yes, well I will clarify what exactly I wanted to say above. (1). I am far from thinking that the opinion of Kuzin and Nikolsky are the only ones from the point of view of the ways of the possible development of the Navy, (i.e., I fully admit the presence of other, no less competent persons involved in the Navy, and having the appropriate regalia, and the position of their vision of the ways development of the Navy). And from this it follows (2) that other ways (methods) of the development of the Navy are possible, (it is just possible that the authors of the ideas themselves) of such "alternative ways of development" did not write any significant literary works about this, although they could well have worked at that time, say in the General Staff of the Navy of the USSR (later the Russian Federation), and to voice their positions there, which probably had their own motivation and the right to life, but did not become "common property", simply due to the fact that these people were not engaged in journalism. Hope the thought is clearer this way? Or even simpler, starting only from the concept of vision of Kuzin and Nikolsky, we look only in the direction of the flashlight beam illuminating the globe, but only from one side (i.e. in the direction of the flashlight beam).
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              3 January 2019 17: 00
              +4
              Quote: Vl Nemchinov
              Yes, I’ll clarify exactly what I wanted to say above.

              I understand, but here the question is very simple - do you have data on such concepts? Which you write about
              Quote: Vl Nemchinov
              other ways (methods) of development of the Navy are also possible, (it is just that the authors of the ideas themselves) of such "alternative ways of development" did not write any significant literary works about this

              If yes, let's discuss in detail. And if not ... You see, of course, there are alternatives. But it makes sense to discuss them only when you know their content, at about the same level that Kuzin and Nikolsky gave.
              Quote: Vl Nemchinov
              Or even simpler, starting only from the concept of the vision of Kuzin and Nikolsky, we look only in the direction of the beam of a flashlight illuminating the globe, but only on one side

              Maybe. For example, I have information that some admirals consider the minimum need of the Navy - 6 AMG, and not 4-5 like Nikolsky and Kuzin.
              That is, if there are alternatives, this does not mean at all that they are based on a significantly smaller number of ships than Kuzin and Nikolsky
              1. bayard
                bayard 5 January 2019 01: 02
                +7
                Hello Andrey . I read your cycle with pleasure, but it seemed to me (especially in this part of it) that you might have unwittingly become a hostage to its very name. And if everything is true in numbers and factology, then the assessment of prospects, alas ... is not entirely accurate.
                Considering the prospect until 2030, you looked at the ordeals and "Stakhanov's pace" of the domestic shipbuilding industry in recent years ... But let's be completely honest, when the plans were made up, let's say for the construction of frigates 20350, there were Ukrainian turbines and a new air defense system "Polyment-Redut" ". It was difficult to predict what happened in 2014, but it happened - we ended up without turbines and German diesels ... And sad tires with air defense systems. An attempt to intercept the frigates of the "admiral's series" for the Black Sea Fleet ... succeeded exactly half. THIS IS THE FORCE MAJOR. And until the end of this year, things really looked "dull".
                But what prevented our military-industrial complex from rhythmically building ships? Except for the funding, which just happened? The main thing is the GEM. Without them, building ships is impossible from the word at all. It is possible to build with a simplified air defense system ... but without turbines and diesels, this is IMPOSSIBLE. And until the end of last year, everything was really "dull" ... But not now.
                The end of the year pleased us with two very encouraging news:
                - Two sets of Rybinsk turbines have already been transferred for the construction of "Gorshkovy" # 3 and # 4. So far, without gearboxes, but this is a profitable business - in a couple of years they will also be on stream, and before that they would not be required.
                - Kolomensky Zavod handed over for testing a new marine diesel engine of 10 l / s. Rather, a whole line of diesel engines, but this one is more interesting to us. In a couple of years, they can be serially driven for a whole line of warships.
                I repeat - before these two news it was simply impossible to talk about the construction of the fleet. Now the opposite is true.

                For these almost 5 years of downtime, our shipyards have been very seriously modernized and ready to work.
                If you look at the pace of construction in recent years before 2014, then everything was not at all so sad (20350 are not counted - they were frozen) if you look at the construction of the "admiral's series". And the "Mistrals" aft parts (40% of the hull) were built in St. Petersburg at a completely "French" pace and quality ...
                Now there is everything (!) To resume the program 20350, from the word at all. All issues that led to the freeze have been resolved. Therefore, plans have been announced to extend the series to 6 pieces. with an option for at least 2 more pieces. - up to preparation for launch into the 20350M series, for the construction of which there are absolutely no technical and production barriers. This will be a full-fledged rank 1 ship with a displacement of about 8000 tons - to replace the exhausted cruisers, destroyers and BODs. And the pace is not 10 - 12 years, as many cry, but not more than 5 years from bookmark to delivery. A large series of 4 hulls at the same time, with the laying of the next batch 1,5 - 2 years after the launch of the previous ones. The fact that all these conditions (modernization of shipyards, development of turbines in Rybinsk, marine diesel engines and "Polyment-Redut", training of the main shipbuilding specialists - welders, assemblers, etc.) have been created, speaks of the seriousness of intentions and self-reliance (how Comrade Stalin spoke). It's actually not so dull.

                Perhaps the prospect should be devoted to this future cycle.
                I propose topics: "Prospects of the project 20350M as the main ship for d \ m and the ocean zone", "Diesel frigate, as an alternative to corvettes and the main workhorse of the DMZ", "Promising UDC - what kind of ship does our landing force need", "Anaerobic and DPL - budgetary compensation for the lack of multipurpose nuclear submarines "," Naval aviation - what it should be in modern conditions. "
                I will be happy to participate in the discussion of these topics.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 5 January 2019 01: 10
                  +1
                  In Donetsk, snow is sweeping - a snowstorm, just like in the Urals ... I come from Kopeisk, so we are fellow countrymen.
                  Good luck in the coming year.
                2. Nemchinov Vl
                  Nemchinov Vl 5 January 2019 02: 54
                  +3
                  Quote: bayard
                  when the plans were made up, let's say for the construction of frigates 20350, there were Ukrainian turbines and a new air defense system "Polyment-Redut". It was difficult to predict what happened in 2014, but it happened - we ended up without turbines and German diesels ... And sad tires from the air defense system. An attempt to intercept frigates of the "admiral's series" for the Black Sea Fleet ... succeeded exactly half. THIS IS THE FORCE MAJOR.
                  (1) Then the foreign intelligence service, and related structures, and their interaction with each other are worthless. As a person from Donetsk, you probably remember the first coup attempt in 2004 ?! She was just softer. If specials did not know about the second one preparing for 2014. service to Russia ?! But if this information was neglected by those who build the fleet, the question is already another. But this force majeure - could not be unexpected! (2) What has been done in this regard? One site for the creation of a gas turbine engine at the facilities of NPO Saturn will break like PJSC "Zvezda" (currently with M 507-1 diesel engines, in the history of the Karakurt), but it will not provide all the needs for the rapid construction of the Navy. Not from the word "I don't want", but from the word "I can't physically." The capacities will not be enough, and the nomenclature (in terms of capacity is small, only three types of turbines). (3) New plants that would undertake the production of gas turbine engines in (sustainer 8000-12000 hp; or afterburner 18000-23000 hp), at least on the basis of those who had experience in repairing gas turbine engines, are being created, no? And it is necessary to create / develop at least two more such industries. And who is going to make new gearboxes for the ship's power plants - the falling asleep PJSC "Zvezda" ?? Diesel operators, at least, have a ghostly chance to try to "unload Zvezda" at the facilities of the Kingisepp plant (according to the technical documentation), and what will happen to GT Engines when Saturn, the only company in this area, is filled with orders. Until now, one plant !!! This is the way to the same rake through which the diesel engine industry painfully tries to step over, does not it seem? (4) not 20350, but still 22350.
                  Quote: bayard
                  I propose the topic: "Prospects of pr. 20350M as the main ship d \ m

                  They would now order / lay down / build 4-5 units of "spent" 22350 (and even then if Saturn does not overstrain and someone sets up the serial production of gearboxes), otherwise I will go on dreams / design / project approval for another 3-4 years / agreement / decision making on the beginning of the series and .....
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 5 January 2019 12: 10
                    0
                    Do you have a small assortment of gas turbines? After all, they just mastered them and have already delivered two sets (4 pcs.). So if in two years they will give out 4 sets for the project 22350 (sorry, I’ve scold it before), then the issue will be resolved for this topic.
                    They have already changed the owner at Zvezda and are putting things in order at an accelerated pace, expanding production. There will be a diesel engine for the Karakurt, and a gearbox. Everything should go rhythmically in a couple of years.
                    Now about "lonely Rybinsk" ... Before that there was "one Nikolaev" and somehow managed. It is better to develop one production facility to the required scale, increase capacity, improve science, train personnel, and establish cooperation. The concentration of all forces on one - the general direction - is the key to success in a planned economy (and where can the military-industrial complex go without a plan). And you need to think not about the breadth of the assortment, but about unification and optimization (in the good sense of the word). Why produce a wide range of gas turbines when their production is just getting started. The new Kolomna diesel engines will successfully take over the role of the engines of the economical running. They are cheaper, more economical and easier to maintain.
                    In general, I think that the Navy needs a "main" diesel frigate DMZ \ BMZ. With a displacement of 4000 - 4500 tons, made on 4 Kolomna diesel engines of 10 000 l / s. It will be much cheaper than turbines - both in production and in operation. In addition, a diesel engine is more economical, which means it is easier to achieve high autonomy (cruising range). 16 UVP in the arsenal of which must include missile-torpedoes "Caliber" ("Waterfall at the start on the floor of the ocean is audible) - up to 8 pieces, the best of the possible SAC ... Air defense to choose from tasks:" Polyment-Redut "," Barrier "or a pair of" Pantsyr-M "(linearly - on the bow and above / behind the hangar) ...
                    You can look at a positive example of the Chinese "Project-054". There, with a displacement of 3500 \ 3900 tons and a power of 4 diesel engines of 25320 l / s, the speed is max. - 29 knots and 3800 miles at 18 knots. This is their main horse in the far zone now. Having a power plant of 40 l / s with a displacement of 000 \ 4000 tons, we get a max. speed 4500 knots and range up to 30 miles. By varying air defense and weapons, we can get several modifications, including export ones.
                    The Chinese already offer us to supply up to 20 - 24 pieces. "pr. 054" and up to 4 UDC. But it's better to build your own. And 2 main types:
                    - 22350M - up to 24 units in 15 years.
                    - diesel frigates - 24 - 36 pcs in 15 years.
                    Corvettes and atomic destroyers do not build. The functions of the BV corvettes are assigned to frigates, possibly adapting weapons. The budget and capacities of nuclear destroyers will be transferred to the construction of 22350M.
                    To abandon the construction of corvettes because their cost is equal to that of the frigate, and the combat value is 2-3 times lower.
                    1. Nemchinov Vl
                      Nemchinov Vl 5 January 2019 13: 59
                      +1
                      Quote: bayard
                      Do you have a small assortment of gas turbines? After all, they just mastered them and already two sets (4 pcs.) Were transferred
                      For 4 years - 2 sets !! And these are just turbines! And with gearboxes it seems that will be even more difficult!
                      Quote: bayard
                      Now about "lonely Rybinsk" ... Before that there was "one Nikolaev" and somehow managed.
                      First, the capacities of Zorya-Mashproekt, under the USSR, were already many times larger than NPO Saturn. Secondly, if Nikolaev, at the peak of the shipbuilding program of the USSR, could cope with the needs of the fleet under construction, then on the EM 956, they would not invent how to "unload" it, and they would install not a boiler-turbine power plant, but with Nikolaev turbines! I draw your attention to the fact that this happened at the peak of the shipbuilding of the USSR Navy !!! One plant - the way to the same rake.
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 5 January 2019 14: 27
                        +1
                        4 years the plant has mastered the production of new products for itself - very difficult and very specific. Has mastered. Produced. Tested and passed on to industry. What is the problem ? Serial production will now begin. The star will pull up with a gear - there is a new leadership, new areas, new capacities. Year 2 and everything will go rhythmically. I don't see any technical difficulty with the gearbox. The major businessman from Zvezda picked up government orders, did not prepare production, did not invest in fixed assets ... Now he is not there - there is a different owner and a different management, money has been allocated for the modernization and expansion of production. The work is in full swing, the result will be.
                        "Zorya-Mashproekt" ... The Soviet Union was the first to switch to gas turbines ... and the fleet building program was simply grandiose. In terms of the tonnage of the ships built, we went head to head with the United States for 10-15 years, no less. How to keep up with such demand?
                        And an example of "dawns" to help us! Firstly, it is much more reasonable to have a single powerful production facility with its own scientific and testing base. In this capacity, Rybinsk will be the new Nikolaev. Secondly, do not overload the new production with an unnecessarily wide assortment - it is better to do something "one", but well, quickly and efficiently.
                        It is for this that the line of ships under construction should be reduced as much as possible - 2 main types of ships:
                        - One - 22350M - on four turbines, just like the glorious Soviet BOD.
                        - The second is the diesel frigate of 4000 \ 4500 tons that I offer. Displacement on 4 Kolomna diesel engines of 10 l / s each.

                        Build in large batches.
                        And no corvettes! Frigates will perform their functions better!
                        No atomic destroyers - this is a form of ruin. For the price of one such destroyer, an entire division (5-6 pcs.) 22350M can be built. And the operation will be cheaper. And easier. And build faster.
                      2. Nemchinov Vl
                        Nemchinov Vl 5 January 2019 21: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: bayard
                        The second is a diesel frigate of 4000 \ 4500 tons that I offer. Displacement on 4 Kolomna diesel engines of 10 l / s each.
                        but not yet. Well, if within a year and a half, there will be a couple of the first, ready for trial operation. 2-3 more years until they go into series ... While there are intentions and an idea, but this is not yet ready for mass production.
                      3. bayard
                        bayard 5 January 2019 22: 40
                        0
                        If you are about diesels, then they seem to be passed for testing. And before 2 - 3 years they will not be needed - there are no ready-made projects for them. No gears. Production \ cooperation is not prepared. And in 2 - 3 years they will come at the very time.
                        For now, apparently, they will finish building the Gorshkovs 6 + 2 and the laid corvettes ... If only these corvettes were the last. The frigate is much better balanced for these purposes. And it is universal at the same time.
                      4. Nemchinov Vl
                        Nemchinov Vl 5 January 2019 22: 45
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        While apparently they will finish building "Gorshkovy" 6 + 2
                        What exactly and where did I miss? "Gorshkovy" 6 + 2 ? share, please.
                      5. bayard
                        bayard 5 January 2019 23: 52
                        0
                        The head "Gorshkov" is in service, the second will be there this year, the next two are being completed - for them the Rybinsk turbines were transferred, two more were ordered (contract) before the new year, and two more intentions were announced.
                        Personally, I wouldn’t be against +3, to equip the division of the Black Sea Fleet frigates to 6 full units. They would be very useful for services in the Mediterranean Sea.
                        However, these +2 can be sent to the Pacific Fleet, we have it completely naked ...
      2. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 5 January 2019 09: 26
        0
        Dear Andrei, there are no 23550 in the table, in addition, 2 new 1241 are under construction, you also overlooked 2 units of 11661, as well as special boats Belgorod and Khabarovsk.
        Article +.
  • LeonidL
    LeonidL 3 January 2019 20: 51
    -3
    I think that the very message of confrontation with NATO is unrealistic and vicious. If this happens, God forbid, then the fleet will be the first victim and the first hostage. But the whole point is that now the confrontation is not ideological, but rather purely "capitalist" and in this regard for NATO, may it not seem strange to you, China is in the first place. It is China that is now the main economic and political challenge to the West, not Russia. Do not exaggerate the rhetoric of "sanctions", if you look closely and listen, for example, to Obama, then these are all blows to the Russian economy, but ... so weak, fly ... at best, protect yourself from competition in the arms markets. But the PRC is really a monster in the military field. But, in which direction this monster will trample in the event of an increase in internal contradictions in the country and the desire of the CPC leadership to relieve internal pressure with a "small victorious war" is a big question, similar to what Japan faced in 1941 ... Russia has a huge and poorly covered the border with the PRC, China has long-standing claims to Siberia to the Urals, to the Far East ... China stubbornly climbs into the Arctic, China has a powerful land army and a fleet that is already superior in all parameters to TF ... I think that these factors should be taken into account when building a fleet RF, and not a very dubious adventure of war with NATO.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 4 January 2019 00: 26
      +8
      Do not write nonsense. China has no territorial claims against Russia; they do not need these pieces of frozen land in Siberia and the Far East for nothing. China has a bunch of uninhabited lands with much better climatic conditions, such as Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang Uygur District, and Gansu and Qinghai Provinces. The Chinese are not fools to settle where even the Yakuts do not live, for example, the north of Heilujian is also practically not populated, although by Russian standards, the climate there is more or less.
      There is no need to repeat the liberals' ravings about the "Chinese threat." Pushing their heads against Russia and China is the sweet dream of the United States, just as the war between Germany and the USSR was once the sweetest dream of England, which happened on June 22, 1941 and thereby saved England from defeat.
      1. LeonidL
        LeonidL 4 January 2019 19: 54
        +4
        Nonsense, and categorically, you write, you just, good sir, do not possess information and know very little geography. I don’t think you have a military education, but for sure they did poorly in high school. You have a lot of ambitions, self-esteem is off the charts, but to call Siberia and the Far East "pieces of frozen land in Siberia and the Far East" a "heap of unpopulated lands with much better climatic conditions, such as Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang Uygur districts, and provinces Gansu and Qinghai ". It's just the incompetence of the narcissist. You have not been to those places and those "fertile (!)" And "empty (!)" Lands have not seen. Those that are empty there are absolutely not fertile, they are salted or in some places near Manzhurka they still keep permafrost. And you don't know about natural resources at all. In the Zaboikalye areas bordering the PRC, there are huge deposits of coal - Kharanor, and it is mined in an open way, Tin - tin, Sherlova Gora - a storehouse of rare earth and other metals, uranium, gold ... the forest is full of everything!
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 5 January 2019 02: 39
          -1
          Do not write nonsense!
          Quote: LeonidL
          Nonsense, and categorically, you write, you just, good sir, do not possess information and know very little geography. I don’t think you have a military education, but for sure they did poorly in high school. You have a lot of ambitions, self-esteem is off the charts, but to call Siberia and the Far East "pieces of frozen land in Siberia and the Far East" a "heap of unpopulated lands with much better climatic conditions, such as Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang Uygur districts, and provinces Gansu and Qinghai ". It's just the incompetence of the narcissist. You have not been to those places and those "fertile (!)" And "empty (!)" Lands have not seen. Those that are empty there are absolutely not fertile, they are salted or in some places near Manzhurka they still keep permafrost. And you don't know about natural resources at all. In the Zaboikalye areas bordering the PRC, there are huge deposits of coal - Kharanor, and it is mined in an open way, Tin - tin, Sherlova Gora - a storehouse of rare earth and other metals, uranium, gold ... the forest is full of everything!

          The entire Far East except Amur and Primorye, ALL is in the permafrost zone. Territories with permafrost are uncompetitive and it is economically unprofitable to develop them. Therefore, the Canadian North is almost deserted, 60 thousand people live in Canadian territory north of the 40th latitude, which occupies 100% of Canada, this is 0,3% of the population of Canada, and then almost all of them are Indians or Eskimos. You cannot drag a normal white or Chinese Canadian to the North with a lasso.
          1. LeonidL
            LeonidL 5 January 2019 06: 33
            +2
            It is useless to argue with you, you are simple or naive or poorly educated. Siberia is a breadbasket, a nurse ... "non-competitive"? Far East in the permafrost zone? Perhaps you are a relative of the Ukrainian general-geographer, nicknamed "North-South"!
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 5 January 2019 08: 43
              0
              Aha ha ha !!!! Write on! This is all pearl pearls!
              Siberia - breadbasket, nurse
              Well, yes, yes, also say that winter crops are grown in Siberia, and corn is growing. Actually, in Siberia only spring wheat is competitive, and then in the extreme south of Siberia - in the Altai Territory. Nowhere else in Siberia are mid-season, which means that productive wheat varieties do not grow. Early ripening varieties are much worse in quality and yield is less, and frosts in the middle of summer north of Altai Krai can beat the whole crop in the bud.
              Far East in the permafrost zone? Perhaps you are a relative of the Ukrainian general-geographer, nicknamed "North-South"!

              Here is a map of permafrost:

              As you can see, permafrost is widespread almost throughout the entire territory of the Far East, and only a narrow strip on the border with China is free from it. Do you know why it happened? Because the Chinese are farmers, and they did not settle where the permafrost was, because nothing grew there, and they could not feed themselves. So let's make people laugh about the "granary" and the "bread-winner" in Siberia, especially the Far East.
              1. LeonidL
                LeonidL 5 January 2019 19: 43
                -3
                You can, my dear, throw the Wikipedia pictures as much as you, dearest, think of it. You, Mr. good, have never been to Siberia, Transbaikalia and the Far East, and therefore your book stash of knowledge is absurd. For this I have the honor and ask you not to annoy me with my stupidities anymore. Arivederchi
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 6 January 2019 00: 36
                  -1
                  Well, stupidity blurted out and merged. You yourself were not in Siberia and the Far East, otherwise you would have known that nothing was growing there.
            2. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 5 January 2019 08: 48
              0
              Quote: LeonidL
              Far East in the permafrost zone?

              Let it be known to you that even the Gobi desert is located in the permafrost region. crying
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 3 January 2019 23: 10
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    number of navies of the ATS unit

    Disappearingly small value, in the calculations can be neglected. Unlike US allied fleets. The UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands and other NATO members together gave strength to the superior fleet of their boss.
  • Lamatinets
    Lamatinets 3 January 2019 07: 39
    +2
    Andrei, but do not tell me where (judging by the table) from the USSR Navy, for 1991 5 TAVKR and in Russia for 2016 4 ships of Project 1144?
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 3 January 2019 08: 26
      +7
      I’m not Andrey, but I’ll say it. If you count all the launched ships of the 1143 project and all that after the point, you get exactly 5 pieces: Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk, Baku and Riga aka Leonid Brezhnev, aka Tbilisi, aka Admiral Kuznetsov. And the Russian Federation formally, indeed, has 4 ships of the 1144 project: Kirov, Lazarev, Nakhimov, Peter. Another question is that only one of them is combat-ready at the moment, the second is under repair, the third is possible (I really hope it will be withdrawn from the reserve, after all, it was recently sold), but the fourth is awaiting write-off. The 1996 book is after all, but the trends shown in it are still relevant, at least in relation to the enemy fleet.
      1. Lamatinets
        Lamatinets 3 January 2019 08: 29
        -7
        Well, so be it, please also include the battleship Arkhangelsk in the table, (Former Royal Sovereign)
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri 3 January 2019 08: 33
          +8
          Ummm, and at the time of the collapse of the USSR, was he really a member? Have we not returned it? belay wassat
          1. Lamatinets
            Lamatinets 3 January 2019 08: 39
            -5
            in 1947 returned)))) but in the composition it was)))
            1. Dante Alighieri
              Dante Alighieri 3 January 2019 08: 47
              +7
              But to feel it, unlike Krechetov, was already impossible. Let's not play in childhood. Until the 93 of the year, all of these units were in the fleet and most of them were actively operated. And the fact that our government has so carelessly disposed of such an inheritance does not cancel this fact.
              1. Lamatinets
                Lamatinets 3 January 2019 08: 49
                -8
                Ok, we won’t))) The aircraft carriers were not exploited. Besides Kuznetsov
                1. Rakovor
                  Rakovor 3 January 2019 16: 32
                  +5
                  It’s better to look at the same Vicki how many combat Kiev did before writing nonsense. And Novorossiysk and Minsk did exactly one BS.
                  1. Lamatinets
                    Lamatinets 3 January 2019 17: 53
                    -11%
                    Dear, I read how many BS was where and how. . So moderate the ardor. And consider our Tavkr aircraft carriers with their Yak 38 and a helicopter group.
  • Operator
    Operator 3 January 2019 08: 30
    +10
    Nikolsky Vladislav Ivanovich, 1948 year of birth, captain 1 rank retired:

    - in 2008 he was sentenced to 1 year for publishing the book "What to do now (the minimum program for the Russian people)", in which, among other things, it was written: "First of all, for inner spiritual strengthening, it is necessary to read at least part of the book of A. Hitler "My struggle". It is in it that the ways of national revival and methods of struggle against foreigners are described ";

    - In 2014 he was sentenced to 8 years for treason in the form of transferring to Ukraine the Russian technical documentation for the Zubr landing craft.
    1. Lamatinets
      Lamatinets 3 January 2019 08: 50
      +2
      Mlyn, but from somewhere he took her in retirement !!! stole something up to a pensioner and kept under the pillow?
      1. Operator
        Operator 3 January 2019 09: 06
        +9
        Nikolsky received technical documentation for the "Zubr" from the employees of the Russian Navy archive on paper (10 thousand sheets), digitized it, put it in two of his e-mail boxes and gave the logins and passwords to the Ukrainian side.
        Judging by the longest term, Nikolsky headed the espionage group, received the order, went to the archive workers, processed and transmitted the information to the final recipient, received the full amount of the payment in 200 thousand dollars and paid off the accomplices.
        The technical documentation was exported to Russia in 1991 and was needed by Ukraine in 2012 to sell the rights to the production of "Bison" to China.
    2. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 3 January 2019 09: 06
      +8
      Do you want to say "And by their fruits, you will know them"? Let's be honest: according to the law (both in spirit and in letter), a good half of the government should be added to Vladislav Ivanovich - at least that was fair: for how much is one traitor sitting in prison and the other in a new square? Although the question gnaws at me, what such details could a captain of the 1st rank know, which the manufacturer does not know about? Or do you want to say that the Ukrainians, having owned a plant in Crimea for 20 years, only bothered to knock out the assets inherited after the USSR in 2014? They realized that something was missing, but the trouble was: the plant sailed with the Crimea and had to look for an unclean Moreman who was ready to fill the gaps that had arisen for a small bribe. And before that, apparently it prevented loyalty to the Soviet Motherland. However, let's leave this question.
      I don’t know about you, but sometimes I really do not have enough nationally-oriented scumbags in the decision-making system, if you look, the question of Ukraine was not at all. It’s scary, of course, but interesting. However, the national-patriotic elite has been formed in China, and everything seems to be normal with them, and all cosmopolitans are welcomed in our country.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 January 2019 11: 12
      +6
      Quote: Operator
      in 2008 year sentenced to 1 year for publishing a book

      And what? :)))) Manstein, Tippelskirch, Doenitz - all of them were not only Nazis, but also fought against our country. Does this somehow diminish the usefulness of their combat experience, or professional judgment?
      1. unBEARable
        unBEARable 3 January 2019 15: 51
        +2
        Still good sugars fit
      2. Lamatinets
        Lamatinets 3 January 2019 17: 54
        0
        The prosecutor’s office has a completely interesting and most important opinion that is different from common sense.
      3. LeonidL
        LeonidL 5 January 2019 06: 40
        +1
        The message that the enemy is exclusively NATO is wrong - yesterday's "enemy" can become tomorrow's ally and vice versa. An example from a recent history, well forgotten by non-specialists: After the campaign in Poland, such passions raged in the British parliament that there were proposals to fight the USSR ... Churchill hardly calmed the audience down with something like this, “it’s certainly not good that the USSR invaded Poland, but now the Germans and Russians are actually facing each other on two sides of the front. " During the "Winter War" England and France were preparing and the French even managed to put on ships an expeditionary force to help Manerheim, British bombers from the airfields of the Middle East were preparing to bomb the oil industry in Baku, and even a stroke - the USSR was kicked out of the League of Nations ... is it over? Tigeran and Yalta. Because who can be Russia's allies is a very big question. Most likely civilizationally close countries.
  • JD1979
    JD1979 3 January 2019 09: 00
    -2
    Quote: LeonidL
    Ambition must meet the requirements of ammunition.

    Come on! That is, if you have "ammunition" for a bum, then the ambition should be appropriate - to find a newer cardboard box and a more satisfying trash bin? Or is ammunition selected for the corresponding tasks (ambitions)?
  • svp67
    svp67 3 January 2019 09: 03
    -4
    A sad look into the future. Gloomy results

  • dzvero
    dzvero 3 January 2019 09: 08
    +5
    Review (and cycle) at a very high level. There are not many authors on VO whose work I read with pleasure.
    And now, having read the final part, I got the impression: 1) the Russian Navy should provide the naval components of the strategic nuclear forces; 2) The Russian Navy must successfully fight with an equal adversary in a conventional war (or conduct one or two operations like the Syrian). Enough for these tasks. In total nuclear warfare, the fleet has a supporting role and the cost of resources will be superfluous.
    In my opinion, this is the only way to explain the current policy of naval construction.
    Most likely I'm wrong, but this is where the 'curve' logic brought it out ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 January 2019 11: 16
      +7
      Quote: dzvero
      Review (and cycle) at a very high level. There are not many authors on VO whose work I read with pleasure.

      Thank you! hi
      Quote: dzvero
      Enough for these tasks.

      Alas, we do not ensure the security of strategic nuclear forces
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 3 January 2019 20: 35
        -3
        Do you know how the security of strategic nuclear forces is ensured?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 January 2019 05: 45
          +4
          Quote: Vadim237
          Do you know how the security of strategic nuclear forces is ensured?

          Of course
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 3 January 2019 09: 15
    -1
    surface ships do not need to lay anything new until 2030 (even karakurt), otherwise you get an oversupply, all efforts should be directed to increasing the quantity and quality of submarines, minesweepers, aviation, and coastal forces. And then to count and possibly continue a series of karakurt and pot, KFOR and MDK.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 3 January 2019 14: 38
      +2
      I agree, now, IMHO, while the confusion and reeling, it is necessary to invest in the design and development of weapons and mechanisms, shipbuilding and ship repair enterprises, repair and modernization of existing forces, basing, aviation, auxiliary vessels and minesweepers, as well as in those ships that are already it is exactly clear what they should be and which will not become obsolete when changing the next doctrine (such as UDC or SSBN). And then, when it becomes clear what to build, where to build the base, how to deploy and supply it, to make new ships, just the ones you need, and not like now.
    3. Sergey M. Karasev
      Sergey M. Karasev 6 January 2019 17: 16
      0
      And then to count and possibly continue a series of karakurt and pot, KFOR and MDK.

      Get outdated. You have to lay completely different series of surface, and much larger. Until 2030 we will have to write off a lot of the available surface.
  • shalkir
    shalkir 3 January 2019 12: 36
    -5
    2 ships of project 18280 are not indicated in the article. Their combat potential cannot be underestimated! Under the conditions of modern LDPs, not everything is always measured by the number of shooters and flying on board, but also by other possibilities. Well, as always, the article is a complete panic! Do not forget how much more they cost on the stocks of practically finished ships of various designs and waiting for their power plants. Hopefully the newly developed GT engine will go into production soon. And diesel manufacturers are moving faster. Then the situation will change
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 3 January 2019 12: 56
    +3
    Yes, a sad article. But the facts are facts. Everything seems to be right. Of the cruisers of Project 1164, did you write off the "Moscow" by 2030? But it seems to me that the naval commanders and the rulers are smart enough to carry out at least an HTG and keep this ship in service. Was "Dmitry Donskoy" written off? In my opinion, he recently flashed in the news. Did you go to the exercises, or am I wrong? And the table is missing two large missile boats under construction project 1241.8. By 2030 they will be in the fleet.
    1. shalkir
      shalkir 3 January 2019 13: 09
      -2
      And 22350 frigates by 30 should be 8 pieces. Even factory building numbers have already been assigned
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        3 January 2019 13: 31
        +4
        Quote: shalkir
        And 22350 frigates by 30 should be 8 pieces. Even factory building numbers have already been assigned

        No, not assigned. They are not even contracted for today.
        1. shalkir
          shalkir 3 January 2019 13: 56
          -2
          Only 2 out of 8 are not contracted. But this is a matter of less than one year. But numbers have been assigned and even 3 of them have already been assigned names. This is in addition to Kasatonov, which is already preparing for the surrender of the fleet.
          Yes! And what about 4 ships of Project 18280, 2 of which are already in service? Also "mia kulpa"?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            3 January 2019 14: 45
            +6
            Quote: shalkir
            Only 2 of 8 are not contracted.

            Not contracted 4 from 8. Only those that are currently under construction are contracted. You generally at least occasionally glance at the sources from which you draw such information. I can even tell you - this is about 2012 g, when 6 ships were actually contracted. Only then the series was then rolled up to 4
            Quote: shalkir
            Yes! And what about 4 ships of Project 18280, 2 of which are already in service? Also "mia kulpa"?

            18280 has nothing to do with it, because these are reconnaissance ships, auxiliary fleet. I, on the other hand, do not consider American ships from the Surtass system (or whatever it is in Russian transcription), as well as all kinds of staff type blue ridge. Although the latter, in fact, are considered combat
            1. shalkir
              shalkir 3 January 2019 14: 51
              -2
              I understood you. I don't have to argue with you. My sources are also quite verified. Perhaps I summarized and did not break it into 2 different 22350s, without indicating additionally the letter "M" in the project. And at the expense of reconnaissance ships, I do not agree with you at all
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                3 January 2019 17: 08
                +2
                Quote: shalkir
                My sources are also quite verified. Perhaps I generalized and did not break it into 2 different 22350s, without indicating additionally the letter "M" in the project.

                It is impossible, since there is not even a project for these ships - it is POSSIBLE, if the sources do not deceive, a contract for its development is concluded. Of course, now there can be no contract for construction
                Quote: shalkir
                And about the reconnaissance of ships, I’m not agreeing with you at all

                Yes, you do not agree with everything else :)))) But the fact is that reconnaissance ships are completely different, this is a means of reconnaissance primarily in peacetime, although they can also act in wartime undercover. But this, I repeat, is fundamentally no different from specialized American ships designed to deploy mobile components of the enemy submarine tracking system (apparently our 18280s are more in communication and RTR), and I do not have to list them among the combat ones
                1. shalkir
                  shalkir 3 January 2019 23: 07
                  -2
                  It's strange. You yourself indicated in the table in the aggregate 22350 and 22350M 6. I did not immediately pay attention to this and therefore talked about 6 + 2 not contracted. Therefore, the numbers agree with you. Anyway. As for the reconnaissance ships, I fundamentally disagree with you, especially: "in principle, it is no different from specialized American ships designed to deploy mobile components of the enemy submarine tracking system." I emphasize that the combat capabilities of our reconnaissance ships cannot be ignored.
                2. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 3 January 2019 23: 18
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  reconnaissance ships - this is completely different, this is a means of reconnaissance primarily in peacetime

                  Eh, in "their" sources "a peaceful Soviet trawler" who came to fish near Shemya Island just at the time of RC-135 flights - this is a legendary phenomenon. Almost more significant than the 5th opesk. The history of these trawlers is just a dark hole in our maritime history, it's a pity there is no research about them, and there, apparently, tons of material.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 January 2019 13: 34
      +10
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Did you write off "Moscow" by 2030?

      Alas, yes.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      But it seems to me that the naval commanders and the rulers will be smart enough to carry out at least a VTG and keep this ship in service

      They will do it, but in the Crimea, and there it is with a probability of 90% that will turn out to be universal long-term construction, from which the ship most likely will not leave - it is not young.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Was "Dmitry Donskoy" written off?

      Dmitry today is nothing more than an experimental ship with one operational rocket mine.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      And the table also lacks two large missile boats of the 1241.8 project under construction.

      Mia Kulpa. Slap it. Thank!
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 3 January 2019 20: 40
        -3
        And what are you special submarines do not consider them 2 pieces - on the basis of Squid and Antei and apparently, they also have the same strategic and not only nuclear weapons.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          4 January 2019 08: 04
          +5
          Quote: Vadim237
          And what are you special submarines do not consider them 2 pieces

          in fact, there are not two, but even more. But this is the department of the GUGI, that is, by and large, these are non-military means. About the terrible Poseidons on them ... let's say, the data are not confirmed. And from the TTX of the torpedoes themselves, it is completely unclear why they still need some kind of boat
  • Sailor
    Sailor 3 January 2019 13: 44
    +4
    A good and objective article, and to our great regret, optimistic data are provided that with what approach to business we are building a fleet, we will practically not have it by 2030, and we will practically remain with the state of affairs as it is now in Ukraine (of course, differentiated from the state of the current Navy). And we owe this state of affairs to our Government and of course to the "Guarantor" of our safety.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 January 2019 20: 41
      -4
      Maybe we will live to see 2030, then we will see - but for now this is fortunetelling on coffee grounds.
  • Arthur 85
    Arthur 85 3 January 2019 14: 51
    +2
    That's all about the fleet I think, to strengthen the country's defenses, so to speak. Dear Andrey from Chelyabinsk, has repeatedly expressed in his articles the idea that the main task of the Fleet is to cover the areas of deployment of the SSBN, and that we do not have enough forces for this. Other authors also expressed thoughts about the creation of several fighter regiments in the north, that boats in general can shoot from the pier, and others.
    Without entering into the discussion, what is better - an aircraft carrier, or a fighter division on the ground, I wondered if it would be possible, in principle, to eliminate the effect of foreign MAPLs on our cruisers and minimize the effects of anti-submarine aircraft. And I realized that it is possible.
    Caspian Sea. Judging by the depth map, there are two regions that are deep enough and extended for the actions of SSBNs, one, however, near Iran, but this is a friendly state.
    Los Angeles will not get there in principle, but I hope that our aerospace forces are capable of protecting a relatively small area from the actions of NATO aviation from Turkey, the Persian Gulf or Afghanistan.
    Here, of course, there are objections. Firstly, this probably violates a bunch of agreements. Well, see the Monroe Doctrine, and how NATO generally treats international law.
    The second one. It will be necessary to build a plant Boreev in Astrakhan. Yes, expensive. But, hand on heart - this is what we can and can build. Fantasies about aircraft carriers, destroyers The leader, et tseter, will remain fantasies for many more years, and it is necessary to ensure the safety of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces now.
    1. Avior
      Avior 3 January 2019 17: 34
      +3
      the whole advantage of nuclear submarines is that they can launch missiles directly from under the enemy’s shore, with minimal flying time.
      and the Caspian Sea is not suitable for this.
      1. Arthur 85
        Arthur 85 3 January 2019 18: 24
        +5
        No, that was forty years ago. Now the dignity of nuclear submarines is that, being secretly in the ocean (sea), they can survive after a "disarming" strike inflicted by the enemy, both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, and in turn strike retaliation. The problem now, as far as I was able to understand, is that most of the time our boats stay at the piers, the location of which is known to the enemy, and if something happens, they may not have time to go out to sea. the enemy will mine the water area, send PLO aircraft, etc. The flight time, as far as I can judge, will be approximately the same, since from the Gulf of Mexico the SLBM will fly along such a "candle", overcoming the same 10-15 thousand km, but only upwards.
        1. Avior
          Avior 3 January 2019 18: 26
          0
          they will stand in any sea at the pier
          1. Arthur 85
            Arthur 85 3 January 2019 18: 43
            0
            Why, Americans are constantly at sea, are we worse?
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 3 January 2019 20: 09
              +2
              They have where to repair and money for repairs.
              1. Arthur 85
                Arthur 85 3 January 2019 20: 25
                +1
                As for where to repair, you can’t argue, but the money ... With a gold and foreign currency reserve of half a trillion bucks, talking about a lack of funding for the fleet or something else is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Considering that when the dollar breaks (and it does), 80% of this amount will turn into dust, but the ships built will remain.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 3 January 2019 22: 19
                  +1
                  Americans also do not have everything and not always at sea, and there are a lot of repairs.
                  as far as I know, they just have a ratio of time on duty to time in the database is much higher
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 4 January 2019 00: 59
                    +1
                    The trouble is that they have a lot of repairs, and we have - in line for repairs.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 4 January 2019 01: 49
                      +1
                      not without it
                      it's called like that
                      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Коэффициент_оперативного_напряжения
        2. anzar
          anzar 4 January 2019 22: 38
          -1
          quote Arthur 85 (Andrey) Now the dignity of nuclear submarines is that while covertly in the ocean (sea) they can survive after a "disarming" strike inflicted by the enemy with both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, and in turn deliver a retaliatory strike.

          Absolutely right. I have long been tired of this balagan with "covering the areas of SSBN deployment". What is the point of talking about the destroyers and the fleet, if even the exit from the gulf, right on its shore, cannot be secured?
          But the Caspian is too shallow. I have already suggested (as a joke, but in fact it is real) to make several "mobile underwater arsenals" from 24-30 mines in ... Baikal! No one will get there)) Deep and spacious enough.
          Not atomic, but purely electric - ecology is the same, and they don’t need speed (drift for months), the crew is minimal (we change it with a boat once a month)), even an expensive inertial navigator. no system needed (enough coastal landmarks). Very cheap and angrily))
          They can even be put on land missiles and bullets after surfacing ... These are the mines with previously unknown coordinates ... bully
          1. Arthur 85
            Arthur 85 4 January 2019 22: 59
            0
            Believe it or not, I thought about Baikal, but it is small, you can literally "boil" it with a massive blow from several Ohio, and the Caspian Sea gives us the South Caspian depression somewhere 180 * 300 km, and a depth of 300-700 m. More than enough for a boat with any draft ... And yes, I got excited about the Boreys, it should (maybe) be a cheaper and simpler boat, maybe with fewer mines, noisier, etc.
            1. anzar
              anzar 5 January 2019 00: 04
              +1
              ..it should (maybe) be a cheaper and simpler boat ... noisier ...

              Why nuclear? With the intercontinental range of missiles, even on the SF it is possible with diesel engines)))
              The paradox is that in the 60s, when the missile ranges were small, drifted in Sargasovoye on diesels, and when it is already possible to bring Boreev from the super-quiet (and super-expensive) pier! Which (according to Andrei) generally do not have time to get out of the fjord ((
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 3 January 2019 20: 45
        -2
        But what's the difference where to let it go - launched the ICBMs and both are already 100% dead, with a delay of 20-30 minutes.
        1. Avior
          Avior 3 January 2019 22: 20
          -1
          if there is an opportunity to suddenly strike, the chances of success are sharply increased
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 4 January 2019 18: 20
            -4
            Fortunately for us, it’s already impossible to hit us suddenly.
    2. shalkir
      shalkir 3 January 2019 23: 16
      -2
      Your thoughts are wonderful, but Boreas can be built in the tundra. But they will still remain unowned there. How to get them out of the Volga-Caspian or even the Azov-Black Sea basin? They are not even close to these waters in all respects.
      1. Avior
        Avior 4 January 2019 01: 03
        +1
        The first question is how to drag them in there? lol
        1. Arthur 85
          Arthur 85 4 January 2019 06: 02
          0
          To drag - a plant in Astrakhan.
      2. Arthur 85
        Arthur 85 4 January 2019 05: 59
        +1
        But why pull them out? This is a boat made for one salvo. Her task: the first to survive under the enemy salvo (we will not shoot first, we are good). For this, she is a submarine, in order to hide behind her stealth and a layer of water. (how Barguzin is hiding behind his resemblance to a simple train, and the length of our railways) The second is to shoot, not being in the process of preparation, torpedoed by Los Angeles / Poseidon. American boats are on duty in a square 200 * 200 miles with a working depth of 200 meters. The Caspian even gives two such squares. After the salvo, the boats are thrown aground, the crew moves on to the life of a robinson ... I don’t know how else to explain.
        1. shalkir
          shalkir 4 January 2019 08: 22
          -1
          This whole theory is true, but what are you talking about? How to place the SSBNs in a puddle, especially underwater? Do you even understand what kind of sediment they have? How to approach the base to load ammunition and service the reactor? And what kind of Los Angeles / Poseidon are we talking about in our shallow inland waters? That ours, that Amerov’s nuclear submarines cannot even enter the Black Sea. For this, there are classes like Varshavyanka
    3. Sergey M. Karasev
      Sergey M. Karasev 6 January 2019 17: 27
      0
      [quoteCaspian Sea. Judging by the depth map, there are two areas that are deep enough and extended for the actions of SSBNs, one, however, near Iran, but this is a friendly state.] [/ Quote]
      An original and bold idea! wink There are good advantages. For example, Does anyone imagine an American PLO in the Caspian?
      1. Arthur 85
        Arthur 85 10 January 2019 08: 22
        0
        Well, at least two people here do not think only in established categories, that's good smile Maybe someone is reading it, on whom something depends ... But I still have ideas. Nobody knows a good study on the tests of RCC (armored action, detonation at the side)?
        1. Sergey M. Karasev
          Sergey M. Karasev 10 January 2019 11: 46
          0
          Look: A. Shirokorad "The Fiery Sword of the Russian Navy". There is a lot of detail about the tests of anti-ship missiles, but mainly about the old ones, 50-60.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • faiver
    faiver 3 January 2019 16: 21
    +1
    The author, as always, did not disappoint, high-quality reading hi
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 3 January 2019 16: 51
    +2
    and also sad about the icebreakers why not written
  • demiurg
    demiurg 3 January 2019 17: 10
    +1
    The authors have Wishlist just boyars. 500 planes and 36 MAPL and other small things. A person must be fastened with a strong strap with such manners that it does not crack when it does not see four aircraft carriers.
    There are problems that need to be addressed even now. Aircraft DRLO for an aircraft carrier (the army also needs it, the series will be quite decent), minesweepers, frigates, possibly landing ships and supply ships.
    No more ashes to build, as well as Boreev: there is nowhere and nothing. About aircraft carriers it is better not to remember. Frigates? if the issue with the turbines is decided, then drive the 22350 series without any M, replace them with corvettes where possible. NAPL to build Lada (it is possible to remove Dollezhal's egg from under the cloth, providing for its installation on new submarines).
    This is the most realistic forecast for the next 5-7 years.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      3 January 2019 18: 38
      +4
      Quote: demiurg
      The authors have Wishlist just boyars.

      I agree. But there is a nuance - this is a good reminder of what kind of fleet could actually solve the tasks of defending the country from NATO forces. And then, you know, there have been a lot of people lately who are firmly convinced that a heel of "Ash" and a dozen of "Karakurt" will wipe NATO off the face of the earth.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 January 2019 20: 46
      -4
      The army also needs it - And 100 of it to help.
  • Avior
    Avior 3 January 2019 17: 25
    +2
    in my opinion, the ideas of Kuzin-Nikolsky made sense for the year 1991 maximum.
    then the situation changed dramatically and the reflection of a mass attack by non-nuclear forces on the coast of Russia should simply be excluded from the tasks of the fleet because of complete senselessness.
    The USSR was a self-sufficient state to a very high degree, and it was possible to fight with it effectively only by direct combat operations.
    But Russia is not the USSR, Russia is largely a participant in global processes, including economic ones, and it is not she who sets the tone in such processes.
    However, it depends on these processes.
    Therefore, to believe that the United States will suddenly launch a massive non-nuclear attack on Murmansk is not even an alternative fantasy, it is generally absurd.
    The states and the West, if they decide to allocate resources for the war with Russia, will initially use the economic component and add the military-political component to it, and will not bring the conflict to a global nuclear war, so that the missiles will remain out of work.
    They will impose sanctions on their own, they will agree with large potential partners of Russia such as India or China with the stick and carrot methods, they will squeeze smaller partners by military means, and it is not at all necessary for the States to do this, on the contrary, the States will avoid direct conflict, they will impose a blockade on Russian ships and ships on distant borders, outside the coastal aviation of the Russian Federation, ships will be arrested in ports, Russian ships will get bogged down in small skirmishes not with the States at all, but with their allies, the scale of which obviously will not bring to a nuclear con flikta- and the States will stand behind them.
    That is, they will impose a real political, economic and military blockade, and not the child’s one that is now.
    And under these conditions, the fleet’s ability, with the help of expeditionary forces, to keep the conflict in the far seas not against the States, but against their much smaller allies, will be most important in order to prevent complete isolation.
    1. Newone
      Newone 3 January 2019 21: 03
      0
      If you have not noticed, the USA and satellite, including France, ALREADY imposed an economic blockade against us. Just blocking a country supplying you a significant portion of the resources is very painful. And there is ALREADY an alternative market. Therefore, it is impossible to rule out a NATO attack on Russia, given the propaganda of Russia's military weakness and the instability of the West’s elites to their own propaganda.
      1. Avior
        Avior 3 January 2019 21: 56
        +1
        it’s a children's blockade, so that it’s not at a loss.
        if it’s an adult business, and funds are allocated for it, then these resources will be easily replaced, not so big there will be an overpayment.
        all the more so, the States will make a discount on gas; it’s all easier and cheaper than nuclear war.
        Alternative markets will be cut by pressure and benefits of some kind, and the same China, formally not joining the sanctions, and repeating at every step that the West does not give him a decree, will actually implement them. And the West is putting on a way to compensate China for the loss slightly.
        1. Newone
          Newone 3 January 2019 22: 31
          -1
          This is exactly the kind of blockade that the US and satellite can afford.
          "then these resources can easily be replaced by" What? If they could, they would have replaced it long ago.
          "Anyway, it's simpler and cheaper than a nuclear war." Well, here you are, for example, Cherry Nine, a number of Jewish non-comrades think that the Russian Federation has no army and navy, and AEGIS is capable of shooting down intercontinental ballistic missiles. If such an opinion takes root in the elites of the United States and satellites (and this, unfortunately, occurs and symptoms on the surface), war is inevitable.
          1. Avior
            Avior 4 January 2019 01: 08
            -2
            this is a blockade for which resources are not a pity.
            imagine now the blockade, which for the States will be an alternative to nuclear war, how much money they will not spare for it?
            Well, here you are, for example, Cherry Nine, a number of Jewish friends do not think that the Russian Federation has no army and navy, and AEGIS is capable of shooting down intercontinental ballistic missiles.

            never wrote this.
            why would it be "rooted" in the US elites?
            on the contrary, while there is a risk that Russian missiles will reach the territory of the USA or the West, there will be no direct military attack, which I wrote about.
            And deliveries of Russian gas will easily replace liquefied American gas; the United States is dreaming about it.
            It is a little more expensive, but instead of war, Europe will make a discount.
  • Viknt
    Viknt 3 January 2019 17: 40
    -2
    The other day I looked at astrological forecasts, and on the eve of the forecasts of financiers, their barometers foreshadow a storm in the first half of the twenties. The US has such a public debt that it is almost impossible to repay it, and judging by the rate of its growth there, they not only understand this, but are not going to. According to the same forecasts, the Rothschilds are cloudless. Be that as it may, a little earlier or a little later, and the financial bubble will burst and, at least for several years, construction programs will be covered with a copper basin. As a maximum, the USA will follow the path of the USSR. One way or another, but you can expect the next adjustments and circumcisions.
    The problem is also that Russia is several generations behind, for example, in electronics, technology and much more. Ship equipment becomes obsolete before they can be built, especially at our pace. The series does not work out. But for those involved, this truth in their heads and projects does not find a place for themselves. Since the pace in electronics and the construction of hulls do not coincide somewhat, they should be separated, at least like flies from cutlets, and go from a series of ships to a series of hulls separately, and a series of rigs separately, according to the modular principle.
    As a critique, it can be noted that a simple extrapolation of shipbuilding is assumed. Which, one may suppose, is actually not so. What and how will change in shipbuilding would be interesting to know. Americans are now withdrawing from all treaties. And they threaten the militarization of space. How it turns out they can ultimately be imagined from their history, for example, with ISIS. As they say, for which they fought, they ran into something. Space may well turn out to be Chinese. Kinetic crowbars from reinforcement, and kirdyk to all fleets will be hung in space.
    1. Sergey M. Karasev
      Sergey M. Karasev 6 January 2019 17: 49
      0
      The other day I looked at astrological forecasts

      Yeah ... a reliable predictive source.
      [quotea on the eve of the forecasts of financiers] [/ quote]
      It’s not a fountain either, from the beginning of the XNUMXs the dollar’s ​​drop is croaking just about the other day.
      Since the pace in electronics and the construction of hulls do not coincide somewhat, they should be separated, at least like flies from cutlets, and go from a series of ships to a series of hulls separately, and a series of rigs separately, according to the modular principle.

      The other day here at VO I read an article about the modular principle in shipbuilding. The main idea is that no one received from the modularity of all the expected pluses, more minuses. He does not justify himself. It’s easier to upgrade electronics directly on the stocks, in the process of completion, to make changes to the project during construction.
      1. Viknt
        Viknt 6 January 2019 20: 56
        +1
        According to the statements of our authorities, everything is fine, everything is fine. But according to a certain Khazin, inflation is 15%. Moreover, if you look at the years, so over ten years, then it seems that the year is the same. This is our payment for "effective management" from redheads according to Western methods. If you compare the dollar now with the dollar a few decades ago, the difference does not seem small either. The technique is the same. Relatively honest taking away money. If you are interested and understand, then you know that a terrible thing happened in the American economy in 2008, the state gave up its principles and socialized the largest US corporations, however, if this makes it easier for you, temporarily. Again, Khazin consoled that the crisis of 2008 did not end, he was temporarily confused, the dollar is still on that, but not a single problem in the US economy has not only not been resolved, on the contrary, it is getting worse every day at an increasing pace. The specter of communism is materializing in the United States, which dawned on the presidential elections. And so on. Modularity in the German and Dutch understanding and version has proven its right to exist. The existing "experience" of our craftsmen cannot be recognized as advanced even if desired. Everywhere in mechanical engineering there are universal platforms, large-block assemblies, etc. In electronics, the processes are similar, block system, free architecture, etc.
        1. Sergey M. Karasev
          Sergey M. Karasev 7 January 2019 01: 38
          0
          Well, in that article, it was about Danish and American modular ships. They turned out to be larger and more expensive than they could. And the modules, in fact, have not changed since the construction itself. True, there was talked about large-sized modules (weapons and special equipment) i.e. did not change, say, air defense systems modules for artillery or diving. With electronics, especially the same purpose, it should be easier.
          And, about the dollar and the US economy ... Let's see, see ... It has been predicted for too long, but things are still there.
          1. Viknt
            Viknt 7 January 2019 17: 12
            0
            The United States is the largest power, and people who have crushed the finances of the planet are not very stupid and just like that they will not give up. As we observe, they are very flexible and quirky, and by and large they still have no competitors, so they still do not die. While they are indispensable to die, they will be interfered with by our own capitalist ministers, where would they be without Sam’s daddy. Throw half a trillion to keep cowards striped. In an extreme case, they will still print money, their price will certainly not be the same, but for them a cent is less, a cent more for paint and paper does not matter, and the whole world will lose trillions on this. Few people like this and the United States has problems with the coin.
  • rayruav
    rayruav 3 January 2019 17: 49
    0
    we need two new branches ash and borey and drive these successful projects into life with all the proletarian hatred, otherwise we will not see good luck
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 3 January 2019 19: 55
      +1
      Quote: rayruav
      we need two new branches ash and borey and drive these successful projects into life with all the proletarian hatred, otherwise we will not see good luck

      The price and construction time of one "Ash" does not seem to hint to you that even 4 such boats are much less than 7-10 PL 971-M, and the possibilities of their operational-tactical use are completely different ?!
  • Stalevar79
    Stalevar79 3 January 2019 20: 01
    -2
    Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Sad outcome


    Don't panic - watch Putin's cartoons. There, a rocket "vzhuuu - vzhuuu" flies in the atmosphere with the first cosmic speed. With such a miracle weapon, the fleet is unnecessary.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 January 2019 20: 50
      -3
      If they make a system for detecting and targeting offshore facilities for the Vanguard - why not, 20 minutes and the AOG are destroyed - anywhere in the world.
    2. Newone
      Newone 3 January 2019 20: 56
      0
      A pitch-controlled rocket SUDDENLY can fly at least with a second space velocity around the Earth.
      1. Avior
        Avior 3 January 2019 22: 00
        +2
        can not. How? she will leave the orbit on a parabola when she reaches the second space. Still add, go to hyperbole.
        in order to return to elliptical orbit, the speed must be reduced
        1. Newone
          Newone 3 January 2019 23: 58
          0
          Did it ever occur to you that the thrust vector can be directed in such a way as to compensate for the centrifugal force?
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 4 January 2019 01: 02
            +1
            No. And not only because you can’t get enough fuel for such a mode of operation.
          2. Avior
            Avior 4 January 2019 01: 14
            +1
            By definition, a centrifugal force is an inertia force (that is, in the general case, part of the total inertia force) in a non-inertial reference frame that does not depend on the speed of a material point in this reference frame, and also does not depend on the accelerations (linear or angular) of this reference systems relative to the inertial reference system.

            you better look here
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Центростремительное_ускорение
            compensate it with a thrust vector - and the speed will decrease hi
  • Corn
    Corn 3 January 2019 20: 25
    +1
    In short, project 22160 is practically not applicable in the conflict of any significant intensity

    Why did you and Timokhin take it on him, do black PR in the interests of competitors ???
    A normal patrol ship, there is a GAS, radar, electronic warfare, a helipad with a hangar, a boat, bomb-throwers, "shell", anti-ship missiles, one universal module can be placed at the customer's choice.
    WHAT DO YOU NEED?
    IMHO, a successful and modern ship, it is not for nothing that such a class is insanely popular in the world.
    1. Newone
      Newone 3 January 2019 20: 50
      0
      Because if we take into account the potential capabilities of this ship, then the "sadness" of the picture of the world created by the author will decrease somewhat and the psychological effect created on the readers will not be achieved.
      1. shalkir
        shalkir 3 January 2019 23: 23
        -5
        I absolutely agree with you! The author needs to excite the reading public with panic, and then pick up foams from this and indicate his exceptional competence
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 January 2019 20: 52
      +1
      And most importantly small and cheap.
    3. Avior
      Avior 3 January 2019 22: 02
      0
      for the near sea, the Navy does not need it, but for the distant, it is too small.
      and nothing can be put on it, because there are no modules in nature.
      1. Corn
        Corn 3 January 2019 22: 21
        +2
        Quote: Avior
        for the near sea he does not need the Navy

        And who will carry out continuous anti-submarine defense and patrolling (that is, two key, cornerstone tasks of absolutely any fleet from which you need to dance), your mega-cruisers with supercarriers? - No, this is the main task of such ships of the "corvette" type.
        Quote: Avior
        unsuitable for far
        "Small, but smart." Can I accompany the military transports to some Syria? - maybe. Can you chase pirates in the Gulf of Aden and the Sea of ​​Azov? - maybe. Can it carry out search and rescue operations at sea? - maybe. And more is not required of him.
        Quote: Avior
        nothing can be put on him

        In fact, all of the above is either already standing, or a place is reserved for it.
        1. Avior
          Avior 3 January 2019 22: 32
          0
          it is not a corvette and not an IPC; it is a patrol ship.
          the functions that he could perform in the coastal zone are performed not by the Navy, but by the border guards.
          But for the Gulf of Aden and the far sea in general, it is not seaworthy, and Timokhin talked about that.
          1. Corn
            Corn 3 January 2019 22: 59
            +2
            Call it what you want, according to its displacement, equipment, tasks, this is a real, classic corvette.
            I really wonder how you think border guards should carry out anti-submarine, anti-sabotage defense, please enlighten.
            Quote: Avior
            But for the Gulf of Aden and the far sea in general, it is not seaworthy

            Apparently, this is precisely why, in practice, in the Gulf of Aden, ships of a similar class and displacement are mainly engaged in the fight against piracy.
            Citizen Timokhin may be a noble and respected seaman, but this person is obviously a hello from the past, completely does not take into account scientific and technological progress, modern threats and tasks of the fleet, the country's capabilities.
            1. Avior
              Avior 3 January 2019 23: 15
              0
              well yes .
              Undaunted and Yaroslav the Wise - they are of the same class.
              Countries participating in operations against pirates
              The Navy of the Russian Federation in the region at different times was represented by the following ships:

              BOD Admiral Levchenko
              BOD Admiral Chabanenko
              BOD Admiral Vinogradov [110]
              BDK "Azov" [111]
              BDK "Yamal" [111]
              TFR Undaunted [112] [113]
              BCP "Admiral Panteleev"
              BOD "Marshal Shaposhnikov"
              MB-37
              SB-36 [114]

              ...
              or here’s the first operation with pirates- Operation “Allied Provider”
              “Durand de la Pene” (flagship, destroyer D560 of the Italian Navy);
              “Themistoclis” (frigate F465 of the Greek Navy) (Greek)
              "Cumberland" (frigate F85 of the British Navy) (English) Russian ..


              here, look what was there and what class
              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сомалийские_пираты#Военное_присутствие_в_регионе

              .......
              And with the Guinean pirates, to build a new series of ships?
              1. Corn
                Corn 3 January 2019 23: 34
                +1
                Why didn’t they copy the whole list? Probably, nuclear carriers and submarines proved to be especially useful in the fight against Somali irats wassat
                Flagships from all over the world are being driven to the exercises in the Gulf of Aden, but in fact, if not a YouTube video about the war against pirates, the trough of the corvette dimension always appears.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 3 January 2019 23: 53
                  0
                  Give links to another list, where some corvettes, I read.
                  in the meantime, I see only frigates and destroyers.
                  for a patrol ship, the use of a helicopter is a prime necessity.
                  and how much fuel is there on the corvette? for one refueling?
                2. Avior
                  Avior 4 January 2019 00: 28
                  0
                  found here the corvette on the video. judging by the name, Bandera laughing
            2. Avior
              Avior 3 January 2019 23: 22
              +1

              Call it what you want, according to its displacement, equipment, tasks, this is a real, classic corvette.

              in terms of equipment, weapons and missions, this is a patrol ship of the far sea.
              but on displacement and seaworthiness, no.
              that was what it was about.
              1. domnich
                domnich 5 January 2019 21: 52
                0
                Quote: Avior
                in terms of equipment, weapons and missions, this is a patrol ship of the far sea.


                I completely agree with you!

                Quote: Avior
                but on displacement and seaworthiness, no.


                And here you are mistaken. 1500 tons - displacement quite suitable for ocean swimming. I had to command the ships of the VI 1200-1500 t - no problems up to 8 points. Well, 9 points - this is a personal misfortune for any ship. But, as you know, the 4 jack is not laid, and shelter points are always provided, deviations from cyclones are practiced.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 6 January 2019 00: 06
                  0
                  it is necessary not only to withstand the storm, but also to carry out tasks for a long time with relative comfort for the team and those on board.
                  I specifically provided below the links which ships fought with the pirates.
                  no corvettes.
            3. Alex_59
              Alex_59 3 January 2019 23: 50
              +2
              Quote: Corn
              Citizen Timokhin may be a noble and respected seaman, but this person is clearly a hello from the past, completely does not take into account scientific and technological progress

              And what, from the time of the creation of active stabilizers of pitching, any new physical laws have been discovered? Is the boat in the ocean less thrashing now?
              1. Avior
                Avior 4 January 2019 00: 08
                +2
                in my opinion also the old ones were banned, like to pour fuel oil into the sea, to calm the pitching :)
        2. Avior
          Avior 3 January 2019 23: 02
          +1
          the reserved place is about nothing.
          this means that he cannot fulfill this function, and whether he will ever be able to - is a question.
          Far sea patrol ships have become popular in the world, and this is normal and practical.
          Today, pirates in Somalia, tomorrow in Guinea, a tanker was attacked or an earthquake happened and the population needed help from doctors and protection from looters, the day after tomorrow somewhere else.
          but they have a completely different displacement and seaworthiness.
          such a ship
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetis-class_ocean_patrol_vessel

          Timokhin cited an American as an example.
          these are ships of a different class, and they can actually perform these functions
          1. Corn
            Corn 3 January 2019 23: 23
            0
            He can carry out the main functions in the supplied package, the rest are claims to the customer (you can personally call the Moscow Region and ask why they ordered bending, rather than the shell) at 22160, but not to the ship or to the shipbuilder.
            You will already be there with Timokhin and Andrey from Chelyabinsk, 22160 is bad and useless with respect to classmates-corvettes, or relatively full-fledged frigates, which are 2 times more in water supply and 10 times more expensive in construction / maintenance.
            I myself support the point of view that Russia needs a massive Main Battle Ship of the class and tasks of a frigate, but based on socio-economic realities, you need to understand that quantity is more important than quality. While the country starts to lower frigates from the stocks every six months, it is 22160 and the like that can become the best "patches" of holes in the country's defense and helpers in solving urgent problems, which are much more real tales about "the whole world to dust."
            1. Avior
              Avior 3 January 2019 23: 40
              +2
              if it is a corvette, then it had to be built like a corvette and no one should be fooled.
              but this is a completely different ship - a patrol in the far zone - a completely different kind of ship, also quite widely existing in the world ..
              the fight against pirates showed that warships for this purpose are excessive and expensive to maintain, cost, maintain, crew are not very convenient, since they have a minimum of space and everything is optimized for a combat mission, and not a fight against a deliberately weakly armed enemy.
              For such purposes, it is not necessary to drag the RCC and other equipment and weapons with the appropriate crew.
              A patrol ship is cheaper for this easier and much more convenient.
              it provides facilities for civilians, a hospital, marines or other specialists, etc., which is not close to an ordinary frigate or corvette.
              it is a separate class of ships with its own tasks, a peacetime ship, which in wartime, as a rule, can be turned into an ersatz frigate, but for it it is secondary.
              and in this capacity the project is unsuccessful - Timokhin is right in this.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 3 January 2019 23: 56
                +1
                Quote: Avior
                A patrol ship is cheaper for this easier and much more convenient.
                it provides facilities for civilians, a hospital, marines or other specialists, etc., which is not close to an ordinary frigate or corvette.

                Considering the enormous threat posed by piracy for Russia, we could well interrupt sending one BDK to that region once every six months. There is plenty of room for you (if you leave a couple of armored personnel carriers and two or three inflatable boats in the hold instead of a tank company), and autonomy is sufficient if you do not take infantry, but a couple of platoons. And not to make a special ship of dubious quality.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 4 January 2019 00: 03
                  0
                  at the time when they were conceived, for Russia in the world the situation was different — complete unity, life8, and so on.
                  and then maybe such ships were needed just for such international missions, so that the military’s resources would not be wasted.
                  in fact, if you do, then you had to do three, but normal ones, capable of performing their functions, as others do.
                  and this is neither a candle to God, nor a poker line, for which experienced readers compose functions for the second month at VO.
      2. Newone
        Newone 3 January 2019 22: 45
        0
        Avior
        You at least read on the Internet, and not in Timokhin’s retelling, that you can optionally put this ship on this ship.
        These are SUDDENLY and GAS Vignette-EM, and torpedo tubes 324 mm (caliber "Packet", by the way), SAM "Shtil" (oozed Buk-M).
        + module for divers
        + Modular Gus Minotaur
        + shock KA-52
        + the ability to use underwater unmanned vehicles.
        But such a small ship does not need to go 12000 km.
        1. Avior
          Avior 3 January 2019 23: 19
          +4
          I can also write that you can embed a death star there.
          Only here I can’t give links to tests on it. Secret.
          Can you be on your list?
          this ship, according to the main task, should be able to patrol in the distant sea for a long time in peacetime - and all other options, if they are ever realized at all, is secondary to it.
          otherwise they would have just built a corvette.
          1. Newone
            Newone 4 January 2019 00: 04
            0
            http://bastion-opk.ru/22160/
            And there is a presentation page at the very bottom.
            1. Avior
              Avior 4 January 2019 00: 12
              +3
              I had no doubt that it was not you who composed it, but the producer for advertising purposes.
              they still didn’t finish my death star, in vain, by the way, no one will check anyway
              I want to see a link to test the ship with these modules
              1. frog
                frog 4 January 2019 11: 00
                +1
                Even a link to trials won't help. Since you can put perfectly (as far as possible))) debugged modules and a team of professionals "from the manufacturer" serving them for testing. But how will it be in real life, in the service? Along with the replaceable modules, a replaceable part of the team is also needed .... All this tops associated with modularity is a marvelous example of "effective managers". In theory, all this may make sense, but in practice ... But in practice, even something that is pinned to the ship works badly. All this modularity is a round hippogriff in open space. They just looked at what was in trend now and decided that they wanted the same thing .... Why and to whom - what's the difference? They can build THIS, that's nice.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 4 January 2019 11: 01
                  0
                  in practice, a system of staffing and the use of these modules should be developed.
                  They just looked that it was now in trend, and decided that they want the same thing ...

                  agree
                  1. frog
                    frog 4 January 2019 11: 07
                    +1
                    And in our country it’s rarely so different. Almost everywhere. Not bothering with whether this flower will grow on our garden, let alone if we need it ...
                2. Newone
                  Newone 4 January 2019 22: 28
                  +1
                  To equip a ship with different modules and drive all crews through them is cheaper than building a bunch of different types of ships, to equip and train their crews.
                  1. frog
                    frog 4 January 2019 22: 57
                    0
                    The idea itself is clear, no one argues here. Like no one argues, it works exclusively under ideal conditions. But with them we have some inconsistency. I have enough for my humble amateur level to imagine how all this happened in the Navy in the era of sickle. It's sad there all this happened. And some marvelous successes emphasized the general condition. In our conditions, all this modular fuss, even taking into account almost ideal modules - mouse fuss, with the possible distribution of everything sho animals carry.
                    Starting from the fact that we cannot properly design and normally build the most trivial boat, without all these fashionable games. And ending with the fact that "we have, of course, everything, just not there, not then, not so much, sometimes faulty." Not to mention the training of the crews that were trained then, and, it seems to me, did not go far and now, on the "iron". It worked badly then, and with this modular lewdness, I don't even want to think about what will happen ...
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 4 January 2019 00: 08
          +2
          Quote: Newone
          SAM "Calm" (overcooked Buk-M).

          I'm still waiting for the defenders of this ship to tell me how the Shtil missile defense system with a semi-active seeker will be guided in the absence of an illumination-guidance radar on the ship and the practical impossibility of hooking it aboard in case of need.
          Quote: Newone
          shock KA-52
          This is a powerful trump card. Katz offers to give up. )))
          1. Newone
            Newone 4 January 2019 00: 21
            +1
            Avior
            "I want to see a link to tests of the ship with these modules"
            And I want to see AEGIS trials against a group volley of Granites. Or at least against the existing modern ICBM with warhead simulators, yeah.
            Alex_59
            And now you will prove to me that "Positive-ME1" cannot be used for these purposes.
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 4 January 2019 00: 38
              +1
              Quote: Newone
              And now you will prove to me that "Positive-ME1" cannot be used for these purposes.
              To do this, you need to unlearn radio engineering at 5 University for years. Now look at me, and at the university. The university is so big and solid, and I'm so small. Is it in my power to do what the university does? ))))
              1. Newone
                Newone 4 January 2019 00: 42
                0
                Is it true? And then I thought at your post: HUMAN, MEGAMOZOG direct. And so you immediately merged ... Eh ....
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 4 January 2019 00: 56
                  +3
                  Quote: Newone
                  And you immediately merged ...

                  What do you want treshak? Okay. Let's start with the fact that "Positive" is referred to by the manufacturer as a detection and targeting radar. There is not a word about missile guidance. Yes, it cannot be, since this is a radar with a rotating antenna and an information update rate of at least one second, which is completely insufficient for aiming at an air target - there the information update rate should be an order of magnitude higher. Because in one second the target can move by more than 300 meters, and for a warhead missile defense, a radius of destruction of 300 meters has not yet been created, therefore, the aiming error must be corrected not with a frequency of 1 Hz, but in hundreds to thousands of Hz. Moreover, the illumination mode assumes that the target is exposed to a narrow beam of the antenna directional pattern, rather than a wide lobe, which is usually used in general detection radars. Until now, the world has not seen more than one general detection radar with a rotating antenna capable of not only detecting targets, but also simultaneously illuminating them and guiding missiles. If we were talking about a missile defense system with an actvina seeker - then no question, there the missile defense system is roughly aimed at the target area, and it carries out precise homing itself autonomously. Finally, the "Calm" in its earlier version has quite physically viable illumination radars, for example, on the destroyers of Project 956. In the ground form, the BUK air defense missile system, even in the latest modifications, does not manage only one SOC, but has this damned illumination-guidance radar on each self-propelled firing - and there is no reason why the same rocket, but finding itself on the ship suddenly without this radar illumination somehow began to do.
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 4 January 2019 01: 13
                    0
                    > and for a warhead missile defense radius of 300 meters has not yet been created
                    Created, actually. On the S-200 they were definitely like that, they say that on the S-75 too. But it is, riveting.
                    1. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 4 January 2019 01: 15
                      +1
                      Quote: bk0010
                      Created, actually.

                      Is it nuclear? Chur me, chur ... We are for peace in the whole world)))
              2. Newone
                Newone 4 January 2019 00: 54
                0
                Alex_59
                But why can AN / SPY-1 be used to illuminate a target, while a similar, albeit less powerful, "Positive-ME1" is not?
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 4 January 2019 01: 05
                  +2
                  Quote: Newone
                  But why can AN / SPY-1 be used to illuminate a target, while a similar, albeit less powerful, "Positive-ME1" is not?
                  SPY-1 does not highlight the target, this is a mistake. It displays SAM with the radio command method in the target area. The aiming is carried out roughly, the task is just to throw the rocket closer to the target, well, preferably more precisely, but not directly exactly. It is not SPY that is responsible for the exact hit, but AN / SPG-62 - this is the highlight-guidance radar.
                  1. Newone
                    Newone 4 January 2019 01: 08
                    0
                    But exactly the same "target illumination radio transmitters" are included in the "Shtil". They are mounted in the superstructure of the ship.
                    1. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 4 January 2019 01: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: Newone
                      But exactly the same "target illumination radio transmitters" are included in the "Shtil"
                      I don't know anything about this. If there is something there, then there are no technical questions. But another question arises - if "Calm" is containerized, that is, it may or may not be - then why its radio-technical part was left stationary? What's so to speak, the idea of ​​"modularity" then?
                      1. Newone
                        Newone 4 January 2019 01: 28
                        +1
                        I can only assume that in the amount of PU under the calm.
                        Relatively speaking, you can insert 12 PU under the calm or 6 PU under the calm and 1 under the caliber.
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 4 January 2019 02: 20
                        +1
                        I can only guess

                        about the death star on board can still be assumed.
                        with the same degree of certainty wink
                    2. Avior
                      Avior 4 January 2019 02: 22
                      0
                      there is nothing there.
                    3. Avior
                      Avior 4 January 2019 02: 35
                      +2
                      To install Calm on this device, you can use the instructions laughing
                    4. Newone
                      Newone 4 January 2019 02: 43
                      +1
                      Avior
                      You from France certainly know better what and how you can assume about Russian weapons. Therefore, the probability of a nuclear war with you and your masters from the United States is not zero.
                    5. The comment was deleted.
              3. The comment was deleted.
      3. Avior
        Avior 4 January 2019 01: 55
        +1
        Have you seen a group volley of Granites? so that 24 at a time?
        give a link, let's see. winked
        Or at least against the existing modern ICBMs with simulated warheads, yeah.

        and did the Americans once claim such an opportunity for existing missile defense?
        1. Newone
          Newone 4 January 2019 02: 04
          0
          Have you seen a group volley of Granites?

          Did not see. Very interesting to see. Especially against AEGIS :))))
          1. Avior
            Avior 4 January 2019 02: 30
            0
            and no one saw.
            how will Americans experience something that was not in nature?
            1. Newone
              Newone 4 January 2019 02: 44
              0
              AEGIS means no in nature? So let's write it down.
              1. Avior
                Avior 4 January 2019 02: 57
                0
                no salvo.
                and it won’t be, it’s already, it’s obviously being removed
                1. Newone
                  Newone 4 January 2019 03: 02
                  0
                  Two-missile salvos with target selection were. Successful. And more - why?
                2. Avior
                  Avior 4 January 2019 11: 09
                  0
                  two-rocket Aigis fulfills on exercises
                3. Newone
                  Newone 4 January 2019 19: 37
                  0
                  Two Rocket Granites?
                4. Avior
                  Avior 5 January 2019 01: 03
                  0
                  and when did they shoot Granites on Aegis in tests?
  • Rakovor
    Rakovor 4 January 2019 13: 48
    -2
    And the fact that there are no modules in nature - did they personally call you from the General Staff?))
  • Good neighbor
    Good neighbor 3 January 2019 21: 15
    +1
    Andrey, the article is good, full of factual material - and ... useless. You reduce all your analytics to the symmetrical structure of the fleet, as in the United States. This is stupid. The fact that in Chelyabinsk the heat and light is not turned off is provided by our entire army - the ground forces, the aerospace forces and the navy, and, most importantly, the strategic nuclear forces. And as long as the strategic nuclear forces provide parity / advantage over the enemy, it is not very important that we do not have and will not have aircraft carriers. This is not a key advantage - well, we do not have a strong fleet - and what, somehow, the United States was able to limit our actions in Syria? No, although I really wanted to. But supply vessels are in short supply. Once again, even such a small operation requires support, which the fleet has - well, slightly better than "not at all." Here's what to build. And you are all about the AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, all about the dream. Well, dream for your own - the USSR did not have enough, and even more so Russia does not have enough. So, if you set tasks for the fleet in terms of resources, come up with a fleet without an aircraft carrier. Good luck to you!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Avior
      Avior 3 January 2019 22: 22
      +1
      you are wrong, in this case the author refers to the doctrine of defense of coastal aviation
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      4 January 2019 12: 11
      +2
      Quote: Good neighbor
      Andrei, the article is good, full of factual material - and ... useless. You reduce all your analytics to the symmetrical structure of the fleet, as in the USA. This is stupid

      In the article devoted to determining the required fleet size, the figures of Nikolsky and Kuzin and the number of the US Navy are given. I can repeat it again

      As you can see, there is no question of any parity. As for the symmetry, yes, it is, and this is not stupid at all, since today it is the American Navy structure that seems optimal.
      Quote: Good neighbor
      And while the strategic nuclear forces provide parity / superiority over the enemy, it is not very important that we do not have and will not have aircraft carriers.

      The marine component of the strategic nuclear forces is NOT SECURE today - and this is 40% of the total strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation. One can argue about the issue of aircraft carriers, but I don’t think that today it is realistic to provide air defense for the Barents and Okhotsk seas without an AB.
      1. Good neighbor
        Good neighbor 4 January 2019 19: 47
        +1
        Sea the SNF component is NOT SECURE today - but on land parity with the advantage of placing the Vanguard on the database. Once again, the absence / presence of aircraft carriers did not affect the REAL operation in Syria. And therefore, your article, I repeat, is useless - we will not have funds for your Wishlist. And the result is the absence of war with the USA + NATO, there is, and, importantly, will be.
        Look a little further - the Navy is only part of the Russian Armed Forces.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 January 2019 05: 44
          +2
          Quote: Good neighbor
          The marine component of the strategic nuclear forces is NOT SECURE today - but on land parity with the advantage of placing the Vanguard on the database.

          You, when writing, try to think nevertheless what exactly.
          The strategic nuclear forces with us in the United States are roughly equivalent in numbers. According to the method of air defense breakthrough, too, since no SAM, no air defense today guarantees defense against the massive use of nuclear weapons. But we can’t reach the US strategic nuclear forces in general (no components), but they can well bang to 40% of ours. Where is the parity here?
          Quote: Good neighbor
          Once again, the absence / presence of aircraft carriers did not affect the REAL operation in Syria.

          Yes. The operation, however, came out a bit unsuccessful, but so what?
          Quote: Good neighbor
          And therefore, your article, I repeat, is useless - we will not have funds for your Wishlist

          You just don’t know how to count them
      2. anzar
        anzar 4 January 2019 23: 23
        +2
        As for symmetry, yes, it does exist, and this is completely not stupid, since today it is the American Navy structure that seems optimal.

        Optimal for what? For American foreign policy? The Russian Federation has not announced its intention to become a world hegemon. Yes, and not by the clothes ... Here the USSR declared (but whether the clothes, ...)
  • Wildcat
    Wildcat 3 January 2019 23: 25
    +1
    Thank you very much to the author for the work! The article and the cycle as a whole plus, of course! hi
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Avior
      Avior 3 January 2019 23: 55
      +1
      Do you think the author, this same Nikolsky, is under a pseudonym?
      that's what it came to ..... horror what ....
      1. Scipio
        Scipio 4 January 2019 00: 08
        -8
        Judging by the volume of the article on the structure and sequence of similar topics, the author is clearly biased ... by whom? Anyway, by whom .... such analysts as Andrei from Chelyabinsk, for the most part, are no more theorists and the motives for their zeal in this resource are not entirely clear ... just read the heading ...
        1. anzar
          anzar 4 January 2019 23: 35
          +2
          Scipio (Fleur)) writes
          ... and the motives for their zeal in this resource are not entirely pure ....

          Uzhos))) It remains for you to point out the authors with "pure" (in your opinion) motives. All the same, look that your comments are there, otherwise we'll think that ...
          1. Scipio
            Scipio 5 January 2019 09: 21
            +1
            Everything is very simple .... served at KTOF .... submariner
          2. Scipio
            Scipio 5 January 2019 09: 25
            0
            With the translation into Russian, my name sounds different ..... learn English my friend
          3. Scipio
            Scipio 5 January 2019 09: 28
            0
            My motives are very simple ..... served at the CTOF ... a submariner
          4. Scipio
            Scipio 5 January 2019 09: 29
            0
            Let me choose the authors of articles about the Fleet of Russia myself
            1. anzar
              anzar 5 January 2019 10: 28
              +1
              Let me choose the authors myself ...

              Of course, I mean the same, just point them out. But while you are writing here, the "bad" ones ... wink
  • Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 4 January 2019 00: 48
    -10%
    The article is complete nonsense and is similar to the dreams of an adult who did not play enough boats in childhood. Comparing the capabilities of the USSR and the Russian Federation is simply ridiculous and stupid, since the population of the USSR was twice as large, the potential was also many times greater, the USSR had the most convenient ports in the Baltic states, Ukraine and Georgia, which the Russian Federation no longer has. In general, there is simply no need to build Russia's ocean fleet, Russia does not have overseas territories like the USA and Britain, which need to be protected with the help of the ocean fleet. That is why Russia needs aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers? Though kill, but I do not understand. Ships of this class in the Black and Baltic Seas have nothing to do, only the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet remain. But in the North and the Far East, what should be protected with the help of aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers? Tundra? Deer? New Earth and almost unpopulated Kamchatka? In my opinion, Russia needs only a couple of dozen frigates and corvettes to protect the shores of the Baltic, Black and Japanese Seas and Sakhalin, and a dozen submarine cruisers with vigorous loaves based in the ports of Kamchatka, the Kuril Peninsula and the Kola Peninsula, so that there is nothing to threaten the Yankees. And all, more of Russia is not required of the fleet. To maintain a fleet is a very expensive pleasure, for example, the United States spent $ 2016 billion on the fleet in 165, and they spent less on the army, $ 148 billion. Let me remind you that the Russian Federation has planned $ 2019 billion for military spending in 30, that is, Russia simply cannot financially build a fleet comparable to the US fleet and talk about building an ocean fleet that can equal the US fleet on equal terms, this shows that it is either full amateur, or just a provocateur.
    1. VSrostagro
      VSrostagro 4 January 2019 14: 34
      +3
      This is you a complete amateur, trying to object without reading a series of articles.
      And there, unlike your "I don't understand," there is argumentation.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 5 January 2019 02: 41
        -2
        Argumentation? I made my arguments: 1) Russia does not need an ocean fleet, since it is NOT NEEDED. 2) Russia cannot build and maintain a fleet that is able to compete on equal terms with the US fleet. But there are no arguments from you.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 January 2019 05: 39
          +3
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Argumentation? I brought my arguments: 1) Russia does not need an ocean fleet, since it is NOT NEEDED.

          Is it called "argumentation" now? laughing Рњ-РґСЏ ...
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 5 January 2019 08: 45
            -1
            You read above why I wrote, why Russia does not need the ocean fleet, and brought the facts. And you look like an uncle who did not play enough boats in childhood.
          2. polar fox
            polar fox 5 January 2019 17: 41
            +2
            Andrew, I'm sorry that is not the topic, but will it be about WWII submarines, how about the series of battleships?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              8 January 2019 08: 19
              0
              Quote: polar fox
              Andrew, I'm sorry that is not the topic, but will it be about WWII submarines, how about the series of battleships?

              Hardly. I'm still more on surface ships hi
        2. VSrostagro
          VSrostagro 6 January 2019 14: 08
          0
          Russia does not need an ocean fleet, as it is NOT NEEDED

          You do not need to comment, as it is NOT NEEDED.
          First deal with the concept of ARGUMENT, and then move on to more complex matters.
  • Scaffold
    Scaffold 4 January 2019 20: 43
    +5
    Recall that these authors advocated the unification of the ship's crew: in their opinion, the nuclear submarine fleet should be represented by two types of ships - the SSBN with ballistic missiles and a universal type of torpedo submarine, non-nuclear submarines should also be of the same type. Instead of missile cruisers, destroyers and BOD, multipurpose ships (MCC) should be built, and the coastal fleet should be represented by one type of TFR, etc.

    Quietly crying, huddled in a corner. crying
    It is my dream - that in our country for each class a series of one project is built, during the construction process they improve this project, starting from some building they built an already improved one, etc. Why is it not clear to our leadership that our traditional insane diversity is a stupid way?
  • serg2108
    serg2108 4 January 2019 21: 31
    +1
    Well, in short everything has disappeared .... Although Andrei is right, the picture is bleak .... the failure of the 90s is still being felt .. and improvements in the accelerated pace for all indicators of naval weapons are not visible.
    1. Newone
      Newone 5 January 2019 00: 30
      0
      The rearmament of the fleet always lagged far behind the army.
  • Zakonnik
    Zakonnik 5 January 2019 08: 03
    0
    that's what 18 years of lifting from his knees led to ...
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 5 January 2019 11: 42
    +5
    I read with interest winked I can also sigh about the former Soviet Navy. I saw the peak of his power 81-82 years. More often on nuclear submarines and BODs 1134 and 1135 he worked with our different systems. There were many of both. And if the possibilities of building large NKs and aircraft carriers were objectively radically reduced due to the "departure" and the collapse of the Ukrainian ... Nikolaev / Kherson shipyards, then all submarines were always built on the territory of the Russian Federation. And over the years, their complete set could be completely 100% closed in Russia. Yet we are again almost in a situation like the USSR in the 50s. Only nuclear submarines and submarines with new engine principles can be opposed to dozens of hostile fleets.
  • Vladimir T
    Vladimir T 6 January 2019 05: 57
    -1
    This author -> author -> author bakes steaks like pies. Or is it someone else for him. What is most likely. Absolute nonsense. What is he counting on with "his" outdated information.? Wait everyone in a panic will start banging their heads on the floor.
  • Cry
    Cry 11 January 2019 06: 10
    0
    The author thinks with the old views of the 2nd millennium. In the new 3rd millennium, advanced technologies have become key in the creation of weapons, including in the Navy. Along with rearmament, old admirals die out, as in the era of the end of the sailing fleet.
  • Alex-333
    Alex-333 23 January 2019 22: 50
    -1
    Found some data in my records.
    pr.675,658 (average)
    K running voltage (of total service life) 0,11-0,15
    K operating voltage (at the BS of the total service life) 0,07-0,09
    To repair voltage (in repair of the total service life) 0,37-0,53
    Project 667AU, 667 B (average)
    K running voltage 0,21-0,25
    K operational voltage 0,27-0,29
    To repair voltage 0,31-0,55
    I did not turn on the K-23 and its 290 days, this also includes being in the MBP. (Ours considered the BS when it was in Kamran, Socotra, Dahlak, Guinea, Cuba). The Americans did not consider repair and being in the naval base at KOH (where, however, they entered Yokosuka for 3-5 days, then back to sea ..)

    USA "" Sturgeon- average operational voltage- 0,51.
    Los Angeles average 0,53
    Lafayette-on average -0,49
    "D. Madison" - on average - 0,52
    "Ohio" - on average - 0,56 (up to 2000 g)
    Americans do not take K repair voltage into account. They consider the sea base. The plant is not taken into account.
    For 667 BDRs and 671 RTMs I don’t place them. There is higher, but not much.
    Generally, the Americans used their boats "denser" by a third. It turns out from 90 boats of the USSR, 30 is ineffective use, mainly standing in repair, from a third to half of the time of its existence in a combat composition, like K-10, K-34, K-94, K-175.
    I do not exclude inaccuracies. (((It will turn out 0,25 and 0,38. If we approximately reduce the USSR and the USA to a common denominator.
  • Tatyana Balazeykina
    Tatyana Balazeykina 25 January 2019 17: 39
    0
    Does it make sense in aircraft carriers to make them?
  • Nikolay Ivanov_4
    Nikolay Ivanov_4 23 March 2019 15: 35
    0
    In a word, horror, 13% of the combat strength of the Soviet is Borkin times worse than Hitler on us ... But at this time the Far Eastern opponents (mainly China, well, Japan is no longer "self-defense forces") armed themselves, and not vice versa ...