Military Review

We are building a fleet. Wrong ideas, wrong concepts

177
In naval affairs, there are a number of ideas, concepts, and theories that have so long been firmly entrenched in the minds of people that they are taken for granted, almost axioms that require neither explanation nor proof. But in fact, these are mistakes that can be very expensive if, starting from them, important decisions begin to be made. It is necessary to disassemble them and exclude them from the set of rules that our country should be guided by in naval construction.


We are building a fleet. Wrong ideas, wrong concepts

The latest nuclear bombs on an American aircraft carrier. But to return not for long


1. Nuclear weapons as insurance against attacks and the “equalizer of chances”


It has been present in the domestic military theory for a long time, and even now the theory of the so-called nuclear de-escalation is mentioned. In short, its meaning is that, if it is impossible to get out of a non-nuclear war without defeat, Russia may resort to a one-time limited use of nuclear weaponsto "besiege" the attacker and persuade him to end the hostilities. Domestic military experts considered various options for such an application - from striking empty areas at sea for demonstration purposes, to a limited nuclear strike against non-nuclear allies of a nuclear aggressor.

In relation to a war at sea, one of the possible varieties of such actions is the delivery of limited nuclear strikes against naval groups of the enemy.

However, the following must be understood. The use of nuclear weapons entails a lot of negative consequences even without taking into account the enemy’s retaliatory moves. Among them:

a) undermining the reputation of the attacker and his political positions in the world, and undermining a very serious one, comparable in consequences to a lost war;

b) the need to escalate is even higher if the adversary against whom nuclear weapons are used does not surrender. Escalation will be impossible without destroying the enemy’s civilian population, and in this case, unrequited. Subsequently, a serious moral crisis in society in the future is possible up to the appearance of a “guilty complex” similar to that which some Europeans experience in relation to representatives of peoples once colonized by Europeans;

at) an adversary struck by a nuclear strike may consider himself entitled to resort to such methods of warfare that he would not have resorted to otherwise. For example, the use of combat strains in the territory of an attacker, or the large-scale equipping of terrorist groups with such weapons as MANPADS; significant sponsorship, support and use of terrorism, various forms of attacks on nuclear facilities, and so on. You need to understand the important thing: other cultures have their own ideas about the permissible and unacceptable, and they do not coincide with ours. The concepts of unacceptable and acceptable damage also differ. Other people think differently from us. It seems to them logical and self-evident is not the same as to us and not the same as to us.

All of the above is true for a nuclear strike on a non-nuclear country. If the attacked enemy also has nuclear weapons, then the situation changes radically. Having suffered losses from nuclear weapons, the adversary may well have resorted to a retaliatory nuclear strike. Moreover, for many domestic theorists it is not obvious - not necessarily a “symmetrical" blow.


B-57 and B-61 nuclear bombs on the aircraft carrier America, 1991 year, Persian Gulf. If the Iraqis used WMD against the coalition forces, they might not like the answer. We must not forget about such opportunities of the Americans, they did not disappear


The US Maritime Strategy in the 80's stated verbatim that in response to the use of nuclear weapons by the USSR against US forces at sea, a retaliatory US nuclear strike would not necessarily be limited to the sea. Thus, the Americans, after the first use of nuclear weapons against their ships, quite seriously considered themselves entitled to retaliate against nuclear weapons on Soviet territory.

Now the situation has not changed. American guidance documents indicate that the ideas of Russian theorists about the "stopping" effect of the use of nuclear weapons are wrong. The generally accepted opinion is that in response to the limited use of nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies, the United States must use its nuclear weapons against the Russian Federation, and, unlike us, the Americans do not see the difference between hitting ships where there is only military personnel, and a blow to ground objects, where there are civilians. For them it is the same.

Thus, the likelihood of a retaliatory nuclear strike against attempts at "nuclear de-escalation" against the Navy of a nuclear country with the highest (in the case of the USA, with an 100%) probability will lead to a retaliatory nuclear strike, moreover, on the territory of the Russian Federation, with high accompanying losses among the civilian population .

Does this mean that nuclear weapons are not applicable specifically as weapons, and not as a means of deterrence? No, that doesn’t mean, but you need to be aware of the price of its use and be prepared to pay it. The use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear adversary, instead of surrendering it, can cause an asymmetric escalation of the conflict with the simultaneous bringing of the Russian Federation to the need to use nuclear weapons already on the territory of the enemy, destroying, including its population. Such a victory may be worse than defeat.

In the case of a strike against an adversary with a nuclear weapon, there will be absolutely no de-escalation, but there will be a nuclear war, possibly limited at first, which will have to be fought, with all the ensuing consequences and risks.

It should also be understood that nuclear weapons alone do not stop both nuclear and non-nuclear countries from attacking. In 1950, non-nuclear China attacked UN troops (count the United States and its allies) in Korea; American nuclear weapons did not deter it. In 1969, the nuclear year already at that time, China attacked the nuclear USSR at the border, and more than once. In 1982, non-nuclear Argentina attacked nuclear Great Britain and seized its overseas possession - the Falkland Islands. In 2008, non-nuclear Georgia attacked Russian troops in South Ossetia. The presence of nuclear weapons in Russia did not become a deterrent.

Scaring the enemy with nuclear bombs may not work. You need to consider this in your planning.

2. "Small" fleet without a "large"


Theory of "Small fleet"Exists for more than a hundred years and its meaning boils down to the following: it is theoretically possible to create such ships that, being small and inexpensive, can nevertheless easily destroy large and powerful enemy ships, or wage war on their communications due to superiority in weapons or stealth. Initially, such destroyers were torpedo boats, then torpedo boats and submarines, then they were also missile boats or various types of small missile corvettes (like Soviet or Russian RTOs, for example).

This theory has never been fully confirmed in practice, but it has failed many times. There are some successful episodes of the use of small ships armed with torpedoes in the 19th century, when they caused significant damage to large warships, as well as examples from the 20th century - the destruction of the Israeli Navy destroyer Eilat by Arab missile boats in 1967 and the successful use of Indian missile boats against Pakistan in 1971 year.

All these small piece examples are united by one thing - they took place when the weapons on the small ship and the large ship struck by it belonged technologically to different eras. In the future, the “balance” was leveled and after that the small ships lost all chances to cause large ships any damage, acting independently. This was the case, for example, during the operations of the Iranian Navy and Air Force against the Iraqi fleet, this was the case in the operations of the US Navy against the Libyan Navy in 1986 and against the Iranian Navy in 1988 (see the article “The harmful myth of the mosquito fleet”). "Small fleets" were destroyed at best within hours, but sometimes within minutes.


"Sahand" in the Iranian Navy was listed as a frigate, but in terms of its displacement it is very close to our RTOs, and also in air defense



And this is the final - a collision with a full-fledged fleet was the last thing that happened with this ship. "Sahand" burns out after being hit by carrier-based attack aircraft. By that time he was the second small ship destroyed by the URO of the Iranian Navy


It was also easy and lossless that the entire Iraqi fleet was destroyed by the Allies in the 1991 year, and the US superiority in the air here was of indirect importance, since the substantial and most combat-ready part of Iraq’s warships was destroyed with a handful of British helicopters launched from full-fledged warships (see article "Air fighters over the ocean waves. On the role of helicopters in the war at sea") The large fleet beat the small one, as it had repeatedly before.

A small fleet operating independently ALWAYS turned out to be helpless against a normal fleet, and its fate was always very sad.

Does this mean that “light” forces at sea are not needed at all and never? No, it doesn’t, but it’s a “niche” tool. Worth remembering:

Light forces can successfully carry out their combat missions only when they are supported by "heavy" and ensure their combat stability.

Examples: Togo destroyers, with which the latter attacked the Russian fleet. They did not act on their own. American submarines in the Pacific War, the success of which was ensured by surface forces of the US Navy, chained to themselves everything that the imperial fleet of Japan had and did not allow to allocate any resources for the creation of anti-submarine forces.

Counterexamples, too, are not few - Soviet and American torpedo boats of World War II, which did not sink almost anything, both lost German submarine wars. Independently operating "light" forces, even though submarine, even surface, though they could inflict some losses on the enemy, in the case of German submarines - big losses, but in general they could never influence the course of the war.

In general, before the “young school” distorted the development of the Soviet fleet in the 30's, this understanding was present in our fleet. So, in the thirties, the battleship in the Soviet navy was seen as a means of giving combat stability to light forces. Similar provisions were in Soviet regulations after the war, and light cruisers of the 68bis project even provided facilities and communications for the command post of torpedo boats.

Moreover, the thesis that the main purpose of the existence of a linear fleet is to ensure the actions of cruisers and light forces was expressed by Julian Corbett in his famous book.

Such use of light forces can be quite effective. So, an MRC attacking an enemy convoy is powerless and against aviation, and against submarines, but if he attacks from an order as part of one or several BODs and a cruiser, then his combat stability and ability to fight become completely different.

Or another example: small anti-submarine ships may well displace an enemy atomic submarine from a given area, and simply destroy an atomic submarine (and they could get an atomic one in theory if they were lucky), but against a massive strike from CPUG carrier-based aircraft from four to five such ships look very pale (let’s leave the question of successful evasion of the CPG from the strike “outside the brackets”).

But everything changes if the ship search and strike group (KPUG) consisting of them relies on a pair of frigates with powerful air defense systems - then the success of the air raid becomes a question, and in any case, the planes cannot completely destroy the ship group, although the losses remain quite probable. The effectiveness of the anti-submarine actions of the KPUG also increases significantly, firstly because frigates have anti-submarine helicopters, and secondly because they have powerful sonar systems (in theory, at least, they should be).

From this, the truth follows a consequence that lovers of small ships will not like - large ships can replace them if their number allows them to carry out a combat mission. Or, figuratively speaking, a fleet of "light" and "heavy" forces can fight very well, a fleet of only "heavy" forces can also fight, but it is not always optimal and has a smaller strength, and a fleet of only "light" forces really can’t. The "small" fleet, separately from the "large" fleet, is useless and no matter how much money is lacking, it is impossible to slip from the economy to the construction of only small ships. Or they can perform well only one combat mission, for example, cover submarines leaving the bases (in the case of the IPC), and that’s all. But so wars are not won. All of the above does not eliminate the need to work on such small ships as an anti-submarine corvette or a minesweeper-seeker.

3. "Umbrella air defense"


There is an opinion, and many military professionals adhere to it, that it is possible, relying on coastal airfields, to create such an air defense system of the coastal zone in which ships could operate, being relatively safe from enemy air attack means. Naturally, such a zone seems to be coastal, “under the coast”.

It’s worth noting right away: Russian military science sees this defense system exclusively as a combination of radar surveillance equipment (preferably AWACS) and fighter aircraft. This is understandable and natural, because ground-based air defense systems will not have enough range, even if you put them on the edge of the water (which in itself will never happen).

What is the depth of such “aircraft” air defense from the point of view of domestic theorists?

As far back as 1948, during the work to determine the shape of future Soviet aircraft carriers (these ships were not destined to appear), a commission led by Rear Admiral V.F. Chernyshova determined that without protection from carrier-based fighter aircraft, surface warships will be able to operate no further than 300 kilometers from the coast. This was not true for all possible situations, but for a situation where the enemy is standing at the gates and has carrier-based aviation - more or less correct.

Then the commission operated on the fresh experience of World War II, mainly the American one, and on the tactical and technical characteristics of airplanes and aviation weapons of that time.

At the end of the 80's, the numbers were already voiced different. So, in the 1992 year in the “Marine Collection” an article was published by the rear-admiral F. Matveychuk, the retired vice-admiral V. Babi and the captain of the 1 rank V. Potvorov “Aircraft-carrying vehicles - an element of a balanced fleet”, where Air defense capabilities built around coast-based fighters were characterized as follows:

“Sometimes an opinion is expressed about the possibility of solving the tasks of fighter cover for the fleet by aviation, based on ground airfields. ... As calculations show, taking into account the possible extension of the aircraft radar patrol and guidance (RLDN), the fighter cover zone will actually be 150-250 km (from the standby position at the airport). At the same time, the enemy radar detection zone should be 550-700 km for a squadron or aviation regiment. Further increase in the area of ​​radar detection is almost impossible. "


Remember these numbers. If we have a detection range of attacking aircraft in 550-700 kilometers, then 150-250 km will be the distance from the base airfield, on which aviation can protect ships from air strikes.

It’s worth roughly counting. The 2 airborne regiment is ready (pilots in the barracks, planes are ready for immediate take-off, the command and control station is ready to start take-off operations immediately), when taking off, one plane should completely fly into the air, be in combat formation and go on the right course more than an hour from the receipt of the order. In case of take-off aircraft in pairs - in the area of ​​40 minutes. Then you need to go to the point where you want to intercept the enemy. Since aviation must thwart an attack on surface ships, it is necessary to prevent the enemy from reaching the line of launch of his missiles.

Suppose that there is a case where the airfield, the guarded naval group, and the adversary are on the same line. According to experience, the Americans (let’s take them as a “model” enemy) use the Harpoon anti-ship missiles not at their maximum range, but from about 30-40 kilometers, so if they are intercepted at 60 kilometers from the target, then the attack can be considered frustrated. and the task of the fighters completed. Let’s take into account that the launch range of air-to-air missiles, which ensures reliable destruction of targets covered by interference and evading targets, is, for example, 50 kilometers, which ultimately requires them to be in 160-260 kilometers from the airfield.

If we assume an extension at a speed of 1000 km / h, then in the fighter you need will be about 9 — 16 minutes. Together with 40 minutes for an alarm, collecting in the air and entering the course - 49-56 minutes.

How much will the enemy fly over that time, which was discovered at 700 kilometers from the ship’s group? The enemy is hung up with offensive weapons (RCC) and overhead fuel tanks, so his speed is lower, for example, let 740 km / h. Then he will fly the designated 700 kilometers in almost the same time - 57 minutes. And if he can give 800 km / h? Then for 53. But even the MiG-21 could fly near the ground at a speed of 930 km / h with full load in the shock version, and the Su-17 generally came out on the ground to supersonic with six units of ASP on the suspension nodes.

And if the radar field has a depth of 600 kilometers?

And the most important question: what if it's not an ocean theater? If we are not talking about a strike from the US carrier-based aircraft from somewhere hiding from an aircraft carrier hiding in the far sea zone, but about a strike by Polish fighter-bombers in the Baltic? Take-off from Szczecin, leaving northwest of Bornholm, turning around the island as a cover, jerking east, attacking targets near the Kaliningrad enclave, at sea, and leaving home west - this is quite real. And then the distance at which even the AWACS aircraft can accurately identify the “contact” as a threat is less than 500 kilometers.

Anyone can play with numbers. Increase the speed with which fighters advance to defend the ships, increase or decrease the speed with which the attacker goes on the attack, realistically change the detection range of the attacker ... the conclusion will be clear - very often, or even always, fighters from the shore will be late to repulse the blow even by a short distance . Even when the ships are almost under the coast - in 100-150 kilometers.

You can, of course, not wait for the entire air regiment to take off, but throw squadrons from different aerodromes into battle - if you can synchronize their arrival at the battlefield, but remember that the enemy, who owns the initiative, will not enter anything into the battle by squadrons, he will lift a large air group to provide both a powerful blow and a strong escort. And the introduction of fighters into battle along squadrons will simply lead to their execution in the sky by a numerically superior enemy.

You can send fighters into a counterattack at supersonic sound, and try to be at the right line of missile launch faster than the enemy, but this method has a lot of limitations - you need to have enough fuel for air combat and return later, including possible separation from the enemy also in supersonic band there should be no buildings or people flying over the earth, a group supersonic flight is more complicated than a single flight and pilots should be ready for this, including beginners, and so on - in general, this is not always possible. More often than not. But the attacker over the sea has basically no these problems (minus the ability of pilots to fly like that).

No "air defense umbrella" (forgive me people in uniform for such a "term") does not exist in principle. Even near the coast. Fighters can sometimes protect ships, and sometimes not, and this cannot be changed in any way. During the Falkland War, the British Harriers were late to repel an attack on surface ships, barraging in the air ten kilometers from them and receiving an alert about the attack and information about the location, course and speed of the enemy. In advance.


It is symbolic that the downed Skyhawk has already been freed from bombs, but not from hanging tanks. So the bombs were dropped on a British ship, and only then it was shot down. The artist himself, without knowing it, showed everything without embellishment


During the Cold War, the Americans, when planning air defense of carrier groups and formations, proceeded from the fact that interceptors on duty in the air would be able to disorganize the enemy’s attack, shoot down some (not large) part of his planes, “break” his battle formation and, as a result, to increase the scope of the missile salvo, after which the enemy would continue their attack and the URO ships would be sorted out with him and his missiles, and the interceptors urgently raised at the time of the attack would catch up with the Tupolevs who had survived the missiles fire naval air defense system.

"Air defense umbrella" does not exist, attackers are usually faster. This is how this world really works.

Which of these should be concluded?

The conclusion is simple: ships must be able to fight against airplanes themselves. That's all. The key to the successful survival of surface ships in the fight against aviation is competent tactics - the commander of the ship’s group must know the tactics of strike aircraft, understand the limitations that it has, be able to mislead the enemy’s reconnaissance regarding the strength, course and composition of forces entrusted to it, conduct ships in this way, so that an accurate and timely determination of their location by the enemy would not be possible, fight air reconnaissance, be able to organize the battle of ships against strike aircraft and control it process, to be able to fulfill the gap between tracking, timely withdraw ships from the zone of potentially possible air strikes, use decoys, creating a false warrant, and to entice him enemy aircraft, to organize a "missile ambush."

It is difficult, but it is not impossible.

The command of the fleet’s forces in the theater of operations, in turn, must conduct intensive misinformation of the enemy, provide subordinate units, formations and ships with all the necessary reconnaissance information, ensure that fighter aircraft are used in the interests of naval groups, and not so much from the “readiness number 2” at the airfield as from standby positions in the air. This means that there will be few interceptors, but at least they will be on time. DRLO aircraft are urgently needed.

The ships themselves must either have powerful radar systems and air defense systems. If, for economic reasons, it is impossible to build ships with powerful air defense (for example, this is a massive small corvette), then they must carry out their combat missions together with “normal warships. There will be no one else to defend them.

In any case, there will be no other way out. Or so, or nothing.

4. Navy on the defensive


The mentality of the Russian people, like most of the peoples living in Russia, is defensive. We are ready to open the trench and hold it until death, without retreating under any circumstances. Unfortunately, this mental feature does not work at sea as it does on land. The “principle of the shark” works at sea - to drive at maximum speed and grab everyone’s teeth in a row, tearing piece by piece. Run away, if necessary, and then come back again and attack, attack, attack. You still can’t dig a trench in the sea, the water is flowing.

Alas, not all of us are psychologically capable of taking such an approach, and historically, this was a problem for the fleet as well. We lack the aggression inherent in the same Americans, and together with the “defense” consciousness this gives rise to a specific approach to war at sea, and, alas, it does not work.

During the Crimean War, the command of the Black Sea Fleet did not think of a better use of ships than to flood them and use them as an obstacle for enemy ships, and send the crews to the infantry. I must say that wars are not won that way in principle, they are only lost. There is a ship - attack it on the enemy, there are no other options.

During the Russo-Japanese War, the 1 Pacific Squadron made just a few weak attempts to inflict serious losses on the Japanese, of which the 1 mining of May (14 in modern style) of the 1904 of the year, carried out by the Amur mine transport, was successful the next day. led to the death of two Japanese battleships. Two more such successes would lead to the defeat of Japan in the war. But they were not, and they were not because none of the Port Arthur squadron tried to aggressively "get" the enemy. “Cupid,” by the way, was hiding in the fog during mining, and had a range sufficient to break into Vladivostok, and it could go a significant part of the way at a good speed. But the ship returned to the fortress, had no more active use and died along with the entire Port Arthur squadron.


Perhaps the most successful warship of the Russian fleet is the Amur mine transport



And - its end. "Defense" consciousness failed


Analyzing the actions of the 1-th Pacific Squadron of the Russian Imperial Fleet, Mahan saw in them the whole concept of a "serf fleet", that is, a fleet holding an important fortress together with the army, and violently criticized it. Interestingly, he called the idea of ​​a “serf fleet” with the words “definitely Russian”, which well reflects his view of the actions of our sailors and our mentality. Certainly, the Russian idea of ​​a fleet passively defending itself in a fortress was never fixed in any documents, moreover, if it was formalized, there was hardly anyone in the fleet who could sincerely support it, but in fact the fleet was slipping into this very mode of action , and more than once.

This should not be allowed more.

In the naval guidance documents there are requirements to keep the initiative, attack the enemy and the like, but you must always remember that in addition to the instructions and charters, we still have a national mentality and, speaking of the current moment, there is also an army command to which the fleet is subordinate and which “ sees the world in his own way. " As a result, the bet on "defense of its shores" in the event of a real military conflict may again prevail, with the result already achieved more than once - defeat.

It must be clearly understood that the fleet cannot defend itself, it can only attack. And in conditions of numerical superiority of the enemy, too. Special operations such as defensive mining are exceptions and very “weak”. It is offensive actions, and not “reactive” ones, which are a reaction to the enemy’s activity, but independent ones, which are the key to the successful use of the fleet. They can be direct when battle is imposed on enemy ships, or they can be indirect when raids are carried out against its weakly protected bases and ships of the rear, but this should be offensive.

If the fleet’s base is blocked, as Port Arthur used to be, the answer is ONLY a breakthrough and withdrawal of warships from it, which then, as soon as possible, should be thrown into the offensive against the enemy’s fleet. The fleet cannot “defend its positions,” cannot and should not be in the attacked bases along with units of ground and coastal troops.

The ban on passive "defensive" actions of surface and submarine forces should be explicitly written down in all the governing documents, manuals and the like, despite the separate requirements for "maintaining a favorable operational regime" and establishing sea supremacy in a particular area.

5. Neutrals


Among military theorists and practitioners, there is a certain underestimation of the importance of actions to prevent harm to third parties not participating in the conflict. It is believed that the war will begin and nobody will pay attention to such “trifles”, and civil shipping and fishing will quickly disappear.

Let's figure it out.

A distinctive feature of the anti-ship missile is the primitive algorithm of its GOS. A missile can “take” its GOS or the first target that hit the detection sector, or choose from several the target with the largest EPR, depending on the algorithm. More complex principles of target selection, data exchange in a group of missiles and other innovations in the Navy were, but in the end did not take root, although something even stood in service. So everything remains simple.

But what will happen if a cruise liner escapes from the area of ​​the outbreak of hostilities in a panic on the path of a missile launched at its maximum range, the crew of which, trying to hide, turned off even the navigation radars in fear? Could this be?

Of course, a cruise ship is a form of dramatization of the issue, although it may be. A runaway bulk carrier or a runaway tanker is more likely to be in its place. And that is the problem.

Non-military shipping and fishing did not disappear in the First or Second World Wars. For many societies, this is a matter of survival and people from these societies will go to sea in absolutely any situation.

At present, when assessing the effectiveness of fleet offensive weapons and tactics, the possibility of collateral damage is not taken into account - damage that was not planned and is not desirable. There is nothing new in causing collateral damage during hostilities, but the war at sea as usual has its own specifics - at sea, collateral damage can very easily be done to neutral countries.

This is especially easy with the massive use of anti-ship missiles in areas of heavy shipping or fishing.

RCC can be eliminated by passive interference. In this case, it will go away from the ship to the LOC - a false cloud of targets, and since the cloud is easily permeable, it will slip through it. Further, its lost target, the seeker, will again begin to look for something radio-contrast. It could very well be a neutral ship.

RCC can simply by inertia "slip" a ship with a low silhouette. So the Americans “missed” by shooting at a damaged Iranian corvette during Operation Mantis. And then she will again begin to search for the goal. And again, it could be a neutral ship.

The Gulf Americans realized this very well. The Praying Mantis was the last operation where American ships operating in the Persian Gulf in conditions of intensive shipping used the Harpoon anti-ship missile. According to the analysis of the course of the operation, especially the understanding of how many false “contacts” there were, fire on which would lead to defeat of friendly or neutral targets, the Americans established the requirement to identify the target visually (!) Before using weapons against it. Otherwise, you could mistakenly send a missile, for example, to a Soviet destroyer. With all that it implies. So, the main missile for naval combat in those days was the anti-aircraft Standard SM-1. In the future, anti-ship missiles generally “left” the American destroyers, and new ships were built without them.

В stories there are examples of how attacks on neutral ships end. The sinking of 7 on May 1915 by the German submarine U-20 of the Luzitania steamboat flying the American flag was the first of a series of German steps that prepared US public opinion for entry into the First World War. Subsequently, the combination of German actions in Mexico and a series of attacks against American (neutral) merchant ships became the trigger for the US declaration of war on Germany. The fact that the German attacks were intentional does not change much - a reaction to the death of ships and their passengers would have been anyway.

Imagine a situation: a clash with Japan, Russian anti-ship missiles launched by Japanese ships in the Sea of ​​Japan are diverted to the Chinese bulk carrier, the ship and its crew die. Is this good for Russia or bad? Or in any way? Everything is obvious, for Russia it is at least unprofitable. But what if instead of the Chinese bulk carrier South Korean? And if not a bulk carrier, but a neutral Cruz liner? Who is better to fight with - Japan or Japan and South Korea?

Questions are not idle. Striking the neutrals can easily lead to the fact that they cease to be such and join the opposite side of the conflict. Thus, the number of enemies will increase, and the damage from the entry into the war of a technologically developed and strong from a military point of view, the enemy can be simply unlimited.

Thus, the approach to the planning of military operations, the tactical and technical characteristics of ships and missiles, and the training of personnel should allow timely detection of signs of the presence of "neutrals", and conduct military operations in such a way as not to endanger their lives. Otherwise, a local war can easily turn into a regional war against several opponents.

The task is greatly facilitated by the fact that it is technically easy for the RCC to ensure the possibility of self-liquidation if the missile “skips” the target and continues to fly.

Neutral vessels, their presence and vulnerability, the enemy’s ability to sink them “on our behalf” should be taken into account by the commanders of our Navy at all levels. The complacency among some officers about this should be completely eradicated.

6. Superweapon


A well-known "disease" of military development is betting on a kind of "superweapon" - a weapon that will qualitatively raise the combat effectiveness of the troops so that they win the war due to this. Such sentiments are fueled by military propaganda in society and flare up both with the slightest successes of the military-industrial complex and with various difficult situations for the country. So, the Germans' faith in a certain semi-mythical “weapon of retaliation”, which was widespread in Germany at the end of World War II, is known. In Russia, with its 90 years, when the very existence of the country was called into question, belief in superweapons became a part of the national myth. Alas, various officials who, by their position and role in the state system, can make fundamental decisions and put them into practice, have also been exposed to it.

So, recently, President V.V. Putin said that since Russia has hypersonic missiles, the level of military threat to the country does not cause concern. Let's hope that Vladimir Vladimirovich nevertheless “worked for the public,” and doesn’t really think so.

In fact, there is a universal rule: superweapon does not exist and cannot be invented.

What do hypersonic missiles give? Increased chance of hitting a target. It was 0,72, it became, for example, 0,89. Or 0,91. Is it good? It is very good. This is just wonderful, and the enemy’s losses will now increase substantially (the question of the fact that in fact we do not have any serial hypersonic missiles yet, let’s leave the “theoretical brackets” for theoretical studies). But does this mean that now you can rest on your laurels and not worry about anything else? No. Because, having raised the losses of the enemy, a fundamentally new weapon has not changed anything. It just kills more. And that’s it.

What if the enemy does not have hypersonic missiles? Yes, nothing special - will fight subsonic, with the probability of hitting the target 0,5 or 0,6. He will have to launch them in much larger quantities than ours, he will have to bring more carriers to the launch line than we will, he will suffer greater losses than we ... and what, actually? Nothing.

In fact, although investing in new weapons is usually useful, and gaining technological superiority over the enemy is always beneficial, wars are not won on these achievements alone. The effect of more effective missiles, shells or other ammunition is decisive only when they increase the probability of hitting a target at times. This is only possible when the previous generation of weapons was not operational at all. For example, at the beginning of World War II, American submarines did not have workable torpedoes. As a result, when the “torpedo crisis” in the US Navy was nevertheless overcome, the efficiency of boats increased significantly.

On the other hand, at first glance, the adoption by the US Navy of the Mk.48 torpedo became a “knockout” for the Soviet Navy. It became, yes, but only because countermeasures were not taken in time. Technically and technologically, they were quite possible and feasible for our country, however, the personal evil will of individual responsible leaders did not allow these measures to be implemented. That is, with our right actions, the Americans would not have succeeded in any superweapon.

Throughout military history, there was only one precedent for the emergence of a real "candidate" for superweapons - the emergence of nuclear weapons. But the pace of its production was initially so low that winning serious wars with it was impossible for several years after the first application. And then it was no longer a superweapon - there was no monopoly on it, the armies of competing military blocs understood how to fight under its conditions, as a result, the superweapon again failed.

Alas, the idea of ​​a superweapon turned out to be tenacious - it is enough to assess the level of exaltation of characters with an unstable psyche when mentioning the Poseidon spa that has not yet been created in metal.

Poseidon, by the way, is a classic attempt to create a superweapon. Innovative GEM, heavy-duty thermonuclear charge, specific concept of combat use, specialized ultra-expensive carrier submarines, aura of absolute secrecy (not for everyone, which is funny), closed teams of scientists, decades of hard work and a lot of money spent - these are two submarines for this project one of them is built from them, and another one is being built, the third in a row. And all for the sake of neutralizing the threat of the distant future - the American missile defense. And this is just the beginning, the project has not even really started yet.

The result is also a classic for a superweapon - the super torpedo itself is not there yet, and the money sufficient to modernize a large part of the fleet has already been spent on it, while those tasks that can be solved by the planned Poseidons 32 would be much easier and cheaper to solve by three ground missile regiment with conventional serial missiles and serial warheads. Or two SSBNs of the 955A project. Serial weapon. A "bonus" in comparison with the "Poseidons" would be the speed of the strike, its accuracy and the ability to hit targets in the depths of the continent, and not just on the coast. And nothing would have to be invented, financed, spent tens of years and so on.

So often epics with superweapons end.

We summarize. The concept according to which you can get a decisive advantage over the enemy by creating a new type of weapon that automatically “nullifies” the balance of forces that took place earlier is untenable. The number of conventional weapons, personnel, their training, moral stamina, the correctness of the doctrines on the basis of which the military force is preparing to act, the ability of the staffs to manage all this, and the ability of politicians to set real and achievable tasks for the military are much more important than some kind of super-innovative rocket or torpedo. This does not mean, of course, that one does not have to invent new weapons, try to gain technical superiority over the enemy. It is necessary. But by this alone no war can be won, and no truly decisive superiority can be obtained.

Therefore, betting on innovative types of weapons cannot serve as the basis for military development. New weapons need to be invented and created, but this is only one of the many components of the process of military construction, and not always the most important. If there are failures in military power, such as now, for example, anti-submarine defense in Russia, a separate sample of a missile will not fundamentally solve anything, even if it is exactly as effective as the official says.

7. Fixed betting


In their operations, fleets rely on a number of objects, without which ships cannot fight or fight poorly. This is, above all, the base. The ships need repairs, they need to replenish fuel and ammunition, the latter on our ships very often cannot be replenished at sea, it is necessary to remove the wounded from the ship, take boiler water, fuel ...

A similar value, but for aviation have airfields.

Stationary radars, communication and intelligence units, and much more are also extremely important. There is, however, a problem. And it consists in the fact that all this cannot maneuver and evade a missile or air strike. ZGRLS can have any impressive parameters, but a massive volley of cruise missiles can take her out of the game until the end of the war. An important base could be destroyed, leaving the ships unable to wage war further. Airplanes and airfields in all wars were the number one target, as were communications facilities. All this will be destroyed in the very first days of the war, if not in the hours. Or at least disabled. This applies to all parties to the conflict.

This means that what these objects give will not happen.

This means that the planning of military operations cannot take into account their existence. If the enemy cannot cut down the long-range radar, this should be a big “bonus” for us. If it can - a standard situation, foreseen in advance.

Understanding these simple facts makes it possible to prepare for the war what it really will be necessary in it - a backup infrastructure, including mobile.

Mobile command and control centers for aviation, radar, workshops and equipment for servicing aircraft, equipment for fast equipment of unpaved runways, road sections prepared in advance for use as runways, units ready to immediately advance to all existing airports and airfields and deploy military bases, floating moorings, prefabricated tanks for fuel, folding hangars for material and technical means and weapons, previously explored for this place and at least some roads, failed to them, mobile maritime surveillance radar, AWACS planes, mobile power station - that's what will be built on fleet activity.

Stationary objects, regardless of their importance, will be disabled by the enemy in the first days of the conflict, maybe in the first hours. One must be prepared to fight without them. However, for aviation you can find more airfields in the rear and organize continuous rotation and dispersed basing. But this also needs to be done before the war.

Naturally, no anti-aircraft defense will be able to provide all-round protection for each valuable object; no resources will be enough to carry out such a task.

But it is possible to accumulate for a while enough rocket weapons to walk through the enemy’s infrastructure in the same devastating fire.

And if his mobilization readiness is below ours, then we will get a good advantage at the very beginning.

Not to count on the uninterrupted functioning of stationary objects used in war is a prerequisite for adequate military planning. Their failure is only a matter of time. The sword in this case is stronger than the shield - incommensurably.


American radar in Norway is very valuable



And a hint of Russians about his possible future


All of the above does not negate the need, as far as forces allow, to protect important objects, especially bases and airfields. You just need to have a fallback - always.

8. "Asymmetric" technical solutions and concepts


Very often, in response to the growth of a military threat to our country, such as, for example, the US missile defense system, our leaders have stated and are declaring that the answer will be inexpensive and “asymmetric”. “Asymmetry” has already become a kind of “brand”, today this word is inserted wherever you go, including in an openly thoughtless (and sometimes crazy) way.

The meaning of the idea itself is simple - you need to abandon the generally accepted canonical path of technology development, and make a breakthrough in the "non-standard" direction, one that will devalue the superiority of the enemy. Unlike the idea of ​​a superweapon, here we are talking about the operation of an alternative concept of weapons, when instead of a super-powerful or ultra-efficient tool created using superior technology, a tool is created that is understandable to the enemy, and mainly based on the existing technological base, but there is one to counter which not ready.

In fact, the idea of ​​creating an asymmetric low-cost tool is highly controversial. Not that it was not working, there are examples of working asymmetric concepts. It's just that it is far from always working and almost always expensive.

Let's look at some examples.

At the turn of the 20s and 30s, the Japanese managed to make an engineering breakthrough - to create an efficient large-caliber torpedo with a combined-cycle engine, in which oxygen was used as an oxidizing agent. It was precisely an engineering breakthrough - the Japanese did not invent anything new, but polished to the working state the existing “layer of technology”, which was universally recognized as a dead end. The result was a Type 93 torpedo or, as the Americans called it “Long Lance,” a long spear. The program of its creation "ate" a lot of resources, especially at the stage of arming ships. As a result, in theory, the Japanese were able to carry out massive torpedo volleys at the same range that only large-caliber guns could previously work on. Type 93 embarked on dozens of ships, on some he became the "main caliber." The range and speed of the torpedo, taking into account the power of its warhead, was unprecedented, and the combat use was successful.

Thus, there is an asymmetric method of warfare (an extra-long torpedo salvo instead of an artillery salvo at the same distance), and an attempt to create a superweapon is expensive and large-scale.

And even successfully destroyed ships, and a lot.

There’s only a problem: if we discard from statistics those goals that could be reached with ordinary torpedoes, and finishing off the type of an abandoned Hornet, then the feasibility of creating such weapons seems at least controversial. And if someone would undertake to analyze each episode of a successful “spear” strike and figure out whether it was possible to do with artillery, then in general the idea of ​​an ultra-long-range torpedo starts to seem strange. Especially for the money.

The Soviet Union was also interested in asymmetric solutions. One example was the increase in the submarine speed of nuclear submarines. After experimenting with the super-expensive "Golden Fish" - K-222 submarine, the fastest submarine in history, the Navy has already received serial boats, in which speed was one of the main tactical properties, if not the main one. True, not missile, but torpedo boats (PLAT). We are talking about the 705 Lira project.

It was not for nothing that the Lira was called an underwater interceptor - the speed of the submarine allowed it to dodge even anti-submarine torpedoes, its maneuverability was also extraordinary. It took less than a minute to reach a power plant with an LMT reactor at full power — ten times faster than any “normal” submarine. Due to this, the "Lear" could simply hang on the tail of the U.S. Navy submarine, and when trying to attack the latter, it would be banal to get away from torpedoes. Of course, it was not as simple as it was written, but it was quite possible. At the same time, its high noise did not play a noticeable role - what is the use of observing a Russian submarine if it cannot be hit?


Lira in the floating dock


It was an “asymmetric” response to American superiority under water. And at first, he really seriously reduced this superiority. However, the Americans and the British eliminated this “asymmetric” advantage in an unpretentious direct way - by creating torpedoes that could “get” the “Lear”. As a result, its advantage evaporated, and all the shortcomings of the boat, which are widely known today, remained.

The expensive “asymmetric” solution was neutralized by another solution - symmetric and much cheaper.

However, there was one example where the "asymmetry" worked just "with a bang."

We are talking about naval missile-carrying aviation of the USSR Navy, and, if we look more broadly, then about long-range bombers armed with anti-ship missiles in principle.

The creation of MRA was the answer of the Soviet Union to the impossibility of creating several large ocean fleets in different parts of the country. Such aviation, firstly, in some cases negated the superiority of the West in the number of warships, secondly, it made it possible to very quickly inter-theater maneuver, thirdly, it was relatively universal - bombers could, if necessary, attack not only ships, and not just non-nuclear weapons. The instrument evolved slowly, but by the end of the 80's it was a force factor comparable to the American carrier-based aircraft and the carrier fleet - even if they did not have guaranteed superiority over them.


MPA is a unique example, and it is unlikely that anyone will be able to repeat


The “strike” that the MRA inflicted on the United States is significant. This is, firstly, the failed Phoenix missile and the F-14 interceptor concept, which was not particularly successful in its original form, which, with all its advantages, combined with the Phoenix and as an escort of deck-based drummers, was useless. In fact, the Americans created a plane whose full potential could only be revealed above the sea and only against MPA. Or it was necessary to equip it with conventional missiles and use it over land simply as a good interceptor, as the Iranians did, for example. But in this capacity, he was not worth his money.

MRA spawned the AEGIS system. Without constant risk of getting hit by a minimum of a regiment of bombers with cruise missiles, the US Navy would hardly have made such progress in air defense. But at the same time, this system cost the United States a lot of money, money that ended up being wasted - the war with the USSR did not happen, but the expenses went.

Also indirectly, it was the MPA that "killed" the Spryuens class destroyers. These ships could serve for a long time, but in order to maximize the effectiveness of naval air defense, the Americans had to replace them with Arly Burke class destroyers, and effective air defense was needed precisely against the Tupolevs. As a result, the Arly Burke program has grown to such a scale that it is now unclear whether the US Navy will ever have a new main warship (capital ship).

So far, the US military-industrial complex does not show the intellectual ability to come up with a “Burke” replacement, and perhaps this class of ships in America is “forever”, and without regard to whether America needs just such a ship or some other one is needed. This stagnation can cost the United States a lot in the long run. Andrei Nikolaevich Tupolev could be proud of what he had done.

One can only wonder how the Americans would use the money spent on countering MRA in another case. It is possible that we would not like it.

In order to finish with the description, let's say that, for example, one Tu-16 regiment could destroy all the forces of the British Navy, which were sent to the Falkland War in a few days. And there were many such regiments.

Thus, the “asymmetric” decision to replace the warship (which were not) with a heavy attack aircraft proved to be very effective.

But was it cheap? Dozens of regiments, consisting of the best in the world (in their class) planes, which were controlled by the best pilots in the world, with a huge raid, which were armed with the best cruise missiles in the world - this could not be cheap. And there wasn’t. The MRA was comparable in value to the carrier fleet, if you count not just the planes, but the full cost of this type of force, including training pilots, weapons, fuel, infrastructure. And, this tool had a lot of limitations.

So, an aircraft carrier could be sent to fight in the South Atlantic. Tu-16 - only if the base was provided on the theater of war and the possibility of flying to it. The issue of target designation for MRA was resolved in ways that in a real war could not but lead to heavy losses. For it, many airfields were needed, and, unlike tactical aviation, bombers could not disperse along public roads, and operation from the ground on a more or less regular basis looked extremely doubtful even for the Tu-16, and for the Tu-22М3 it was technically impossible.

MRA strikes needed to ensure complete surprise that in a real war it would not always be possible - either, would be accompanied by heavy losses. The combination of the need to conduct aerial reconnaissance and provide guidance for attack aircraft on their targets and the requirement to ensure surprise did not go very well together.

So this very effective “asymmetric” tool was also very expensive, and had a number of limitations in its combat use. Very serious limitations.

And yes, this is the only such successful example without quotes; there were no others like that.

What conclusions can be drawn from all this? “Asymmetric” solutions either do not work well, or not for long, and both in the case of a natural failure and in the case of unexpected success, they are very expensive. Especially successful, like MRA.

For a country with a weak economy and rich enemies, the "asymmetry" is likely to be unbearable. This does not mean that one should always give up on it, but one should approach this kind of innovation with extreme caution.

You should not expect that they will provide decisive superiority over the main opponent. The MRA, after all, did not provide one over the US Navy, although it did enable the Navy to defeat a substantial portion of the American forces in battle.

And do not understand all of the above, as a justification for abandoning the base attack aircraft of the Navy. We really need such aviation, which has already been said (see articles “We are building a fleet. The consequences of uncomfortable geography " и "On the need to recreate naval missile aircraft"), but her appearance is a topic for another discussion.

Conclusion


Erroneous ideas and incorrect concepts of naval construction in peacetime lead to wasteful spending of money in the war, to offensive and unjustifiable losses. At the same time, some of these ideas have their adherents both in the navy and in society. Some are already perceived as requiring no evidence. Meanwhile, “the well-known is not always true,” and in the case of the fleet this is more often so than not.

Russia is in a unique situation where it will have to intensify on the seas in conditions of extremely small resources and modest funding. In such circumstances, we can not afford any mistakes, not a single ruble spent in the wrong place.

And, of course, we cannot afford to “substitute” ourselves under the blow of a more powerful and much more experienced enemy in naval affairs.

Attempts to implement decisions that are based on erroneous ideas and incorrect concepts will lead precisely to embezzlement of money “not there” and to fall under attack.

When reconstructing the naval power of Russia, absolutely everything should be subjected to ruthless critical analysis.

We have no right to make a mistake, not even one.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia commons, Arctic Today, Popmeh.ru, vpk.name, reapman user of goodfon, TheIndependentBarentsObserver, Wikimapia
Articles from this series:
We are building a fleet. Theory and Purpose
We are building a fleet. The consequences of inconvenient geography
We are building a fleet. Attacks of the weak, loss of the strong
We are building a fleet. Special Operations: Nuclear Deterrence
We are building a fleet. Expansion zones
177 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ruslan
    Ruslan 24 October 2019 05: 58
    +4
    I read something like a book in the genre of alternative history. There, the alternative power of Russia considered the fleet as the first line of defense and at the same time far from its shores: the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. The task was simple, even at the cost of the death of the entire Russian fleet, to cripple or bring to the low-fighting state the fleets of potential opponents. And then other defense lines began. Well, the fleet there certainly was, classic, aircraft carrier, large and oceanic. I think, too, the right idea.
    Thanks to the author, an interesting series of articles.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 24 October 2019 15: 25
      0
      And in our world, rockets were invented ... or in that book, the battleships of 720-mm guided missiles tried to shoot down ICBMs flying through the South Pole?
    2. bayard
      bayard 24 October 2019 23: 58
      +1
      This "alternative history" is very similar to the real doctrine of the Soviet Fleet - operational squadrons operated in the DMZ and OZ on a permanent basis, conducted constant surveillance / escort of enemy fleet forces and were ready for an immediate strike on them in case of receiving an order / launching a DB. The same 5 OE in the Mediterranean in the event of a major war was doomed, but at the same time it could inflict colossal damage to the enemy before death. This was their combat mission.
      And this is normal for a normal State and Navy.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 25 October 2019 21: 06
        -8
        Quote: bayard
        The same 5 MA in the Mediterranean Sea in the event of a major war was doomed, but it could inflict tremendous damage to the enemy before death. That was their combat mission.
        And this is normal for a normal State and Navy.


        Your position is really alternative and also divorced from reality.
        Colossal damage could only be done in the event of a first strike.

        in the event of a retaliatory strike by the forces of the Mediterranean Squadron, this same retaliatory strike might / may not occur, for at the same time defending itself against a sudden and coordinated strike by NATO forces in the form
        1. dozens of submarines and nuclear submarines.
        2. Hundred airplanes of shock and EW aircraft covering them
        3. Dozens of URO ships
        4. Coordinated actions of a single NATO air defense system along the Mediterranean coast, coupled with equipping them with AWACS aircraft to intercept any missiles launched from the side of the Soviet Union’s squadron.
        Hundreds of interceptors, hundreds of air defense systems - and all have centralized control and guidance from AWACS aircraft, which accompany all launched missiles from a distance of 300-400 km.
        This is the reality of the Mediterranean Squadron.


        All this - Nullified - all attempts to voice the real significance of the Mediterranean Squadron of the Soviet Union.
        Zero - this is zero in any case. when you are not the first. And not all of a sudden.

        Take it for granted.
        1. bayard
          bayard 25 October 2019 22: 17
          +2
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Take it for granted.

          I cannot accept this, if only for the reason that the ships of the 5th OEsc. often they monitored and escorted enemy ships at a line-of-sight distance, which means that even the first, even a sudden enemy strike could receive a response, at least with rapid-fire artillery and anti-aircraft missiles at the ships (line of sight and for speed of reaction). In addition, any war is preceded by a preparatory / threatened period that can be opened by intelligence (including its technical services). And in the event of the opening of such plans, a decision could be made for a preemptive strike - at that time the marshals and admirals remembered June 22, 41 well and did not want to repeat it. The line was clear: "Never again will the Soviet Union allow a war ON ITS TERRITORY!" The enemy fleets were watched precisely to reveal their plans and to constantly have them at gunpoint. Yes, there were no multipurpose aircraft carriers, but there was an abundance of submarines and nuclear submarines, there was missile-carrying aviation, the USSR naval reconnaissance aircraft were based around the world (both in the Mediterranean Sea, and in the Indian Ocean, and in the Caribbean - in Cuba, and in Cam Ranh, and in the Seychelles ...) and gave target designation to surface and underwater carriers of heavy long-range cruise missiles and missile-carrying aircraft.

          A Russian person and a Russian officer are very self-critical by nature and are more likely to underestimate themselves and their capabilities than to be enlisted in ambitions, hence so much self-criticism in memories, etc. analytics. At the end of the 80s I myself was a young officer who (like all my comrades) was very serious about assessing a potential enemy, but knew that if something started, we would tear them to shreds ... And having already lived a long life only confirmed his confidence. We would really break them. Apart . At the same time, I am not a paratrooper, not a tanker and not a man of a "direct battlefield"; I served in a very complex and specific technical branch of the military.
          And who told you that if the situation worsened, our fighter aircraft would not have appeared in Syria and Libya? To support 5 Oesk. ? Our advisers were present there on an ongoing basis and relations were exactly that allied. Moreover, the air forces of our allies in the region could also help, as we did in the difficult moments of their history.
          The Soviet Union would certainly not be alone in that war.
          1. Polinom
            Polinom 27 October 2019 13: 55
            -1
            The Soviet Union would certainly not be alone in that war. laughing
            We live now. Of the allies, Assad, Maduro, Eun-questioned. And that’s all.
            1. bayard
              bayard 27 October 2019 15: 55
              +1
              Thanks to ally Assad, we have bases in the Mediterranean Sea, the possibility of military deployment there and the rear support thereof.
              Thanks to our ally Maduro (the largest proven oil reserves), we have a good foothold in the Caribbean - the underbelly of the USA, the possibility of deploying our bases there (now this is not happening soon because of our unavailability / unwillingness, but there is a willingness on the host side), in t including medium-range missiles on them, if any, appear near our borders.
              Eun leads a nuclear power. Yes, not rich in living standards, but very fruitful in missile and nuclear technologies. Unlike the United States, S. Korea is capable of producing nuclear munitions - they have operating capacities. And its army in number is among the five leaders.
              And you think that these allies are worthless?
              And you think that these are really our only allies against the USA?
              Do you want to count Iran?
              Iran, of course, is on my mind, but against the USA the ally is quite active.
              Or the same Turkey?
              Do you really consider her an ally of the United States?
              After all that was, is and will surely be?
              And here I am more and more inclined to the opposite opinion.

              And the question is not even whether Russia wants to acquire new allies, but that a growing number of states are looking for alliances with Russia.
              In their own interests.
              Of your own free will.
              Here the choice is sooner for Russia, which over the past 5 years has saved at least three states and their regimes (you will probably like this term). She did it efficiently and ... well.
              But at the same time to the advantage of himself.
              Economic.
              Well, the political benefits went as a bonus, as we reap in the same Africa.
              1. Polinom
                Polinom 30 October 2019 10: 32
                -1
                Are we saving everyone again? Well good luck, good luck ... Your post only once again confirmed the rule.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 31 October 2019 12: 47
                  0
                  The strategic thinking of the United States has already brought them to their present, I am not afraid to say, miserable condition. It has learned to be funny and fearless. Even small states such as S. Korea are not afraid of him, let alone China.
                  Why should Russia save someone at a loss, if possible at a profit?
                  Russia consistently solves its geostrategic issues, and does not engage in altruism.
                  And what can the USA boast of?
                  An internal split?
                  The upcoming civil war, which is already going on latently and is only gaining momentum?
                  The degradation of their armed forces?
                  A trillion budget deficit?
                  Face the truth and it will reassure you.
                  1. Polinom
                    Polinom 5 November 2019 13: 43
                    0
                    You should ride in the USA, even a tourist. Then you will get rid of your delusions. You look like my political officer, 30 years have passed, but the words are the same laughing
  2. Angelo Provolone
    Angelo Provolone 24 October 2019 06: 38
    -1
    Dear author,
    since the enemy surpasses us in almost all respects, I will answer you with a passage from V.S. Vysotsky:

    ... If it’s true -
    Well, at least a third, -
    One thing remains:
    Just lie down to die!
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 11: 58
      +3
      Ничего подобного.
      1. bayard
        bayard 25 October 2019 00: 40
        +1
        That's right.
        Good article series, Alexander, good analysis. hi
        From which, by the way, it follows that the Russian fleet cannot do without aircraft carriers for full-fledged combat work. But limited resources and production capacities, as well as the very nature of the upcoming combat missions, suggests that these aircraft-carrying ships should be of medium displacement (what our industry can build) and specialize mainly in air defense and anti-aircraft defense, taking out the defense lines deep at sea and ensuring the combat stability of the fleet in the areas of SSBN deployment. This is what will make it possible to minimize the reaction time to the threat as much as possible. "bastions" and on the front lines of defense at sea.
        The fact that the military-political leadership has relied on the construction of a large series of 22350 and 22350M, suggests that the doctrine of active actions at sea, attacking, has been chosen. And the armament of these ships says the same thing.
        The planned laying of the landing helicopter carriers, and the reorganization of the marines into expeditionary forces, with the change (expansion) of the training program for young officers in military universities up to 5 years, also speaks of the same. And this means that at headquarters they think in a manner similar to you, which cannot but rejoice.
        The fleet is being built for a long time and the bumps stuffed in the zero and subsequent years seem to play their own educational role, in any case there is hope for it now.
        Good luck in continuing the cycle.
    2. Cyrus
      Cyrus 25 October 2019 09: 44
      +1
      This, as I understand it, your choice?
  3. Vadmir
    Vadmir 24 October 2019 07: 17
    +5
    Domestic military experts considered various options for this application - from striking empty areas at sea for demonstration purposes
    A warning shot of a nuclear weapon, how from a pistol into the air? Could someone have come to such a head? Western media will immediately write that the strike was inflicted on civilian courts with huge losses and the answer will be to one of the key objects of our defense.
    If defeat is clearly emerging in the war, then the use of tactical nuclear weapons should pursue only one goal - to inflict maximum losses on the enemy troops in order to stop their progress, and by the number of coffins cause pacifist sentiments among the enemy people.
    What will happen next? Most likely a retaliatory strike of similar power. Then there are two options, either the continuation of mutual tactical nuclear strikes, with the development of a global nuclear war, or negotiations and a halt to the war in view of the too great losses and the senselessness of its continuation.
    The chances of the second option are very few, but if defeat is inevitable, then even such small chances of a draw are better than surrender.
    entails a lot of negative consequences even without taking into account the opponent’s retaliatory moves. Among them:

    a) undermining the reputation of the attacker and his political positions in the world, and the undermining is very serious, comparable in consequences to a lost war;
    What difference does it make if defeat is inevitable? A tactical nuclear strike is the last chance.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 25 October 2019 16: 06
      +1
      All this is very dangerous. In the case of the first limited nuclear strike ... The answer may be an attempt to disarm a nuclear strike, this also has its own logic.
      We must look: in front of the threat of defeat in the war, choosing between the death of most of their people (no matter what will be “theirs”) and surrender, the best option is the latter. The Japanese did so, as we see, were not mistaken.
      Well, it’s best not to bring up such scenarios. Build a fleet capable of inflicting unacceptable losses on a potential strong aggressor and destroying the weaker. And develop, ..., the economy. Then there will be more money for “military toys”.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 27 October 2019 09: 29
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        In the case of the first limited nuclear strike ... The answer may be an attempt to disarm a nuclear strike, this also has its own logic.

        An attempt to disarm a nuclear strike can be without the first limited nuclear strike.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 27 October 2019 10: 41
          +1
          Reasons to take that risk? Only the autocratic dictator, a'lya Adik, reflecting in the style of “I (my interests) is the country” will be the first to attack. But this is not and is not expected.
    2. Polinom
      Polinom 27 October 2019 13: 59
      0
      Alexander did not clearly write.
      There was an option, applying megatonnes to OPEN areas of SSBN location. Alaska Gulf. This is the period 1985-7. When the Pacific Fleet was 8 "Ohio" and the OS actually did not know how to destroy (disable) them. But realism prevailed and the idea was abandoned. We took the path of disarmament and threat reduction - "We are friends now."
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 30 October 2019 08: 44
        0
        But boats can strike from the Atlantic. In addition, the ocean is large enough to drown the entire nuclear arsenal.
        It's good that we went to discharge.
        One of the reasons for compliance is the crisis in the stagnant economy of those years.
        1. Polinom
          Polinom 30 October 2019 10: 35
          0
          I was a specialist in Pacific Fleet. About the Atlantic is not very up to date.
          And the reason is simple, they were re-equipped so that the American legs were humbling so as not to die of hunger.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 31 October 2019 00: 08
            0
            I agree: the extravagance characteristic of the USSR was also manifested in the military-industrial complex. The same 3 types of MBT in service ... A huge army for ideological tasks.
            It is important that the Americans believed in detente and provided various assistance. Including the transfer of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Socialist Republics to the Russian Federation.
      2. timokhin-aa
        1 November 2019 21: 31
        0
        No, I'm talking about theories from the late 90s, in "Military Thought" was more than once.
        And I did not write about ICBM strikes on the areas where SSBNs were located, this rut ​​is "too much" for me.

        I once read a lot about hacking between the navy, long-range aviation and even the Strategic Missile Forces in the late 70s - early 80s, there was such nonsense like "boil the sea, if that" a lot of progress. What can't you do for the sake of the budget of your type of aircraft))))
  4. Vadmir
    Vadmir 24 October 2019 07: 30
    +7
    It should also be understood that nuclear weapons alone do not stop both nuclear and non-nuclear countries from attacking. In 1950, non-nuclear China attacked UN troops (count the United States and its allies) in Korea; American nuclear weapons did not deter it. In 1969, the nuclear year already at that time, China attacked the nuclear USSR at the border, and more than once. In 1982, non-nuclear Argentina attacked nuclear Great Britain and seized its overseas possession - the Falkland Islands. In 2008, non-nuclear Georgia attacked Russian troops in South Ossetia. The presence of nuclear weapons in Russia did not become a deterrent.
    These are examples of local wars and border conflicts without trying to inflict a decisive defeat on a nuclear power, without trying to capture a significant amount of its territory, population and resources.
    Local conflicts are possible in the future, but the big non-nuclear war between nuclear powers among themselves is utopia. Either the losing side will deliver a tactical nuclear strike, in order to turn the tide of the war or stop it, or the winner, but faced with excessive losses and prolongation of the war in order to finally destroy the enemy. Both that and that can lead to a global nuclear war.
    Therefore, I do not believe in the possibility of a major war with the United States, NATO or China - everyone wants to live.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 24 October 2019 08: 11
      +6
      A big war is very possible, because the decision to start it is made by people whose chances of survival are much higher than among the ordinary population. Secondly, a big war can start due to a technical failure on one of the parties. And thirdly, a big war can be provoked by the unreasonable behavior of the allies.
      1. Vadmir
        Vadmir 24 October 2019 08: 20
        +4
        the decision to start it is made by people whose chances of survival are much higher than those of the general population.
        Still living or surviving are not equivalent concepts. One can agree with the rest, but the nuclear era began 74 years ago and during this time there were no big wars, I hope that in the future there will be enough sanity not to start a big war.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 24 October 2019 08: 22
        +4
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        for the decision on its beginning is made by people whose chances of survival are much higher than those of the ordinary population.

        The decision to start it is made by people who, unlike the rest (from us) live very well and well, and want to live even better in the future. What does not fit with the move to the anti-nuclear bunker from the villa in Key West.
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 24 October 2019 08: 19
      +1
      Quote: Vadmir
      Local conflicts are possible in the future, but the big non-nuclear war between nuclear powers among themselves is utopia.
      A large non-nuclear war between nuclear powers will be conducted by creating a series of local conflicts in which opponents will be drawn in on unfavorable conditions. This will create the prerequisites for
      Quote: Vadmir
      capture a significant amount of its territory, population and resources
      in the form of inclusion of the captured under their own economic control (with the possible formal preservation of fake independence). In our time, another is not necessary. The ultimate goal of any war is to get a better state than before the war. The goal is to become richer and live better than before. Therefore, no one else will organize a mass attack in the style of "tank wedges in the steppes of Ukraine".
      1. Vadmir
        Vadmir 24 October 2019 08: 33
        0
        A large non-nuclear war between nuclear powers will be conducted by creating a series of local conflicts in which opponents will be drawn in on unfavorable conditions.
        With the risk of everyone developing into a nuclear war? I doubt very much, especially since:
        The goal is to become richer and live better than before.

        But they will certainly be involved in small local wars with third countries. Such wars can be very exhausting, but they do not directly lead to
        capture a significant amount of its territory, population and resources
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 24 October 2019 08: 43
          +3
          Quote: Vadmir
          With the risk of everyone developing into a nuclear war?

          This is already happening today and there is no risk of nuclear war. Literally on-line, we are prompted by such conflicts - Donbass, the Middle East, before that - Georgia. Behind all these situations are the ears of NATO countries.
          I am certainly far from conspiracy theories, it is clear that all these conflicts are the result of the efforts of many parties, including the possessed Georgians or Ukrainians themselves. And these conflicts are not managed from Washington in their pure form either. But “from there,” efforts are clearly being made to direct these crises in the right direction, including to worsen the position of the Russian Federation, both economic and political. This is only one instrument of pressure on the Russian Federation, the rest are not power, but we are talking about the power section here.
          Quote: Vadmir
          but do not directly lead to
          And it is not necessary "directly". No one will break directly like Hitler.
          1. Vadmir
            Vadmir 24 October 2019 08: 48
            +1
            Donbass, the Middle East, before that - Georgia. Behind all these situations are the ears of NATO countries.
            Ears stick out, I agree. But this is not a direct clash of nuclear powers, it is local wars on the territory of third countries (non-nuclear).
            1. Polinom
              Polinom 27 October 2019 14: 03
              0
              And whose ears stuck in the GDR, when every minute the population of the GDR decreased by one person, and in Germany increased? No need to feed people with slogans and beat themselves in the chest with their bare ass — we are a superpower. Give people the right to choose and the right to live in prosperity and security. And whose ears were sticking out among the population of the Warsaw Pact countries, when did everyone REDUCE into the EU and NATO?
          2. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 28 October 2019 03: 04
            0
            Quote: Alex_59
            including the possessed Georgians or Ukrainians themselves.
            trust me and I think that citizen bayard will not give lies and confirm that - possessed we have not so many in Ukraine. There are more and more sane people who do not want war at all, in any of its manifestations !!. The only problem is that after the 2014 coup, temporarily, "politically active rebels" (but our view is "") were in power, while the working people have time for this - / coup / and associated with it " pseudo-national patriotism ", could not and cannot spend. Just economically. Even a family is not easy to feed, if you do not work hard ...
            1. Polinom
              Polinom 30 October 2019 10: 40
              +1
              What am I? He served in the USSR in Primorye and Kamchatka, in 1991 he returned home to Ukraine. He was a supporter of integration with the Russian Federation and the Russian language, now I am preparing cadets to fight with the invader, who took our territories and kills our people, despite dozens of signed treaties.
              Crimea to the place, from Donbass to ..., compensate and apologize. Then let's talk about demons.
              And who and where we came to power in 2014, it seems to me this is not your business. We'll figure it out ourselves.
              1. timokhin-aa
                1 November 2019 21: 38
                0
                We'll figure it out ourselves.


                Already seen how to understand. I do not want to get into politota, but Russia did not raise a riot in either the Crimea or the Donbass. In Crimea, people did this on the streets, in the Donbass, Akhmetov and Efremov raised him. The phrase Donetsk People’s Republic itself was invented by Akhmetov back in 2004 when he thought that the new authorities would start raiding him.
                So you are all yourself. Talentedly conducted business, leaving no choice for a neighbor.

                I just know in what frenzy and panic the Crimean operation was preparing, no one planned anything against Ukraine even during the unrest in Kiev.
                It’s just that if everything further were left to chance, it would inflict enormous domestic political damage on the Russian Federation.

                But this does not happen in nature for a handful of baboons with shields to take and inflict tremendous domestic political damage on the Russian Federation.

                And yes, Yanukovych was a legitimate president at the time when he submitted a request to the Kremlin to send troops to Ukraine and restore constitutional order there. This paper in the Russian Federation is, so, for formality.
                And Yanukovych is.

                This is the question of dozens of signed agreements.
                1. Polinom
                  Polinom 5 November 2019 14: 00
                  +1
                  Everything is logical, it remains to convince the countries that voted on the UN General Assembly, the conclusions of the Venice Commission for the Elections in Crimea, the leadership of NATO with the expansion and expansion of the grouping and many, many others, who have voted on the UN GA In December 1979, I was a young lieutenant rejoiced at the entry of troops into the DRA and the assassination of Amin. But then, as it turned out, it was the beginning of the end of the country.
                  Good deeds are not done by illegal methods, ....... again on contracts.
    3. Cyrus
      Cyrus 25 October 2019 09: 47
      +1
      Well, in general, you will probably be offended, but decisions are made by people who absolutely do not care about yours, mine, any other's opinion.
  5. Vadmir
    Vadmir 24 October 2019 07: 45
    +6
    Not that it was not working, there are examples of working asymmetric concepts. It's just that it is far from always working and almost always expensive.
    An asymmetric answer can be not only weapons, but also quantitative indicators (number of troops, number of weapons), tactics.
    Symmetric answer - means an arms race and an attempt to equal the potential adversary in everything. Having an equivalent weapon. I’m afraid that Russia can’t afford it now.
    At the height of the nuclear race, the USSR made a mistake, then each of the parties could destroy the whole world several times — why? It was enough to have a stock of nuclear weapons for a single destruction of enemies, this would be the correct asymmetric answer.
    Now the United States is deploying missile defense - a symmetrical response is to create the same missile defense in response. The asymmetric answer is the creation of means to overcome missile defense, this answer is certainly cheaper. The shell always, in the end, defeats the armor and costs less.
    1. alma
      alma 24 October 2019 08: 48
      +3
      then each side could destroy the whole world several times - why? It was enough to have a stock of nuclear weapons for a single destruction of enemies

      It was taken into account that part of the nuclear weapons would be destroyed either before launch, or by means of air defense / missile defense.
    2. mark1
      mark1 24 October 2019 13: 16
      +1
      Quote: Vadmir
      It was enough to have a stock of nuclear weapons for a single destruction of enemies, this would be the correct asymmetric answer.

      The stockpile of nuclear weapons was not created in order to destroy the world several times, but in order for at least something to remain for a retaliatory strike. everything was counted, nor was there anything superfluous.
  6. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 24 October 2019 08: 02
    +8
    undermining the reputation of the attacker and his political positions in the world, and undermining a very serious one, comparable in consequences to a lost war;
    I stumbled directly on these words - in a situation where the country is threatened with defeat and destruction, there should be no care about the reputation! And the author needs to understand this, and not put reputation losses on a par with a lost war.
    1. Avior
      Avior 24 October 2019 08: 43
      +2
      Defeat and destruction are not the same thing.
    2. mark1
      mark1 24 October 2019 13: 20
      +2
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      And the author needs to understand this, and not put reputation losses on a par with a lost war.

      In other words, whoever wins has a reputation ...
  7. Vadmir
    Vadmir 24 October 2019 08: 03
    +2
    the tasks that can be solved by the planned 32 "Poseidons" would be much simpler and cheaper to solve by three ground-based missile regiments with conventional serial missiles and serial warheads.
    You forgot about missile defense. Yes, we are developing technologies to overcome missile defense, but how successful they will be so far judging early. ABM will also be improved. And to protect against Poseidons, the Americans will have to fork out for protection from them. Of course, Poseidon will be dangerous only if its carrier is at sea (at least one of them), and there is no potential enemy submarine on its tail.
    I agree that Poseidon is expensive, but the US missile defense could put Russia in the position of a non-nuclear power with a nuclear adversary. Therefore, the task of overcoming the missile defense was posed to everyone who could and could be financed by a number of options, in the hope that at least one of them would become a reliable anti-missile defense system. This is a question of the very existence of sovereign Russia, and it was impossible to save here.
    1. Avior
      Avior 24 October 2019 08: 45
      0
      And to protect against Poseidons, the Americans will have to fork out for protection from them.

      Yeah. Bulkly buy anti-submarine nets and stand them in a threatened period from all dangerous directions
      1. Vadmir
        Vadmir 24 October 2019 09: 06
        +3
        Bulkly buy anti-submarine nets and stand them in a threatened period from all dangerous directions

        The length of the US coast is 19 km. Putting nets in deep water is pointless and near the shore is of little use, since an explosion of a nuclear charge two hundred to five hundred meters from the target is almost the same as an explosion at a given point.
        1. Avior
          Avior 24 October 2019 09: 17
          0
          Far from almost the same thing, look at the results of the underwater tests of the Americans, and the fact that the coast is long, so you only need to protect approaches to places of large concentration of people and infrastructure, and even then not to everyone, but only those vulnerable to underwater explosion-bay, eg. There will be a shallow approach.
          It will not reach 2 km and it will be more likely zilch.
    2. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 11: 57
      +2
      You forgot about missile defense. Yes, we are developing technologies for overcoming missile defense, but it will be too early to judge how successful they are. ABM will also be improved.


      A missile defense will only be useful if we sleep through the first missile defense system, and the Americans work it out at 100%. Without this, missile defense will never be able to recapture a significant share of our missiles. And US PLO can now cope with Poseidon.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 25 October 2019 20: 33
        0
        "We will oversleep the first MRYAU". We will not oversleep, the early warning system works around the clock.
      2. Polinom
        Polinom 27 October 2019 14: 05
        0
        Why cope with what is not and will not be? tongue
        1. timokhin-aa
          28 October 2019 10: 36
          0
          Well yes. But all of a sudden? They made a throwing model, they made a turbine unit, the conveyor can also have a running model, it’s apparently not working yet ...
          Human nonsense is limitless.
          1. Polinom
            Polinom 30 October 2019 10: 46
            0
            When I wrote that the model of the "maneuvering" garbage "Vanguard" arrived in Kura as a piece of iron. Those who met it saw it and it is no secret. The trajectory is stable, normal launch, no one maneuvered. But at the start, with the participation of Pu said, he maneuvers. The nonsense is limitless, they believe in anything.
            Well, now the test data came not only from me.
      3. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 28 October 2019 03: 13
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And US PLO can now cope with Poseidon.
        No, it cannot !! With weapons not created in reality, no one can cope !!!
        1. timokhin-aa
          28 October 2019 10: 37
          0
          Well, they also have a "drinking" topic in PLO! So in the calculation.
    3. Cyrus
      Cyrus 25 October 2019 10: 21
      -1
      And you forgot the truth about the PLO, about unmanned ASGs, torpedoes developed specifically for intercepting high-speed deep-sea targets, your Poseidon is just a giant cut of money and no pure military meaning.
  8. Alex_59
    Alex_59 24 October 2019 08: 05
    +4
    Read satisfied.
    A few quibbles:
    The 2 air regiment is ready (pilots in the barracks, planes are ready for immediate take-off, the command and control station is ready to start take-off operations immediately), when taking off, one airplane should fully fly into the air, be in combat formation and take the right course more than an hour from the receipt of the order. In case of take-off aircraft in pairs - in the area of ​​40 minutes.
    Aviators behave very nonchalantly in the described situation. We seem to be like a war, or at least a threatened period. And even in peacetime there is a duty link, this is 4 (sometimes 2) aircraft standing at the end of the runway in a special clearing, pilots in full gear freeze in the shed next to them. This is daily at all airfields of the country, right now. Takeoff - 5 minutes. In the event of a war or its threat, the percentage of equipment in readiness No.1 will be higher in advance, i.e. not a link, but a squadron at least. By the way, always take off in pairs, and if it’s completely hot, then it’s with links and a conveyor. As for the regiment, then we have to think about it. If you need to suspend the BC, refuel and gas, then maybe a couple of hours go. So it’s really necessary to consider that the squadron (or two, with any luck) will be raised during the war for 15-20, and the entire regiment ... will never be, because part of the machines is still disassembled in the power supply. A language that is understandable to a sailor - there is krenging. laughing
    In fact, there is a universal rule: superweapon does not exist and cannot be invented.
    HMS Dreadnought? Not?
    1. Avior
      Avior 24 October 2019 08: 47
      +5
      The duty link is against single targets. Against a massive raid will not help.
      Like one squadron against mass raid, the enemy will try to concentrate all that can in the strike.
      In the article, the situation with the squadron is considered.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 24 October 2019 09: 06
        +4
        Quote: Avior
        The duty link is against single targets.

        Yes, I wrote - in peacetime.
        Quote: Avior
        Against a massive raid will not help.

        A pair of squadrons can completely disrupt the raid of the enemy regiment (air group AUG). To break off does not mean to kill everyone, but to weaken the blow to acceptable values ​​or to prevent shooting.
        Well and again - against what purpose can one expect a massive enemy attack? Obviously this is not a solitary guard. It hurts a lot of honor to fly to the drowning of a single IPC or a minesweeper in an outfit in 40 aircraft. The maximum squadron will fly. Here and our air defense regiment with a pair of units is enough for protection.
        And a massive raid - this means a group of our ships is already under attack. It is logical that here already ahead of time it is necessary to prepare cover forces. To increase the combat readiness of one’s regiment, or to transfer another regiment to it in reinforcements, or to organize air watch, and to strengthen intelligence.
        And so I agree with the author that RTOs without air defense are money down the drain. The ship must have its own air defense, otherwise no coastal fighters will help.
        1. Avior
          Avior 24 October 2019 09: 21
          +4
          Aircraft cannot constantly hang in the air, and even in the duty link mode.
          The airfield and runway are not rubber, more than you can, it will not fit, again, they are not at every step. In addition, a high concentration at one airport at the time of military action is contraindicated, they will cover everyone at once.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 24 October 2019 09: 42
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            Aircraft cannot constantly hang in the air

            Yeah. This is being done in shifts. The link is gone - the link has come. So it is with duty on earth - also in shifts.
            Quote: Avior
            Airfield and runway not rubber

            A typical Soviet airfield (I don’t know how they are classified by the military, but this one which is with runway 2500x40) is designed for permanent basing of the regiment, and temporary basing of two regiments of whistles. Since then, nothing has changed.
            Quote: Avior
            In addition, a high concentration at one airport at the time of military action is contraindicated
            This is for Yeltsin and Serdyukov. Everything was. All reduced.
    2. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 09: 56
      +2
      As for the regiment, then we have to think about it.


      You brought the numbers for the squadron, what is there to think. Take the odds. technical faults in 75%, take-off links, when ready, the 2 number the weapon is suspended, the fuel is full, the batteries are charged, so we get the required forty minutes for the regiment from the order to go on course in the ranks.

      I didn’t take these figures from the ceiling.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 24 October 2019 12: 04
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I didn’t take these figures from the ceiling.

        Yes, me too. The sea here is far away, but with aviation there is a complete order. laughing
        Well, forty, so forty. Let it be so, although I think it will be faster, because I watch how it happens live almost every day. smile
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 October 2019 12: 05
          +2
          Well, let's thirty if everything is ideal. I do not argue that this is possible. What will it change radically?
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 24 October 2019 15: 16
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            What will it change radically?
            In the matter of the fact that RTOs are self-propelled targets and useless waste of folk money, nothing will change.
    3. Cyrus
      Cyrus 25 October 2019 10: 32
      0
      No, this is not beyond weapons, he did not bear an inevitable victory. And why did you decide that there would be some sort of threatened period?
  9. Brylevsky
    Brylevsky 24 October 2019 08: 58
    +2
    Alexander, thank you very much for the informative and reasoned article. You are one of the few authors writing "inconvenient" truth.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 09: 57
      +4
      Please.

      I actually write poorly, there are many people who know the subject much better.
      But they are silent.

      And it is fraught.
      1. Brylevsky
        Brylevsky 24 October 2019 10: 06
        +3
        These people have seniority and various pension benefits, and they will always be silent. Because they don’t burn or drown. You write sharply and to the point.
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 October 2019 11: 54
          +4
          Well, there are those who were not scared, for example, to / a Lutsky. It's just that he spoke on his narrow topic and a special edition - in the "Marine collection".

          That is, in principle it would be possible. People have no desire. And yes, they don’t drown, but their children just go to the level of the ship’s commander now in age, and now they’re both burning and drowning.
  10. EvilLion
    EvilLion 24 October 2019 09: 03
    +3
    As for nuclear weapons, sheer nonsense. No one is interested in the political consequences of using nuclear weapons when the situation resembles October 41. And specifically, our society, which survived the Second World War, is fundamentally not interested in how many billions must be burned in a nuclear fire to protect our state. They have already come to us once and killed, according to adequate estimates, millions of 18-19. Let it be better to yell that American, European, Chinese, and whatever, children, burning up after our nuclear strike, if only bombs would not fall on our heads.

    The problem is that in the world some people have an understanding of this problem, because they believe that WWII was because of the Jews. But in fact, WWII became a crucial moment when one white man did not just go to fight with another white man, we didn’t get used to it, or oppress some savages, but declared another white man subhuman and went to kill him. And a sharp hit by a nuclear club in the snout for them may come as a surprise.

    At the same time, they don’t give a damn what the Americans write in the documents about how they will respond to a nuclear strike on ships, or a motorized rifle division. Just a single nuclear strike, is inherently precautionary. Like, either you guys are tying, or the next blow will already be massive in American cities. Given the sophistication of missile attack control, all parties are quite capable of distinguishing one from the other. It is clear that no one will throw a nuclear at some downed plane, or an attacked ship, but no one will threaten us either with a destroyer or a battalion in Estonia.

    In 1950, non-nuclear China attacked UN troops (count the United States and its allies) in Korea; American nuclear weapons did not deter it. In 1969, the nuclear year already at that time, China attacked the nuclear USSR at the border, and more than once. In 1982, non-nuclear Argentina attacked nuclear Great Britain and seized its overseas possession - the Falkland Islands. In 2008, non-nuclear Georgia attacked Russian troops in South Ossetia. The presence of nuclear weapons in Russia did not become a deterrent.


    None of these wars threatened the existence of the attacked states. An attempt to weave them is the same as comparing a dispute between business entities and a criminal case under article murder, which, in principle, cannot be resolved, and either acquitting or zugunder for a very long time.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 10: 09
      +4
      None of these wars threatened the existence of the attacked states.


      Well, the hypothetical destruction of the Pacific Fleet and the weaning of the four islands of the Kuril ridge also does not threaten the existence of the Russian Federation.

      Will bonbon be used in such a situation or not?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 24 October 2019 10: 28
        +2
        To destroy the Pacific Fleet and capture the Kuril Islands will have to drag forces that exceed this same fleet. And after that, no one will understand what goals and objectives these forces pursue. It’s better to simply destroy these forces. At the same time, the question involuntarily arises of why the hell to invest in trillions in nuclear weapons, if the state can simply be plucked over the little things. And if the question with the Falklands, which the Briton does not find on the map, is still open, then the Kuril Islands for Russians are already their own, like Kaliningrad, or Peter. So the bombs will fly. In fact, bombs can fly just because the large forces of a potential enemy approached you. And it’s scary to live just because a battleship in the Gulf of Finland may well provoke a blow to itself, including a nuclear one. Of course, there will be TASS messages and demands to get down, but if there is any McCain on the other side ... By the way, the Americans initially had vigorous bombs in the tactical link, but in the end they removed them to hell, since there is little someday the moron colonel will want to use them.

        The Caribbean crisis began precisely with American missiles at hand near the USSR. Just upon their availability.
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 October 2019 11: 45
          +2
          To destroy the Pacific Fleet and capture the Kuril Islands will have to drag forces that exceed this same fleet.


          With a fright?
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 24 October 2019 12: 12
          +8
          Quote: EvilLion
          To destroy the Pacific Fleet and capture the Kuril Islands will have to drag forces that exceed this same fleet.

          What is there to drag something? Japan is visible through binoculars, and its fleet is superior to the Pacific in the main warships in 7 times. (48 / 7 = 6,85).
          If anything, the Pacific Fleet now consists of RKR pr. 1164, three BOD, one destroyer and two TFR pr. 20380.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 25 October 2019 20: 40
            -2
            The Japanese have no strike weapons on the ships — all they have is the Harpoon anti-ship missile and a special-purpose anti-ship missile with a range of 400 kilometers — and Russia has a significant arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons both at the anti-ship missiles and the OTRK, the Japanese are aware of this and the armed conflict over the island is being canceled .
          2. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 28 October 2019 03: 30
            0
            Quote: Alex_59
            and two SKR pr. 20380.
            I think you got excited ... Neither the TFR (nor the frigate, according to modern qualifications) 20380, clearly does not hold out, except at the cost of construction ... But if instead of a brigade of these "burr corvettes" for the Pacific Fleet brigade 11661 (for OVR), then you look at another full-fledged frigate 22350, the savings would be enough !!
        3. Cyrus
          Cyrus 25 October 2019 10: 51
          0
          Again, it is not knowledge of the issue to neutralize TF, but it is not necessary to destroy it in principle, the Japanese Navy will be more than enough, the United States will loom somewhere without crossing the line and there will be no bombing.
          R.S. you live when the berks are hanging out in the Black Sea now in the Baltic, then in Scandinavia and nothing, although each burke is potentially 92 vigorous axes ...
      2. SVD68
        SVD68 27 October 2019 09: 21
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, the hypothetical destruction of the Pacific Fleet and the weaning of the four islands of the Kuril ridge also does not threaten the existence of the Russian Federation.

        Will bonbon be used in such a situation or not?

        Need to apply. If you are not ready to apply in such a situation, then through the methodology of Overton's windows, you will be brought to such a situation that you will never be ready.
    2. Cyrus
      Cyrus 25 October 2019 10: 45
      +1
      A rare stupidity, war (in the global sense, it will start with a nuclear strike, which I completely agree with the author, without any threatened periods) and only in your fantasies will the aggressor not foresee the consequences of using nuclear weapons or will they frighten it.
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 31 October 2019 00: 41
      0
      Such an isolationist approach: we are the only ones in the outside world.
      The Nazis then came, the Americans helped fight them.
  11. Avior
    Avior 24 October 2019 09: 05
    +4
    Good article.
    The author comprehensively examined the situation.
    For a sober person will be useful.
    As for the comments, in addition to small, unprincipled ones, like if Harpoons can be launched from a much greater range if necessary, the question is only on the use of MPA.
    Actually, when considering this issue, the author contradicts himself, since the enemy still has the initiative, he decides when to approach the shore, there will be big problems with reconnaissance, especially with reconnaissance, since a radar reconnaissance aircraft for a radio horizon to the aircraft carrier may simply not I suppose that the emergence of Aegis as an effective air defense system is considered by the author as a drawback, and in the first part of the work, on the contrary, he considered effective air defense to be the most important quality of a warship.
    This, of course, does not mean that MRA is not needed, on the contrary, in the matter of coastal defense against an attack by large forces, it will be much more effective than the fleet, as due to the possibility of quick concentration of the strike, rather than dispersion of funds across several fleets, greater range and situational awareness, but also exaggerating its capabilities and influence on the enemy is also not wrong.
    There is one more nuance that the author touched upon in passing, but did not disclose in detail.
    This is a question of heavy strike weapons in small ships.
    Probably, such weapons should rather be aviation, and on ships due to this resource it is more useful to improve PLO and air defense.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 10: 06
      +2
      if necessary, harpoons can be launched from a much longer range


      In theory. In practice, they were never allowed in a combat situation. And this, apparently, has reasons that are not reducible to the performance characteristics of "Harpoons".

      Actually, when considering this issue, the author contradicts himself, since the enemy still has the initiative, he decides when to approach the shore, there will be big problems with reconnaissance, especially with reconnaissance, since a radar reconnaissance aircraft on a radio horizon to the aircraft carrier may simply not allow


      Therefore, I write that the Central Administration for MRA would have a great price.

      the emergence of Aegis, as an effective air defense system, the author considers as a disadvantage


      Not a flaw. The consequence. This is not the same thing. The existence of the MRA of the USSR Navy set a powerful trend for the evolution of all warships in the world, and it is still not broken. Look at the Japanese, the South Koreans. I am not saying that this is bad, just if the amers didn’t have to repel such attacks from the air that we planned for them, the evolution could be different. That's what I mean.

      Now the USSR does not exist, there is no MRA, no one is trying to create something similar, and the US Navy consists of ships "sharpened" under the AUG air defense system, and this will continue for decades.

      If we didn’t create such a hemorrhoids to them, these ships could be imprisoned for shock tasks at sea, for example. And, I repeat - it’s not a fact that we would like it.

      This, of course, does not mean that MRA is not needed, on the contrary, in the matter of coastal defense from an attack by large forces, it will be much more effective than the fleet


      Will be. I have one article entirely about the need to restore strike aircraft at sea, and one partially about this, the links are given))
      1. Avior
        Avior 24 October 2019 17: 10
        +2
        Harpoons need not be allowed from long range.
        The closer, the more reliable.
        For Americans, anti-ship functions are performed by aviation, not ships.
        And with the drums everything is in order - a hundred cells half of the Tomahawk
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 October 2019 19: 49
          0
          The closer, the more reliable.


          Like any RCC.

          For Americans, anti-ship functions are performed by aviation, not ships.


          Not always.

          And with the drums everything is in order - a hundred cells half of the Tomahawk


          Well, yes, but who said that Tomahawks are the only option? We live in a "crooked" version of reality, where the mass of everything that exists is suboptimal.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. EvilLion
    EvilLion 24 October 2019 09: 10
    +3
    The theory of the “small fleet” has existed for more than a hundred years and its meaning boils down to the following: it is theoretically possible to create such ships that, being small and inexpensive, can nevertheless easily destroy large and powerful enemy ships, or wage war on them communications due to superiority in weapons or stealth.


    All this is described by the famous phrase that it is better to be rich and healthy than the poor and sick. At the same time, it is not entirely clear what is meant by a small fleet; German submarines were built by the hundreds during WWII and, in fact, proved that to counter them they need to spend several times more resources. The joke is that 1000 submarines will not be able to help with land operations, unlike the battleship, but they will sink anything at sea.
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 25 October 2019 10: 57
      0
      Yeah, and so almost the entire submarine fleet of Germany was destroyed, ridiculous.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 October 2019 12: 35
        0
        It was destroyed because the economic capabilities of Germany and the United States + the British Empire were incomparable, this does not take into account the fact that apart from the Atlantic, thousands of tanks, guns, planes, etc., etc. were grinded somewhere in the east, etc. Yes, and In general, the defeat of Germany does not negate the fact that its armed forces were much more effective than the allied forces.
  14. Ros 56
    Ros 56 24 October 2019 09: 15
    -3
    Both Napoleon and Hitler also considered Russia weak, unprepared for war, with internal contradictions, etc., how it ended everyone knows perfectly well who has a bistro cafe in use and who has a Russian guy with a sword in Treptow Park like these gentlemen so far calmed down. What do striped people want to see? Let them not be shy about holding a referendum on this topic.
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 25 October 2019 10: 58
      0
      It was not possible for Napoleon and Hitler to practically decapitate and bloodless the country with one blow.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 25 October 2019 15: 57
        0
        These also do not have such an opportunity, there would be an opportunity, we all here would not write comments.
  15. meandr51
    meandr51 24 October 2019 10: 08
    +4
    "Undermining the reputation of the one who applied YAZ"? Depends on the circumstances. Did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seriously damage the reputation of the United States?
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 11: 53
      +2
      There were completely different conditions and the war was different. If such a batch happens now, nobody will be worn out either.
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 24 October 2019 17: 11
        +2
        In Iraq, US officials have killed 1 million people. More than during the bombing of Japan and the then "tough batch". And there was just a small victorious war. Phosphorus, cassette power supplies ... And nobody - nothing. even the Iraqis themselves. I believe that in a limited conflict, the cause of the start of the war and the aggressor will be determined by the "world media". And with unlimited no one will ever know anything. There will be nowhere ...
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 October 2019 19: 44
          +1
          This is not that. Now, if they hit Mosul with a nuclear bomb in 2016 ...
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 25 October 2019 12: 38
            0
            The joke is that they turned Mosul into ashes and without nuclear weapons, as they turned German cities and Japanese into ashes, moreover, Hiroshima is there only at the 4 place in terms of destroy. And this is exactly what any war between strong powers will come to, unless it takes place over some (semi) colonies and territories of the metropolises.
  16. EvilLion
    EvilLion 24 October 2019 10: 16
    +2
    "Air defense umbrella" does not exist, attackers are usually faster. This is how this world really works.


    That is why there are heavy interceptors that can barrage for hours, and ships have their own air defense. In this case, in the case of comparable forces, the bulk of the aircraft will not wait until the enemy sniffs out something and draws up an attack plan that gives him a numerical advantage at the point of battle, and flies by itself to strike, all kinds of ships will simply flicker below.

    The mentality of the Russian people, like most of the peoples living in Russia, is defensive.


    When Russ Byzantium robbed they were aware? And when the commanders of World War II operated with millions of armies, and planned operations like those that are part of the Battle of Stalingrad in which the main batch was not in the ruins of an already useless city, but in the surrounding steppes, and the point offensive Red Army operations was to surround the 6-th army of Paulus, they were aware that the Russian man is defensive mentality? It is so defensive that Russia, even at the current minimum size settings, remains the largest state in the world. So valiantly defended their Central Russian plain that they went to Alaska and even built fortresses in California.

    Even any chess player or computer strategy player will tell you that one can only win by aggressively setting difficult tasks for the opponent that he will not be able to solve, not like a commander operating in the conditions of the unknown exact forces of the enemy and his plans.
  17. EvilLion
    EvilLion 24 October 2019 10: 41
    +4
    Otherwise, you could mistakenly send a missile, for example, to a Soviet destroyer. With all that it implies.


    What were the consequences of the attack of the frigate "Stark"? That's right, no. The arrival of a single rocket on a single neutral ship will not have any consequences other than money and several dozen corpses. That is, having accidentally loaded into a Soviet destroyer in the Persian Gulf, the Americans would have paid compensation and apologized without too much show off. Similarly, the USSR, having accidentally kicked the American, would have done the same. Just because everyone understands, "it happens."

    the enemy’s ability to sink them “on our behalf” should be taken into account by the commanders of our Navy at all levels


    Well, in the navy they don't understand where they are going. And I also remember the movie "Solitary Swimming". By the way, why didn't Malaysia declare war on Ukraine, because there I understand perfectly well who shot down the Boeing and why? The whole world understood this in the very first days and simply shied away from the Ukrainian airspace.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 11: 48
      +3
      What were the consequences of the attack of the frigate "Stark"? That's right, no. The arrival of a single rocket on a single neutral ship will not have any consequences other than money and several dozen corpses.


      This is a dangerous extrapolation. The public reaction to such things is always irrational. This is a matter of psychology.

      There will be a society fueled by propaganda, but politically neutral, and there will be a reaction, especially if the losses are large. Plus, one of the warring parties can immediately promise something significant to such an offended neutral, such as resolving a long-standing territorial dispute on its terms.

      In general, with such confidence as you can’t say anything really.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 October 2019 12: 39
        0
        The public's reaction to such events is always psychosis, as was the case with our Su-24, only the General Staffs do not care, in the case of the military, because they generally know very well where they are going, being in the DB zone as an observer or other "neutral".
        1. timokhin-aa
          25 October 2019 13: 20
          0
          only the general staffs do not care, in the case of the military, because they generally know very well where they are going, being in the DB zone as an observer or other "neutral".


          Politicians decide, not the military. And politicians need to win elections. It will come across at the helm, believing that it is precisely with him that he will succeed in a small victorious one - that’s all. Then it will not stop.
  18. EvilLion
    EvilLion 24 October 2019 10: 50
    0
    Or it was necessary to equip it with conventional missiles and use it over land simply as a good interceptor, as the Iranians did, for example. But in this capacity, he was not worth his money.


    Do Iranians know? And then they filled a bunch of frags on the F-14 with the loss of all 2 aircraft.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 11: 49
      +1
      And on other planes did not fill?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 October 2019 12: 41
        0
        And on others, you will not believe, they really stuffed less, but lost more. As an apotheosis, completely useless against normal F-5 fighters.
        1. timokhin-aa
          25 October 2019 13: 14
          0
          The Iranians used Tomcat for intercepts because they had them.
          If they had an F-15, there would be a different Uberwaffe.
  19. Basarev
    Basarev 24 October 2019 10: 57
    0
    In fact, it comes down to a full-fledged carrier fleet. Kids in 15000 tons can not do. Not even Nimitz is needed, we need a Russian Ford, or rather, even a ship is better than Ford. And not one AUG per fleet.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 11: 50
      +2
      Come on you.
    2. Cyrus
      Cyrus 25 October 2019 11: 01
      0
      No, it’s not necessary in this variant.
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 31 October 2019 01: 56
      0
      Tell me only where to get the money and infrastructure for all this ?? And what's the point? Just to be?
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 31 October 2019 08: 19
        -2
        Right, you got it right. Since at the present time only a full-fledged carrier fleet is normally capable of fighting, we have two options: either abandon the fleet altogether, completely switch to land defense, that is, drop claims to a superpower, finally recognize US dominance and stop resisting ... Or to find funds and build aircraft carriers. Because without them there is no point. Absolutely.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 31 October 2019 10: 46
          0
          What does it mean to “recognize US supremacy”? Stop resisting what?
          For claims to a superpower, you need to have a superpower economy. Ambition must be commensurate with opportunity.
          Enter the top five, or something. Is it there? Maybe it’s better to engage in development? At the same time raise the standard of living, longevity of the population?
          And with all the emphasis on the “military”, it (the economy) will not grow.
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 31 October 2019 13: 40
            -1
            True, that is why Russian superpower manners look funny and ridiculous in the eyes of the world. It’s not with stove heating, even in the metropolitan area, to save dictators and seriously talk about the confrontation with the United States, let alone dream of noses and sea domination. It should be substantively agreed with the United States, as Xiaoping agreed, and the agreements must be respected.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 11 November 2019 13: 00
              0
              It's funny Especially considering that the USA has become unsatisfied by the current moment. And even funnier with stove heating. Are you not talking about America for an hour where do you live in trailer houses or in general in autotrailers?
              1. Basarev
                Basarev 11 November 2019 16: 14
                0
                This is not the States that are non-negotiable, but our oligarchs, who are bending only one line - at all costs to ensure the same income, as was the case with oil rising every year. In addition to them, you can negotiate with anyone. As for the trailers, shortcomings in the USA do not justify our bottom-up standard of living. What does America have to do with it when we condemn the flagrant poverty in Russia?
  20. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 24 October 2019 11: 03
    +2
    The "problem" of neutral ships and aircraft destroyed by accident or deliberately in the area of ​​hostilities has never had any decisive conclusions about entering the war on one side or another. Let us recall the Korean Boeing in the Far East or the Malaysian one over the Donbas - three hundred lives each and only broken stationery pens! Therefore, our sailors must be exempted from all possible liability for unintentional damage to a third party in the area of ​​hostilities.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 11: 50
      +1
      This is understandable to be relieved of responsibility, but measures must be taken to prevent such excesses - see US accession to WWI. Without ships, it is not a fact that Congress would agree.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 October 2019 12: 44
        0
        They themselves wrote that the attacks were deliberate. There would be no intent, then the Americans would be drowned an order of magnitude less often.
        1. timokhin-aa
          25 October 2019 13: 18
          0
          Maybe less often, but then there were upright torpedoes, and the commander of the substrate aimed with his own eyes at the ship, which had to be drowned.

          RCC chooses the target itself, and here already no one has power over it. Hooks on the cruiser - hit the cruiser
  21. Operator
    Operator 24 October 2019 12: 35
    -8
    The article is a complete disinformation made in USA, beginning with the methods of using nuclear weapons and ending with the construction of the fleet.

    In accordance with the current military doctrines of the United States and the Russian Federation, Americans plan to launch a preemptive strike using conventional high-precision weapons, we plan a retaliatory strike using nuclear weapons.

    Most conventional precision-guided weapons in the form of subsonic cruise missiles are deployed on enemy ships, including submarines and aircraft carriers (as aircraft ammunition), which clearly requires the use of enemy naval forces in a preventive strike.

    In order to localize the nuclear conflict, our retaliatory nuclear strike will be delivered exclusively on the territory of countries that do not have nuclear weapons: all NATO countries (except the USA, Britain and France) and countries with US military bases (Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, OAU, Oman).

    At the same time, a retaliatory nuclear strike will also be delivered against the naval forces of the United States and its allies located outside the national territory of the United States, Britain and France. As a result, the enemy’s AUG and KUG located in the sea will cease to exist.

    The same thing will happen with the surface forces of the Russian Navy, located at sea, on which the enemy will be hit. Therefore, there is no sense in building a domestic surface fleet larger than corvettes, which are needed exclusively in peacetime for coastal defense and escorting transport vessels providing expeditionary operations of the RF Armed Forces such as operations in Syria.

    After exchanging blows with conventional weapons (from the enemy) and nuclear weapons (from our side), NATO countries (not possessing nuclear weapons) and the rest of the US allies will be withdrawn from the war due to the destruction of mobresources. The United States, Britain, France and the Russian Federation will retain their strategic nuclear forces and mobil resources.

    The decision to transfer the nuclear conflict to the global level with the delivery of preventive and reciprocal counter-attacks on the national territories of the USA, Britain, France and the Russian Federation will be made by the political leadership of the countries in the conditions of:
    - lack of combat-ready surface forces of the fleets, including URO destroyers equipped with anti-missiles;
    - dispersal of the population;
    - minute readiness of the strategic nuclear forces to launch a retaliatory strike, which eliminates the short flight time of SLBMs launched at a minimum distance of 3000 km.

    As a result, we get the following:
    - With the localization of the nuclear conflict, the Russian Federation wins the Third World War with the accession of the territory of almost all of Europe, the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf (except Iraq) and Japan. The United States is losing strategic footholds in Europe, the Middle and Far East and is withdrawing to the North American continent;
    - surface fleets of all parties involved in a local nuclear conflict lose their combat effectiveness at the first stage and do not participate in hostilities at the stage of escalation to the level of a global nuclear conflict.

    Then why goat button accordion - surface fleet more than necessary in peacetime?
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 24 October 2019 17: 27
      -2
      N-yes ... However, you do not know the US doctrine well !!! In the United States Strategic Command, they’re not fools and understand that silos cannot be knocked out even with highly accurate conventional weapons; it’s also difficult to catch a PGRK because of constant target designation. Epts. Are you referring to common sense? Although reading your articles, it seems that you do not have it. Yours faithfully...
      1. Operator
        Operator 24 October 2019 18: 21
        -3
        The US military doctrine contains several options for a nuclear war strategy.

        One of them is based on a counter-force preventive strike against the Russian strategic nuclear forces, primarily located on the national territory of the Russian Federation. But in order to neutralize this strike, we have SPRN, mobile PGRK, active protection systems for ICBM mines, multifunctional protective coating for missile hulls, software maneuver of passage through the zone of blocking nuclear explosions, radiation-resistant integrated circuits and much more.

        In addition, this option of conducting a nuclear war clearly violates the interests of the United States - using strategic nuclear forces to launch a counter-force strike on the Russian Federation disarms America in front of China, which automatically becomes the winner in TMV. Therefore, the most profitable version of the US strategy is escalation (also stated in their military doctrine) - a strike with high-precision conventional weapons, a strike with tactical nuclear weapons, a strike with strategic nuclear weapons (in case of emergency).

        For the same reason, Russia is interested in using its strategic arsenal only in circumstances of force majeure, therefore in an escalation war we will begin with a retaliatory counter-strike with tactical nuclear weapons at targets located outside the national territory of the United States, Britain and France, and most importantly within topics under discussion - on surface ship groupings of the United States and its allies.

        Then why do we need our own numerous surface naval groups, which will be taken out by a preemptive strike by the enemy at the first (conventional) stage of escalation - to help domestic shipbuilders to use the money?
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 24 October 2019 18: 43
          -2
          Gg in this case, the military doctrine of the Russian Federation in the form in which you described it is obviously a losing one, because (For the same reason, Russia is interested in using its strategic arsenal only in force majeure situations, so in an escalation war we will begin with a retaliatory counter-tactical nuclear strike against targets located outside the national territory of the United States, Britain and France, and most importantly, within the framework of the topic under discussion - on surface ship groupings of the United States and its allies.) it is pointless that tactically and strategically !!! Question?!!! Do you really think that such a scenario is possible? !!!
          1. Operator
            Operator 24 October 2019 18: 55
            -3
            Quote: Nehist
            it's pointless

            Argument.
            1. Nehist
              Nehist 24 October 2019 22: 43
              -3
              After delivering a blow to the Russian Federation with conventional weapons, what do we have? - Partially destroyed and damaged objects of strategic nuclear forces, air defense and missile defense, communications and control. In our retaliatory strike against tactical nuclear weapons against facilities not located in the United States, we end up with even greater escalation and, as a result, a full-fledged strike from the US side of the strategic nuclear forces that we will no longer have a chance to parry.
              1. Operator
                Operator 25 October 2019 01: 26
                0
                You are absolutely right that the damage from the use of Western conventional weapons against targets in Russia will not prevent you from striking a nuclear strike against the non-nuclear states of Europe, the Middle and Far East, as well as the fleets of all our opponents in the oceans.

                And after that, the ball will be on the side of the USA, Britain and France, who must decide what to do next:
                - Substitute their countries under the attack of the Russian strategic nuclear forces (which are invulnerable, since they are placed in the minute readiness mode);
                - make peace.

                What is your forecast for the decision of the USA, Britain and France?
                1. Nehist
                  Nehist 25 October 2019 04: 39
                  -4
                  Very simple!!! Destruction of at least one AUS in the USA, notice not the AUG, but the AUS (if you understand the difference) will automatically lead to a global conflict. The decision of politicians simply will not work, public opinion will just play here, and any cabinet that hints about the world will be thrown out of the white house. And where did you get the idea that our strategic nuclear forces would be in minute readiness? Moreover, they themselves claimed that the United States would strike at the places of deployment of silos and PGRK? You are looking at one side of the situation. Firstly, our TNW strike on NATO countries is sorry for the bunch in the air, Even if the United States, Britain and France go to the world (which I personally don’t believe), the Russian Federation will turn into a rogue country for the whole world just like the country that used nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. That is, in the strategic perspective of the Russian Federation, nothing can be achieved. In the end, it will be a Pyrrhic victory
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    25 October 2019 09: 01
                    0
                    The decision of politicians simply will not work, public opinion will just play here, and any cabinet that hints about the world will be thrown out of the white house.


                    I read once an Amer article, which stated that aircraft carriers had already outgrown the status of warships and were one of the pillars of American identity, and the destruction of any enemy by such an enemy would cause such a shock in the nation that the use of nuclear weapons in response would become inevitable.
                    1. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky
                      Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 30 October 2019 16: 39
                      0
                      You say some things because it is beneficial to say them. Americans love and know how to play poker.
                    2. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 11 November 2019 13: 04
                      0
                      This is crap and bullying. Even the destruction of the AUS, with the exchange of nuclear weapons strikes at sea, will not lead to global conflict ...

                      They will come up with a kraynyak for the electorate, a tale of a meteorite falling and the end ...
                  2. Operator
                    Operator 25 October 2019 10: 29
                    0
                    Quote: Nehist
                    our TNW strike on NATO countries is sorry those bunch in the air

                    At the end of the 1980's, the USSR gained 40 of thousands of non-strategic nuclear charges, which would be enough to glaze Europe (without Britain and France), Japan and South Korea, American bases in the Persian Gulf and withdraw the enemy from the game in the ocean.

                    This strike will not cause the automatic use of strategic nuclear forces of the United States, Britain and France, since at first they will explicitly comprehend the current situation.

                    I did not understand your logic - we will strike a TNW, but we will not put the strategic nuclear forces into minute readiness mode?
              2. 5-9
                5-9 25 October 2019 07: 14
                +1
                You somehow exaggerate the consequences of a conventional strike on the Russian Federation .... the most powerful in the world one-time (not as one-time - an hour and a half) attacks of the Kyrgyz Republic were on the ATS - 62 and 101 KR ... do not recall the consequences? It’s like 3 non-flying .. ten years old fighter, a couple of hangars and a few hours of GDP in the first and three 2-story huts disabled in the second case.
                You are Trump, you are being told that traitors to America (half have already been found and destroyed / arrested) struck the Russian Federation, and "these Russians" struck American bases in Poland, the Baltic States and the 6th Fleet .... 5 thousand died. Americans ... will you call your friend Vlad with a proposal to hush up, or say "let's kill tens of millions of Russians, don't care if tens of millions of Americans will die"? Are you sure that in the second option you will not hear how your guard pulled the bolt?
                1. Mimoprohodil
                  Mimoprohodil 25 October 2019 10: 08
                  0
                  Quote: 5-9
                  Like 3 non-flying ..teen years old fighter, a couple of hangars and disabled for several hours of GDP
                  "As a result of the missile strike, a warehouse of material and technical property, a training building, a canteen, 6 MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars, as well as a radar station were destroyed," the official representative of the Russian Defense Ministry, Major General Igor Konashenkov, listed the damage
                  And here you can see more than in the official version https://lostarmour.info/articles/topornaya-rabota/. For example, a warehouse of material and technical property - in fact, these are 3 warehouses and 2 fuel storages
                  1. 5-9
                    5-9 25 October 2019 12: 19
                    0
                    Well, I exaggerated a little of course and expressed the polar version, but the essence of this does not change.
                    1. Mimoprohodil
                      Mimoprohodil 25 October 2019 15: 24
                      0
                      Quote: 5-9
                      but the essence of this does not change.
                      Will the US also warn Russia in advance of a conventional strike? How was it in Syria
              3. Vadim237
                Vadim237 25 October 2019 20: 53
                -2
                "Partially destroyed and damaged objects of strategic nuclear forces, air defense and missile defense" - silo launchers, air defense systems missile defense - gliding bombs, subsonic drones and subsonic cruise missiles? Most of this is pushed back to the borders, since Russia has had a unified air defense system since 2013, as well as over-the-horizon radars that in 2019 blocked 90% of the airspace on the border of Russia and in Russia itself, and this whole system works online with the ability to recognize targets - there will be no sudden, lightning strikes - the shop is closed for them.
                1. Mimoprohodil
                  Mimoprohodil 25 October 2019 21: 38
                  +1
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  as in Russia since 2013 there is a unified air defense system, as well as over-the-horizon radars are available which in 2019 blocked 90% of the airspace on the border of Russia and in Russia itself
                  2 sunflowers and one container or something that everything is blocked?
    2. Cyrus
      Cyrus 25 October 2019 11: 08
      0
      You would have counted the number of warheads to start the strategy, or maybe everything else you fall asleep on Sunday, and on Monday morning ... you do not wake up because at night your city (like the SSBN bases and partly the airfields of statues with ICBM installations was destroyed by a massive a blow from the waters of the Black, Baltic and Mediterranean Seas, the Atlantic and Japan, and the second wave is already approaching.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 25 October 2019 20: 59
        -2
        "Destroyed by a massive strike from the waters of the Black, Baltic and Mediterranean seas, the Atlantic and Japan, and the second wave is on its way." A massive blow of something - subsonic cruise missiles, a really terrible and invulnerable weapon, and most importantly how fast it is against Russia.
    3. SVD68
      SVD68 27 October 2019 10: 01
      0
      Quote: Operator
      In accordance with the current military doctrines of the United States and the Russian Federation, Americans plan to launch a preemptive strike using conventional high-precision weapons, we plan a retaliatory strike using nuclear weapons.

      Most conventional precision-guided weapons in the form of subsonic cruise missiles are deployed on enemy ships, including submarines and aircraft carriers (as aircraft ammunition), which clearly requires the use of enemy naval forces in a preventive strike.

      In order to localize the nuclear conflict, our retaliatory nuclear strike will be delivered exclusively on the territory of countries that do not have nuclear weapons: all NATO countries (except the USA, Britain and France) and countries with US military bases (Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, OAU, Oman).

      For us, such a strategy was initially losing. After striking at us and retaliating our blow not at the United States, we will be left without weapons capable of reaching the United States. But the United States will retain a strategic nuclear arsenal. And they will be able to destroy in a nuclear fire one of our city per day, until we agree to capitulate.
  22. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 24 October 2019 12: 37
    0
    Alexander Timokhin burst into a long and deep article, while he tried not to express heresy, but to focus on the evidence ..... In fact, no solution can be universally correct, without taking into account the specific situation ...., Alexander, as it were, proves this the whole article, but he himself falls into the same trap, for he does not take into account the specifics of the specific country we are talking about at a particular time. I personally do not cancel the aircraft carriers, but I say that Russia does not specifically need aircraft carriers because the Russian Federation does not have the ability to support them without irreparable damage to other more important defense tasks, or goals for aircraft carriers, that is, for aggression against distant and weak countries .. But aircraft carriers America needs China and India and these countries can contain them ...... In general, Timokhin talks about the dangers of modern war, but bombers from Poland can fly through Belarus, Finland, and not only through Estonia, and how the Baltic Fleet can recapture them not clear, and better than the KBF ground C400, it is also not clear .. But it is clear that the Russian Navy is almost useless, and for a long time. The ocean open spaces can be tracked from the satellite and from the frigates' corvettes, then the flight time of the coastal aviation will decrease, and the carrier fleet will not be needed at the cost of the entire country's air force. And by the way, what is coastal air defense worse than located on ships? And what are the challenges on the oceans? Their two are 1 submarine exit, and 2 port defense. And for both, large surface ships are not needed, and the second task is generally solved earlier and now without a fleet by ground means.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 24 October 2019 17: 34
      -1
      How can you not understand that KUG that AUG perform the functions of long-range defense! The farther from our borders the better. Here you stand for the SSBN. Alas in the so-called bastion ah (Sea of ​​Okhotsk, etc.) they are easy to track, the very essence of these boats is in the open ocean so that no one knows even the approximate square of location. And only with the help of 1st rank ships can this secrecy be provided to them
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 25 October 2019 23: 18
        0
        Quote: Nehist
        And only with the help of 1st rank ships can this secrecy be provided to them
        Why is this?
  23. mark1
    mark1 24 October 2019 13: 38
    0
    Wrong ideas, wrong concepts

    Self-critical ... It could very well be ...
  24. 5-9
    5-9 24 October 2019 15: 18
    0
    1. Nonsense. All the more so about the fact that when attacking naval targets, the United States would supposedly answer almost civilians .... Homeland !!! In the style of "well, if you get the knife, then I will get angry."
    Even plans for war on the European theater of operations ATS first provided for one-time TNW strikes, then escalation, up to hundreds or thousands of exemplary special warheads ... but in the territories of third countries of the Federal Republic of Germany, Denmark, East Germany, Poland, etc. Homeland and Homeland, no, no, in extreme cases, at the last moment .... is Euroopka worth the lives of tens of millions of Americans? Of course not. About the ships and say nothing. Nobody needs a nuclear weapon and armageddets. And this is intimidation solely due to the fact that we have 10-fold quantitative and overwhelming qualitative superiority of TNW carriers. And with US Navi without TNW and the Navy of the USSR, he was not going to fight from the word at all. Well, what's the difference, AUG is crushed-drowned 4 anti-ship missiles with special warheads and 20 ordinary or 64-72 ordinary anti-ship missiles?
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 20: 14
      +3
      1. Nonsense. All the more so about the fact that when attacking naval targets, the United States would supposedly answer almost civilians .... Homeland !!! In the style of "well, if you get the knife, then I will get angry."


      So I took my info from the presentation of "Naval Strategy", which US Secretary of the Navy John Lehman conducted for US Secretary of Defense Kaspar Weinberger. Where are you from?

      Just in case, I’ll draw attention to the fact that attacks on the territory of the USSR were allowed, there was no obligatory requirement to inflict them, and the purposes for which they would be inflicted were military, not civilian, simply due to the fact that this is still a nuclear weapon, without casualties among civilians not done.
      1. 5-9
        5-9 25 October 2019 07: 23
        +1
        Do not you understand that there is disinformation, stupid propaganda and real plans (which are derived from potential)? There is also logic. This presentation of yours is just "do not dare to use TNW, otherwise I, and then me, and then uhhh !!!!"
        The Russian Federation has an overwhelming superiority in tactical nuclear weapons, which the United States has finally directly recognized and is trying to stop (in a rather idiotic and dangerous way of installing nuclear weapons on the Trident).
        Attacks on the USSR were allowed as an extreme and undesirable measure in the case of a large nuclear batch in Europe. Those. as the last measure to prevent the capture of the USSR throughout continental Europe ... understand what it is about? And that is not a fact that they would apply .... it is not worth it (Euroopka).
        Nuclear kneading in Europka is an analogue of today's post-shootings through proxies in Syria. We are black and green, the United States for CAA - we can beat, but for each other - God forbid!
        1. timokhin-aa
          25 October 2019 09: 03
          +1
          Generally speaking, these are old docks, which were classified in Soviet times, the text of the GRU naval strategy got out only in 1982.

          Now they can be read freely. Then everything was different.

          What is the use of classified misinformation?

          And yes, advice for the future - sometimes put yourself in the place of the enemy, it is useful.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 25 October 2019 12: 21
            0
            So I put ... drowned the boats in the sea-oksiyane - what the difference with fungi or without?
            Is this (drowning fungi) a reason to doom tens of millions of Americans to death? NO!
            1. timokhin-aa
              25 October 2019 12: 36
              0
              This is for you - no. And why did you get the idea that we will kill tens of millions of Americans in ONE nuclear strike at Severomorsk-3 airbase? After all, we ourselves will perish in such a war — that’s all.
  25. dgonni
    dgonni 24 October 2019 16: 20
    +2
    The end of the 80s. 16 are still flying! 95 rz also! The words of the commander! In cases of the beginning of the batch. You are disposable, but try to get to the line and shoot! This was enough to start or not start the global. 16th is not the plane that could steer in the 80s. Not really! 95 rts also. Yes, there they sculpted a reb, but onl did not work across the board. 22m3? The last series were a bomb. But their cat was crying. And m2? Well, ask the flyers.
    Theoretically, the union on tof something could but physically only workers and in fact they were suicide bombers. Damage would be done without return options!
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 24 October 2019 17: 40
      -2
      In principle, this was not particularly hidden, the alleged loss of up to 90% of the air division is what respected Timokhina writes about.
      1. timokhin-aa
        24 October 2019 20: 09
        +3
        I’ll just quote the words of the American pilot-decker Andy Picot, a participant in the Norpak Flitex 82, where the Americans raped the Pacific Fleet intelligence.

        A few words about the opponent. Soviet naval missile aircraft was (and remains) very well organized and well armed. The Tu-16 or Tu-22 attack regiments, supported by the Tu-95 and naval patrol aircraft for reconnaissance, were a dangerous adversary. The USSR had approximately an MPA regiment for every American aircraft carrier. If the MRA aviation regiment took the aircraft carrier by surprise - all that was left was to lower the curtain. Aircraft carrier, timely warned, had good chances to survive, but with the risk of significant losses and damage. But the MRA aviation regiment, pushing through the curtain of fighter aircraft there and back, inevitably suffered heavy losses. There would not be enough combat-ready aircraft in it for a second strike - if it had remained at all. If the missile trap was positioned in such a way that the air regiment would begin to rise to a launch height within the reach of the missile ship - which the pilots would not know about exactly until the guidance radar would turn on and the missiles would begin to explode - the battle would end before it started. Therefore, the key to striking was the requirement to identify the target and determine its exact position before the air regiment rises to strike. And this gave the aircraft carrier time to take measures - maneuver, deploy distracting groups, missile traps, ambush fighters, etc.

        Having, say, a two-hour warning, an aircraft carrier could
        - direct the missile ship as a missile trap 60 miles lower in the vector of the enemy’s most likely approach
        - place air patrols on the perimeter of defense
        - place another missile-carrying ship in its previous position as a false target
        - shift to 60 miles in any direction in silent mode
        In this case (under the best of circumstances), an attacking regiment would confirm the presence of a target near the expected point, would fall into a missile trap, then under attack from fighters, and ultimately find out that the target found was not an aircraft carrier at all, but quite able to fend for themselves as a cruiser or destroyer.

        The secret to success in this case is to prevent the exact location of the group.
        1. 5-9
          5-9 25 October 2019 07: 31
          0
          The essence of the quote. The number of regiments = the number of AUG. In a normal situation, AP MRA and AUG are each other. If someone is lucky / the other smooths out, the stirring can be in one gate. Those. within reach of the MRA AUGU cover.
          And this is the 82nd year .... even neither Aegis nor "Batons" with Granites, so it has nothing to do with the current situation.
          1. timokhin-aa
            25 October 2019 09: 05
            0
            Those. within reach of the MRA AUGU cover.


            You do not understand the essence of what you read, in general. Reread, parse paragraphs.

            not even Aegis or "Batons" with Granites


            Well, there are already ship-mounted air defense systems with good fire performance, and we have an 670 submarine project and modifications, the situation is the same, adjusted for the effectiveness of volleys on both sides.

            For the USSR, the situation was even better then, the gap in power was less.
            1. 5-9
              5-9 25 October 2019 12: 24
              +1
              It looks like you did not understand. The American pilot says to you "the MPA regiment drowns the AUG in a standard situation" (he doesn't care that he himself almost dies) ... Conclusion? AUG will not stick within the MPA range.
              1. timokhin-aa
                25 October 2019 12: 40
                0
                The American pilot leads several options. And THERE is the standard situation there.

                Output? AUG will not pop into the range of the MPA.


                But in practice, the Americans were going to arrange a gigantic massacre near the Kola Peninsula, in which at the cost of tens or 100 + NATO ships, Soviet attack aircraft would be completely knocked out.
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 11 November 2019 13: 11
          0
          For tricksters like Andy Pico, the MPA had a threaded screw. Part of the aircraft carried PRR aimed at operating air defense systems, as well as REP aircraft following the combat order of MRAP
          1. timokhin-aa
            11 November 2019 14: 11
            0
            I have not heard about PRR. False targets were based on X-22, the jamming group is understandable.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 11 November 2019 14: 46
              0
              In fact, PRRs were part of the MRA equipment initially. KSR-11, KSR-5P and then X-22
            2. Polinom
              Polinom 15 November 2019 18: 04
              +1
              Tu-16. The Tu-22 was not. But there was not much sense from them, the fact that ours worked on the Shrike in Vietnam was no longer good. We have a teacher. was defended his thesis on this topic. Well, what about Hawkeye, Avax? With the number of radars in the group of ships? A rocket for each?
    2. timokhin-aa
      24 October 2019 20: 12
      +2
      But I think that the Tu-16 had to be modernized, re-equipped with the X-22, changed the avionics to a new one, etc.

      At low altitudes he was normally controlled, his range was good, as a scout he was better than the Tu-22M, and much, etc.

      By the way, they flew up to 1992.
      1. Polinom
        Polinom 15 November 2019 18: 05
        0
        This is true. 16 reviews are good, better than 22.
  26. bar
    bar 24 October 2019 17: 18
    0
    Domestic military experts considered various options for such an application - from striking empty areas at sea for demonstration purposes, to a limited nuclear strike against non-nuclear allies of a nuclear aggressor.

    The concept has changed. GDP promised strikes against "decision-making centers."
  27. A.TOR
    A.TOR 24 October 2019 18: 43
    +5
    Good article, thoughtful, reasoned analysis. With something, as a former specialist could argue, but because of the "former" I will not.
    The question is precisely the likelihood / possibility of using nuclear weapons in this or that conflict with the United States. This, admittedly, is the root question. Given the current size and condition of the Russian MPS, any meaningful and effective disruption of military transport from America to Europe (or anywhere else) will not be effective. It is unlikely to be at all. The American navy is large, well trained and well maintained. condition. The systematic build-up of land groupings will be carried out quickly, with efficient escorting of transports, with rapidly deploying "air bridges", in which thousands of aircraft removed / attracted from transport and passenger commercial traffic will participate.
    In a short time, the Russian Federation will be in a situation in which any conventional action is doomed to failure. One of the reasons for this is that most countries are responsible - and most of them - will try to be away from the conflict. One of the technical capabilities of this is to drastically, to an absolute minimum, reduce any ties, primarily economic, with Russia. Everyone understands that she will not succeed in defeating her, without nuclear weapons, for any lengthy time of conflict. Not the resources, the geographical location, but most importantly, the unprecedented economic and political pressure that the United States will exert upon exacerbating relations with Russia on practically the whole world. In the case of support from any country (or group of countries) of Russia, their economies will receive a knockout blow from international Finns. institutions (and not only)
    The war will begin not by shooting at each other (although, of course, such excesses are quite possible), but with a blow to the Russian economy. What can she really oppose?
    For example, remote shutdown / interference in the functioning of a number of critical industries, the power system, essential goods of absolutely basic necessity? Tank "throw" to the English Channel? A raid on a Ford?
    What exactly?
    Stories about the fact that the US army consists of carriers of diapers is nonsense. They know how and can fight, the power of the American economy is colossal. The whole world really depends on it. There is nothing that Russia can do / think and the USA cannot. The arms race is just unfolding, but it is already clear how America is being drawn into it with skill and dexterity. Most likely, in a few years, Russia's "achievements" in creating "unmatched" weapons will be overlapped with a substantial margin.
    And here no convulsive fleet reconstruction projects will help. First of all, political decisions are needed. Colossal errors have been made in assessing the prospects and consequences of actions in the political sphere, which will be extremely difficult to correct.
    To pass between the Scylla of war and the Charybdis of balancing on its edge will be difficult, if not impossible ..
  28. Nikolai
    Nikolai 24 October 2019 21: 57
    -2
    Long story and slurred conclusion. Only the Baltic theater of operations is considered. And where will the Polish planes land? And they have no other tasks? Does our intelligence mean sleeping? And they are north and then east ...
  29. SVD68
    SVD68 25 October 2019 06: 45
    0
    About the "air defense umbrella".
    In principle, the attacker has the advantage over the defender that he can create temporary superiority in forces by concentrating more forces in the direction of the attack. This is especially pronounced in the use of the most mobile form of forces - aviation.
    And in this sense, neither air defense aircraft, nor land, nor ship air defense can protect from a massive air attack. The only reliable means of air defense - gaining dominance in the air. And it is achieved by the offensive. Aircraft from an aircraft carrier are reflected in damage / drowning of the aircraft carrier. Aircraft from a Polish airfield - shot down over Poland, bombing the airfield, and finally a Russian tank at the Polish airfield. And only then will the ships be able to fight off their air defense, because air raids on them will be random single character.
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 October 2019 09: 06
      0
      A local "fragment" of this whole celebration of life is discussed - a reflection of an air strike on ships.
  30. Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 25 October 2019 12: 44
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    rearm on the X-22,


    And KSR-5 is worse?
  31. Tektor
    Tektor 25 October 2019 13: 42
    -1
    An air defense umbrella near the coast can be guaranteed by the use of the Resonance-N ZGRLS, with its detection range of 1000 km and a target designation range of 600 km, and the С300V4 complex.
    1. Mimoprohodil
      Mimoprohodil 25 October 2019 15: 57
      +1
      Quote: Tektor
      ZGRLS
      And therefore, the detection range depends on the altitude of the target?
      Fighter detection range at an altitude of 10000 m, km 350
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 25 October 2019 21: 05
        -2
        In Russia, the radar for detecting any air targets is as complete as SAM missiles, which in the event of a massive raid will destroy everything.
  32. Polinom
    Polinom 27 October 2019 13: 50
    0
    Alexander, a little criticism. wink
    .... in readiness number 2 (pilots in the barracks, planes are ready for immediate take-off, ........ when taking off, one plane should completely rise into the air, be built in combat formation and go on the desired course no more than within an hour from the moment of receipt of the order, in the case of take-off of aircraft in pairs - in the region of 40 minutes.
    Alexander already wrote. The second is in aircraft or in a place designated by the commander.
    Fuses are not screwed into rockets during the second. That is, they are not ready for an “immediate” take-off. The first in 30 minutes.
    No one will raise a regiment. Squadron, to 10 boards immediately, yes. There are standards for the number of departures for 12 hours, 24, 36, 72. You need to rest the flight crew.
    In addition, preparation for the second flight. There are not so many groups (SD, AO, AB, REO) and equipment for servicing ALL boards at the same time.

    ... when the airfield, the guarded naval group, and the adversary are on the same line.
    Before the strike group there will be additional reconnaissance, electronic warfare, suppression of the air defense of the object and gaining superiority in the air (sector). Well, and the demonstration group is covered by interference. And not one. They have enough strength.
    For similar calculations noun.graphics. Now, too, communication can be crushed and control is difficult.
    If the two sides act in dynamics, the calculations are reduced “to the milestone”, and then to the decision of the commander of the air group, or “each for himself”. They will be limited only by the fuel supply, the threat sector and the availability of ammunition.

    The Skyhawk has already been cleared of the bombs, but not of the outboard tanks. So the bombs were dropped on the British ship, and only then it was shot down.
    The artist is probably off topic. Before operation, the PTBs are reset. Maneuverability and safety. PTB does not have a neutral gas system and protection.
    Of the 22 A-4s, 8 were shot down by the Harrier with missiles. After hitting the A-4 rocket, it hardly looked so whole.
    increase the scope of a missile salvo
    If you managed to raise Tomketov to 20, the Tu-22М2 would not have reached the launch range (250-350 km) of the X-22.
    They would have put everyone before launch. However, this already happened.
    http://samlib.ru/editors/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/avianosec-1985-86.shtml
    ships must be able to fight against aircraft themselves.
    The Angles did not think so. From 22 A-4 7 shot down by ship SAM, 8 Harriers. Almost equally.
    The mentality of the Russian people, like most of the peoples living in Russia, is defensive.
    .... the famous Russian general Kuropatkin in his memorandum to the Tsar in 1900 wrote:
    "that over the previous 200 years Russia was in a state of war for 128 years and had 72 years of peace. Of the 128 years of war, 5 years fell on defensive wars and 123 on conquests."
    ... then she will slip it. Further, its lost target, the seeker, will again begin to look for something radio-contrast.
    Slips across. This is not a torpedo, the rocket has a speed of two Machs. I’m talking about our X-22s, and the subsonic is tormented to unfold, before the fuel burns out.
    the failed Phoenix rocket and the F-14 interceptor concept, which was not very successful in its original form
    I didn’t shy away from Phoenix, but the Tomkets came out to us for 400-500 km as a nefig to do, with our flight altitude of 1200-1500 m Most of all, ABOUT wrote about legality. And in addition to the Phoenix, they had Sparrow, these are certainly not failures.)))
    strike at least a regiment of bombers with cruise missiles
    Rocket carriers.))) There is a DBA and there is an MPA.
    one Tu-16 regiment could destroy all the forces of the British Navy ....
    Could not. If they are off the coast of Great Britain, then the regiment simply will not fly, they will bring down on the way, including Continental Air Defense. If further, does not fly on fuel.

    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 22: 38
      0
      Thanks for the edits.

      Several answer:

      No one will raise a regiment. Squadron, to 10 boards immediately, yes. There are standards for the number of departures for 12 hours, 24, 36, 72. You need to rest the flight crew.


      Well then, all the more so there is no "Air Defense Umbrella". If the enemy in the strike group has 20-24 vehicles and the same number of escorts, then the squadron will not stop everything. Disorganizes and weaken the blow, yes.

      Before the strike group there will be additional reconnaissance, electronic warfare, suppression of the air defense of the object and gaining superiority in the air (sector). Well, and the demonstration group is covered by interference. And not one. They have enough strength.


      Well, this is if you fight with the Americans. But wars with non-Americans are much more likely. And there, the enemy may well have a certain lack of strength. Argentina, for example, immediately went on strike groups.

      And with the Americans the whole holiday of life in full will be 1-2 of the first flight, then you will have to reduce the outfit of forces. They have only 9 deck-wing aircraft wings, the shortage of deck-based pilots is huge, and they cannot make up for it, even now.

      In Iraq already in 2004 there was not a single infantry unit where there would be a full staff. There has always been a shortage of 1-2 people, already at that level. Higher, too.
      Behind their facade, not everything is as good as it seems from the outside.

      The Angles did not think so. From 22 A-4 7 shot down by ship SAM, 8 Harriers. Almost equally.


      I know how it was with the English. Before writing "Surface ships against planes" I counted the losses of Argentina according to the following scheme: I took only those shot down, whom they lost during the attacks on NK, and only the strikers (without Mirages). I dismissed the rest, since on their examples the issues of the combat stability of ships and the one who better shoot down is not revealed. He divided into groups - who were shot down by the Harriers during these attacks, and who were the ships.

      The following statistics turned out:

      The first figure is shot down by Harriers, the second is shot down by ships, the third is shot down by other forces, and that’s all.

      1 IAI Dagger 9 1 1 11
      2 A-4B Skyhawk 3 6 1 10
      3 A-4С Skyhawk 2 4 1 7
      4 A-4Q Skyhawk 3 - - 3
      5 Canberra 1 1 - 2
      Total 18 12 3 33
      54% 36% 10% 100%

      This is precisely in the attacks on the NK, I dropped the rest of the shots.

      It turns out that it seems like Harriers are as much as 1.5 times more productive.
      But - the most important moment - most of the planes shot down by them managed to free themselves from bombs! They shot them down after they struck and went out of the attack. That is the trick. I could not find all the statistics from which it would be possible to estimate how many Argentine planes were shot down before entering the target, and how many after the attack. But, for example, from reading the memoirs of the commander of the British group Woodward, it follows that it seems - the vast majority. That is, the Harriers could shoot down attack aircraft, but they could not prevent attacks on ships, they did not have time to fill up the shock before entering the zone where the naval air defense systems worked, and they were forbidden to enter there.

      If you managed to raise Tomketov to 20, the Tu-22М2 would not have reached the launch range (250-350 km) of the X-22.
      They would have put everyone before launch.


      If they raised it.

      But the trick is that without satellite reconnaissance, they would have spotted an attack of the air regiment 600-700 km from the target, in those days during the "hot moments" they had up to 8 Tomkats in the air, a four in the far zone, a four above the AVM. Next, the pair sequentially starts from the bow catapults and then climbs 1 aircraft per minute.

      So, consider the time before Tu arrives at the launch line.

      If you take the Flitex 82, then there was one deck pilot, Andy Pico, who wrote an article on the topic regarding the MRA breakthrough to the aircraft carrier there was the following:

      A few words about the opponent. Soviet naval missile aircraft was (and remains) very well organized and well armed. The Tu-16 or Tu-22 attack regiments, supported by the Tu-95 and naval patrol aircraft for reconnaissance, were a dangerous adversary. The USSR had approximately an MPA regiment for every American aircraft carrier. If the MRA aviation regiment took the aircraft carrier by surprise - all that was left was to lower the curtain. Aircraft carrier, timely warned, had good chances to survive, but with the risk of significant losses and damage. But the MRA aviation regiment, pushing through the curtain of fighter aircraft there and back, inevitably suffered heavy losses. There would not be enough combat-ready aircraft in it for a second strike - if it had remained at all. If the missile trap was positioned in such a way that the air regiment would begin to rise to a launch height within the reach of the missile ship - which the pilots would not know about exactly until the guidance radar would turn on and the missiles would begin to explode - the battle would end before it started. Therefore, the key to striking was the requirement to identify the target and determine its exact position before the air regiment rises to strike. And this gave the aircraft carrier time to take measures - maneuver, deploy distracting groups, missile traps, ambush fighters, etc.


      That is, not everything was so simple for the Americans with interception at the turn of the launch, and the issue of defense was not only solved by airplanes. Not even so much by them.

      As for the Phoenix, over the sea, this missile was quite in place, as in the case of single interceptions on land.

      That was the point. - https://naval-manual.livejournal.com/5555.html
      It will take either a knowledge of English or a good machine translation, but it's worth it.

      Could not. If they are off the coast of Great Britain, then the regiment simply will not fly, they will bring down on the way, including Continental Air Defense. If further, does not fly on fuel.


      Meant - in the presence of a base on the theater.
      1. Polinom
        Polinom 5 November 2019 13: 55
        0
        The Su-15 will not have an air defense umbrella. With a pair of MiG-31 and also with DZ it is quite. The width of the "Barrier" strip. The 865 regiment coped well with the task. There was a detachment Mig-31 Oleg Vydrenok. His memories are online, and I talked to him.
        Plane per minute a lot. One in three minutes. Two catapults for release.
        I'm about the picture with the PTB. There are no bombs, but they are))).
        1. timokhin-aa
          5 November 2019 14: 11
          0
          With a pair of Mig-31 and also with DZ completely.


          From the position of duty in the air - will be. I’m writing about that.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 11 November 2019 13: 14
      0
      See the experience of the Iran-Iraq Phoenix on targets of barefoot electronic warfare, and then they didn’t fall often ...
      1. timokhin-aa
        11 November 2019 14: 13
        0
        It is better to experience the Storm in the Desert to see where the Tomkats could not even let it in because of their planes around.
  33. Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky
    Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 30 October 2019 17: 33
    0
    First you need to make a new rocket, cheap and high mobility, volatility. Make it in large numbers and not greedy to run in any situation. For example, such an option.

    The main fuel to take a carbon checker. That is an inexpensive coal processing product. The key node is a reservoir of hydrogen peroxide, with controlled decomposition of it, releasing a stream of a hot mixture of oxygen and water vapor. This jet passes through a carbon checker, partial combustion or gasification occurs, at the exit of a jet of combustible gases - a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. And now this jet goes to the third component - an air-reactive once-through circuit, in which it burns in a stream of air.

    Such a rocket will fly far and fast, and does not require expensive components. You can make it a lot and equip it with all the ships and planes. It is convenient to store it, because hydrogen peroxide can be poured only on duty and it is not a pity to merge. Hydrogen peroxide can be produced directly on the ship, on any. The carbon checker in storage is convenient and safe, does not detonate, and even in the event of a fire, it will not make a noticeable contribution.

    Moreover, a significant part of the components of such a missile can be stored in a cache in advance on an ordinary civilian vessel. Thanks to this, to reduce the amount of equipment that will have to be loaded onto this ship in X-hour to convert it into a warship. For example, carbon bombs can be stored in a sealed container. And the other components mentioned, if you look closely. Except, of course, hydrogen peroxide. It is convenient to produce it directly on board the ship - water overboard, energy from the ship's network.

    You can launch such a rocket as an ordinary solid fuel. And install any warhead. Up to the usual air bombs or torpedoes. It is around such a cheap mass missile of increased volatility that you can build a doctrine of application and build a fleet. For example, the aforementioned problem of missed RCC and the risk of hitting a neutral ship can be overcome by a missile attack from above, with additional recognition of the target ship visually.

    PS I fully understand that the option described above has clear signs of what is criticized by a respected Author in this same article. Namely, the "asymmetric response" and even a little "miracle weapon".