We are building a fleet. Attacks of the weak, loss of the strong

No matter how strange it may sound, but Russia with her geographic location, economics and vulnerabilities should be considered in potential wars at sea as the weakest side. In fact, if it is, it will not always be, but it will be so often. Russia cannot quickly create a fleet comparable to the Japanese. The Baltic Fleet will not surpass the strength of forces that NATO can use in the Baltic. Turkey, with its economy and population, with access to Western technology and shipbuilding, will always be able to create a fleet more powerful than our Black Sea. Or at least more numerous. In addition, any country at war with Russia will be able to count on this or that help from Western countries - always. And this is not to mention a hypothetical clash with the United States, if it fails to bring to nuclear escalation.


We are building a fleet. Attacks of the weak, loss of the strong

A detachment of Soviet warships goes to sea. For us, a serious detachment. For any of our potential adversaries, there are only four ships, not the most powerful


We are weaker, it is better to proceed from this. And even the timely transfer of reserves from other fleets to the troubled theater of operations, even a powerful shock aviation ashore should not plunge us into illusions. We should start from the very beginning from the bad - we must win in the conditions of numerical and economic superiority of the enemy, and win with a crushing score, quickly and scary for our rivals.

Is it possible? There are a number, so to speak, of “second-order principles”, or of those rules that help achieve the main goal voiced earlier in war - domination of the sea, or by blocking or otherwise ousting the enemy from the sea, or destroying it.

It makes sense to list them, because the operations of the weakest side in a war at sea have a chance of success only when it adheres to them. They do not guarantee her victory, of course, because the enemy will not play giveaways. But they give the weaker side a chance at it, and in some cases are considerable. Not guaranteeing victory, they make it achievable.

Speed ​​versus Strength


In the summer of 1914, a detachment of two German warships, the battle cruiser Göben and the light cruiser Breslau, marched through the Dardanelles in order to conduct military operations against the Entente, based on Turkish territory. In the specific circumstances prevailing at that time, it is against Russia.


Battle cruiser Goeben


In theory, Russia had a serious advantage in the Black Sea over two German ships. But there was a nuance. Both the Goben and Breslau were significantly faster than any Russian battleship. And stronger than any Russian ship that could catch them.

As a result, all battles between German ships and Russians ended in the same way - falling under the powerful fire of Russian ships, the Germans simply came off, left the battle, and that’s all. This went on throughout the war, which "Goeben" safely survived. The superiority in speed of a more modern German ship made it possible to survive several battles with the Russian fleet, and no firepower of the Russian armadillos helped - the speed helped the Germans simply to avoid the battle when they did not consider it necessary to join it, or when they wanted to leave it. No numerical and fire superiority helped the Russians, nor did the tactical skill of the commanders, contrary to popular estimates today, really took place.

You can find many similar examples in stories. A party with a superiority in speed is either not vulnerable at all, or requires completely disproportionate forces for its defeat. This is especially evident when actions take place in the open ocean.

But this is on the tactical link. A "level up"? Does speed have operational significance?

It has.

Consider the situation when an aircraft carrier strike group in the open ocean needs to destroy a ship strike group, or drive it into a neutral port, where it will be interned. For this, it is necessary to attack it with airplanes, ensuring the defeat of at least one target in each sortie. At first glance, everything is obvious, but in fact, the commander of the aircraft carrier group must solve a number of issues.

We will not talk about reconnaissance, maintaining contact and issuing target designation - this is not as simple as it seems, but also not impossible, we just omit this question. We consider it resolved.

Let's think about something else.

In order for a strike on the KUG to be just a strike, and not a suicidal throw of a handful of aircraft under the fire of several powerful air defense systems, it must be a massive strike. The maximum number of aircraft must be raised into the air, and they must strike at the enemy together, overloading their air defense systems and making it impossible to repulse the attack. At first glance, this is what aircraft carriers exist for, but for such an attack, the KMG must be inside the combat radius of the deck aircraft.

Let us ask a question: what if the speed of the COG at the transition is always and in all cases higher than the speed of the ACG? For example, on 5 nodes? These five nodes mean an increase in the gap between KUG and AUG by 220 kilometers every day - almost half of the combat radius F / A-18 loaded in the shock version and without hanging tanks. And in a day - almost a full radius. At the same time, the AUG needs to go at a speed that excludes the use of its own submarines for its defense, and if the pursued KUG passes over the curtain from its submarines, the AUG chasing it risks running into this curtain, and all of a sudden.

So how to hit the target in just these conditions? It is not worth saying that this is impossible at all, the reality is more complicated than a straight race. However, the above example shows well how sometimes speed can be used. Let us suppose that “integrally” AUG is twice as strong. But she cannot get the target, at least at this moment in time!

In the end, you need to carry out a whole naval operation, remove ships and ship groups from performing other tasks ... making it easier for the enemy to operate on other parts of the theater of operations.

No less important is the speed with which the naval group or squadron moves to the desired theater of operations. Any ship has a maximum speed, and there is the speed of an economic vehicle, at which crossings over long distances are carried out. The higher the latter, the higher the speed of deployment of naval groups.

As a result, a stronger, but slower opponent faces an unpleasant prospect - he is always late. A quick opponent attacks the forces that he considers necessary, and leaves with impunity. Of course, each battle for him carries the same risk as for the “slow” one - after all, missiles and planes are in any case faster than ships. But between fights, it is speed that determines who will drive someone into a hopeless situation.

The weak should be faster. It must be faster during any operation, it must be faster during deployment. And this means the need for shipbuilding to build on the enemy’s data - to wait until it becomes clear at what maximum speed his ships can go, and what is the speed of the economic course, and then surrender ships that are superior to the enemy in this.

We illustrate this statement with another example - it is necessary to take control of a certain narrowness, for example, a strait. One side sends an atomic submarine or two there, the second a pair of anti-submarine corvettes and non-nuclear submarines, with the task of destroying all military surface and all submarine targets without exception after a certain point. Is it important who comes to narrowness faster? The answer is obvious.

If we ignore speed as a tactical property of the ship, then we can say that the enemy must be outstripped in everything - in the speed of analysis of the situation, in the speed of decision-making, in the speed of mobilization, in the speed of transmitting orders and other information. A fast opponent will be able to impose his pace, set it, and a strong, but slow one will have to follow him, he will be led, and at some point will be led to some kind of sad ending for himself. Type of submarine ambush.

So, the rule of the weak number one is to be faster than the enemy in every sense - from the speed with which the ship can move in one mode or another, to the speed of decision-making.

This implies, among other things, delegating several more powers to the commanders of ships and formations than they currently have.


And also the fact that all warships under construction of the first rank should have high speed performance. Like some integrated supply ships.

Raid actions as the basis of offensive operations


Having achieved speed advantages, it is worth implementing it primarily by raid actions. In the article "Raiders vs Cruisers" the possibilities unused by the navy of Nazi Germany in a war at sea were examined in the form of raids against the warships of the British, and not against their convoys. In the case of the weakest side, such actions are necessary - you need to "balance the balance", force the enemy to bear losses greater than you bear and distract his navy from important tasks, for example, from protecting communications.

We proceed from the fact that the purpose of the fleet is to dominate the sea, and therefore, the raid should be aimed at destroying enemy warships, its naval aviation, or the infrastructure necessary for their combat use.

In this case, the raid should not be confused with the raid, which is his special case - the raid is limited in time, and its end is the withdrawal and separation from the pursuit of the enemy, but in its course it is quite possible to fight with a weak part of the enemy’s forces until it is completely destroyed.

Faced with equal or superior enemy forces, raiders leave at the expense of speed. Finding weak enemy forces, they destroy them in battle. This is not negotiable, and it is the basis of their methods. It is this feature that distinguishes the raid from other offensive operations and will allow us, the weak side, to save strength in the war with the strong side. At the same time, this approach does not negate the significance of the battle - having discovered the enemy and decided to destroy it (not just an attack!), The connection of the Raiders may well, and basically should fight with him until he is destroyed.

You can’t write detailed instructions for such military operations, each case is unique, and greatly depends on specific circumstances. We outline only some of the possibilities that can be used, but to which it does not boil down.

Raiders strike on their own. The task of the raid squad of ships to find and destroy the enemy. Taking advantage of the speed, relying on aerial reconnaissance from the “shore”, satellite observation data, neutral traffic in which you can hide, fishermen at fishing sites, among which you can also hide, reconnaissance using passive (non-radiating) means, raiders should be at a distance missile salvo from the enemy forces to be destroyed, and further destroy them with a series of consecutive attacks. At a predetermined point in time, the raiders leave for the area where sea dominance is already ensured, even if it is a coastal area off its coast. From there comes a new raid.

Raiders induce basic strike aircraft. The task of the raiders in such a scenario is only to find the enemy forces to be destroyed, and then give out target designation to strike at them. After applying a series of blows, raiders should, whenever possible, evaluate their result.

Raiders use themselves as bait. In this case, the goal of the raiders is to "drag" behind them the enemy forces, which must be ambushed. To do this, the raiders conduct their search, a demonstrative attack or several attacks, interspersed with waste at a safe range, with the task of provoking the pursuit of enemy forces and “dragging them on the tail” to the place of destruction, for example, to where it would be possible to use them combined blow from under water and from air.

Under normal conditions, organizing a joint strike of aircraft and submarines is very difficult. In Soviet times, such actions were considered the basis of the struggle at sea, but for justice's sake one cannot but admit that the complexity of organizing such actions was prohibitively high even during exercises. In a real war, this would be almost impossible. Except for the situation when our forces "lead" the enemy behind them "for slaughter" and know for sure the time and place in which he should be in the course of this pursuit.

Raiders create a threat that forces the enemy to crush forces. In this case, the goal of the raiders is to attack something that will force the enemy to withdraw part of the forces from the direction of concentration of the main efforts, and to throw part of the forces against the raiders. This can be an intensive operation against supply ships and ships of the rear of the sea, demonstrative actions on enemy communications, demonstrative actions far from the places of the main battles, poorly guarded bases, striking along the coast, or other actions that leave the enemy no choice but to start the transfer their forces in a secondary direction, facilitating the actions of our forces on the main. Or, as an option, put up with the destruction of coastal infrastructure, the loss of rear vessels, and so on.

Any combination of such actions can be used, and they can be carried out on any scale, including the use of all forces in the theater of operations in one large raid operation. There are only two fundamental conditions - to break away from superior or equal forces without engaging in battle with them, and to have warships, naval aviation, and infrastructure important for waging war at sea, the main target of the attack. The rest is optional and depending on the course of hostilities (in some cases, military transports and landing squads at the transition will be a more important target, but outside such circumstances, the number one goal is the enemy Navy).

What is the object of the raider attack? Separate enemy warships, weak and small surface combat groups, security warships consisting of large and strong formations, which occupy extreme positions in combat formation, ships of the floating rear, coastal infrastructure - docks, fuel depots, ships at bases located at sea airfields aviation, especially anti-submarine, which is the number one target in all cases and is subject to complete and unconditional destruction. To do this, cruise missiles are hit at such ground targets.


Surprisingly, ideologically, the raider ship resembles the destroyer of the 956 project - a high-speed and very well-armed ship. Range, however, is needed higher. Now, 956 is, of course, out of date. In the photo, the Chinese destroyers of this project


Theoretically, the commander of a raider group can get involved in an operation against superior enemy forces, but only on conditions under which he does not have to take an open battle with her, in which the enemy can use all his capabilities.

So, during a storm, if one lasts long enough, raiders can, without hiding, try to get close to a carrier strike group at a distance of a volley of missiles.

Of fundamental importance for their success is well-established reconnaissance and well-established interaction with both base aviation and submarines.

There may, of course, be other options, up to provoking a powerful raider formation to attack carrier-based aircraft against themselves, in order to destroy as many enemy naval pilots as possible in the subsequent battle and then break away from its URO ships, thus reducing the importance of the aircraft carrier available to the enemy to zero. It must be admitted that this is a very dangerous type of action, with unpredictable consequences, but it can give a lot.

Let us designate the rule of weak number two - to conduct intensive raids aimed at destroying enemy ships, ships of the rear, its naval aviation, and coastal infrastructure important for the combat effectiveness of the fleet. At the same time, during raids it is impossible to get involved in battles with equal or superior enemy forces, and you must immediately “break away” from his forces after they have suffered the losses planned by the Raider Commander.

The massive use of the raid as a type of hostilities will reduce the enemy’s numerical superiority, impede the concentration of his forces in the main direction, disrupt the conduct of large-scale offensive operations, ease the situation of Russian forces in military operations, receive additional intelligence and undermine the morale of the enemy.

Their fleet alone is against our armed forces as a whole


It may sound like a banality, but it is not a banality. According to Russian military science (or the principles of military art - the dispute between science and art in military affairs is eternal, we’ll get around this issue) success in military operations is achieved by forces of interspecific groups of armed forces, which are part of the branches of the armed forces and are fighting in close cooperation with each other .

Moreover, in such military conflicts as, for example, Syrian, this principle finds a certain embodiment.

We ask ourselves, however, a few questions.

When was the last time a joint landing operation of the fleet, marines, airborne forces, and ground forces was practiced, in which each branch of the army and forces would be used for its intended purpose? When was the last time after the Marine Corps tankers landed from the ground forces with their weapons and equipment? When did tank reinforced marines break through to join the airborne parachute regiment? When the motorized rifle battalion of the ground forces was actually given the ship’s post for adjusting artillery fire and then acted in his interests, with real live shooting on request? I recall the recent teachings of the Caspian flotilla, but the scale there was, to put it mildly, not the same, and the Caspians worked with their own marines, which greatly facilitates the interaction. Someone may argue that such things are probably being worked out somewhere by someone at KSHU, but KSHUs are never enough to work out all the nuances of combat use, and, having played a couple of divisions on the landings on maps, then you really have to land them on the ground at least a couple of battalions.

Or is it worth recalling the combat use of U.S. Army army helicopters from U.S. Navy ships during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 (see article “Air fighters over the ocean waves. On the role of helicopters in the war at sea ") For us, this is impossible even technically, our VKS helicopters, unlike marine ones, are not equipped with mechanisms for folding the rotor blades. This complicates their transportation by air, or by land transport, and hangar storage, but that's how we got it.

We venture to suggest the following.

The level of interspecific interaction that we consider optimal is really insufficient. At least, if you look through the "prism" of war at sea - for sure. A theory that is absolutely true does not find its full embodiment in practice. The reason for this is the absolute dominance in the command structures of the Armed Forces of immigrants from the Ground Forces and the subordinate position of the fleet and VKS in relation to them. The result - tank commanders and foot soldiers do what they can. They plan land operations with air support, and where necessary, they plan support from the sea too - guarded transportation, tactical landing, cruise missile attacks from ships, as long as they are there, shelling the enemy. The full potential of other types of aircraft, rather than ground forces, is not used.

I would like to look at an air offensive operation in which the ground forces carry out auxiliary tasks, but none of our great exercises had this.

From the point of view of a war at sea, we are interested in the following - it is necessary that an adversary superior to the Russian Navy at sea should be forced to confront his naval forces not only with our fleet, but also with our naval forces and ground forces.

At the same time, it is critically important not to allow the opposite, so that our fleet comes under attack not only from the enemy's Navy, but also from its army units.

Let's look at historical examples of how this looks. Let's start with the most recent example. Watch the video.



This is the detonation of Georgian boats in Poti, committed by forces of the Russian Airborne Forces in August 2008, operating in isolation from the main forces. That is, the task that in theory the fleet should fulfill is to establish dominance at sea by blocking or destroying the enemy fleet, in this case the army performed. It should be understood that the army did not carry out a large-scale occupation of this territory.

Question: what if the base were well guarded, for example by the forces of an infantry regiment? How then could the Airborne Forces destroy the boats? In our case, the Airborne Forces are armed with self-propelled guns 2С9 "Nona", with a gun caliber 120-mm, capable of using both mines and special shells. Ships could be fired from a long distance.

Then question number two arises: what if the base is far from the front line? But the Airborne Forces is a mobile branch of the armed forces, a small detachment can simply be thrown out with a parachute method with equipment, the only truly critical point here is that the airborne forces of the Russian Federation must maintain air supremacy over the zone of landing, landing and landing operations. This, of course, is not easy, but it is not worth considering the achievement of such an impossible.

Of course, the enemy will move reserves to destroy the airborne assault, transfer additional aviation forces, and make every effort to block and destroy it. That is, the airborne squad after the task must be evacuated. How? By sea, of course, removing it from the coast to at least the same BDK, and leading to a safe area under the protection of fighter aircraft in the air.

What gives this mode of action? It does not require either large fleet forces (which will have to fight against other naval groups of the enemy) for destruction of ships, or numerous attack aircraft, which will have to break through the air defense of the naval base, and in waging war with a serious enemy, it’s also naval air defense , characterized, as a rule, by serious power. It does not require consumption in a large number of scarce cruise missiles.

Naturally, such operations do not always make sense, but in the conditions of the “trishkin caftan” that our armed forces will turn into during the war with a serious adversary, when ships and aircraft will be missed, such operations will sometimes be possible, and sometimes they will be meaning.

Moreover, as can be seen from the description above, they can be carried out in the same raid format, not aimed at retaining territories or capturing fortified objects. The troops that completed the raid are evacuated, and then can be used for other purposes.

There are other examples.

So, during the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Black Sea Fleet consistently lost bases and repair facilities under the blows of the German and Romanian armies from land. In fact, the fleet did not have an adequate adversary at sea, and German aviation, no matter how destructive it was, could not stop the fleet’s ships, ships and watercraft. In fact, for large surface ships, only our own Supreme High Command Headquarters was able to do this, in response to the loss of three ships in battle - an unpleasant, but not critical, episode for the combat effectiveness of the fleet (this was the case with both the British and the Japanese, but they continued to fight). What would happen if the Germans had been successful in the attack on the Caucasus? If they entered the Turkish border? The entire fleet would be lost at the bases. At the same time, they did not have a single significant surface ship on the theater of operations. And I must say, they were very close to this achievement.

Events on the Black Sea are an example of how the weakest side on the sea, having a strong ground army and air force, can eliminate the enemy’s fleet from the sea without having its own fleet. The Germans did not succeed, but they almost succeeded. This, of course, does not mean that you need to “walk with fire and a sword” thousands of kilometers along the coast of the adversary’s country for the sake of supremacy at sea - after all, supremacy at sea is not an end in itself. But this is a great demonstration that not only the fleet can help in the fight against the enemy fleet. And the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation should be ready to conduct such operations, prepare for them, and not be afraid to conduct them, in conditions when it turns out to be justified, and the risks are acceptable. Destroy enemy forces at sea in some cases can both the Airborne Forces with motorized gunners, and the Marines. Even if the enemy is stronger.

And, of course, do not forget that close to the Russian coast or the territory occupied by Russian troops in battles (this does not have to be Russia, we can attack in some cases) and the VKS should work over the sea. At least it would be logical if some tasks completely fall on them. Part of cruise missile attacks on enemy bases, convoy attacks, airborne squads, transports, mining from the air, attacks on weak ship groups and individual ships inside the combat radius of base aviation without refueling should be entrusted precisely to the airborne forces, releasing naval base attack aircraft for real complex tasks - strikes against large groups of surface ships at sea, at a great distance from the coast.

There is another hypothetical scenario for the battle of ground units with the enemy fleet. As you know, Russia has unique capabilities of the airborne troops. Our country is the only one where the Airborne Forces, having landed, can fight as mechanized troops. This makes it possible to solve problems with fewer forces than a fully footed landing without heavy weapons.

It is quite possible, in some cases, to seize enemy territories by airborne assault, for example islands, which, for psychological reasons, the enemy then cannot help but repel. If the airborne forces do not allow the enemy to quickly recapture such island territories back with their airborne assault, then he will have only two options - to repel them by means of a major naval landing operation or “leave it as is”, with an aim to return its territory sometime in the future.

The Aleutian Islands are an example of such a territory during World War II. The Japanese managed to pull back on this deadlock and no significance for the course of the war, the large forces of the US Navy Archipelago. What is most interesting, realizing the impossibility of retaining these territories, they evacuated some of their garrisons.

In modern warfare, the capture of Kyski and Attu is, in principle, possible in the form of an air strike, and subsequent airborne landing. When destroying the Shemya airfield and capturing the Adak airfield, the same Americans will encounter great difficulties in striking these territories, and they can only be released by attacking from the sea, as in the entrance to the WWII. However, today there is such a technique as coastal missile systems that allow attacking ships that have come too close to the islands, in the presence of target designation.

In fact, very small groups of ground troops dispersed among the rocks can force the U.S. Navy to fight against the naval forces and coastal missile systems without distracting the Navy for these operations, with the exception of the sea raids described above, which will be facilitated by the fact that the Americans will not be able to search they will not have to be in the ocean. Raids, in turn, will help, if necessary, to evacuate the troops defending the islands.

This, again, does not mean that the Airborne Forces should capture the Aleutians in the event of a limited clash with the United States. In the end, the fate of the Attu garrison today is well known. This is just a demonstration of the principle of how to make an enemy fleet fight against ground troops and sustain casualties, “freeing” the Navy for active offensive operations.

It is worth noting that during the Cold War, Americans feared such options. In all adjustments to the Reagan Administration’s Maritime Strategy, there was a categorical demand in the very first hours of the conflict, or before it, to transfer two infantry brigades to the Aleutians in order to make such a focus from the Russians impossible. Because the cost of resources and the loss of time to clean up the Aleutian Islands looked disproportionately large compared to the benefits of this, and it was impossible to beat them back in the 80's for domestic political reasons. At the same time, the Americans remembered how the Japanese during the Second World War simply evacuated the Kiski garrison and pulled it out of attack without a fight.

One way or another, but for a party with a weak fleet, the creation of conditions under which the enemy’s fleet will be destroyed by the ground forces and the VKS without a large involvement of the Navy is one way to “balance the balance”. And, as you can easily see, these operations also require speed. They will succeed only if the enemy does not have time to react ahead of schedule.

Thus, we formulate the third rule of the weak - it is necessary to destroy the enemy's naval forces by ground forces and aviation (not sea) in all cases when this is possible from the point of view of the predicted effect and risks. This will release the forces of the Navy for other operations and reduce the superiority of the enemy in forces.

Russia, with all its access to the sea, is still a huge land mass. You can try to come up with such a war strategy for the sea, where ground troops would not be needed. But, apparently, these will be unsuccessful attempts.

It is especially worth mentioning that such operations are a "hobby" of the Americans. We can believe in such opportunities or not, but they will do it in droves, and we should be prepared for this on the one hand, and not be “embarrassed” ourselves to do so on the other.

We are no worse than the Americans. There are simply fewer of us.

Attacks on the "key links" of the military power of the enemy.


One of the possibilities of the weak to weaken the strong is the concentration of efforts on strictly defined components of his military power.

For example, the United States currently has a colossal weak link in the war at sea - the absence of any escort forces. They are not just gone, and they have nowhere to take in a reasonable amount of time. In the case of serious US involvement in the war on earth, another “Achilles' heel” will be added - a huge shortage of transport ships, and crews for them, in particular, now Americans do not even have people to ensure rotation of all the crews of their high-speed transports, about covering losses and no speech. Those interested should read the article "There will be no ground invasion" в "Independent Military Review".

Some time ago, these facts, having become public, were even able to cause a slight panic among the concerned public in the USA. The panic subsided, but the problem still remains, and nobody solves it. Future American frigates planned by the Pentagon will be too expensive for a mass escort, but we are not talking about the construction of new transports.

This is a weak link. An aircraft carrier can be any formidable, but without fuel planes do not fly. Missile destroyers cannot maneuver without it. But there is nothing to protect tankers with.

Many naval forces in the world have such weak links. Some Navy in the world may have several. Targeted actions against these weak links can disorganize the enemy’s Navy and prevent them from fighting. At least for a while. But a lot can be done during this time.

This strategy has a flaw. While there is a hunt for tankers and supply ships (or something else - it doesn’t matter), the enemy acts relatively freely. His hands are corny untied. As a result, the first blow from the side of his Navy simply has to be accepted without “mitigating”. No matter how strong he is. Thus, taking such actions, it is necessary to accurately weigh the risks.

The Americans themselves fear that the tactics of "auxiliary cruisers" - armed civilian ships equipped with missile container launchers - may be used against them. Repeatedly in the specialized press and media, the question was raised that countermeasures are needed against such tactics, but so far there are no countermeasures. Echoes of this state of affairs were mentioned in the article. “The return of surface raiders. Is it possible? ”.

However, on the "auxiliary cruisers" the light did not converge in a wedge. A heavy tanker or unmanned vehicle can be destroyed from a strategic bomber with conventional bombs. He will not be able to withstand such an attack, and in fact the only thing needed for such operations is training the airborne pilots on the use of bombs, and, of course, a force of forces would be allocated for operations in the interests of the fleet. In the case of the Russian Navy, it is of interest for such operations to be able to equip the Tu-142 with bomb weapons and corresponding sights. Such a measure will allow the fleet in some cases to do on its own. According to media reports, work on equipping the Tu-142 with the Hephaestus high-precision aiming system is already underway. It remains to wait for the installation of the underwing nodes of the weapon suspension.

Of interest is how this threat was previously seen in the United States.

When the USSR acquired Tu-95RC reconnaissance and targeting reconnaissance, American strategists saw this as a threat to convoys with military equipment, which were supposed to supply NATO troops fighting in Europe against the Soviet Army and ATS armies. They suggested that the Tu-95RC would track down convoys and direct Soviet atomic submarines in the Atlantic. It was believed that soon the threat would become even more significant, because the Russians would equip their strategic bombers with anti-ship missiles.

To combat this evil, even the concept of the Sea Control Ship was born - an escort aircraft carrier capable of carrying 8-9 anti-submarine helicopters, and the four Harriers. The concept was tested on the LPH-9 Guam landing helicopter carrier. The experiments were successful, but at the end of the seventies, the Americans realized that the target of Soviet submarines would be their surface warships, including aircraft carriers, and, if possible, SSBNs, and not transport in the Atlantic. And the "ships of marine control" they did not appear. Although, in an amusing way, the X-22 anti-ship missiles on the Tu-95 eventually "registered", on a special "marine" modification of this aircraft - Tu-95K-22. Now these machines are withdrawn from service and destroyed.


Tu-95K-22 with a characteristic fairing of the electronic warfare system instead of a stern firing unit with 23-mm guns. There will be no F-15 tanker going across the ocean



With X-22 missiles


Today, many current and former officers of the US Navy and the US Coast Guard see that there is a threat, but apparently they do not imagine it in their entirety

Naval command structures based on intelligence data can easily find such vulnerabilities in any enemy and plan actions against them. If it is possible to deprive a strong adversary of the ability to fight, even for a while, then it must be used.

We formulate the fourth rule of the weak. It is necessary to identify critical vulnerabilities of the enemy’s Navy, to assess whether it is possible to divert sufficient forces to strike against these vulnerabilities, without critically reducing the defensive ability in the directions of the main strike from the enemy, and if possible, to hit them. An example of such vulnerabilities in the US Navy is the lack of escort forces for tankers and integrated supply vessels.

Other opponents have other vulnerabilities. They need to be used.

Offensive mining


The history of the war at sea is full of examples of how offensive mining allowed the weak side to inflict losses on the strong, and in some cases even to deprive the strong side of dominance at sea, which she could well establish. The most striking, from the point of view of the insignificance of the attacking forces against the background of the attacked forces, is the operation of the German and Finnish Navy to block the Baltic Fleet of the USSR during the Second World War.

On the 22 of June 1941, the Germans as a whole had a more powerful navy than the USSR in the Baltic. Go to the Baltic states “Tirpitz”, “Scharnhorst”, “Gneisenau”, “Prince Eugen”, “Admiral Hipper”, “Admiral Scheer”, supported by a dozen destroyers, and a squadron of submarines, and the Baltic Fleet would not shine. After such an operation, and taking into account the dominance of the Luftwaffe in the air, one could immediately land near Leningrad.

But the Germans, like the Russians, did not think in terms of "supremacy at sea." They chased chimeras of war on communications. By 1941, the German Navy was fundamentally unprepared for such actions in anything. They, however, did something else.

On 12 on June, a detachment of German ships passing through documents as the Nord Group began relocation to the skerries of Finland. At the same time, another group called “Cobra” started the same thing. By June 18, the Nord group disguised themselves in the skerries of Turku (in the documents of Abo then), and the Cobra in the skerries near Porkkala-Udd. The Nord group included three mine-layers - the Tannenberg Hansenstadt Danzig and the Brummer, a flotilla of torpedo boats, and a half-flotilla of minesweeper boats. The composition of the "Cobra" included mine loaders "Cobra", "Königen Louise", "Kaiser", as well as a flotilla of torpedo boats and a half-flotilla of minesweeper boats. Of the listed mine barriers, only one ship was a special-purpose combat minzag - the Broommer, a renamed captured Norwegian Olaf Tryggvasson. The remaining barriers were civilian steamboats adapted for mine productions. Together with them, two Finnish submarines were preparing for mine-laying.


"Broommer" when he was still "Olaf Tryggvasson"


It is believed that the Great Patriotic War began on 22 on June 1941 of the year, on 3.30 of the night, with Luftwaffe air strikes against the Soviet Union. In fact, the first German attack against the USSR was mine production, which began on 21 on June 1941 of the year at 23.30 in Leningrad time. Actually, the war began precisely then, and it would be nice for mass historians to start mentioning it. The Nord and Cobra groups put up 9 minefields overnight. An hour before the "start of the war" Soviet planes were already firing at these ships, watching them, transmitting information to the shore, but nothing could be done - Finland was nearby and the minzags went into the protected skerries too quickly. On 22 of June, three days before the official entry into the Finnish war, Finnish submarines joined the German minzags and put up two more minefields. Before dawn, a group of German aircraft dropped 25 bottom mines southeast of Kronstadt, forming another. The mine war has begun.

By the end of June 24, Germans and Finns had jointly spent more than 1200 mines of various types. By that time, the Soviet Union had already lost the destroyer “Angry” on these mines, the cruiser “Maxim Gorky” was seriously damaged, and the destroyers “Proud” and “Stereguschiy” were damaged. However, this was, as you know, only the beginning.

The forces that the Kriegsmarine and their Finnish allies used against the Baltic Fleet did not go in size and power to any comparison with him. The Baltic fleet of battleships alone had two units. The Germans had real warships with torpedo boats and one minzag. But, firstly, they owned the initiative, and secondly, and this should be noted especially - they planned the actions of the minzag in such a way as to confuse the Soviet command. So, the front of the productions in the northern part of the Gulf of Finland during the first days of the war shifted east, the Germans began much more west than they could, so that by the time the Soviet sailors discovered the mines, there was already a fairly deep barrier in front of them, which ultimately happened. To conceal the forces actually involved in mining, the Germans withdrew their ships from the operation and stopped laying mines for a long time, and only when, in their opinion, the Soviet command should have come to certain (incorrect) conclusions about the number of enemy minzags, these ships again entered into battle. The Germans simply outplayed the command of the Baltic Fleet. Smart and quick (for making decisions) defeated the strong and the slow - to defeat.

The result of these extremely arrogant operations was the almost complete blockade of the Baltic Fleet and the enormous, monstrous losses suffered by Soviet ships on land mines, with enormous casualties. In fact, the Germans with insignificant forces pulled out a very powerful fleet by any standards from the war for two years. The Baltic Fleet still played a positive role in the war - but many times less than it could and what it should have

This is an example from which to conclude. Our Baltic neighbors made it - until recently, mine-layers were part of almost all the fleets of the Baltic countries. Today in the Finnish Navy, the minsag is still the main class of warships. The planned “big” Pohyanmaa corvettes will also have guides and decks for mines. Those interested can read the article “Mineswaters of modern fleets”.

This is not to say that the Russian Navy completely ignores the possibility of conducting a mine war - this is how diesel submarines regularly practice secretive mine productions. Mines from large landing ships are being tested. However, the scale of the preparation of our fleet for such operations simply fades against the background of how some countries are preparing for them.

So, in the United States, the laying of mines is a regular task for bombers of the Strategic Aviation Command. Quick-strike mines planning in a controlled mode have been adopted for service, similar to JDAM bombs according to the principle of delivery to a target. Quickstrike allows you to “put” a mine obstacle exactly according to the scheme with one throw - mines flying from a satellite signal will fall exactly where you need to, having formed a ready obstacle from one salvo discharge. Bonus - the bomber will be able to drop mines being tens of kilometers from the target, with much less risk than if you had to fly over the place of installation of mines.



You can’t even talk about serial Nampo large-scale mine-keeping mines of the South Korean Navy.

For Russia, a mine war is a familiar thing. It was mines that turned out to be the most effective weapon of the Russian fleet in the Russo-Japanese War. Two Japanese battleships died on land mines fired by the Amur mine layer, making the Amur the most successful Russian warship in the post-sailing era.


Mine transport "Cupid". The first specially built ocean mine layer in the world. The English-speaking world remembers this innovation, we do not.


During World War I, the Baltic Fleet created effective minefields to prevent the German advance into the Gulf of Finland. These, however, were defensive barriers.

Russia created the world's first specialized submarine minzag - "Crab".

It is less known to the general public that mines turned out to be much more useful weapons than torpedoes from submarines of the Great Patriotic War. In any case, the Germans' losses from our mines were greater than from torpedoes. Aviation also used mines with great success. In fact, when Russia and the USSR competently resorted to mines, they turned out to be the most destructive means against any enemy. But even against us, enemy mines turned out to be very destructive and led to consequences of at least operational scale, if not worse.

It is necessary to draw a correct conclusion from the past - a properly conducted mine war is potentially capable of causing more damage to the enemy than tactical nuclear weapons. And this is not an exaggeration. The Americans, with their 1945 year aerial minefields, inflicted harm on Japan comparable to that caused by the destruction of cities, and guaranteed more than nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today, the effect of mines can be even greater

Of course, unlike Russia, which simply does not have any noteworthy mine action forces, developed countries have them and are training in their combat use. But this should not stop us, in the end, a minesweeper with the most advanced anti-mine equipment will be detected by any submarine from a great distance when the first mine is detonated in the barrier, after which, for example, an anti-ship missile can fly over the mine barrier or a powerful airstrike can be launched the last wave of airplanes in which will drop new mines in return for the aligned ones. A properly set up and well-guarded fence will simply require incredible forces to break through, and the price here is simply ridiculous compared to any shipbuilding program.

It works in our favor that we have had large stockpiles of mines since the Soviet era. They are already out of date. But a mine, this is a technically complex product, it can be upgraded so that it continues to meet the requirements of modern warfare. Russia is also quite capable of producing new mines.

It is necessary to create a special unit in the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, which will deal with the development of issues related to offensive mining and various types of provisions (for example, mine protection and re-mining). The interaction of this department with the General Staff should be ensured, and through it, with other types of armed forces, for example, to ensure the placement of mines by VKS aircraft, with higher naval educational institutions, and the military industry. Mine war plans must be developed for all of our theater of war, for various cases of warfare. Mines are not only a defensive tool. In some cases, it’s just a lifesaver that allows you to nullify ANY superiority that the enemy has. There are examples in history. And this tool should be used without fail.

The fifth rule of the weak is to conduct a high-intensity offensive mine war against enemy bases and the narrownesses necessary for maneuvering over the sea. Have a well-thought-out mine war strategy for different warfare options on each theater, have the necessary forces and means, and trained personnel. Both in the Navy and in other branches of the Armed Forces, if necessary.

Align balance


You can always find an adversary with overwhelming superiority in strength. That is, such that no tricks can overcome it. “There are just so many of them that we aren’t enough for them.” And it's not just about the fleet. Around the middle of the 80's, the PLA mobilization plan called for the recruitment of up to one hundred million people. At the end of World War II, the Americans had thousands of warships in the ocean zone and thousands of distant bombers of different classes. Now a hypothetical alliance from NATO (with the USA), Japan, Australia and New Zealand is a billion people

This is a lot. This is so much that you can’t fight back. Of course, one should not think that in the foreseeable future a war is possible in which Russia will have to confront such forces. More likely no than yes. But the formation of a military bloc of such proportions is five minutes reality. Let not against Russia, and not with all NATO countries, but with some against China. The meaning of the example is that there are prohibitively powerful opponents

What to do when and if it becomes clear that wars with such force cannot be avoided? How to make sure that in the conditions of an inevitably impending catastrophe, such a colossal superiority of the enemy does not crush us like a rink?

Or maybe, how not to let a not so strong, but generally superior opponent inflict heavy losses on us during an attack?

How can we, the weak side, secure the most advantageous positions before the start of a war that is inevitable? If all kinds of intelligence say that it is inevitable?

There is an answer, and it is called very simply, although it scares many: if war is inevitable, you must beat first. Moreover, which is especially important, for the weakest side, a preventive strike by all means is the only way to equalize the balance of forces at least temporarily.

Take, for example, the most powerful adversary in a war at sea of ​​all possible - the United States. Their power is monstrous.

But, truth be told, this monstrous power is not concentrated in such a monstrous amount of goals. What is the US surface fleet? These are 67 destroyers, 11 cruisers and 11 aircraft carriers in service. Total 89 goals. Up to two-thirds of them are usually found in bases. Well, let half. 11 cruisers, a couple of old impossibly old aircraft carriers and about a dozen frigates are in storage, with coordinates known in advance, accurate to a meter. This is much more than any other country has. Having gone to sea, these forces are capable of crushing almost any resistance.

But the coin has a downside. All those ships of the US Navy, which are located in the bases of the continental United States, can be hit by so many cruise missiles that will soon be carried by two modernized submarines of the 949 project, rebuilt for the use of Caliber family missiles. One in the Atlantic, one in the Pacific. A ship at the pier is a stationary target. He will be there tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, too, while loading ammunition, food, fuel and water, he will be there. At a point with previously known coordinates, close to the shore, where it is quite possible to send a low-altitude, and therefore hardly noticeable cruise missile.

And then they will have only those forces that are deployed in different regions of the world. Small combat groups, around an aircraft carrier or a universal landing ship, three to four units. Against which it will already be possible to fight with much less forces than those which in theory are needed for a direct clash with all US Navy. Plus submarines and basic aviation.

This, of course, does not mean that you can defeat America with two submarines. In no case. An example, like all the previous ones, was to understand the scope. But if we discard primitive arithmetic and think sensibly, we can come to the following conclusions.

Modern weapon systems, whether ships or aircraft, require time and scarce resources to create. During the Second World War, all warring parties commissioned new warships. But now this will not work. The ship now and the ship then, these are fundamentally different things, first of all, in the complexity of construction and complexity of use. Having lost the same Arly Burke, the Americans will not be able to put into operation two new ones during the year to replace them, as well as one. And this also applies to aircraft. And not just Americans - everyone.

In such circumstances, the side that delivered the first successful strike receives a tremendous advantage. In practice, one submarine doesn’t knock out all the ships on any of the US coasts, missiles do not have enough range, one missile on a large ship is not enough, there are accidents of cruise missiles breaking in flight, but there is still little. But if, for example, a certain country actually inflicts a massive non-nuclear strike on the bases of the US Navy, then a reduction in the combat strength of the US Navy by at least a third is quite realistic. And the complexity of modern warships will not allow Americans to replace what was lost earlier than within five to six years at best.

We live in a world of extra-long military cycles, opened long ago by V. Tsymbursky. The cycle of dominance of mobilization is when people can recover any losses that their weapons can inflict, such as they can create. So it was during the Second World War, and in the First, too. One could lose a million soldiers or two in battle. But then new reservists were called up, received a set of cheap uniforms, a duffel bag, boots with windings and a rifle, and that's it - the losses were recovered. In the phase when mobilization dominates, it covers losses faster than they are applied.

But the cycle of mobilization is always replaced by a cycle of destruction. And then another dependence works - people's weapons can quickly destroy any forces that they can mobilize. Destruction is faster than covering losses by mobilization. We live in such a period. The balance between the power of weapons and the timing of reimbursement of losses is such that it is impossible to compensate for losses during the ongoing war.

How many aircraft carriers can the US build at the same time? One. One aircraft carrier, because for its assembly, in addition to a huge slipway, you still need a large, high 1000 ton crane. And there is one such crane on a large slipway in the USA. German built, 1975 model year.

How long does it take to get on it with a cruise missile? And how much time does it take to buy, bring, assemble and launch a new one? Now is not the fortieth years, it is impossible to build a fleet lost at the first enemy strike. It will be necessary to end the war with what remains.

And all that is required of the attacker is to destroy the attacked ships for real, so that they cannot be repaired.

And then the balance of power will change dramatically in his favor.

This is not really about the United States. Well, who in their right mind will attack the USA? This is just an example of how a sharply correctly executed attack can change the balance of power. Although, if you get reliable evidence that the United States plans to strike itself, then there may be no choice. True, the first strike will not come down to attacking ships in the bases with cruise missiles ...

The sixth rule is weak. If war is inevitable - you have to beat first. It makes no difference who and how to value it, history is written if not the winners, then at least the survivors. To be in one of these groups, you must not let the enemy strike first and with all his strength. You have to hit yourself first, and with all your strength. Then the balance of power will change, and it will change very much.

Given the current realities in military production - is irreversible.


There was a four-time superior opponent who was preparing to attack and seize the initiative, and now he has a half-time superiority and he missed the initiative - and this is a big difference. This, of course, does not guarantee anything. But the chances are increasing.

The weak side, which has recognized the inevitability of war, actually has no choice.

Сonclusion


There are methods of waging war at sea, which allow the weakest side to either defeat the strongest enemy, or at least not to allow themselves to be easily and quickly defeated.

1. Anticipate the enemy in speed. Faster to plan, make decisions, deploy forces at sea, transfer them to the desired theater. To have superior speed in ships. Be faster overall.

2. Intensive raid operations to inflict losses on warships, naval aviation, and coastal infrastructure necessary for warfare. Use all kinds of forces in raids, in accordance with their "strengths."

3. Intensive combat operations against the enemy fleet by forces not only of its fleet, but also of other types of the Armed forces.

4. To identify “systemic weaknesses” in the organization of the enemy’s naval forces, the vulnerabilities that these weaknesses generate, and whenever possible to strike at these vulnerabilities (for example, naval forces without escort forces, have vulnerable tankers and integrated supply ships - there is no one to protect them).

5. To conduct an intensive offensive mine war, to provide mine installations with everything necessary, to ensure the defense of barriers from trawling / clearance.

6. If there is reliable and reliable evidence that the enemy is going to hit first, hit him first himself, do not wait until he begins to deploy his forces, inflict losses and seize the initiative.

The goal of all this was ultimately announced earlier - to establish supremacy at sea. Or at least not let the enemy establish it.

These rules alone do not guarantee victory in the war. Just because almost nothing guarantees victory in the war. Moreover, the whole variety of situations in the war at sea does not come down to them. But they sharply increase the chances of the weakest side to this victory. Since Russia is doomed to have its neighbors at sea stronger than it is, it is worth taking these rules as a basis and using them in a war at sea.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia, Maritime collection, airwar.ru
Articles from this series:
We are building a fleet. Theory and Purpose
We are building a fleet. Consequences of "uncomfortable" geography
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

424 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Operator 25 September 2019 18: 17 New
    • 36
    • 21
    +15
    The author is an unsurpassed master overflow from empty to empty laughing
    1. Polinom 25 September 2019 20: 00 New
      • 7
      • 5
      +2
      Andrey, well, your article abounds too.
      Let’s point by point, what and how Timokhin does not fit.
      Boldly, Mina was banned .... go ahead! :-)
      1. max702 26 September 2019 12: 57 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Generals are preparing for past wars. The author is preparing for the year before last.
        1. Cyrus 27 September 2019 16: 19 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: max702
          Generals are preparing for past wars.

          Someone who was not particularly smart the first time betrayed this nonsense, others like her diligently repeat it, not in any sense.
          1. AK-74-1 28 September 2019 13: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In fact, the methods, forces and means of warfare are determined by the specific combat situation. You can, of course, do some work and try to form groups based on the available information and some idea of ​​possible hostilities.
            In any case, the sea, like the Airborne Forces and the MTR, requires a special approach to the formation of the personnel of combat units. Next should be hackneyed words about combat training and personal qualities of fighters and commanders.
            I sometimes get the impression that such articles are a means of collecting information on the military training of persons to be mobilized.
            It is probably advisable to check the author for communication with foreign special services (JOKE).
            1. Cyrus 30 September 2019 10: 48 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Means of war, or rather technical capabilities, are changing, but the main thing (goals, methods) remains unchanged for centuries.
  2. Ingvar 72 25 September 2019 18: 39 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Both the Goben and Breslau were significantly faster than any Russian battleship
    But nothing that the cruiser is a priori faster than an armadillo ??? belay
    P.S. Although I agree with the results of the article.
  3. Sibiriya 25 September 2019 18: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1

    On the Star, the documentary series "The Submarine Fleet of the Second World War" This is for the Second World War.
    Forum Tsushima. There is available what why and because of what. An interesting opinion of the Author.
    what
    1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 20: 40 New
      • 10
      • 2
      +8
      Morozov is one of the most meticulous historians in the world, probably taking into account the fact that all his allegations about are cross-checked preliminary according to our and German documents, I think his words can be taken for the ultimate truth or so. The rollers are excellent.
  4. Amateur 25 September 2019 18: 43 New
    • 16
    • 32
    -16
    Russia cannot quickly create a fleet comparable to the Japanese.

    1 x 955 Northwind 16x6 (warheads) x 150 kT = there is neither Japan nor its fleet.
    Turkey, with its economy and population, with access to Western technology and shipbuilding, will always be able to create a fleet more powerful than our Black Sea.

    The Buyan is equipped with a 3S14 vertical launch vehicle (UVP) for 8 Caliber long-range cruise missiles, which allows striking these missiles at ground targets up to 1500 km. 7 pcs x 8x50 kTn = Turkish fleet communicates with the guria.
    The Baltic Fleet will not surpass the strength of forces that NATO can use in the Baltic.

    In the Baltic, 1 fishing boat is enough to go fishing. And all other naval tasks in Europe will be solved by the Iskanders.
    Enough to measure "objects, the mention of which is not allowed in the VO", when there are much more serious "arguments". The times of Ilya Muromets and his fighter Zhidovin are long gone.
    1. Sandor Clegane 25 September 2019 19: 05 New
      • 14
      • 9
      +5
      Quote: Amateur
      "Caliber", allowing to strike with these missiles at ground targets at a distance of up to 1500 km. 7 pcs x 8x50 kTn = Turkish fleet communicates with the guria.

      belay wassat lol they themselves understood what they wrote? on ground targets and the fleet is not ...... what does this mean? .... calibrator and iskander you our unsurpassed
      1. Polinom 25 September 2019 19: 42 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        So NIK is the "Amateur" :-)
      2. bayard 26 September 2019 02: 40 New
        • 6
        • 4
        +2
        Well, to be honest, it is. Most of the fleet (let's say Turkey) is a priori in the bases, and not in the campaign, but since we are talking about the use of special. Warheads, then neither bases nor warships will remain in them after the first salvo. The rest will be completed by anti-ship missiles from marine carriers and aircraft.
        If you are not shy about the means that you have, many complex issues are resolved simply and quickly.
        Especially if you beat first.
        It’s just that the author wrote about the conventional waging of war ... which for Russia, as a deliberately weak side of the sea, is a completely unreasonable occupation.
        You should never be shy about your complexes.
        Especially if they are equipped with special warheads.
        1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 09: 04 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          Do you understand that the opposite side will also respond using nuclear weapons? And how far do you plan to escalate? Have you prepared a place to evacuate your family? And what about the rest ??
          All this bravado from irresponsibility.
          1. max702 26 September 2019 13: 06 New
            • 5
            • 6
            -1
            Quote: 3danimal
            Do you understand that the opposite side will also respond using nuclear weapons?

            Will not answer! For they understand very well that themselves forced us to take this step with nuclear weapons .. We simply will not have a choice, either we will be destroyed by quietly squeezing the environment, or burned in a nuclear fire, BUT for us there is a nuance that makes us choose in favor of nuclear weapons, we will destroy the enemy by not allowing him to use the fruits of victory, even if we perish on our own. And the enemy understands this very well, otherwise it would have melted our entire fleet for a long time and knocked down all our planes ..
            1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 18: 45 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Firstly, it is impossible not to respond to the use of nuclear weapons. This is a signal that similar things with respect to you are possible further.
              In general, the assumption ... is somewhat naive. Feeling guilty will not allow an answer)
              Secondly, why does the "enemy" sink ships and shoot down planes? From harm, or what?
              This will be accompanied by heavy losses, they are not used to scattering their people, "women do not give birth." And they also do not have a frenzied dictator who is ready to throw his people into the fire of war.
              And thirdly ... Do you even have children, people for whom you feel responsible? Not abstract “let us perish ourselves,” but they will burn, die under the rubble in the event of an extreme escalation of the nuclear conflict with developed countries.
              Now in the media you are offered to put in the head a lot of other people's thoughts, often very simple.
              More responsibility, criticism, empathy is needed.
              1. max702 27 September 2019 00: 28 New
                • 4
                • 3
                +1
                Quote: 3danimal
                Firstly, it is impossible not to respond to the use of nuclear weapons. This is a signal that similar things with respect to you are possible further.

                It’s possible if you understand that the next time you’ll be destroyed, it’s better to lose a part than everything ..
                Quote: 3danimal
                Secondly, why does the "enemy" sink ships and shoot down planes? From harm, or what?

                To completely paralyze the enemy and not give him a shadow of opportunity, as an example of Syria .. If there hadn’t been a strategic nuclear forces, our troops there wouldn’t have been helped by a non-VKS fleet ..
                Quote: 3danimal
                And thirdly ... Do you even have children, people for whom you feel responsible?

                There is, and I understand perfectly well, if they decisively do not respond, they will be destroyed later by slightly different methods or will become slaves, which is much worse for me. I remember the 90s then they almost succeeded ..

                Quote: 3danimal
                More responsibility, criticism, empathy is needed.

                Wish this to our "partners" it is they who are rocking the boat .. For I do not want to lower my standard of living ..
                1. 3danimal 27 September 2019 04: 29 New
                  • 2
                  • 5
                  -3
                  Here again, you proceed from the belief that there are cowards on the other side. Following this logic, their boxers (MMA fighters) should always lose. What is wrong) There are military men with their own specific thinking and training. And in the event of a nuclear strike against them, they will deal with the elimination of the possibility of repeating this (retaliatory strike against nuclear weapons carriers). Were you a slave in the 90s? Strange, I'm not. Now, for example, we have a place in the top ten on AIDS. Enemies are already realizing their plans ??
                  Less conspiracy theories, Prokhanov, Starikov and others.
                  Decisively “answer” (with nuclear weapons), some offer every little thing, for example, a downed Su-24 in Syria.
                  You did not see the main thing: why did “them” suffer heavy losses? (And they will be, even in the conventional version) For the sake of our oil and gas? So the United States has now become the largest exporter of this good. Or maybe their inhabitants all at once cannot sleep at night, knowing that we live here so right? - The absolute majority do not even remember the Russian Federation. Logic is a friend of man) And the inadequate dictator (a'la Hitler) is not there to arrange a meat grinder for his citizens.
                  1. bk316 27 September 2019 16: 48 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    Here again, you proceed from the belief that there are cowards on the other side.


                    There are no progammers there. And the original post was about the Turkish fleet, and now think for a moment and name the country that will deliver a nuclear strike against the Russian Federation standing up for Turkey.

                    Now ask the same question replacing Turkey with Japan, Poland, and even Mozambique.
                    No dear comrade, all your arguments about the otvetka after hitting another fleet are true only for one fleet - the American one. Well, we will lose to the American fleet without nuclear weapons anyway, so it turns out that you still have to use it ....
                    1. 3danimal 27 September 2019 17: 02 New
                      • 2
                      • 3
                      -1
                      So why apply in American?
                      Even in a conventional conflict, they will suffer unnecessarily large losses and, therefore, will not be the first to attack.
                      So, we are changing the “level of anxiety” and are engaged in economic growth and improving the living standards of Russians.
                      1. bayard 27 September 2019 19: 31 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        The question is not about the use of nuclear weapons in the US Navy for the sake of use, but about the readiness for such use against ANY adversary, who has encroached on the integrity of the Russian Federation and the war with which can cause great losses for the armed forces and the loss of territories.
                        It's about READY FOR USE. Which ALL potential aggressors should know about and not doubt it.
                        And then, when all the "bad guys" and their governments firmly grasp this, we can calmly engage in peaceful construction, improving prosperity and economic growth. They do not build factories under fire, I tell you this as a resident of Donetsk.
                      2. 3danimal 27 September 2019 19: 47 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Condolences ...
                        Former business center of Ukraine ...
                      3. bayard 27 September 2019 23: 13 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Industrial centre .
                        Former .
                        Former Ukraine.
                      4. 3danimal 27 September 2019 23: 49 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Why ex? The same people live, they have had elections there recently.
        2. bk0010 27 September 2019 13: 46 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: 3danimal
          Guilt won't let you answer
          Knowledgeable people say that such ideas regularly arise in the US leadership. Type: "We will destroy the most important economic nodes of Russia with 6 nuclear strikes." To them in reply: “So you will be burned by 1500 nuclear strikes.” The apotheosis of optimism: "They will not dare." Therefore, by the way, cartoons with California are also useful - they help to realize again that not everyone thinks the same.
          1. 3danimal 27 September 2019 17: 11 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Knowledgeable people, these are domestic conspiracy theories? Maybe Solovyov, Kiselev? Or Starikov with Prokhanov? )))
            1. bk0010 27 September 2019 17: 40 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              You are not familiar with them.
              1. 3danimal 27 September 2019 18: 03 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Mysteriousness, hints of secret knowledge ...
                Top US officials under their hood))
                1. bk0010 27 September 2019 19: 40 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Yes, what are secret. They do not hide anything, even enter into their doctrines. Check out the doctrines of limited nuclear war, the doctrine of a decapitation strike, the doctrine of a disarmament strike, the doctrine of limited nuclear war in Europe, some were old (created before the collapse of the Union) and new (developed after the collapse of the Union, such as the destruction of the Russian economy with 6 warheads) . Everywhere the same thing: "but in return they don’t hurt us, they’ll worry"
                2. 3danimal 27 September 2019 19: 44 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Does Dulles' plan apply to them too?
                3. 3danimal 27 September 2019 19: 49 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  That is, they are zadornovskie stupid?
                  Can you tell me the sources of such plans?
                  And who are the knowledgeable people you mentioned?
                4. bk0010 27 September 2019 20: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  That is, they are zadornovskie stupid?
                  They simply convince each other of their ideas, boil in their own juice, so they begin to think that everyone around agrees with this idea. And when it turns out that the opponent takes a different view of the problem, it causes rejection and disappointment (like they agreed with everyone, but then they came and expelled everyone).
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Can you tell me the sources of such plans?
                  US government. Google the names from the previous post.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  And who are the knowledgeable people you mentioned?
                  What is who? Do you want passport data? From NTsUYaO, I will not say anything more.
  5. Cyrus 27 September 2019 16: 38 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Rare stupidity lol They will answer and I won’t ask you, this time. The amount of nuclear weapons located in the Russian Federation and the United States is not enough even for the complete destruction of each other, these are two.
    1. 3danimal 27 September 2019 19: 58 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      For complete not, but the losses will be huge.
      IMHO, the United States will be able to recover much faster after a disaster - allies will help. The leading position will concede, of course, to China. Which, by the way, will be able to de jure to attach a number of territories of the bloodless RF.
      1. Cyrus 30 September 2019 10: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        No matter how cynical it sounds, but the losses here are secondary, the main thing as you noted is the opportunity to recover and continue the war. China may try to attach something, but who will allow it to do so.
        Regarding the restoration, I also believe that the United States at the moment is more ready for war than we are.
        1. 3danimal 30 September 2019 11: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So in the prospective ruin, the death of 30-70% of the population and the rest according to Darwin of the rest (in the event of a nuclear conflict with the United States), China will have no one to ask - it will take what it wants.
          1. Cyrus 30 September 2019 16: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            He won’t take it, they’ll kill this drago earlier). And then 30% of the US population is 100 lyam +/- will survive and most importantly the fleet will be preserved, this will be enough for China. We have fewer but still enough and tactical nuclear weapons enough for him to climb.
            In general, who knows how it will be, the media screech: the Chinese have caught the United States AB, and if this is a US provocation and ...
      2. Cyril G ... 5 October 2019 13: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Allies after such a revealing flogging they will send them to fuck.
  • Cyrus 27 September 2019 16: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    From stupidity, fear and a miserable thought, "maybe everything will be decided without me" - it will be more accurate.
  • ser56 27 September 2019 18: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Do you understand that the opposite side will also respond using nuclear weapons?

    But does Turkey or Japan have TNW? request
  • Cyrus 27 September 2019 16: 27 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Well, yes, the enemy by default is always stupid with weak reason and do not forget that they also have special warheads and more, so this is a question of who or you will communicate with the Gurians earlier.
  • Amateur 26 September 2019 06: 28 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    "Gauges" are different, Sandor Kligan, critic You are our illiterate! hi
    Anti-ship missiles (shown according to open data for the export version)
    3М-54К/3М-54Т (3М-54КЭ/3М-54ТЭ) и 3М-54КЭ1/3М-54ТЭ1

    Missiles against ground targets (based on open data for the export version)
    3M-14K / 3M-14T (3M-14KE / 3M-14TE) - a standard missile with a high-explosive warhead placed in a transport-launch container / glass

    Anti-submarine missiles
    Rocket torpedo 91Р1 (91РЭ1)
    91РТ2 rocket torpedo (91РТЭ2)
    1. Alexey RA 26 September 2019 15: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Amateur
      "Gauges" are different

      And their range is also different. 2500 km - this is at SLCM 3M-14. RCC 3M-54 has so far declared a range of 200-250 km.
  • A5V
    A5V 25 September 2019 20: 10 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    [quote = Amateur] [quote] Russia cannot quickly create a fleet comparable to the Japanese. [/ quote]
    1 x 955 Northwind 16x6 (warheads) x 150 kT = there is neither Japan nor its fleet.
    [Quote]
    It is unlikely because of the usual local conflict (for the Kuril Islands, for example) who will use nuclear weapons. Such a war will lead a purely conventional weaponry, IMHO.

    And how were you going to attack ships with ballistic missiles?
    1. ALEXXX1983 25 September 2019 21: 02 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: A5V
      It is unlikely because of the usual local conflict (for the Kuril Islands, for example) who will use nuclear weapons. Such a war will lead a purely conventional weaponry, IMHO.

      Yes, most likely it is. But the enemies of Russia still do not risk checking. Otherwise, for a long time all the edges of the country would have been nibbled - since only the Strategic Missile Forces pose a serious threat to some of them. Although for the majority, our ground forces with the aerospace forces are also. And for the most weak, even the remains of the fleet ... Well, in theory.
      1. Cyrus 27 September 2019 16: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Just not ready yet, as they decide that it's time to hit so much.
        1. 3danimal 5 October 2019 14: 35 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          What for? For what purpose? “Do they need our oil?” At such a high price that citizens would not agree to pay in the absence of a dictatorial regime (they won’t be asked at it)?
          And again, where is the benefit if the US is now the largest exporter of hydrocarbons (greetings to Miller and Sechin giggling over the “shale”)?
    2. Vadim237 25 September 2019 21: 55 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      In addition to the fleet, Russia also has strategic bombers — which, if something happens, can bring down nearly 800 cruise missiles to Japan — and can work out at their sea bases and nuclear.
      1. Arturov 26 September 2019 06: 46 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        Quote: Vadim237
        800 cruise missiles bring down

        which cruise missiles, name on the table lol
        1. Vadim237 26 September 2019 11: 37 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Which, of the same X 101 and X 555 - their production has been going on for 10 years.
      2. 3danimal 26 September 2019 09: 20 New
        • 2
        • 8
        -6
        And again, Japan is an ally of the United States. Those if they do not hit themselves, they will supply nuclear weapons to the Japanese.
        There are people who are sure that nothing will fly back ...
        1. Vadim237 26 September 2019 11: 39 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          “They will supply the nuclear weapons of the Japanese” - This is from the realm of the tale - in addition to bombs, the United States has nothing in this regard.
          1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 11: 48 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            Did you hold a candle? No warhead for cruise missiles ?? Naive calculation.
            1. bayard 26 September 2019 16: 56 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              USA DOESN'T HAVE BUTTERS FOR WINGED ROCKETS.
              Not long ago.
              And in the near future are not expected.
              They don’t even have just normal RCC ... well, until a new ELRASM was adopted.
              But that JBF is not and is not expected.
              All US KR ship-based ONLY for attacks on ground stationary targets - the costs of self-confident hegemony.
              1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 19: 07 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                A complete mess. No cruise missiles to hit the shore? And then what is the Tomahawk?
                Not the costs of "... propaganda cliches", but simply there were no worthy opponents at sea. Indeed, even now they do not consider us seriously (pogans!), Against China new anti-ship missiles have been developed.
                LRASM was adopted in December 2018 (it successfully passed all tests), ~ 50 units were produced.
                1. bayard 27 September 2019 07: 54 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  A complete mess. No cruise missiles to hit the shore? And then what is the Tomahawk?

                  Quote: bayard
                  All US KR ship-based ONLY for attacks on ground stationary targets - the costs of self-confident hegemony.

                  except new
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Lrasm

                  which so far are few, but the rocket is good.
                  But there are no nuclear weapons on them, and if they appear, then soon - there is nowhere to produce - there is no radiochemical plant for producing weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. And the old nuclear warheads have long been withdrawn from service and converted (uranium) into nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants at Russian enterprises (for American nuclear power plants).
            2. Vadim237 26 September 2019 17: 13 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Imagine - no, they were removed from service in the 90s and disposed of.
              1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 19: 08 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                All disposed of, or sent for long-term storage?
                1. bayard 27 September 2019 08: 06 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +3
                  Uranium disposed of everything. Plutonium was disassembled, but they could not create facilities for plutonium utilization, they propose to dilute it with subsequent burial.
                  This plutonium cannot be used directly - during storage and after dismantling, a lot of transuranium elements and other half-life products were accumulated in them - only after processing at a radiochemical plant with the separation of “transuranium waste” can this plutonium be reused for the production of nuclear warheads. But there is no such plant and it is still impossible to recreate everything. Former American technologies were very imperfect, complex and energy-consuming, it makes no sense to repeat them. And there are simply no new technologies - they never mastered centrifuges. That is why a very large part of American nuclear power plants operate precisely on Russian nuclear fuel - it is cheaper and of much better quality here. So they will not solve this problem soon and it is not a fact that they have successfully forgotten how.
                  1. Polinom 27 September 2019 12: 27 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    The production of nuclear weapons is a mystery of secrets. Do you know everything)))
                    1. bk0010 27 September 2019 13: 54 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Polinom
                      The production of nuclear weapons is a mystery of secrets. Do you know everything)))
                      No. From our side, for sure, from them - I hope too: features of treaties to limit nuclear weapons (I don’t remember exactly which one).
                    2. bayard 27 September 2019 19: 07 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      I (like many Soviet children) learned these secrets during my studies in high school in physics and NVP classes. And then, getting a good (!) Education at a military university in the Soviet Union. What I wrote about is not a secret, for a long time, almost from the 50s - 60s - in the general tolerance for all interested parties.
                      Information on the state of the strategic nuclear forces of the United States is also in general tolerance, and has been discussed for a long time and widely, albeit in relatively narrow circles. This information can be obtained on the portal of the US Congress, as well as in a number of publications on this subject in both Russian and foreign media, including our respected VO.
                      In the mass media this information is not exaggerated for a number of political reasons (In Russia) and social reasons (USA - in the case of wide discussion, panic and social unrest are very likely). But in open sources it (information) is, it is official and reliable.
                2. Vadim237 27 September 2019 14: 48 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  For 30 years, nuclear warheads have already been degraded; putting them on missiles is dangerous.
        2. Servisinzhener 26 September 2019 22: 04 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I doubt it very much. As are the possibilities of such a conflict. This conviction is taken from the following facts. Not only Russia is hostile with the United States, but also a country such as the DPRK. The gap in the quantity and level of weapons with which is enormous. And so much so that according to the calculations of destroyers, Tomahawks, planes and just infantry, such a conflict should be like an invasion of Panama. With the speed of advance of American troops equal to the speed of movement of their equipment. But nothing really happens. Like the transfer of Japan or South Korea nuclear weapons for the war with North Korea or China.
          And the reason for this, in my political structure, is to exclude the outbreak of war with such a weak adversary, and even if it is theoretically unlikely to get a nuclear strike on one of the major cities. Even one missed strike will mean a life sentence for all who participated in this decision. And the political system will become one-party, due to the fact that for the party whose member decided to start the war, few people want to vote. They will fight only with those who are guaranteed to not be able to strike back. Not for the troops directly leading the war, but for the United States.
    3. Amateur 26 September 2019 06: 33 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      And how were you going to attack ships with ballistic missiles?

      I'm not going to. But should the Russian Navy attack ships, not bases or the military-industrial complex? You are our strategist. Or do you think that when the Japs swim to conquer the Kuril Islands, they will be shy in the Kremlin?
      1. NordOst16 26 September 2019 10: 48 New
        • 3
        • 8
        -5
        Most likely the Japs will “accidentally” have a couple of hundred nuclear warheads for the Kyrgyz Republic with which they will restrain the use of a similar class of weapons against themselves.
        Yes, and it’s worthwhile to understand that attacks should not be waited until the enemy receives critical superiority, otherwise the losses will be huge
        1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 12: 03 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          I agree about the appearance of warheads for the Kyrgyz Republic.
          The second point: such superiority as that of the USA + allies against Iraq is not expected.
          Consequently, on their part, only actions to protect allies and retaliatory strikes are possible. Dot.
          Let's catch Britain better in economics?
          1. max702 26 September 2019 13: 11 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            Let's catch Britain better in economics?

            Do not catch up .. Britain is not England. and the union of countries with the Anglo-Saxon population, namely the USA, England, Australia, New Zealand, Canada .. and this is not counting the most faithful vassals such as Japan, the UK, the EEC .. Do you need to catch all? And preferably immediately?
            1. NordOst16 26 September 2019 18: 19 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              And China, what forgot to attribute there? He is the factory for all this grandeur)))
              Well, why not catch up? Goals should always be ambitious, the main thing is to realize them
            2. 3danimal 26 September 2019 19: 12 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              What are your intellectual concepts ... Correct a little, and it will sound like a "hydra of imperialism")
              The state on the island, the United Kingdom is called in their language. Budget ~ $ 1 trillion. We can’t grow up to that, do you think?
              And it seems like an excuse .. lazy person, why he can not find work.
              1. max702 27 September 2019 00: 33 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                The state on the island, the United Kingdom is called in their language. Budget ~ $ 1 trillion. We can’t grow up to that, do you think?

                In general, it was this island that we had long overtaken and surpassed in terms of GDP 6th with 4.213 trillion and England 9th with 3,038 trillion ..
                1. 3danimal 27 September 2019 04: 48 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  You have not heard: we are talking about the annual budget of 1 trillion. We have it - 260 billion, there is something to strive for.
                  Where did you get such fantastic data? None of the lists have more than 2 trillion GDP. The World Bank - 2,6-2,85 trillion, the Russian Federation - 1,3-1,5 trillion. On the fourth (4 trillion) - Germany, probably mixed up)
          2. NordOst16 26 September 2019 18: 17 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Yes, I do not argue that now the attack is not such a realistic scenario, but it’s worth slowing down and that’s it.
            Well, if you set goals, then you should not trifle, but mark in the first economy of the world. But for starters, you can overtake Britain.
        2. Amateur 26 September 2019 16: 54 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Most likely the Japs will “accidentally” have a couple of hundred nuclear warheads for the Kyrgyz Republic

          Are you sure that the Japanese forgot about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Therefore, the Americans will NEVER give them their own, will not allow them to develop a Japanese bomb.
          1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 19: 18 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            The Japanese remember the US infusion on recovery. And the "Japanese miracle" did not appear from scratch.
            For comparison: Tokyo has undergone (before atomic strikes) a powerful bombardment with conventional bombs. 100+ thousand dead. And in the event of an operation to storm the main territories, as a result of the complete destruction (by conventional weapons) of the railway network and warehouses with supplies, the expense of victims of hunger and epidemics would go to millions (Americans in the forecasts then counted 10+).
      2. 3danimal 26 September 2019 11: 57 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        "Japs" sleep and see, sharpen knives))
        They are not interested in the price, local fascists again took power)
      3. A5V
        A5V 26 September 2019 13: 08 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Nstrateg, and you think that at the time of the attack on island will all Japanese ships be at bases? belay
    4. 3danimal 26 September 2019 09: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      There are tactical warheads for the Kyrgyz Republic and the RCC, their number is not taken into account by the agreements.
      1. NordOst16 26 September 2019 10: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But only after the enemy loses his expensive toys in the atomic flame, he begins to do the same. Escalating before using nuclear weapons is very dangerous and few people have enough guts. And since wars of annihilation are not being waged now, the enemy will either have to lose his fleet and influence, or all will die and it’s far from the fact that the weak side will choose the second. Of course, if the weak side cannot cling to the side so that the winning side feels like a loser. Or do not allow conflict at all
        1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 11: 29 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          I agree that in no case should the escalation of a nuclear conflict begin.
          Talking about its use among our citizens arises from the understanding that in conventional weapons we concede. It is bad that there is no understanding of the consequences of its use (retaliatory strikes). As in that joke “what for me?
        2. max702 26 September 2019 13: 12 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: NordOst16
          Of course, if the weak side cannot cling to the side so that the winning side feels like a loser. Or do not allow conflict at all

          So you answered the question about the use of nuclear weapons ..
    5. Cyrus 27 September 2019 16: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yeah, by the way, yes, in these conflicts the role of the Navy is revealed.
  • 3danimal 26 September 2019 11: 46 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    About Borey: what about Ohio? How much will our citizens pay for the joys of senior management from striking Japan itself?
    More responsibility.
  • Cyrus 27 September 2019 15: 43 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    One Trident 2 and you, along with your silly fantasies and unfulfilled ambitions, turned into steam, what's next?
    1. max702 1 October 2019 23: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Cyrus
      One Trident 2 and you, along with your silly fantasies and unfulfilled ambitions, turned into steam, what's next?

      One Poplar or Yars or Satan and the arsonists of war anywhere in the world turned into steam, and then what?
  • Grizli-666 25 September 2019 18: 49 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Very interesting article. Thank you
  • Arkon 25 September 2019 19: 05 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    In my inexperienced opinion, a very good, comprehensive operational analysis. The conclusions can be argued, but I consider the view on naval confrontation from the point of view of our relative weakness on each separate naval theater of operations to be completely correct. Moreover, I consider the potential task to achieve superiority over any potential adversary in every theater of operations to be wrong - well, it will not work out now. At least jump out of your pants.
    1. Ross xnumx 25 September 2019 19: 19 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: Arkon
      Moreover, I consider the potential task to achieve superiority over any potential adversary in every theater of operations to be wrong - well, it will not work out now.

      I agree. But I consider the potential task in terms of ensuring the security of the territory of Russia to be feasible. Someone will doubt the ability of Russia to destroy the AUG? Or are there people who believe that it is the ship’s armada that is capable of breaking through the country's defense and tearing the Russian armed forces to shreds?
      I consider it correct to agree with the opinion that the Russian fleet is necessary, but not at any cost. Another thing is the construction of ships of the first rank and DMZ. To perform some tasks, such a fleet is necessary. It remains to determine the tasks.
      1. Arkon 25 September 2019 19: 37 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: ROSS 42
        I consider it correct to agree with the opinion that the Russian fleet is necessary, but not at any cost.


        That's right. Given the lack of resources and time, this should be a very special and clearly calculated fleet. To do this, there must be a well-developed naval strategy and good operational developments. I don’t know how we are dealing with this right now ...
      2. Polinom 25 September 2019 19: 40 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        "Ship armada will break through the country's defense"
        What for? :-)
        1. Vadim237 25 September 2019 21: 57 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          The ship’s armada will break through the country's defense "And then they’ll break up the ship’s armada with PKRs — having a large ocean fleet is already at a loss.
          1. NordOst16 26 September 2019 10: 42 New
            • 1
            • 4
            -3
            Just before this, missile launchers launched from ships and submarines will grind into dust the bases and airfields from which or on which carriers can launch anti-ship missiles, as well as industrial facilities and warehouses, so that it would not be in the habit of subsequently using them against the attacking fleet.
            Thoughts about the uselessness of the fleet are born only in the minds of those who cannot afford a full-fledged fleet, all the major (economically and industrially) powers with ambitions are invested in it.
            1. Vadim237 26 September 2019 11: 44 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              On the flat terrain, these subsonic cruise missiles for our air defense also do not pose problems; there are radars and complexes that perfectly see such objects and shoot them off with a bang; these missiles were a threat in the 70s and 80s - now they are gone.
              1. Polinom 26 September 2019 15: 19 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Around the beginning of the 90s, there was no continuous zone of coverage over 5000 m. Basically, air defense.
                1. Vadim237 26 September 2019 17: 19 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  A lot of things have changed since the 90s - and radically, including Russia, airborne forces with a single air defense system and corresponding radars appeared, the ones shown in the video are far from the most modern and powerful radars currently in service
                  1. Vadim237 26 September 2019 17: 23 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    And there are also electronic warfare systems, the most powerful of which is Murmansk BN
                    short-wave coastal electronic warfare complex. The complex conducts radio reconnaissance, interception of enemy signals and their suppression over the entire short-wave range at ranges up to 5000 km.
                    1. NordOst16 26 September 2019 18: 06 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      And how will they shoot down the RCs that will be equipped with an inertial guidance system and a tercom? KR such systems to the bulb
                      1. Vadim237 27 September 2019 14: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I also talked about radar and air defense - anti-ship missiles will be detected and shot down.
                      2. NordOst16 27 September 2019 15: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Ground-based radars will notice flying missiles no further than 35 km, or rather even less thanks to the small EPR, and the active jamming stations that put on the missiles will complicate the interception of missiles when they are detected. And with a massive blow, and the Americans can arrange this, they will break through the air defense and destroy the objects. Not for nothing that the Russian Federation (in the Kyrgyz Republic) began to invest in them. Air radars are also not a panacea because of the greater distance from the aircraft radar to the missile, the detection range is not that much to increase. Therefore, the Kyrgyz Republic should not be underestimated.
                  2. Polinom 26 September 2019 18: 42 New
                    • 2
                    • 4
                    -2
                    Films and pictures for patriots. I have something to compare with the USSR, especially in the north.
                    You have a strange attitude towards electronic warfare, if they were cut, everyone is blind, and we and the enemy. Only he has backup guidance channels :-)
                    1. Newone 27 September 2019 01: 00 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      It’s great to judge modern systems of a neighboring country by systems 30 years ago
                    2. Vadim237 27 September 2019 14: 52 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      "I have something to compare with the USSR, especially in the north." It makes no sense to compare with this - everything was physically and morally obsolete 20 years ago.
                  3. Sasha_rulevoy 27 September 2019 19: 21 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    The complex conducts radio reconnaissance, interception of enemy signals and their suppression over the entire short-wave range


                    GOS missiles, like all types of radars, do not work in the HF range. The HF band has not been used for military communications for a long time. Of the ground forces, the HF connection is completely removed. On the ships, the radio stations are only as a fire option, in case the satellites get down. Already during World War II, American ships used HF receivers only for reception during operations.

                    True propaganda broadcast of the enemy can still be expected. Radio China seems to still work in Russian and English.
                  4. timokhin-aa 29 September 2019 10: 38 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    This is just a jamming radio.
            2. NordOst16 26 September 2019 18: 05 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Yes, of course, on the plain the horizon does not get lower, and as those 35 (or so) kilometers were, they will remain so. In this case, the ESR of the CR is insignificant in itself, and methods of reducing the ESR are also used. So God forbid they will be discovered at 20 km. Further, jammers are placed on the rockets, and with their mass application it is quite possible to oversaturate air defense systems and, accordingly, overcome them.
              And if the KR were not such a problem, then we would not have created new missiles for long-range aviation (X101, which, by the way, were designed using low visibility technologies) and for ships (sensational caliber) or is it trying for the military-industrial complex barmaley? I do not touch on subsonic anti-ship missiles that have not left the arena, but are constantly being modernized and created, although their task will be more difficult.
              So the threat has not gone away and is still quite relevant for both them and us.
          2. Vadim237 26 September 2019 11: 47 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Progress in rocket science, including anti-ship missiles, especially in Russia, does not stand still - the larger the fleet and the more large ships in it, the greater the burden it puts on the budget and the easier it is to detect and destroy it.
            1. NordOst16 26 September 2019 18: 12 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              That's just the larger the fleet, the more RCC is needed to hit him. And before that, more effort should be spent on searching for ships and issuing target designation, which is also a non-trivial task and how it will be solved that same issue. So where to find it easier is not clear.
              And, of course, the more ships, the more means of attack it carries and the more likely that enough ships will survive that deal a crushing blow with non-nuclear means.
              In addition, there is no progress in the field of naval air defense, especially in the United States, as well as electronic warfare systems, and more and more missiles are required to defeat ship groups
              1. Vadim237 27 September 2019 14: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The more ships - the easier it is to detect and hit them, the same with an aircraft carrier - do not put eggs in one basket.
                1. 3danimal 29 September 2019 22: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Your suggestions for the design of aircraft carriers? Teach the whole range of countries that have come to the concept of a “clean” aircraft carrier ..
                2. 3danimal 30 September 2019 05: 17 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And if they are dispersed, and you have a limited number of detection tools, it will take more time. And it’s likely that your detection and attack tools will end sooner.
    2. 3danimal 26 September 2019 09: 23 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Do you think the United States is the first to attack the Russian Federation? Did they have an insane dictator who subjugated all the inhabitants?
      Usually, gains / losses are still weighted.
      1. NordOst16 26 September 2019 10: 38 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        A strong fleet (and not only him, the Armed Forces as a whole) and readiness to put into practice the most unpleasant scenarios for the enemy significantly reduce the desire of each side to start a war.
        Risks only increase when one side wants to attack and the other cannot respond.
        1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 11: 24 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          I am sure that only a dictator can plunge the country into a bloody war.
          (Just don’t give an example a trifle, like Iraq, Libya).
          1. NordOst16 26 September 2019 17: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And Ukraine?)))
            1. 3danimal 30 September 2019 05: 19 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And where does Ukraine have to do with it? Was she attacked by the USA? (If only in the imagination of Kiselev / Prokhanov).
              1. NordOst16 30 September 2019 23: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, there is not the United States frolic. Just the desire of politicians to arrange a small victorious war has not yet been canceled
                1. 3danimal 1 October 2019 15: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I’ll clarify right away: what politicians are we talking about?
                  1. NordOst16 1 October 2019 16: 33 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    In what sense?
                    1. 3danimal 1 October 2019 16: 38 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Which country policy?
                    2. NordOst16 1 October 2019 18: 32 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      USA, Saudi Arabia, RF, if you search, I think you can still find examples
        2. timokhin-aa 29 September 2019 10: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Vietnam yet))
          1. 3danimal 29 September 2019 22: 39 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Is this an example of a powerful state capable of destroying millions of US citizens?
            Another “trifle” where they, however, got stuck. Like the Union that performed international duty in Afghanistan)
            Does not fit into sound logic.
            Can you consistently refute the claim that the US leadership will not risk the death of, say, a million of its citizens for a dubious purpose?
            1. timokhin-aa 30 September 2019 00: 52 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Can you consistently refute the claim that the US leadership will not risk the death of, say, a million of its citizens for a dubious purpose?


              Counter-question - Do you know that the commanders of their submarines have an order to drown ours without warning if they see signs of preparation for launching missiles? And what at the same time they did not provide ANY protective mechanisms against errors of the duty shift at the hydroacoustic station?

              And this is "one foot in a thermonuclear war." Does this bother you?
              1. 3danimal 30 September 2019 05: 01 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Firstly, how reliable and current is this information?
                Secondly, unplanned launches of SLBMs (with the official focus on the United States in priority) can with high probability mean an attack. And then there is its own logic - each destroyed SSBNs - saved fellow citizens.
                It is necessary to reduce the pumping of hostility, so it will be easier for everyone.
                1. timokhin-aa 30 September 2019 10: 55 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  First-hand information.
                  Secondly, unplanned launches of SLBMs (with the official focus on the United States in priority) can with high probability mean an attack.


                  And if the crew was mistaken? How does this fit with your claims that there will be no peace-loving elves and wars on the side of the forces of light?

                  It is necessary to reduce the pumping of hostility, so it will be easier for everyone.


                  Write to the White House.
                  1. 3danimal 30 September 2019 11: 39 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    "Peace-loving elves" want to prevent the mass death of fellow citizens. It all comes down to.
                    A crew error is possible, but there must be "protection against the fool," I am sure.

                    So it is necessary to cool our leaders. And here are the cartoons with the bombing of Florida ... I understand that it’s a shame when you have property and accounts there, but they stopped letting you in.
                  2. timokhin-aa 30 September 2019 12: 26 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    "Peace-loving elves" want to prevent the mass death of fellow citizens. It all comes down to.


                    There are two questions. The first is what mass is. Second, but how much they want.
                    That is, it is clear that killing everyone and staying on their own is their ideal option.
                    But “they don’t want to allow” these are just intentions, Wishlist. The psychological category.
                    This can be changed in a minute.

                    Well and yes, there is no protection from the fool, the whole calculation is on the professionalism of the crew.
                  3. 3danimal 30 September 2019 13: 01 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    The president and parliament of the “elves” are dependent on voters; they cannot just dictate their will to them.
                    Further: what does it mean “they want to kill everyone”? All Russians? And who wants to?
                  4. timokhin-aa 30 September 2019 14: 24 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Do you know English?
                  5. 3danimal 30 September 2019 14: 57 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I read and translate, occasionally looking into the dictionary) I understand the content of the conversation (if the diction of the norms)
                  6. timokhin-aa 30 September 2019 15: 41 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II
                    by Thomas J. Fleming

                    In the part of Pearl Harbor, and the Rainbow plan, everything is roughly true. I checked on other sources. The rest should be divided in half, again, if you look at the sources.

                    This is to the question of who there really reports to the parliament and the people, including in wars. As an example.

                    And Roosevelt's college friend Ernst Hanfstaengl, meanwhile, created the Nazi regime in Germany.
                  7. 3danimal 1 October 2019 19: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I read.
                    But: again, this is the 30-40s. Americans like to blame that they have segregation. Was in these years (analogy, everything changes)
                    About "college mate" looks like a conspiracy theory.
                  8. timokhin-aa 1 October 2019 20: 14 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    A college friend left a memoir.
                  9. 3danimal 2 October 2019 05: 03 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    It happens. You never know who studied with anyone, especially in a multinational country.
                  10. timokhin-aa 2 October 2019 12: 48 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Roosevelt's college buddy writes:

                    “Okay, we'll send to you our military attache captain Truman-Smithso he can look around, ”Robbins continued. “Look after him and introduce him to some people, okay?”

                    This officer turned out to be a very pleasant young man of about thirty years old, a graduate of Yale, but despite this, I felt that he was pleasant to him. I gave him a letter for Paul Nicklaus Cosman, editor of Munchener Neueste Nachrichten, and invited me to drop by at our house for lunch at any time convenient for him. I must say, he worked like a beaver. For several days he saw Crown Prince Ruprecht, Ludendorff, Herr von Kara and Count Lershenfeld, who were the main figures in government circles, as well as other influential people. He soon knew more about Bavarian politics than I did. We had lunch with him on the last day of his stay in Munich, which fell on November 22. He informed me that he more or less ended the series of visits. He was already expected at the embassy, ​​and he left by night train.

                    “However, I will tell you one thing,” he said. “I met the most wonderful guy I ever saw this morning.”

                    - Really? I responded. “And what's his name?”

                    - Adolf Gitler.

                    “You must have been given the wrong name,” I objected. - Maybe you wanted to say Gilpert - there is such a German nationalist, although I can’t say that I see something special in him.

                    “No, no,” Truman-Smith insisted. “Hitler.” Around there are many posters with the announcement of the rally to be held tonight. They say that there is the signature “No Jews allowed”, but at the same time it has the most convincing line regarding German honor, rights for workers and the new society ... I have the impression that he is going to play an important role, whether you like it or not, but surely He knows what he wants ... They gave me a ticket for the press for today's meeting, but I can’t go to it. Maybe you will look at him for me and tell about your impressions?

                    That's how I met Hitler for the first time.

                    I escorted Truman-Smith to the station, where we met an extremely unpleasant person who was waiting for someone on the platform. Truman-Smith introduced us: “This is Mr. Rosenberg. He’s Hitler’s press officer, gave me a ticket for tonight. ” He made no impression on me. When we conducted the train, my new acquaintance asked if he could accompany me to the rally. We took a tram and drove towards the Kindlkeller beer hall, where it was passing.

                    The Kindlkeller, in the form of an uppercase letter “L”, was packed to the brim with a variety of people. There were small shopkeepers, concierges, former officers, small government employees, artisans, many young people, most of whom wore Bavarian national costumes. Rosenberg and I squeezed through the crowd to the press table on the right side of the podium.

                    I looked around and did not see a single acquaintance among the listeners and those who were on the platform. “Where is Hitler?” I asked the middle-aged journalist who was standing next to me.. “See those three over there? Low is Max Aman, the one with the glasses is Anton Drexler, and the third is Hitler. ” In his heavy boots, a dark suit and a leather vest, a semi-standing white collar, with strange antennae, he really did not make much impression. Looks like a waiter in some station restaurant. Nevertheless, when Drexler introduced him to the roar of applause, Hitler straightened up and walked past the press table with a quick, confident step. Neither give nor take soldiers in civilian clothes.

                    .

                    Hitler really impressed me that defied explanation. Despite his provincial manners, he seemed to have a much broader outlook than the usual German politician encountered so far. With an incredible oratory, Hitler clearly made grandiose plans. And of those who surrounded him, as I understand it, apparently no one was able to bring to him an objective picture of the world around him, which he clearly lacked. In this situation, I felt that I could help. It seemed that he had no idea about the role that America played in achieving victory in the war, and considered European problems from a narrow, continental point of view. And here, at least I thought so, I could correct it.

                    But that’s all for the future. And now he stood on the platform, recovering from a well-played role. I went to him to introduce myself. He stood - simple-minded, but convincing, amiable, but uncompromising, his face and hair were wet with sweat, a semi-standing collar, pinned square, with gold English pins. While talking, he applied something remotely reminiscent of a handkerchief to his face, looking with concern at the numerous open doors through which drafts of a cold November night burst.

                    “Herr Hitler, my name is Hanfstaengl,” I said. - Captain Truman-Smith asked me to convey his best wishes to you.

                    “Oh yes, that big American!” He answered.

                    “He convinced me to come here and listen to you, and I can say that it made a huge impression on me,” I continued. - I agree with what you said, ninety-five percent and would love to someday talk about many other things.

                    “Yes, of course,” Hitler said. “I am sure we will not quarrel over some five percent.”

                    He made a very pleasant impression, looking modest and welcoming. We shook hands and I went home. That night I could not sleep for a long time. My thoughts were still racing with the impressions left over from that evening. Where our conservative politicians and speakers failed catastrophically, trying to establish at least some kind of contact with ordinary people, this self-made man, Hitler, clearly succeeded in putting forward the program that is expected of him.


                    All technologies for working with the mass consciousness, all these crowds of people in the same form, many Nazi marches - the work of Putfts Hanfstaengl. He was with Hitler until the 1938 year, transported him through the raids of the Communists, guarded and patronized. He tolerated the harassment of Hitler to his wife for the sake of the interests of the case and, despite the fact that he was a man of aristocratic manners, traveled with Hitler to Berlin prostitutes.
                    Putzi had an excellent special training, when in the end the Nazis decided to get rid of him, he calmly turned all their secret services in one place and left. James Bond would have swallowed with envy, if he existed in real life.

                    In general, your beloved country is robust so owed to mankind for all this, I tell you.
                2. 3danimal 2 October 2019 05: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And again, I did not see convincing justifications of the intentions of the United States to begin an invasive war against the Russian Federation.
                  As stated above, Iraq and Libya are not an example. Hussein at one time generally asked for it himself, Khomeini Jr. and the IRGC are doing it now. But these are the shabby dwarf beasts who have freely disposed of their population. And a successful operation to defeat them will not (did not) lead to unreasonably large losses, including among the US civilian population.
                3. 3danimal 2 October 2019 05: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  A separate topic is the active participation of the United States in the movement of nuclear weapons from the former republics of the Soviet Socialist Republic to the Russian Federation. It does not fit into the logic of aggressive intentions.
  • NordOst16 1 October 2019 18: 45 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Well, we have an example of the participation of the Russian Federation in the conflict in Ukraine in the face, though it is there that political motives overlapped on security issues. Also, Russia's participation in the Syrian conflict.
    Can you guarantee that the Russian Federation will not get involved in any other conflict? No country will fit into a deliberately losing war if it is not squeezed into a corner
    1. 3danimal 1 October 2019 19: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I can’t guarantee that in our country the authorities are not responsible to the population, IMHO, they perceive it as a resource.
      The situation in Ukraine is somewhat reminiscent of the Chechen wars.
      Just add Turkey (not taking into account its block statue, just as a country with a strong economy and 400 thousand army), which would become a weapon and “vacationer” to support the Dudaevites, would call the anti-terrorist operation a war against its people, etc. I am sure that our losses would grow by an order of magnitude, at least.
      (If you do not adhere to double standards).
  • Chaldon48 26 September 2019 02: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    War no matter how highly mechanized it may always be waged by people. Victory will go to someone who will be smarter and more decisive in using the means he has, and of course, as Leo Tolstoy used to say, an evil fight and less pity for yourself.
    1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 09: 37 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      2003, January, Zhirinovsky on the couch tells how the brave and motivated selected Hussein commandos of all GIs will be shot / drown / knocked down.
      Technical equipment, good organization, intelligence (and this is also technology) are very important.
  • Ros 56 25 September 2019 19: 13 New
    • 8
    • 6
    +2
    The larger the cabinet, the louder it falls. So it is with large ships. Remember WWII and how Hitler was afraid to release his formidable battleships and how they were hollowed out by aircraft and submarines and where many of them disappeared. And then the aircraft attacked in the forehead and it had no current capabilities and there were no current missiles. So by and large it is still unknown how it will actually be, maybe a hundred daggers are better than one super cruiser.
    1. Arturov 26 September 2019 06: 49 New
      • 3
      • 6
      -3
      Quote: Ros 56
      Remember WWII and how Hitler was afraid to release his formidable battleships

      already remembered, by the middle of the war, the total superiority of amers and Britons in the air. And you want to say that the VKS has it?
      1. Ros 56 26 September 2019 07: 09 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        No need to think so primitively, in the year 41 before the war we had about 24 thousand tanks, the Germans had about 4,5 - 5 thousand. The result of the second half of 41 years is known to everyone, by the way, where did the lion's share of our planes go by July 41st? The point is not in quantity, but in the ability to plan military operations and fight.
        And most importantly, judging by your words, of course, if it weren’t for the striped and the little shaved and there would be no one to win the war. I assure you this is not so.
        1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 09: 43 New
          • 1
          • 5
          -4
          Just look at Lend-Lease supplies. As a percentage of production in the USSR. Understanding that these are the saved lives of our people.
          And for a number of items -100-200% (the same aluminum).
      2. Vadim237 26 September 2019 11: 56 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        “By the middle of the war, the total superiority of amers and shaving in the air” Now this total superiority has fallen dramatically - air defense systems have appeared rather long-range, electronic warfare systems, in the USA 30% of aircraft are out of order with the British more than 50% and most of the planes are 20-30 years old.
    2. 3danimal 26 September 2019 09: 40 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      One lightweight boxer (62kg) told me so. In the ring checked (62 and 102 kg) - admitted his mistake.
      It is never worthwhile to plan out of prejudice that the opponent is stupid, unmotivated, inept, etc. Reality can be shocking, plans roll in.
      1. max702 26 September 2019 13: 20 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: 3danimal
        One lightweight boxer (62kg) told me so. In the ring checked (62 and 102 kg) - admitted his mistake.

        And if a boxer had a gun? (Nuclear weapons), who would have pulled out and used a weapon faster than a lightweight or heavyweight? Do not know? Well, they don’t know, but they’re afraid of a pistol, and not of the fact that the lightweight will swing and train and how it will move ..
        1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 18: 56 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Let's just say this is not a gun, but a martyr’s belt, with detonation in the event of the death of the owner. Such an analogy is more suitable.
          The bottom line is that both participants will be limited to a maximum of a few cracks. After all, both have family houses. Nuclear deterrence is called.
          And that guy (20 years old) used to fight with a couple of times on the street only successfully with “bags” (albeit large). It turned out that the “closet” just hits, breaks the coasters, but you can’t skip it - we are sitting in the ring. Shook hands and parted.
    3. Alexey RA 26 September 2019 15: 57 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Ros 56
      Remember WWII and how Hitler was afraid to release his formidable battleships and how they were hollowed out by aircraft and submarines and where many of them disappeared.

      Terrible battleships are one battleship (Tirpitz) and one half-battleship (Scharnhorst). Adolf had no more battleships during the “fear of the release of ships at sea”.
      He should not be afraid to let them out if in Scapa Flow and in Reykjavik they were guarded by two full-fledged post-Washington LCs and one or two aircraft carriers. And among the "guard" were not only British nonsense, but also the American LC with their 16 ".
      And most importantly - at the same time in the castle at the chef in the Pacific, both sides were not afraid to throw their "big pots" even into battles among the islands.
      1. Ros 56 26 September 2019 16: 56 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        And where did the “Bismarck” and “Gneisenau” go? And the above-mentioned and these tubs, they all drowned, and in the Pacific region drowned enough aircraft carriers and other ships. And with current satellites and planes with missiles it’s just coffins floating for the time being. hi
        1. Alexey RA 27 September 2019 10: 31 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Ros 56
          And where did the “Bismarck” and “Gneisenau” go?

          A "Bismarck" drowned in those days when Hitler was not afraid of anything at sea. Actually, with the sinking of the Bismarck, the Germans began to fear the release of large pots into the sea. For they were clearly shown that the king has a lot - it seems that the RN, spread all over the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, at the right time and in the right place can gather significant forces, and even the most powerful raider can not resist the fleet.
          “Gneisenau”, according to the results of a breakthrough from Brest, got into a repair combined with modernization, which ended for him with self-flooding at the approach of the Soviet troops.
          1. Ros 56 27 September 2019 11: 00 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Here I am about the same. By the way, my question about where did it go, I addressed to your previous comment, in the sense they called two, but they seem to have forgotten about these, and not in terms of what I did not know about their fate. So your minuses are on my drum.
            1. Alexey RA 30 September 2019 17: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Ros 56
              Here I am about the same. By the way, my question about where did it go, I addressed to your previous comment, in the sense they called two, but they seem to have forgotten about these

              I have not forgotten. I just did not take this couple to the battleships that Hitler was afraid to let out. For "Bismarck" just released. And “Gneisenau” during the “Hitler’s fear” was no longer possible to release into the sea.
              Quote: Ros 56
              So your minuses are on my drum.

              Overshot. smile
              These are not my minuses - here someone minus all.
  • Rurikovich 25 September 2019 19: 14 New
    • 10
    • 5
    +5
    Hmmm ... what
    Although I like to read, I mastered these things with difficulty ... request Almost a special course on how to break the weakest of the strongest ...
    Let's go through the points. Speed. I doubt it. tactically superior speed is a decisive factor in the battle. BUT ... Suppose that our weaker troop of ships met the enemy’s AUG (hypothetical) Unexpectedly, we discover that for an atomic aircraft carrier several days of a long distance race is a trifling matter (he not tied to fuel supply). Therefore, let’s catch up even with a more agile sprinter at the styer's distance of work, it’s not a matter of time yes The given example with "Keben" does not convince. Having two dreadnought trapped in a ring the size of the Black Sea is also not difficult. And they would have driven! Therefore, the diversion with the undermining of "Empress Mashka" seems to me a special operation to prevent the death of the German. For the division of armadillos was too slow in speed. So the speed factor in a strategic sense (how to win a war) is very arbitrary.
    2. I remember somewhere I heard that with total supremacy at sea raiding is suppressed in the bud very quickly. Especially with the current capabilities of reconnaissance and detection tools. Raiders - suicide bombers ...
    3.This is already a matter of interaction. Knowing the potential adversary’s love for distance fighting, you first need to withstand more aircraft and clouds of different missile wings to try to confront the enemy with what remains of the aircraft and fleet if he (suddenly) decides to come closer
    4 As a rule, this is almost impossible no Having 60 "Orly Berkov" even if we divide them into 2 (we will not take into account the Baltic and Black Sea puddles) - 30 each for Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, with 30 letting a dozen of them rest on bases, out of 20 10 we will write 2 AUGs for cover (with "Ticonderoga"), 10 will remain on all kinds of patrols and escorts (this, Karl, if you do not take into account the allies). Assuming that the enemy is so dumb and will forget the lessons of the last war is very short-sighted. A quantitative advantage turns into a qualitative one - a strong adversary will have practically no weaknesses. Weaknesses will be more likely for a weak adversary, when a lack of strength leads to holes in the defense
    5 Actual for the shallow Baltic and Northern Black Sea. For the deep Sea of ​​Japan and the North Atlantic is very problematic. even more so if under hypothetical tension the enemy will be at sea
    6 And here he laughed. Given the current ingenuity of a hypothetical adversary in providing informational support, an act of any kind of “achRessia” on it from us is the best gift to declare us an evil empire in the brains of the western electorate. And start a war in response to Ahr Essia. Therefore, to beat first without any support, albeit ignored, but nevertheless, International Law is more likely to be more expensive than harmful to the enemy. Rather, they themselves will make it so that we attack them ourselves without knowing what will be the reason for the war. If a stronger enemy is deploying, then at least the first hit, even the second - it doesn’t matter
    1. Vadmir 25 September 2019 23: 25 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      If a stronger enemy is deploying, then at least the first hit, even the second - it doesn’t matter
      Just the moment to strike, when most of the troops are crowded and close to the border. As for international law, a country that survived June 22, 1941 does not have the right to allow anyone to repeat this. Or do you think that the Americans, by all rules, will declare war before their strike?
      1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 09: 52 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Blow on what? For what purpose?
        A mad dictator does not rule the country with them. Possible (against the Russian Federation) is only the protection of the allies and the response to the attack.
        1. Vadmir 26 September 2019 14: 59 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          A mad dictator does not rule the country with them.
          They are dominated by showmen (and this applies not only to the present), with a sense of permissiveness and impunity, as well as megalomania in relation to their nation. Able to arrange a war for their own re-election.
          Possible (against the Russian Federation) is only the protection of the allies and the response to the attack.
          That's just that they have too many allies and among them there are those who pay for terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Qatar), operating, including in Russia. Among the allies may be countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, and they have territorial claims against us. And the United States likes to organize coups and announce new regimes as friends. What if they do that. let's say in Belarus, we don’t interfere and wait when they will begin to divide our country among the manual separatists?
          Sometimes even convinced pacifists are forced to attack first.
          1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 19: 00 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            War with the Pygmy (Iraq)? Not serious.
            Showmen depend on voters who don’t like the coffins that come in thousands. Only the leader regime with fanatics above, a'lya Reich, can, without looking, “spend” its citizens.
        2. Serg65 26 September 2019 15: 36 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And who is the mad dictator?
          1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 19: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            For example, Hitler and his entourage. Structures stamping fanatics (SS).
        3. timokhin-aa 29 September 2019 10: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The enemy’s transfer of radio networks to wartime, the dispersal of aircraft and the emergency launch of SSBNs into the sea - is this an attack or not?
          1. 3danimal 29 September 2019 22: 29 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            No. High risk mode, perhaps.
            And there, too, are not fools. And not maniacs. The leader mode is absent. There’s nothing to worry about.
            1. timokhin-aa 30 September 2019 00: 48 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Amazing arrogance.
              1. max702 1 October 2019 23: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, isn't it clear what kind of leader the citizen is hinting at? In the United States, democracy, and in some places where the irremovability of power and leaderism .. The one that shining valinor is in no way nuvinovat .. And when was it that the United States unleashed wars?
                1. timokhin-aa 2 October 2019 11: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And if they untied, then their victims themselves are to blame.

                  Below he wrote it directly
    2. bayard 26 September 2019 03: 30 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Speaking of the lack of escort forces in the US Navy. They really have disappeared a class of ships such as a frigate (escort ship), but their allies such as just a dime a dozen - that in NATO, that of Japan and other Australia. So, they will be guarded by convoys and supply ships - they are allies.
      And about a preemptive strike ... If you’re the first to hit, then it’s for sure with all the available power ... Of course, nuclear missile. If war is inevitable, you need to beat first. And the other world community will then read the story we wrote.
      Otherwise, we lose. We cannot survive a protracted war of attrition today.
      Or did the author mean a certain “local conflict”?
      Well, let’s say Japan is going crazy and is trying to capture the southern Kuril Islands ... Do we play with them in the little bucks? Share notes? And their fleet is stronger - both in pennants and in combat capabilities. One anti-submarine aircraft about 100 aircraft. And fighting like Israel. And there are enough submarines with anaerobic power plants.
      Repeat the Russian-Japanese tradition?
      Or will we solve the problem simply, quickly, radically?
      And on the Japanese islands there are so many American bases ... How are they with them? Also notes from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Or just right under one comb?
      For me, so to drown these islands (Japanese) along with Fukushima and all bases (American and Aboriginal) - the people should be responsible for the crimes of their government.
      You think "what a bloodthirsty horror"? Not at all, just if you don’t do it right away (after the outbreak of aggression), but get drawn into a protracted conflict, the entire Russian people will have to answer - either by the popular disgrace of defeat in the war, or by universal death in the event of a gradual escalation of the conflict from regional to nuclear with US participation .
      By the way, in the case of a preemptive strike against the USA, the last one will be answered with almost \ practically nothing. Their nuclear munitions are long overdue and there are only a few hundred of those remaining (including tactical) that remain. The "Minutemen" have long been "empty" \ headless, the KR with the JBF has not existed for a long time in nature, the "Tridents" are left with 1-2 heads on each, and even those are not the fact that they work normally, well, some more free-falling bombs (from a few tens to max. hundreds), with which they rush like a beggar with a cart.
      And that’s it.
      The hegemon has no more nuclear weapons.
      And there is nothing new to do - the old radiochemical plant was long ago dismantled for old age, and the new one ... they won’t build everything. They did not have any specialists or equipment for this - the old ones became old, but they did not prepare new ones. yes
      That, as they said in one old movie - "Beat Fredy first," the client has matured.
      That is why America is not afraid of Russia today - Sherkhan’s teeth fell out, there’s nothing to beat - hegemony to be strengthened. And if you dare to shoot with conventional weapons ... fellow So we will answer with the breadth of the Russian soul, with all the bread and salt that Kuzkina Mother baked lol yes .

      So WE WILL BE ANTICIPATED.
      1. Polinom 26 September 2019 05: 47 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Nice how.
        Convinced ... "slow down, I'm writing down" (c)
        As Leonidl visited political information.
        You plus for confidence in tomorrow.
        1. bayard 26 September 2019 15: 25 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Positive life and good mood prolong life and strengthen defense. Not only can everyone watch tomorrow, but we watch, we can, we are even sure of something yes ... and the Chinese are watching. They, too, are confident in some things and long for a squint. And hegemon just can’t sleep - they either have impeachment, or have revolution on the nose ... wink
      2. Arturov 26 September 2019 06: 57 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Quote: bayard
        Speaking of the lack of escort forces in the US Navy. They really have disappeared a class of ships such as a frigate (escort ship), but their allies such as just a dime a dozen - that in NATO, that of Japan and other Australia. So, they will be guarded by convoys and supply ships - they are allies.
        And about a preemptive strike ... If you’re the first to hit, then it’s for sure with all the available power ... Of course, nuclear missile.

        further, and nothing further, "we are in heaven, they may be in hell" lol or do you think after hitting the cities, they certainly apologize and do not strike back on the counter? Russia is more vulnerable to a nuclear strike, it is enough to knock out the infrastructure and cities of over one million people, everything is very crowded.
        1. bayard 26 September 2019 16: 44 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Have you read my text?
          That's the whole interest, that there is nothing to answer them with. The expiration date for their nuclear weapons has expired, and the little that remains ... for the most part will work abnormally - by the beginning of 2022 it will be necessary to write off the last nuclear warheads collected before the beginning of 1992, and there were few of them only for Trident-2 "
          Moreover, if we are talking about a preemptive strike, then approximately 2/3 of this semi-ready-to-use remnant will be destroyed along with the carriers, and what can take off from SLBMs on combat duty have 1 (less often 2) warheads per carrier. .. although now maybe it is already gone. And at the same time, most of these soared NSCs simply will not work or will work abnormally.
          And if as a preemptive strike we choose not a missile strike, but something else? Something more radical? Something that we demonstrated not so long ago?

          You understand, after all, WE ARE NOT the initiators of these nuclear fights, but just losing control of the hegemon planet. But in the case of inadequate actions, the “hegemon” will simply evaporate (die), and we, having cleansed the planet of corruption, will inherit the Earth and build a just happy kingdom of universal prosperity - that is, "get to Paradise."
          Otherwise, the Law of War is inexorable.
          1. Newone 26 September 2019 23: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Nothing to answer them

            This is not known. We gave Plutonium in assemblies VERY much to them. Separating plutonium from uranium is simpler than uranium 235 from 238.
            1. bayard 27 September 2019 18: 52 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yes, they have their plutonium piled up. Under the contract, they were supposed to create a production for its disposal, but ... could not. This WEAPON plutonium from which a warhead cannot be assembled due to the accumulated transuranium elements and half-life products in it. For cleaning and conditioning, the same radiochemical plant is needed, which they still cannot build. They simply have nothing to do for themselves with nuclear warheads, due to lack of capacities and loss of competencies.
              THIS IS KNOWN!
              The Pentagon Command and the relevant headquarters of the US Army regularly raise this issue at the US Congress.
              There are documents about this and they can be read.
              If you are not interested in this issue, or do not want to be interested, it does not mean at all that "this is not known."
              THIS IS KNOWN.
      3. 3danimal 26 September 2019 09: 55 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Again, plans on the sofa based on the assumption that a possible opponent with a mat part is worse than ours. What are the reasons? And if not? At least half of the strategic nuclear weapons they have SLBMs.
        Is your city safe from the same Trident 2? Have you built a bomb shelter for your family?
        Irresponsible Bravado ...
        1. bayard 26 September 2019 17: 24 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          At least half of the strategic nuclear weapons they have SLBMs.

          You are mistaken, it is practically all on them. And they didn’t have much of this good, as evidenced by the reports of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee to the US Congress and relevant committees.
          You take an interest in a subject ... analyze, and then throw in a panic.
          Panic is now raging in the opposite camp.
    3. Serg65 26 September 2019 15: 35 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      hi Welcome my dear Belarusian friend!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Hmmm

      Similarly! There was no desire to even comment until your comment is read
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Unexpectedly, we discover that for a nuclear carrier several days of running a long distance is a trifling matter (it is not tied to the fuel supply)

      This is a computer game to infinity smile
      A bunch of questions ... the KUG outfit, the last KUG bunkering, the last AB security bunker, will the AB commander decide to break away from the guard, will the KUG commander decide to find a single aircraft carrier to rush into battle ....... ???????
      1. Rurikovich 26 September 2019 17: 18 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Serg65
        A bunch of questions

        drinks I do not argue with this, I know all this. But the meaning was in the very essence - a ship with a vocational school (GTU) versus atomic yes The author then sang about speed characteristics, but forgot that the speed speed is different. That the cruising range depends on running and having run a day or two at full speed, you can waste all the fuel for running errands and not return home (unlike an atomic ship).
        After all, a hell of a lot of couches and not only experts actually play war games on paper - but the reality is much more prosaic and more fun. Therefore, only the CW commander himself knows what he needs to do to complete the task and how his fantasies will turn into reality for his ship and crew.
        And we can only read such fantasies (all kinds of experts and amateurs) and smile, rejoicing at the next mood lift (or depression) wink
        With great respect, inland ocean sailor (according to the version from behind the hillock) of Belarus drinks hi
  • g1v2 25 September 2019 19: 19 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Timokhin agrees with this article on almost all counts. Even amazing. belay
    By the way, in my opinion, remaking patrolman 22160 could give just such a relatively inexpensive and massive raider. And most importantly, one that can be built quickly. request
    More powerful engines with a relatively small mass of patrol would give greater speed. Small size and stealth make it difficult for the enemy to detect it over long distances. Installing containers with gauges or onyx gives him decent teeth. Still, it would be necessary to put air defense of the shell-m type and get a normal raider. Again, for landing a group of marines or for evacuation suitable. By the way, about the real speed of 22160, I have doubts. Do not be surprised if it is understated. But to put more powerful engines is probably possible.
    On interspecific interaction, I also completely agree. Again, the district command is fully responsible for the direction and work out the interaction of the combat arms is capable of independently, and most importantly - with reference to the terrain. For example, the interaction of Pacific Fleet ships, 18 bullets, marines, paratroopers from Ulan Ude and coastal complexes for practicing island defense. Engaging long-range aircraft to attack enemy ships is also a good idea. request
    On the offensive mine war, I also completely agree. We have two closed seas - the Baltic and the Black. You can mine the exits from the straits and prevent the strategic deployment and the transfer of forces by sea through them. To mine passages between the islands of the Kuril ridge and just throw mines around the Japanese islands is also quite realistic. Covering Kamchatka with mines or putting a couple of surprises in Hawaii is also good. There are also no objections to protecting mine productions from mine clearance. A modern minesweeper requires sophisticated equipment and the enemy does not have enough to throw them.
    But according to "if a fight is inevitable, then you must beat first" I have no more questions. hi
    1. Polinom 25 September 2019 19: 38 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      There are no such number of mines. About Hawaii is funny :-).
      Mines will not go in the Kuril Straits.
      Amers have a significant staff of transport aviation. Fighter coverings are organized from nuclear power plants in Georgia, for example.
      1. g1v2 25 September 2019 20: 07 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Increase the number is not a problem. Throwing mines from an airplane or a submarine at your side is real for Amers. It’s not necessary to put them on the Pearl Harbor raid. request
        Transport aircraft are very worn out. Comparable to maritime transport logistics will not pull. About speakers in Georgia is ridiculous. hi
        1. Polinom 25 September 2019 20: 10 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          So be it.
          Once you write, then you know.
        2. Kenxnumx 25 September 2019 20: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Underwater drones for mine clearance. In general, mines are weapons of the past
          1. Polinom 25 September 2019 21: 14 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            For the Baltic, even nothing.
            Mines are very formidable and demoralizing weapons. Therefore, not all countries ratify the convention.
            RI and the USSR were leaders in this. It's stupid not to use it.
            1. Kenxnumx 25 September 2019 21: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Modern means of clearance is not difficult. Anchors so without options. With the bottom of course more difficult.
              1. Polinom 26 September 2019 02: 27 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                Captor anchor, up to 800 m.
                Klimov wrote about the means of demining, or rather their absence.
                Everything can be cleaned, it is important here to win time for extra strength.
                1. Kenxnumx 26 September 2019 19: 35 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  So the deepening of the mine itself is not 800 m. Underwater drones are the solution to the problem
              2. SovAr238A 26 September 2019 08: 06 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Quote: Ken71
                Modern means of clearance is not difficult. Anchors so without options. With the bottom of course more difficult.

                Oh tyzhzhzh ... Straight walk and not mine ... Especially during the database
                1. Kenxnumx 26 September 2019 19: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Rather, problems can be caused by mining.
        3. Alexey RA 26 September 2019 16: 08 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: g1v2
          Increase the number is not a problem. Throwing mines from an airplane or a submarine at your side is real for Amers. It’s not necessary to put them on the Pearl Harbor raid.

          I really want to look at the laying of mines at depths of 2-3 km. smile
          Or do you want to put mines in coastal areas - in the air defense zone of Japan?
  • ares1988 25 September 2019 19: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Thanks for another good article.
  • Polinom 25 September 2019 19: 32 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    A few comments. Raider grouping. The organism and tasks are not mixed. A squad of ships with the task of raiding. About speed, AVMA atomic. Raiders require refueling. Carry a tanker with you? Its speed? Forgot to add to the US Navy PLA. They also fight ships. Raiding is more possible on the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet. It seems that Pikul in the story “Cruiser” has such actions. Name the projects and the names of the ships, the composition of the group for raiding. US ships will not climb into mines. They will decide everything before them. The Germans probably read Levitin’s idea from Capital Repair and laid mines before the war began :-) By the Airborne Forces. From memory, for the landing of the IL-76 semi (20 units), the work of the air army is necessary, gaining dominance, to break through the total air defense forces. Il 72 paratrooper. That is, to throw 1500 put how much effort. Well and accordingly losses. This is likely to be done by the Americans of CEAL, especially since they have equipment carriers on the submarine. North of Shemi and Adaka is the base of Elmendorf. This is me about the capture and landing.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 20: 36 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      A few comments. Raider grouping. The organism and tasks are not mixed. A squad of ships with the task of raiding.


      Well yes. essentially the same KUG from large surface ships, theoretically in the class of future 22350M frigates, or as an option today it is a pair of 1164 cruisers and a triple of 1155 BODs for PLO.

      We also need a couple of integrated supply ships with a gas turbine power plant and the same speed if we want to wield this. On them, as with the British, you can make a hangar for additional helicopters, the same Ka-31 or 35, or even Ka-52 with anti-ship missiles

      Raiders require refueling. Carry a tanker with you? Its speed?


      33 node. KKS, not a tanker. Well, he, like a tanker, yes, but not only. Specially make it high-speed.

      Forgot to add to the US Navy PLA. They also fight ships.


      Nope. Did not forget. Just on the 25-27 subassemblies, the submarines are a little dull. In the text of the article:

      At the same time, AUG you need to go at a speed that eliminates the use of your submarines for your protection, and if the pursued KUG passed over the curtain from its submarines, then the pursuing AUG runs the risk of running into this curtain, and all of a sudden.


      Raiding is more possible on the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet.


      At the Pacific Fleet rather. There is a large ocean)) But seriously, we must not focus on the war with the United States. This is a "theory in general." The probability of a war directly with the United States, whatever one may say, is low. Although it is necessary to train in mind precisely them, but rather, so that your level is at its best.

      By airborne. From memory, for the landing of the Il-76 semi-area (20 units), the work of the air army is necessary, gaining dominance, to break through the total air defense forces. IL 72 paratrooper.


      Firstly, it depends on the enemy, on the state of his aircraft at the moment, and secondly, that same air army, and not connected with the Airborne Forces, must fight for air supremacy.
      In general, here it is necessary to fantasize in relation to a specific enemy and a specific point in time from the beginning of the conflict. Otherwise, you get too much if. This is also a “recommendation in general” - there is an opportunity to do, there is no opportunity to not do. But the ability to track is a must.

      Well and accordingly losses. This is likely to be done by the Americans of CEAL, especially since they have equipment carriers on the submarine.


      Kotki is a little different - to mine from under water. But there are countermeasures in the form of special GAS against combat swimmers. Such are stationary, with a good range. Ours in the act. mode at 0,5 km pierce the entire water column, western at 1 km and more.
      Americans, by the way, are masters of ground raids. Especially on tanks, but also parachute assault forces too. I think that they are by far the best in the world in such matters, especially the rangers.

      North of Shemi and Adaka is the base of Elmendorf.


      No, we won’t land there)))
      We'll reach the missiles. When they will be at the Pacific Fleet, at least some.
      1. Polinom 25 September 2019 20: 58 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        The veil of pl, the old. Guidance through the P-8 (, Poseidon .... such a name is sober :-))
        Too much if.
        Vladik will give the Varangian to roam the ocean. Schazzzz.
        They took it from us with redneckness :-)
        Seal and in our bay roam and found equipment. Well, about it already was.

        Once again, too much if, frm, we take, we construct ...
        Vine tomorrow, what do we take and whom will we send?
        1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 22: 01 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          The veil of pl, the old. Guidance through P-8 (


          To “fight” in the comments is a thankless task. A card would be some kind, or introductory.

          Vladik will give the Varangian to roam the ocean. Schazzzz.


          And what the hell is he in the Sea of ​​Japan, if that? What will they do to them? Or rather, what will they do to them that cannot be done without it?

          Seal and in our bay roam and found equipment.


          Not only with you.

          Vine tomorrow, what do we take and whom will we send?


          Watching with whom to fight.
          1. Polinom 26 September 2019 02: 30 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            With introductory this is no longer an article.
            And I do not know why he is to them. Probably there is more enemy, shipbuilding and ship repair, communications, exit from BAM, the same East, state reserve, human resources. And what is on the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka? Everything is imported there.
            1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 39 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Just in yap. sea ​​attack yap. ships can even be forgiven Lord MRK - a rare case when these shells are in place. A cruiser can be used in a more useful way.
              1. Polinom 26 September 2019 15: 53 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                There is South Korea. And the release of forces into the ocean does not need to be provided?
                1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 21: 06 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  They will provide without a cruiser.

                  South Korea still needs to be driven into war, the Russian Federation supplies weapons to them, secretly merges rocket technology, imports a bunch of equipment, from cars to ships, and alludes to a gas pipeline through the DPRK.
                  Why do they need a war?
                  1. Polinom 27 September 2019 12: 31 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    But Russia does not supply computers and smartphones there ... secretly?
                    1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 12: 52 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      No. A friend of mine put a truck crane there in 2000. They then did not know how to make them. Bought, apparently, to make out. Now they started to make similar ones, that is, on the chassis of a standard truck.
                      But smartphones - no
                      1. Polinom 2 October 2019 15: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        We will wait for daylight, when Russia will copy their smartphone and begin to release them. laughing
                      2. timokhin-aa 3 October 2019 10: 47 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        If you don’t need to disassemble anything without jerking, you need to give money, and they will give all the necessary technologies. The question is that production in Russia will never be as profitable as in Asia.
                      3. Polinom 4 October 2019 12: 39 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        I heard that at the beginning of 2000 thousandths. And then in the May decrees ..
                        More precisely, as a child, “Catch Up and Drive”. It is strange that also in May. laughing
                        Tired.
                        And money was given in 30's. Built, technology given. Not horse feed, as 1941 showed.
                        And VAZ built and gave technology for the C Jet and machine tools for processing the blades of boats in Japan washed. So what?
                      4. timokhin-aa 4 October 2019 14: 22 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And money was given in 30's. Built, technology given. Not horse feed, as 1941 showed.


                        Without this, the Germans would have stopped in the Urals. And Lend-Lease would not help. It is necessary to compare with the initial state in order to evaluate the effect.

                        And VAZ built and gave technology for the C Jet and machine tools for processing the blades of boats in Japan washed. So what?


                        Like what? There is a superjet, a pause with it because of sanctions, if they localize what cannot be bought now, this project will come to life, if not ..... at least we saved the civil aviation industry. This is a fact.

                        Japanese machine tools gave boat noise reduction. Essential.

                        VAZ - built the same! laughing

  • 27091965 26 September 2019 17: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Well yes. essentially the same KUG from large surface ships, theoretically in the class of future 22350M frigates, or as an option today it is a pair of 1164 cruisers and a triple of 1155 BODs for PLO.

    We also need a couple of integrated supply ships with a gas turbine power plant and the same speed if we want to wield this. On them, as with the British, you can make a hangar for additional helicopters, the same Ka-31 or 35, or even Ka-52 with anti-ship missiles


    Dear Alexander.
    Your considerations regarding raiding both one and a group of ships are very interesting, but unfortunately you were several decades late with this proposal. The fact is that such a doctrine, the use of one or several ships combined into a group for raiding, was developed and had the name "strength group" or "surface action striking group". I will not describe all the teachings; I only write the conclusion made;

    "......the possibilities of waging such a method of war, so impressive on paper, remained largely so only on paper.... "

    I think about this is well known in the Russian Ministry of Defense.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 21: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, in general, the Americans also had successful exercises on this subject.
      https://topwar.ru/158716-kak-raketnomu-korablju-potopit-avianosec-neskolko-primerov.html
      1. 27091965 27 September 2019 15: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, in general, the Americans also had successful exercises on this subject.

        Thanks for the link.
        Since the mid-1960s, surface ships used as raiders in major naval exercises. Bad weather, darkness, the use of lighting to mask a raider for a commercial vessel, the use of various types of radio emissions, but later OPNAV recognized that the raider entered the area for Destruction of the necessary goal, should be very favorable conditions. The examples given in your article, it seems to me, are more likely an “exception” than a “rule”. In addition, the indicated dates, this is the time when there was an attempt to revise the AUG deployment system that was introduced by Admiral ER Zumwalt, as well as the failure to create the Sea Control Ship (SCS) in those days.
        In terms of raiding, Guerre de Course is also interesting - this is a system of influence on a stronger opponent, while at the same time avoiding battle.
        1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 19: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          OPNAV recognized that in order for the raider to enter the area to destroy the necessary target, there must be very favorable conditions.


          The devil, as usual, in the details.

          Questions:
          1. What is this area and at what distance from the attacked object is it located? Let me remind you, if there is a command center and the possibility of flying along the P-1000 altitude profile, the Volcano can attack a target approximately 1000 km from the ship. To be honest, the probability of getting somewhere at such a range is small. But already 200-300 km look quite real, although not as much as we commonly think. If the target is outside of civilian traffic, then the RCC has no one to devote to.
          2. It is overlooked that the raider does not have to STRIKE HIMSELF - he can act as a bait or direct other forces on the target - aviation and / or submarines. A counter-option to Mastin’s move, which was used by the aircraft carrier as bait while the Spruans reach the attack distance.
          3. The task of raider formation in principle can be irreducible to battle, for example fleet in beeing, or vice versa, distracting the enemy from his direction of focusing his main efforts.
          4. Too lazy to paint further)))
          5. Favorable conditions are not so rare, especially in our harsh latitudes.

          also a failure in the creation of the Sea Control Ship (SCS) in those days


          Zumwalt was simply not given the money. What is the failure, the concept turned out, the tests on the “Guam” went well. It just didn't turn out to be.

          Guerre de Course is also interesting in terms of raiding.


          Without the Guerre de Escadre being carried out at the same time, it is guaranteed to lose, it was shown very well and twice on the example of the Germans, and there were examples before them. Mahan wrote about this more than once.
          1. 27091965 27 September 2019 21: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The devil, as usual, in the details.


            To do this, you need to familiarize yourself with the AUG deployment system proposed by Admiral ER Zumwalt, it was intended primarily to protect against anti-ship missiles from other ships.

            Zumwalt was simply not given the money. What is the failure, the concept turned out, the tests on the “Guam” went well. It just didn't turn out to be.


            If it’s not difficult for you, could you name the source of this information, it is interesting to me for comparison with the ones I have.

            It's not just about money, the tests at Guam did not confirm the expected result, but it concerned the performance characteristics of the aircraft wing located on this ship and at that time they could not offer something else, not the concept itself. Although the project itself was ready. Until 1978, 7 ships were to enter service, only 2 were built but for other states. The cost of the ship was not more than 100 million.


            Without the Guerre de Escadre being carried out at the same time, it is guaranteed to lose, by the example of the Germans it was shown very well and twice



            Guerre de Escadre above all interesting to compare with other similar developments.
            1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 22: 21 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              To do this, you need to familiarize yourself with the AUG deployment system proposed by Admiral ER Zumwalt, it was intended primarily to protect against anti-ship missiles from other ships.


              I repeat - the raider does not have to attack himself.
              And RCC then were different.

              If it’s not difficult for you, could you name the source of this information, it is interesting to me for comparison with the ones I have.


              Honestly, I won’t remember everything - I reread so much on the subject of a light aircraft carrier at one time that I don’t remember what and where.
              As an example:
              http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227420.pdf

              Excerpt from there:

              The SCS concept was operational-tested at sea aboard the USS Guam (LPH-9) from 1972 to 1974. The
              Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force, tested th ', concept on an Interim SCS (or ISCS),
              and concluded that the SCS had — for an intensity far greater than that expected in wartime-demonstrated the capability:

              .,. to continuously and simultaneously maintain two flank ASW sonobouy barriers and airborne surface
              surveillance, while concurrently prosecuting contacts as they occur ....
              The ISCS is fully able to support 14 SH-3H ASW helicopters (plus 3 AV-8A [Harrier] and 4 LAMPS).

              Although the SOS concept called for a limited general purpose ship, the testing concentrated on only one mission, ASW.

              Not addressed was:

              the deterrent effect of these multiple capabilities on the SSN's decision to press home an attack.
              Studies of wartime submarine actions suggest that the deterrent effect oi the SCS systems may be equal
              to or greater than its killing effect.


              VADM Price continued:

              We consider that the concept is fully validated and that the design features will
              give us an effective, less expensive, but fully capable sea-based air support platform ....
              The SCS is the most cost effective means of replacing dwindling sea-based air support assets, those that
              are required in defense of our sea lines.


              The cant in the concept was that Harrier would be too tough for the Tu-95 / 95РЦ / 142. But then they could not know this.
              1. 27091965 27 September 2019 22: 48 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Thank you for the information, if you have a desire, we can continue the discussion in the future. Sincerely.
                1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 22: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Yeah I do not mind. Write, talk.
  • Old26 25 September 2019 19: 37 New
    • 9
    • 3
    +6
    Quote: Amateur
    1 x 955 Northwind 16x6 (warheads) x 150 kT = there is neither Japan nor its fleet.

    Any war for you is a nuclear strike against the enemy. The question is different, that Russia cannot create a fleet comparable to the Japanese. A “Borea" is already a weapon of last chance. When you need to destroy not only the enemy, but yourself ...

    Quote: Amateur
    The Buyan is equipped with a 3S14 vertical launch vehicle (UVP) for 8 Caliber long-range cruise missiles, which allows striking these missiles at ground targets up to 1500 km. 7 pcs x 8x50 kTn = Turkish fleet communicates with the guria.

    You can sink the Turkish fleet exclusively with anti-ship caliber missiles, which have a range of about 400 km and subsonic speed. And which are to the goal (if it is within the radius of maximum defeat, they should go at least half an hour. And it is necessary that they reach the target and not be shot down. Plus 7 pieces of Buyanov-M - you will have to concentrate all cash on the theater

    Quote: Sandor Clegane
    Quote: Amateur
    "Caliber", allowing to strike with these missiles at ground targets at a distance of up to 1500 km. 7 pcs x 8x50 kTn = Turkish fleet communicates with the guria.

    belay wassat lol they themselves understood what they wrote? on ground targets and the fleet is not ...... what does this mean? .... calibrator and iskander you our unsurpassed

    Well, he just fully justifies his nickname - AMATEUR

    Quote: Arkon
    In my inexperienced opinion, a very good, comprehensive operational analysis. The conclusions can be argued, but I consider the view on naval confrontation from the point of view of our relative weakness on each separate naval theater of operations to be completely correct. Moreover, I consider the potential task to achieve superiority over any potential adversary in every theater of operations to be wrong - well, it will not work out now. At least jump out of your pants.

    No offense will be told to Alexander - the article is as vague as possible. Some thoughts are sound, but they are lost among all this a mishmash of historical excursions ...
    1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 20: 50 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      No offense will be told to Alexander - the article is as vague as possible. Some thoughts are sound, but they are lost among all this a mishmash of historical excursions ...


      This is just a set of some methods that you can apply. Hence the vagueness, the specifics are not. And examples from the past are a necessary thing, how else to study, if not on them?
      1. AML
        AML 25 September 2019 22: 19 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Yes, does not study. The past is no longer applicable. If the Black Sea is shot from coast to coast, then purple is how many ships Turkey has in the World Cup. If the aircraft carrier has steam catapults, then do not care how many planes he has. All the same, he will not be able to cross into the northern waters. If the USA has 4k axes, then in any situation they cannot be shot at once.

        The authors have some kind of oddity. When considering a blow from the side of AM, they have a lot of things and none succeed, and the Russians chew snot and wait until everything falls. And then like, oh and we still have something left? Let's get a bang.
        When a strike on AM is considered, half of the missiles will get stuck in the wagons, another part will be shot down on takeoff. Something else will knock down the anti-aircraft defense and the F-35 will certainly make a contribution, it’s a plug in every opera, you cannot do without it. And the part that flies has a KVO of 500m and oh damn, it just won’t hit the target. But in fact, the end consumer does not care if he is at the epicenter or 500m from it. In any case, he is not a tenant.
        Ale, the people, in order to ushat states, a dozen warheads are enough.
        By dams, by power plants, by oil storage facilities. Why kill everyone if those who remain themselves devour themselves? And what is meant by the term "Guaranteed Destruction" means that even bacteria will be burned out.
        1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 23: 23 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          The past is no longer applicable. If the Black Sea is shot from coast to coast, then purple is how many ships Turkey has in the World Cup.


          And how many submarines there is not violet?

          All the same, he will not be able to cross into the northern waters.


          How much can this nonsense be repeated? Where is she from? Aircraft carrier feels great in Northern waters, great. He does not freeze anything. In a catapult at the entrance of the steam somewhere 220-230 degrees Celsius. Nothing will freeze at this temperature.

          Ale, the people, in order to ushat states, a dozen warheads are enough.


          Well, with what a fright? This is not even enough for their ICBMs. Only airbases with bombers + storages. The nuclear bomb attack in total is more than a dozen. Do not tell tales.
          1. Alexey RA 26 September 2019 17: 14 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Aircraft carrier feels great in Northern waters, great. He does not freeze anything. In a catapult at the entrance to the steam somewhere 220-230 degrees Celsius. Nothing will freeze at this temperature.

            ... the bed (gutter) of the steam catapult with two trunks of power cylinders located in it is heated up to 180-200 ° C before the start of flights using a standard heating system The covers located above the gutter are equipped with reliable thermal insulation, which does not, however, completely prevent heat loss - the temperature on the outer surface of the caps reaches 50 ° C. When the AUG approaches the combat zone, there is an emergency heating mode by supplying reduced pressure steam to the power cylinders for 8 hours. The readiness of the catapult for launches is provided by information on the elongation of each of the trunks of the power cylinders by 110-115 mm with a track length of 90 m. The regular heating of the gutter is carried out for 24 hours using steam warmers of the heating system
            1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 21: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              As for 500 degrees, the author bent so much there even on the supply of superheated steam to the catapult steam heater. 450 and near 40 near heated water. The steam generated in the steam heater is somewhere 220-230. This steam goes into the power cylinder. At least in American sources, everything is exactly so, if you count from Fahrenheit
              1. Alexey RA 27 September 2019 10: 31 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                As for 500 degrees, the author bent so much there even on the supply of superheated steam to the catapult steam heater.

                I understand that this is 50 ° C - 50 degrees Celsius.
            2. bk0010 27 September 2019 16: 21 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In the cold, the catapult will not have a problem, but because of the catapult: the steam from it will begin to freeze on metal and glass surfaces, climbing even into small cracks. Electromagnetic catapults would remove these problems, but the northern weather remains: aviation will have problems (not only take-off and landing, but also work), and frequent storms will not bring joy to sailors.
              1. timokhin-aa 30 September 2019 14: 38 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And what kind of cracks are there? Have you seen the master cylinder at least once? There, even with freezing, everything will work, but in fact, before starting up, the cylinder is warmed up to thaw. And then it's always hot.
                These are fairy tales about the freezing of a catapult.
                1. bk0010 30 September 2019 21: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Freezing is not a catapult, but just around the catapult. Imagine: -20C, there is metal and glass around (ship’s hull, mechanisms, etc.), steam comes from the catapult, touching the surface it instantly hardens, something like this will not work out of the deck and superstructure:
                  ?
                  1. timokhin-aa 30 September 2019 22: 22 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And now we heat the excavator from the inside with hot air in 220 degrees Celsius and wait a week.))))
                    1. bk0010 1 October 2019 21: 49 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Do you want to give steam to the cabin? Or in the elevators? No, you can try, but the team will be unhappy.
                      1. timokhin-aa 2 October 2019 11: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You have an extremely strange idea of ​​how the steam catapult is arranged and works.
                  2. Polinom 2 October 2019 15: 46 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    What are minus 20 in the ocean? Icing due to splashing occurs, especially on small-sized fishermen. The height of the aircraft carrier?
                    For an educational program, Sanin’s story “Obsessed.” He went fishing and described all this.
        2. Alexey RA 26 September 2019 17: 14 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: AML
          If the aircraft carrier has steam catapults, then do not care how many planes he has. All the same, he will not be able to cross into the northern waters.

          Blessed is he who believes. ©
          In real life, at the end of the Cold War, American ABs regularly worked from the polar Norwegian fjords, causing a lot of headache to the intelligence of the Northern Fleet: the decks fly, and the deck itself is nowhere to be seen. And in the Bering Sea, the ACG were not uncommon guests.
          And now AUG returned to Alaska:
          1. Vadim237 27 September 2019 14: 59 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, let them return anywhere - we’ll get from our shores
            The range of the upgraded P-800 Onyx (Onyx-M) universal supersonic universal anti-ship missiles is 800 kilometers, two sources in the military-industrial complex told TASS.

            According to the first interlocutor, the updated "missile is equipped with an advanced control system and will be able to hit both sea and ground targets with greater accuracy", and also has increased protection from the effects of electronic warfare (EW).

            The second source added that Onyx-M flight design tests were planned for the first ten days of September at the Northern Fleet’s marine training ground (in the Barents Sea), "however, launches were not completed due to the need for additional verification of prototypes of the product," as a result, similar missile tests will begin in the next one to two months. The interlocutor also said that Onyx-M, like Onyx, can be equipped with a conventional or nuclear warhead, and the mass-dimensional characteristics of the missiles coincide.

            According to the editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine Viktor Murakhovsky, the advanced Onyx has already passed throw tests, and the confirmation of the characteristics claimed by the developer, Reutov Scientific and Production Association of Mechanical Engineering (NPO Mashinostroyeniya) requires real launches, “after that it will be accepted decision on arming. "
            1. timokhin-aa 30 September 2019 22: 23 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Only an air raid is carried out from approximately 1300 km, if without refueling in the air and PTB.
  • Mikhail Drabkin 25 September 2019 19: 41 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And this means the need for shipbuilding .... - wait until it becomes clear at what maximum speed the ships can go (the enemy), and what is the speed of the economic course, and then surrender ships that are superior to the enemy.

    —- A comprehensive and ideas-rich review article.
    —- Theses / conclusions are illustrated by interesting examples.
    —- Thanks to the author, respect and +++
    -But “... wait for it to be clear ...” in shipbuilding, or in general in military operations - I think this is an impossible luxury of LOGIC CONCLUSION with the necessary information.
    —- And it is not in military operations from the word “never”, for the adversary should be considered as studied, but in solid draft - an unpredictable value.
    -Therefore, in general, MILITARY DECISIONS WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION are adopted in hostilities.
    —- And to reduce the risk, they always look for a favorable balance of power ..
    -Therefore, taking into account the importance of information, instead of “waiting” it is better to “make decisions as late as possible, and not earlier than necessary”
  • Undecim 25 September 2019 19: 50 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    "I would have a saber and a horse- Yes, on the line of fire! - A palace affair, ento is not about me !!!"
    The imagination of the author and creative enthusiasm can be envied. The truth is very addicted and entering a creative rage breaks away from reality.
    No matter how strange it may sound, Russia with its geographical location, economy and vulnerabilities should be considered in potential wars at sea as the weakest side. In fact, if it does, it’s not always but it will often be so.
    That is, the author sees in the future a whole series (often will be) of military conflicts in which Russia will conduct military operations with an enemy with a stronger fleet? If this happens, then no more than once, since neither Japan, nor the United States, nor China will fight alone, but if it comes to a full-scale war against NATO and the United States with its allies, then everyone understands how it will end. If it does not come to nuclear arsenals, then Russia will no longer have a fleet and a new one will not be built soon. If it comes to WMD, then no one will have anything.
    As for future plans, the author’s planning is completely far from reality and it looks as if a potential adversary will passively observe how he will be “beaten by key links”, and the Russian Navy ships have unlimited autonomy, inexhaustible ammunition, complete invulnerability and invisibility to enemy detection tools, endless resource and do not require either supply or repair.
    One thing calms, according to these plans, no one will ever fight.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 20: 48 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      That is, the author sees in the future a whole series (often will be) of military conflicts in which Russia will conduct military operations with an enemy with a stronger fleet? If this is the case, then no more than once, since neither Japan, nor the USA, nor China, will fight alone with Russia


      Even Georgia ventured into 2008.

      Turkey almost jumped in 2015 (well, or we almost jumped - depending on how you look).

      and if it comes to a full-scale war against NATO and the United States with its allies, then everyone understands how this will end.


      For example, the fact that politicians pulled the warrior for a bit, besieged and at the last moment managed to reduce everything to a ceasefire and negotiations. But the outcome of the post-shootings will affect the starting positions of these negotiations.

      If it does not come to nuclear arsenals, then Russia will no longer have a fleet and a new one will not be built soon.


      Well, this is the situation and must be changed.

      As for future plans, the author’s planning is completely far from reality and it looks as if a potential adversary will passively observe how he will be “beaten on key links”


      The adversary may not be passively observing, but will remove large forces from, for example, main forces to protect these units and protect them, but at the cost of weakening offensive groups, for example. This is bad?

      One thing calms, according to these plans, no one will ever fight.


      These are never plans.
      1. Undecim 25 September 2019 21: 16 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        The article seems to be about a situation where the Russian Navy is opposed to a stronger opponent, so even from this point of view Georgia is out of place here. And then what, Georgia attacked Russia and was going to win?
        Turkey ... It is interesting how your doctrine would look in the limited waters of the Black Sea, where in Sevastopol a ship can’t even go off the mooring lines imperceptibly.
        The “post-shootings” with the combined US and satellite fleets will affect the results of the negotiations in much the same way as Jutland on the Versailles Peace.
        In general, take a large world map and draw a circle around each of the Russian Navy bases with the radius of action of the ships based there.
        Then try to create tension for the enemy in the face of the USA + NATO in the vast expanses of the oceans in order to force him to take something off, transfer it, and then use it again, maybe it will bring you closer to reality.
        You can still work out the issue of supplying the KMG operating in the Indian Ocean. You can even in the form of an article.
        1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 21: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Turkey ... It is interesting how your doctrine would look in the limited waters of the Black Sea, where in Sevastopol a ship can’t even go off the mooring lines imperceptibly.


          The combined forces of the Baltic and Northern Fleets in Middle-earth with reliance on the airborne forces in Khmeimim, the Syrians and Kuznetsov, when it is repaired, and the air group is finally taught to fight as it should. As a result, Turkey is pinched from two sides.

          Then try in cash ship composition to create tension for the enemy in the face of the USA + NATO in the vastness of the oceans to force him to shoot somewhere


          Easy - 3 Black Sea frigate + 2 DEPL + all Black Sea BDK to Gibraltar and take off as cute)) The main thing is to turn before the war.

          Your misunderstanding is due to the fact that you are ignoring the last part of the series. Russia with its geography needs to resort to proactive deployment, that is, in advance, with any signs of a threatened period, deploy naval associations with naval vessels in the sea, in the case of raider operations, high-speed integrated supply ships will be needed. These are the previously deployed forces that will raid the enemy. In this case, of course, sooner or later they will have to break through to join with the rest of the fleet, which, in turn, will have to help them in this. But I will not “fight abstractly” in the comments, although I am ready to discuss a specific introductory part on your part.

          In addition, do not get hung up on the US + NATO vs. Russia scheme. Rather, “someone from NATO with the tacit support of the USA against the Russian Federation” or “Japan with the non-combatant ally of the USA against the Russian Federation”, or Colombia with the support of the USA against Venezuela with the support of the Russian Federation, etc.
          As for the military confrontation with the United States, it will be much more likely to be like in the Cold War - without firing.
          However, this will be the next part.
          1. Polinom 25 September 2019 22: 08 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Alexander, well .... :-)
            "deploy naval alliances at sea." proactive deployment.
            As soon as information is received about the increase (preparation) of the combat alert (service) forces of the permanent battlefield, all the headquarters are on their ears.
            Accordingly, the opposite side takes measures and not only at the level of the fleet. Diplomats, agents, intelligence communities.
            This algorithm has been tested many times, it will not work to hide from any one. Nor from the other side.
            At the level of an individual ship, by the decision of the commander who branded off, it may and will be unexpected. But as soon as the teams in the control networks begin to pass, even the level of the brigade will be spotted at a time.
          2. Undecim 25 September 2019 22: 12 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            I don’t ignore anything.
            in advance, at any sign of a threatened period, to deploy naval associations with naval vessels at sea,
            Well deployed. The enemy spotted, a priori it is not possible to hide, pulled up the appropriate forces. The hostilities began, what will we do? How will you protect the floating rear? Went to raid? Or are you hiding transports among coconuts?
            1. Undecim 25 September 2019 22: 28 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              In addition, do not get hung up on the US + NATO vs. Russia scheme. Rather, “someone from NATO with the tacit support of the USA against the Russian Federation” or “Japan with the non-combatant ally of the USA against the Russian Federation”, or Colombia with the support of the USA against Venezuela with the support of the Russian Federation, etc.
              Japan will go alone to take the Kuril Islands? Or Turks Crimea? Unscientific fiction. Is that Russia will break up, then maybe the neighbors will hench themselves.
              Support for Venezuela? Then where does your doctrine? Will you drown Colombians? So do the Americans protect them? Will not work.
              1. Vadmir 25 September 2019 23: 14 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                So do the Americans protect them? Will not work.
                During the Cold War, the USA and the USSR constantly found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades but did not fight, because everyone wants to live, and a war with a nuclear power could easily end with a nuclear apocalypse. Take the example of Syria, there we are also on opposite sides, but we didn’t shoot directly at each other.
              2. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 23: 18 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Japan will go alone to take the Kuril Islands?


                Not alone, but with a non-belligerent ally of the United States. Which will help everyone, besides directly participating in hostilities, that is, reconnaissance, supply, will give its bases to hide from the Russians (for example, repair AWACS aircraft without the risk of getting a cruise missile in the parking lot), up to some secret attacks, " third-party "to a limited extent. With a guarantee that the United States will then compensate all the damage, and fit in if it comes to nuclear weapons.

                As an option.

                I remind you once again that Georgia even attacked Russia - the American allies often bear their heads when they begin to confuse the power of the master with their own.

                Will you drown Colombians? So do the Americans protect them? Will not work.


                It will work out. Did the Amers manage to beat Syria? Did we manage to ram the Georgians?
                1. Polinom 26 September 2019 02: 37 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  Georgia fought on its territory, but the downed Russian planes, for some reason, fell on the territory of Georgia.
                  1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 43 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Yes, but they attacked the peacekeepers, whom they themselves allowed to go there, plus missile strikes against the population — busting, this can still be tolerated when the fire is fired at a military target, and civilians arrive “at the same time”, but tolerate a regime that beats civilians precisely purposefully, the Russian Federation will not, and rightly so. Well, in the end, I did the right thing.

                    You see, yes?
                    1. Polinom 26 September 2019 16: 14 New
                      • 2
                      • 2
                      0
                      There was nothing left to convince all other countries of the world (except three) to admit that all this is correct :-)
                      1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 21: 16 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        They know. One cannot but understand that the deliberate killing of civilians is bad.

                        Another thing is that the cultures of Europeans and the same Americans are a derivative of the genocides that they had committed before. For the same amers, it took a pathological form, if you read in English, they can throw something.

                        But they cannot recognize all this out loud, so they wrinkle their noses and make "fi." And "the rest of the world" is here insofar as, as they are told, they behave like that. Recognized Taiwan - recalled the calling of Taiwan.)))
            2. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 23: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, let's be specific.

              We find that the Japanese conduct covert mobilization activities in the armed forces.
              In response, an attack group is assembled from the Northern and Black Sea fleets, with ships of the floating rear. Vessels - both ordinary supply tankers and high-speed armed complex supply ships, operating in conjunction with the squadron.
              The task is to move to the south of the Pacific Ocean, to be there ready to move north and engage in hostilities against Japan.
              Preparation for the exit, of course, burned the Americans and immediately reported to Tokyo.

              Suppose the Yapis continue - they cannot prevent the transition, the United States may, but the United States will not drag chestnuts out of the fire. They will just follow up, merge the info.

              Next come the cat and mouse, somewhere closer to the Strait of Malacca the compound will need to get lost. Skeptical, you don’t have to grin - there have been such cases more than once, take the same Norpak Flitex 82, when the Americans hid from us the carrier group that the entire fleet was looking for, and missed the “strike” in Kamchatka. Stay up to date with this story?

              Well and further the passage without sailing, only from the KKS to the Pacific Ocean this or that road, and the ships of floating rear remain somewhere among coconuts.

              Further, according to the situation, depending on whether the hostilities began or not, the Japanese besieged with preparations or not. The main thing is to slip onto the theater as quickly as possible.
              1. Undecim 25 September 2019 23: 31 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                In response, an attack group is assembled from the Northern and Black Sea fleets, with ships of the floating rear.
                The task is to move to the south of the Pacific Ocean, to be there ready to move north and engage in hostilities against Japan.
                Well and further the passage without sailing, only from the KKS to the Pacific Ocean this or that road, and the ships of floating rear remain somewhere among coconuts.
                May 27-28, 1905 remember?
                1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Rozhdestvensky made a bunch of mistakes this time, and most importantly - 2-I TOE was late with the deployment and transition.
              2. Polinom 26 September 2019 02: 35 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                Already been. Rozhdestvensky went.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Polinom 26 September 2019 16: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Is that an excuse?
                    Then yes, it’s to blame, but it will be corrected :-)
              3. Servisinzhener 26 September 2019 22: 19 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                We find that the Japanese conduct covert mobilization activities in the armed forces.
                In this case, it is necessary to make a "warning blank shot in the air" in the form of exercises with the launch of ICBMs or X-101 missiles with an inert warhead in Shikotan or Kunashir. And to inform the Japanese in plain text what they ate they would continue in the same vein. That country like Japan will no longer be.
                1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 22: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Read the military doctrine of the Russian Federation.
              4. bk0010 27 September 2019 16: 30 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Let's say yapis continue - they cannot interfere with the transition
                Actually, they can (not Yap, the United States and England, but it’s not important): they will not let us through the canal, they will put pressure on those who can supply us in Africa. If they do not frustrate the transition, they will slow it down so much. It is necessary to go through the north, even for the Black Sea to build ice-class vessels.
            3. Polinom 26 September 2019 03: 09 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Well, a little bent. Forgiven.
              An association (opera or opera strategist) is a flotilla or fleet.
              Expand near Syria the Black Sea Fleet is a utopia, from the word drown.
              1. max702 26 September 2019 13: 36 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Polinom
                Expand near Syria the Black Sea Fleet is a utopia, from the word drown.

                This applies to any of our fleets anywhere in the world's oceans.
              2. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 46 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                As they say - do not say gop. Not so simple, the Mediterranean has seen a lot of things already. Including bending the American flange back, manually.
                1. Polinom 26 September 2019 19: 40 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  These are all past tense verbs. Are you trying to do analytics? We take maps of the Republic of Ingushetia, the USSR, and the Russian Federation. Compare. Everything was the Warsaw Pact and half of Europe and CMEA and 20% of the global economy, base around the world. All profuca. There was a chance, they didn’t use it, so why take a break? Gumilyov read, he determined empires about a thousand years. Do you think the current leadership of the country will get better? You have made everyone around you your enemies, the result is logical. Personally, I'm just wondering how this will all end :-)
                  1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 21: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    You can still remember the Tatar-Mongol yoke - the loss of independence at 200 years, you can recall the Germans on the Volga, you can recall the German dynasties in St. Petersburg ...

                    And you can compare the map of the British Empire of the 19 century with the current "overseas territories". The USA is also waiting for something like this, maybe during your lifetime more ... and it won’t kill them either.
                    1. Polinom 27 September 2019 12: 35 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, Britain has been and remains, which can not be said about RI and the USSR.
                      They had the time to jump off colonial politics.
                      1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 12: 59 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Britain remained, the British IMperia not. All this is a natural historical process. True, some conclusions were drawn from it. I think that outside the current Russian Federation, not a single ruble will ever be spent in order to create national cadres or to preserve writing among some minorities. Never.

                        And most likely not a single dollar will be spent more on transferring the full technological cycle to any Asian country.

                        The shop closed forever.

                        We generally live at the turning point of everything. At the time of the death of the old world and the birth of a new one.
                        And some will remain under the rubble of the old.
          3. Vadmir 25 September 2019 23: 07 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In addition, do not get hung up on the US + NATO vs. Russia scheme. Rather, “someone from NATO with the tacit support of the USA against the Russian Federation” or “Japan with the non-combatant ally of the USA against the Russian Federation”, or Colombia with the support of the USA against Venezuela with the support of the Russian Federation, etc.
            I believe that the concept of using the fleet should be considered without the USA + NATO at all, because in this case it is better for the fleet not to protrude at all, we are not kamikaze. There the war will go on land and in the air, and then, most likely, a mutual nuclear strike.
    2. Town Hall 25 September 2019 21: 06 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Goal for fiction is cunning)
    3. Cyrus 11 October 2019 08: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Never say never
  • Basarev 25 September 2019 20: 01 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And if we start from the worst? The entire billionth pro-American military unit has already dealt the first crushing blow. How to fight and win in such conditions?
    1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 20: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You do not.
      There will be no one to fight simply.
      The task is precisely to prevent this.
      1. Basarev 25 September 2019 22: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The truth is that building plans should always be based on the worst input. Then, in simpler conditions, the matter will go just the easiest. That is, one should think about the development of the Russian fleet, starting with the most unfavorable starting conditions. That is - do not escape into the ocean under any circumstances. In each of the puddles the enemy always has crushing superiority. The initiative is completely in his hands, while our fleet is pressed to the shore. Now, if we deduce the sea domination of Russia from such conditions, it will be interesting to look at it.
        1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 23: 25 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Not to deduce from such.
          The task of the entire state power is not to bring it to any means possible, from diplomacy to the notorious preventive strike, including even a nuclear one.
          1. Polinom 26 September 2019 03: 43 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            So it’s the opposite. :-)
            NATO slept in lethargy, and here it is.
            Decide on the year and month when it all began.
            1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 46 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Did it end?
              1. Polinom 27 September 2019 12: 37 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I think everyone will return to the original, pay compensation, jump from sanctions and end up with incomprehensible wars, this is not us.
          2. Basarev 26 September 2019 08: 59 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            But this is the situation in Russia now. It should be based on the real deplorable state of the Russian fleet, industry and the economy.
            1. Vadim237 26 September 2019 12: 06 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              "We should proceed from the real deplorable state of the Russian fleet, industry and the economy." Yes, such a deplorable state - that the first year shows growth from 4 to 6%, and GDP grows by 6-8 trillion rubles every year.
              1. Basarev 26 September 2019 13: 59 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Only ordinary people are increasingly impoverished, with new crazy laws they are driven deeper and deeper into lawlessness. And in industry, German trophy machines are still used today.
                1. Vadim237 26 September 2019 17: 28 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  I don’t know who uses this junk, I use German DMG machining centers and our industrial 3D printers manufactured by the guys from St. Petersburg.
                  1. Basarev 26 September 2019 19: 59 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    You're lucky to work at the Potemkin plant.
                    1. Cyrus 11 October 2019 08: 45 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Aren't you tired of whining, or a whiner in life?
  • karabass 25 September 2019 20: 14 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    As I began to read, I immediately realized that the author was Timokhin. But he restrained reading to the end, making sure that it was him. Perhaps this article is in the top five of his best. Despite the fact that he is undoubtedly a fan of the navy, in my opinion he began to explore other troops. In general, without Alexander Timokhin, VO would have been much more boring. The only minus is - in my opinion, too bloodthirsty, as they used to say - an arsonist of war! American admirals must have crossed themselves that Timokhin is not the Minister of Defense with us. Yours faithfully!
  • Kenxnumx 25 September 2019 20: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It seems to me fast but easy, after the first hit it will become slow. It is not for the author to play computer war games where damage does not affect speed. And what is there with all sorts of satellites and other Avax. Already in WWII, raiders were driven as lousy in a bath, but in the future nothing shines for them. Come in a crowd and pray that not everyone will melt until they reach the distance of the shot.
    1. Polinom 25 September 2019 21: 18 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Are Raeder boats considered raiders?
      Then I do not agree with you, England was practically put on its knees.
      1. Kenxnumx 25 September 2019 21: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Naturally, we mean surface. But even the submarines in the second half knocked out almost everything.
        1. Polinom 25 September 2019 22: 12 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Doenitsa.
          Well, this is when the United States joined and WWII was in full swing.
          More precisely, when they began to drown more than to build.
          In my opinion, by 1944.
          1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 23: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Not really. In reality, the Germans put the Britons on the brink only once - at the turn of the 1940-1941 years.
            But they didn’t finish it. The reason - there was no support for the actions of the boats from pressure on the combat fleet.

            Until the spring of 1941, the Germans were able to chase surface raiders into the Atlantic, there was such an operation "Berlin" when the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" slipped across the ocean and sank more 20 ships along the way. A couple more were sunk by the U-96 submarine, which took advantage of the chaos from their appearance. The Britons detected them from the battleships and from the aircraft carrier, but could not do anything.

            So, the Germans made a mistake. While there was an opportunity, they had to crush the British fleet with these surface guards.

            THAT is on a concrete example - during the “Berlin” the Germans found a convoy that guarded the old battleship of the First World War. Further in real life was the following. The commanders of the ships offered the commander of the compound to play with the battleship - to force him to fight at speeds, taking advantage of the speed (30 + knots against 21) and the same firing range. In addition, they already had a radar, but the battleship did not.

            In mind, they had options:
            1. Pull back the battleship with one ship, second melt the convoy.
            2. Cramming a battleship on their own - they had a fire advantage, but it was a really risky option. Still real.
            Then sink the convoy.

            The commander of the compound Lutjens did nothing. He was ordered not to engage in battles with warships, he stupidly carried out it.

            3. The third option - a couple of days later the convoy rolled onto the U-96. By that time, the raiders had already left, and an anti-submarine escort was added to the convoy - any rubbish such as armed trawlers and destroyers of the First World War, already falling apart from old age. But for the boat they were dangerous.

            So, it was necessary to graze not far off and point the submarine at the battleship. All the more so that a week later in the same campaign the submarine sent convoys, just others. And it was necessary to attack the fighting forces.
            They would sink a battleship from under water, or damage it - and the garbage escort of the convoy, like the convoy itself, would have remained at the mercy of two high-speed artillery ships. How it would end is so clear.

            At the exit, the Germans would receive under the forty sunken ships only in this convoy (there really was only 2), and a sunken escort in conditions when the British had a huge shortage of escort ships. And the loss of escort ships would simplify the next submarine exits.
            So it was necessary to carry out raids, first to extinguish the fighting forces, then to chase vehicles.
            And so they missed their chance, already in 41, the British gained some experience, and the Americans began to help more actively, and then, when the United States entered the war, it was necessary to drain the water. From the end of 42, an abrupt increase in losses in the submarine started, by the end of 1944 the breakthrough of the boat into the Atlantic was already a wonderful one-way ticket win.

            The result - the Germans lost, and 7 submariners from 10 died. That's all. A communications war cannot be won without attacks by enemy surface forces on their own - at least by some.
            The Germans proved this by their example, and twice.
            1. Polinom 26 September 2019 02: 41 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              There was such a PQ-17. What year? And ktozh threw him out of fear? And how much did he lose? Until the 44th, German submariners felt quite confident.
              1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 48 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Exactly - one fear of Tirpitz was enough. Submariners began to shred in October 1942, I specifically studied these statistics on operas at the time.
                1. Polinom 26 September 2019 16: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And to Tirpitz, why did they collect the guards of the convoy? From submarines, or from polar bears? :-)
                  Started at 42, finished at 44.
                  1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 21: 02 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    There Tirpitz actually stuck throughout the war, in the North, and he was not alone. I also do not argue with substrates, and planes. But the escort guard escaped not from them.
                    1. Polinom 27 September 2019 12: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, they didn’t prepare for this.
                      They were waiting for the boat, the polar night, it’s hard for the planes, but for the boats it is. Moreover, the lighting was not extinguished, for the system.
            2. max702 26 September 2019 13: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              But they didn’t finish it. The reason - there was no support for the actions of the boats from pressure on the combat fleet.

              Uh no! All resources were devoured by preparations for the war with the USSR, and therefore the fleet necessary for successful operations was not allocated. We know the result of the dispersion of forces and resources
              1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 21: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Yes, they did not really prepare against the USSR.
    2. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 21: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It seems to me fast but easy, after the first hit it will become slow.


      In war as in war. The task of the raider group commander is to make this hit have a PRICE. Or that he still was not there.

      And what's with all sorts of satellites and other Avax


      Never a panacea, if this time, you can plan your hit "under the satellite" to pull the enemy into an ambush, these are two, and so on and so forth - for the decision of the commander.

      Already in WWII raiders drove like lousy in a bath


      Google’s sinking of Glories AB, operation Berlin, or the article’s squeezed reference to the second is given in the text Raiders vs. Cruisers.
      1. Vadmir 25 September 2019 22: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The task of the raider group commander is to make this hit have a PRICE.
        But the Raiders will pay the PRICE. Hitler during the war came to the conclusion that raiding did not pay off. And this is in conditions when the windows were large, now they are very much reduced due to modern intelligence and communications technologies.
        If, as an adversary to consider the United States, then we must take into account the number of their bases. The exit of the group of raiders is possible only before the war and they will not return back.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 00: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Hitler during the war came to the conclusion that raiding did not pay off. And this is in conditions when the windows were large, now they are very much reduced due to modern intelligence and communications technologies.


          He simply did not know how to properly use what he had.

          The exit of the group of raiders is possible only before the war and they will not return back.


          It is possible only before, but they will be able to break through to their own if they are helped by their own.
          1. Cyrus 11 October 2019 08: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Not a fact, far from a fact.
            1. timokhin-aa 11 October 2019 10: 58 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Yes, nothing is a fact in war, actually.
  • Vadmir 25 September 2019 21: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    if war is inevitable, you have to beat first. Moreover, which is especially important, for the weakest side, a preventive strike by all means is the only way to equalize the balance of forces at least temporarily.
    Gold words. Modern military equipment is so long and expensive to build.
    Moreover, when hitting airbases, air defense systems, radar systems, ammunition depots and fuel and lubricants, the effect will be even stronger than at sea bases.
    But it is very difficult to decide on such a blow, because in the event of a loss, the decision-makers will have the fate of war criminals.
    Of course, the Americans in any case declare all their opponents war criminals. Nevertheless, this is a very difficult decision, there will always be a thought, and suddenly a war can be avoided or delayed its beginning.
    It’s hard to guess with the timing. after all, the best moment when the enemy has completely turned around at the border, has thrown people and equipment closer, making him as vulnerable as possible.
    This, incidentally, reduces the value of a preventive strike at naval bases, since by the time of deployment on land, more than half of the warships will be at sea, going to the future theater of operations.
    1. Vadim237 25 September 2019 22: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Moreover, the main backbone of the entire NATO air defense is the Patriot air defense system.
      1. bk0010 27 September 2019 16: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        Moreover, the main backbone of the entire NATO air defense is the Patriot air defense system.
        Aviation. The Patriot was done "to the heap" so that it was. When it is necessary for amers to defend themselves completely: see Aegis and SM- ?. It will be needed (really needed, so that it would be possible to ignore the fight between the land men and the Navy for the budget) - they will make a land version.
  • AML
    AML 25 September 2019 21: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: A5V
    And how were you going to attack ships with ballistic missiles?

    What's the problem? From where in the heads of the strong relationship that a ballistic missile flies only 100500 thousand kilometers. Point-U is also ballistic (well, let it be quasi-ballistic), only its flight range is 100 km. And yet, yes, Point-U can carry a charge of 100ct. I will say even more. Is it entirely possible for you to figure a tornado on ships? What is the problem? Is that a tornado on wheels?
  • doktorkurgan 25 September 2019 21: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    First photo:
    A detachment of Soviet warships goes to sea.

    Judging by the location of the Termit PU anti-ship missile launcher in the bow and the lack of aft 76-mm twin, we are still dealing with Indian Ave. 61E ... Apparently a photo from some joint maneuvers.
    However, before the transfer to the customer, ships of this type were temporarily included in the Soviet Navy.
    1. timokhin-aa 25 September 2019 21: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      By the way, yes. I did not pay attention.

      I think joint maneuvers.
  • Self 25 September 2019 21: 42 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    No matter how many ships Russia has. Absolutely. All the same, no one will unleash full-scale hostilities. The example of the USSR showed perfectly that no one can so effectively ruin their country as the Russians themselves. There is nothing to attack her with augs and so on. Selling political elites, and more, can do this much better. First, they will detail Russia. In all sorts of Siberian republics. Autonomy will require more independence. Some Tatarstan will want to go out and become an independent state. Who doubts, ask yourself if they could, well, say at Olympics 80 imagine that in only 5-6 years their state will practically be gone. As if Russia did not have enough ships at sea, or planes in the sky, that is, it will cause very great damage to the aggressor. Why would they die for a cause they can do without spilling a drop of their blood? The destruction of Russia will happen at the hands of the Russians themselves. It is enough to grow up this generation a little more, which no longer perceives Russia as its homeland, and the work is practically done. So it’s good to beat the enemy with small forces in a war, but you won’t have to. Not such a war will be against Russia.
    1. Vadim237 25 September 2019 22: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They don’t want to anymore - since everyone is on the same budget.
    2. Cyrus 11 October 2019 08: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      As I understand it, you are wildly scared that they will tear it from the computer and put it into the trenches, well, what happens and it does not depend on your Wishlist.
      1. Self 17 October 2019 00: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why are you, all at once aligning yourself with something? Believe me, there are people who are not as scared as you.
  • Petrol cutter 25 September 2019 22: 01 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    *. Turkey, with its economy and population, with access to Western technology and shipbuilding, can always create a fleet more powerful than our Black Sea. Or at least more numerous. *
    Some miracles ... And what further will this very Turkey begin to do with this very megaflot in the Black Sea? Roughly speaking, it is shot through the shore. Why did they take Crimea for something ?!
    I’m not ready to speak about the rest of the fleets. Time later, and I'm tired of the shift, however.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 00: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Some miracles ... And what further will this very Turkey begin to do with this very megaflot in the Black Sea? Roughly speaking, it is shot through the shore.


      On submarines, too, shot through?

      Well and yes, look at the map, see how many seas the Turkish coast is washed by. For the interest.
  • Old26 25 September 2019 22: 03 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: AML
    Quote: A5V
    And how were you going to attack ships with ballistic missiles?

    What's the problem? From where in the heads of the strong relationship that a ballistic missile flies only 100500 thousand kilometers. Point-U is also ballistic (well, let it be quasi-ballistic), only its flight range is 100 km. And yet, yes, Point-U can carry a charge of 100ct. I will say even more. Is it entirely possible for you to figure a tornado on ships? What is the problem? Is that a tornado on wheels?

    That's just “Points-U is almost gone. The last team is rearmament. And shoot at a moving target, and moving at a decent speed without homing systems in the final section is quite problematic
    1. max702 26 September 2019 13: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      That's just “Points-U is almost gone. The last team is re-arming.

      That is, they did not accept anything instead, and the Iskanders (with very different missiles) are cartoons?
  • Antares 25 September 2019 22: 21 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Perhaps Yamomoto also thought so in due time ..
    weaker hit first
    and it brought success to Japanese-Chinese, Russian-Japanese, the beginning of the Second World ..
    but the main thing is economics and industry ...
    it will be necessary - they will restore it despite the price and time.
    And the world has changed a lot for the global war .. Well, we all began to live in one apartment, Earth.
    He speaks 1 international, we consume goods from all over the world, use the Internet, etc.
    and still fighting locally ...
    1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 00: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Perhaps Yamomoto also thought so in due time ..
      weaker hit first
      .
      but the main thing is economics and industry ...
      it will be necessary - they will restore it despite the price and time.


      The article is about industry and about restore too.

      And yes, Yamamoto would be worth doing as he thought.
    2. bk0010 27 September 2019 16: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      If there is anyone to recover. Just imagine that Yamamoto teleported the Kwantung Army to the Pacific coast. Yes, it is without supplies, on the pasture, but industry on the coast will endure, the population, too, who will restore something? It would be an analogue of a nuclear strike on the military-industrial complex.
  • Town Hall 25 September 2019 22: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    .
    In the case of the Russian Navy, it is of interest for such operations to equip the Tu-142 with bomb weapons and corresponding sights. Such a measure will allow the fleet in some cases to do on its own. According to media reports, work on equipping the Tu-142 with the Hephaestus high-altitude aiming system is already underway. It remains to wait for the installation of the underwing nodes of the weapon suspension
    .
    Falling bombs? From horizontal flight? For a moving target in the ocean? ... like a crisis of the genre ...
    1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 00: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What's the problem? You will calculate how many ships were sunk by bombs in the ocean.

      Then add to this that we are talking about a tanker, not a nimble frigate. And that he has nothing to shoot back, he can only hope for good luck and all.

      And then, about the fact that the bombs are being thrown in one gulp “brain”, which the stupid FAB-250 M54 in Syria with 5000 meters at a speed of 900 km / h are placed at the target with a CVT of 30 m, and the “sharp” M62 is 20.

      Reduce the height to 4000, drop the bombs in one gulp, in my opinion everything is obvious.
      1. Town Hall 26 September 2019 08: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        What's the problem? You will calculate how many ships were sunk by bombs in the ocean.

        I'll leave it on your conscience)
        1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I understood the hint), but the scale of the Pacific War was just that. The fact that most of the ships did not die from bombs, and the fact that only a few of the battleships died from the bombs, does not cancel the very fact of the possibility of a bomb getting into the ship.

          Especially when it's a tanker.
          1. Town Hall 26 September 2019 16: 05 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            It was bombed, it was like that, but it was dive bombers.
            1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 20: 38 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Persuaded, it will be KAB
              1. Town Hall 26 September 2019 22: 46 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Persuaded, it will be KAB

                Thank you, you are very kind. Only then what for goat button accordion in the form of Hephaestus)
                1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 10: 44 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I don’t put it.
    2. Polinom 26 September 2019 03: 00 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      That’s exactly what people from the Moscow Region think.
      This is a crisis of funds and zhelante cut.
      Send 12 people on an expensive plane, without cover by autonomy, bomb tankers in the window, where there are only 5 aircraft carriers at the Pacific Fleet and bases from Japan to Alaska. Type raiding in the air.
      Already bombed in June 1941.
      1. Town Hall 26 September 2019 07: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Polinom
        That's exactly what people from the MO think

        I hope that people in Moscow will not think of such exotic things anyway. The author writes articles on VO all the same, and not defines the strategy and tactics in the Moscow Region)
        1. Polinom 26 September 2019 08: 57 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          A purely personal opinion.
          The whole fig began in the late 80s and early 90s, when officers began to take officers to the availability of housing in Moscow to the General Staff.
          Then on the "roof", then on the money.
          For example, the son of the Minister of Defense, Igor Yazov, was in our headquarters in combat training and his father categorically did not want to transfer him to Moscow. And he is not a lieutenant at the headquarters, but a melt. structure.
          Then the leaders set an example, the children served and fought as the sons of Stalin, Khrushchev, Mikoyan.
          And then it went off.
          By the way, in Kamrani I met nephew Khrushchev. What nafig Moscow :-)
      2. AML
        AML 26 September 2019 08: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This is not a crisis of funds. A reasonable approach. There are orders of magnitude more non-correctable ammunition than adjustable. Putting heels uncorrectable will be cheaper than using one corrective. Knowers of this war are not only a battle of people, but also a war of production and economics.

        Well, why should the bomber be naked? Or because it’s a Russian bomber in which bears in earflaps with their paws drop bombs while the crew drinks vodka?
        1. Polinom 26 September 2019 09: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Cheaper price. Americans have long been sculpting a device on a bomb and it is becoming adjustable.
          And with the fact that there is nothing based on its range of use. Take Su and A-50 with IL-78.
          However, the topic has long been beaten, it is not interesting to detail ..
          1. AML
            AML 26 September 2019 14: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They sculpt, and the cost of ammunition increases by an order of magnitude. What for a goat such a button accordion?

            Range su35 with PTB 4500+ km. This is quite enough to get to the AUG. The fact that a bomber has a larger combat radius does not mean that it flies only at this distance. This shows that it can hang longer without refueling. And sawing 12k in order to “bomb” with conventional ammunition is definitely inadequate.
            1. Polinom 26 September 2019 16: 04 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Range and radius?
              An order of magnitude? Are you kidding me?
              If he does not fly this distance, why upgrade it?
      3. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I remember a lieutenant colonel who used to say that the ocean is endless, and the ship in it is a speck of dust. I can not vouch for verbatim, but the meaning was this)))

        So, aircraft carriers escorting tankers will not be engaged for sure.
        1. Polinom 26 September 2019 16: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Along the way. In addition, what prevents you from building a route under the cover of air defense and aviation from the states, Hawaii, and the base in Japan?
          Even with refueling in the air, tankers under 400 units have them.
          1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 20: 39 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well then, the planes will not fly anywhere, that's all.
            1. Polinom 27 September 2019 12: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quite right, then the modernization of Tu is another cut.
    3. Sasha_rulevoy 27 September 2019 19: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Town Hall
      Falling bombs? From horizontal flight?


      Probably lighter with feed cannons, as on Watchdog.
  • Rostislav 25 September 2019 23: 01 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Which of the athletes is the most dangerous opponent? Boxer? Karate or weightlifter? Do not guess.
    Runner.
    If he is stronger, you will not run away from him. And if weaker, then FIG catch up.
    I completely agree with the author. Our speed is everything good
    1. Avior 26 September 2019 07: 18 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      This is if the enemy does not have a gun, that is aviation.
      And if there is, run, do not run .....
  • Operator 25 September 2019 23: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Polinom
    Your article

    Which one?
    1. Polinom 26 September 2019 02: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      > https://topwar.ru/158760-skrytnost-podvodnyh-apparatov.html
      1. Operator 26 September 2019 11: 01 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        You can only be congratulated on having knowledge of the stealth of underwater vehicles in excess of those described in this article - where can I find them?
        1. Polinom 26 September 2019 16: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Is everything in the comments, or is it not enough for you? :-)
          1. Operator 26 September 2019 17: 07 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Polinom
            All in the comments

            Clear laughing
  • Disorder 26 September 2019 01: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The goal of all this was ultimately announced earlier - to establish supremacy at sea. Or at least not let the enemy establish it.

    Do you need it?
    1. Polinom 26 September 2019 03: 38 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Unfortunately you have to try.
      Otherwise, the enemy receives strategic initiative and the consequence is the inability to conduct anything but passive defense.
      This, figuratively, is a rival in the corner of the ring.
      1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Given the enemy’s ability to concentrate almost any force in the sea, passive defense will not work.
        1. Polinom 26 September 2019 16: 27 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          When there is no possibility of maneuvering forces and conducting active offensive operations, this is called passive defense.
          Our actions depend on the initiative of the enemy, we are sitting in a trench and waiting for :-) wiy, e
  • Mihail2019 26 September 2019 02: 41 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Mr. Timokhin - there is a feeling that you were kicked out of somewhere, and you are trying to push your "concept" here .. It is useless ?!
    The overlap is not bad - the conclusions are weak! Think narrowly.
  • Polinom 26 September 2019 02: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    What's the problem? You will calculate how many ships were sunk by bombs in the ocean.

    Then add to this that we are talking about a tanker, not a nimble frigate. And that he has nothing to shoot back, he can only hope for good luck and all.

    And then, about the fact that the bombs are being thrown in one gulp “brain”, which the stupid FAB-250 M54 in Syria with 5000 meters at a speed of 900 km / h are placed at the target with a CVT of 30 m, and the “sharp” M62 is 20.

    Reduce the height to 4000-, drop bombs in one gulp, in my opinion everything is obvious.

    Well, Syria is not an indicator, besides the Needle, the Baboons also have nothing.
    Tankers themselves won’t sail. There are 142 NKPB-7s, it’s quite possible to fit in a series of five of them and put 3000 meters with 50 KVO. And if with PPP, maybe less.
    I suppose (I didn’t bomb with 142) with a Be-12 cadet I often put in 6 zeros :-) :-) :-) :-)
  • Mihail2019 26 September 2019 02: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    And yet - the economy wins the war!
    This is a note to Timokhin. And war is the essence of politics, and politics is a concentrated expression of the economy. This is the classic of capitalism said - Marx!
    1. bk0010 27 September 2019 16: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A full-blown nuclear strike will nullify the economy. This is the fundamental difference from WWII.
  • Polinom 26 September 2019 03: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Waited, waited ... who will notice :-)
    Tu-95, there is not X-22, but KMB containers.
    1. Ugolek 26 September 2019 04: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0

      And how were you going to attack ships with ballistic missiles?


      The Chinese have such missiles sharpened precisely for this noble cause laughing
      1. Polinom 26 September 2019 05: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The Chinese, of course, were lucky. :-)
        No one in the world has. And they have.
        Only no one saw them, although many read and heard.,
        As, however, about the North Koreans. World Cup champions.
    2. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 15: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      By the way, yes. I wanted to slap this one without looking into another, similar one.

  • Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 26 September 2019 05: 28 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Interesting thoughts. The USSR fleet was also not designed to fight on the high seas on an equal footing with NATO, therefore missile technologies have advanced so much, in particular in creating effective long-range anti-ship missiles in large numbers and very fast and smart at that time. This is the most economical reasonable and effective method of combating AUG and other compounds. So, let’s say launching 100 missiles of the P-500, P-700 complex according to enemy’s AUG is a very cheap and effective solution.
    1. Polinom 26 September 2019 07: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      One AUG.?
      Release is not a question, the problem is where to get it.
      And then there weren’t so many missiles in one fleet. Just the number was not.
      At the Pacific Fleet, if you collect everything, both aviation and marine, under an aircraft carrier, well, a hundred and a half will be typed. This is me for 1985-90.
      And the aircraft carriers at the Pacific Fleet were then 5. And three more in a month from conservation. Like Midway.
  • SVD68 26 September 2019 07: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    An interesting conclusion follows from the article: shock ships with nuclear power plants must be built. They will make it possible to gain an advantage in speed and raid ability against enemy combat forces.
    But the frigates of the project 22350, even advanced ones, are not very suitable for this. And I liked them so much. :(
    1. Polinom 26 September 2019 16: 22 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      This is true. Or have a developed basing system and many allies.
      In the meantime, the country has succeeded in the motto- "Not a meter border without an enemy"
      1. max702 1 October 2019 23: 52 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Polinom
        In the meantime, the country has succeeded in the motto- "Not a meter border without an enemy"

        That's right .. No money! Live on your ...
        RS: With such "allies" enemies are not necessary ..
  • Avior 26 September 2019 08: 14 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    The author somehow bypasses the obvious advantages of AUG in the battle in the open sea, both in reconnaissance and strike.
    The example from the First World War is interesting, of course, but the fact that Bismarck was deprived of the move is not like airplanes, but actually airplanes, it is closer to reality.
    No matter how the KUG is disguised in any stream, in wartime at least 2 radars for KUG-navigation and air review will be included. Otherwise, you risk finding out that they are attacking you after hearing explosions of anti-ship missiles on the ship.
    This is enough to head that flying at a distance of 450 km that Hokai, that Groler, that coastal E3, unambiguously identified the type of ships and the location of the KUG in any stream.
    I draw your attention - the RTR satellite is not enough for this, for the time of its flight, and it is known up to a second, the radiation sources can be turned off, the electronic warfare can also be a fake, like a false target, therefore additional reconnaissance of the target is an indispensable element, and the capabilities of the AAG are incomparably superior any KUG. But the AUG with eyes and ears may well have Hokai flying to the side, the ships themselves can go in radio silence mode.
    After that, Hokai will hang on the radio horizon, and it will be very difficult to hide.
    As for speed, according to the results of Nimitz’s tests, he is able to make at least about a thousand sorties, 4 sorties a day in 250 days.
    That is, while you come off 220 km from the AUG, raids of 25 aircraft will be every two hours.
    How much do you think is enough air defense?
    If you count 18 harpoons and 2 harms on the F-2, then without a big risk for yourself from an air raid from two directions, to disorganize your electronic warfare ships, you can get 500 harpoons and 500 harms covered by the Grolers at that time.
    Knowing exactly the location of the KUG, the aircraft will approach below the horizon line, launch Harpoons from 100 kilometers, get closer, make a hill 60-70 kilometers away, launch harmas, and leave again under the radio horizon with minimal risk of air defense. And so every two hours, 100 missiles in a salvo every time.
    After the first raids, there will inevitably be some hits, the air defense will weaken, someone will lose their course or reduce it.
    Then it will only get worse.
    On coastal aircraft beyond the limits of coastal fighter aviation, there are also very few chances, with radars on, they will be detected and shot down long before they approach the AUG.
    The capabilities of the KMG to attack the enemy with long-range anti-ship missiles are severely limited by the capabilities of additional reconnaissance, especially if ship detachments operate in the traffic of civilian ships and hide behind them.
    All this I write to the fact that comparing the capabilities of aircraft and ships on the high seas outside coastal fighter aircraft in our time is pointless.
    If someone plans to conduct military operations against the enemy with aviation without their own, then his chances are close to zero. (But theoretically, of course, there is, like the hero of a famous film that an aircraft carrier can sink to the bottom, if you're lucky, of course smile ).
    No need to reinvent the wheel - if military operations are planned outside the cover of coastal fighter aircraft, then having your own aviation is a must.
    It seems that the MO also understands this, there have been reports of the beginning of the development of VTOL and UDC.
    As for starters, it’s completely fine.
    1. Town Hall 26 September 2019 08: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      The author somehow circumvents the obvious

      Quote: Avior
      That is, while you come off 220 km from AUG

      How many Russian ships do you know that can give you 5 knots of travel more than Nimitz for which they have 30?
      1. Avior 26 September 2019 08: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This, of course, is similar to the Nimitz escort, I just saw it as a call to build faster ships ....
    2. Polinom 26 September 2019 09: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      ...... there were reports of the beginning of the development of VTOL and UDC .......
      Cheto they are not in a hurry :-)
    3. SVD68 26 September 2019 09: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      On this issue, the article noted two points:
      1) there are targets without an aircraft carrier;
      2) there is non-flying weather.
      1. Avior 26 September 2019 11: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes.
        1. There are. But all small-scale fleets acquire, if not an aircraft carrier, then UDC.
        2. If you're lucky. But luck you can’t build the doctrine of application
    4. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 16: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is a question of who will replay whom. KUG and AUG do not start from one point in the race. Conventionally, the AUG enters from Pril Harbor, the AUG enters through the Malay Strait. As an option.

      The Kug commander can purposefully shine in all directions of the radar and keep the DRLO helicopter “on the ceiling” to substitute for the enemy’s RER, and then:

      - Substitute BECs with inflatable reflectors instead of ships for the estimated time of impact, and by ships block possible aviation exits from the attack;
      - provoke AUG to advance in its direction for a strike and substitute it for a strike of submarines from under the water;
      - Substitute part of the ships under attack, and others catch up with the AOG at the stage of aircraft return, when the aircraft carrier is tied to a strictly defined course, so as not to lose aircraft
      -There are other options. See, for example, Woodward in the Persian Gulf.

      In the end, you can only bring down the AUG without getting involved in the battle precisely with it. Again, leave aside the submarine, which will wait for the supply tanker.

      but the fact that Bismarck was deprived of the move, not just airplanes, but actually airplanes, is closer to reality.


      It was only at first that Lutens highlighted the position of the jabbering on the air.

      If someone plans to conduct military operations against the enemy with aviation without their own, then his chances are close to zero.


      It's a pity Hank Mastin will not read it))))

      No need to reinvent the wheel - if military operations are planned outside the cover of coastal fighter aircraft, then having your own aviation is a must.


      It will be necessary to somehow write about the aircraft carrier air defense))))
      1. Avior 26 September 2019 19: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The Kug commander can purposefully shine in all directions of the radar and keep the DRLO helicopter “on the ceiling” to substitute for the enemy’s RER, and then:

        And then the enemy will hang the hokey on the radio horizon, and no traps will help with constant observation.
        About Woodward is from the category of curiosities.
        Not to mention the fact that these were not even exercises, but studies.
        In real life, the Hussein fleet was melt and that's it.
        And Henry Mastin in the fighting if he repeated what he depicted in the exercises, then he just needed to be kicked out without a pension, and if his Sheffield experience had not taught that the radar in a real combat situation should be turned on, otherwise you will learn about the attack, when Exocet gets on board.
        Do not confuse the teachings with the real war - the scenarios are played out on the teachings.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 20: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0

          And Henry Mastin in the fighting if he repeated what he depicted in the exercises, then he would just have to be kicked out without retirement, and if his Sheffield experience had not taught that the radar in a real combat situation should be turned on


          Well, in general, Americans very widely practice hiking with the radar turned off, with orientation on passive means, networks, etc.


          Currently, the capabilities of the US Navy ships to operate in a completely passive mode, receiving tactical information from other sources, are significantly improved. All ships and planes are united in a single network that allows the exchange of tactical information. If someone in the Navy or in the cosmic forces sees a target, everyone else sees it. With proper training and competence, a warship can sail for all six months (the duration of a standard campaign - approx. Translation), not including sensors and communications, and only listening to what others transmit.


          They probably know something))
          1. Avior 26 September 2019 22: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They know that an aircraft carrier does not act against them against aviation.
            Sailing and fighting is not the same all the same ....
            1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 10: 45 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Against them, then MRA acted. In general, hiding and cheating is the only thing that can save a ship or ships from a planned attack from the air.
      2. Nemchinov Vl 27 September 2019 21: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        This is a question of who will replay whom. KUG and AUG do not start from one point in the race.
        I apologize, but it seems to me that for today, in the Russian Federation there is simply nothing to create a normal, full-fledged IBM, from at least 5 or 7 pennants, on none of the fleets, it is possible only with a few exceptions of the Northern Fleet, and even that unlikely ...?!
  • 3danimal 26 September 2019 08: 52 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Is the author going to sail away from the wing at a speed of 35 knots? It will take a significantly more powerful power plant (30-40%), but what does all this give?
    Again, who has the largest fleet of tankers?
    In a number of exercises, this (wing refueling) is practiced.
    Beat first ... The number of allies / neutrals, that is, the total strength of the opponent, may depend on this. And the price of surrender, by the way.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 20: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Is the author going to sail away from the wing at the speed of 35 knots?


      From the carrier of the wing. Why not?

      It will take a significantly more powerful power plant (at 30-40%), but what does all this give?


      Speed. It, by the way, can be partially "gained" not due to a blunt increase in power, but due to contours, for example. It is necessary to repeat the 1164 level, and on a smaller ship.

      Again, who has the largest fleet of tankers?
      In a number of exercises, this (wing refueling) is practiced.


      I know. But there are a lot of nuances - tankers are one of the most scarce aircraft, and not all are equipped with a hose-cone system for the Navy and MP. There are few such aircraft.

      And most importantly - you should not reduce everything to a war with the United States.

      Beat first ... The number of allies / neutrals, that is, the total strength of the opponent, may depend on this. And the price of surrender, by the way.


      Yes, in this world in bulk lovers of war with the Russian Federation until its unconditional surrender.

      So we should not be underestimated. This is our bad fleet. But everything does not boil down to the fleet, with the notorious opportunities for horizontal escalation, Russia has more or less order.
      Well and again - not everything comes down to the USA.
      1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 21: 20 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        The Air Force is also not a rapture (compared to the US).
        About not to reduce everything to the USA: I agree. But the real contender for territorial integrity, which has enormous forces, an economy and a regime ready to “spend” a large population, is China.
        1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 10: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Not long ago. Honestly, I don’t understand the joke with the Chinese threat - they have been fencing off the north for thousands of years with walls. All that they need here they either can buy or cannot take by any force.
          They have money.
          1. 3danimal 27 September 2019 13: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Thousands of years in the past do not matter. I can recall that their empire, which was stuck in the Middle Ages, was brought to its knees in the 19th century by British expeditionary forces. A number of Chinese generals even attracted sorcerers))
            Now this is a different state, but they remember how RI, after losing to the British, twisted their arms and took most of the modern Far East. They do not need to conquer back now. They are de facto mastering these territories.
  • 3danimal 26 September 2019 08: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Examples of artillery cruisers from the PMV are not at all suitable for modern realities. There was no anti-ship missiles, there was no naval aviation.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 September 2019 20: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They are quite suitable - the ranges of detection and defeat have grown comparable. The latter is even bigger.

      Naval aviation was in World War II. Even with radar and guided weapons.
      1. 3danimal 26 September 2019 21: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But you give an example from the PMV. As for the Second: how would it go at a speed of, say, 32 Yamato knots from under the impact of air wings?
        An important point: the Russian fleet does not really need access to the ocean (IMHO).
        Demonstration of the flag, perhaps. And the money for the "toys" is not a lot. We need to boost the economy, for starters.
        1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 10: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yamato should not have been put under attack. He would not have left the wing on the 32 nodes, but until the moment when the wing could be raised to strike, speed would have been quite useful to him.

          An important point: the Russian fleet does not really need access to the ocean (IMHO).


          The inter-theater maneuver can only be performed across the ocean. The transition from Sevastopol to Vladivostok is possible only across the ocean.
          1. 3danimal 27 September 2019 13: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            He was spotted by scouts, there was no chance to leave.
            We must remove the installation for a possible confrontation with the fleets of the NATO countries and Japan.
            1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 14: 34 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yamato did not spot the scouts, he was sent one way to be shot to distract American aircraft and facilitate a massive attack by kamikaze.
              And even in this case, he and the escort had to throw air groups from eleven aircraft carriers - a little less than 290 aircraft.

              Today, this is basically impossible.
              1. 3danimal 27 September 2019 16: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Impossible to serious conflict or change of installation on it?
                1. timokhin-aa 27 September 2019 19: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  It is impossible to throw 11 aircraft carriers to solve a private secondary problem. There simply aren't that many.

                  No one today will be able to repeat TF38 / 58, and 124 light and escort aircraft carrier, too, can not be built in our time.
  • EvilLion 26 September 2019 10: 01 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    but Russia, with its geographical location, economy and vulnerabilities, should be considered in potential wars at sea as the weakest side.


    What's the news? In the Crimean War, for example, the fleet sank valiantly, as soon as the British and the French came instead of the crooked-armed Turks, who were beaten everywhere and everywhere.

    Another thing is that the appearance of aircraft made the ships vulnerable, and multi-purpose aircraft like Su-35 with anti-ship missiles on board and a combat radius with such suspensions of kilometers in 1000 are practically useless. Some references to the “hit-and-run” of the WWII times are not relevant here, even coastal anti-ship systems will reach such distances that the speed in 30 nodes does not help to get out of their impact in an acceptable time.

    Let us ask a question: what if the speed of the COG at the transition is always and in all cases higher than the speed of the ACG? For example, on 5 nodes? These five nodes mean an increase in the gap between KUG and AUG by 220 kilometers every day - almost half of the combat radius F / A-18 loaded in the shock version and without hanging tanks. And in a day - almost a full radius.


    If you think in the framework of the Soviet maritime insanity, when the fleet is needed not for solving clear tasks, but for PvP with American aircraft carriers at every point in the oceans, then the logic is impeccable. If you come practically, then running in horror from the KUG aircraft carriers, it is useless a little less, a little completely. No aircraft carrier will chase after it, it will lock itself somewhere to Vladivostok, and when after that there will be only one flaw from all military-industrial facilities there, you will have only one question, why the hell did you build this KUG, and not 10 multi-role fighter squadrons.

    One could lose a million soldiers or two in battle. But then new reservists were called up, received a set of cheap uniforms, a duffel bag, boots with windings and a rifle, and that's it - the losses were recovered


    Let's say frankly, in December, on the 1941 counter-offensive near Moscow there were people armed with three-rulers redundant at the beginning of the Second World War, which, due to the replacement with the SVT, were handed over to the warehouses and 76 mm guns of the time of the same king, which also accumulated 200% of the state and junk stockpiled. Replenishing people and the rifle, in principle, it is possible, replenishing tanks even during the WWII was already unrealistic; in fact, the Soviet Union put more than one hundred thousand soldiers while holding the territory from which the factories were evacuated in the 41, it would be simply unrealistic for a smaller country. And then, in the 1942 year, Soviet tank troops existed only in the form of tank brigades, and there was no talk of any mechanized corps.