Russian Navy against the United States and the West. Example from recent operations
In addition to the bitter truth, we need positive examples, and we have them.
No matter how many problems with Russian naval construction it becomes known, it is always worth remembering the main thing: the Navy is vital for Russia to be able to conduct at least some kind of policy in the world. Not fleet - there is no policy, there is no way to achieve the realization of the interests of the state anywhere.
The recent past, so recent that it flows into the present, gives us an example of how the Russian Navy, for all its problems, in fact has defended Russian foreign policy interests, having simply played a strategic role not only in Russian foreign policy, but also it seems in the newest stories as a whole.
We are talking about the role the Navy played in the epochal event of recent years - the war in Syria.
No matter who and what thinks about it, but if it were not for the Navy, then Syria would not exist as such. There would not have been our base in Tartus, the base in Hmeimim, Bashar Assad, the Christian community that has preserved Aramaic, spoken in those parts during Jesus’s time, women who allow themselves to walk openly along the street, millennial cultural monuments - nothing was gone.
Now few people remember how it all began. It is worth refreshing your memory.
International Business Times, 12 July 2012 of the year.
The Americans were late quite a bit. Then, in 2012, fights were already going on in Damascus itself. The city was only partially controlled by the government, and Asma-al-Assad explained to her children that the children of Bashar al-Assad could not miss school due to some kind of mortar attacks.
And at this last moment, when it would seem that the forces were no longer there, help came. Landing ships as transports. Little weapons, a bit of ammunition, a few spare parts and these friendly people from the north, whose fathers once helped to fight with Israel ... that was enough so that then, in 2012, everything did not end in the same catastrophe as in Libya.
West was late, but he was not going to surrender. The BDK flights from Novorossiysk to Tartus did not keep the secret for a long time about their cargo, very soon everything became clear. And then in the United States, it was decided to crush Syria "in the open", since the organization of the preposition (chemical attack) didn’t work.
And by the time this provocation took place, the NATO naval strike team was already forming at sea. By August, 2013 West had gathered forces for a fairly large-scale rocket attack, which would help the militants finally break the remnants of resistance from government forces. Five American destroyers, a landing ship, a nuclear submarine of the US Navy, another nuclear submarine of the British Navy and a French frigate - a set of countries wanting indirectly, but openly to shed blood in Syria, was formed already and especially since then has not changed. This group also had enough cruise missiles.
By September, the AUG of six ships, including the aircraft carrier Nimitz, was brought up to the Red Sea, along with the UDS Kirsardzh - the “hero” of the wars in Yugoslavia and Libya, where this ship acted as a light aircraft carrier.
But on their way were three Russian warships, the BOD Admiral Panteleyev, the missile cruiser Moscow and another warship, and also the reconnaissance Priazovie, theoretically capable of warning everyone in advance about the launch crew of the American missiles, and the BDK laden weapons for the fighting Syrian army. These forces would not have been enough to stop the Western armada, but, first, the United States understood that everything would not be limited to the Mediterranean Sea, and secondly, the existence of nuclear weapons on board Russian ships was in question. That is, generally speaking, it should not have been there. Neither we nor the Americans have been deploying it at sea for many years (with the exception of ballistic missiles on submarines). But nobody fully decided to guarantee this in those days ...
And then Putin threw Obama a bone in the form of the joint elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons, and he, not seeing a reasonable way out, grabbed it and played it back. This was won two years - until September 2015. And Syria was saved. Rescued by the Navy of the Russian Federation. And he also saved for Russia the possibility of a political return to the Arab world and the Middle East.
The operations of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean, aimed at disrupting the strike on Syria and ensuring the supply of weapons and supplies for the Syrian army, were a typical example of “peacetime operations” (see article "The Navy: the choice of a balance between preparation for hostilities and peacetime tasks") Those forces that the Navy used, without the use of nuclear weapons, could not resist the United States and NATO. And in the event of a submarine attack or base aviation and with nuclear weapons they couldn’t.
But then the Navy relied on the protection that the Russian flag gave the ships, and that the risks of an attack against them in NATO could not be regarded as very high. In any case, at least one American destroyer could have gone to the bottom in this case, which was politically unacceptable at that time. Yes, the submarine in a fight with the BOD could lose.
And most importantly, Russia could strike retaliation in any other place, even in Alaska. And the West has stopped.
From the autumn of 2013, the grouping of the Navy ships acted as a Permanent operational connection of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean.
It should also be noted the role of the fleet in supplying the Syrian army - it was also of critical importance for the latter. The fleet has been criticized for using amphibious ships to deliver material and technical equipment to Syria - their payload is low, and flights on the Syrian Express have significantly reduced their lifespan.
But we must understand that there was no choice. Initially, the Department of Transportation Services of the Ministry of Defense was supposed to deal with deliveries, but he said that he could not. In addition, it was obvious that merchant ships under civilian flag would sooner or later face a blockade of Syria by NATO naval forces. The inspection of the ship “Chariot” with cartridges and the “turn” of the ship “Alaid” with helicopters by the British completely “set the trend”. In such circumstances, there simply is no other force left except for the Navy, capable of taking on the delivery of weapons and ammunition to Syria, with the guarantee that no foreign military will board the ships. And the fleet had only BDK and various auxiliary vessels - kilctors and the like. In the end, what they could, so they were taken.
Were the fleet actions successful? Yes, more than. It was, as the Americans say, “a blow to a larger weight category,” the Navy actually completed the task with absolutely insufficient forces. Would our ships survive if it came to a clash? No, but in those conditions it was not required. It is also worth noting that the tasks of countering the policy of the United States and its allies were performed either simply by ships of the ocean zone (RKR, BOD), or by ships of the far sea zone, which in practice proved their ability to move in the open ocean (BDK, TFR). Syria and our policy were not saved by RTOs, and not missile boats, but completely different ships.
On this the role of the fleet, however, was not even close.
Until now, BDK flights continue to play a vital role in the supply of both our group in Syria and the Syrian army. Although the DTO has long since “woken up,” although full-fledged transport ships, including the powerful Sparta, appeared on the express line, and OBL-Logistic, created by the Ministry of Defense, took over the transportation, it is still not possible to do without BDK.
And in previous years it was just unreal. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the BDK turned out to be one of the most useful ships in the fleet. This, of course, does not mean that it is necessary to do so in the future, but it shows the vital role of high-speed military transports, controlled not by any structures, but by the navy itself, which, having weapons for self-defense and guaranteed naval flagged immunity in international waters could be thrown at solving problems immediately, by order. In fact, the existence in the Navy of the “equivalent” of such ships saved the whole country, and we have just seen how.
From October 7 2015, the Navy began striking at the terrorists' targets with Caliber cruise missiles. Initially, strikes were made by small rocket ships of the Caspian flotilla, but later they were joined by ships of the Black Sea Fleet (for example, frigates of the 11356 project) and diesel-electric submarines. Although these strikes had no fundamental military significance, they had enormous political significance. With these blows, Russia has shown that it has a “long arm,” which is quite capable of reaching the territories that our opponents considered safe, including the US military infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and the British in Cyprus. A somewhat contradictory was the use of small missile ships of the 21361 "Buyan-M" project as carriers of cruise missiles. On the one hand, their tactical and technical characteristics made it possible in the event of a “big” war to “hide” them in the depths of Russian territory, on inland waterways, and also to maneuver them between the Caspian and Black Seas, which undoubtedly gives considerable military advantages. On the other hand, in the far sea zone, the ships proved to be not so good (and they had to act there), they are defenseless against air strikes, submarines, and require protection from surface ships of other classes - but they do not have sufficient seaworthiness and speed, to maneuver with them without restriction. As a result, they had to be taken to combat services in the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, the “wake-up call” for the West turned out to be very loud and many “hotheads” with these blows cooled down.
And the use of submarines and frigates for such strikes, capable of acting without restrictions in the far-sea zone, finally and irreversibly "consolidated" the effect achieved by the first strikes with the interregional radio stations. It became clear that, technically, Russia could reach its cruise missiles very far, even in a non-nuclear variant.
It was worth, of course, to modernize the old patrol of the 1135 and 1135М projects - Ladny and Inquisitive. The volumes that on these ships are occupied by the “Rastrub” PLRK, the Kubrick and the underwater acoustics located under it can be used to accommodate the PU 3С-14, which will arm these ships not only with PLUR, but also with other Caliber missiles. This would increase the number of surface ships of the DMZ on the Black Sea Fleet - carriers of “Calibrov” to five. Naturally, this would have to be done along with the repair and extension of the service life of these ships. So far, however, this question has not been raised.
Anyway, the Navy made a contribution here.
Arrogant strikes of the United States by cruise missiles on Syrian military and civilian objects did not leave anyone indifferent, although generally speaking, one would expect that the Americans would not so easily release the almost dead victim from their claws, and the daring newcomer - Russia - would not be allowed to do everything freely what pleases. This did not happen, but the American strikes have an important aspect.
7 April 2017, at the time of the US Navy launching a missile attack on Shairat airbase, there were no warships on the Syrian coast. Only after the attack, the command urgently sent the frigate “Admiral Grigorovich” to the Mediterranean and followed by a pair of IRAs.
At the time of the next American strike, delivered jointly with Britain and France, 14 on April 2018, there were only two frigates and two diesel submarines in the region, which was generally incomparable with the forces of the West.
The most interesting thing started after.
The Americans, during the provocations inspired by their allies "on the ground", were convinced that among their own population the level of trust in media reports was still high, and even such absurd accusations as were the result of the actions of the so-called Whites in Douma (Eastern Guta ), the population of the United States and Western countries completely "eats".
Immediately after the April strike, preparations began for a new provocation. From press reports of the time:
"Look", 3 May 2018 of the year.
There was a lot of such news later, the Ministry of Defense tracked both the delivery of chemical warfare agents to Syria, and the preparation of both the terrorists and their owners, the Americans, for a new provocation, which in their opinion should have been as successful as the previous one. To put in place these Russians, to thwart their plans, to prevent them from concluding alliances - who needs such an ally, for an alliance with which Tomahawks fall on their heads? But this time it did not work out.
Since August, 2018, when rumors were already circulating in Washington about a new upcoming strike on Syria, Russia began to deploy in the Mediterranean Sea a naval group of such a force that was not there for a very long time.
The following were sent to the Mediterranean Sea: RKR Marshal Ustinov, BOD Severomorsk, frigates Admiral Grigorovich, Admiral Essen, Admiral Makarov, TFR Pytlivy, three caliber missiles with Caliber missiles capable of the Syrian coast reach almost any target in the Mediterranean, two diesel submarines.
VCS aircraft from the Hmeimim airbase began to carry out demonstrative flights over French ships with suspended anti-ship missiles, and Su-30CM naval aviation flew over the Hmeimim base itself.
Since the end of August, the group began the exercise, and the aircraft performed a demonstration sinking with a missile strike of the old Syrian TFR skeleton.
X-35 rockets strike, according to the old TFR of the 159 project
And everything died down. There was no provocation with chemical weapons, there was no attack on Syria. Never happened again.
You can agree with the role of the fleet, and you can dispute it, but the fact is obvious: there is no naval grouping in the eastern part of the Mediterranean - there are American missile strikes. There is such a group - there are no strikes, and there is not even a hint of them, and with the apparent desire of the enemy to inflict them.
Admittedly, the combat structure of the group was far from balanced, so obvious "weak point" was its anti-submarine defense, the ability of low-crossing ICC class "Buyan-M" to maneuver together with the rest of the squadron at high speed (if it were needed) was "in question" , but as a demonstration of power, the operation was completely successful, and the attenuation of the topic with a new attack on Syria is clear evidence of that.
During the ongoing civil war in the Syrian Arab Republic and the international terrorist intervention inspired by the United States and its allies, the Russian Navy played a decisive role in preventing the defeat of the Syrian government. The navy did not allow a missile strike on the Syrian army at critical moments of 2013, provided all the necessary military transportation, inflicted significant, politically important missile attacks from a long distance, and finally prevented another US missile attack. .
At the same time, it is an obvious fact that if there is a significant number of warships of the Russian Federation in the region, especially missile cruisers, the United States and its allies behave very restrained and do not conduct any provocations.
Thus, the Russian Navy proved to be a vital tool both for saving the Syrian Arab Republic and for supplying its armed forces, without which this country would have already died at the moment.
The events around Syria in the 2012-2018 years very clearly show the role that the Navy plays in the country's foreign policy.
They also show that no coastal forces, no mosquito fleet is simply not capable of playing the same role: the Americans are obviously pressing tail only when there is a BOD in the region, which their submariners are still afraid of, and the missile cruiser. The presence of some frigates, even if capable of delivering strikes with Caliber cruise missiles, does not stop them. NATO also painfully reacts to aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles.
Yes, the composition of the groupings of the Navy was not perfect - and because of the IRAs, and because of the minesweepers requiring urgent modernization, due to the lack of anti-submarine defense, and the number could sometimes be larger, but even in this form of the Navy War performed more than completely. And the naval aviation would not prevent and "Onyx" air-based, and more modern anti-submarine aircraft. But after the sinking of the target ship, the enemy had already subsided without it.
And this is quite a proof of the necessity for Russia of both the ocean fleet (cruisers and BOD came from other oceans) and naval aviation, including attack (assault). It would be desirable, of course, that in the event of a “breakdown” of the situation from a show of force to a real clash, we would always and in all cases be “put on the table.” In principle, this is solved.
In the future, if Russia has its own independent policy in the world, then there must be a fleet corresponding to this policy.
And no matter what happens to him now, we all should believe that she will have it, and actively pursue this, not yielding to either “dizzy with success” or calls to go “under the coast”, limited to rocket boats and coastal rocket complexes.
And then everything will work out.
No matter how many problems with Russian naval construction it becomes known, it is always worth remembering the main thing: the Navy is vital for Russia to be able to conduct at least some kind of policy in the world. Not fleet - there is no policy, there is no way to achieve the realization of the interests of the state anywhere.
The recent past, so recent that it flows into the present, gives us an example of how the Russian Navy, for all its problems, in fact has defended Russian foreign policy interests, having simply played a strategic role not only in Russian foreign policy, but also it seems in the newest stories as a whole.
We are talking about the role the Navy played in the epochal event of recent years - the war in Syria.
No matter who and what thinks about it, but if it were not for the Navy, then Syria would not exist as such. There would not have been our base in Tartus, the base in Hmeimim, Bashar Assad, the Christian community that has preserved Aramaic, spoken in those parts during Jesus’s time, women who allow themselves to walk openly along the street, millennial cultural monuments - nothing was gone.
The beginning of confrontation
Now few people remember how it all began. It is worth refreshing your memory.
International Business Times, 12 July 2012 of the year.
Thursday Russian news The Interfax service, quoting anonymous sources in the country's Ministry of Defense, said that Russian warships were leaving ports in Europe and the Arctic to arrive in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, and that some of them had a port of Tartus in Syria as their destination. Eleven ships, including five large landing vehicles, four of which are capable of carrying 200 soldiers and ten each tanksand the fifth - twice as much, will make the transition from the Arctic, Baltic and Black Seas to conduct exercises in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. Russian news agencies claim that one of the destroyers, “Shrewd” from the Black Sea Fleet, will reach Tartus in three days. Two large vehicles, Nikolai Filchenkov and Caesar Kunnikov (the latter participated in the war with Georgia in 2008), are also expected from the Black Sea, although it is not known whether they will go to Syria ...
RIA Novosti reports that the Admiral Chabanenko, a modern destroyer, and three landing ships, Alexander Otrakovsky, George the Victorious and Kondopoga, will leave the fleet base in Arctic Murmansk. Interfax claims that they will all make a call to Tartus, although it is still unknown whether they are recruiting Marines, and if so, will they remain in Syria ...
Analysts have already questioned the messages of “Interfax” and other agencies that announced in June about the direction of the ships to Tartus, regarding them as “HYIP” and unreliable information ...
The US State Department issued on Tuesday a statement that the US hopes that the visit of Russian ships to Syria will be limited to the execution of their refueling ...
RIA Novosti reports that the Admiral Chabanenko, a modern destroyer, and three landing ships, Alexander Otrakovsky, George the Victorious and Kondopoga, will leave the fleet base in Arctic Murmansk. Interfax claims that they will all make a call to Tartus, although it is still unknown whether they are recruiting Marines, and if so, will they remain in Syria ...
Analysts have already questioned the messages of “Interfax” and other agencies that announced in June about the direction of the ships to Tartus, regarding them as “HYIP” and unreliable information ...
The US State Department issued on Tuesday a statement that the US hopes that the visit of Russian ships to Syria will be limited to the execution of their refueling ...
The Americans were late quite a bit. Then, in 2012, fights were already going on in Damascus itself. The city was only partially controlled by the government, and Asma-al-Assad explained to her children that the children of Bashar al-Assad could not miss school due to some kind of mortar attacks.
And at this last moment, when it would seem that the forces were no longer there, help came. Landing ships as transports. Little weapons, a bit of ammunition, a few spare parts and these friendly people from the north, whose fathers once helped to fight with Israel ... that was enough so that then, in 2012, everything did not end in the same catastrophe as in Libya.
West was late, but he was not going to surrender. The BDK flights from Novorossiysk to Tartus did not keep the secret for a long time about their cargo, very soon everything became clear. And then in the United States, it was decided to crush Syria "in the open", since the organization of the preposition (chemical attack) didn’t work.
Decor on 31 August 2013. In a few days, the Moskva missile cruiser will do.
And by the time this provocation took place, the NATO naval strike team was already forming at sea. By August, 2013 West had gathered forces for a fairly large-scale rocket attack, which would help the militants finally break the remnants of resistance from government forces. Five American destroyers, a landing ship, a nuclear submarine of the US Navy, another nuclear submarine of the British Navy and a French frigate - a set of countries wanting indirectly, but openly to shed blood in Syria, was formed already and especially since then has not changed. This group also had enough cruise missiles.
By September, the AUG of six ships, including the aircraft carrier Nimitz, was brought up to the Red Sea, along with the UDS Kirsardzh - the “hero” of the wars in Yugoslavia and Libya, where this ship acted as a light aircraft carrier.
But on their way were three Russian warships, the BOD Admiral Panteleyev, the missile cruiser Moscow and another warship, and also the reconnaissance Priazovie, theoretically capable of warning everyone in advance about the launch crew of the American missiles, and the BDK laden weapons for the fighting Syrian army. These forces would not have been enough to stop the Western armada, but, first, the United States understood that everything would not be limited to the Mediterranean Sea, and secondly, the existence of nuclear weapons on board Russian ships was in question. That is, generally speaking, it should not have been there. Neither we nor the Americans have been deploying it at sea for many years (with the exception of ballistic missiles on submarines). But nobody fully decided to guarantee this in those days ...
BOD "Admiral Panteleev"
And then Putin threw Obama a bone in the form of the joint elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons, and he, not seeing a reasonable way out, grabbed it and played it back. This was won two years - until September 2015. And Syria was saved. Rescued by the Navy of the Russian Federation. And he also saved for Russia the possibility of a political return to the Arab world and the Middle East.
2012-2013 Event Analysis
The operations of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean, aimed at disrupting the strike on Syria and ensuring the supply of weapons and supplies for the Syrian army, were a typical example of “peacetime operations” (see article "The Navy: the choice of a balance between preparation for hostilities and peacetime tasks") Those forces that the Navy used, without the use of nuclear weapons, could not resist the United States and NATO. And in the event of a submarine attack or base aviation and with nuclear weapons they couldn’t.
But then the Navy relied on the protection that the Russian flag gave the ships, and that the risks of an attack against them in NATO could not be regarded as very high. In any case, at least one American destroyer could have gone to the bottom in this case, which was politically unacceptable at that time. Yes, the submarine in a fight with the BOD could lose.
And most importantly, Russia could strike retaliation in any other place, even in Alaska. And the West has stopped.
From the autumn of 2013, the grouping of the Navy ships acted as a Permanent operational connection of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean.
It should also be noted the role of the fleet in supplying the Syrian army - it was also of critical importance for the latter. The fleet has been criticized for using amphibious ships to deliver material and technical equipment to Syria - their payload is low, and flights on the Syrian Express have significantly reduced their lifespan.
But we must understand that there was no choice. Initially, the Department of Transportation Services of the Ministry of Defense was supposed to deal with deliveries, but he said that he could not. In addition, it was obvious that merchant ships under civilian flag would sooner or later face a blockade of Syria by NATO naval forces. The inspection of the ship “Chariot” with cartridges and the “turn” of the ship “Alaid” with helicopters by the British completely “set the trend”. In such circumstances, there simply is no other force left except for the Navy, capable of taking on the delivery of weapons and ammunition to Syria, with the guarantee that no foreign military will board the ships. And the fleet had only BDK and various auxiliary vessels - kilctors and the like. In the end, what they could, so they were taken.
BDK "Saratov on the delivery of goods to Syria
Kilector KIL-158 also stayed transport. Having received a "not his" task, the fleet got out as best he could
Were the fleet actions successful? Yes, more than. It was, as the Americans say, “a blow to a larger weight category,” the Navy actually completed the task with absolutely insufficient forces. Would our ships survive if it came to a clash? No, but in those conditions it was not required. It is also worth noting that the tasks of countering the policy of the United States and its allies were performed either simply by ships of the ocean zone (RKR, BOD), or by ships of the far sea zone, which in practice proved their ability to move in the open ocean (BDK, TFR). Syria and our policy were not saved by RTOs, and not missile boats, but completely different ships.
On this the role of the fleet, however, was not even close.
Syrian Express and missile strikes
Until now, BDK flights continue to play a vital role in the supply of both our group in Syria and the Syrian army. Although the DTO has long since “woken up,” although full-fledged transport ships, including the powerful Sparta, appeared on the express line, and OBL-Logistic, created by the Ministry of Defense, took over the transportation, it is still not possible to do without BDK.
And in previous years it was just unreal. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the BDK turned out to be one of the most useful ships in the fleet. This, of course, does not mean that it is necessary to do so in the future, but it shows the vital role of high-speed military transports, controlled not by any structures, but by the navy itself, which, having weapons for self-defense and guaranteed naval flagged immunity in international waters could be thrown at solving problems immediately, by order. In fact, the existence in the Navy of the “equivalent” of such ships saved the whole country, and we have just seen how.
From October 7 2015, the Navy began striking at the terrorists' targets with Caliber cruise missiles. Initially, strikes were made by small rocket ships of the Caspian flotilla, but later they were joined by ships of the Black Sea Fleet (for example, frigates of the 11356 project) and diesel-electric submarines. Although these strikes had no fundamental military significance, they had enormous political significance. With these blows, Russia has shown that it has a “long arm,” which is quite capable of reaching the territories that our opponents considered safe, including the US military infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and the British in Cyprus. A somewhat contradictory was the use of small missile ships of the 21361 "Buyan-M" project as carriers of cruise missiles. On the one hand, their tactical and technical characteristics made it possible in the event of a “big” war to “hide” them in the depths of Russian territory, on inland waterways, and also to maneuver them between the Caspian and Black Seas, which undoubtedly gives considerable military advantages. On the other hand, in the far sea zone, the ships proved to be not so good (and they had to act there), they are defenseless against air strikes, submarines, and require protection from surface ships of other classes - but they do not have sufficient seaworthiness and speed, to maneuver with them without restriction. As a result, they had to be taken to combat services in the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, the “wake-up call” for the West turned out to be very loud and many “hotheads” with these blows cooled down.
Launch of the Caliber cruise missile from the board of the Dagestan rocket ship of the Caspian Flotilla
And the use of submarines and frigates for such strikes, capable of acting without restrictions in the far-sea zone, finally and irreversibly "consolidated" the effect achieved by the first strikes with the interregional radio stations. It became clear that, technically, Russia could reach its cruise missiles very far, even in a non-nuclear variant.
It was worth, of course, to modernize the old patrol of the 1135 and 1135М projects - Ladny and Inquisitive. The volumes that on these ships are occupied by the “Rastrub” PLRK, the Kubrick and the underwater acoustics located under it can be used to accommodate the PU 3С-14, which will arm these ships not only with PLUR, but also with other Caliber missiles. This would increase the number of surface ships of the DMZ on the Black Sea Fleet - carriers of “Calibrov” to five. Naturally, this would have to be done along with the repair and extension of the service life of these ships. So far, however, this question has not been raised.
Anyway, the Navy made a contribution here.
American strikes and their correlation with the strength of the Navy
Arrogant strikes of the United States by cruise missiles on Syrian military and civilian objects did not leave anyone indifferent, although generally speaking, one would expect that the Americans would not so easily release the almost dead victim from their claws, and the daring newcomer - Russia - would not be allowed to do everything freely what pleases. This did not happen, but the American strikes have an important aspect.
7 April 2017, at the time of the US Navy launching a missile attack on Shairat airbase, there were no warships on the Syrian coast. Only after the attack, the command urgently sent the frigate “Admiral Grigorovich” to the Mediterranean and followed by a pair of IRAs.
At the time of the next American strike, delivered jointly with Britain and France, 14 on April 2018, there were only two frigates and two diesel submarines in the region, which was generally incomparable with the forces of the West.
The most interesting thing started after.
The Americans, during the provocations inspired by their allies "on the ground", were convinced that among their own population the level of trust in media reports was still high, and even such absurd accusations as were the result of the actions of the so-called Whites in Douma (Eastern Guta ), the population of the United States and Western countries completely "eats".
Immediately after the April strike, preparations began for a new provocation. From press reports of the time:
"Look", 3 May 2018 of the year.
With the participation of US intelligence in the Al-Jafra oil field near the US military base in Deir ez-Zor, a new provocation is being prepared with allegedly using chemical weapons, an informed source associated with Syrian special services said. "The US intelligence agencies in Syria are planning provocations using prohibited substances," a source told RIA Novosti. According to him, the operation is led by a former militant of the Islamic State terrorist group [prohibited in the Russian Federation] Mishan Idriz Al Hamash.
There was a lot of such news later, the Ministry of Defense tracked both the delivery of chemical warfare agents to Syria, and the preparation of both the terrorists and their owners, the Americans, for a new provocation, which in their opinion should have been as successful as the previous one. To put in place these Russians, to thwart their plans, to prevent them from concluding alliances - who needs such an ally, for an alliance with which Tomahawks fall on their heads? But this time it did not work out.
Since August, 2018, when rumors were already circulating in Washington about a new upcoming strike on Syria, Russia began to deploy in the Mediterranean Sea a naval group of such a force that was not there for a very long time.
The following were sent to the Mediterranean Sea: RKR Marshal Ustinov, BOD Severomorsk, frigates Admiral Grigorovich, Admiral Essen, Admiral Makarov, TFR Pytlivy, three caliber missiles with Caliber missiles capable of the Syrian coast reach almost any target in the Mediterranean, two diesel submarines.
"Marshal Ustinov" and "Severomorsk" go to the Mediterranean Sea
VCS aircraft from the Hmeimim airbase began to carry out demonstrative flights over French ships with suspended anti-ship missiles, and Su-30CM naval aviation flew over the Hmeimim base itself.
Since the end of August, the group began the exercise, and the aircraft performed a demonstration sinking with a missile strike of the old Syrian TFR skeleton.
X-35 rockets strike, according to the old TFR of the 159 project
And everything died down. There was no provocation with chemical weapons, there was no attack on Syria. Never happened again.
You can agree with the role of the fleet, and you can dispute it, but the fact is obvious: there is no naval grouping in the eastern part of the Mediterranean - there are American missile strikes. There is such a group - there are no strikes, and there is not even a hint of them, and with the apparent desire of the enemy to inflict them.
Admittedly, the combat structure of the group was far from balanced, so obvious "weak point" was its anti-submarine defense, the ability of low-crossing ICC class "Buyan-M" to maneuver together with the rest of the squadron at high speed (if it were needed) was "in question" , but as a demonstration of power, the operation was completely successful, and the attenuation of the topic with a new attack on Syria is clear evidence of that.
Conclusions
During the ongoing civil war in the Syrian Arab Republic and the international terrorist intervention inspired by the United States and its allies, the Russian Navy played a decisive role in preventing the defeat of the Syrian government. The navy did not allow a missile strike on the Syrian army at critical moments of 2013, provided all the necessary military transportation, inflicted significant, politically important missile attacks from a long distance, and finally prevented another US missile attack. .
At the same time, it is an obvious fact that if there is a significant number of warships of the Russian Federation in the region, especially missile cruisers, the United States and its allies behave very restrained and do not conduct any provocations.
Thus, the Russian Navy proved to be a vital tool both for saving the Syrian Arab Republic and for supplying its armed forces, without which this country would have already died at the moment.
The events around Syria in the 2012-2018 years very clearly show the role that the Navy plays in the country's foreign policy.
They also show that no coastal forces, no mosquito fleet is simply not capable of playing the same role: the Americans are obviously pressing tail only when there is a BOD in the region, which their submariners are still afraid of, and the missile cruiser. The presence of some frigates, even if capable of delivering strikes with Caliber cruise missiles, does not stop them. NATO also painfully reacts to aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles.
Yes, the composition of the groupings of the Navy was not perfect - and because of the IRAs, and because of the minesweepers requiring urgent modernization, due to the lack of anti-submarine defense, and the number could sometimes be larger, but even in this form of the Navy War performed more than completely. And the naval aviation would not prevent and "Onyx" air-based, and more modern anti-submarine aircraft. But after the sinking of the target ship, the enemy had already subsided without it.
And this is quite a proof of the necessity for Russia of both the ocean fleet (cruisers and BOD came from other oceans) and naval aviation, including attack (assault). It would be desirable, of course, that in the event of a “breakdown” of the situation from a show of force to a real clash, we would always and in all cases be “put on the table.” In principle, this is solved.
In the future, if Russia has its own independent policy in the world, then there must be a fleet corresponding to this policy.
And no matter what happens to him now, we all should believe that she will have it, and actively pursue this, not yielding to either “dizzy with success” or calls to go “under the coast”, limited to rocket boats and coastal rocket complexes.
And then everything will work out.
Information