Russia needs different ships

122
“Quantitative and qualitative composition of the fleets and the Caspian flotilla they are maintained at a level corresponding to threats to the national interests and security of the Russian Federation in a specific regional direction, and are provided with appropriate infrastructures for basing, shipbuilding and ship repair. ”
From the maritime doctrine of the Russian Federation to 2020






The territory of Russia, as is well known, is washed by the waters of the thirteen seas of the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific basins. More than 60% (about 37653 km, taking into account 19724,1 km of the Russian sector of the Arctic) of the state border of the Russian Federation with a total length of about 62 262 km is the sea border. Our country is a de facto and de jure great sea power, and therefore it simply must have a strong modern navy.

The combat power of the fleet, which is able to protect the sea borders and national interests of the country anywhere in the oceans, is determined primarily by the presence in its composition of modern ships of all classes, including various types of power plants.

About the Navy


The Navy is a type of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The main purpose of the Russian Navy in peacetime is to protect the national interests of the country, and the demonstration of the naval flag of Russia in all seas and oceans. In wartime, the forces and means of the Navy are used to conduct combat operations independently or jointly with other types of armed forces, to destroy enemy forces on the high seas, in coastal areas and in coastal bases, and to destroy the military-industrial potential of the aggressor state.

In addition, the Navy is able to perform other tasks. In wartime, this is a violation of the enemy’s trans-oceanic and sea communications; protection of their shipping; support for maritime flanks of ground forces during joint operations; landing and support of amphibious assault forces; naval blockade of the coast of the enemy, the evacuation of troops from the coastal areas and others. For the successful solution of everyday and combat missions, the navy has everything necessary, including nuclear strategic forces.

The Navy, being a subsystem (component) of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, at the same time is an independent, autonomous system of a lower order, which includes its subsystems and elements (types of troops), namely, submarine and surface forces, marine Aviation and infantry, coastal missile and artillery units, and logistics.

The functional purpose of each branch of the Navy is different. So, coastal troops are designed to protect the coast and important objects located in the coastal zone. Surface forces (surface combat ships of various ranks) have a wide range of tasks. Their main purpose is to search and defeat submarines and surface ships of the enemy, disembark and support amphibious assault forces, detect and neutralize sea minefields. The submarine forces of the Navy (submarines), in addition to the above tasks, are capable of performing the tasks of detecting enemy submarines and defeating enemy surface and ground targets. The air forces of the Navy (naval aviation) perform missile-carrying, anti-submarine, and reconnaissance functions, and are capable of destroying ships, submarines, and enemy vessels in the seas and oceans or in ports and bases. In addition, naval aviation covers the actions of the Russian Navy while it performs combat missions and is stationed in bases.

Thus, the navy, having a structure that is in many respects similar to a higher level system (armed forces), unlike other types, can perform a larger number of different combat missions completely independently and autonomously.

The Navy, as is well known, has a number of principal features that radically distinguish it from other types and branches of the armed forces.

Firstly, the Navy is armed with the most expensive military equipment - warships. Thus, according to domestic media, the cost of building one ship, for example, the Admiral Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorsh series, is at least 18 billion rubles, one ship of the Admiral Grigorovich series - 13 billion rubles, and one nuclear submarine of the type “ Borey ", respectively, 39 billion rubles. It is obvious that the operational and other costs of maintaining warships also cost the state treasury not cheap. High costs for the creation and maintenance of a modern navy can be afforded not by everyone, but only by an economically developed country that has the necessary scientific, technical and industrial base, has a high intellectual and technical potential with an appropriate education system.

Secondly, naval ships are collective weaponswhich is managed not by an individual, but by a whole team — the crew, whose work and coherence not only determine the results of combat missions, but the life of the ship as a whole.

Third, the modern combat ship, being the most complex engineering structure, reflects in its design and armament a whole complex of the latest achievements of science and technology, and therefore, the naval composition of the navy: sailors, foremen and officers have always been presented and presented today quite high professional requirements. Due to the complexity of naval equipment and weapons, the training periods and the level of education of naval specialists often exceeded similar figures for specialists of other types of armed forces, including those in the most difficult years of the Great Patriotic War.

Fourthly, the Navy ships have a given autonomy and high mobility; therefore, they are able to perform combat missions in various areas of the world ocean for many months. Naval ships can secretly approach the shores of any maritime state and have weapons on board to counteract their aggressive intentions toward Russia and its allies. This feature, along with a high level of professional training, imposes on every crew member the obligation to thoroughly study all the maritime theaters in which events potentially hostile to our country can take place.

Fifth, along with the knowledge of his immediate and related specialty, each Navy specialist is required to perfectly know the theory and survivability of the ship, be able to control its combat and technical means, replace its commander and lead subordinates in an emergency and combat situation.

Sixth, the crew of the ships should be a single organism, work out all their actions, for example, in the fight against fires, water and for the survivability of technical means to automatism. Achieving the victory of a ship in combat and emergency situations is impossible on the one hand without clear organization, interaction and coherence of all personnel, and on the other, without the skills of each individual crew member.

Seventh, naval personnel need to know the tactics and strategy of modern naval combat, tactical and technical characteristics and capabilities of combat forces and means not only of their fleet, but also of the fleets of a potential enemy.

Eighth, while sailing, ships and their crews, unlike military personnel of other branches of the armed forces, are constantly at the forefront of the confrontation and represent a great maritime power - the Russian Federation.

Finally, the personnel of the Navy must know the tactics not only of the sea, but also of the land, of the battle, since under certain conditions military sailors can be sent to the land front.

It is these fundamental features in all countries of the world that distinguish the navy from other branches of the Armed Forces. It becomes obvious that the navy is different from other types of the Armed Forces of modern Russia in tactical and strategic terms, which is why the Navy should not be treated as an auxiliary type of Russian armed forces.

Ship classes


Speaking of ship classes, it should be recalled that with regard to equipment in the most general sense, a class (from the Latin classis — category, group) is considered as a collection of objects or products (in this case, ships), singled out according to their single functional purpose, similar to the technical device the same technical specifications as well as other distinguishing features. Items and products that make up a class are also elements. Classes include subclasses (or elements of several lower categories), also combined into one group for a single functional purpose, structure, and the same characteristics. Obviously, all of the above applies to the classes of ships of the Navy.

Each class of ship is determined by its functional purpose and combat capabilities, implemented in its tactical and technical characteristics and armament.

Currently, ships and vessels of the Russian Navy are divided into the following classes:

1) Attack-combat ships: aircraft carriers, cruisers, submarines, destroyers, missile and torpedo boats, anti-aircraft ships, anti-submarine ships, patrol ships, minesweepers and others.

2) Support ships: floating bases, floating workshops, floating docks, supply vessels, research ships and apparatuses, emergency rescue ships, special ships, training ships.

3) Basic floating equipment: icebreakers, tugboats, barges, tankers, aquarius, ships-stations without winding demagnetization, floating cranes, block ships, killectors, heaters, non-self-propelled floating facilities, messengers and traveling vessels, etc.

Analysis of the modern naval composition of the Russian Navy shows that:

1) to the beginning of the XXI century in the Russian Navy, as well as throughout the world, there was a clear and scientifically based system (and subsystems) of ship classes, corresponding to the strategy and tactics of their use;

2) each class of ships has its own purpose and occupies its specific place in the general structure of the Navy;

3) all classes of ships are interconnected and able to interact with each other;

4) in case of underestimation, exclusion or absence of any class of ships, the existing balance of the Navy may be violated.

Not so long ago, in the Russian media, there was a message that Russia would not build ships of a class above the frigate. This means that the well-established system of the Russian Navy can be broken, resulting in, ultimately, a decline in the functioning of not only the Navy, but the country's armed forces as a whole.

As is known, it is impossible to create a universal ship, therefore, to fulfill its functions in full, the Russian Navy must have all classes of ships capable of solving numerous tasks and reliably ensure protection of Russia from sea directions in different climatic zones and in various maritime theaters of operations. It is such an integrated approach to the construction of various classes of naval ships that, in their opinion, will allow not only to have a modern combat-ready fleet, but also to preserve the shipbuilding technologies accumulated by many generations of domestic shipbuilders - from boats to aircraft carriers.

GEM ships


Currently, ships of the naval forces of different countries of the world are equipped with boiler-turbine, diesel, gas turbine, nuclear, combined (diesel-gas turbine, diesel-electric and other) main power plants (GEM). In addition, each power plant (main power plant) has its own advantages and disadvantages.

It should be recalled that the “parent” of the absolute majority of shipboard power plant - diesel, nuclear and gas turbine - is a shipboard steam turbine installation (KTEU) (previously called steam power - authors' note) history from the second half of the 18th century. Combat qualities of KTEU were tested in two world wars and in many local military conflicts at sea. In addition, the boiler-turbine power plant (or rather its main boilers) can operate on various types of fuel from standard (F-5 fuel oil) to firewood, which is important for a warship. Despite these obvious undeniable merits of the boiler-turbine power plant, its equipment of Russian ships under construction was completely abandoned, preferring other GEMs, for example, a combined diesel-gas turbine power plants, including imported ones.

According to the authors, the decision to equip ships under construction with diesel-gas turbine units imported is premature, since its adoption did not practically consider, and therefore did not take into account, the possibility of introducing economic sanctions against Russia, that is, the economic opposition of the countries-exporters of ship engines navy modern domestic ships. Confirmation of this, for example, is the refusal of the Ukrainian enterprise GP ZNKG Zorya-Mashproekt (Nikolaev, Ukraine) and the German company MTU Friedrichshafen (Baden-Baden, Germany) to supply gas turbine units and diesel engines, respectively, to equip the GEM of ships under construction . As a result, the imposed sanctions were the main reason for the suspension of the implementation of the domestic shipbuilding program for an indefinite period.

Disrupting the implementation of the Russian shipbuilding program once again shows that ships under construction and vessels of the Russian Navy must be equipped with all currently known power plants, without exception, and only domestic production. In addition, it is necessary to actively develop and implement other types of ship power plants.

Various approaches to the improvement of traditional and development of new non-traditional types of power plant will not only preserve the accumulated design experience and domestic schools of the ship engine, boiler, gas and steam turbine construction, but also significantly increase the survivability and combat capability of Russian naval ships, as well as make domestic shipbuilding independent and independent of external political and economic factors.

On the modern role of the Navy


According to Russian media reports, the Russian Defense Minister, Army General Shoigu SK, objectively analyzing the realities of today, said that Russia had to abandon the construction of ships of the first rank, which is mainly due to the lack of financial resources in the country.

According to the authors, there is another, equally important problem that prevents the Russian Navy from equipping the newest surface ships of the first rank. This problem is the prevailing and ingrained thinking in almost all maritime countries of the world about the secondary role of the navy. Such thinking is called land and is in the opinion that the main task of the Navy is only to ensure the flanks of the land army in joint operations on coastal directions. In other words, the navy is assigned only a supporting role in operations on coastal directions. The experience of modern wars and local conflicts at sea convincingly shows that today the role and place of the navy has changed dramatically, which means that the current continental or land thinking about the role of the Navy in modern war and local conflicts no longer corresponds to modern realities. Suffice it to recall the Anglo-Argentine conflict 1982 of the year, in which only one type of armed forces of Great Britain participated - the naval forces, and the operation “Desert Storm” 1991 of the year, where the US naval forces at the initial stage of the operation were assigned the main role in suppressing resistance of the armed forces of Iraq, the blockade of the coast and the violation of enemy sea communications.

In modern warfare, according to the authors, one should not rely only on ground forces and / or military space forces. Each type and branch of the armed forces is capable of solving only its own specific tasks, at the same time tasks assigned, for example, to the navy, other types and branches of the armed forces are simply not capable of solving. Of all the types of armed forces, only the Navy is able to solve individual tasks of other types and branches of the armed forces.

On the sources of financing the construction of new ships


The authors fully agree with the opinion of the defense authorities: today there is a shortage of funds in the country, but this is not a reason to weaken the naval component of the Russian Federation. Money for military needs, including the development of the Navy, you need to earn. There are all possibilities for this today.

It should be recalled that the navy is the only kind of armed forces that is able to work for the country's economy and bring profit to the state treasury, which means that the Navy is able to earn some of the money that is so necessary in current conditions, including , and on the construction of ships and vessels of a new generation.

Today in the world, the institutions of all states are known to work on a commercial basis. In the activities of the Armed Forces of Russia, there has been and has been practicing making money for a long time, for example, in training and retraining foreign military personnel in Russian military schools. Perhaps the time has come for certain types of activities of the Russian Navy in providing certain services to foreign countries and domestic private companies also to be transferred to commercial relations, earning money at the same time.

Russian sailors are fighting international piracy, ensure the safe presence of ships at sea, assist ships in distress and ships, and carry out complex rescue operations. Part of this assistance, previously performed free of charge by the Russian Navy, can now become services provided to foreign and domestic firms on a commercial basis. Such a transfer of gratuitous assistance to paid services is quite natural, since as a result of the work of the Russian Navy, substantial material resources are earned or saved; material damage caused, for example, by unlawful actions of terrorist organizations, natural factors (storm conditions), military actions, etc. is prevented or minimized.

Thus, the Russian Navy is fully capable of earning some of the money on its own, including for its own needs. Currently, as a paid service, you can perform the following work:

- wiring caravans of ships through dangerous areas of the sea, for example, controlled by sea pirates;
- protection of fishing and mining areas in the sea;
- protection of supporting vessels at sea;
- lifting sunken boats;
- survey of the seabed for the presence of minerals and sunken objects;
- detection and trawling of mines in the open sea, territorial waters and navigable canals of other countries;
- assisting in the struggle for the survivability of ships and vessels and their transportation to ports.

Experience in performing some of the listed works in the navy of the Russian Federation already exists. Suffice it to recall the combat trawling and clearing of the Suez Canal from submerged ships in the 1950 and 1970's, as well as the wiring of caravans of ships by Russian ships through the Gulf of Aden in 2008. This experience has been accumulated in the past on the basis of free aid.

One of the ways to obtain funds for the construction of warships can be the sale of intellectual property of military personnel, including the navy. Indeed, Russian military personnel, exploiting the most complicated military equipment, possess enormous knowledge and submit numerous applications for rationalization proposals and applications for inventions, the results of which can be used by public and private enterprises, including enterprises of the military-industrial complex. To this end, it is necessary to intensify inventive and rationalization work in the armed forces, bring it in full compliance with Russian legislation and the governing documents of the Russian Defense Ministry, encourage military inventors and, most importantly, legally transfer the Federal Institute of Industrial Property from the keeper (pantry) of inventions to the organization, implementing these inventions.

The domestic history of the navy knows another, now forgotten, method of obtaining funds for the construction of ships - voluntary donations of citizens of the country.

It is known that in the Tsushima battle (14 — 15 of May 1905) the Russian Imperial fleet of 38 participating ships of various classes from the Russian side lost the 21 ship, as a result of which the Russian military fleet as a type of the armed forces of Tsarist Russia practically ceased to exist. In the state treasury of the necessary funds for the restoration of the fleet and the construction of new warships, however, a way out was found: throughout the Russian Empire, a collection of voluntary donations was organized to recreate the domestic fleet. Regardless of the maritime department, due to the abundant flow of donations from public organizations and citizens for the restoration of the fleet, a special committee to strengthen the fleet for voluntary donations was established. As you know, the largest sums for the construction of ships were made by large Russian industrialists of the time. By 1910, the amount of fees reached 17,3 million rubles, which today corresponds to 86,5 million.

In the shortest possible time, the funds collected by citizens were built and put into service by the new 19 fleet of the newest destroyers of the Russian fleet (at the time they were called mine cruisers. - Note by the author), whose combat and operational characteristics were not inferior to those of similar ships. class.

According to the authors, despite the difficult situation of the domestic economy and the low incomes of our citizens, the acquired domestic experience in attracting funds from citizens and public organizations for the construction of new ships of the Navy may well be used today, but only under the conditions of voluntariness, transparency of receiving money, their targeted expenditure, strict public control over their expenditure and complete reporting. The example in the donation of funds for the construction of the domestic fleet, according to the authors, should be shown by large Russian corporations having their own interests in the coastal waters and the continental shelf of the Russian Federation.

Instead of conclusions


The basis of the national security of any country, as you know, are national interests, threats (to the interests) and protection (of the interests). Recently, according to media reports, in various regions of our planet the national interests of Russia are increasingly confronted with and intersect with the interests of NATO member countries, including the United States. This means that threats to the national interests of Russia, at least in the near future, will only increase, which increases the likelihood of the need to protect the national interests of our country in the future, including the seas and oceans. In addition, for several years now, the USA has been implementing its modernized plan under the code name “Anaconda Loop”, developed and first tested in the US Civil War 1861 — 1865 years. In accordance with this plan, the NATO military-political bloc, which is still hostile to Russia, gradually covers the territory of our country along its external borders with military bases, narrowing the “anaconda rings”. Under current conditions, Russia's freedom, independence and sovereignty will be determined only by the presence of modern armed forces, including in its membership and a powerful navy.

For the qualitative and quantitative development of the Russian Navy, a long-term forecast of the development of foreign policy conditions is necessary. Judging by the foreign policy realities of the present, this forecast, at least for the coming years 15 — 20, is still disappointing. This means that, in accordance with the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Navy, it is obliged to have ships of all ranks and classes with different known and proposed power plants. That is why for the construction of ships it is necessary to use all the reserves in the country to receive funds, and this is not a whim, but an objective requirement of time.

References

1. Great Soviet Encyclopedia (electronic version). Article "Fleet".
2. Ship charter of the Russian Navy. - Moscow: Military Publishing, 2001.
3. Carvers A. Russia can no longer afford the ocean fleet // Business newspaper "Vzglyad" (electronic version).
4. Bolosov A. N. Pre-Revolutionary Russia. Construction of ships for the Russian fleet on donations during the Russian-Japanese war // Site “History of the State” (electronic version).
122 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    4 August 2019 05: 53
    This means that, in accordance with the Marine Doctrine of the Russian Navy, it is obliged to have ships of all ranks and classes with different known and proposed power plants.

    The conclusion made by the two CTNs is amazing in its depth, width and length. fellow
    1. +2
      4 August 2019 18: 32
      Quote: Amateur
      This means that, in accordance with the Marine Doctrine of the Russian Navy, it is obliged to have ships of all ranks and classes with different known and proposed power plants.

      The conclusion made by the two CTNs is amazing in its depth, width and length. fellow
      And alas, stupidity.
      It is washed by the waters of the thirteen seas of the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific basins. More than 60% (about 37653 km including 19724,1 km of the Russian sector of the Arctic) of the state border of the Russian Federation with a total length of about 62 km is the sea border.
      How many KM is the sea border of England when she took possession of the Navy of the Highest rank? How many thousand km is the US naval border ranked 1st in the Navy? We do not need the Navy, but border ships. The United States, as previously England can save on ground forces and strengthen the Navy, we cannot afford this. We need a RAPL fleet and a border fleet, and whoever strides widely tears his pants. feel
    2. 0
      4 August 2019 23: 34
      thanks, to the point, laughed heartily, support
      Quote: Amateur
      The conclusion made by the two CTNs is amazing in its depth, width and length
    3. +4
      5 August 2019 03: 23
      KTNy just shocked! Especially when they offered to send warships for commercial contracts ... Bravo! And that with a hat in a circle "Christaradi for the needs of the fleet" - killed. laughing
      The budget from "extra money" is choking, the oligarchs are begging for subsidies from the budget, the people are raging from new taxes and extortions ... and the fleet must collect a subscription, how to "treat children" ... good

      And zero analysis of the current moment.
      For example, that the construction of the 22350 and 22350+ series has been resumed, as well as about the upcoming series (at least 12 pieces) 22350M. Two buildings were laid this year. And two buildings of the BDK "improved Ivan Gren".
      And there is money for these projects. There is, because not individual ships were laid, but namely series.
      "We will not build anything larger than frigates" (quote from Shoigu), and at the same time, the upcoming 22350M series with a displacement of 7000 - 8000 tons is announced. ... Of course, you can call it a frigate ... even a corvette or a sloop, but de facto it is a destroyer in the dimensions of the early Arlie-Burke.
      "We will lose competence in large ships" ... and at the same time, the deepest modernization of Admiral Nakhimov is coming to an end, and after commissioning, Peter the Great will go for modernization, they are preparing to lay the UDC.
      So why cry?
      Shipbuilding programs are resuming again. The shipyards have been modernized (and continue), the competencies for the construction of gas turbines, marine diesel engines, and travel gearboxes have been restored, shipborne air defense systems have been brought up to standard, in the fall the final tests of the Zircon missile launcher are to be passed and put into service, after which the fleet will acquire completely different qualities.

      All that impedes the development of the fleet and society is a liberal model. Which, according to the president, has exhausted and outlived itself.
      And once it has become obsolete, there will be a new one. Or a well forgotten old one. When money from the budget will not be withdrawn into "highly liquid securities abroad", but will be spent on the development and security of the country.
  2. val
    +14
    4 August 2019 06: 29
    Funny :-)
    It can be seen that KTN wrote their dissertations like this article, with scissors, newspapers and glue.
    I went to a party meeting.
    1. +11
      4 August 2019 09: 08
      quote from the article - More than 60% (about 37653 km including 19724,1 km of the Russian sector of the Arctic) of the state border of the Russian Federation with a total length of about 62 km is the sea border. Our country is de facto and de jure a great maritime power, and therefore it is simply obliged to have a strong modern naval fleet. - and here, on this resource, more than half are convinced that our country is exclusively land and it needs a fleet only to protect the 12 mile zone
    2. +8
      4 August 2019 13: 29
      From a party meeting with such ideas, the authors would fly out with party prosecutions.
      decision to equip ships under construction with diesel-gas turbine units of foreign production premature

      What is it like?! Did you have to sit and wait for an insight? Any commander knows that an incomplete, but timely solution is better than an ideal, but belated.
      Various approaches to improving traditional and developing new non-traditional types of power plants ... will make domestic shipbuilding independent and independent of external political and economic factors

      Russia's freedom, independence and sovereignty will be determined only by the presence of modern armed forces, which include a powerful navy in their composition

      How little is needed for independence, and here we are about the economy and politics ...
      The basis of the national security of any country, as you know, are national interests, threats (to interests) and protection (of interests).

      Threats as one of the foundations of security ... Tear the template - write on ... "fence"!
      military space forces

      Is this something like a navy?

      Well, the proposals for the commercialization of the Navy, coupled with begging, also smell somehow suspiciously.

      It was extremely rare to set minuses (which should be neglected only because of disagreement with someone’s opinion, if it is correctly stated and reasoned), but here this article is MINUS! Citizens of KTNy, do not mess up IN, drain toxins in specially equipped places!
  3. +16
    4 August 2019 06: 46
    The example of donating funds for the construction of the domestic fleet, according to the authors, should be shown by large Russian corporations that have their interests in the coastal waters and the continental shelf of the Russian Federation.
    ... And you can also collect funds using SMS ... smile
  4. +9
    4 August 2019 06: 49
    Dear candidates of technical sciences, at the current level of trust and income of the vast majority of citizens, a voluntary donation for the construction of the Navy is not possible. And I’ll add, after, I’m not afraid of this word, the destruction of the Marine Engineering Service the fleet ceased to have its own (or independent) MTO. After submission of the fleets (except the Northern) to the districts, the fleet lost centralized control. The creation of the Navy's Military Research Center has brought to its knees the training of young officers; in the Navy Civil Code one (!!!!!) officer directs (answers, defends interests) a military education. Draw your own conclusions.
    1. -1
      4 August 2019 07: 11
      You want to say that under the king it was better? If the fleet was able to build on voluntary donations?
      I was told that in the Second World War the Black Sea, Baltic, and Northern ALL fleets were subordinate to the ground command. So then it was right, but now not right?
      1. +9
        4 August 2019 07: 38
        1. What is now, what is equally bad under the king.
        2. Collect forcibly, and then declare that they surrendered voluntarily. I do not want to draw analogies, but I do not exclude this option.
        3. The coastal fleet is the dream of the general staff. It is convenient and beneficial for them. The ocean fleet must be independent. During the Second World War, to subordinate the Baltic and Black Sea Fleets to the army was the right decision, just do not forget that the fleet was then a separate People’s Commissariat, read the ministry.
        1. 0
          4 August 2019 08: 23
          Have you forgotten that in the Soviet Union, as now, there was still the Pacific Fleet?
          "The fleet was then a separate commissariat, read the ministry" and what's the point that Kuznetsov was called the People's Commissar of the Fleet? In my opinion, superfluous bureaucracy and in the post-war period it was abolished and done right.
          "Collect compulsorily, and then declare that they surrendered voluntarily", under the king they collected voluntarily, but now "voluntarily-compulsorily"?
          If you REALLY BEGIN to raise funds for the construction of the Navy, I will give an extra steward for you!
          1. +7
            4 August 2019 08: 36
            There was a Pacific Fleet, by the name of the fleet, by the nominal value of the flotilla.
            The bureaucracy does not depend on anything other than the will of the leadership; it can be divorced out of the blue. But the fact that there is no one to protect the interests of the fleet in the political arena, in my opinion, is obvious.
            I won’t give a dime, until state-owned corporations read about for each ruble super-profits from the sale of hydrocarbons, and these super-profits are not subject to a progressive tax.
            1. +2
              4 August 2019 09: 21
              "there is no one to defend the interests of the fleet in the political arena"
              a) in the Soviet Union after the war there was no Minister of the Navy and normal.
              b) if Admiral Komodov is comfort tomorrow, Bessonov (I don’t care as a surname) will be renamed the Navy ministers, which will change, but nothing: a) if he is a donkey then he will remain a donkey, and if he is a decent person, he can do much in his place to do;
              1. +1
                4 August 2019 10: 12
                a) lucky with the ministers of defense, who understood the importance of the fleet; and the fleet’s MTO was not put in the pose of a running Egyptian, but worked like a clock - planned;
                b) the fleet will become independent from the General Staff; certainly this is a radical measure, but in another way, apparently; the role of personality in history has never been canceled.
                1. +2
                  4 August 2019 12: 02
                  Astra, as usual, has an overwhelming emotion, but she is right: if you put a donkey as Minister of the Fleet, then everything remains as it is in the best case, and in the worst ...
                  The person decides everything. Fleet officers, do not be offended, but I do not see either Ushakov or Kruzenshtern among you
                  1. 0
                    4 August 2019 22: 15
                    After the fight, they don’t wave their fists, but still. So I don’t see either Shaposhnikov or Shtemenko in the General Staff, but what is it, at least Clausewitz.
            2. -2
              4 August 2019 09: 26
              "until the state corporations are READED for every ruble" until 1917, in my opinion, EVERYTHING was private, but they collected funds.
              1. +1
                4 August 2019 10: 15
                Here let the millers, sechins and fold. And they raised funds, but the defeat in the REV became the trigger of the revolution thanks to this.
                1. +4
                  4 August 2019 12: 05
                  In fact, ships built with folk money constituted the basis of the Soviet fleet.
                  1. +2
                    4 August 2019 12: 37
                    Yes, here I was mistaken, but more than half of the funds were donated by the industrialists. I doubt that the current financial elites (of which there are no oligarchs) are capable of this. When the elites set an example, I will sacrifice part of my savings with faith and hope.
              2. 0
                5 August 2019 17: 37
                the entire treasury industry of the Russian Empire froze in amazement.
            3. +3
              4 August 2019 12: 32
              "I will not give a penny" if you work, you will give it as nice. You are an adult and you know how it is done now. For example, I am your boss and I say something like this: "I send 500 from my salary to the fleet, and now the rest" you have two options: 1) get your wallet and put the money (the manager's salary is higher than yours) or "get sick". The boss will remember that Sidorov did not hand over the money and ... Sidorov should look for another job.
              2) You did not surrender, but others surrendered, and how will others look at you?
              There would be a desire, but there are many ways to get money to be handed over. If a pensioner is a little more complicated, you can still find a way
              1. +2
                4 August 2019 12: 44
                So I was higher and answered Astra about voluntary donation and forced collection. It was this scheme that was meant. And I personally came across this scheme during the restoration of one prayed place, I will call it that.
  5. +12
    4 August 2019 07: 11
    Two Ph.D. wrote an article whose whole meaning boils down to the following: the fleet can also earn money, plus the population will be thrown off, and we will build more ships so that they again earn money.
    Well, dear authors, you seem to understand commerce even less than in the Navy. Commercial use of the fleet is generally akin to a joke.
    It follows from your article that the fleet independently may enter into contracts. Exactly this is the joke.
    It is one thing when State "A" concludes an international treaty with Russia on escorting their trade caravans in a dangerous area - everything is clear here, and who pays and who receives money. The treaty is international, and the Ministry of Defense allocates ships for this task. The same is with the raising of sunken ships. Only on the basis of an international agreement.
    But here it is:
    Russian military sailors are fighting international piracy, ensuring the safe stay of ships at sea, assist distressed ships and shipsperform complex emergency rescue operations. Part of this assistance previously provided by the Russian Navy for free, may now become services provided to foreign and domestic firms on a commercial basis.

    Those. if the ship is sinking, and we kind of cry out: while there is no money - there is no help?
    Authors, are you out of your mind?
    Your attempt to put everything on a commercial basis - the laurels of Gaidar and Chubais do not give rest?
    And who only to you Ph.D. appropriated? And for what?
    If in your dissertations the same nonsense is written as in this article - I am scared for our science.
    1. +1
      4 August 2019 10: 34
      The article does not speak of "drowning", although migrants from Africa and Arab countries are stuffed into such fragile ships ...
      But in commerce, the main thing is to get the greatest profit, but where is the greatest profit?
      That's right ..- protection of boats with drugs, weapons for various units, ...
    2. 0
      4 August 2019 23: 19
      Quote: Honest Citizen
      Your attempt to put everything on a commercial basis - the laurels of Gaidar and Chubais do not give rest?
      And who only to you Ph.D. appropriated? And for what?
      If in your dissertations the same nonsense is written as in this article - I am scared for our science.

      now the awarding of degrees has also become a commerce, as can be seen from the article, now there is no money you are not a candidate, paid "yes, it doesn't matter what you have in your dissertation"
  6. +5
    4 August 2019 07: 18
    Russia needs different ships
    After all, you can't argue. But in Moscow, sometimes the asphalt is changed twice on the street or the curbs are changed every year. In the Soviet Union, with its "ineffective" economy, there were different ships.
    1. -1
      4 August 2019 07: 24
      Quote: Gardamir
      Russia needs different ships

      After all, you can’t argue. But in Moscow ... asphalt ... borders ...

      Um ... inspired by:

      Quote: Lieutenant Rzhevsky
      Speaking of birds. Yesterday, the pop from the bell tower came up - did not even tweet
      1. +6
        4 August 2019 07: 32
        Speaking of Cat Man Null
        The article says that ships are needed, but there is no money. I indicated one of the ways where the money goes. By the way, the Krasnoyarsk governor did not want to put out the fires.
        1. +3
          4 August 2019 07: 46
          Quote: Gardamir
          ships are needed, but no money. I indicated one of the ways where the money goes

          Thank. I know a lot of such ways, will we all list? And you push these borders ... well, just everywhere. What I pointed out.

          Quote: Gardamir
          By the way, the Krasnoyarsk governor still did not want to put out the fires

          Well, they made zhezh ... let's talk about macaroni, something has not been heard about them for a long time laughing
          1. +1
            4 August 2019 07: 59
            , we will list everything?
            Why not?
            shove ... well, just everywhere
            The Soviet authorities were reproached for putting asphalt first, then they began to lay pipes. It turned out that this is the case under any power, but the example with pipes and asphalt was shoved everywhere then.
            let's talk about macaroni
            Let's criticize each other more constructively.
            1. -1
              4 August 2019 08: 05
              Quote: Gardamir
              The Soviet authorities were reproached for putting asphalt first, then they began to lay pipes

              Well, I remember ... the Krokodil magazine, for example.

              Quote: Gardamir
              It turned out that so with any power

              Yeah. Only the magazine is no more, now you, have become, for him?

              The magazine, IMHO, still somehow more talented request

              Quote: Gardamir
              Let's be more constructive ..

              Oh how belay

              Man, IMHO you and the constructive are two incompatible things. Like chemistry and life, for example. Also, by the way, there was such a magazine ...

              Okay, frolic further, I won’t bother you Yes
  7. +11
    4 August 2019 08: 17
    There is a shortage of financial and monetary resources in the country, and I think a deficit of conscience and intelligence among the leadership. The present industrialists differ from the royal ones in that they will never give anything to anyone. Their yachts cost more than the fleet of England and France combined. Both the fleet and the army they need only to maintain personal capital. If there is no fleet and armies, partners, instantly leave our modern bagathey without capital and real estate, and they themselves will be sent to prisons, they will find the reason. Well, the top is waiting for the Hague Tribunal, the most “fair” tribunal in the world.
  8. +8
    4 August 2019 10: 01
    According to the authors, there is another, no less important problem, preventing the Russian Navy from being equipped with the latest surface ships of the first rank. The indicated problem lies in the existing and rooted in almost all marine countries of the world thinking about the secondary role of the navy.
    This opinion is largely facilitated by powerful pressure for brainwashing, for example, through the same media. As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, a powerful bacchanalia immediately began against the aircraft carriers, which were then substantially present in our fleet. Nevertheless, they gave up on the completion of the Varyag, and there is nothing to say about the Ulyanovsk. Here our "friends" have worked effectively, cleaned up not only the existing, but also the very perspective. Even ships of the Kapitan Smirnov type, which could in fact be mobilized and converted into multipurpose helicopter carriers (Project 10200 Khalzan), were bought out (Vladimir Vaslyaev replenished the ranks of the US Navy after modernization), or, one way or another, they were destroyed ... That is, even the theoretical possibility for Russia to receive these ships was destroyed.

    In general, the most dangerous ships for the enemy were destroyed in the first place. Thus, the Arctic super-boats of the "Akula" class went under the knife under far-fetched pretexts, both in the fact that they "did not fit in the sea" and in the termination of the release of R-39 missiles, for which there was a supply to replace through container inserts with other missiles ... No one also needed the almost finished cruiser "Ukraine", it could also be bought to strengthen the Russian fleet. Mediocre and criminally sold "Gorshkov", where India received a modern aircraft carrier, and our traders were ready to give the ship almost free of charge, in addition to the contract for the MiG-29 ... Now the PD-50 floating dock is brilliantly drowned, only by a miracle "Kuznetsov" drowns next. All this is accompanied by a howl about saving the people's penny, the uselessness of the fleet, the "land" nature of Russia.

    Comrades, the authors of the article, although somewhat boring, but the article is correct. Here, just, we must not forget who is the master of the world capitalist system, who is the master of those who keep their junk in other people's banks and foreign currency. From the great country there remained a powerful fleet and a nuclear missile shield, to take and surrender right away - the people will not understand, in addition to everything, presumably, there is a latent desire, from the oligarchs, to squeeze out their share from the owners. Also, the image of the enemy from Russia gave a powerful charge to make money for one, and raise your rating for others. We are in capitalism, it is hard to believe that really bad boys, whose times have come in Russia, will bite the "feeding hand" of the West. Therefore, they do not need the ocean fleet, and so, the gentlemen are "fighting", and the forelocks of the slaves are cracking, super profits are made, ratings are rising. What are our traders boldly moving now? They sell freebies, oil, gas, timber, fish, everything that they got practically for nothing, for which they do not need to "plow and sow", this also includes Soviet military technologies, from a great country, with its great science and education, the safety margin of which dries up. New efficient managers, legal economists, can only serve the colonial economy, eating away the Soviet margin of safety. I would like to be wrong, but I think that only a truly independent country needs a great navy, and this requires an independent pole of power, which was socialism and people's rule.
  9. -6
    4 August 2019 10: 08
    How many times has the “balanced fleet” dragged to the bottom of Russia - mother, but everything is numb. Spend these 39 billion instead of Borea to bribe the Ukrainian government, and you’ll break the “anaconda ring” in one place.
    1. val
      -5
      4 August 2019 10: 39
      Spend these 39 billion instead of Borea to bribe the Ukrainian government,
      Is everything numbing? Did it work with Yanukovych?
      Why waste time on trifles, give us tea with polonium, or "Newbie".
      Few problems?
      1. -4
        4 August 2019 11: 31
        With Yanukovych, everything worked out, they just slammed the coup. With polonium and a novice, too, everything worked out, the traitors were punished, because Skripal survived, and for the better, he will spend the rest of his life waking up from every rustle.
        But in general, I agree, a clear and hidden foreign policy in the rubble, it is all the more surprising that it seems to be a specialist.
  10. -1
    4 August 2019 10: 16
    "The way to obtain funds for the construction of ships is voluntary donations from citizens of the country."
    A good idea.
    Let it be embodied by the oligarcho (Abramovich and ...) - bureaucratic (sechins and ...) structures.
    The president in the country is always 1 (one). Management of the president’s affairs is also, it seems, for 1 (one) civil servant. Why then in the structure (full subordination and management) of the president’s affairs there are so many medical institutions, sanatoriums, boarding houses throughout the country (in good places) , ... Many kindergartens .. (.https: //udprf.ru/opendata/7710023340-org/data-20160920T145457-structure-20170914T163013.html) Leave 1 (one) sanatorium, 1 (one) clinic for the top official ...
    All other property as a state-owned commercial enterprise, not requiring budgetary funds, but earning money.
    , with open and transparent financial statements ...
    The same thing (but not for everyone, but for everyone else) is applied to all lower-ranking appointed and elected officials (naturally, top officials, deputies .... Small officials, and so on, live off their salaries, although there are certainly exceptions) , including state corporations. Then the money will be enough not only for the fleet, pensioners, ...
    And then the portal flot.com (https://flot.com/nowadays/structure/techreadiness/2018/) will not, when comparing the combat rating of the Navy of RUSSIA and the USA, take into account boats in our Fighting Fleet, albeit with missile weapons
  11. +12
    4 August 2019 10: 31
    so, according to domestic media, the cost of building one ship, for example, the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov series, is at least 18 billion rubles, one ship of the Admiral Grigorovich series - 13 billion rubles, and one nuclear-powered submarine of the type “ Borey "respectively 39 billion rubles.

    At 2008 prices. In general, the article is bullshit
    1. +2
      4 August 2019 22: 48
      In general, the article is bullshit
      The best review of the mentioned article. Neither add nor diminish.
  12. -4
    4 August 2019 11: 21
    Or maybe a bay mare)?
  13. -1
    4 August 2019 11: 27
    Ships are expensive, take a long time to build, are expensive to maintain, and are easily lost. A concept is needed - which ships do Russia need so that money remains for the tanks.
    1. -5
      4 August 2019 11: 50
      We need those ships that are now being built, everything else - destroyers, aircraft carriers, cargo for the country's budget, for Russia is much more priority: Strategic Missile Forces, ground forces, air defense - missile defense, air force, military aviation, now all this will be added to the troops with infantry infantry fighting systems, all this is necessary tens of trillions of rubles, the fleet in last place.
      1. -4
        4 August 2019 11: 56
        That is exactly what I wanted to say. The fleets over and over again ravaged the country, usually without bringing much glory. The nuclear submarine is clearly not concerned.
        1. +5
          4 August 2019 15: 21
          Quote: Ken71
          The fleets have ravaged the country over and over again

          Konstantin, have you ever seen spending on the fleet at all? So, let me tell you - at the most peak periods of the fleet development, they did not exceed 25% of the total aircraft costs. And usually (even during the construction of the Big Fleet in the pre-war USSR, or dreadnought before the WWII, or the ocean fleet in the 70 of the last century), the average annual cost of the fleet was less than 20% of the total cost of the armed forces.
          1. 0
            4 August 2019 15: 59
            And what really helped? The Petrovsky fleet decayed, they drowned the Black Sea themselves, the Baltic and the Pacific epic gave it to the Japanese, then the Black Sea partially self-dumped, partially escaped, then the Baltic mostly for needles. During World War II, they successfully reached the point where they forbade large ships to go out to sea. And what happened to the fleet of the USSR did not remind. Russia is not lucky with the fleets. Well, of course, the Turks were driven at the time by the Swedes too, who were saved from the Danes. But now what is the purpose. Or to have a fleet for the sake of having.
            1. +3
              4 August 2019 19: 22
              Quote: Ken71
              And what really helped?

              Strong. But it’s funny how you substitute one question for another. First you said that the fleet supposedly ruined us when you recalled the numbers, now you quickly jumped off the topic :)))))
              Quote: Ken71
              Peter's fleet decayed, the Black Sea themselves drowned, the Baltic and the Pacific epic so gave the Japanese

              I will not even remind you of the victories of the Russian fleet: you do not know, for example, how much the Black Sea fleet helped us during WWI - well, and don’t know further, I’m not a lecturer at the Knowledge Society. But even you should have been clear that it was precisely the petty economy in the fleet that led to its collapse in the Russo-Japanese one, and that it was precisely the underfunding of the construction of the fleet in the Baltic that led to its unpreparedness for WWI.
              Quote: Ken71
              But now what is the purpose.

              Well, maybe, for starters, study what goals and objectives are facing the Russian Navy?
              1. -1
                4 August 2019 22: 20
                I do not substitute. I am shocked by the numbers. Almost a quarter of the cost of an almost useless dreadnought fleet, stunned by idleness, the sailors of which were then slaughtered by admirals.
                And this is at a time when shells issued individually, and the front was suffocating without heavy guns and ammunition.
                And about victories this is what the way. Racing for Goeben by the crowd. In general, the fleet is needed most importantly for communications. In WWII, there was no such need on the Black Sea. And in what the readiness of the Baltic Fleet for WWII was to be expressed. Engage anything larger than the cruiser - the Germans make fun. And in general, how the activities of the BF corrected with the costs of it.

                And finally, the main thing. About goals and objectives, we just now interpret
        2. 0
          6 August 2019 14: 06
          And what are you going to cover for underwater missile carriers in areas of combat duty? Brigade of frigates of the Federation Council against several AUG NATO? Apple will not even be released from the bases. Then we must be consistent and abandon the naval component of nuclear forces. And if we have a quarter of deployed warheads located on strategic boats, if you please, guard them. By your logic, the army is not needed at all. Border troops of the FSB and in the center of Russia Strategic Rocket Forces. Without air defense, aviation, ground forces ....
          1. 0
            6 August 2019 21: 53
            And what are you covering for. Own AUG. With a general battle with a predictable result. In fact, if the adversary AUGs get close enough, then these Daggers will serve or you thought that with their help we would smash the Atlantic convoys.
            1. 0
              7 August 2019 00: 55
              Daggers .... against AUG .... with whom I argue?
              1. 0
                7 August 2019 11: 11
                Yes, dear it is Daggers and it is against the AUG. Take it for granted.
                1. 0
                  7 August 2019 11: 13
                  Just keep quiet and stop arguing. No one reads the branch, so no one will appreciate. We won’t earn any pluses or minuses.
                  1. 0
                    7 August 2019 11: 14
                    Let the little girls suffer for the pros. The truth is dearer to me :) And I have stated the truth. Nothing personal of course
                    1. 0
                      7 August 2019 11: 19
                      The truth is confirmed by facts. They are not here. There are neither reports of testing on a moving surface target, nor launching at the declared maximum range, nor about solving the problem of target designation. AGSN on the Dagger does not work due to the formation of a plasma cocoon impervious to radio emission. Give at least one reference ... otherwise the dispute is about nothing
                      1. 0
                        7 August 2019 11: 26
                        Uncle Yura are you a spy? For you, a wiki will be enough, there are links about launches. And articles on VO. And the fact of patrolling the MIG with daggers of marine areas, it is clear that so far for experimental and practical purposes. And you confuse the term target designation with the GOS.
                      2. 0
                        7 August 2019 12: 04
                        I read about launches. Along the shore. As for the GOS, it captures the target for 50 or a little more km. For this, it is necessary to give target designation to the package in order to bring it to the area where the target is located. That is, the Dagger has 2 problems: target designation and lack of GOS. That is, for a moving target, it does not work.
                        Uncle Yura are you a spy?
                        no, I just don't believe in officialdom. I prefer not to believe, but to know. Officials trumpet the invincible and legendary, and then the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy is shocked by articles by Comrade Klimov. Facts in the studio to argue with me. And if not, then stop.
                      3. 0
                        8 August 2019 20: 41
                        But what about allegations of a certain optical seeker. And the facts are complicated. I suspect that this topic is so classified that there will be no verified facts for about 15 years. Or maybe more. Therefore, I agree with you. Stop it.
    2. -6
      4 August 2019 12: 17
      To have a large Navy for that “but Schaub Bulo”, “flag demonstrations”, “we are a great country” means driving the country's economy to minus.

      The Portuguese built a powerful fleet, so they exported gold from America in thousands of tons, and then other goods. In the end, they generally created Latin America. Then their focus was repeated by the British in India, at first they also dragged gold from the temples, to which they created an empire, then other goods. On this sea thread from India to England through two straits kept their entire economy. Of course they needed a powerful Navy.
      In the twentieth century, the United States took the baton, now the goods are oil from Arabia. Plus, the protection of the coast, which focuses most of the population and production. After Pearl Harbor, they will always keep a powerful fleet.

      But why do we need it? What do we have, super fisheries that competitors are robbing? Or are thousands of our container ships bombing hundreds of pirates? Maybe dozens of our passenger liners are constantly raping passengers? Or are we exporting iron ore from Australia and Brazil in thousands of tons, while American destroyers periodically heat them? There is none of this.

      But there are huge costs that break away from the really necessary things.
      Would Karl reach Poltava if the money that had gone to the fleet went into the army?
      Would we lose Crimea in the Crimean War if the money that went to the Black Sea Fleet (which we flooded all the same, we also erected a monument to this case) went to strengthen the defense of Sevastopol?
      Would we lose the war to the Japanese if instead of the ships Rozhdestvensky’s squadron built a normal two-track line to Vladik?
      And where would Guderian’s tanks stop if the steel of failed battleships and cruisers went to our tanks?
      And when you count the number of pennants of the “Gorshkov fleet” and estimate their value, you’ll be taken aback. You understand that this is the anchor that in many ways pulled the USSR to the bottom.

      Abstractly counting state money is easy. But I propose to the fans of the large fleet to solve a specific problem. You have an apartment, a summer house and a bicycle in Krasnoyarsk. You are given a million rubles and the choice: buy a SUV SUV or a boat in Yalta. What do you choose?
      1. 0
        4 August 2019 13: 05
        "This is the anchor that in many respects pulled the USSR to the bottom."
        If we do not have "super-awesome fishing industries that are robbed by competitors? Or thousands of our container ships are bombing hundreds of pirates? Maybe dozens of our passenger liners constantly rape passengers? Or we export thousands of tons of iron ore from Australia and Brazil, and American destroyers periodically sink them. ? None of this. "
        If we do not need the Navy, ships, they say we have nothing to protect, then why do we need islands (Sakhalin with the Kuril Islands, ...), why do we need the sea, why do we need the coast.?
        We will buy and condemn red caviar = overseas ....
        We leave in the steppes, forests, taiga, tundra, buried in the hermitages ..
        God forbid we notice ...
        1. -4
          4 August 2019 13: 37
          No one talks about the complete abandonment of the fleet, just a reasonable approach, taking into account economic opportunities.
          The coast is covered by aviation and missile systems + ships near the submarine. Given the exit from the INF Treaty, the radius will increase to 4500 km if the complexes are located a little in depth.
          The rest is intelligence and control. Each AUG is under the supervision of a frigate, capable of keeping up with her and transmitting information.
          1. +1
            4 August 2019 15: 51
            Quote: Arzt
            Each AUG is under the supervision of a frigate, capable of keeping up with her and transmitting information.

            Yes you, sir, Nelson! Not otherwise! Even forgotten ...
            Oooooooooo how you "love" the fleet ... right up to the teeth grinding! am
            But I would put you on that frigate in order to drown it with the beginning of the database, and so that you no longer smell on the site! I can’t stand the smell of rotten meat - for your ideas are rotten through - yesterday's freshness from the back of libest!
            But I can reassure you, and people like you:
            Russia will have a MODERN, WELCOME GREAT POWER FLEET! (V.V. Putin).
            1. -1
              4 August 2019 18: 08
              That's just for that frigate I would put you to drown for sure with the beginning of the database

              And what, in the USSR, visual control of American AUGs was not practiced?
              The crews of those ships were also suicide bombers and knew this. But now there isn’t that either, the satellites will not be blocked.
          2. -1
            4 August 2019 21: 46
            Without warships of the far sea zone, merchant ships, MARINE, and not coastal navigation, the country will simply hide in its shell like a tortoise. And instead of economic development, sea trade, fishing not only from the coast, but also in ocean waters, we will be quiet Frigate can act as an informant only in peacetime. In case of conflict, his life will end in a minute. And against the background of armadas of warships, merchant ships of other countries, our ships and our country are perceived as an underdeveloped state. And they trade with us and lead If we give credit at our own expense and then simply forgive. If the flow (movement) of the river disappears, then the river turns into a swamp. If we just try to save money, cutting the budget, we will bend ourselves, without any outside interference.
            1. -1
              4 August 2019 22: 32
              In exchange, they will build bulletproof and transport aircraft with a carrying capacity of 700 tons, the main thing is to create powerful and economical turbofan engines for them. You can bombard the seas and oceans with mines - and then no one will sail there, aviation and seaplanes will be much more promising - in speed of delivery and safety : storms, scary, pirates, mines, torpedoes are not scary.
          3. 0
            4 August 2019 23: 10
            frigates are not needed to monitor the AUG, a satellite is enough, all surface ships (including cruiser frigates and an aircraft carrier) in the event of a serious war will not go from the coast beyond the boundaries of coastal aviation and ground means, only submarines can move further away, so that the frigate and another NK, it’s a ship only in peacetime, and in war it provides anti-aircraft defense around its base ..... and the cruiser and the AB have no tasks at all in peacetime or in war, except for parades.
        2. -1
          4 August 2019 22: 24
          Enemy ships are much cheaper to destroy with missiles - now taking into account the development of hypersonic anti-ship missiles and in the future anti-ship missile launchers, the destruction of ships and ASGs at long distances will not be difficult.
      2. -1
        4 August 2019 20: 07
        A warrior at sea should begin at the enemy's naval base. Personally, I have no opponents, but from the telly they constantly repeat about overseas bad people to whom we oppose ourselves. It is logical to assume that to get them you need a strong, ocean fleet.
        1. -1
          4 August 2019 22: 34
          For this, there are ICBMs — one warhead and port or naval base. And do not drive the fleet somewhere and risk people.
          1. +1
            4 August 2019 22: 39
            The first to shoot, the second to die. ©
            What are you, sir, bloodthirsty. You are not sorry for anyone, neither strangers, nor your own. Victory does not mean destruction, it is time to understand.
            1. -1
              5 August 2019 10: 50
              If there is a military conflict, nuclear weapons will be used - including at naval bases. the enemy.
      3. 0
        6 August 2019 14: 13
        Count hydrocarbon reserves on the shelf of the Arctic Ocean. This is an excuse for a strong Northern Fleet. Calculate the benefits of oil production in Syria. This is an excuse for a strong Black Sea Fleet. Control of the Caspian oil production is an excuse for a strong Caspian flotilla. Protection of a part of the Northern Sea Route in the zone of responsibility, protection of economic interests, fishing in the Far East - Pacific Fleet. Think of something about BF yourself, I'm too lazy.
  14. +3
    4 August 2019 11: 41
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In general, the article is bullshit


    Yes, the most common article for this resource. Local morlocks are actively crawling to the surface on this. So bullshit on a moonless night)
    1. +4
      4 August 2019 15: 58
      Quote: Demagogue
      Yes, the most common article ...
      Nah ... This is a collective contract! And people who wrote it were far from the Navy (judging by how they pushed the forces of the Navy into only three (!) Classes of ships). And a colleague correctly noted - they wrote how they baked pancakes: with scissors and newspaper clippings. The main thing for the need of the day plump. Surely for the Navy's Day fussed, for the sake of the fee.
      In addition to misunderstanding, such a scribble can not cause anything. Even reluctance to get dirty scraping the bloopers of these KTH. It would be better to write about what they know and would not touch the fleet.
  15. 0
    4 August 2019 13: 40
    But how many shitheads and even on topwar.ru say that we do not need a fleet, that there are no tasks for the AUG, that there will be enough boats with machine guns to solve all the tasks of the Navy.
    Like it or not, but you need to have at least 3-4 full AUGs, with all the infrastructure and supply ships. The sooner we begin to build aircraft carriers - the better, because then - it will be too late.
    1. +1
      4 August 2019 14: 27
      Aircraft carrier - $ 10 billion
      Destroyer - $ 1 billion
      Nuclear submarine - $ 1 billion
      AUG = 1AB + 4E + 2APL = 16 billion. With an air group, bases, etc. - $ 20 billion

      Country budget 330 billion (1 / 3 budget of apple corporation)
      4 AUG = 80 billion. $ Or 24,2% of the country's budget.
      Ready to cut salaries and pensions for a quarter for the super fleet by a quarter?
      And again - TASKS?
      1. -2
        4 August 2019 14: 52
        Are you ready to feed someone else’s army in your country? Everyone - there are tasks for the AUG, and only you do not see tasks for the AUG in your country!
        1. +3
          4 August 2019 15: 51
          Boris, just with such spending on the fleet, the army will have to fight back with the remaining mosquitoes in the warehouses. Adversary, if that trample by land, that China, that partners.
        2. +3
          4 August 2019 16: 13
          With your approach, a foreign army will be in the country in a week. You don’t even have to fight, they just go and scatter sneakers to the starving. If there were almost a million people willing for Hitler, then half of the country will go for “democrats and humanists” from poverty.
          Next to us is Ukraine with an industry still capable of producing rockets and tanks, 4 nuclear power plants with 15 reactors capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium and a population of 40 million, most of whom hate us. And behind them is the whole West, ready to fit in.
          Will aircraft carriers help? If only dig along the border. Although wrong, in Odessa you can hit.
      2. +2
        4 August 2019 15: 27
        Quote: Arzt
        Country budget 330 billion (1 / 3 budget of apple corporation)
        4 AUG = 80 billion. $ Or 24,2% of the country's budget.
        Ready to cut salaries and pensions for a quarter for the super fleet by a quarter?

        Do not write nonsense, please.
        The service life of AUG is, say, 40 years (actually, more). Thus, in order to provide the 4 AUG in the fleet on an ongoing basis, we must build an 40 AUG every 4 years. Total 330 billion * 40 years = 13 200 billion of which 80 billion per 4 AUG - it is already 0,6% of the country's budget.
        1. +2
          4 August 2019 15: 42
          A masterpiece of entertaining mathematics and logic) ... Are you going to build them within 40 years? .. even asking about it is inconvenient to ask about)
          1. -1
            4 August 2019 19: 24
            Quote: Town Hall
            A masterpiece of entertaining mathematics and logic) ... Are you going to build them during 40 years ?.

            No, during the year, as suggested
            Quote: Town Hall
            it’s even inconvenient to ask about contain)

            I know that it’s inconvenient, because I can give figures, and cry about the crazy expenses for maintaining the fleet again will not work :)))
            1. +2
              4 August 2019 19: 54
              Even with your outstanding mathematical and economic abilities it will be difficult to keep within 0,6%)

              4 AUG for Russia is not even unscientific fiction
            2. +2
              4 August 2019 22: 42
              Our aircraft carrier will cost a trillion rubles together with weapons and an air group, and we still need to build a port and a floating dock for repair, not to mention numerous auxiliary equipment. The aircraft carrier of Russia can not afford, we have many other more significant directions in the aircraft. The era of aircraft carriers came to an end in view of the development of hypersonic anti-ship missiles, and soon anti-ship missile launchers will be added to them.
        2. +3
          4 August 2019 15: 49
          I did not expect from you. And to serve these 4 AUG how many mld. And the fact that they need appropriate shipyards, which also need to be built up and loaded with orders. And the structure of the ACG is strange, the comrade out of modesty was mistaken. You need a couple of CDs and an EM division for each. And somewhere it is necessary to base it. In Vladik with Murmansk yes. And still, the adversary has an overwhelming superiority that leaves no chance. And air groups, too, with all the joys of their preparation and maintenance. Maybe more than 1 percent will be. This I do not touch on a vague topic of what they should do, And by the way the lack of experience, for which we will not consider the epic of the unfortunate Kuzi.
          1. -3
            4 August 2019 16: 06
            Also write that building and maintaining a fleet is not economically feasible, just like extinguishing fires in Siberia!
            1. +1
              4 August 2019 16: 08
              It is appropriate for the tasks of defense of the economic zone and covering the deployment zone of submarines. Shock AUG is economically inexpedient and pointless for the defense of the country.
            2. -1
              4 August 2019 22: 44
              You just need to learn how to spend money wisely - without any hopeless and empty megaprojects such as an aircraft carrier.
              1. -1
                5 August 2019 17: 57
                So you will teach
          2. -1
            4 August 2019 17: 38
            And the air groups, too, with all the joys

            Su - 35 - 80 lyam, the new deck will be under 100. The air group of 80 aircraft is 8 billion. For 4 AUGs - 32 yards. Plus reserve. But airplanes okay, they will always come in handy.
            1. +2
              4 August 2019 19: 29
              Quote: Arzt
              Su - 35 - 80 lyamov, the new deck will be under 100.

              I repeat - do not write nonsense. The cost of Su-35 for the Russian Aerospace Forces today is within 1,6 billion rubles, which is less than 27 million dollars.
              1. +1
                4 August 2019 22: 46
                Do not forget - our budget is in rubles, but not in dollars.
          3. +3
            4 August 2019 19: 33
            Quote: Ken71
            And to serve these 4 AUG how many mld.

            Relatively little.
            Quote: Ken71
            And the fact that they need appropriate shipyards, which also need to be built up and loaded with orders.

            Existing idle almost 50%
            Quote: Ken71
            And the structure of the ACG is strange, the comrade out of modesty was mistaken. You need a couple of CDs and an EM division for each.

            The standard composition of the USA AUG is 1 AB, 5 Arly Berkov, 2 NPS and supply vessel.
            Quote: Ken71
            And somewhere it is necessary to base it. In Vladik with Murmansk yes. And still the adversary has an overwhelming superiority that leaves no chance

            We can't butt in the ocean with him. He and I need to resolve the issues of the inviolability of the seas where our SSBNs are deployed, the very "bastions" that the Soviet fleet provided. And for this, not even 4, but 3 AMG is quite enough.
            Quote: Ken71
            And air groups, too, with all the joys of their preparation and maintenance.

            Which are needed anyway, even with aircraft carriers, even without
            1. +2
              4 August 2019 22: 11
              Remind us who is capable of building an aircraft carrier with at least 70000 tons. Where do you say to base. There is still to build and build. And by the way, the Ticonderogas were taken out of the AUG a long time ago.
              And you plan to fight in the places of deployment. Excuse me where. And is the AUG really needed there. Will there be enough coastal aviation and missiles? Peel the maximum from the submarine. But this is needed BOD.
              Airgroups without aircraft carriers are VKS. We have it
      3. 0
        6 August 2019 14: 16
        Handsome !!! I calculated the budget for the year, and all this will be built in 15-20 years. And money is allocated gradually. Of the 20 budgets, it doesn't hurt that much, right?
    2. -2
      4 August 2019 20: 18
      At least 6 AUG, tk. two fleets of SF and Pacific Fleet where they are really needed. Three per fleet per crew: 1 AUG on combat duty at sea, 2 AUG in repair, and crews on leave, 3 AUG preparing for duty. Only now, neither the base, nor the SRZ, nor the USC, nor the pilot training system for this is ready. Heracles is needed here, just like that, all the letters are uppercase in order to rake the AUGIAN STABLES.
      1. -1
        4 August 2019 22: 50
        It will be much cheaper to build 10 military airdromes in the north and purchase 100 Su 34 in the marine version and upgrade another 100 MiG 31 under the Dagger - it will all be as costly as one aircraft carrier.
  16. +1
    4 August 2019 14: 55
    the main question is what fleet today's Russia needs, and the second question is how our admirals see the modern war at sea. as soon as they decide on these two questions, then things will go. although with the current theft in the country, doubts are taken. if our admirals see the war at sea, as they saw in the Second World War, then drain everything, put out the light, there will be no sense. A lot of money and time will be spent, and as a result, at best they will be locked in their bases and send sailors - specialists to fight as infantry, and in the worst, they will sink all the ships, like the royal admirals during Tsushima. and something, prompts, it will be so. they don’t learn, not from their own experience, not from someone else’s. here the Germans, from scratch created a fleet in WWI, and challenged the Anglicos, sending their squadrons to all oceans. and in WWII, they created raiders, almost paralyzed all of Britain's maritime trade, and partly the United States. with the development of science and technology, our admirals will be able to see modern warfare at sea, that’s the question.
  17. -1
    4 August 2019 18: 04
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Arzt
    Country budget 330 billion (1 / 3 budget of apple corporation)
    4 AUG = 80 billion. $ Or 24,2% of the country's budget.
    Ready to cut salaries and pensions for a quarter for the super fleet by a quarter?

    Do not write nonsense, please.
    The service life of AUG is, say, 40 years (actually, more). Thus, in order to provide the 4 AUG in the fleet on an ongoing basis, we must build an 40 AUG every 4 years. Total 330 billion * 40 years = 13 200 billion of which 80 billion per 4 AUG - it is already 0,6% of the country's budget.


    What a greasy sketch)))



    We do not have modern anti-submarine aviation, equipment for minesweepers, torpedoes, there is nowhere to moor the first ranks, but take out 4 aug. Can you end the devastation first, and then into a brighter future?
  18. +1
    4 August 2019 18: 36
    that's how the fleet is being built in Russia
    1. 0
      4 August 2019 19: 40
      Quote: Unknown
      that's how the fleet is being built in Russia

      Well, before posting pictures, you must first understand how the gross tonnage differs from the displacement, since, for example, the gross tonnage of 15 917 tons is indicated for the Dilbar yacht. The displacement of the Dilbar yacht, like that of the frigate "Admiral Kasatonov", is about 5 thousand tons. With a difference in length of 15%, the displacement of ships cannot differ by 3 times.
      1. 0
        5 August 2019 06: 36
        Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Quote: Unknown
        that's how the fleet is being built in Russia

        Well, before posting pictures, you must first understand how the gross tonnage differs from the displacement, since, for example, the gross tonnage of 15 917 tons is indicated for the Dilbar yacht. The displacement of the Dilbar yacht, like that of the frigate "Admiral Kasatonov", is about 5 thousand tons. With a difference in length of 15%, the displacement of ships cannot differ by 3 times.
        ......... it's not even the tonnage, and the other subtleties that you bring, but the cost of the yachts of all our billionaires, and the funds that are released to the fleet. why, so Russian patriots, wouldn’t fall for the needs of the fleet? you know the answer, or suggest.
  19. 0
    4 August 2019 18: 56
    As usual, the argument reached the favorite topic - whether Russia needs or not
    aircraft carriers. The question is actually different. The age of aircraft carriers as an instrument
    The policy and conduct of war ends. Rather
    everything has already ended. Last year’s hike of two American aircraft
    carriers to the shores of Korea is precisely what is well demonstrated. how
    sailed, and sailed away. The fact that these ships are being built by the USA, China
    and India, proves nothing. They have ambitions, money and production
    venous capacities, that's what they are building. Budget cuts matter
    maintaining (and creating new) admiral posts, loading
    enterprises. The need to abandon aircraft carriers as a class
    reasonable people in the USA too. And they are already starting to talk about it out loud.
    1. 0
      6 August 2019 14: 25
      What are you shaking with your American AUGs? We need air defense carriers. To control the Barents Sea. And shock - anti-poise are not needed. Cover the submarine from anti-submarine aircraft, fleet forces from attack aircraft - these are the tasks of an aircraft carrier
  20. AAK
    -3
    4 August 2019 19: 13
    The theses and conclusions of the article are correct, but absolutely not new, all this has been said since the late USSR. Even a person with 2 arms is biologically normal, even though these arms are not developed equally, but the weaker left one, in relation to the right one (like most people have) is still better than one-armed even with a very strong remaining hand, even in work, even in a fight, therefore, in my opinion, the famous phrase of Alexander the 3rd remains relevant in our time ...
    At the same time, the provisions of the naval doctrine of the Russian Federation given by the authors of the current fleet composition can be fulfilled by almost one third, but there is no getting anywhere from objective reality.
    Therefore, in conditions of a shortage of both funds and industrial capacities, coupled with qualified personnel, for a long time we will not be able to create a balanced fleet that is minimum sufficient to fulfill the tasks stipulated by the Marine Doctrine, but we cannot refuse the fleet altogether; rather, we must reconsider the doctrine itself taking into account differences TMD ..
    As for the commercialization of the Navy, it really can be applied, but only in certain moments (first of all, piloting merchant ships in troubled areas), which, in addition to money and experience in near-war operations, will also give a significant positive image for our fleet.
  21. The comment was deleted.
    1. -1
      4 August 2019 22: 54
      Let's wait until the United States throws everything over - and when all this is crowded in the European theater of operations - we will hit with warheads: at all bases and locations, airfields, warehouses and everything that they have thrown "hello".
      1. -2
        4 August 2019 22: 59
        But this is not a fact.
        They may not fly, which is most likely not fools; the landing area will be covered with such an air defense shield that the bird will not fly there. Yes, and bombing your continent is just a pity.
        1. -1
          5 August 2019 10: 53
          The fact that they will not reach the probability is so low that it can not be considered. The bird may not fly, but the warheads will fly - even though you bring 100 THAAD batteries there.
  22. +1
    4 August 2019 22: 49
    The only thing that the authors convincingly proved is that the quality of the work does not depend on the number of candidates of sciences in the authors.
  23. -1
    4 August 2019 22: 51
    a couple of men who bought academic degrees for 30000 rubles broke out in an article ... but there is no logic, all of the fleet’s percussion tasks are solved only by submarines, and all other tasks (escort, fishing and shipping protection, etc.) only by frigates and NK of the third rank, not a single task was announced for cruisers and aircraft carriers .....
  24. +1
    5 August 2019 07: 26
    First, proceeding from the Fundamentals of Geopolitics (it is in it that the concepts of a sea power are defined), neither the Russian Federation, nor the Soviet Union, nor the Russian Empire, nor Russia, have never been and will not be a "great maritime power", despite the enormous extent sea ​​borders. Read Ovchinnikov's "Oak and Sakura". Secondly, only Peter the Great saw the need to go to the open sea when he cut through the "window to Europe." Well, because communications by sea were cheaper, there was no other transport. Thirdly, the deployment of weapons at sea, with the creation of force groupings, was justified only by S.G. Gorshkov, at the request of D.F. Ustinov. Simply, based on the creation of groupings of forces against our country, including the creation of NATO, the experience of the Second World War, it was necessary to solve the problem of disrupting the enemy's communications - the USA - Europe, the USA - Japan - Southeast Asia. Based on this, the Navy was built. Well, and besides, it became possible to hide intercontinental ballistic missiles on missile submarines. Fourthly, no one, even those who take off and land on the deck of our "Admiral Kuznetsov", leave it at a distance of about 500 km, will still be able to determine the ROLE and PLACE. And yet, what kind of fleet do we need? And nobody knows. Well, because Russia is not a maritime power. Attempts by amateurs to define "different ships" are simply either fun, or criticism as in nostalgia.
  25. -2
    5 August 2019 09: 43
    Dental and brain-destructive, why is the fleet a structure of a lower rank?
    1. 0
      5 August 2019 10: 32
      But because "furious and brain-destructive"!
  26. +1
    5 August 2019 12: 50
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Ken71
    And what really helped?

    Strong. But it’s funny how you substitute one question for another. First you said that the fleet supposedly ruined us when you recalled the numbers, now you quickly jumped off the topic :)))))
    Quote: Ken71
    Peter's fleet decayed, the Black Sea themselves drowned, the Baltic and the Pacific epic so gave the Japanese

    I will not even remind you of the victories of the Russian fleet: you do not know, for example, how much the Black Sea fleet helped us during WWI - well, and don’t know further, I’m not a lecturer at the Knowledge Society. But even you should have been clear that it was precisely the petty economy in the fleet that led to its collapse in the Russo-Japanese one, and that it was precisely the underfunding of the construction of the fleet in the Baltic that led to its unpreparedness for WWI.
    Quote: Ken71
    But now what is the purpose.

    Well, maybe, for starters, study what goals and objectives are facing the Russian Navy?

    Controversial, very controversial everything.
    In Russian-Japanese, we would have had greater land forces in Manchuria, would have thrown the Japanese into the sea and the end of history. Without any fleet. From the money spent on the fleet, zero exhaust. A couple of additional divisions on the dv would be much more important. In WWII in the Baltic, they forced everything with mines and that was where the whole action ended. With the entire fleet of the Kaiser all but one could not butt. On the Black Sea, the fleet participated, but several submarine mine loaders would have taken the Turks out of the game in the same way.
  27. 0
    5 August 2019 13: 07
    In which place is the Russian Federation washed by the Atlantic?
  28. 0
    5 August 2019 16: 16
    The United States is solving its problems on a neighboring branch of VO.
    It would be illogical to continue to concentrate our forces on several large ships. The enemy understands that striking a large ship can quickly disable a large part of our forces. It is necessary to change the priority from large ships to form a fleet of more smaller and more deadly platforms.
  29. -1
    5 August 2019 23: 08
    It is known that in the battle of Tsushima (14 —15 on May 1905 of the year), the Russian Imperial fleet of 38 ships of various classes from the Russian side lost the 21 ship, as a result of which the Russian military fleet as a kind of armed forces of tsarist Russia virtually ceased to exist. The state treasury did not have the necessary funds to restore the fleet and build new warships, but a solution was found: a collection of voluntary donations was organized throughout the Russian Empire to recreate the domestic fleet. Regardless of the maritime department, in view of the abundant inflow of cash donations from public organizations and citizens to restore the fleet, a Special Committee was created to strengthen the fleet for voluntary donations. As you know, the largest sums for the construction of ships were made by large Russian industrialists of that time. By 1910, the amount of fees reached 17,3 million rubles, which today corresponds to 86,5 million $.
    The sum in 86,5 million dollars does not tell me anything. I use rubles.
    According to the authors, despite the difficult situation of the domestic economy and the low incomes of our citizens, the acquired domestic experience in attracting funds from citizens and public organizations for the construction of new ships of the Navy may well be used today, but only under the conditions of voluntariness, transparency of receiving money, their targeted expenditure, strict public control over their expenditure and complete reporting. The example in the donation of funds for the construction of the domestic fleet, according to the authors, should be shown by large Russian corporations having their own interests in the coastal waters and the continental shelf of the Russian Federation.
    So shake the money from Millers, Sechenykh, Rottenbergs and others. And also we have divorced all sorts of jesters, buffoons and singers. And it would not be bad to start with them "for the needs of the army and navy", if you do not agree - to prohibit speaking on the territory of the Russian Federation. We can do without them. And they are not without us. Because they make money here. In the west they only live and no one knows them there.
  30. 0
    7 August 2019 02: 18
    What is the state of the project "Manatee" !? It's time to build!
    1. 0
      7 August 2019 08: 09
      Ivan, the Ministry of Industry and Trade spent a lot of money on this project only at the stage of research work. Why do you need this ship?
    2. -1
      7 August 2019 10: 31
      In the state of a plastic model - the next 20 years, they will not be engaged in the construction of aircraft carriers in Russia.
  31. -1
    9 August 2019 18: 43
    Volga is growing shallow. Losharika in the Caspian will be launched. Ecology is getting worse.
    More losharikov and Poseidon but without nuclear weapons. And send them to the south pole for study.