The ideological impasse of the Russian fleet? No, the Russian society!

American ideological crisis as an example

In the late forties - early fifties of the last century, the US Navy was in a serious crisis: they could not justify their need for the country and people. And indeed, in the world there was not one fleet, which could even be compared with the American. Moreover, all the fleets in the world combined, if they were under the same command, could not be compared with the American fleet in the same way. The US Navy simply did not have an adversary. Question: “Why do we need a fleet if the Russians don’t have one?” wondered more and more often.

In the late forties, one of the people who asked him was US President Harry Truman.

Truman's logic, inspired by Defense Secretary Louis Johnson, was as follows.

The main force necessary to crush the only potential enemy of the United States, the Soviet Union, is the strategic aviationarmed with nuclear bombs. The main theater of war is Europe, where the US army and allies will have to stop the Soviet Army. What does the fleet and marines have to do with it? Nothing to do with, and this "liability" must be eliminated. The fleet should be reduced to the level of escort forces capable of ensuring the transfer of the army to Europe and its supply. Everything else is redundant.

This position was supported by the army, which is interested in a larger share of the budget, and the Air Force, which already thought of themselves as a global geopolitical factor.

However, in the US one cannot simply take something and dissolve it or liquidate it. On the path of such reforms is usually the Congress, which is quite right to stop them. For this, however, it was necessary to stir up the attention of the public. The events that followed are known in the American stories as an "admiral revolt."

We must pay tribute to the then American sailors - they did it. The controversy about the future of the US Navy was quite deliberately made open to print. It cost the quarry to very many, including very high-ranking military men, for example, Rear Admiral Daniel Galerie, author of a series of articles on the inadmissibility of the defeat of the Navy, only miraculously avoided a military court and never received a Vice Admiral. Even the command of the 6 Division of aircraft carriers during the Korean War did not help. However, the sailors conspiracy was a success. Thanks to the started hearings in Congress, the pogrom was able to slow down and in essence reduce to the refusal to build new ships and reduce the number of available ships.

And then the war began in Korea, where 41% of all percussion tasks were fulfilled by deck aircraft, and which without it would have been completely lost even during the battles for the Busan bridgehead. And incheon-vonsansky landing. The Marines, by the way, had already been seriously degraded by that time due to chronic underfunding, which is why it “performed” at first so badly. This became an insight - the Americans mostly realized that without the Navy they would at least not retain global influence. However, more was needed - the fleet had to prove to society that it was needed not only in relation to the Korean war, which soon ended.

And this, too, was done.

In 1954, the young but already well-known Ph.D. Samuel Huntington published an article "National Policy and Transoceanic Navy", in which everything was laid out on shelves. Huntington rightly pointed out that any service, such as a fleet, consumes the resources of society. In order for society to allocate these resources with confidence, it must have an understanding of why this service is needed and how it is in the interests of national security.

With regard to the Navy, Huntington justified this by the following considerations.

The stage when the US Navy was supposed to provide security for the US in the oceans was over — enemy fleets were destroyed. Now the fleet is dealing with a new threat - the continental mass of Eurasia. Previously, the task of the fleet was to fight with the ships, now the fight against the shore - and Korea is proof of that. The fleet has achieved what the Anglo-Saxons call command of the sea - command on the seas, and now must ensure the achievement of US strategic goals on the ground. Factors such as the ability to concentrate aviation on an enormous scale against any point of the coast, the possibility (just appeared) of delivering nuclear strikes by the forces of carrier-based aviation, the planned mass appearance of heavy carrier-based bombers with a combat radius of thousands of kilometers capable of carrying nuclear weapon (A3D Skywarrior has already been tested), gave such opportunities. Dominance in the Mediterranean allowed such a blow to the very "heart" of the USSR through the territory of Turkey. Huntington also predicted that the early appearance of guided missiles would allow strikes against targets very far from the coastline. At the same time, there was simply no one to dispute the deployment of the US Navy anywhere in the world - the whole World Ocean was their “lake”.

Huntington and the admirals were right - although not the Navy, but the US Air Force carried the main shock in all American wars, and on the ground the main contribution was made by the army, not the marines, the role of the Navy in combat was always vital, but in terms of showing strength and like the means of force diplomacy, the US Navy, in principle, has no competitors.

If, then, in the 1948-1955 years, the Americans would have taken a different path, we might now live in a different world.

This is an example of how the right strategy not only saved the view of the Armed Forces from defeat (which in itself has no value for society), but also brought inconceivable benefits to the society itself, many years of negative trade balance - only a small part of which. Americans could never have their current standard of living without America’s military dominance in the world, and it would have been unthinkable without a fleet.

Well, a little later, the era of ballistic missiles on submarines began, which further consolidated this state of affairs.

And today - we have

At present, Russia is experiencing the same in nature mental naval crisis. The fleet exists rather by inertia. Even at the level of the supreme commander there is no understanding of what can be achieved, having a well-trained and well-equipped fleet, moreover, it is not even among some sailors. As a result, the experiment of Truman, who did not pass in the United States, passed quite by himself with us.

When we still knew how to "strategy", albeit badly. The mother ship "Magomed Gadzhiyev", the cruiser of the command "Zhdanov" and the shipyard "Selfless" are moored to each other in a combat campaign

Currently, the fleet is controlled by the naval section of the General Staff; as far as possible, and tasks for the Navy are formed by such people completely.

The Main Board has become a management department with very limited functionality, and the commander in chief has become a “wedding general.” A significant part of the problems experienced by the fleet is from this.

How did that happen? As it was shown earlier in the article "What is more important for Russia: fleet or army", the fault is the essential cognitive distortion, generated by the Great Patriotic War, and the previous history. People instinctively feel (without thinking) that the future will be the same as it was in the past, and yet the nature of the threats and potential tasks for Russia is radically different today than in the first half of the forties and earlier. Rather, we ourselves will start wars on land. But we will get a slap in the face where we are weak - no one will put a hand into the bear’s mouth and start a land war against us, the whole world knows how these things end. And the sea is another matter, and it is not difficult to understand, just thinking a little.

But, unfortunately, the average person does not think. He operates with cliché sets, once driven into his head, shuffling these clichés like a deck of cards. This is a big stretch of thinking, but nothing can be done - the adult psyche, already formed, is extremely difficult to “remake”. With regard to the Russians, this is further aggravated by the merely chronic wishful thinking, when a person does not understand the difference between reality and his own ideas about it and sincerely believes that if he defends some point with a hoarse, a real factor that will influence something. So, for example, are born supercrafts and boats capable of sinking an aircraft carrier. People just want to believe in them, and do not understand that the material world does not depend on their faith. You can calmly sleep with this faith, but only until someone’s bombs are awakened, and then it will be too late, but, alas, the average person cannot understand the cause-effect relationship between his actions and their postponed consequences, which gives rise to a certain form of stagnation. in public thought in our country, including in the military sphere, which is also repeated time after time. We already had “little poppies” and “little blood on foreign territory”, and “two regiments in two hours,” but, as an unintelligent observer obviously, our people still do not learn anything - at no cost.

As one of the intermediate results: a clear understanding of why we need a fleet, society does not have, does not have it, and power, which is a continuation of this society (no matter who thought about it).

At the moment, there are two open (unclassified) documents that describe the priorities of naval construction in Russia. The first one "Maritime policy of the Russian Federation". In general, this is a serious concept paper, and it remains only to wish that the goals stated in it would be achieved. However, about the navy there quite a bit.

In theory, the doctrinal document was supposed to be "Basics of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030 year". We state - this is not a doctrine. Yes, it is correct (although it is streamlined, no potential rival other than the United States is named by its name) threats are identified. Well, that's it. In fact, the entire document consists of good wishes, many of which are no longer simply not fulfilled, but are fundamentally impossible to fulfill. Fleet tasks are generally formulated in paragraph 13.

13. The Navy creates and maintains the conditions necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime activities of the Russian Federation, ensures its naval presence, demonstrates the flag of the Russian Federation and the military strength of the state in the oceans, participates in the fight against piracy, in the military carried out by the world community, peacekeeping and humanitarian actions that meet the interests of the Russian Federation, makes calls of warships (ships) of the Russian Federation to ports of foreign states, protect near the state border of the Russian Federation in the underwater environment, including anti-submarine, anti-submarine defense in the interests of the security of the Russian Federation.

With the same success, the authors of the document could not write anything about the tasks. From 2012, the Navy (what was left of it) was engaged in military transportation under special risk conditions (Syrian Express, transporting detachments of MTR to the Crimea in 2014), striking cruise missiles on coastal infrastructure, participated in ground combat operations Marine Corps (Syria), together with the FSB led the quasi-blockade actions against the ports of Ukraine on the Sea of ​​Azov, and effectively demonstrated strength to the Americans in the Mediterranean a couple of times.

But with the PLO we have a failure, with anti-subversive defense - it is not known how, the enemy has a water contingent much better trained. In any case, the author is also aware of reports about the landing of foreign combat swimmers on the territory of the country, and about the casualties of PDSS in underwater skirmishes with “seals”. But the opposite is completely unknown. True, it was all very long.

As you can see, the theory is seriously at odds with practice. Moreover, this discrepancy is actually even deeper. There is not a word about the interaction with the ground forces and the VKS. This is just a paradox, given the previous historical experience and the current state of naval aviation. There is not a word about the fight against terrorism - and this task today is more relevant than the fight against piracy. There is not a word about the mine threat, which again speaks of a complete disregard for historical experience.

The "foundations" are imbued with a defensive spirit - we are defending, defending and restraining, there is not a word about sometimes undertaking offensive military operations. But the ability to attack any point on the planet - "the fad" of the fleet.

There is nothing that would somehow be limited by the timeframe, the order of adaptation of the Navy from peacetime to the military ...

It is not clear why the authors of the document do not stipulate such things as the geographical fragmentation of the fleet and the inability to ensure numerical superiority in forces over potential opponents in most theaters. It is not known why there is not a word about naval aviation - namely, it is the only force that is guaranteed to be able to carry out a fast inter-theater maneuver. But there is a fantasy about such a maneuver submarines - whoever would just let it do.

In general, it is necessary to read this document, but with a clear understanding that this is a profanation.

And now - as it should

For comparison, it is worth looking out over the American side Maritime strategy - The “maritime strategy” of the eighties, which was the basis of American naval activity against the USSR in the 80s, and was extremely successful.

Everything is completely different there. The main adversary is defined - the USSR and the "merged" with it until the country of the Warsaw Pact is inseparable. Potential allies of the USSR outside Europe — Libya, the DPRK, Cuba, and Vietnam — have been identified. Revealed their real possibilities in a naval war. The main features of the strategy of the Navy of the USSR, its goals and objectives, which the political leadership of the USSR sets before it, its advantages and weaknesses are listed. The order of conflict escalation has been determined in stages - from peacetime to global thermonuclear war with the use of strategic nuclear weapons. The specific objectives of the US Navy are listed - from keeping communications with Europe and “offensive mining” at the beginning of the conflict, to landing on Kamchatka, the Kola Peninsula and Sakhalin at the end (provided that the situation allows).

The role of the allies, the order of defeating the forces of the USSR and its allies, the role of other types of armed forces in joint operations with the fleet — for example, Cuba and Vietnam — were to be “neutralized” by the Navy and Air Force bombers, and the beginning of the war in the North Pacific was to be accompanied by defensive army units on the Aleutian Islands, in order to prevent the Soviet landing force to capture them.

The US Navy’s approach to the use of nuclear weapons and a possible reaction to such from the Soviet side was voiced. A reservation was made about the undesirability of strikes against the Soviet strategic potential on the ground so as not to force the Russians to use their ICBMs. Defined measures to protect shipping. The strategy was drawn up for each year, and was reviewed annually, and in order for the US Navy to be ready to act on these plans, highly dangerous provocative exercises were held annually, during which the attack on Soviet cities was decked out (see NorPacFleetExOps'82, he the same “Kamchatka Pearl Harbor”), and special forces on Soviet territory was bombarded. These exercises were used as a tool of military-political pressure on the leadership of the USSR - and successfully.

It was a coherent strategy with goals, forces, means, plans, a vision of what should be done. Are we able to give birth to something like that?

Someone may argue that there are still closed documents, and there, like, everything is there. Unfortunately, although these closed orders from the General Staff and Defense Ministry do exist, but the level of these documents does not allow us to believe that the Navy will be reborn as an effective combat force. If without “entering the red zone”, then these are just short-term solutions like “and now we are preparing to attack coastal targets with cruise missiles, and that is inexpensive; and now we need to set up anti-piracy patrols — and also inexpensively. ” Something global and deeply developed is not there, simply because our General Staff is predominantly military, and they know little about the operational and strategic capabilities of the Navy.

The USSR, by the way, “gave birth” to a sane strategy, even if not formalized - Kotkov's “direct tracking” was quite a strategy, and worked for some time — in any case, the peak of Soviet power in the world was due precisely to this concept. Americans sometimes sweat with fear. But only when they changed the rules of the game for their part, everything changed for the worse for us, but I could not give an adequate answer to the Soviet Navy.

In fact, trained and equipped naval forces are able to bring enormous benefits to any country. Up to financial. This is a self-evident fact. But in order for this to be the case, the society must understand WHAT IT WANTS TO GET from the fleet.

Do not invent an answer to the question: why do we need the Navy? This is absolutely counterproductive. No, our people must answer a completely different question for themselves: WHAT COUNTRY WANTS TO GET FROM THE GUYS IN A BLACK FORM SUCH, WHICH CAN BE GIVEN ONLY BY THEY?

And then everything will begin to improve. But not before.

Comments

[Operator]

The Americans need the navy as their international police baton. We need a fleet (plus "Liana" and "Container") to drown American troughs with "Zircons" with nuclear warheads at the rate of one trough - one "Zircon".

And with the objectives in the national territory of the United States will cope with the Strategic Missile Forces and GUGI.

[Vladimir 5]

Operator .. I agree when they do not build a Su-57, T-14 and other Coalitions for a decade, build a large fleet, as if to buy a jacket, in the absence of pants ...

[timokhin-aa]

Su-57 already ordered, the program kept the absence of the engine.
T-14 most likely just still raw, there is a coefficient. novelties are somewhere under 80%, such systems are usually carried out for dozens of years.

It’s okay to make the tank more or less alive for 2025, buy a couple of battalion sets, torment them, take into account all the jambs make T-14А, buy several regimental sets, and start making T-1X, which will become the embodiment of everything new in Armat, Yes, and it will work as it should.

Otherwise, fine-tuning such complex systems usually does not work.

[Lopatov]

The other day the great news slipped through. We began to produce modernized "Rheostats". KShMki artillery. Which were supposed to go to the troops in the early 90s. Such pies. It took the "elite troops" about 20-25 years to get the complex, which, according to its capabilities, almost caught up with the ground artillery complexes. In turn, lagging behind modern Westerners for generations.
The other day, a neighbor said that his son, a cadet, was caught "illegally using" the tablet. Since Soviet times, artillerymen have been forced to carry out automation in artillery at their own expense. my father was a PMK, I used a microcomputer on BASIC, and now almost all programs on Android have been translated and then bam ... tablet phones were banned ... I don’t know what people will do ... Again to the PUO ...

From such pies ... "nothing, damn it, terrible" .... We urgently need a dozen aircraft carriers, to project power into the CAR

[timokhin-aa]

Shovels, stop clowning. Nobody suggests building dozens of aircraft carriers at the expense of equipping ground forces.

By the way, I remember one guy who was addicted to the laptop to such an extent that he had forgotten how to read the data for the shooting.

His laptop accidentally broke later. Right on the firing.

This is not what I need without automation, I just had to say something.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

By the way, I remember one guy who was addicted to the laptop to such an extent that he had forgotten how to read the data for the shooting.

8)))))))))))))))) Let's not you tell me lies

Quote: timokhin-aa

His laptop accidentally broke later. Right on the firing.

This phrase was supposed to be like "his laptop stopped working every year, in winter combat shooting"

Oh well, to hell with it, with automation. I pointed out the other day that for a successful shooting, a minimum in the form of a head, binoculars, a radio station and a map is enough, and I was terribly obstructed as a retrograde. Let's get along. In extreme cases, instead of binoculars, take a ruler ....

That's when our foot soldiers stop buying their berets and use the issued ones, then the time will come when we can afford to spend money on the fleet.
That is never 8)))))))

[polar fox]

Quote: Spade

That's when our foot soldiers stop buying their berets and use the issued ones, then the time will come when we can afford to spend money on the fleet.
That is never 8)))))))

fiercely plus ...

[PSih2097]

Quote: Spade

That's when our foot soldiers stop buying their berets and use the issued ones, then the time will come when we can afford to spend money on the fleet.

not only shoes, but also a field vole ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: PSih2097

not only shoes, but also a field vole ...

Well, she’s still bearable. In the end, a hole in your knee or ass can be sewn up. Not beautiful, but does not affect combat readiness.
But the shoes ... these are the shoes.

[LeonidL]

"Let you not lie to me" - this is impossible for Mr. Tim! He is a strategist and a genius in everything and his opinion is the ultimate truth.

[Lopatov]

Quote: LeonidL

"Let you not lie to me" - this is impossible for Mr. Tim! He is a strategist and a genius in everything and his opinion is the ultimate truth.

It's just that artillery has a "fad" on the topic of "shoot when everything is broken." This does not mean that the lieutenant-captains are so conscientious, it means that the colonel-majors, seeing the electronics in the hands of the shooter, will most likely give an introductory message that the device is "pierced by a 30-mm projectile" 8)))
Willy-nilly, it is necessary to maintain the skills of "old school" shooting at a sufficient level

[LeonidL]

Other times now. Neither a bayonet attack, nor an old school do not roll in most cases. Alas.

[Nick]

Quote: LeonidL

Other times now. Neither a bayonet attack, nor an old school do not roll in most cases. Alas.

In battle, a sapper shovel rolls. She is at least not sensitive to the effects of electronic warfare.

[LeonidL]

The fleet is not infantry; you cannot fight with a shovel. Yes, in modern warfare, it’s unlikely that the green ones will be able to wave a shovel. Is that with the PRC ...

[Nick]

Quote: LeonidL

The fleet is not infantry; you cannot fight with a shovel.

That is yes. In the Navy, the oar is more convenient. But seriously, in the conditions of electronic warfare, one must be prepared to use methods of aiming, navigation and so on. and without their electronic devices. So, just in case. Electronics is a whimsical thing, subject to the effects of electronic warfare, electromagnetic radiation

[Lopatov]

In old school artillery, it's faster than electronics. With proper training.

[LeonidL]

Faster - right. But now it’s often more important and faster and more accurate. But, as the example of Sukhoi showed, it was electronics-electronics, and no one canceled manual control.

[Lopatov]

Quote: LeonidL

But now it’s often more important and faster and more accurate.

And more precisely.
Zeroing is the most accurate option for determining the settings for shooting.

[LeonidL]

This is if the enemy will give the opportunity to make a second sighting shot.

[goose]

Quote: Spade

Zeroing is the most accurate option for determining the settings for shooting.

And also a surefire way to frighten off a target. Today it is necessary to master non-shooting methods, ”he discovered the target, fired 10 shells while flying,“ changed his position. Otherwise, either zero efficiency, or corpses and scrap metal on their side.

[Mikhail Drabkin]

Possible.

But in parades there should only be what is fighting. It’s fighting not politically-propaganda, but practically.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Michael Drabkin

Possible.
But in parades there should only be what is fighting. It’s fighting not politically-propaganda, but practically.

You see, what is the ficus-picus here ... There is a "need", sometimes it is even an "urgent need". And there is "Greatness"
I’ll try to explain using artillery as an example; nevertheless, it is closer to me.

For example, "Coalition". New self-propelled gun. Very cool, very modern. If we put them in the troops, we will be the first in the world (this is not a joke). And it will be very expensive. Like a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
But this will be a visible result. There is something to report loudly, there is something to knock on the heel on the chest. Here is "greatness" in its purest form.

And there is a new meteorological landing kit. It has long been developed, which should be in every mortar, barrel and reactive battery. Which should replace everything still Soviet, DMK. Together with such ancient, but still "in service" things like a wind gun.
You can't really boast of the new DMK. It will not be possible to drag it past the stands at the parade. But this is a "necessity", and the most urgent

[LeonidL]

You're right. And aircraft carriers are all in the past. Yes and no, the Russian Federation has geopolitical, strategic goals and opportunities for their use. here recently the next article rolled up that there is better one cruiser or three frigates. Stupidity is already in the name - each cruiser, like a ship of the core of an attack group (in the absence of aircraft carriers), needs two or three frigates of URO and air defense (es) to escort. But ... in view of the complete absence of bases and basing points except in Syria, even one such group (squadron) must pull tankers along with it. and tugboats, floating workshops, supply vessels ... this is a remake of Rozhdestvensky’s squadron, again at the speed of the slowest boatman. And the main thing is zero combat value with the complete superiority at sea of ​​the forces of a potential enemy. There remains only one, important but secondary task - the demonstration of the flag, combat training, combat training missions. T e - military policy. But a sharp increase in the fleet also requires a sharp increase in coastal infrastructure — from moorings, training classes, coastal barracks, warehouses ... to DOS, DOF, kindergartens and schools, an increase in recruitment at the VMU, etc. This is all the budget, but it’s not the printing of rubles is by no means equivalent to the printing of dollars. Therefore, the Kremlin is on the path of asymmetric and low-cost planning. I think that the construction of ships of the first rank and aircraft carriers does not shine in the foreseeable future, and frigates and corvettes are needed only on two fleets of the SF and TF. The Black Sea Fleet has been fully restored in the light of possible challenges. The BF has no prospects at all outside the Marquise Puddle, alas.

[DPN]

Let's hope for the Soviet Union that it helped out in 1945 will not let you down today until industry rises in Russia. Russia can be said to have the borders of the USSR, only the population is two smaller and everything else as well.

[free]

Quote: timokhin-aa

WHAT COUNTRY WANTS TO GET FROM GUYS IN BLACK FORM WHAT ONLY THEY CAN GIVE?

I am far from the fleet and therefore I want to ask. What Russia can and should assign tasks to the Navy? Besides the obvious.

[dirk182]

Alexander, your words to God in the ears ! It’s scary to even discuss these issues, so as not to jinx it

[smart ass]

Rather, as in the absence of cowards)

[curio]

Agree that a person will, to put it mildly, also "embarrassed" without galoshes and with a bare belly and in the autumn slush. The article seems to me not about the priority of the frigate over the tank, but about understanding the very essence and essence of the navy and its tasks. which, in my opinion, after Peter not when was not enough. neither in the imperial nor in the Soviet period, but about the present and there is nothing to say. So let's say .... marine, island thinking (england, japan. Usa).
Thanks to Alexander for the article.!

[yehat]

building a fleet is one thing, and society's awareness of the needs and goals of the fleet is another
now probably only 1 out of 100 can voice at least something sane for the fleet
in Germany, about 10 years before WWI, one in three could clearly say why and why Tirpitz is building expensive battleships and what the country will benefit from this.
But the Russian Federation simply does not have a clear naval strategy - it all comes down to stupid protection of the coastline and submarines. And until this strategy is built, we will never have a sane fleet, no matter how we fund it.

[timokhin-aa]

But, unfortunately, the average person does not think. He operates with cliché sets, once driven into his head, shuffling these clichés like a deck of cards. This is a big stretch of thinking, but nothing can be done - the adult psyche, already formed, is extremely difficult to “remake”. With regard to the Russians, this is further aggravated by the merely chronic wishful thinking, when a person does not understand the difference between reality and his own ideas about it and sincerely believes that if he defends some point with a hoarse, a real factor that will influence something. So, for example, are born supercrafts and boats capable of sinking an aircraft carrier. People just want to believe in them, and do not understand that the material world does not depend on their faith. You can calmly sleep with this faith, but only until someone’s bombs are awakened, and then it will be too late, but, alas, the average person cannot understand the cause-effect relationship between his actions and their postponed consequences, which gives rise to a certain form of stagnation. in public thought in our country, including in the military sphere, which is also repeated time after time. We already had “little poppies” and “little blood on foreign territory”, and “two regiments in two hours,” but, as an unintelligent observer obviously, our people still do not learn anything - at no cost.

By the way, how much do you pay for renting an account? I have always been interested in the budget of PR Poseidon, do not share?

[depressant]

The author, Respect to you!
Awesome article, just unique! I never read anything set forth in such an accessible, intelligible, understandable form ... It was understood that something was wrong with the navy, especially after the drowning of the dock, the reasons for which are still vague. But so that everything would be so terrible, there was no such understanding. Thank you once again!

[DPN]

our people still do not learn anything - at no cost.
We have faith in the king, the priest, and it is not for nothing that churches are stamped for faith.

[LeonidL]

This is a question for Canada ... And for you, my dear. You know everything, in all areas of military and naval science and strategy they have surpassed everything, "the average person does not think." Who are you? If you accept for execution all your and your partners' recommendations, wishes, corrections, instructions, etc., everything will be in a stupor. You have never come into contact with the practical side of the Navy's life, and all of yours are just compilations of the type of good wishes in the comic book format for the average person.

[Yarhann]

And here a police baton. The USA is an island empire, most of its colonies have access from the sea precisely for their control and a powerful fleet is needed. For the past 50-70 years, Americans have been waging continuous wars over the resource base around the world, and it is the fleet that ensures the success of these conquests and their control. Everything else is lyrics and beads - such as dermacocracy and the like.

[samaravega]

Of the forces and means listed by you, only "American troughs" exist so far. All "vines", "zircons" and so on - so far cartoons from Vova the Fairy. Not to mention that the use of even one SBS against an American warship will lead to a nuclear war. Or do you think that our Strategic Missile Forces will cope with the tasks, but their American counterpart is not? "We'll go to heaven and they'll just die"?

[Operator]

In reality, there are only strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation, the United States, the People's Republic of China and other nuclear states, the American and other naval troughs are no longer in business - see North Korea, which has bent down even two enemy AUGs at a time without using SBCh.

Radar reconnaissance satellites and hypersonic anti-ship missiles are just the cherry on the cake.

[samaravega]

I dare to note that the problems solved by our aerospace forces in Khmeimim, the Americans can easily solve one AUG in any region of the world. So not only strategic nuclear forces exist on the planet and not only (and not even so much) they are needed. But hypersound and other "cartoon characters" are straight "wunderwaffe" of the late 3rd Reich.

[Nick]

Quote: samaravega

Or do you think that our Strategic Missile Forces will cope with the tasks, but their American counterpart is not? "We'll go to heaven and they'll just die"?

Exactly! "... because we are the victims and they are the aggressors." Finish the quote until the end.

[samaravega]

Does it make you feel better if you are in heaven? Your mother, wife, children? It was easier for millions of our citizens and Jews in gas chambers because they were victims and the Nazis were aggressors? Tens of thousands of civilians of the Japanese Empire in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the seconds that they were burned by light radiation and a shock wave rolled, had time to repent that they were aggressors? And are they the aggressors? Death is a serious thing, because it is irreversible. The existence of paradise has not yet been proven. These are not computer games.

[Nick]

Quote: samaravega

Does it make you feel better if you are in heaven?

Of course! Do you hope to live in this world forever?

[samaravega]

No, but I want to die in bed with my family, and my children and grandchildren to live on. Judging by your answer, you have no children.

[Nick]

Quote: samaravega

No, but I want to die in bed with my family, and my children and grandchildren to live on. Judging by your answer, you have no children.

Everything in this world will end with the Apocalypse.

[samaravega]

You can arrange your own personal now. Or somehow reluctance? I personally do not rush.

[Nick]

Quote: samaravega

You can arrange your own personal now. Or somehow reluctance? I personally do not rush.

Know how to wait, and then everything will come in a timely manner

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: samaravega

Death is a serious thing, because it is irreversible.

Unfortunately, for most people it is serious only to the extent that it concerns themselves, their relatives and friends, well, fellow countrymen in extreme cases. Up to the existence of tribal practices, when the "boys from another district" are not only mortal enemies, but already, as it were, not quite people. Just as Jews and Slavs were not quite people for the Germans and "narrow-eyed" (that the Japanese, that the Koreans, that the Vietnamese) for the Americans. Especially people do not care about someone's death when it is hidden from their eyes behind a thorn in a concentration camp or overseas. However, it did not work with Vietnam, also because television, which was still a novelty at that time, brought the most unsightly "picture" to every American in the house. And now everyone is accustomed to reporting from "hot spots" to the extent that they don't care either.

[Nick]

Quote: Operator

The Americans need the navy as their international police baton. We need a fleet (plus "Liana" and "Container") to drown American troughs with "Zircons" with nuclear warheads at the rate of one trough - one "Zircon".

Yes. Timokhin's task is to convince the audience that "the mustache is gone, the plaster is removed, the client is leaving." He fulfills it according to his own understanding. But! does not understand that it is stupid to compare the fleets of the United States and Russia to primitivism is stupid. Absolutely different goals and, accordingly, tasks are facing these two fleets. This is due to the geographic location, the geopolitical goals of the state, the totality of the capabilities of all types of armed forces, combat arms, weapons systems, and industry capabilities, finally. To assert that "our people" in the General Staff do not know what they want from their Navy, in my opinion, is naive, and arguments like "self-evident" are generally a song. Calm down friends. The Navy is doing well. Surface ships went in series, the topic is getting better with submarines, and this is against the background of problems with the same aircraft carrier Ford in the United States, against the background of their problems with financing the maintenance of aircraft carrier groups. It was not for nothing that the generals offered Trump to dispose of the aircraft carrier Harry Truman. And given the capabilities of our zircons and daggers, the US aircraft carrier fleet becomes just a big iron coffin for its crew.

[Operator]

Shurochka in the dark is funded by the Sukhoi lobby, which is vitally interested in the redistribution of the military budget from the navy to aviation

[samaravega]

Look at the number of carriers of "Daggers" in our aircraft, "Zircons" so far only "cartoon". In the days of the USSR, this would have been counted as a trial operation, it was not even taken into account in war plans. Without even taking the capabilities of an aircraft carrier's wing, see the real capabilities of the Aegis. There is not only the Patriot, but the S-300 and S-400 are "nervously smoking on the sidelines." As for our "effective managers", I completely agree with you - every second person is a "Hero of Russia" every year. One question - they found 12 billion rubles from the FSB COLONEL. STEALED money. Cash and jewels! How many ships could be built for the Navy, even small ones? And if you take up the generals? It is high time to "Vova the Fabulous" between the "boyars" to throw a cry: "Throw in the fleet (aircraft, tanks, not the essence)", you sit less, the people are less indignant, and the state benefits. I think they would have ordered 1 22350 for each fleet, and the Caspian would have received some 1161.

[kuz363]

Keeping a fleet is a very expensive pleasure. Its equipment is determined by the country's economy. Well, you can’t say how many times the US economy exceeds the Russian one. Just one example - the GDP of one state of California exceeds the GDP of Russia! And training should be on top. No wonder in the days of the USSR, draftees in the Navy served 4 years! And these were real professionals.

[timokhin-aa]

Just one example - the GDP of one California state exceeds the GDP of Russia!

The GDP of one Chelyabinsk region at PPP exceeds the budget of Monte-Carlo or Kirghizia. So what?

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Just one example - the GDP of one California state exceeds the GDP of Russia!

The GDP of one Chelyabinsk region at PPP exceeds the budget of Monte-Carlo or Kirghizia. So what?

And what are the sizes of the Navy of Kyrgyzstan and Monte Carlo?

[timokhin-aa]

Same as in the Chelyabinsk region))))

[210ox]

And what do you compare with? Then you drag Andorra too. It’s also a state. We have different opportunities with prisoners. And in industry and in money and in scientific potential. What do we want? And we want what would not happen again late 80s and 90s. There would be bones, and the meat would grow.

[Lopatov]

Quote: 210ox

We have different opportunities with fenders.

And the geography is different ...

[timokhin-aa]

The question is that our possibilities are far from zero. Nobody offers to compete with the United States.

What do we want? And we want to prevent what happened at the end of 80-x and 90-x anymore. If there were bones, and the meat would increase.

We are for all good and against all bad.
Is accepted.

[depressant]

210, I, of course, am a layman in this matter. But let us consider, for example, yesterday’s not just a dispute - a real battle here, at VO, over the construction of a temple in Yekaterinburg. With difficulty, we managed to figure out that a certain oligarch planned to build either an office building or a hypermarket in the city center, and the city "hung" a temple on the oligarch. And he, in order to recoup the costs of the temple, demanded land in the center for the construction of a high-rise building. The city agreed. So, the cost of the church, which is clearly excessive for the city due to the church area already available in it, is no less than 3 billion rubles! And the oligarch is ready to invest this money! Here's what not to demand the government from such figures: if you want a hypermarket, hand over the money to the fleet building fund. For example, in the E-burg, the city's land is taken. But where I live, along the highway, three giant supermarkets are being built - almost opposite each other! And the land is federal! So let them roll back - not to the pockets of officials, but to the military fund. True, I do not know what kind of ship can be built for 5 billion rubles.

[timokhin-aa]

For three and a half yards nothing serious to build. At twenty you can build a corvette. At ten - RTOs.

[dirk182]

and 34,7 billion green currencies?

[timokhin-aa]

Well, there are many you can. Only from foreign contractors. We have something for rubles.

[dirk182]

this amount of money withdrawn from the country from January to April ... I think there would be no problems with the exchange) Alexander, you can find out your opinion, forecast + intuitive sense. Russian fleet to be?

[victor50]

Quote: timokhin-aa

For three and a half yards nothing serious to build. At twenty you can build a corvette. At ten - RTOs.

Just a few supermarkets, etc., and dozens of them are being built! But ... private property is sacred! This is not your state interest!

[dirk182]

Just a few supermarkets, etc., and dozens of them are being built!

So people have demand-money?

[depressant]

victor50, now 19 hours 25 minutes, and funds for the construction of one RTOs have already been found: the next FSB colonel, who was in charge of the banks, was arrested. The investigation presented him with unearmarked 400 million, and in the apartment there were currencies worth 12 billion rubles. That's where our MRK !!! Already takes a horror ...

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: depressant

the cost of the temple, which is clearly excessive for the city due to the already existing church square in it,

You are deeply mistaken, just like you who destroyed the Russian Empire and ruined the USSR, for you do not understand the root, the essence of the concept of prosperity and Victory. Victory is based on a clear ideology, steadfastness of the consciousness of the fighters, the ability to rely in their thoughts on postulates and logically connect concepts ..... and this is inaccessible to pagans, with their developed chain of concepts in the brains, Only a monotheistic religion forms a consciousness that is whole and capable of perseverance and logic. While Russia believed in God, it grew and became godless, there was a continuous collapse, up to the loss of Ukraine. and actually you’re wrong, do you need a pagan semi-atheist to count how many temples such a large city needs, taking into account all its inhabitants?

[depressant]

Vladimir 1155, may you calm down, I, a believer, a believer! Just go to yesterday's topic and see the repeatedly presented maps of the E-burg. There are churches - on every corner! According to local residents, for the most part empty and often even closed. Therefore, do not ascribe to visitors of VO such thoughts and aspirations that they do not have. Reading your post was, to put it mildly, funny. Defamation in its purest form. Labeling Stop and show respect to people! Patriots of their Fatherland came to talk about the fleet.

[Vladimir1155]

I don’t see faith in you, but now many can dress up in the toga of believers .... for your unbeliever’s ideology. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, and inside are cruel wolves.
as you can see from your post, there are more gossips and howls about the abundance of churches and even closed ones ....... What do you call Me: Lord! Lord - and do not do what I say? Everyone who comes to me and listens to my words and fulfills them, I will tell you to whom he is like. He is like a man building a house who was digging, deepening and laying a foundation on a stone; why, when a flood happened and the water pushed onto this house, it could not shake it, because it was based on a stone. And the one who hears and does not perform is like a man who built a house on the ground without foundation, who, when he put water on him, immediately collapsed; and the destruction of this house was great

This necessarily applies to us, who through the mouth confess Him as Lord, and deny Him by deeds (Tit. 1, 16). If, ”he says,“ I am the Lord, then you must act like slaves in everything. ” And the duty of the slaves is to do what the Lord commands. Then he tells us what good it is to those who listen to Him and not only listen, but actually do it. Such is like a person building a house, building one on a stone. The stone, as the apostle testifies (1 Cor. 10: 4), is Christ. - Digs and deepens the one who does not take the words of Scripture superficially, but seeks the depths of their spirit. One bases on a stone; then, when a flood occurs, that is, persecution or temptation, the river will approach this house, that is, a tempter, whether it is a demon or a person, and, however, cannot shake it. A tempting person can very justly be compared to a flood of a river. For just as river floods produce water falling from above, so does the man of the adversary who returns Satan, who has fallen from heaven. The house of those who do not keep the words of the Lord falls, and the destruction of this house is great. For the fall of those who listen, but do not create, is great, because those who did not hear and did not do it sin more easily, but those who hear and, however, do not fulfill it, sin more heavily.

[Varyag71]

Headbanged

[Catfish]

Why are you all this? A whole sheet of verbiage, but not a word in the case. Stop chattering the side, this is not a church pulpit. And stop hitting your forehead on the tile, do not reach the holy heavens anyway.

[dirk182]

sorry, that is, ideology must now lay down that the temple is a form of pullback during the construction of a housing complex? Such a specific form of bribe? A true believer will have enough of a cross. God must be in the soul and heart.

Victory is based on a clear ideology, steadfastness of consciousness of fighters, the ability to rely in one’s thoughts on postulates and logically connect concepts ..

and in detachments!

[DPN]

GDP, how to decrypt ???? Now, if they had: yachts, island, planes and palaces were thrown off and the GDP would probably be like the USA, then the wealth that the USSR had was almost all left for Russia, for which our neighbors do not like us. So do not compare GDP.

[LeonidL]

If yes, if only ... Well, there is no longer the USSR! Get down to the land of capitalist and, to the extent possible, democratic Russia. What is in the clouds?

[depressant]

I answer DPN.
GDP is the gross domestic product from which tax is taken to the budget. This tax is very small for us. Because the fleet is not enough. Taking into account the fact that a significant part of the money allocated for the Army is plundered by shell contractors and taken abroad. For example, it became known that after the sanctions imposed by the United States on our oligarchs, a trillion dollars were frozen in the accounts of the latter. Would that be enough to build a decent fleet? I think yes. And the tax from this trillion would be enough if it remained in our banks. But this is the economic policy of the Medvedev government. It causes me, to say the least, amazement. As for the insignificance of the volume of the revenues of the Russian budget, there is, in fact, nothing to levy serious taxes from. Only from gas and oil pipes. We have very little of our own industry. The entire consumer market is provided by international commercial and industrial corporations, which are all offshore and work only for themselves. Our budget has little, if anything from them. They were allowed into the country to fill stores with goods. It's one thing when the salary is small and there is nothing to buy. Another thing is when you have something to buy with a loan. This is how our dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the country is extinguished. Other countries are filling their budgets with their own local industry. And we have no matter what large enterprise you take, it is with foreign participation. Foreigners can squeeze it out. "Rusal" is an example of this. Hence the problems with the fleet.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: depressant

This tax is very small

here with a finger hit the sky .......
How Ulyukaevtsy and Abyzovites ruin the economy of the Russian Federation.

Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin instructed Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev to calculate the tax burden in the Russian Federation ... apparently there were no experts in the government who could calculate this ... well then we will calculate it ourselves ... ..
Taxes in Russia (why macroeconomics can simply be summed up below) 13 personal income tax +20 PROFIT + 22 VAT + 32 UST (despite the fact that the UST is a typical tax, that is, it is stolen to a large extent by intermediaries by insurers, and for example, vaccinations of supervisors and doctors who do not treat, but almost no one will receive a pension now, that is, a maximum of 5 percent of real help will return to the citizen from the collected amount). Total direct open taxes on human added value in the Russian Federation are ... 87 percent! To this should be added the state anti-constitutional fees for property (hidden personal income tax), they make (for the example of the Republic of Tatarstan 2018 personal income tax of 75.5 billion (total 5.8 billion is one percent of the total tax burden on value added), and the charges 8.2 +1.6 + 26.5 + 1.3 + 3.8 = 41.4 billion (7.8 percent)) in total we get real personal income tax in the Russian Federation 20.8 percent. And the total direct tax burden rises to 94.8 percent. Excise taxes amount to (for example, the Republic of Tatarstan 2018 personal income tax 75.5 billion, and excise taxes 28.7 billion or 4.95 percent). And the total direct tax burden rises to 99.75 percent of the value added, taking into account property levies and excise taxes). Now we will calculate the requisitions (the burden in favor of private individuals (Igor Yurgens)), but introduced by the state in their interests, I mean technical inspection and OSAG (in Tatarstan for 1.22 million cars and 102 thousand trucks, and OSAG and technical inspection are about 7000 per cars per year. 9.38 billion per year, or 1.6 percent growth in the total tax burden), that is, we cross the tax barrier even without mineral extraction ... .. MET extraction of oil and oil products about 100 million tons per year, and domestic consumption about 300 million tons In total, Russians pay a tenth of the mineral extraction tax revenues, while oil and gas revenues account for half of the budget revenues, that is, if, apart from the mineral tax, we are taxed with one hundred percent, we add the mineral tax share in the form of 30 percent ... .. Congratulations, since the official tax burden in the Russian Federation is more than 10 percent , no white business in Russia can exist in principle!
Now why can taxes be simply added up, the company’s accountant will object that for example VAT is not levied on the payroll, but all this salary will go to the shops sooner and later, and will be subject to VAT. Or that the esn and the income tax are not subject to components and materials, yes, but they were imposed on the esn and income tax in the process of their creation, but only at other enterprises from the suppliers of these components. So, in the macroeconomic process, each ruble of surplus value is taxed at least once with all types of taxes. You say that the income tax does not apply to the salary fund .... and where will the profit come from if you pay 90-110 taxes from real production? Is this tax? it’s kicking the dead economy, you killed it, but everyone is trying to kill it again ... we do not take into account the corruption load of 20 percent, and unforeseen business expenses ... ..

[Nick]

Quote: vladimir1155

Taxes in Russia (why in macroeconomics you can simply add arithmetically explained below) 13 PIT + 20 PROFIT + 22 VAT + 32 UST

Profit 20%, taking into account preferential sectors will be less. PIT 13% from the accrued salary of the employee! VAT 20%, taking into account preferential sectors and goods for export, will be less. ESN 30% with PHOT!, taking into account the preferential categories of entrepreneurs will be less. Slyly.

[Vladimir1155]

how much less? a few percent? what does it give if without lgoniki it turns out 110 percent, at least 110, at least 99, at least 88, no business is surviving, so you are disingenuous

[Vadim237]

I have a very successful business, I see because I know how to count, unlike some.

[Vladimir1155]

because you are evading taxes, Eak said to Mr. Eugene (James) Bond, when his wife Eugene Bond was imprisoned under Criminal Code 159 h 6, "If you do not pass Article 159, then you are not an entrepreneur in Russia."

[Nick]

Quote: depressant

We have very few of our own industries.

What is little? Compared with the United States, the real sector is half the size of the United States, but the United States and the population are more than two times larger.

[DPN]

To the depressant (Lyudmila Yakovlevna Kuznetsova) from DPN, thank you for the information by mistake or ??? took GDP for Putin.

[Vadim237]

"Taking into account the fact that a significant part of the money allocated for the Army is stolen by shell contractors and taken abroad." Here in more detail you can, who and how in Russia plunders every year half of the military budget, which is about 700 billion rubles?

[kirill_1284]

And what prevents GDP from making the Russian economy a match for the US? or more powerful? there are resources, people are (not 3 million, as in Georgia), and what’s the matter? .. maybe in GDP?

[Nick]

Quote: kirill_1284

And what prevents GDP from making the Russian economy a match for the US? or more powerful? there are resources, people are (not 3 million, as in Georgia), and what’s the matter? .. maybe in GDP?

It’s not GDP that hinders, it is rather contributing. And two points interfere:
1. The population in the Russian Federation is half
2. The ruble is not the main international means of payment, unlike the dollar. And he will not be in the framework of the existing international financial and economic system.

[Vadim237]

And the third most determining one is the lack of large sales markets.

[kirill_1284]

And what prevents GDP from making the Russian economy a match for the US? or more powerful? there are resources, people are (not 3 million, as in Georgia), and what’s the matter? .. maybe in GDP?

[ak747]

California GDP - 3 trillion. dollars, Russia's GDP at PPP - 4 trillion. dollars. Not superior.

[samaravega]

Who can I thank for that? Maybe the man who promised 2012 million "high-tech jobs" in 25?

[DPN]

Good question, I put ++

[Vadim237]

For 25 million highly skilled jobs — there are no 25 million highly skilled workers in Russia — those who are clearly not highly skilled are sitting on the labor market.

[samaravega]

Demand creates supply. Not the other way around. The law in force worldwide has been around for thousands of years. There will be places - there will be demand. There will be a demand for highly qualified, with appropriate payment - there will be educational institutions for their training, etc., not immediately, but 25 million will appear. It's just that all these promises are pure populism. "They are terribly far from the people." How many years ago did it say?

[Nick]

Quote: kuz363

Fleet maintenance is a very costly pleasure

This is yes.

Quote: kuz363

Just one example - the GDP of one California state exceeds the GDP of Russia!

GDP is calculated as the total value of all goods and services produced in a certain time period. Comparing the GDP of different countries is silly. Prices for goods and services vary widely across countries. Moreover, GDP differs greatly in structure. In the US, the real manufacturing sector is only 19% and in Russia, 42%. Plus the "gray" sector of the economy, which, according to the IMF, is 38-40% in Russia, and practically absent in the United States.
Thus, the real sector of the production of goods (not services) in the United States is only twice as large as the Russian one. Although formally the volume of US GDP, taking into account PPPs, exceeds the volume of GDP of the Russian Federation by 4,89 times.

[lucul]

But, unfortunately, the average person does not think. He operates sets of cliches, once driven into his head, shuffling these cliches like a deck of cards. This is a stretch of mindset, but nothing can be done - the adult psyche, being already formed, is extremely difficult to “redo”

This is called simply - inertness of thinking.
And it is quite well treated if the brain is trained, and not let everything go by itself (like the notorious "invisible" hand of the market)

[timokhin-aa]

"If" is the key word.

[LeonidL]

The fact is that the mass of people is just average statistical, and decisions are made not at Veche or Maidan, here the result is a failure in advance, but by those who are not average. There is a science of "management". Those who have ruled and commanded understand the brunt of decision making. and take into account the possibility and the human factor and other things. Take the proposed numerous amendments, improvements, additions by Andrey from Chelyabinsk and Timokhin. If all this is accepted there will be a stupor. Are they doing it? I had to manage several projects. One for about 40 ml. And everything went fine until the start. And then the nightmare began, it turned out that one great, talented and other person introduced changes to the project, also quite, quite wonderful ... but at the last moment. They turned out to be incompatible with the original solution. Thank God, with difficulty, but we managed to find an opportunity to combine and everything eventually worked. Therefore, especially in the fleet, changes are introduced not on the lead ship, as a rule, but on the serial ones and without haste and all hands-on operations. And the sentiments like on the BDK: "Sew up the nose - open the stern!" - this is from the area of ​​the new naval anecdote.

[Moore]

Reminded:

She blew off the dust from the luxurious binding, which was solemnly crossed out by the blue cross of Andreev’s banner.
- Only for you ... Even the name captivates: "Does the Russian fleet need, and its significance in Russian history." Take it
“Thank you,” the officer answered, barely glancing. - Even without this book, Mr. Belavents, I know that the Russian fleet is necessary.

V. Pikul. "Moonzund"

[timokhin-aa]

By the way, I read Belavents and recommend it to everyone - it clears the head, especially about the fans of the "continental state".

[Per se.]

Alexander, when you write that "our people must answer a completely different question", I would like to argue, not our ordinary people, but those in power. Do our oligarchs really need an army and a navy that are sitting under a master who controls all their treasures? That is the main question. They destroyed not only the fleet, they destroyed everything, including the very industry, the country's economy itself, sharpening everything under the scoop of resources from Russia. Cheeks to puff up in front of your people one thing, raising ratings, really think about the good of the Russian people and the interests of Russia, is already another. Than Peter I, the situation was better, but there was a better understanding and the need to strengthen Russia as an empire. ”It is enough to recall the well-known quotations here.

Peter I

“All our affairs will be overthrown if the fleet is spent.”
- “Military business is the first of worldly affairs, which is most important for the defense of our Fatherland”
- "which, one land army has, has one hand, and which the fleet has both hands"
- "By military deed, - said the Great Peter, - Russia has come out from darkness to light."
- the creation of a new Russia associated with "nothing else, only the fleet"
(Pavlenko N. I. Peter the First /
N. Pavlenko. - M .: Young Guard, 1975.)

- “There would be a fleet, and there will be harbors”

[samaravega]

There is no need to engage in populism (as V. Pikul once did). The author has no doubts that the Russian fleet is needed. He quite rightly poses the question: Russia (especially in conditions of limited resources not so much as a collapsed production base) must decide: for what and, accordingly, what kind of fleet it needs. And the author is right again: if the authorities do not want or cannot do this, the public should push them to do this (if it is mild, but under current conditions, give a "magic pendel"), as is customary in any democratic state.

[knn54]

That's what the lack of ideology leads to an ideological impasse.

[timokhin-aa]

This is not the absence of ideology, but the absence of goal-setting.

[free]

Quote: timokhin-aa

This is not the absence of ideology, but the absence of goal-setting.

So the lack of ideology leads to a lack of goal-setting.

[Per se.]

We do not lack an ideology, our "elite" does have an ideology, hence the "goal-setting", in which not so much the army and the navy become two allies for Russia, but more oil and gas. The main thing is to make money, even on the defensive. Who makes them, and where billions flow away, is another question. It is tearful about the economy of the people's penny, how the fleet is ruining the country ... This is not what the gentlemen need to save on.

[timokhin-aa]

Goal-setting can be driven by selfish interests. As Cecil Rhodes said, "Empire is a matter of the stomach." It seems he was ...

We have a unique situation when there are predatory capitalists, there are efficient people, there is something to profit from distant shores, there are natives who will thank you very seriously if we save them from something for a small share ... but puzzle does not add up. And that's it.

[samaravega]

History always repeats itself. We are successfully building capitalism, which at the time of the USSR was called "comprador" and according to the laws of which South America probably still lives. Only ours is covered with nuclear weapons.

[free]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Goal-setting can be driven by selfish interests. As Cecil Rhodes said, "Empire is a matter of the stomach." It seems he was ...

We have a unique situation when there are predatory capitalists, there are efficient people, there is something to profit from distant shores, there are natives who will thank you very seriously if we save them from something for a small share ... but puzzle does not add up. And that's it.

One can see something wrong with the components of the puzzle, they do not fit each other.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: timokhin-aa

This is not the absence of ideology, but the absence of goal-setting.

what goal-setting ??? what do you suggest? "strong fleet"?
Trumam's idea was quite robust. lobbyists crushed her using public opinion. what is the outcome? Now the United States has 11 aircraft carriers that consume 40% of the total military budget, while a maximum of 3 can go to sea. In modern realities, these aircraft carriers are large convenient targets even for Iran. due to lack of money this year, more than 200 scientific programs have been curtailed in the United States. for a second, due to lack of money in the USA! so what is the success then? success for Russia is probably success, and here’s how to win over 200 developments for the Pentagon, including a new strike drone, but for the USA?
Are you lobbying for the same "fleet" for Russia?

[timokhin-aa]

Trumam's idea was quite sensible. lobbyists crushed it taking advantage of public opinion.

You have not carefully studied the question. Truman in fact won. He would push the Congress together with the pilots and the chairman of the OKNSH. He cut a new carrier program, he made the most striking reduction of the Navy in human history, he put the marines on such a hungry ration that she then learned to fight right in the war. Truman did not have a couple of years.

And the Navy was not saved by Congress, and not by public opinion; Kim Il Sung saved them.

[Sanichsan]

I agree. plusonul.
but in your article I was hooked by another point ... why didn’t you like the changes in the structure of the Russian army? finally, a single body was implemented that determines the appearance and armament of the army as a whole. not separately for the airborne forces, separately for the fleet, separately for the army and separately for the Strategic Missile Forces (a couple to the detriment of the rest).
passed hundreds of times already ... the Japanese had the Navy with their aircraft and the imperial army with their aircraft, which even had bolts in aircraft with different pitch. It's good? for the USSR and the USA if only.
in Germany there were Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarie and Luftwaffe who constantly pulled a blanket over themselves. how it ended everyone remembers.
we have created a unified weapons planning body. what's wrong then?

[timokhin-aa]

Firstly, it is not finally organized, but AGAIN.

With all the external attractiveness of the "single organ" in real life, this is a rake that we have already stepped on, and which have already hit us on the head.
Different types of the Armed Forces have very different specifics in matters of command and control, especially it concerns the fleet.

It is not in vain that the Anglo-Saxons do not use the "Prussian" model of military command (General Staff at the Supreme Command), but have the OKNSh, and a duplicated civil-military command system - with all its hard disadvantages, it is more flexible and adaptable.

Find on the Internet the book of Rear Admiral V. Dudko "Heroes of Bangor". About the disruption of the first combat duty "Ohio". What land commander would have guessed to set the task like this? The answer is no, and these tasks are not set. The savagery in shipbuilding programs, which I often criticize, in fact also often comes from the General Staff, and not from the fleet. The General Staff does not give a damn about the fleet and its tomorrow, they are working out the "policy", according to the scheme "and now make specialized ships - carriers of the CD" - and we get for nothing but a salvo of "Caliber" unusable 21361, etc.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Different types of the Armed Forces have very different specifics in matters of command and control, especially it concerns the fleet.

Duc controls then naval remained. what has changed is that they do not decide what to manage.

Quote: timokhin-aa

It is not in vain that the Anglo-Saxons do not use the "Prussian" model of military command (General Staff at the Supreme Command), but have the OKNSh, and a duplicated civil-military command system - with all its hard disadvantages, it is more flexible and adaptable.

an example not very .. the British army and navy today are the same sad sight as the Soviet navy and the army after the "reforms" 90-00 ... although they say that everything was sad before the reforms ...

Quote: timokhin-aa

Find on the Internet the book of Rear Admiral V. Dudko "Heroes of Bangor".

thank you. I will definitely find time and honor it.

Quote: timokhin-aa

The General Staff does not give a damn about the fleet and its tomorrow, they are working out the "policy", according to the scheme "and now do specialized ships - carriers of the CD" - and we get for nothing but a salvo of "Caliber" unusable 21361, etc.

and what "calibers" do not suit you? it turned out to be quite an effective means of destruction. in my opinion, it is quite logical to have as many missile carriers as possible capable of hitting targets at a distance of over 1000 km. besides them, many frigates are under construction. By the way, the "most balanced" are also going to go to the frigates. something even the American budget does not pull a bunch of Berks and Ticonderogs ... maybe all the same there are not really fools sitting there

[lucul]

For comparison, it is worth looking out of the corner of our eyes to the American Maritime strategy - the “Maritime Strategy” of the eighties, which was the basis of American naval activities against the USSR in the 80s and turned out to be extremely successful.

Everything is completely different there. The main adversary is defined - the USSR and the "merged" with it until the country of the Warsaw Pact is inseparable. Potential allies of the USSR outside Europe — Libya, the DPRK, Cuba, and Vietnam — have been identified. Revealed their real possibilities in a naval war. The main features of the strategy of the Navy of the USSR, its goals and objectives, which the political leadership of the USSR sets before it, its advantages and weaknesses are listed. The order of conflict escalation has been determined in stages - from peacetime to global thermonuclear war with the use of strategic nuclear weapons. The specific objectives of the US Navy are listed - from keeping communications with Europe and “offensive mining” at the beginning of the conflict, to landing on Kamchatka, the Kola Peninsula and Sakhalin at the end (provided that the situation allows).

Why is that ?
I will answer. In the West, the oligarchs are well aware that without a battle-worthy army, wealth cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the country's elite and fleet acted in unison - for the good and defense capabilities of their country. The efficiency in this case is maximum.
With the collapse of the USSR (I’ll take this segment), we also began to create an elite by privatizing state property. But this elite, thanks to the machinations of enemies, turned out to be largely non-Russian, and if the Russians came across in it, they played the role of a screen, puppets under external control, like Zelensky under Kolomoisky.
This is an important moment - for 30 years after the collapse of the USSR, the country's elite has not been created, and the one that exists is simply robbing the country and taking all the money abroad. As Yatsenyuk said there - "Ukraine is not my historical homeland and after my premiership, I am not going to stay here."
Conclusion - if you do not see the root of the problem, you can "forever" struggle with its consequences.
Until the army and the elite work in unison, Russia will not see world domination. It’s like a crab, a pike and a swan in Krylov’s fable.

[timokhin-aa]

Well, the west of our elitarians has already begun to tweak, I think, the moment of truth for these guys is not far off.

[Vladimir 5]

Timokhin ... The West does not pinch this "elite" of the Russian Federation, only portrays it - the main thing, the stolen billions do not touch ... I sometimes think that these sanctions are more for the people and the state of the state, for the elite they are harmless (Fridman, Lisin, Mikhelson ...). This is the difference between the elite and the state in the Russian Federation. And Yatsenyuk's statement is very suitable for the elite of the Russian Federation ...

[timokhin-aa]

YES, there is really no sanction, it’s just tears, not sanctions. But the fact that RUSAL no longer belongs to Deripaska - it is.
And from this draw conclusions.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: timokhin-aa

YES, there is really no sanction, it’s just tears, not sanctions. But the fact that RUSAL no longer belongs to Deripaska - it is.
And from this draw conclusions.

they will not, for they have long been in the same role as the Deripaska.

[samaravega]

Sanctions to Fridman, Michelson, etc., listed by you. made up for our power from our pockets. A concrete example: they went bankrupt and took away Mosoblbank under criminal prosecution in 2015. Standard article, non-payment of taxes. Any businessman can be brought under it. The bank was given to Rotenberg (he and his brother and son are very fond of judo and built the Crimean bridge) and they gave a loan for rehabilitation at (attention!) 0,75% per annum! In rubles! The money, of course, is budgetary. Find me a loan on such terms! In the Russian Federation, there is no difference between the elite and the state. The elite made the state an instrument for extracting money from the people.

[victor50]

Quote: lucul

for the most part non-Russian

Nationality has nothing to do with it. Russian nouveau riches behave the same way. Broke. On the principle of "target and leak". As long as we look for troubles in the intrigues of some nationality, they will never end.

[lucul]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Well, the west of our elitarians has already begun to tweak, I think, the moment of truth for these guys is not far off.

God forbid .....

[jmndslthr.]

but for the country do we have strategies goals and objectives that are understandable and accepted by citizens, and written not on the last day, before the financial stage closes? Faith in the holy invisible hand and self-organization is all that.

[timokhin-aa]

Nope And this is a problem from the same series.

[jmndslthr.]

it is only a pity that further philosophies on this subject fall under the article on constitutions. system and can be perceived as calls for something there ... so that the riot of admirals - not a ride

[Operator]

Quote: lucul

"The specific goals of the US Navy are listed - from maintaining communications with Europe and" offensive mining "at the beginning of the conflict, to landing on Kamchatka, the Kola Peninsula and Sakhalin"

These goals in the 1980s were intended to hang noodles on members of the US Congress and knock out budget funding for the US Navy - keeping Atlantic communications and American landings on Kamchatka, the Kola Peninsula and Sakhalin after the "glass transition" of the US national territory with a massive nuclear missile strike is akin to crying for hair after chopping off the head.

Why the hell do TMBs need American naval landings in the most radioactive inferno - Kamchatka and the Kola Peninsula?

[jmndslthr.]

approximately as in a metaverse folout - sailors either populate platforms, or land on a charred shore and recolonize it, by the way, in the spirit of ark missions, the presence of women on board is somewhat desirable

[timokhin-aa]

I have already given you the above universal answer to absolutely everything that you personally are able to write, please read it.

[LeonidL]

Universal answer? Yes, you, my dear, do not mark on the post of Commander-in-Chief, but on the post of the Lord!

[akudr48]

To the question: WHAT COUNTRY WANTS TO RECEIVE FROM GUYS IN BLACK FORM SUCH WHAT THEY CAN GIVE ONLY?

The author himself does not answer this question, only asks, and that’s good.

But he gives examples of the struggle of the adversary for the fleet, as they raised the congress on this matter.

It was possible to take advantage of this practice, but where we have a congress, that’s the question ...

[timokhin-aa]

Do you think I have no answer to this question? There is.
Only this is MY answer to this question.

[Serg65]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Do you think I have no answer to this question? There is.

The answer to the studio! We ask, we ask ......

[timokhin-aa]

No Sergey, just after you.

[Serg65]

Heh, heh, heh Alexander! My mom and dad are not allowed to play "Believe or not believe" games! You muddied this wave, and you must answer!
P.S. Regarding Evmenov .... the frequent change of commanders-in-chief due to the lack of qualified personnel ...... a fleet in order to become a commander-in-chief needs at least 3 of the year to be an Navy Navy General School, the level of commander-in-chief and comm fleet (even if he is commander of the Northern Fleet) is incommensurable! Therefore, Evmenov is unlikely to be delayed for long.

[timokhin-aa]

You see what's the matter.
I have increased aggression in my life, a tendency to use violence, in fights a tendency to inflicting injuries and injuries on opponents, without which it would be possible to do, a low threshold before using weapons on people and other bad character traits. So it happened.
I have the same set of ideas that we are discussing with you. But I’m not sure that broadcasting it all into society will be correct, as my ideas about the use of military force bear the distinct imprint of my personality.
Do you understand?
Maybe it should be more careful, more prudent or something ...
But if you describe your vision, I promise that I, too, will not linger.

[Serg65]

Quote: timokhin-aa

I have increased aggressiveness in my life

That's noticeable.

Quote: timokhin-aa

if you write your vision

Instead of seeing, I will tell you a small parable.
In December of the 79 of the USSR, troops were sent to Afghanistan, the United States, in order to pressure the USSR, decided to increase its naval group in the Arabian Sea. AUG led by Nimitz advanced into the region from the Mediterranean Sea, enveloping Africa from the west. For tracking Nimitz from the 5-th OpESk BOD reserved was allocated. Having passed the Suez Canal in the Madagascar region, the BOD sat on the tail of the AUG. The southwestern part of the Indian Ocean, the Soviet BOD is ONE against 18 AUG ships, within a radius of 1000 km of more than one Soviet ship and aircraft! At the same time, the Restrained one does not just weave somewhere on the sidelines, but insolently turns in front of the Nimitz, cutting the course of the ACG. The fate of the ship and the life of the sailors were completely aimed at disrupting the timing of the arrival of this AUG in the Arabian Sea, where Coral Sea was in a hurry from the east with his gang!
This is me, Andrey, to the fact that no matter how many ships you have, if you do not have a strong state with a powerful army !!!! The Americans were afraid to touch with their finger even the fragile RZK based on MRI!

[timokhin-aa]

I will humbly remind you that in 1979 the Americans could well proceed from the assumption that the BOD works as a direct tracking ship and transfers the control center to some SSGN. At that time they did not know how to search for their "footprints" on the surface of the water, and in order to find a spoon with the help of the RGAB one should roughly know where to look.

Hence restraint))))

In addition, you should be aware of the fact that they have not always been so restrained in relation to our ships. Both before and after, out of touch with the power of the Soviet economy.

The Americans were afraid to touch even the fragile RZK on the base of MRI with a finger!

Yes, we were also afraid of a lot of things, too much.

Dudko out almost planted. He does not write in his book, but his PLA with that same the "funnel" trip was met at the pier. I don’t know how they settled it.
And for me so with the move the GSS should have been given.

But reprimand at the same time!

[timokhin-aa]

P.S. Regarding Evmenov .... frequent change of chief commanders from the lack of qualified personnel ...... fleet commanders, in order to become commander in chief, you need at least 3 for a year to be NGSH of the Navy

The General Staff of the Navy was defeated even under Serdyukov, as recently one person from the Ministry of Defense spoke out "there in half a day it was possible not to meet anyone," and instead of him we now have the naval section of the General Staff, and the NSH itself, approving any decisions. The General Staff of the Navy formally exists, there even started some kind of operational department, as before, but this is just a shadow of what was, and this shadow has nothing to do with combat control.

As I wrote to you, the system has changed and not for the better.

[Serg65]

Quote: timokhin-aa

General Staff of the Navy was defeated even under Serdyukov

The General Staff of the Navy needed to be crushed even under Sergeyev with the landing of Gromov and Kuroedov for long periods !!!

Quote: timokhin-aa

the system has changed and not for the better.

I am an optimist and believe that with an increase in the composition of the Navy, the Navy’s Commander-in-Chief will also be reborn!

[timokhin-aa]

The GSH can easily require building rocket gunboats so that further in the plates you can see good performance on the trigger cells (they even infected the naval plague), and you can’t blow it off. And the Glavkomat will have only one option - take it under the visor.

First, the strategy. Then the command structures, headquarters, in short "brains". The Main Command, the General Staff of the Navy, the Central Command Center, the Computing Center - everything that was "lost" during the reforms. Perhaps with new people. Then, together with the General Staff, they "share" the tasks with each other - this is the Navy, this is the Land Forces, this is the Aerospace Forces, and here we are fighting together, right down to joint combat formations.

Then, the shipbuilding program is rewritten for these tasks, and then the corresponding ships are built.

We must immediately do everything according to the mind.

[Serg65]

Quote: timokhin-aa

We must immediately do everything according to the mind.

when our ministry was abolished and I, as a former minister, was appointed first deputy minister of the Armed Forces, the vague functions and the absence of a legal provision regulated by any document led to the fact that the staff of the General Staff apparatus and various departments of the People’s Commissariat became the actual arbiters of all naval issues .
I learned with bitterness how rapidly all of our applications for money, ships, and equipment are being rapidly cut and how even those loans that have already been approved are being cut.
With the formation of a single Ministry of Defense, the Minister of the Navy became the First Deputy Minister of Defense. His rights were so limited that the fleets were not formally subordinated to him and he could give them orders as deputy minister and nothing more.

Do you guess whose words these are?

[timokhin-aa]

Not sure, but in style and personnel points it looks like N.G. Kuznetsova. I haven't reread it for a long time.

[Serg65]

Yes, this is N.G. Kuznetsov "Sharp turns" and the conversation goes for the 1946th year!

[timokhin-aa]

I have long been reading this book.

I want to say that little has changed since then. As it turned out.

[Serg65]

Quote: timokhin-aa

I want to say that little has changed since then.

The most interesting thing, Alexander, the history of the development of the Soviet-Russian fleet over the past 100 years is constantly repeating itself at its nodal points! For example, until 1936, they did not even remember the USSR Navy, as soon as the Francoists + Germans + Italians covered a couple of our transports, as soon as Comrade. Stalin wanted a large fleet. After the death of the father of all nations, a large and fat one was again put on the fleet, but then Nikita Sergeyevich wanted to make a visit to Egypt in 1964 on the "Armenia" motor ship. Throughout the cruise "Armenia" was accompanied by NATO ships and aircraft. Naturally, the question arose ... Sergey Georgievich, where are your ships ????? ..... so Nikita Sergeevich, you yourself, by your order of them .... tyutyu (not verbatim for moderators ... you understand)! After this visit, the Soviet Navy looked with different eyes. In 2015, Russia stood up for Syria ..... oh, we don’t have a fleet either !!!!! Exactly 2015 can be considered the year of the next revival of the Russian fleet!

[timokhin-aa]

Well, it's time to get out of the vicious circle, I think.

[Serg65]

Our desires converge!

[ProkletyiPirat]

And what's the point of giving money and leverage to the head of the Navy if he cannot explain to outsiders what and how to do? And all his / their suggestions / wishes / requirements \ ... this is stupid copy-paste of foreign doctrines and it is clear to any outsider that these doctrines do not suit us due to the fact that we are a land country and therefore the fleet always has the lowest priority in the distribution of resources. At the same time, he does not do what the head of the Navy should do because "we did not go through this, they did not ask us."

[Serg65]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

And what's the point of giving money and leverage to the head of the Navy

In the fleet, money and control levers must be given to a competent person in this matter, who is more knowledgeable in the affairs of the fleet ... the head of the Navy or the Minister of Defense?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

if he cannot explain to strangers what and how to do?

It cannot be explained by the fact that outsiders have their own Wishlist and these private Wishlist have nothing to do with the actual affairs of the fleet!

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

it's stupid copy-paste of foreign doctrines

Why do you think so? For example, on Kuznetsov’s desire to increase the air defense of new ships, Stalin replied that we were not going to fight off the coast of America! Those. the experience of the just-concluded war was immediately forgotten!

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

these doctrines do not suit us because we are a land country and therefore the fleet always has the least priority in the allocation of resources

You spoke directly with the words of the great strategist Zhukov ... he, too, shouted with foam at his mouth about the uselessness of aircraft carriers, landing ships and marine corps! I agree with you about the least priority ..... but those in power always remember the fleet when a rooster pecks at the fifth point!

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

At the same time, he does not do what the head of the Navy should do because "we did not go through this, they did not ask us."

An example of such actions please?

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Serg65

who is more versed in the affairs of the fleet .. the head of the Navy or the Minister of Defense?

Secretary of Defense, Why? but because it is he who possesses the entirety of information and it is he who sets the priorities for the allocation of resources.

Quote: Serg65

You spoke directly with the words of the great strategist Zhukov ... he, too, shouted with foam at his mouth about the uselessness of aircraft carriers, landing ships and marine corps!

I don’t need to ascribe Zhukov’s opinion, that’s his opinion. I have my own opinion, and our opinions with him are similar only in appearance, and then remotely.

Quote: Serg65

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

At the same time, he does not do what the head of the Navy should do because "we did not go through this, they did not ask us."

An example of such actions please?

Establishment of civil-military restrictions on the use of coastal territory. Determination of ultra-long-term plans for the development of coastal areas. This is the direct responsibility of the head of the Navy, and none of them, at least until 2019, fulfilled this (for the restrictions must be public and accessible so that other organizations and specialists can use them). Due to the absence of these restrictions and plans for 2019, the USSR / RF, damage has already been done in the overdose of money. For example, on the Black Sea there is the city of "Novorossiysk" where the territory is ideal for placing warehouses, berths, repair docks, shipyards, etc. etc. was given for the capital construction of the housing stock and individual housing construction, specifically speaking of the central and southern areas of the city. At the same time, in the same place, for the construction of a naval base, an area was given where the "bora" blows in winter, as a result of which the berths on the northern part of the Tsemesskaya Bay in winter have limited use and sometimes ships do have to go to sea in order not to get damaged from wind, icing and ice floes. As a result, due to the inaction of all these "heads of the Navy", the Russian Federation today does not have deep-water ports, shipyards, and has a need to waste resources to move residential areas.
In simple ordinary language, the heads of the Navy had to determine where, how and what to do the main and backup infrastructure, they did not do this, as a result, in Novorossiysk, the chief architect of the city made a mistake in planning the city, which today requires saving money for correction.

[Serg65]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Establishment of civilian restrictions on the use of coastal territory

How do you imagine that?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Definition of long-term plans for the development of coastal areas.

This is porridge in your head !!!! Does the minister, governor, mayor of the city run to the navy commander for an appointment with a request to build an object near the shore? Or the Navy commander comes to the president and says, I want to develop the coastal territory here and this is my land! The Commander-in-Chief only gives a balanced and considered proposal on the basis of which the president accepts or does not accept the decision ..... not even the Minister of Defense!

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

At the same time, in the same place for the construction of a naval base, the territory where the "bora" blows in winter was given

In Novorossiysk (without quotes) is there a place where Bora does not blow?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

as a result, the moorings on the northern part of the Tsemess Bay in winter have limited use and sometimes ships even have to go to sea so as not to get damaged by wind, icing and ice.

It feels like you're pulling quotes from Wiki! So in the Sheskharis area during Bora it is really colder, but this area is leeward and at a distance of 100-150 meters from the coast, the wind here is the weakest, which can not be said about the west coast of the bay! It was because of Bora that Novorossiysk was never used as a naval base! The construction of the Novorossiysk naval base was a necessary measure and with the annexation of Crimea, the relevance of this base receded into the background!

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Serg65

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Establishment of civilian restrictions on the use of coastal territory

How do you imagine that?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Definition of long-term plans for the development of coastal areas.

This is porridge in your head !!!! Does the minister, governor, mayor of the city run to the navy commander for an appointment with a request to build an object near the shore?

It’s a mess in your head, I didn’t talk about the ban on the use of land (what you describe), I talked about imposing restrictions on the type of structures being built. It should look like a cadastral map (it can even be implemented on its basis). This map simply marks the area where such and such an application is prohibited, such and such an application is allowed, and such and such conditions of use. For example, in the case of Novorossiysk, the construction of a capital housing fund, individual housing construction should be prohibited, renting allowed (for a fixed period when the Navy will definitely not need a territory, renting provided that capital housing is not built or self-demolition after the rental period has expired), land withdrawing, ground leveling and ground explosive measures, the construction of port infrastructure is allowed (subject to the supply of dimensions for large vessels) the construction of ship repair / shipbuilding m facilities and their associated industries (subject to applicability for large naval vessels), the area for the construction of passenger and freight transport infrastructure with growth (in the direction of the southern lake and anapa) has been allocated, restrictions have been introduced on the minimum height of the capital housing stock (micro-districts in the direction of the southern lake and anapa, the minimum height is limited for the sake of increasing the efficiency of land use). There is nothing complicated in all of this, a couple of missions for reconnaissance and planning. Further, putting restrictions on the site and / or in the local town-planning bureau and / or at the objects of the Navy in this city.

Quote: Serg65

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

At the same time, in the same place for the construction of a naval base, the territory where the "bora" blows in winter was given

In Novorossiysk (without quotes) is there a place where Bora does not blow?

I chew especially for you. Bora Bora is different, the MOST STRONG winds are in the northern part of the bay, and the MOST weakest in the southern part of the bay, the north wind heats above the warm water, slows down and goes east, because the best place for naval ships in the south is the best place for remdock and the shipyard because there is more space and again the wind, and now the ships have meteorological restrictions on entering the bay and mooring, because with strong winds the mooring / towing ropes break and the ships get damaged both from their ruptures and from impacts due to sailing.

[Earthshaker]

The author does not impose his opinion. Everyone should answer CAM to this question.

[Serg65]

Quote: Earthshaker

The author does not impose his opinion

Come on!!!

Quote: Earthshaker

Everyone should answer CAM to this question.

Why then write an article?

[novel66]

and so that you, a stubborn sailor, think, finally, and understand that we need a fleet (and the Kyrgyz too )

[Serg65]

The fact that we need a fleet, as early as five years old, I realized ... when I couldn’t jump over the stream
Well, if the Mongols have a fleet, then Allah himself ordered the Kirghiz !!!

[Dart2027]

Quote: belost79

During the time of Napoleon, our fleet in the Baltic was hiding from the English squadron

And then we fought with England? There were plans, but it never came to implementation.

Quote: belost79

In the Crimean War, he hid in the Baltic and the Black Sea.

The fact that the enemy is numerically superior at times will not remember?

Quote: belost79

In Russian-Japanese

Here, alas, was.

Quote: belost79

In the first world in the Baltic

that is, he completed the defense task assigned to him.

Quote: belost79

On the Black Sea drove the whole fleet

Just this?

Quote: belost79

So it’s better to direct resources to some other types of weapons. More effective.

And what is their great effectiveness?

[belost79]

Regarding the Napoleonic wars, read about the battleship Vsevolod, about the continental blockade. Crimean War - Find information on the size of the Baltic Fleet and the Anglo-French fleet that entered the Baltic Sea. The First World War - to sit out and complete the task of defense are different things. When they realized that the fleet would not fulfill its task at the mine-artillery position, they began feverishly to build the fortress of Peter the Great. On the Black Sea - the Bosphorus was blocked, blocked, but not blocked. More effective types of weapons are those that will fight. And the ersatz aircraft carrier Kuznetsov and the supercruiser Petr Nakhimov)) will heroically defend the piers to which they are moored. Coastal ships are what makes sense for our country, everything else is for melting.

[Dart2027]

Quote: belost79

read about the battleship "Vsevolod", about the continental blockade.

What exactly? Was there a war or not?

Quote: belost79

find information on the strength of the Baltic Fleet and the Anglo-French Fleet, which entered the Baltic Sea

11 screw and 15 sailing battleships, 32 steamship frigates and 7 sailing frigates. Russian Baltic Fleet - 26 sailing battleships, 9 steam frigates and 9 sailing frigates. AND?

Quote: belost79

When they realized that the fleet would not fulfill its mission in the mine-artillery position, they began to feverishly build the Peter the Great Fortress.

The fact that in addition to the fleet there are always coastal fortifications is unknown to you?

Quote: belost79

The Bosphorus was blocked, blocked, but not blocked.

And what was this?

Quote: belost79

Ships of the coastal zone - that’s what makes sense for our country

The cherished dream of our partners since the time of Peter I.

[samaravega]

Gentlemen! let's look at things realistically. We are talking about the Russian fleet as a single whole. But this is not possible due to geographic conditions! The inter-theater transition is "conditionally possible" in wartime between KSF and KTOF in a very limited period. And precisely to extend this period, the USSR built so many nuclear icebreakers when the whole world did without them. The channel system built under Stalin made it possible to transfer ships of the maximum MRK class (according to the current classification) between the Black, Baltic and North Seas. It also allowed (in Soviet times) to transfer submarines (including nuclear ones) built in Gorky to any of these theaters. Therefore, in all wars, each fleet acted on its own. The Baltic was traditionally a "courtier" and after Peter the Great acted on the principle "whatever happens." His complete inaction, both in the first and in the second world war, cannot be justified. Chernomorsky has been much more active since the time of Ushakov. The fact that the Goeben was not sunk is a matter of everyday life, this is not the goal. All landing, coastal and other operations, the transportation of troops, the Russian army carried out when it wanted, where it wanted and as much as it wanted. During the Great Patriotic War, the Black Sea residents also acted very actively, at first. One Kerch-Feodosia is worth something. But the first pancake is lumpy, and this is natural. After the first serious losses, Stalin put the Black Sea Fleet on hold. But the reasons for this were political, not military. After the defeat by Japan in 1905, the Pacific Fleet had just begun to revive by 1940, the Northern Fleet, if not for convoys, and by 1945 it would have been a flotilla. To demand from our sailors STRATEGIC operations at the level of the fleets of England or the United States is simply not legitimate, not only the mentality of the admirals and sailors, but, most importantly, of the emperors and secretaries general. The Russian fleets, especially the Black Sea and Northern fleets, have always shown that they are capable of fulfilling the task assigned to them. The question is to formulate this task competently and correctly.

[Nehist]

The fleet under the command of Ushakov did not lose a single ship in battle, not one of his subordinates was captured. He won in 43 naval battles and not a single defeat. By the way, he fought with the Napoleonic fleet in the Mediterranean Sea

[belost79]

War with Turkey is yes, the only ones our fleet unconditionally beat. Even with the Swedes almost on equal terms. Napoleonic fleet did not fight

[Nehist]

It’s good with the fleet of the directorate if the truth so suits you. The first consul was, as far as I remember, Bonaparte and until the imperial age he was like

[belost79]

Please tell me about the victories of the Russian fleet in French during the liberation of the Ionian Islands, as I understand it. Very interesting.

[LeonidL]

Oh, oh - the work of bygone days, the tradition of antiquity deep ...

[timokhin-aa]

In Russian-Japanese heroically pissed off with a 14 score to 2 on the ships of the first line

The Japanese had numerical superiority in all battles except for one or two, technical superiority in all battles without exception, and by the time 2-th TOE approached, there was already superiority in combat experience.

So what did you want?

[belost79]

"except for one or two" - this is during the breakout from Port Arthur and Tsushima. Moreover, during the breakthrough, they had 6 EBRs against 4 Japanese EBRs and 4 BRKs, of which 2 did not participate in the battle.

[LeonidL]

You yourself answered this question - geopolitical, the strategic task was not provided with the necessary means and forces. The mediocrity of high command, sir. Why repeat the mistakes of the past?

[belost79]

The main mistake in the war with the Japanese is that they made a bet on the fleet in preparation. As a result, they did not manage to deploy the planned number of ships. And if they did, one fleet would lose. The Japanese were a cut above in every respect — quality, motivation, command, training, and TD. But they would swell money for the shock completion of the railway line, they would start to transfer troops in advance, but not in the head’s field, the war would have gone differently. Ground forces in the war did not crap

[Rakovor]

Yeah, why were all the land battles lost, with our numerical superiority?

[belost79]

Lost, but there was no rout. They also managed to inflict heavy losses on the Japanese. The army remained combat ready. Nothing left of the ocean fleet

[timokhin-aa]

This is the specificity of the war at sea, where the result is either victory or death, intermediate results are quite rare.

[belost79]

Yah? Look for analogues of Tsushima, such defeats of a unit in world history

[timokhin-aa]

Well? So circumstances have developed, 2TOE inferior to the enemy in forces, and significantly, and in speed. The possibility of withdrawal was absent.
There is no need to draw any global conclusions from this, it is just a lost battle. With strategic consequences, but in and of itself, the fleet does not prove it in any way.
The need to ensure technological superiority over the adversary - proves the need to ensure high combat training - proves the need to maintain numerical superiority, high-quality staff planning, and much more, which was not the case in 1904-1905 - proves.
Unnecessary phot as a tool - no. It was just necessary to better prepare for war.

[LeonidL]

You're right. After tsushima, this did not happen again. the defeat of the Imperial Japanese fleet in WWII was the place to be, but not so super shameful. However, the German Kaiser fleet in the WWI also surrendered in fact completely and without a fight .... But after Jutland!

[pin_code]

having Kuropatkin as commanders, everything would be exactly the same, only much faster in time. Only here you would say that bad generals lost, but if you had a fleet, then everything would be different. But it would only be in the way. everything happened, as it should have happened. just need to learn from your mistakes.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: timokhin-aa

the Japanese in all battles except one or two was a numerical superiority

the numerical superiority of the Japanese was only in destroyers, in the first second rank we had the superiority of Russians in number and armor, too, here is the proof of the meaninglessness of super surface monsters

[pin_code]

how many cruisers did the Japanese have? and how much in 1TOE?

[Vladimir1155]

Russian e = 8 squadron battleships
3 coastal defense battleships
1 armored cruiser
5 rank 1 cruisers
(of which 2 obsolete armored)
3 rank 2 cruisers
1 auxiliary cruiser
9 destroyers
2 hospital ships
6 auxiliary vessels

Japanese = 4 class 1 battleships
8 armored cruisers
2 obsolete battleships of the 2nd class
1 obsolete class 3 armored cruiser
15 cruisers
21 destroyer
44 destroyer
21 auxiliary cruiser
4 gunboats
3 advice notes
2 hospitals, so in the first second rank, Russia is stronger and all Russian ships had more powerful armor than the Japanese ... and light cruisers and ammunition carriers? Japan had more = large NKs were ineffective then

[pin_code]

you have 20 battleships of the Navarin type, I am 8-10 of the Asahi type, compare weapons to speed, the training of crews. and answer who wins.

[pin_code]

Have you even calculated the total number of ships of rank 1 in your calculations? Well, the quality of ships at the same time?

[ProkletyiPirat]

The article is another filkin letter, as always started for health, finished for peace, while saying a lot but never said anything .... Well, where is at least one clearly defined goal and methods for achieving it?

[timokhin-aa]

So you have to set a goal. Under the terms of the article.

[ProkletyiPirat]

0) minimizing the cost of war \ defense \ defense \ protection, to allocate maximum funds for qualitative and quantitative development
1) the presence of an underwater carrier (10 + pcs) for ICBMs (YO), KR (ZR, anti-ship missiles), torpedoes, as well as special means for SSO (mini submarines, boats, etc.). We must provide a "retaliation attack" as well as sabotage and guerrilla attacks.
2) the possibility of organizing military civil convoys in wartime to obtain additional resources
3) landing on the enemy shore and the transfer of expeditionary forces in the interests of the Russian Federation.

[Nehist]

I wonder what you are going to escort convoys? After all, they need air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships for cover, and this is at least a frigate and, even better, destroyers

[timokhin-aa]

By the way, this is a mental trap that these guys always fall into.
Like "we just need to protect our coast."
No question, but he is being attacked from 1000 + km, will you move defensive lines there?
Yes.
No question, but there are 4 points, your favorite RTOs will not be able to fight there. Will you build more ships?
Yes.
No question, but there they will attack from the air. Need air defense?
And so on increasing, to aircraft carriers.

In fact, there are no opportunities to do with several classes of ships. It's like an army that saved on tanks.
Or on the barrel artillery.
Or on the MLRS.
Or immediately on the MLRS and tanks.
"We do not need to capture Europe, we will manage with infantry, without tanks."

Non-working scheme.

[max702]

Quote: timokhin-aa

No question, but he is being attacked from 1000 + km, will you move defensive lines there?

The question is, who is shooting at our shore with 1000 km? There is only one answer .. They have been given a long time by Comrade Kurchatov how to react to the conclusion from this question .. Everything else is an owl on the globe.

[timokhin-aa]

You are the President of the Russian Federation.
On the territory of the Russian Federation a non-nuclear strike was inflicted by American cruise missiles.
At the same time, a contrived and deceitful excuse was used to justify such actions, which even their own do not believe.
As a result of the strike, 20 combat aircraft were destroyed in the airfield parking lot.
Losses killed - five people.

Do you hit back with a nuclear strike? Supposedly, it will cause a reciprocal response from the United States, and the estimated losses from it are measured in tens of millions of people.

Will you donate them?

Or do you take a proportionate response?

Well, read the Military Doctrine already, something is written there, it is very intelligible about Comrade Kurchatov’s legacy.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Strike a nuclear strike?

Yes, it’s easy - TNW for some sort of foreign base in the United States. Or by ship group. If you do not deliver a nuclear strike on the territory of the United States, there will be no retaliatory counter-strike. And this, by the way, will sober up the Pentagon hawks well, and prove our determination for a serious snack.

[timokhin-aa]

But in Maritime strategy it was stated that in response to a Russian nuclear strike, at least against a ship, the United States should launch a nuclear escalation and respond with a limited nuclear strike on Soviet territory.

so here it is

If you do not launch a nuclear strike on the territory of the United States, there will be no retaliation. And by the way, the Pentagon hawks will sober up well

Childhood dreams.

They still have spelled out in all their doctrinal documents that the Russians will certainly try to resort to tactical nuclear weapons, that we must be prepared for this, and the methods of enlightening us are also spelled out.

As Herman Kahn wrote, no one should doubt America’s determination to wage a nuclear war.

They are not like Zadornov spoke about them, not at all.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: timokhin-aa

As Herman Kahn wrote, no one should doubt America’s determination to wage a nuclear war.

Can’t you say why it should be different with us? Why should Russia limit itself in choosing weapons for retaliatory measures? After all, only being confident in the absence of a TNW response will the pendos risk risking a blow similar to that described for you.
P.S. You think from the perspective of the victim. I will never fight with one hand with an opponent 30-40 kilograms heavier than me, or with several opponents. Here you need to run or beat everything that is at hand - a knife, a stick, a stone. Otherwise, they’ll just kill you.

[MrFox]

The presence of China fundamentally changes the alignment. If you have a snack with the Americans, he wins. And then little will not seem to us and them

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: MrFox

If you have a snack with the Americans, he wins.

Our more likely opponent in a serious conflict is not the United States, but China. The exchange of taunts in third countries and sanctions is nothing more than politics.

[timokhin-aa]

Can you say why we should be different? Why should Russia limit itself in choosing weapons for retaliation?

In any case, Russia must minimize the damage to its population and territory. If you can get by with a couple of dozen "Calibers" in a non-nuclear version at some US Air Force or Navy base, and then sort things out without further escalation, then you should do so.

I will never fight with one hand against my opponent on 30-40 a kilogram heavier than me, or with several opponents. Here you need to run or beat all that is at hand - a knife, a stick, a stone. Otherwise you will just be killed.

A little thought, you will definitely come to the conclusion that the analogy is unsuccessful.
Incidentally, I, too, in such cases for dishonest tricks. But this is from a lack of preparation.
But I have a friend, in such cases he decides everything without the means at hand. Because he's trained. You discuss some recent fight with him, from his words it usually looks like this: "I knocked him out, at that moment I tried to break through with a second bottle of mine, I knock him out and go out, but then those two who stood at me rush, I I cut down one, retreat, this is a horse with a rose on me, but I didn't have time, in general I left there. "
It is just that a person did not study in the sports section, but in a completely different place.
So ...

[samaravega]

Any nuclear strike against any object (including a military base abroad), the United States should trigger a retaliatory nuclear strike in full. This is spelled out in all American doctrinal documents. Another thing is who at that time will be there in power and how he will react. But not a single sane politician (even Kim), even in a nightmare, suggests the use of nuclear weapons, even tactical ones. There will be no turning back.

[dzvero]

You are the President of the Russian Federation.
On the territory of the Russian Federation a non-nuclear strike was inflicted by American cruise missiles.
In this case, ...

And if so?
You are the President of the Russian Federation.
American cruise missiles were launched across the territory of the Russian Federation. Unknown in nuclear or conventional weapons. It is not known whether this is a single blow or the beginning of a massive one (while it is not known whether the enemy planned it this way, or whether the rest of the launches were still not opened). It is not known how to interpret the increased activity of US troops. True, the enemy puts forward some vague claims such as “I don’t like you because your trousers are crumpled, your hands are dirty and you say no matches”.
All about all five minutes ...
Your actions?

As for the article - in my opinion, Russia needs its own "Huntington article" with an independent and balanced analysis of the country's interests, the state of the armed forces and the economy, in order to provide the most objective substantiation of the directions for building all types of armed forces.

[timokhin-aa]

All about all five minutes ...
Your actions?

Five minutes is not enough to send a launch command to the ICBM, so there is no choice here from the word at all. The criterion in some sense will be the scale of the attack.

[samaravega]

And who will notify us about the launch of the CD? Until they cross the border, we will not know about them. Considering the tight time frame, even R. Reagan would not have dared to launch such a launch. In response, you will definitely "collapse" ICBMs and SLBMs, even if there are only two of them combat-ready. Serious people are not played with such things.

[timokhin-aa]

Well, read already the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation. Oh please.

[max702]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Do you hit back with a nuclear strike? Supposedly, it will cause a reciprocal response from the United States, and the estimated losses from it are measured in tens of millions of people.

I’ll do it .. Otherwise, the strategic nuclear forces will lose their meaning .. No one will do anything in return .. One poplar \ Yars in Norfolk or San Diego will sober up instantly ..

[timokhin-aa]

Sometimes it seems to me that we are doomed. We will be rejected by evolution as Neanderthals.

[LeonidL]

The scheme does not work in the boundary conditions of past wars. If you go along the path proposed by you, AUG, etc. without a naval base, in the condition of the total superiority of the fleets of potential opponents, Tsushima will repeat. That’s why Putin and the Navy’s GMH are looking for and finding other solutions, asymmetric and not so costly. To assume that the next war at sea will be a war of the fleets is simply ridiculous, there will be no time available for this. The very first collision of shock groups will instantly cause the full-scale use of strategic nuclear forces and this will end there before it starts. The option is possible only in case of war with the PRC in the Pacific. I think that strong groups of surface ships make sense only on the SF and TF. In the Northern Fleet, to ensure the navigation of the NSR and protect resources, to ensure the exit of the nuclear submarines, although in principle missiles can now be launched from the harbor.

[timokhin-aa]

The NMS GMC does not exist, there is the Navy General Staff.
From the issues of combat control, he pushed aside from the 2012 of the year, and, accordingly, he cannot look for anything with Putin for a couple.

This is a note of the officer and nobleman.

The very first collision of strike forces will instantly cause a full-scale application of the SNF and this will all end

Read the military doctrine, everything is written about the use of strategic nuclear forces. Well, or Putin’s interview on the subject, if it is difficult to read documents

[samaravega]

I agree with you that confronting the American fleet is an attempt for the Russian fleet from the category of unscientific fiction. But the fact that the current authorities find a competent answer is not a fact. All the flaws inherent in the USSR Navy (diversity, small-scale production, variety of weapons, etc.) remained, catastrophic ones were added: the absence of ships in the sea zone, the elimination of MPA as a class, the degradation of the rest of naval aviation. Now the lack of normal shipboard power supplies has also increased.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Non-working scheme.

very working, if you connect coastal aviation and underwater sonars, And MRK it was just an answer to the CFE Treaty.

[pin_code]

How many coastal aircraft does the Russian Federation have? how much total aviation? how much do you need to keep airplanes in the air? How many aircraft do you need in coastal aviation? tell me please?

[timokhin-aa]

The joke is that the continuous six-month combat duty in the air of forces equivalent in size to the fighter regiment on the MiG-29 for money in 80-s was more expensive than the construction of an aircraft carrier.

[Vladimir1155]

why should they be on duty for months in peacetime?

[timokhin-aa]

So that it remains peaceful, for example.

[Vladimir1155]

so that the sky remains peaceful there is a Strategic Missile Forces, the constant duty of both aircraft in the air and surface ships at sea is not necessary for this. At the beginning of hostilities, planes and ships advance to the required positions, and there is also no need to watch on duty in the sky, act on the situation

[pin_code]

if you do not have ships in the sea and in the air of airplanes, how to determine that the enemies have muddied the villainy and decided to mark your threshold ??

[pin_code]

I’m bringing Vladimir to this.

[LeonidL]

The aircraft carrier needs not only to be built - it needs to be maintained, port infrastructure built for it, coastal premises from barracks, warehouses to dos and kindergartens. All this must be taken into account when publicly announcing great ideas.

[pin_code]

but no one argues with this))

[Vladimir1155]

I know that it’s not enough, not special in the air force as necessary, I won’t say, but I need a lot, more than I have

[ProkletyiPirat]

And you also need aircraft AWACS \ RER \ REB \ Air Defense and much more. All this is necessary, and all this is included in paragraphs 2 and 3. And yes, it is inappropriately guided by such concepts as a corvette \ frigate \ destroyer \ cruiser these concepts have not reflected the real essence for a long time and are used because of habit and inertia of thinking, and not from -for military necessity.

[Serg65]

Quote: Nehist

I wonder what you are going to escort convoys?

Do you have convoys planning an exit by tonight?

[Nehist]

Do not believe it, but they left yesterday !!! You yourself are marine and understand perfectly well that there is nothing and nothing ...

[Serg65]

Quote: Nehist

You yourself are marine and understand perfectly well that there is nothing and nothing ...

Well, in the Soviet Union it was "no and nothing" and did not cry at every corner!

[timokhin-aa]

It's like there is nothing and nothing? How many TFRs alone were there? Ipc? But the bases needed them for the period of the submarine withdrawal. Later, they could have been thrown at other tasks, at least on convoys and escort of airborne detachments - which you yourself worked out on the exercises, Sergey, right?

[Serg65]

Quote: timokhin-aa

How many TFR alone were

What is their air defense? And how effective was the PLO?

Quote: timokhin-aa

IPC?

A similar question ..

Quote: timokhin-aa

You yourself practiced on exercises, Sergey, right?

He worked it out ... and perfectly understood that they could not have repelled the attack of the Kyrgyz Republic and the aircraft unambiguously, the attack of the submarines on interest transport on 50. The huge number of naval personnel in the USSR Navy, modern ships capable of competing with aviation, the Kyrgyz Republic, and the NATO submarines were with a gulkin nose!

[samaravega]

But even outdated ships could provide a favorable regime at least off their coasts. Yes, the IPC pr. 1124 with its "Wasp" could only repel the attack of a single aircraft. But no one was going to use the IPC one at a time. Even in 2008, they were able to shoot at the Georgians with "Malakhit" with MRK and two "Wasps" with IPC. And "tracking by fire" of American formations, especially if they tracked carriers of Basalts, Granites or P-35s, I think, added gray hair to more than one American or British admiral. Even back in 1963, the British and Americans asked our sailors to confirm that their carrier-based aircraft did not bomb Egypt. In 1982, the Legenda radar reconnaissance satellites allowed the USSR Navy headquarters to receive information about the course of the Anglo-Argentine conflict earlier than M. Thatcher and a little later than the Admiralty Committee of the KVMF. For the first time in the long history of Russia, the Soviet Navy REALLY ranked second in the world.

[Serg65]

Quote: samaravega

back in 1963, the British and Americans of our sailors asked for confirmation that their carrier-based aircraft did not bomb Egypt.

This is not an achievement of the USSR Navy! This is the achievement of the power of the USSR, the Soviet army + Navy - this was the guarantor of the world!

Quote: samaravega

For the first time in the long history of Russia, the Soviet Navy REALLY took second place in the world.

According to the composition of the ship! In the 1990 year, 70% of surface ships no longer had combat value!

[timokhin-aa]

Aviation at first from the coast would help, would press close to the bank. And coastal air defense systems sometimes.

Regarding PLO, then 1124, 1135 already had more or less, plus you understand that one submarine behind a dozen convoys and still moving "in bulk" high-speed transports will not have time. Plus there are various counterintelligence tricks such as a decoy convoy, with ships without cargo, IPC in tow by decoy ships, etc.

But now - bare zero, you can shoot with "Harpoons" and not chase after anyone, this volley will not even hear anyone.

[samaravega]

So it was designed that the IPC 1124, that the MRK 1234, counting on actions near the coast, and they were classified not as in the rest of the world, but generally correctly: small anti-submarine and small missile (although 1234 is of course a phenomenon of the Soviet fleet, a kind of missile boat - overgrowth). They were supposed to operate near the coast, under the cover of aviation (there were enough fighter aviation regiments in the aviation of the USSR Navy). And with his "wasp" to "finish shooting" who somehow slipped through the fighters. It was then that they began to drive them to the Mediterranean, to Cam Ranh, to the Indian Ocean. There were not enough big ones. Although there were 1134A, 1134B, 1155, 956, 61 and even 1135. What to say about the present times. Not for this article, but still 3 frigates are better than one monster. Although the frigates with the power plant "firebrand".

[Serg65]

Quote: samaravega

Although there were 1134A, 1134B, 1155, 956, 61 and even 1135.

Please count on the 1990 year the number of surface ships that had the opportunity to give a missile salvo and at least for the same notorious aircraft carrier! Then divide this figure by the composition of these ships in each of the fleets and be very surprised !!!

[samaravega]

We believe:
2 Project 1143 cruisers (both in service in 1990),
1 cruiser of the project 11433 (in 1990 in service),
1 cruiser of the project 11434 (in 1990 in service),
3 cruisers of the project 1164 (for 1990 everything is in order),
1 cruiser of the project 1144 (in 1990 in service),
2 cruiser of the project 11442 (in 1990 in service),
1 cruiser of project 58 (for 1990, out of 4, 1 was decommissioned, 1 was under repair, 1 was in service, 1 did not have accurate information from either Apalkov or Kuzin),
2 cruisers (sometimes BOD, what mood Gorshkov has in the morning) of project 1134 (out of 4 for 1990, 2 were decommissioned, 2 were in service).
Total: 12 ships of the oceanic zone, armed with anti-ship missile systems with supersonic speed (not intercepted by the then Aegis), over-the-horizon range (then provided by the Central Command) and the ability to carry SBS (if it is against the Americans).
That is, no less than the Americans then aircraft carriers (according to list 14, but not all in the ranks).
You can add the destroyers of the project 956 ("Mosquito" is also supersonic, also really low-flying), and in the Mediterranean Sea (perhaps also in the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, there is no exact information on the local IES of the USSR Navy) there is also the MRK of project 1234 (" Malachite "is also supersonic, although it does not give out 2 M, and there are 6 of them in a salvo from one RTO). I can cite data on their combat readiness for 1990, but, honestly, I'm lazy and don't see the point. All the same, much more than the aircraft carriers of the Americans. Plus submarines of project 949 (brothers of the infamous Kursk), as well as projects 670 and 670M (missiles are more modest than Granit, but also "sharpened" for the defeat of AUG). Plus, all this was REALLY provided by the control center at the maximum range, somewhere at the expense of the ship's equipment, somewhere at the expense of other means, up to space.
Yes, all these funds must be divided into different fleets, but Americans are unlikely out of 14 aircraft carriers on the list to push at least 10 to Vladivostok.

[Serg65]

10 cruisers (1143, 1164, 1144). 10 cruisers that could really resist the USAG. THREE RKR Ave. 58 (you forgot Fokin, and Grozny was not decommissioned, stood at a major overhaul in Liepaja) you can not take into account their progress, although they were modernized, but they were already technically obsolete and did not meet the new requirements at that time . We also do not take Admiral Zozulya into account, but we will return to him and pr. 58. 12 Sarychev, too, while we will not comb to the drums. We will immediately remove the RTOs, the Mediterranean experience was forced and not very justified.
And so, we have 10 strike cruisers!
KSF-2 Ave.1143-2 ship
1144 - 2 of the ship
1164-1 ship
1134-1 ship
956-7 ships
+/- we have two full-fledged KUG with air cover.
CTOF
1143-2 ship
1144-1 ship
1164-1 crab
58-1 ship
956-5 ships
+/- one full-fledged KUG with air cover
CBF
58-1 ship
+ / - 0
KChF
1164-1 ship
58-1 ship
+/- taking into account 1134Б one KUG without air cover
That’s the whole war!

Quote: samaravega

Plus PLA project 949

Talk about surface ships!

[timokhin-aa]

IRA will immediately remove, the Mediterranean experience was forced and not very justified.

Chota rzhu.
Well, how are you? !!!

[Serg65]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Well, how are you? !!!

Firstly, Alexander, I’m not an orthodox debater! Secondly, I told you last time that in the USSR Navy, an RTO-forced measure was born of the inability of the USSR military-industrial complex to give rockets of 1 and 2 rank in the right amount.
Thirdly, the service of RTOs in the island zone of the Mediterranean and the service of RTOs in the North Sea is not the same thing!

Quote: timokhin-aa

Chota ryu

And often such attacks?

[samaravega]

So the Americans will not physically bring all 14 aircraft carriers to Murmansk. So there is no need to write off RTOs in Mediterranean, in the Black Sea and in the Far East. The P-35 and even more so, Progress, I repeat, are supersonic, the Aegis of that time were not intercepted and it would be wrong to write off their carriers. Example: until the 2010s, coastal "Redoubts" were in service (and maybe still remain), regularly fired and were considered effective. There are the same P-35. Moreover, until now all this is "secret", never delivered to anyone.
And 956 for which they wrote off?

[Serg65]

[/ quote] [quote = samaravega] So all 14 aircraft carriers Americans will not physically drive to Murmansk. [/ quote]
Well, the Americans may not push you, but you drove the 10 aircraft carriers to Vladivostok!
[quote] samaravega 18 May 2019 19: 37
all these funds must be divided into different fleets, but it is unlikely that the Americans from the 14 aircraft carriers on the list of at least 10 will drive to Vladivostok.
[/ Quote]
[quote = samaravega] RTOs in the Mediterranean, in the Black Sea and in the Far East do not write off [/ quote]
As far as I remember, we are talking about the ocean zone, and not about the near sea?
[quote = samaravega] P-35 and even more so, "Progress", I repeat, supersonic, then "Aegis" n [/ quote]
Their main drawback was the high altitude of the flight, by the end of the 80 it was already a big minus!
[quote = samaravega] And 956 what they wrote off for? [/ quote]
Sarych was not an attack ship, originally went as an artillery support and air defense ship. I didn’t record it in the drums, but I added it to the Kug, and its air defense is really good.

[samaravega]

As for the aircraft carriers: I seemed to write in Russian "unlikely to be driven." Where does your phrase come from that I "drove 10 American aircraft carriers to Vladivostok"?
The cruising altitude of the P-35 is 400 m. (See TV TV No. 7, 2006). Since when is this a great altitude? I have to repeat: the then Aegis did not intercept them even at this altitude, especially since they , especially "Progress", dropped to 100 m in front of the target.
What do you mean by "ocean zone"? In 1990, the USSR fleet to fight for offshore companies in the Bahamas? Or Cyprus? So the latter is Mediterranean, even Aegean. Let's take a real look at real-world challenges.
956 was created as an artillery support ship, and 58 was created as a destroyer. Let's see what happened. Out of 58 - a cruiser (conventionally in displacement, it is "childish"), but 8 serious anti-ship missiles in a salvo. The 956 has 8 "Mosquitoes", which REALLY give 2 M at an altitude of 10 - 20 m and are provided by the control center from the means of the ship itself to the maximum range. Submit it (no options) for artillery support. It will behave well - let the planes shoot down. They say a microscope makes a good hammer.

[Serg65]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Aviation at first from the coast would help, would press close to the bank. And coastal air defense systems sometimes.

Alexander, I have long noticed that when you need .... you immediately remember about aviation and coastal air defense systems !!!

Quote: timokhin-aa

Regarding PLO, then 1124, 1135 already had more or less

You can’t even imagine how beautifully the signal flares fly out of the training torpedo, which hit the board of the BDK!

Quote: timokhin-aa

You understand that one Sub

In my opinion, I missed the couple ..... how did the ver.vraga have one single submarine left ????

Quote: timokhin-aa

And now - bare zero

Bare zero, the number is not constant and tends to increase with certain actions!

[timokhin-aa]

Not left alone, but against a secondary goal - a convoy (comparable in value to a convoy and SSBNs or SSGNs, so as not to doubt the secondary importance), in conditions of war on large-scale theater, with large losses, the boats will stand out a little. And if intelligence misses the formation of a convoy, then one PLA-hunter with a guarantee for him at the same time will be released.
Sometimes two.

[free]

Quote: timokhin-aa

So you have to set a goal. Under the terms of the article.

Well, this is somehow not very correct. After all, you yourself complain that the headquarters of the fleet do not understand what, and immediately offer people who are far and very far from the fleet to "set a goal". Well, for example, I am very far from the fleet and why I can suggest? Quite right. Therefore, it will be better if people who understand it, thereby raising our (not sailors) level of understanding of the tasks of the fleet. Probably it will be better?

[timokhin-aa]

Well, for example, I am very far from the fleet and what can I offer?

A mass of votes equalizes the range of opinions. So, offer your vision, do not consider yourself stupid or incompetent than others - believe me, real sheep will never ask themselves such a question, they will immediately start to bleat.

Clear-headed dilettantes often have original and useful ideas.

So don't be shy.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Clear-headed dilettantes often have original and useful ideas.

a typical method of thinking of a pagan, you are still proving to us a fruitful coincidence of Darwin ...... remember with complete dilettantes ideas are never fruitful. And even brainstorming involves the subsequent analysis, classification, and screening of ideas by specialists.

[ProkletyiPirat]

note on the theme of amateur non-amateur
1) amateur can get a high position
2) an amateur can get a high rank
3) amateur can get a big salary
4) an amateur can receive a piece of education
so that neither the position, nor rank, nor salary, nor education / crust in any way correlates with the level of qualification and / or specialization in a particular field
Moreover, the possession of a certain set of knowledge does not correlate, because there is such a concept as "an abstruse professor" - this is one who knows a lot but understands little at the same time, such a walking parrot library with an analogue of search for key theses. (There are a lot of such people. ..)

And below is my understanding of amateur dilettante
In my opinion, an amateur is one who cannot and / or does not want to clean, structure and balance the information received. For example, I can not and do not want to understand nuclear reactors, because I am an amateur in nuclear reactors. For example, I can’t (I don’t have military access) but I want (I have the desire) to understand the navy because I’m not an amateur (because I clean, structure and balance the information I receive).

[Vladimir1155]

on the one hand, you are right, knowledge can not always make a person smarter, but on the other hand, in any area, it is necessary to operate with a certain set of facts, without knowing which it is useless to argue. As for the system of thinking, I taught system analysis and I know that no one among scientists understands what it is, I’ll open the secret to a system of hierarchies of values, and if in your mind there is a single dominant, God of God, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipotent and eternal, and in particular of your manifestation, then your consciousness is torn unsystematic and you cannot claim to be exalted over amateurs

[ProkletyiPirat]

Vladimir
firstly, I wrote above about qualifications and specialization (this is the basic and advanced knowledge sets)
secondly, you have Christianity of the brain, go get medical treatment, or go steam this shit to your children, not to me and others. Like you, all such clean, kind and honest Christians and their priests have already ruined my homeland (Russian Empire) in the past. I don’t need this shit anymore.

[samaravega]

The main thing, it seems to me, is not to find a concrete way out, but by way of public discussion, TO MAKE the professionals stop just gobbling up our money and start working. "The hedgehog is a proud bird. Until you kick it, it won't fly."

[Captain3317]

In order for a new strategy to appear and an understanding of why a fleet is needed, it is first necessary to change the country's leadership, nationalize all enterprises, thereby fundamentally change the internal policy, switching it from the concept of "earning as much as possible for oneself" to the concept of "as much as possible. to do more for the country. " But then, when people - patriots will be in power (in all spheres), it is possible to develop a strategy and build a fleet not according to the principle "the cheaper the better" or how best to "sell" and "weld", but according to the principle more reliable, more powerful and more. Americans have a different mentality and all the brains, the media and the national idea are based on capturing someone else's. This has happened historically. Therefore, they have a business and a national idea - one. This is fundamentally different with us. Therefore, everything is only through nationalization.

[timokhin-aa]

First, you need to change the country's leadership, nationalize all enterprises, thereby radically change the internal policy, switching it from the concept of "earning as much as possible for yourself" to the concept of "doing as much as possible for the country"

Did the Americans also do?

[strannik1985]

Simple question. How many wars did Russia conduct on land and at sea? On land, at least four, and in a heap of conflicts, participated at the level of peacekeepers / military advisers, and at sea?

[Nehist]

Russian-Turkish and Russian-Swedish wars to help you. Where there would be no victory without a fleet

[Lopatov]

Quote: Nehist

and Russian - Swedish wars to help you. Where there would be no victory without a fleet

And if Russia had a land army better than the Swedes?

[Nehist]

You need to remember the goals of the Russian-Swedish Wars. There the army did not play the piano, as they were conducted solely to ensure duty-free transportation of goods by sea. With the help of the army, this is simply not possible.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Nehist

With the help of the army, this is simply not possible.

Drop it ... The Russian army in Stockholm would definitely solve this problem. 8)))

[Nehist]

Yes, yes, I decided ... And where did the Swedish fleet go? Alas, the capture of the capital is not a loser in the war, which has been repeatedly proven

[Lopatov]

Quote: Nehist

And where did the Swedish fleet go?

Interned at foreign ports

Quote: Nehist

Alas, the capture of the capital is not a loser in the war

But the occupation of 100% of the territory of the country to fulfill the requirements is an excellent option

[timokhin-aa]

Take an interest in the last Russian-Swedish war.

[Serg65]

Quote: Spade

And if Russia had a land army better than the Swedes?

Then one would have to wait for the Gulf of Bothnia to freeze and heroically endure the swindling of the Swedish fleet before winter!

[Lopatov]

Quote: Serg65

Then one would have to wait for the Gulf of Bothnia to freeze and heroically endure the swindling of the Swedish fleet before winter!

I was surprised, I checked myself, looking at the map ... It turned out that really it is possible to reach Stockholm by land.
Maybe then there was a different geography, and the only way to the capital was through the bay?

[Serg65]

Quote: Spade

was the only way to the capital through the bay?

Well, how can I tell you, the land there was not conducive to campaigns and military operations in the 18 and at the beginning of the 19 centuries!

[Lopatov]

Quote: Serg65

the land didn’t have there

The Alps didn’t have even more ... But it didn’t really hinder Suvorov, did it?

[Serg65]

Quote: Spade

But Suvorov didn’t really bother

Comrade Shovels, you will not believe .... an extensive network of roads in the Alps existed long before Suvorov, and around Bothnichny from Finnish Oulu to Swedish Stockholm, even in the 21 century there is only one road .... can you imagine?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Serg65

can you imagine?

Can you imagine what mountains are? Even with the "ramified network of roads" you declared, along which, bad luck, it turned out to be impossible to drag the carts and artillery.
And in general, dear, the war in the mountains does not go where it is convenient to pass, drive, but where the enemy could not put up normal barriers.

So .... Not "there was no road," not "it was impossible to do without the fleet," but "the army was not ready for military operations in Sweden." That's all.

[Serg65]

Quote: Spade

Can you imagine what mountains are?

Do not believe .... not only know, but also chew in the mountains!

Quote: Spade

"the army was not ready for combat in Sweden." That's all.

In 39, the Red Army experienced the impassability of northern Finland! And it was in the winter, when a huge mass of streams and streams froze, and imagine summer? On foot through a swampy area, with very frequent forcing of numerous streams, any defile is a trap, so here too ..

Quote: Spade

war in marshland It’s not where it’s convenient to go through, but where the enemy couldn’t put up normal barriers.

And at the end

Quote: Spade

the army was not ready to fight in Sweden. ”That's all.

Here you are, comrade Shovels, wrong! Shuvalov, Barclay and Bagration are certainly not as skillful and courageous as you, therefore they fought in the winter and fought skillfully and valiantly!
In vain do you slander the Russian army in vain!

[Lopatov]

Quote: Serg65

Do not believe .... not only know, but also chew in the mountains!

Here's the word, it’s not like that.

Quote: Serg65

In the 39th, the Red Army experienced the impassability of northern Finland!

The path from St. Petersburg to Stockholm does not go through those places

Quote: Serg65

on this they fought in the winter

You begin to contradict yourself. You yourself mentioned that we are not talking about military operations in the winter. Indeed, according to your assurance, it was necessary to wait ... Or is it already? Decide.

[Serg65]

Quote: Spade

The path from St. Petersburg to Stockholm does not go through those places

Take an interest in the fate of the 163 and 44 rifle divisions of the 9 army, especially the 163 division, it was heading for the Gulf of Bothnia!

Quote: Spade

You start to contradict yourself

Is it?

Quote: Serg65

one would have to wait for the Gulf of Bothnia to freeze and heroically endure the swindling of the Swedish fleet before winter!

Quote: Serg65

On foot through the wetland, with very frequent forcing of numerous small rivers, any defile is a trap

My words just mean winter!

Quote: Spade

Here's the word, it’s not like that.

I give a tooth, my friend !!!! Shas has warmed up, I visit the mountains almost every Sunday.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Serg65

Is it?

Exactly.

Quote: Serg65

she was just going to the Gulf of Bothnia!

You walked very gracefully from where she went there 8))))

Quote: Serg65

My words just mean winter!

You stated that you had to wait for winter.
I- that a normal army could invade Sweden in the summer.
What else is not clear to you?

Quote: Serg65

I give a tooth, my friend

Well, your two statements do not agree at all. You both supposedly live in the mountains and at the same time for you the war in the mountains under the leadership of Suvorov is quite a trivial task, since there is a "ramified network of roads"

[samaravega]

If you do not find it difficult to get acquainted with the history of Russia, you will find out that back in March 1809 Bagration (yes, that famous Bagration) led the Gulf of Bothnia on the ice at the head of the corps and captured Fr. Gotland, the Aland Islands and landed 40 miles from Stockholm to the continental territory of Sweden. Moreover, in this Russian-Swedish war, Russian troops made a similar transition for the second time. Here is the answer to where you can go and where it is difficult. It is worth waiting for winter, or climbing into the swamps and forests of Sweden in the summer.

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

Here is the answer to where you can go and where it is difficult. It is worth waiting for winter, or climbing into the swamps and forests of Sweden in the summer.

Do you understand what the argument is about?
There is a thesis that it was impossible to win that war without a fleet, in general.
There is a thesis that this could be done by occupying Sweden. at least a significant part of it
There is a thesis that the only option is winter and ice
There is a thesis that a normal army could enter Sweden in the summer, by land. Moreover, the Russian army has proved that it is capable of accomplishing such super-tasks. For example, in the Alps. Only for this we need a normal army and normal commanders.

I'm sorry, but everything you wrote is not an argument in this dispute

[samaravega]

Forced to send you again to the history of Russia. The war I mentioned was, in my opinion, already the seventh between Sweden and Russia. And it lasted not a month or two. And it captured both winter and summer. If, for the seventh time fighting with the Swedes, the Russian army crossed the Gulf of Bothnia TWICE and both times on ice in the winter, although fighting at that time also took place in the forests and swamps of Finland, this is probably not just that. Winter and ice-crossing is not the only option, but it really is the easiest, given the physical and geographical conditions of Sweden. And we can create super tasks for ourselves and heroically fulfill them. This has nothing to do with normal commanders.

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

And we can create super tasks for ourselves and heroically fulfill them. This has nothing to do with normal commanders.

Don't you consider Suvorov a normal commander?

[samaravega]

And it happens to the old woman. Somewhere the Austrians failed, somewhere he was mistaken. The bottom line is the campaign’s results: goals were not achieved, Italy and Switzerland remained with the French, Rimsky-Korsakov’s corps did not have time to help, irretrievable losses (officially) 5.000. and all artillery. This campaign may have been heroic, but you cannot call it successful. They were correctly taught in the Soviet Army: heroism is always a retribution for stupidity, one's own or another's. He can die for his homeland, but you will complete a combat mission and stay alive. Well done then.

[Lopatov]

I get it. Objections in fact, no.

[timokhin-aa]

There is a thesis that it was impossible to win that war without a fleet, in general.

Yes, not that Lopatov, but the previous one! Stop it already!

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Yes, not that Lopatov, but the previous one! Stop it already!

Stop poking into the obvious? Unpleasant?

[timokhin-aa]

You mixed up the war. It is in the last Russian-Swedish army that went across the sea like aki on dry ground through the ice.
And in the one that was before her, the army almost did not participate, since it was occupied by Turkey.
It was here that the ships and fit.
You learn history, it is useful.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

You messed up the war

I didn’t mix anything up. For he considered a hypothetical war between Russia and Sweden with the occupation of at least part of the territory of the latter.
Why did you need a normal army. At least one that was at the disposal of Suvorov during the transition through the Alps. Dot.
All other fabrications have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of discussion.

Quote: timokhin-aa

You learn history, it is useful.

You sometimes read what you post under, it is even more useful.

[strannik1985]

Another Eastern war, yeah. And closer, at least since 1991?

[Nehist]

And Russia that since 1991 fought with someone? !!!

[strannik1985]

Sarcasm? Two Chechen companies, the war with Georgia, the war in Syria?

[Nehist]

It’s interesting, and when did they announce the war? Especially in Chechnya !!! If something Chechnya is a subject of the Russian Federation !!! With Georgia, peace enforcement, or we or Georgia declared a war? !!! And yes, in Syria, who are we or who are we declared war on? Enlighten me !!! Kindly !!!

[strannik1985]

Bgggg, did you decide to play casuistry? For example, the active phase of the Second Company (from 1999 to 2001) was called a war for itself, and only then did KTO.
Has the essence of this changed?
Shoes, field uniforms, partly equipment for their money, night-old ones are old, at best they work every other time, the full-time SBR-3 company does not work. 42 MSD, please love and favor.

[Nehist]

Bugaashenki ... The essence of any conflict is the same! As I said on this site that the USSR used to fight a lot and tastefully ... They drove in minus ... From a legal point of view, the country is peaceful !!! We need Peace !!!! (preferably all) So you can not explain to me what and how.

[strannik1985]

The answer is not to the point.

[garrett]

yeah ... and we also had BMP-1 in service, night vision devices - as many as 9 pieces per team, communications - from the company link (every second Erica - without a masking device), zila-131 / ural equipment, veil - appeared only at the end of 2001 - in general, trouble))) one was pleased - they fed well + there were a lot of humanitarian aid, thanks to the head food and the cooks))

[strannik1985]

2003 year. 1 SMB on off-powered BMP-1, "Historian" on all P-159s that I saw. Feeding in different ways, were on business trips - Shali, Kalinovskaya, so there they cooked disgustingly, in Khankala more or less.

[garrett]

Internal troops?

[strannik1985]

42 motorized rifle division.

[garrett]

33 OBRON, we will be familiar)))

[strannik1985]

Crossed with yours from the IRD at the Khankalinskaya-Gudermes intersection. We will be.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Nehist

Russian-Turkish and Russian-Swedish wars to help you. Where there would be no victory without a fleet

uh! This is the Russian Empire. and comrade is talking about Russia. 21 century. Do you understand?

[timokhin-aa]

Would there be an operation in Syria without a navy?

[Karabas]

Would there be an operation in Syria without a navy?

Yes, I would. Through Iran would act. Do not think that the stone is thrown into the Navy, it is not. A fleet is needed, and very much so. But in conditions of severe resource constraints, it is necessary to determine in what form it is needed for maximum efficiency.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Karabas

Through Iran would act.

Even without Iran it was possible to crank.

[timokhin-aa]

Through space would throw, on rockets.

[Lopatov]

Why, they would have taken me by sea. Civil courts. After all, there was the same experience of transporting a bunch of troops to Cuba
Actually, they should have done so, and not show "greatness" and carry toilets with rations to the BDK

[timokhin-aa]

You do not know those ships from going to Cuba, which the Americans turned back?

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

You do not know those ships from going to Cuba, which the Americans turned back?

Do not know. And how much was wrapped? After all, almost the infantry division was transferred there, 4 regiments. Apart from everything else. They write, 183 flights

[timokhin-aa]

Wrapped as they wanted, Lopatov. And the submarine forced to ascend.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Wrapped as much as they wanted

What, there were so few of them that it’s embarrassing to write a number?

[timokhin-aa]

They could have been any number, the ships went without protection and reached the discretion of the Americans. If they decided to wrap them, it would be impossible to stop them.
Because the only weapon against the US Navy was this:

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

ships went without protection

It seems that civilian ships, not ships.

Quote: timokhin-aa

They could have been any number

There are no numbers, the argument is not accepted.

Quote: timokhin-aa

Because the only weapon against the US Navy was this:

Nonsense. The only argument was Soviet nuclear weapons. Because these almost 200 vessels passed.
And then, right up to the collapse of the USSR, the motorized rifle brigade was supplied there, personnel were rotated, equipment was changed, and so on ...


Well, Syria is closer if you carefully look at the map ...

[timokhin-aa]

Submarines forced to ascend. Forgot how? What nuclear weapons didn't help?
the Americans simply didn’t become lyutov, we then had an ICBM less than fingers, the ratio was 1: 17 in their favor in combat units.

[samaravega]

Civil courts now belong to businessmen and sail under flags where the tax is less. So the Caribbean crisis is not an example.

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

So the Caribbean crisis is not an example.

Why "not an example"? The state cannot create state. a transport company?

[samaravega]

Maybe give it to Serdyukov, Rogozin or someone else talented, and after three months to find out that the ships sank or were not acquired at all, the sailors quit because of not paying salaries and in general "there is no money, but you hold on."

[Lopatov]

Sorry, these are not arguments.

[samaravega]

Are the falling "Unions" and "Superjets" not arguments either? Not paid to the sailors "combat" and the builders of "Vostochny" salaries are also not arguments? Do you live in a fantasy world or in a real one? If invented, then we have "Poseidon", hypersound and we are all in paradise. There is nothing to discuss at all.

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

Are the falling "Unions" and "Superjets" not arguments either?

Argument.
I am as sure as you are that the Navy urgently needs to be dispersed. Because Serdyukov, because Superjet, because Soyuz You are absolutely right.
And for the transportation of troops, private companies can be adapted.

Do you even realize that your "argumentation" works primarily against the Russian Navy?

[samaravega]

No need to juggle! Quite the opposite, you wrote about companies, even state ones. Our private sector is now several times more "transparent" than the state one. All the current chaos, even in the 90s never dreamed of, around state corporations, government contracts, government purchases. It is simply not necessary to compare the capabilities of the USSR merchant fleet during the Cuban missile crisis and the Russian merchant fleet today. Only supertankers for liquefied natural gas serving Yamal LNG remained under the Russian flag. Who does it all work for? Although the ships and the port are super! This is where the 21st century is real. Even the Poseidons are "nervously smoking on the sidelines." This is money for "friends", they do not save on it. On the contrary, I am a supporter of the construction of amphibious assault ships for the Navy, but it seems to me that instead of the BDK, which is far from advanced according to the project, ships should be built "in more numbers, at a lower price." The very same KFOR will quite cope with the "Syrian express", and keeping a battalion of marines at sea on a long BS, even in Mediterranean, was relevant in Soviet times, and that is not a fact, now it is not even funny. But such ships for the USSR were built by the Poles, after 2014 this is not possible, and ours is not interested - "cut" is much less.

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

Do not distort! Quite the contrary, you wrote about companies, even state ones.

Who is "juggling" here? From whom "the state company is bad, they steal there, the Serdyukovs are there, and therefore it is necessary to allocate funds for the large landing ship? Our fleet is also not private, at least for now."

[samaravega]

The state company, in fact, is bad, they steal everything, the deadlines are missed, the quality is not ensured. And now it is already in almost all areas, from roads and debris, to space and oil. From a "private trader" (if he is a real private trader, and not a special subcontractor of state money "to cut"), by definition, they steal less - he is not interested, what, are you going to steal from himself? The fleet is not private, the army is not private, but the tasks and people are different there, these are not state corporations. Although, I see how we bought equipment for ourselves in Ichkeria for our own, and now it is the same for Syria. Although it seems like 25 years have passed, and then there was far from a budget surplus.

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

The fleet is not private, the army is not private, but there are tasks and people are different, these are not state corporations.

This is absolutely the same thing. If it is possible to steal, then they do it both there and there, if there is corruption, then it is there and there, if you put things in order, then there is no difference whether it’s MO or a state corporation. In a state corporation, it’s even simpler - there are fewer problems with personnel, you can take someone from the side.

[timokhin-aa]

It would be impossible to deliver such tonnage through Iran and Iraq. Even close.

[Vadim237]

There is a VTA for this - you could do without ships.

[timokhin-aa]

One BDK Tapir is almost ten loaded Ruslanov on one flight.
The navel would have ruptured.

[Vadim237]

In Russia, there are 200 aircraft of different carrying capacities in the VTA, and all this with which one Tapir was loaded, they would have delivered in one day.

[timokhin-aa]

Fans of Poseidon everything is simple, but in real life 200 take-off flights require, for example, airfields.
At Hammeim, the limit seems to be about a hundred sorties per day, of course, not simultaneously.
What are you going to deliver there in such quantities?

In addition, there are bulk loads, such as tanks. There are vehicles.
Finally, there are transportation costs - aviation is the most expensive form of transport on Earth, and ships are the cheapest.

There is a resource of airplanes - it is very easy to work out, but it is often impossible to recover.

In general, do not write nonsense, please.

[max702]

And what would prevent it from carrying cargo on ANY ship flying the flag of the Navy? What kind of sea battles were there? I remember only the real losses of two planes and that’s all. But I remembered that a scout had still drowned a cattle truck.

[timokhin-aa]

The absence of "other ships" in the Navy interfered.
Because the DTO.
Because the DTO screwed up.
Because the DTO is screwed up suddenly.
In general, this was made possible precisely because of why this article was written.

[max702]

Quote: timokhin-aa

The absence of "other ships" in the Navy interfered.
Because the DTO.
Because the DTO screwed up.

There simply wasn’t much desire, as soon as it appeared old rusty troughs were bought from Turkey for a penny, a flag was hung up and on .. And, oddly enough, this was enough .. In principle, they couldn’t buy anything, in the north there are a lot of cargoes and there are enough ships they could have been thrown from there .. Just apparently they sat counted and it turned out that these half-free pelvis would cope with these tasks .. And they were right ..

[timokhin-aa]

They were ordered to provide transportation. They did not comply with it due to unavailability. Immediately remembered about what we have is also the navy. But the fleet already had nothing but BDK at that time.
Launched BDK. BDK Navy of Russia and saved Syria.

You do not invent, because this is all history, you can not take it and rethink.

[Sanichsan]

it seems like the BDK is just a couple laid and the first in a series of tests. not?

[strannik1985]

And that someone blocked Syria from the sea?

[timokhin-aa]

There were such plans, but there is always a cruiser, then a pair of BOD, then something else. What a blockade here.

[strannik1985]

That is, a clear demonstration of the flag, and even then not every flight. RTOs, corvette, frigate can do the same.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Would there be an operation in Syria without a navy?

Stop? so does the fleet still have a combat capability? the operation is quite successful. then the fleet is coping with the tasks.
then what is the article about ???

[timokhin-aa]

Fleet copes with tasks in the complete absence of opposition. This is an important caveat. And it should be different.

[Sanichsan]

Do you have examples of "the fleet coping with its tasks in the face of opposition"? Not that I'm digging, but I would like to understand what you suggest? the American navy now "fights" only where it is not fired upon. The SA have experience in the combat use of the fleet against the Houthis, but it is very doubtful. Russia has experience in 2008, by the way quite successful .... but agree that all this is comparable to the actions of the Navy in Tartus to oust the American AUG. by the way, again, a successful operation.
let's see what's in the fleet’s plans? laid several BDK. not aircraft carriers and cruisers, but the BDK. in my opinion this is a good sign. active construction of frigates. also quite logical and reasonable. a submarine fleet is also being built. what doesn't suit you?

[timokhin-aa]

the American navy now "fights" only where it is not fired upon.

Practice shows that they do not particularly stop "shooting".

[Sanichsan]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Practice shows that they do not particularly stop "shooting".

on the contrary, Comrade Eun proved that the presence of a real threat of attack makes the American fleet retreat.
In the last century, I would agree with you, but in the 21st century, no.

[timokhin-aa]

Hussites trying to get a destroyer with the help of coastal anti-ship missiles, the Chinese, to whom another destroyer cut a course, going for a collision, and ours under the same conditions, most likely would not agree with you.
In addition, I would not be sure that enough time has passed since Operation Praying Mantis for the American mentality to change dramatically.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Hussites trying to get a destroyer using coastal anti-ship missile

and they got it. how many destroyers did the SA lose? and the USA? The USA has no losses there only because the Hussites did not enter the RCC coverage area and attacked beyond its borders. logical and professional.

Quote: timokhin-aa

In addition, I would not be sure that enough time has passed since Operation Praying Mantis for the American mentality to change dramatically.

incidents in the U.S. Navy suggest otherwise.
I think the actions of the American fleet against Iran will dot the i's. if they certainly will

[Karabas]

If I were a guarantor, I would drown the entire fleet of mattresses today. It’s not even that eternal confrontation is with them, but it’s just so much cheaper than building up your own power. As they say nothing personal, just business.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Why do it ourselves? It is easier to sell through third parties and then "lose" in a local conflict, and then let the local rebels fight.

[timokhin-aa]

Well then, the whole mattress is already ...

By the way, this would really be at times cheaper than being ready for anything all the time.

It's just that it is very difficult and dangerous.

[bayard]

Drowning a mattress is reasonable and very humane in relation to other humanity ... but then what to do with China? He’s just stepped up his appetite, he builds the fleet like a mad printer, his army is in good shape, he pulls up aviation ... and loves our Baikal very much ... and all the rest ...
After all, his hands will be untied ... and the American market will lose ... He will ask us "Where is America?" , and we told him "She drowned" ... Suddenly offended?

... But if they drowned each other ...
Then, in the joys of Medvedev and Chubais, it’s not a pity to shoot ...

[Operator]

Quote: belost79

In the Crimean War [the Russian fleet] hid in the Baltic

The British fleet was hiding in the Crimean War in the Baltic Sea due to the construction in 1855 of the year in the mechanical workshops of St. Petersburg under the guidance of N.I. Putilo 67 gunboats with steam engine, propeller and three guns

As historical experience shows, the main thing in building the Russian fleet is not to monkey around the West (battleships, submarines with ballistic missiles, aircraft carriers, large landing ships, etc.), but to create their own alternative (steam gunboats in the 19th century, Poseidons in the 21st century ).

[timokhin-aa]

Poseidons !!!!! Full ocean of Poseidon !!! Poseidons fill all !!!!

[bayard]

Or maybe the steam gunboats?
Sheathe them with a roofing iron, three cannons ... nuclear ... land force ... cores - they are so ... scary ...
And above the stem - a sculpture of Poseidon!
Tear all!

[malyvalv]

You do not understand the main thing. The ocean is an excellent medium for stealth. Americans spend hundreds of billions on the secrecy of aircraft since they need to overcome air defense capable of detecting these targets hundreds of kilometers in order to achieve goals on the continent. In the ocean, the detection range is only a few km. Ideal environment for small drones. The location of the main objectives on the coast of the Americans turns into their geostrategic weakness.

[samaravega]

You do not understand the main thing. The use of "Poseidon" is possible only in a global nuclear war. No amount of secrecy will help him. After even one nuclear explosion in a port or naval base, who will get a retaliatory strike? Probably ISIS, they are the ones who churn out Poseidons and brag about them all over the world. And the retaliatory strike is ICBMs and SLBMs, the flight time is from 20 to 40 minutes, where is the Poseidon with its SBS delivery time? Even subsonic "stealth" will fly to Russia many times faster. Beat the foe after we die? A topic, but not for real politicians, but for science fiction writers "a la post-apocalypse". I already wrote: the first such "super torpedo" was proposed by the famous "peace-lover" Academician Sakharov. The Soviet Navy, at the level of funding at the time, categorically abandoned it for reasons of efficiency: the casualties among civilians are enormous, the damage to the US military machine is minimal. As for the location of the Americans' targets on the coast, you got a little excited. Yes, there are many cities, factories, etc., more beaches and girls. But these are CIVIL goals. ICBM launchers, communications and command centers, strategic (and tactical aviation) airfields, the main command and control facilities and fire weapons of the NORAD system are located in serious depth. SSBNs are always in a larger number at sea than at the base, as intended, the US Navy (took into account Pearl Harbor and nuclear weapons) in a crisis situation that precedes any war, tries to go to sea, since their climate cannot be compared with the conditions of our Pacific Fleet and , moreover, SF. What's in the balance? After a long advance, under favorable conditions, Poseidon will kill 50 - 80 thousand civilians and destroy 5 - 7 ships (submarines) that are under repair or awaiting decommissioning. Is this the height of cynicism or stupidity?

[malyvalv]

No secrecy will help him.

Why doesn’t this help? Little Poseidon will be much harder to detect than an ordinary SSBN. And for an ordinary SSBN, the detection distance is several kilometers. Unlike objects in the air where radio waves and detection distances of hundreds of kilometers work. And the ocean is big.

these are ICBMs and SLBMs, flight time from 20 to 40 minutes,

But they are clearly visible and they can be brought down now. And the question is who has more. ICBMs or missile defense. This is a dead end.

Posedon can be equipped with small short-range missiles and massively covertly reach a strike distance of 300 - 400 km from the coast. The United States will not be able to dodge such a blow. And we will cut ourselves off from their Minuten. Our missile defense is no worse than theirs.

[samaravega]

1. Who can be shot down? ICBMs and SLBMs? The Americans were VERY bad at intercepting even one-time launches of the ancient OTR (!) "Scud-B"; no one even dreamed of actually intercepting ICBMs and SLBMs, at least in a group (and not mass) launch. Our missile defense system is even better than theirs, but it really covers only Moscow and only with the use of ABM defense systems on missiles. Moreover, in this only REALLY working missile defense system in the world, there is neither S-300, nor S-400, and there will be no S-500. They have a different purpose! Our S-300V was originally designed to intercept, incl. ballistic targets, the S-300P (although you hardly know the difference between them) was able to hit them thanks to the inherent capabilities. But (!) Only TR and OTP! Interception of ICBMs and SLBMs is from cartoons about "bionicles".
2. A conventional SSBN can fire existing missiles "almost from the base", where it is covered (based on the available forces and means) at least by aviation, ground-based air defense systems, and near-field ships. But that's not the point. The main thing:
3. What control system will "Poseidon" launch, taking into account the lack of knowledge and variability of sea currents, temperature and salinity of water and other factors to the launch point of "small missiles" with the required accuracy? ANN? It is not real, it does not take into account any currents or other factors, and during the "trip" the error will come up too big. Astro correction is not possible for it by definition, correction from Glonass is jammed by electronic warfare. It is not technically possible to compile digital maps of the sea day (similar to maps for the KR with TERKOM).
4. "Cherry on the cake". Considering the range to the majority of MILITARY targets in the US from the coast + launch range of 300 - 400 km from the coast, the flight range of "small missiles" should be at least 1500 km, and better than 2000 km. Plus SBCH. Only the "Caliber" family is suitable. Look at their dimensions and weight and calculate how many of them will fit on the Poseidon. Do not forget about PU, preferably with individual cells, because it is unlikely that Poseidon will be allowed to release any serious amount in turn through 2 TA even 400 km from the coast. Its "namesake" P-8 is a serious and fast car.
Conclusion: I understand why "Vova the Fantastic" shows all these "cartoons" and is so fond of stories: raise the rating, and ask about money so that they ask less. I don't understand why you so EASILY believe in this nonsense.

[malyvalv]

even one-time launches of the ancient OTR (!) "Scud-B" Americans were VERY bad at

Medium-range missiles (up to 5000 km) have long been successfully shot down. There have been many trials recently and all have been successful. Surely already, ICBMs can.

A conventional SSBN can fire existing missiles "almost from base"

Maybe, but the probability of interception is very high.

What control system will Poseidon launch, taking into account the lack of knowledge and variability of sea currents, temperature and salinity of water and other factors to the launch point of "small rockets" with the required accuracy? ANN? It is not real, it does not take into account any currents or other factors, and during the "trip" the error will come up too big.

ANN takes into account the movement. And for what reason it does not care for him because of the engine or currents. And the accuracy of the conclusion is not important for Poseidon, plus plus minus 100 km it doesn’t matter to the rocket. Here she will need a correction.

Given the range to most U.S. military targets offshore

Compared to us, they are all very close to the ocean. To deliver the first covert disarming strike so that nothing Poseidon flew into our response in return. This is at least an analogue of American missiles in the Baltic states or Kharkov.

[samaravega]

ANN can take into account ONLY PREVIOUSLY KNOWN currents; correction is possible only by sonar, and there it is a very important factor. But currents change, just like the wind, and salinity is even more unpredictable. Rockets flying in the atmosphere are corrected by terrain (TERCOM) for low-altitude or by stars (astrocorrection) for high-altitude cruise and ballistic. Neither is possible for Poseidon on principle. By definition, the ANN itself cannot take into account any "movement"; it can only take into account the direction of movement of the carrier and the speed (relative). That is, on ground vehicles, for example, the INS does not take into account the "ascent-descent", and on air - the speed of the air flow. So the deviation of 100 m after traveling to the US borders under water only under the INS is from the realm of fantasy.
About the successful interception of medium-range missiles - give the facts. And what to intercept, if they (the RSM and the RSMD) were "cut" many years ago under a treaty. The range you specified (5000 km) is just in this agreement. Or do the Chinese, like the great missile defense masters, intercept their own missiles?
I already wrote about the interception of SLBMs, I’ll add that so far there have not been a single, even experienced, interception of SLBMs. Do not agree - the facts.
He wrote about "everything is very close to the ocean", look where they have ICBM positions, command posts and NORAD airfields, etc.
As for the American missiles in the Baltic states or Kharkov, what missiles are we talking about? Anti-aircraft, missile defense, or others? Or have universal been invented already?

[malyvalv]

About ANN you have knowledge of course fire. I will not explain for a long time. Just think about why it is called "inertial".
One of the main claims of Russia against the Americans about the DMSD was just that they use medium-range ballistic targets to test their missile defense.

[samaravega]

Your knowledge in the field of politics is "big fire" in your terminology. The main complaint of Russia about the INF Treaty is the deployment by the Americans (existing or planned) of the ground version of Aegis in Romania, Poland, etc. This claim is connected with the fact that it uses an adapted shipborne VPU, which allows launching, including Tomahawks. The Tomahawk ground variant was eliminated in accordance with the INF Treaty. To resume production of Pershing for missile defense testing is a crazy idea. Do not agree with my arguments, are not happy with my knowledge - please provide the FACTS. For example, the brand of a "medium-range ballistic target" or specific data on a specific INS, where the error is indicated everywhere.
And about the "inertial" I just write that I think. In addition, he worked with ground-based INS in practice.

[malyvalv]

The main complaint of Russia about the INF Treaty is the deployment by the Americans (completed or planned) of the ground version of the Aegis in Romania, Poland, etc. This claim is connected with the fact that it uses an adapted shipborne WPU, which allows launching, including, Tomahawks.

You just don’t know about medium-range ballistic targets. You need to carefully monitor the press.

And about the "inertial" I just write that I think.

Think about it but don’t understand the meaning of the word. The ANN uses acceleration and direction sensors. Your currents and salinity are fucked by him.

[samaravega]

Sensors don't give a fuck about currents and salinity, which is why they can't take them into account. But the currents and salinity for a moving apparatus do not give a damn, they affect its movement. If the sensors are fucked up, but the device is not, the device is wrong, the sensor is screwed up, it does not stand on the device and for which it does not answer "Are there any claims to the buttons? No, they are dead!". You have already written that I do not understand anything about ANN, I asked you to give specific characteristics of at least one. Where?
As for medium-range ballistic targets (although this very definition is nonsense), I have to repeat myself - name the brand, the manufacturer, on the basis of which missile they are made, the specific date and results of the interception, something to believe in their reality. In our time, this information is not a secret. We have RM-15 target missiles, Saman, and the Americans, but they are cruise missiles and fall under the INF Treaty. There is specific information, and not "blah blah blah" about the press - give.

[malyvalv]

Oh well, that's it.

[samaravega]

There is such a bird - "do not tryndi". Good luck.

[samaravega]

I agree completely, Poseidon in the 21st century is even more confused than a steam gunboat in the 19th. Our invariable "alternative" - ​​cutting up state money, don't get it.

[Undecim]

WHAT COUNTRY WANTS TO GET FROM GUYS IN BLACK FORM WHAT ONLY THEY CAN GIVE?
I would somewhat expand the scope of the question.
And what does the country need from what only guys in black uniform can give? After that, determine with Wishlist.

[timokhin-aa]

Need and want are different things.

The Americans at the beginning of the last century did not need world domination, but they wanted it.

[Undecim]

Americans at the beginning of the last century did not need world domination
Is Arthur Meierovich Schlesinger convinced you?
Need and want are different things.
Toast about the compliance of desires and opportunities, remember?

[timokhin-aa]

Is Arthur Meierovich Schlesinger convinced you?

Testimonies in bulk.

Toast about the compliance of desires and opportunities, remember?

I have the opportunity to shake the planet, but I'm picking my nose. In our case, it looks like this, and not like in the movies.

[Undecim]

I have the opportunity to shake the planet, but picking my nose.
And without shocks in any way? Or in what peaceful way to shake, like Gagarin or the ballet of the Bolshoi Theater?

[timokhin-aa]

We are about the fleet. And she's a part of military force. And with her peaceful ways so-so ...
Although of course, in theory, it is better in a peaceful way, but we are not talking about that here.

[Undecim]

Yes, it certainly sounds tempting. The main thing is that there is a hat for Senka. Otherwise, instead of "shake" it may turn out to be "shake".

[timokhin-aa]

One competent exploitation of the enemy's vulnerabilities can lead him to bankrupt a la the USSR without any war at all, and without a substantial increase in our strength.

[Undecim]

Yes, the main thing is that the number of own vulnerabilities does not exceed the number of those of the enemy.

[timokhin-aa]

No, the main thing to beat on his vulnerabilities faster than he will have time to beat in response, set the pace.

It's like in a fight - you're stronger, and I'm faster and my breathing is better.

[Undecim]

and my breathing room is better
So the circle closed. A sober assessment of your own breathing system is the key to success. Are you sure breathing is better? I strongly doubt it. Good night. In the morning, try to evaluate the air bag objectively. Maybe you still need to practice?

[timokhin-aa]

We do not choose when to fight in this case, but they. When they decide, then they will start - so it is necessary to train, yes, but with an eye to the near fight, all the same.

[Undecim]

When they decide, then they’ll start
Here there are very strong doubts that "they" need a fight. This rattle about "there are only enemies around" - for internal consumption, but after all, it cannot be exploited endlessly. We should already think about something fresher.
By the way, how do you combine an absolutely sound attitude to all "peace of mind" projects with belief in a "world Mordor conspiracy"?

[timokhin-aa]

Yes, I once watched a brainstorming session on the topic "How can we extinguish the Russians without receiving a reciprocal one?"

And it was not at all on Kissel-TV, as someone might think. And there participated citizens with pretty still-heavy shoulder straps. American, of course.
Three years ago.

The impression is for life. They understand us so well there, they know the statistics so much, they’re up to the density of the population anywhere, and they are so unprincipled that it still takes my breath away.
How do you, for example, have the idea of ​​delivering portable nuclear warheads to Russia in diplomatic mail? Acceptable? And they are fine.
Your arguments against the background of that event are NOTHING. Zero.

[Undecim]

Yes, I once watched a brainstorming session on the topic "How can we extinguish the Russians without receiving a reciprocal one?"
And as someone you attended such an interesting event, which so shocked you?
With regard to portavnyh nuclear charges, di-mail, three years ago ... This topic has already died some twenty years ago.
Maybe it was a pretense for the purpose of misinformation, and you pecked?

[timokhin-aa]

And as someone you attended such an interesting event, which so shocked you?

But about this "history is silent".
The movement was spontaneous and started in an informal setting, but the theoretical knowledge of the participants in matters related to the multiplication of Russians by zero was kind of hinting.
They think a lot there on this topic. That's what I mean.

With regard to portavnyh nuclear charges, di-mail, three years ago ... This topic has already died some twenty years ago.

Nothing died, just special equipment for such cases ceased to be maintained in combat readiness. But to return everything as it was quite possible. And no detectors will help later.

Plus, there are other methods that also work, just a little more risky. And maybe no more.

[bayard]

Quote: timokhin-aa

It's like in a fight - you're stronger, and I'm faster and my breathing is better.

So Poseidon after all?
He is so ... fast
The main thing is to keep the enemy in a state of ... constant vulnerability ... or to poison the fat One - on vulnerability

[timokhin-aa]

The main thing is that the pink ponies on Poseidon be drawn. And that is not protected.

[Earthshaker]

Without details, the next reduction in teachers, casts doubt on the development of the Navy. Rather, not far off decline.

[aristok]

The fleet is needed!
But without the big and meaningless long-term (according to the scheme of Hodge Ishak Emir) monsters - toys of politicians and supporters.

Emphasis on the surface ships that are the minimum allowable for navigability for seaworthiness (500-2000 navigators according to the ATS scheme).
Maximum 8000 VI for surface ships.

But at the same time provide the maximum coefficient of operational voltage (KOH);
To keep downtime to a minimum.

Continuous modernization both in electronics and weapons.
To carry it out on small ships is cheaper and faster, without risk of making a big mistake affecting the entire fleet.

The disadvantage of small ships: - the inability to install several types of heavy and / or bulky equipment,
It is overcome by the joint interaction of several small ships, unified in design (which makes them cheaper, and the construction quick), but different in filling.

[Operator]

The Russian Navy now needs only four main types of ships:
- coastal corvettes with deadweight 1000 t with PLO and PMO weapons;
- naval frigates URO with deadweight 4000 t with universal mine PU;
- multipurpose nuclear submarine "Laika" with deadweight of 1000 t with "Zircon" and M-6 "Shkvali";
- strategic NPA "Poseidon".

Plus a mob reserve of PJSC "Sovcomflot" ro-ro, lighters, tankers and dry cargo vessels to support expeditionary operations of ground forces and aviation of the RF Armed Forces.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Operator

The Russian Navy now needs only four main types of ships:
- coastal corvettes with deadweight 1000 t with PLO and PMO weapons;
- naval frigates URO with deadweight 4000 t with universal mine PU;

Our Navy needs security ships suitable for transport along the northern route and along inland rivers with the possibility of an ocean run. At the same time, the transfer along the internal rivers is not in a combat state with the retrofitting of the crew. Such a ship is limited by locks, draft and mass: 135m * 14,3m * 3m = 5791,5t (can be increased to ~ 7-10ct with the same dimensions)

[malyvalv]

Very soon, you will need to install a Peresvet laser on a ship. Dozens of MW of power will be needed. Will you bet on frigates?

[Operator]

The electric power of the liquid metal nuclear reactor "Peresvet" is 10 MW, therefore the use of a similar typical reactor (in combination with a supercapacitor storage) is already being tested on land ("Peresvet"), in the air ("Petrel") and under water ("Poseidon") , as the basis of the GSU patrol corvette with a total displacement of 1000 tons will solve all problems.

For the GSU escort frigate with a total displacement of 4000 tons, a liquid-metal nuclear reactor with an electric power of 40 MW, which will be enough for four Peresvet (if required), is suitable.

[malyvalv]

Corvette with Peresvet just drown. The point is not only in the reactor itself, but also in biological protection, in generators and capacitors and equipment. But here significant progress in size and weight is not observed.
Putting YaU on a small boat does not look very effective. If you put it on a cruiser with a good displacement, weapons, helicopters, etc.
Ships are designed and built for a long time. Laser technology and the power required for it are growing rapidly. Today 10 MW seems to be good, and tomorrow it’s not enough. You can’t get hypersound.

[Operator]

The Peresvet laser complex, together with the nuclear power plant and biological shielding, is placed on a ten-axle vehicle platform, so its mass can be estimated within 200 tons - the weight of the corvette's fuel reserve with a displacement of 1000 tons.

Laser radiation with a power greater than 5-10 MW causes non-linear effects in the atmosphere, to put it simply, it will defocus.

[Operator]

Specification: five axes for 5 tons, two axes for 10 tons, total 45 tons.

[timokhin-aa]

As usual, you hit the sky with your finger. there are not 10, but five axles on 17,5 tires on a semi-trailer with a laser, these are definitely 9 ton axles, there are no other axles on 17,5 tires with double tires, a standard KAMAZ 65225 tractor is a load on the SSU of 22 tons + the weight of an empty platform similar class - 12-15 tons. So we have - carrying capacity 45 + 22-12 (or 15) tons, that is, from 62 to 65 tons the laser unit weighs without taking into account the chassis, but taking into account outriggers and other "non-shooting" platform equipment, which is not included in 12-15 tons.

Check - standard tractor KAMAZ 65225 in the basic version has a max. weight of semi-trailer in 64 tons.
KAMAZ has a construction safety margin of overload - 25%.

Do you agree? Converge.

You better continue to posedon, there you while here and so it is impossible to attach because of the secrecy regime.
But this is only for now.

[malyvalv]

It is likely that biological protection there is designed for short-term personnel and at the same time generators with turbines are also included in the biological protection system. On the ship, such a number will not work.
In any case, the ship’s energy efficiency is now very important to set up frigates without a reserve of energy efficiency and calm down.

Today, 5-10 MW will be defocused tomorrow and 50 will shine normally. Do not forget that the life of the ship is 40-50 years, ideally. Remember what weapons were 50 years ago.

[Operator]

Biological shielding is a cylindrical casing made of lead and boron carbide around the reactor and the interloop heat exchanger, which ensures the safe long-term presence of personnel in the immediate vicinity of the casing. In the case of using lead as the primary coolant, the heat exchanger can be moved outside the cocoon. The protected volume of the shell for the Peresvet reactor can be estimated at the level of 1 cubic meter, the shell mass is about 10 tons.

The defocusing of a high-power laser beam does not occur in the device, but in the air due to the dissociation of nitrogen and oxygen molecules, which is not removable. Therefore, megawatt-class lasers tend to place on aircraft carriers operating at altitudes of 10 and more than 10 km with a rarefied atmosphere - to intercept missiles at OUT and destroy satellites. Well, or on a space carrier (with shadow protection of the hardware of the installation).

Most likely, "Peresvet" will change the ground carrier to the aviation / space carrier immediately after the completion of the design development in the process of trial operation, i.e. installation on a surface ship does not shine for him.

[malyvalv]

So 1 cubic meter of lead and that’s it. Famously. Something on other ships, all this is clearly more than 10 tons coming out. Even in the case of a metal heat exchanger.
Wait and see. In any case, no other options are expected to bring down hypersound. Though on a ship, even on an airplane.

[Operator]

The dimensions of the Peresvet nuclear power plant, together with the biological shielding, can be estimated as 2x2 m. Naturally, not all of this volume is filled with lead and uranium - much more space is occupied by air and steel structures.

An order of magnitude larger size and weight of biological shielding for traditional thermal-neutron water-cooled reactors with fuel enrichment up to 4,4% for uranium-235 is determined by the corresponding difference in their dimensions compared to the dimensions of liquid metal fast-neutron reactors with fuel enrichment up to 44,5% for uranium 235.

[malyvalv]

Once again, the neutron problem. Just fast. Boron absorbs slow (thermal) well, but they still need to be braked. On lead they do not brake. It takes a lot of hydrogen.
The small size of Poseidon’s nuclear weapons should not be misleading. There are no biological shields and generators. Imagine how much weigh 50 MW turbines and generators?

[Vadim237]

And if you have developed such an effective and miniature in size and weight protection?

[malyvalv]

You can’t deceive physics.

[Operator]

I agree - let's add polyethylene to the biosecurity.

I called the electric power of the nuclear power plant "Peresvet" - 10 MW (thermal 30 MW). When supercritical carbon monoxide (73 atmospheres, 700 degrees Celsius) is used in the second cooling loop of the reactor, the rotor of a gas turbine engine will weigh in the range of 100 kg.

The rotor speed will be about 50000 revolutions per minute, the generator with direct drive from the CCD will weigh about 1 tons.

And in order to close the question of the technical implementation of Peresvet - it is quite possible to use silicon carbide LEDs with a power of 25 kW each as laser pumping devices. An array of 20x20 diodes will provide continuous conversion of 10 MW of electrical power into 5 MW of laser radiation.

[malyvalv]

It will take a lot of polyethylene. For example, for containers for storing neutron radiation sources (tens or even hundreds of times smaller than in a nuclear reactor), a thickness of half a meter of polyethylene with a density of 1.0 is only for the short-term presence of personnel.

"The rotor speed will be about 50000 rpm,

And how long will he live like this?

And Relight is not the end of the development of lasers. Nobody even planned to put it on frigates, although in theory they could. Future ships should be equipped with power plants for the future needs of laser weapons. And this is no matter how you cruise a cruiser the size of Zumwalt.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: aristok

Emphasis on the surface ships that are the minimum allowable for navigability for seaworthiness (500-2000 navigators according to the ATS scheme).

By reducing the displacement, you are depriving the ship of safety margin, vitality margin, modernization margin, cruising range, autonomy margin and save no more than 1-3% of the cost of the ship in the form of metal savings. In my opinion, such an exchange is not profitable.

[The Siberian barber]

I share the opinion of the author of the article!
There is no understanding of the role of the Fleet in the defense of the state, by the country's leadership

[Vadim237]

Our defenses are based primarily on the Strategic Missile Forces.

[max702]

Quote: Vadim237

Our defenses are based primarily on the Strategic Missile Forces.

You risk it very much when you write HERE this .. True, it is not always needed .. Well, the fleet .. The fleet is primarily beautiful .. And .. And that’s it ...

[The Siberian barber]

Please calculate the number of SLBMs))

[Lopatov]

Quote: Vadim237

Our defenses are based primarily on the Strategic Missile Forces.

Our safety. And defense is somewhat wider. This is the ability of violence to secure their interests. Like now in Syria.
And here the Strategic Missile Forces is too powerful a "club"

[Arkon]

In fact, trained and equipped naval forces are able to bring enormous benefits to any country. Up to financial. This is a self-evident fact. But in order for this to be the case, the society must understand WHAT IT WANTS TO GET from the fleet.

Well, they said "A" - that we are all bad with the fleet - say "B" - so what, in your opinion, does society want, or should want, "to get from the fleet"?

[timokhin-aa]

I can only speak for myself.

[ProkletyiPirat]

speak for yourself, offer your point of view, indicate the shortcomings of other people's points of view, ask the shortcomings of your point of view. But to produce another filkin diploma is not necessary by them, and so the whole Internet is clogged ...

[timokhin-aa]

And where can I find other people's points of view? And most importantly, justify the filing of the letter please. What we have a coherent strategy for the Navy? Not. Control system? Not.
Does society have an understanding of the need for all of this? Not.
Can the Navy as an institution exist under such conditions?
No.
Everything is quite specific, in my opinion.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Alexander, you are confusing cause and effect.For many decades, the Navy, or rather the General Staff of the Navy, did nothing of what it should have done, which is why today it is deprived of everything and everything (this is my personal opinion). Yes, there were periods when tons of money were poured into the Navy and the Navy flunked it and flushed it down the toilet (this is in the USSR), now there is no extra money, but the General Staff of the Navy continues not to do nichrome, whine about the lack of resources and paint fantasies about "the same as the Americans only with us ", and as soon as additional money for the fleet appears, everything is immediately wasted. So let the General Staff of the Navy, instead of dreaming about high ranks and big ships, finally get down to business and develop what and why it is necessary, he will develop it himself, and it is for the Russian Federation, and not copy-paste another "fatal flaw".

Next

Quote: timokhin-aa

And where can I learn other people's points of view?

Yes, please, there are a lot of articles on this topic and whole battles in comments, there is a VO-forum, there are other forums. Here are just really worthwhile materials drown among articles like yours,

Quote: timokhin-aa

Everything is quite specific, in my opinion.

You did not describe anything specific in your article; all these problems were known and mentioned before you, and will be after you. just type in google search on the site and key points, such articles as a carriage and a small cart.

[Beregovic_1]

A new article is just asking itself ... To describe the threats to Russia at sea, taking into account the theater of war, probable adversaries in each theater of war, the possibility of maneuver by forces between fleets ... Covering the strategic nuclear forces on the ocean fleets and the dominance and complete control of the Black and Baltic Seas . Interaction with aviation and the role, goals and objectives of naval aviation, marines and sooo much more !!! Here, it seems like a series of articles has something to think about. But in fact, everything is simple ... To understand for ourselves what we want to be a sea power or try on the role of the 11th economy of the World, forgetting about independent foreign policy.

[Arkon]

Quote: Beregovyhok_1

But in fact, everything is simple ... To understand for ourselves what we want to be a sea power or try on the role of the 11th economy of the World, forgetting about independent foreign policy.

So, the problem is that Russia, unlike the United States, is indeed a land power. We have far more land-based threats than sea ones. And we need to "project power" on a much smaller scale than the United States. However, we cannot completely abandon maritime operations. So the right balance must be chosen.
The problem, as always, is in the "measure". Now it is unequivocally biased towards air defense and the strategic triad. Apparently, the time has come to outline the broader boundaries of our encroachments, except to defend against a massive air attack. We have distant points of influence and they must also be protected. This is where the role of the Navy changes, and urgent tasks appear.
I would like to see the author’s look at these tasks and the appearance of the Navy in connection with their appearance.

However, the article is another statement of the "weather outside the window". It's a pity.

[Vadim237]

Against underwater saboteurs there is this

“But we have a failure with PLO,” - How can you technically describe it with facts?

[Beregovic_1]

The author of the article already wrote. And himself, and in collaboration with Klimov. A whole series of articles. And with the evidence base there is order. Look for it. Very interesting to read.

[Vadim237]

I, unlike you, don’t believe any Internet scribblers.

[timokhin-aa]

"And I do not consider it necessary to check the information myself!"

I knew that I was not mistaken in you.

Well, give your version of the presence of anti-submarine weapons in the Navy.

[timokhin-aa]

Well, for example, with the fact that there are almost no ships capable of fighting submarines. And that there is not a single modern anti-submarine aircraft, there are eight IL-38H units, corresponding to the American level of the beginning of the 80-s approximately, and everything else that can be detected by a modern submarine or by chance, or if you know exactly where to look.
In fact, everything is obvious.

[bayard]

Naval Aviation!
First of all, fighter - to isolate the deployment area of ​​underwater missile carriers from enemy anti-submarine aircraft. This is easier and faster to do first.
Anti-submarine aircraft using the radar search method for the ring effect. Better on the basis of the Tu-214 - a large, long range, longer can barrage. And so with refueling.
Tu-22M3 \ M3M with "Zircons" on the suspension, if you finish it to your mind, of course.
This is what I want and expect from the fleet and the state.

And also ... By the division (6 pcs.) 22350M on each of the three main fleets, by the division of frigates ... or at least by the brigade on them ... Corvettes so that they are exclusively anti-submarine and close to air defense ... BDK and UDC, and to be able to use them as carriers of anti-submarine helicopters - if necessary ...

I do not want the nuclear destroyer Leader.
But the gas turbine 22350M and its development - I want.

And sleep ...

[Sanichsan]

you know what's the funniest thing? we have already begun to work in this direction, but the United States only this year began to ask the question "why do we need so many Berks and Ticonderogs?" and also plan to switch to the production of frigates. but they are only planning ...
Well, they are preparing the population for the fact that aircraft carriers need to be disposed of. they write that due to lack of funding, they are the first in line for reduction.

[samaravega]

Taking into account the relations with the Ukrainians, the nuclear "Leader" is more real than any gas turbine project.

[bayard]

Quote: samaravega

Taking into account the relations with the Ukrainians, the nuclear "Leader" is more real than any gas turbine project.

Not anymore .
And the turbines and gearbox already have their own - dear ones. Therefore, a decent series of 22350 and 22350M launch. So we need them.
And the "Leaders" ... even if they build icebreakers better, they are more needed and more useful.

And let God give luck to the Ukrainians, to steam their turbines.

[samaravega]

The turbines themselves have been made here before. "Zarya" made a gas generator, a reducer linking a gas turbine and a diesel engine, general assembly, inspection and testing. As for the fact that we already have our own, native - it would be good, but let's wait for specifics. While we are selling even the remaining 11356 Indians, they (Indians) are not subject to sanctions, the engines will come from Nikolaev. And I personally have a very cautious attitude towards victorious reports. Look, Rogozin is probably finishing the third floor of the base on the moon.

[bayard]

11356 we'll finish building one for ourselves. And the rest - to the Indians, do not waste the same good when 22350 is again in the series. With the proceeds from "Indian" frigates from 4 to 6 and 22350 can be built. And if you can, then you need to.
I can’t call it victorious reports, but “cautious optimism” - quite.

But Rogozin - that astronaut, already on Mars, asteroids and comets gathered. On the moon, everything is ... built.