Military Review

We are building a fleet. The power of the poor

222
Alfred Thayer Mahan once wrote that not a single country that has a land frontier will achieve the same level of sea power as a country that does not have one and is insular - an island, or isolated, isolated.



In an effort to surpass the USSR, the United States invested in massive and simple ships, it was they who gave the number of pennants of the US Navy in 80's. In the photo - a frigate class "Perry"


Some domestic readers translated the frontier as a “border”, meaning simply the state border of this country on the other. This is not true given the context. In the middle and second half of the nineteenth century, when Mahan began to create, the concept of "American frontier" meant anything but just a border - it was more like the front of the nation’s efforts, materialized as a line on the map, the challenge facing the American colonists, the front of the application efforts, the front of expansion, the horizon, the achievement of which was the national idea, albeit not formalized. In the years when Mahan wrote his book, the expansion into the lands of the Indians was already over and the whole territory of the then North America was occupied by Europeans and the Africans brought by them, but it ended “just” - literally. Here is what Mahan himself wrote about this "frontier":
The center of power is no longer on the seashore. Books and newspapers compete with each other in describing the amazing development and still not fully developed wealth of the interior of the mainland. Capital there gives the highest profitability, labor finds the best applications. The border areas are neglected and politically weak, the shores of the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean are absolutely, and the Atlantic coast is compared to the central Mississippi valley. When the day comes on which shipping operations will again be paid enough, when the inhabitants of the three maritime borders realize that they are not only militarily weak, but also relatively poor in the lack of national shipping, their combined efforts can provide an important service to restore our naval strength .


Mahan had in mind precisely this - the front of the application of efforts, the border, but not between the countries, but the border that was achievable for the country and the people, which this people had to push, and so much that it could not be avoided. The frontier is, figuratively speaking, "a national task on the ground." For Russia at different times, such “frontiers” were advancement to Siberia, advancement to Central Asia, conquest of the Caucasus, and at least advancement to Berlin. Development of Samotlor oil. BAM. All this required a mass of resources. Masses of steel, gunpowder, warm clothing, firewood and timber, food, liquid fuels, tools and, most importantly, people. The time of people and their strength. Often - their lives and health.

The same British spent these resources on sea power. The Russians could never afford it - the land frontier demanded his own.

Is it right now? Absolutely, nothing has changed. Our country is still full of both economic, economic and military tasks on earth. And they require resources. Diesel fuel, man-hours, spare parts for bulldozers, cement, antibiotics, warm clothing and self-propelled artillery pieces. They require, after all, money. And they are of such a nature that we will not get out of their implementation.

And this means that we will always lose to nations that do not have a "frontier" on earth, to lose in what resources we can attract to build our sea power. They can always “throw on the scales” more.

Does all this mean that we are a priori doomed to be the weakest side? Are there any recipes for the poor that make it possible to compensate for the inability to throw all resources to sea power? There is. Let's start with organizational issues and look at an example of how the poor side can offset the lack of resources to create military forces to some extent through a smart approach to the issue.

Ax porridge, or an example of how to make three divisions from four regiments


Consider the situation first on the example of the marine aviation, which for our country with isolated maritime theaters is the only maneuverable force after a "big" conflict has passed into a "hot" phase. Naval aviation, even shock, like the former MRA, even anti-submarine, is very expensive. On the other hand, the main fleets must have it; we have no other way to concentrate an anti-ship missile volley that is prohibitively dense for the enemy. Let's say risk assessments tell us that in the North and Pacific fleets we need to have at least a three-regimental air division. And one more shelf to the Baltic and the Black Sea. In total, therefore, two divisions and two regiments are needed, a total of eight regiments and two divisional directorates. This is a need.

But here Her Majesty intervenes in the economy, which tells us: "No more than five regiments for the entire fleet." There is no money, and never will be.

How to get out?

The solution, which will be described below, can be considered in some way a reference for the poorest side. Unable to win extensively by pulling more and more money into circulation, the poor may well get out "intensively", that is, organizationally - no matter who and what is said. To some extent, of course.

The solution is as follows

We deploy air divisions control units at the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, we form for them all parts of the division subordination, if it is required to provide them with reconnaissance or some special aviation units, we do it.

Then form the shelves. One in the Northern Fleet, we include it in the division, the second in the same way in the Pacific Fleet. We get one quasidivision from one regiment. These regiments constantly operate on their own theater with their own divisions.

At the second stage, we deploy a regiment in the Black and Baltic Seas. In normal times, these regiments train on their own theater.

But in the unusual, they are transferred to the Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet and the second and third “numbers” are included in the division. Everything, the necessary shock force on the theater of operations is received. When needed, we threw a three-regiment division into battle. Inflicted losses on the enemy and gained time? The flight of a pair of regiments from the Pacific Ocean to the North, joining the Northern Fleet air division and departure to strike. And if you get the fifth regiment? This is a reserve. If in a situation where the Black Sea and Baltic regiments went under the headquarters of a division somewhere in the North, will it be necessary to sharply hit the enemy in the Black Sea? For this we have a reserve regiment. Incidentally, it can be used as part of an air division instead of the Black Sea or Baltic, leaving “another reserve” another aviation regiment that knows its own theater of operations well.

Compare. In the case of "extensive" development, we would have two division divisions, six regiments in divisions, and two more separate divisions — under one in the Baltic and the Black Sea. Only eight regiments.

And what about the “solutions for the poor”?

Two divisions, and first four, and then five regiments - exactly in terms of economic opportunities.

And now attention - how much strength can the same Pacific Fleet throw in the attack in the case of a “solution for the poor”? Three-regiment division. And with normal military construction? Same.

And on the SF the same picture. As in the case of sufficient financial resources, and in the case of insufficient, we are throwing into the battle the three-regimental division. Only with the solution for the poor do the divisions in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet have two common regiments, which in themselves turn single-regiment quasi-divisions into full-fledged three-regiment percussion units, roaming from theater to theater. Thus demonstrating the importance of maneuver.

Yes, this solution has a minus - at the same time you can have only one division, the second at that time will be a one-regiment (or, if the last reserve regiment is included in it, then a two-regiment) ersatz. When the Baltic and Black Sea regiments are redeployed to the same Pacific Fleet there, at the Pacific Fleet, the required three-regiment division “grows up”, but the Baltic and Black Sea are “bare”.

But who said that the enemy’s pressure on various theater of operations spaced over thousands of kilometers will be synchronized? And what do you need to have aviation in different places at the same time? It is quite realistic to create conditions under which aircraft could operate in several places in turn. And, most importantly - who said that the war will generally be with such an adversary who can simultaneously press both the Kola Peninsula and Kamchatka? A war with the United States is possible, its probability is growing, but this probability is still very small. Japan is more likely to grapple with Japan at times, and the likelihood of a “border incident” with Poland is higher than the likelihood of a war with Japan - at times.

It is worth recognizing that the solution with the “roaming” regiments is quite working, as well as with the air divisions “cropped” in such a specific way. It is only necessary to regularly practice such things in exercises.

The problem is that due to losses inevitable in the war, the striking force of naval aviation in the second option will decrease faster than in the first. But there is still no choice! In addition, something can be completely compensated by combat training, for example, the loss in each combat mission of well-trained aviation regiments will be lower.

This is the power of the poor.

This is the evidence that, having money only for 4-5 regiments instead of the 8 ones needed, you can have attacking groups of sufficient strength, simply due to maneuver. This is the solution for the poor in terms of organizational structures. Poor doesn’t mean weak. The poor may be strong. If he will be smart and fast.

Article “We are building a fleet. Consequences of “uncomfortable” geography ” a similar example with a surface fleet was considered — ships in reserve on each of the fleets and a “hot” reserve crew, which can be used on any of the fleets, and even transferred from fleet to fleet. Such decisions require a high level of training of personnel, high morale, discipline, but if all this is ensured, a party experiencing a shortage of resources for naval construction can get more than if guided by the traditional approach.

But the most important thing in the “naval economy” is adequate shipbuilding costs. Historical experience suggests that the fleet is significantly more expensive than the ground forces during intensive shipbuilding, the rest of the time it’s not so dramatic. And that means that the key to building a “fleet of the poor” —a strong fleet for little money — is the application of appropriate approaches to both the design of ships and their construction.

Ships for the poor


In 1970, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt became Commander of the United States Navy. Zumwalt had his own, very integral and clear vision of how the U.S. Navy should develop in a situation where the enemy, the Soviet Navy, sharply accelerated the construction of new ships, especially submarines, and built them at a pace that the United States could not keep up with then.

For example, the Kiev-carrying aircraft cruiser was laid down in the 1970, in the 1972 it was already launched, in the 1975 it was already at sea and aircraft flew from it, and in the 1977 it was included in the fleet. In 1979, the USSR already had two ship carrier groups in two fleets. In 80, they tried to use the Yak-38 in Afghanistan, after which these aircraft began to fly, although very poorly, but they could already be assigned limited combat missions. So quickly, nobody ever had a chance to fear deck aviation and the carrier fleet from scratch, and Zumwalt had nothing to fear, all the more so since the USSR built submarines even faster and in large quantities, actively experimenting with products of technologies inaccessible to the USA, for example, titanium hulls.

At that time, the United States was not in the best condition. The economy was storming, a bit later the 1973 oil crisis of the year also began to affect. In fact, it was clear that the long and bloody war in Vietnam was already lost, or at least not won. And it was precisely in such circumstances that the Americans had to jerk up sea power to such a level that the actively investing in the fleet of the Soviet Union would have no chance in case of war. This could be done only by increasing the number, but at the same time reducing the cost.

In more detail, what Zumwalt wanted to do, and what his followers did under Reagan, is described in the article “It's time to learn from the enemy”. The methods used by the Americans are described in detail, and attention should be focused on this.

First - Zumwalt quote:
Fully high tech navy will be so expensive that it will be impossible to have enough ships to control the sea. A completely low-tech navy will not be able to withstand certain [some. - Translation.] Types of threats and perform certain tasks. Given the need to have both enough ships and fairly good ships, [the Navy] should be a combination of high-tech and low-tech [fleet].


Zumwalt saw this as a huge mass of simple and cheap ships, with deliberately cut back capabilities, led by a very small number of super-advanced and high-tech warships made at the "limit of technology."

Of all that Zumwalt planned, we are only interested in the project that he was given almost completely to implement - the frigate of the Oliver Hazard Perry class. Moreover, it is not so much the frigate itself, which is well studied and described in Russian periodicals and literature, as the design principle applied during its creation.

We are talking about the so-called principle of “Design to cost” or “Design at a given cost.” The Americans firmly withstood only one parameter - the price of the designed subsystems and structures of the ship, abandoning some seemingly correct design decisions and forcibly "cutting off" the possible functionality of the ship. In order to exclude technical risks, many systems were worked out at ground-based stands, for example, a power plant. Only proven subsystems and only cheap materials were used.

The result was a series of ships of the same type, which before the arrival of the destroyers Arly Burke was the most massive in the world. "Perry" became the real workhorse of the US Navy, they were part of all the battle groups deployed by the Americans in the world, they fought with Iran in the Persian Gulf, and then - with Iraq, providing the basis for helicopters that "cleared" the oil platforms occupied by Iraqis which they turned into fortified defensive points. Although initially the frigate was not intended for anti-submarine operations, it later began to be used for this purpose with its pair of anti-submarine helicopters.

We are building a fleet. The power of the poor

A new simple workhorse and an old modernized ship - this is how the Americans acted during the Cold War


Elmo Zumwalt’s high-end approach, design for a given cost, and the principles listed in the article mentioned above, which the Americans applied to the construction of their Navy, allowed them to receive one more dollar ship than the USSR could get for it. In fact, the Americans, being a richer country than the USSR, applied the methods of the poor in their naval construction, and the USSR behaved like a rich country, and as a result lost the arms race. And the “Perry” here is just one example; in fact, there were such examples in everything. One "Harpoon" instead of the giant zoo of Soviet anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, submarines - the list is long.

To understand how all of the above works in practice, especially in our realities, we will conduct an intellectual exercise and see how the American “principles of the poor” look like ours.

Two fleets


Consider two countries - Country A and Country B, or further A and B. Both of them are building a fleet. Both of them are not very rich, though A is richer than B. But the tasks they face are comparable. To simplify the issue, we believe that the ruble is the currency there and there, there is no inflation, and they can use the same ship subsystems.

For the starting point we take the “minus the first” year of the shipbuilding program, when there was no money for the fleet yet, but it was clear that they would be there next year. For our country, it was about 2008 year.

At minus the first year, A and B were in approximately the same position. Their fleets were literally “on their knees” because in past years it was not possible to get financing even for repair and maintenance of ships in a technically ready condition for going to sea. This crisis in A and B lasted quite a long time and most of the fleet was cut into needles in both countries. But there were differences

At A, the fleet continued to wait for funding. The crisis turned out to be not only economic, but also ideological, many people in the country simply did not understand why they needed a fleet at all, moreover, such were even among the command staff. As a result, the fleet existed by inertia, the ships rotted, and slowly forever stood up “for fun”.

In B, despite the crisis, the understanding of the need for the fleet never disappeared. It was clear that sooner or later he would need it, but how to survive without money? In B, the fleet came to the conclusion that there would be no money for a long time and began to implement a conscious survival strategy in difficult conditions. An inspection of all “living” ships was carried out, each of which made one of four possible solutions:

1. The ship remains in combat
2. The ship rises for conservation “by all the rules”, but without repair (there is no money for repairs).
3. The ship stands up for conservation as a donor of components for other ships of the same class.
4. The ship is decommissioned and sold for scrap regardless of anything, including its residual life, valuable mechanisms are removed, and the rest - in the furnace.

In the absence of stable funding, this program looked just like a gigantic conveyor of death. Even completely running units were cut, crews and headquarters were absolutely ruthlessly reduced, and combat ships capable of going out to sea became "piece goods."

Once upon a time, fleets A and B were the same in number and consisted of many tens of pennants. And in the “minus the first” year, A had twenty-five first ranks in service, and B only had eight, though the condition of the ships at B was much better, because other expenses were ruthlessly cut for their repair. At the same time, however, B had ten more ships left for conservation “for restoration”, while A had five and in worse condition, looted completely for spare parts. Of the five, it was possible to “revive” only two, and it was very expensive and long. At B - all ten. And for each sailing ship in B there were two crews.

But then came the realization that it was time to build.

Both countries analyzed their tasks. In A, the fleet received political orders from above to ensure the use of cruise missiles over a long range. In B, such a task was also posed. But the naval commanders of B had a clear and clear understanding of what war at sea was and how it was being waged. They understood that even with cruise missiles, even without, but the main enemy of surface ships was submarines. They understood that the ship lives a long time and the tasks before it during its service life can arise very different, and in different places. And they also remembered what it was worth keeping the fleet in a “living" state without funding, and not just letting it go by chance, and they were going to count every penny.

And so the “first” year came, the year when the money appeared.

A was a jolly chaos. Having received instructions from the General Staff to provide a missile salvo, and money from the Treasury, A quickly designed a series of small missile ships. These ships could launch cruise missiles from a universal installation of vertical launch on eight missiles, they could attack surface targets from it and conduct artillery fire. They had problems with seaworthiness, but no one set the task of providing them with combat use in the far sea zone. Bookmarks of such ships, which were planned to build ten units, began very quickly. The price of each was to be ten billion rubles, totaling one hundred billion.

There were no one hundred billion ships in B. It was only thirty-five. And there was a clear understanding that it was impossible to miss this last money. And that missiles are missiles, but no war at sea will ever be reduced to them alone. Therefore, Fleet B began to focus on small multi-purpose corvettes. In B, they were designed for a given cost. Corvette had a sonar system of several ASGs and torpedo tubes, as well as the same as in small missile ships A missile launcher for eight missiles.

In an effort to reduce the price, B went to the deliberate simplification of each ship. So, instead of a hangar, a place was left for the helicopter under it, for the future. A sliding light hangar shelter was developed, but it was not purchased. There was not a single system that would have to be developed from scratch, only modifications to the existing one were accepted. As a result, B had corvettes that were quite capable of fighting submarines, which had slightly better air defense than rockets had A, the same gun, and significantly better seaworthiness and cruising range.

The command of Fleet B fundamentally ensured that these corvettes could be used in battle groups along with the old first-movers in speed and seaworthiness. In addition, engineers B cheated - they provided a reserve of space for more powerful diesel generators, the main power cables could transmit twice as much current as needed, all the equipment included in the ship’s electronic weapons could be dismantled without entering the plant, just a crane and personnel. Engineers B analyzed the growth dynamics of the mass and dimensions of various equipment (the same radar) and provided for reinforcing and reinforcing decks where it could become necessary in the future, and the free volume they needed, where it was possible. For this, I also had to sacrifice something when designing the case.

As a result, B received two corvettes of 15 billion rubles. The remaining five were repaired by one of the “navigational first ranks,” and he received a small upgrade — the ability to fire new missiles from his old launchers, which had to be modified a little. In its missile salvo, this first rank turned out to be the same as two corvettes - 16 cruise missiles of a new type.

Two years later, B had on the stocks two corvettes in readiness 40% and one repaired first rank.

Country A had two RTOs on sea trials, and three more under construction, a contract was signed for another five.

By the beginning of the third year of the shipbuilding program, B was able to allocate another thirty-five billion. But the fleet command was given the task of strengthening the outfit of forces in the far sea zone. Fleet B reacted simply - contracts were signed for two more corvettes. Moreover, since there was no need to conduct any development work, some saved money was generated for which sets of helicopter hangars for all four corvettes were purchased. These hangars allowed for a long time to store helicopters on the ships and formally gave the admirals a reason to declare that the corvettes are capable of operating in the DMZ. However, this was so. The remaining five billion B was spent on repairs and minor modernization of another first rank, according to the same program as the first.

In A, the situation was different - the political leadership demanded to ensure the presence of patrol ships in areas where there was a risk of pirate attacks on merchant ships. The missile ships program continued, they continued to be built.

Having received the task of patrolling, Fleet A came up with patrol ships - simple and cheap. Frankly speaking, they were not optimal for such tasks, but at the very least it would be possible to chase pirates at them (with restrictions). Each ship cost A total of six billion rubles, and six were planned. Thus, to the one hundred billion rubles that had already been allocated and partially spent on missile ships, thirty-six more were added to patrol ships. By that time, it was in the process of developing seventy billion.

By the beginning of the fourth year of the shipbuilding program, an anti-piracy attack had fallen on B. Now, politicians also demanded from Fleet B that they ensure the fight against pirates. Under this was allocated funding, the same as received fleet A

But in B there were people who acted differently than in A. Instead of designing some kind of anti-piracy vessels, Parliament B pushed the legalization of private military companies, and authorized them to conduct such activities with the money of shipowners. This immediately removed the problem of protecting ships flying the flag of B or belonging to citizens of B and sailing under convenient flags.

True, the political leadership continued to demand patrolling of the pirate danger zones, and not with the first ranks, each exit of which cost a lot of money, but with small and inexpensive ships, like in A. And fleet B answered this demand. Namely, he laid more corvettes. That's just not fully equipped. They didn’t have an air defense system, there was only a regular place for it and wiring, there were no sonar stations, although they could also be delivered later, there was no bomb and air defense systems, there were only places for their installation. And there was no rocket launcher either. Everything was drowned out. As a result, one corvette stood at only nine billion per unit, and they built four units, and much faster than full ones. But they were immediately with the hangars.

By the end of the sixth year, in formation A there were six RTOs, and two patrolmen out of six, B had three corvettes in formation, one in trials and four “naked” corvettes in construction, in readiness 70%.

By the beginning of the seventh year, shipbuilding programs were audited in A and B.

In A, under pressure from lobbyists, they decided to build four more RTOs of ten billion each. In addition, the first ranks began to pour in - they had not done any repairs for a long time. However, A did not have a clear theory of why they needed the fleet and what it should do, so they planned to repair the first ranks according to the “push to the maximum” scheme. The ships were planned to be seriously rebuilt, and such repairs came out in 10 billions per ship. The number of cruise missiles that were supposed to get on the upgraded ship was to be 16 units. At first we decided to try one - a lot of new systems in the old building meant a high technical risk. Additional funds allocated to RTOs and the repair of an old large ship amounted to fifty billion.

In B, too, they underwent all revisions. It turned out that the pirates were killed by mercenaries of one of the nearby monarchies, and they were killed so hard that there were no one to give birth to new ones. The number of attacks on ships dipped to a few times a year. Patrol corvettes were now no longer needed, but the task of continuing the construction of the fleet was still not going away. But the military had an answer here - it’s easy to turn patrol corvettes into real ones, you just need to throw out the caps and covers, and put in place the previously uninstalled equipment weapon. Six billion for each of the four ships, twenty-four in all. It was quite capable of budget B. In addition, B could allocate another ten billion to the fleet. We decided to repair it with this money and, as before, it was easy to upgrade a couple of first ranks from the “running” ones.

By the beginning of the eleventh year of the shipbuilding program, the world had changed. The danger of war, including the sea, has grown.

By that time, all means had already been spent in A and all RTOs and patrol vessels had been handed over. 14 MRK and six patrol vessels. One of the first ranks was in the final stages of a complex and “charged” modernization. The rest of the previously available required urgent repairs, which had not been done all these years. 186 billion rubles were spent.

In B, by that time eight multifunctional corvettes with the possibility of using cruise missiles had been delivered. In addition, four new first-ranking of the eight existing chassis were repaired and re-equipped with new missiles.

All of the above required 140 billion rubles.

During the shipbuilding program, both A and B wrote off one wear rate first. B planned to take from storage and restore for about five billion another one of the same. And A didn’t have such an option, what they listed as “in storage” had long since decayed.

Now let's count.

For 186 billion rubles A received 112 missile cells - on 8 at 14 RTOs. More 16 at the expense of the same cost were expected in the future at the repaired first-rank. Total 128 missiles on marine carriers.

It was possible to ensure the deployment of 6 deck helicopters at sea on patrol ships.

B had other statistics - 64 cruise missiles in corvettes and 64 on repaired front-ranks. All the same 128 cruise missiles in a salvo. The ratio of the number of first ranks also changed - both countries lost one “running” ship, but B introduced the other from conservation, but A did not enter anything.

By the number of helicopters deployed at sea, Fleet B won - 8 corvettes were provided by eight helicopters at sea, and not 6, as B.

At the same time, over the years of the shipbuilding program, A had a huge hole in anti-submarine defense - those ships that A put into operation were unable to fight with submarines, while B was enough to load PLUR corvettes in launchers instead of cruise missiles.

Now they decided in A what to do best - urgently needed anti-submarine ships, which still had to be designed. It was assumed that these would be either corvettes, as in B, at 15 billions per unit, or simpler ships unable to take helicopters on board and use cruise missiles, at 8 billions per unit, at least 8 ships. And urgently needed to repair the oranges left over from the old days. Shipyards A could reanimate no more than two ships in two years. And there were 23 in the ranks and one on modernization. According to the forecasts of the “core” Central Research Institute, at such times, at least four ships will not see the repair, they will have to be decommissioned earlier, leaving twenty units in service.

As a result, new anti-submarine ships and repairs of the old ones got up at least 164 billion over the next ten years, with eight small anti-submarine ships and ten repaired and deeply upgraded first ranks (plus the one that has already been repaired).

Twenty years after the start of the shipbuilding program, A would have:

- 11 repaired and modernized ships of 1 rank, according to 16 cruise missiles;
- 9 partially combat-ready first-ranks, with the possibility of repair and modernization, and in very need of such;
- 14 RTOs on 8 cruise missiles;
- 6 almost unarmed patrol vessels;
- 8 small anti-submarine ship (small corvettes without take-off area and cruise missiles);
- Helicopters at sea on new ships - 6;
- missile salvos - 288 missiles.

350 billions of rubles would have been spent, and 9 billions of rubles in the next ten years were needed to repair another 90 first ranks.

B would have:

- 17 repaired first-class ships with new missiles instead of old ones and a small upgrade. By 16 cruise missiles;
- 15 of the URO / PLO corvettes already built (assuming that a simple and small ship can be built in 4 of the year). If necessary - according to 8 cruise missiles;
- 1 corvette under construction, the deadline for delivery is 1 year;
- volleys - 392 missiles + in a year another 8. Total will be 400;
- Helicopters at sea on new ships - 15 and another one in a year.

Spent - 325 billion. All future money for the fleet will go not for repairs of old ships, but for the construction of new ones, including first ranks.

It is easy to see this: B spent less money on the fleet, and at first it was much less, but in the end it received a fleet significantly stronger than A. So, for example, B at the time of the end of the comparison had 15 anti-submarine ships in service and one in completion . A has only 8 and each of them is worse than B.

Moreover, at the beginning of the third decade, And still has a kettlebell on its feet in the form of old and unmodernized ships that are the fourth dozen - in the real world, their reduction to combat readiness is not always possible. Then B will begin to build modern first-rankers, and country A will have to decide whether to cut old ships and build new ones, or save on new ones, but restore old ones. Both that, and another, as a result, will increase B advantage in forces. In addition, fleet A is also much more expensive to operate - it has the same tasks worse, but with a large number of ships, which means more crews, housing, salary money, berths, fuel, ammunition for combat training.

Plus, the factor is that B has only one type of new ship (we’ll put the old first ranks “out of brackets”, who knows what is there), and A has three types - MRK, patrol and MPK / corvette. And this is demonization, a triple set of spare parts and so on.

And if B had as much money as A? At a minimum, this would mean that B would have received another corvette in the same timeframe, and that the first-ranking restoration program would have been completed a couple of years earlier. Or maybe we could not lose one of the ships by age. Then B would have 18 first ranks with modern weapons against 11 in A, and as a result, with an additional corvette, a missile salvo B would be 424 missiles against 288 in A. And this despite the fact that A was stung in RTOs! And B has more than twice as many ships for anti-submarine defense!

But the most interesting was expected ahead. Any ship has the ability to age. Its radar is aging, air defense systems, electronics are becoming obsolete.

And A has no answer to this challenge of time. When their RTOs become obsolete in terms of their electronic and radio-technical weapons, it will not be easy to upgrade them.

And B has in corvettes a reserve of internal volumes, electric power and excessively reinforced foundations for various equipment. Where A will have to change ships or turn them over at the factory, B will solve everything a lot easier. And at times cheaper. Again.

This is how it works. This is how the presence of a sane shipbuilding strategy allows a poor country to get a more combat-ready, and, in some positions, even a larger fleet for less than what a rich but stupid enemy can build. It looks like the power of the poor, those who wisely spend every penny. Do not compare countries A and B with Russia - both of them are Russia. Only one - real, stupid and not having as a result of an efficient fleet. The second is virtual, able to count money and know what she wants. Countries A and B are not illustrations of real shipbuilding programs, in the end Russia also has 20380, whose “analogue” is not included in the comparison. Countries A and B are an illustration of the APPROACH to shipbuilding. The first is real, the one that is. The second is the one we must come to if we want to have a normal fleet.

Let’s draw some conclusions for a “poor” country seeking naval power.

1. The mass fleet of such a country is built according to the scheme “Design for a given cost”.
2. The mass fleet of such a country is being built within the framework of the doctrine of naval warfare, which this country professes. It is an instrument for the implementation of such a doctrine.
3. The mass fleet consists of multi-functional ships, this allows you to have one multi-functional ship instead of two or three specialized ones.
4. All of these ships are the SAME.
5. Repairs and modernizations of old ships are carried out in a timely manner and in a reasonable volume, without total restructuring of the entire ship, with the exception of some special circumstances when such a restructuring is justified.
6. In the absence of money for the maintenance of the fleet, its combat crew is immediately optimized “for the budget”, and the existing ships are stored with the maximum requirements for such an operation, ideally through repair. The situation cannot be brought to the mass deterioration of ships.
7. When assigning the value of the future ship, the need to have their maximum number is taken into account.

With these methods, it will be possible to maintain an acceptable balance of power with most real opponents - even if their fleets are larger, ours will be strong enough to either keep them from the war at all, or together with the VKS and the army to prevent them from winning it.


Simple. Multifunctional. Cheap Massive. The same. Clear?


However, there is one more thing.

Alien hands


Back to Mahan.

In his quote about the country with a land frontier, which will always lose at sea to those countries that do not have this frontier, there is a continuation that seriously supplements the meaning of this Mehan statement. Here it is:
An alliance of powers can, of course, lead to a change in balance.


And that changes everything. Yes, a country like Russia will not be able to "invest" in sea power, like England or the United States. Or like Japan. But you can find such allies, an alliance with which will help to change the balance of forces in our favor, now with them.

Add something written by Mahan to our own - you can also create such allies. And such actions fit into our goals at sea like nothing else.

There is a theory, and, for example, in Germany it was once even formalized that the presence of an adequate and strong fleet attracts allies. Proponents of this theory cite the example of the Anglo-Japanese alliance of the early twentieth century. Today, before my eyes, there is another example - a country with a rapidly developing naval fleet - China, has gained in no less than situational and, possibly, temporary allies no less than the Russian Federation.

Of course, the matter is not only and not so much in the navy. But the fact that the two weakest countries in comparison with the USA — Russia and China — are joining forces against the hegemon is a fact. Including the sea.

And now the United States, set up for confrontation with both Russia and China, is forced to consider the balance of forces, starting from the TWO opposing fleets.

Thus, it is worthwhile to understand: with a lack of sea power, you need to look for allies who have it, at least some. This was written by Mahan, as many countries did, as modern Russia once successfully did - in the case of China.

And you also need to be able to create such allies. From scratch.

There is a well-known and popular claim - the United States does not fight alone. This is not entirely true, but even in Vietnam they managed to attract a large military contingent in Australia, and - unofficially - tens of thousands of volunteers from Thailand and South Korea. The United States strives everywhere to create coalitions, even if constant, though not, even formalized, though not, it makes no difference: the more you gather supporters under your wing, the more chances are that in a given situation someone will take on part of the combat missions, although would be off their shores. This refers to war at sea more than to anything.

And it's worth seeing how they do it. Question: Why do Spain need aircraft carriers? That is, why are they even understandable, but it is Spain? Nevertheless, the Americans first handed over their Cabot to this country, then the documentation for the failed SCS, on which they first built the Prince of Asturias for themselves, and then a smaller copy of it for ... Thailand! Well, to whom such a ship is completely useless at first glance, but in fact it was after all the most loyal US ally in Asia.


Was USS Cabot, became SNS Dedalo. Light American aircraft carrier of the Second World War in the Spanish Navy, in 1988 year. The Americans needed many allies at sea, and they created maritime power for friendly countries. Also earned on this


Let's call a spade a spade - the US is actively contributing to the growth of the power of the naval forces of its friendly countries. They transmit ships, planes, helicopters, conduct training.

It’s worth learning from them.

Consider, for example, the potential benefits of properly conducting (these are the keywords here) Iran’s transformation into a country with a strong fleet. Firstly, this will allow Iran to be attached to Russia technologically - some of the systems on their ships should not have local analogues and be Russian-made. Secondly, this, just like the Russia-China link (no matter how loose and temporarily it may be), will change the balance of forces at sea.

Oddly enough, for many Iranians, sea power is a fad. We, as usual, do not know anything about this, but this is really so.

They will go to great lengths to help them build a combat-ready fleet. For example, Diego Garcia’s obligation to loom with any aggravation between the USA and Russia in the Pacific Ocean or in the Barents Sea. Iran is one of the three countries that actually fought the United States at sea during the Cold War. And, of course, they lost. There may be certain revanchist moods, and Russia may well use them, having received a reward for this for sales for naval equipment, a job for design bureaus, a spare parts market and new pain from our probable friends, which will force them to keep an enhanced outfit of forces in the Persian Gulf, but also in the Indian Ocean - always. A trifle, but nice. Especially when someone else’s money and someone else’s hands.

If you wish, such options can be found a lot. All of them will cost money not to us, but to other countries, all of them will squander the forces and money of the hegemon, and perhaps someday will give us real allies.

To sum up


Despite the fact that Russia will never be able to concentrate on the fleet as many resources as countries free of problems and challenges on land can do, this problem is not insurmountable. It can be reduced to negligible organizational methods.

These included replacing the missing troops and forces with their maneuver from other theater of operations and bringing the staff of command structures to a state where they could manage such maneuverable reserves without problems. It’s worth starting with the revival of centralized fleet management from the General Staff of the Navy and the High Command.

In shipbuilding, it is necessary to eliminate all the chaos with which it is accompanied in Russia, to build the same type of series of multifunctional ships with reduced cost, which would correspond to real threats emanating from the sea. About this, in principle, much has already been written, but repeating is not in vain.

It is important to maintain good relations with China, which has problems with the US and the ocean fleet.

Separately, it is worth taking a closer look at the possibility of creating naval forces for some countries so that they could divert part of the forces of a potential enemy, complicate the military-political situation for them and facilitate the sale of domestic weapons. It will also be useful for strengthening bilateral relations. All together, these measures will help prevent other countries from maintaining significant military superiority over Russia, at least one that will allow them to defeat us in a particular theater of war.

The poor may well be too strong even for the rich. If he wants to.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia commons, DoD USA, US Navy
Articles from this series:
Build a fleet. Theory and mission
We are building a fleet. Consequences of "uncomfortable" geography
We are building a fleet. Attacks of the weak, loss of the strong
We are building a fleet. Special Operations: Nuclear Deterrence
building a fleet. Expansion zones
We are building a fleet. Wrong ideas, wrong concepts
222 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 1 November 2019 06: 06 New
    13
    barely mastered ... while I read to the end, I forgot the beginning ... at least re-read it again! but no ... I will not dare again to read about country A and country B ... I’ll go crazy. request
    1. Mikhail Drabkin
      Mikhail Drabkin 1 November 2019 08: 39 New
      +5
      —Thanks Alexander Timokhin for modeling the optimization of the Navy surface component of the budget, for explaining the “frontier” in the application of Mahan.
      —- However, Mahan’s doctrine presupposes the SAME meanings, goals of the fleets of powers with their DIFFERENT “unquestionable destinies” manifest destiny (various “frontiers”, fatefulness). Therefore, Mahan, in conditions of the same goals of the Navy, maintains that a power with naval fate is always stronger in the Navy than a power with a land.
      —- However, Mahan’s doctrine is not applicable for powers with a different meaning of the Navy .... the goals of the Navy ... for Russia and America, and in any case is therefore not applicable at this stage.
      —- These are the goals of the Russian Navy - defense ... local ... providing ... for example Syria ... And the primary goal is to provide a nuclear missile strike with PARK strategists (currently - from two "bastions" of location, and special zones )
      —- The Russian Navy in fact ... and quantitatively .. does not prey on the surface or submarine fleet of America globally. Yes, she studies globally, but the theater of operations of the Russian Navy is local.
      —- Taking into account different goals, the Russian Navy can meet the set goals, and may be STRONGER than the fleet of the sea power, America, in the segment of ensuring the fulfillment of these goals.
      —- For a successful fleet-building according to the principle “necessary functionality for tasks ... at the cornerstone of value” - leadership without the inertia of past multi-vector decisions and not related to their promotion is necessary. New...
    2. nickname7
      nickname7 9 November 2019 10: 29 New
      0
      In them, the frontier is the outskirts of the civilized world, beyond which, the wild land of the barbarians. There are no rules in the frontier; the law is colt.
      Carried away by theory and frontiers, the author followed the guidelines from where and why the navy appeared and where the money for its construction came from.
      England began with a very simple thing - it expelled foreign merchants from its territory, nationalized trade, and the money that went to the side went to the treasury. "Navigational Acts" were credited with importing goods only on British ships. The navy protects trade, trade builds the navy. This is how the sea empires arose.
      Russia needs to do the same, money from resources and from trade should go to the treasury, then enough for an aircraft carrier and for armata. In Russia, politics is the opposite of what the West did, there is no progressive tax, 80 percent of retail chains are owned by foreigners.
      The author shares Trishkin’s caftan, tacitly agreeing with the dictates of the oligarchs.
  2. mark1
    mark1 1 November 2019 06: 11 New
    11
    Oh, how complicated it is! Ripples in the eyes and a rumble in the head! Particularly shocked was the way to make three divisions out of four regiments. And the fact that after the combat use of one pseudodivision you can forget about the other two, is that not what? But with this
    In shipbuilding, it is necessary to eliminate all the chaos with which it is accompanied in Russia, to build the same type of series of multifunctional ships with reduced cost, which would correspond to real threats emanating from the sea.
    I totally agree.
    1. bayard
      bayard 2 November 2019 04: 13 New
      +3
      Quote: mark1
      Particularly shocked was the way to make three divisions out of four regiments.

      The idea of ​​maneuvering forces is more than sensible, but it seems to me that these divisions are already formed / are being formed. Just such - a couple \ and a half regiment. I hope that they will be understaffed over time ... well, also per maneuver.
      There is still a question, what striking forces (means) should these divisions operate? As before, the Tu-22M3 will hardly work out - there are few of them and for each direction, perhaps a squadron will work out. Hence the conclusion - only the Su-30SM as carriers of the Kh-31, Kh-35 and the promising air-based Kh-50 and Zircon ... And of course the Dagger on the MiG-31, which is already there and even deployed.
      It is necessary to have two divisions at the Pacific Fleet - Kamchatka and Primorye, two at the Baltic (Peter and Kaliningrad), and a division at the Black Sea Fleet (in Crimea). They are already kind of formed, but have a mixed character.

      But about the fact that it is necessary to build the same type, multi-functional, inexpensive and large series ... it seems that only now it has begun to reach the military-political leadership.
      China has built a large series of Project-54 frigates ... 32 pcs. if the memory does not fail. On diesels, weapons like our 11356 ... but 32 pcs. ! Many and inexpensive. And he offered us to build from 8 to 20 pieces. and transfer them into corps for our armament ... but we were told with their noses - "we don't have such good and for nothing" ... and now there is a plug at the Pacific Fleet. But the frigate is the main workhorse of the fleet. There should be a lot \ enough, inexpensive and everywhere. When there are "Gorshkovs" riveted and corvettes, which are like aircraft carriers in terms of time, and the price of frigates ...
      There is no normal, sound concept.
      Ships of such complexity and perfection as the "Gorshkov" should be built in the 22350M configuration and have the status of a destroyer, and the frigate should be cheap and massive, with an emphasis on PLO (like a corvette), decent but moderate air defense (this is very even affects) and economical to operate.
      The same project 11356 will equip the GAK from the Gorshkov and it will be quite a frigate for all occasions. Kaliningrad is ready to bake them like pies, and the price is 17 billion rubles. - cheaper than corvette 20385. If at one time they had chosen the right priorities and 22350 would have been immediately designed and built as a destroyer (in the 22350M version - for 48 UVP), and as a frigate they launched the improved (in terms of PLO) 11356 into a wide series ... how much money, nerves and the costs could have been avoided, and now they would have had a completely combat-ready grouping of frigates ... and a completely worked out destroyer 22350M ...
      And for corvettes to provide air defense "Pantsyr-M" - enough for the eyes.
      1. mark1
        mark1 2 November 2019 07: 00 New
        +2
        Quote: bayard
        About a maneuver of forces, the thought is more than sound,

        The idea is not only sensible but also not new since the time of RI. But "sculpting" three formal divisions from four regiments is some kind of game with statistics. I repeat - at the very first clash of one division, all three will disappear, because it will not be necessary to fight with the Papuans and losses will be high (one of the reasons for the large number of missile aircraft in the USSR). They will beat them vilely, cruelly, sophisticated and by no means in one theater of operations, even in a conflict with Japan (there are also not (prohibited term) sitting there). Therefore, in each direction there must be full-fledged connections and, of course, a maneuver of forces.
        In the second part, I agree with you, besides the fact that the time 11356 is still gone (the moment is missed), 22350 should be varied from the simplified version to 22350M with the maximum possible unification of the buildings and power units
        1. bayard
          bayard 2 November 2019 07: 55 New
          +1
          I completely agree that from 4 regiments to sculpt three divisions is nonsense, or just a hyperbole. Moreover, in all directions divisions have already been formed, but so far not fully staffed. Which is not surprising, because naval aviation is practically being reborn anew and saturating it with airplanes and, most importantly, with pilots, will not work out quickly - they simply aren’t available yet, they need to be purchased / trained. But having full-fledged divisions in each direction, to make a maneuver by reinforcing the threatened direction with additional regiments from divisions from less priority areas is a completely possible thing and does not weaken other directions to an unacceptable level. Transfer from the Black Sea Fleet, the Baltic Sea or the Northern Fleet to a squadron or even a regiment, let’s say at the Pacific Fleet, it will be possible.
        2. SVD68
          SVD68 2 November 2019 08: 08 New
          +1
          Quote: mark1
          Quote: bayard
          About a maneuver of forces, the thought is more than sound,

          The idea is not only sensible but also not new since the time of RI. But "sculpting" three formal divisions from four regiments is some kind of game with statistics. I repeat - at the very first clash of one division, all three will disappear, because it will not be necessary to fight with the Papuans and losses will be high (one of the reasons for the large number of missile-carrying aircraft in the USSR). They will beat them vilely, cruelly, sophisticated and by no means in one theater of operations, even in a conflict with Japan (there are also not (prohibited term) sitting there).

          In Soviet times, the enemy was supposed to attack in the North Atlantic, where there was complete superiority of the enemy in the air. In the zones described in one of the previous articles, it is entirely possible to create our superiority in the air. If you still create a reconnaissance system for UAVs, then our missiles can be greatly reduced.
          1. mark1
            mark1 2 November 2019 08: 14 New
            0
            Quote: SVD68
            In the zones described in one of the previous articles, it is entirely possible to create our superiority in the air.

            It is unlikely, because the initiative is always in the hands of the attacker, without an advantage he will not attack, so it will not be possible to "feed" with five loaves and two fish.
            1. SVD68
              SVD68 2 November 2019 10: 48 New
              0
              If we have 4 fleets, albeit weak, the enemy will not be able to concentrate all forces for the offensive in one place. And here we are, using internal operating lines we can. So the opportunity is very real.
              Well, or the enemy does not dare to attack us at all, which is even better.
              1. Polinom
                Polinom 10 November 2019 12: 26 New
                -1
                Contradict yourself.
                Maybe successfully.
                Fleets are weak and stretched.
                The enemy has an advantage in allies, quantity, quality and airfield network.
                Where this is not enough (Pacific Fleet), AMG will completely help.
                Having 22% of world GDP, the USSR could not. And now the Russian Federation with 1,9% think you can?
    2. alstr
      alstr 2 November 2019 21: 07 New
      0
      In fact, out of 4 regiments, 3 divisions in aviation NEVER.
      And the question is not even about airplanes. The main question: where to get TRAINED pilots ?.
      You just won’t get them.
      1. Polinom
        Polinom 10 November 2019 12: 33 New
        0
        Where to get? You are right, the succession detachment-deputy comedian-comedian is lost. No instructors. We have long discussed the detachment Tu-22M3, Kom regiment Mi-14, instructor Ka-25. (Scan from the forum).
    3. alexmach
      alexmach 3 November 2019 13: 03 New
      0
      And the fact that after the combat use of one pseudodivision you can forget about the other two, is that nothing

      And in the article, by the way, it is also written about this
      1. mark1
        mark1 3 November 2019 13: 12 New
        0
        It still says
        - who said that the war will generally be with such an adversary who can simultaneously press both the Kola Peninsula and Kamchatka?

        And who said no?
  3. Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Obi-Wan Kenobi 1 November 2019 06: 43 New
    +3
    The author, why did you write "a lot of bukaf drain"?
    A very large article for perception and understanding from the 1st time. But interesting.
    Here either should be "brevity is the sister of talent" or simply divide the article into several. hi
    1. Victor N
      Victor N 1 November 2019 18: 01 New
      +2
      Usually they share not the article, but the readers. Moreover, automatically: who is able to master and who is not. The author writes based on the former, while the others are simply screened out before the end of reading.
      1. Obi-Wan Kenobi
        Obi-Wan Kenobi 3 November 2019 18: 25 New
        0
        The author writes based on the former, while the others are simply screened out before the end of reading.

        The article is very interesting. This is the first.
        And secondly, it is still an article, and not "War and Peace". Brevity is the soul of wit.
        You probably never wrote a report to the management. No one will read more than one A4 page. You need to write the very essence, so to speak strictly "on the topic." "Water" does not need to be poured, this is not a Mexican TV series.
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 19: 47 New
          +2
          I wrote to the management and I myself was it.

          But this is not an office.
  4. tlauicol
    tlauicol 1 November 2019 06: 48 New
    +5
    and which ship do we meet the declared design to cost criteria?
    The frigates "Petrel" are a big stretch in terms of cost - so there are no engines. Golden Ash Trees? Corvettes and RTOs? We don't have such projects either
    1. Astra wild
      Astra wild 1 November 2019 07: 08 New
      +2
      The author has everything
    2. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 17 New
      +4
      We have none. The point is that we must come to this.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 1 November 2019 16: 29 New
        +2
        "it's only a pity - to live in this wonderful time
        I won't have to - neither me nor you "
        1. timokhin-aa
          1 November 2019 18: 13 New
          +4
          What a pessimist you are, however ...

          Right now, some Turkey is kicking us, sending five ships to the bottom, so we will immediately catch it.

          Yesterday there was a closed event on the occasion of the anniversary of landing on Kuznetsov's deck on November 1, 1989, I had an acquaintance there, even Chirkov was bitten there a bit. So - the realization that we are in the hole, the normal admirals have "full height". As my friend described it - they no longer have a red light on, but a howler thrashes at full speed. You just need some event to start sweeping any scale out of naval affairs.

          It’s good if it’s not a new Kursk or a lost war, but something will happen sooner or later. And then there will be a new "Overhaul".
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 1 November 2019 18: 20 New
            -3
            Have you seen Putin’s zircons on the corvette? )) the border is locked, sleep well, dear comrades soldier nothing will change good
            1. timokhin-aa
              1 November 2019 20: 24 New
              +1
              Laughter with laughter, and there the UKKS is not slaughtered, so if Zircon is brought to the series and if he really knows what they are writing, then he will get up at 20385.

              One of the reasons I feel sorry for these ships.
              1. bayard
                bayard 2 November 2019 04: 37 New
                0
                If "Zircon" flies from the corvette, this is certainly good, but ... the price of the question request Its price is higher than that of frigate 11356, and its displacement is half as much as seaworthiness, autonomy, habitability. The latter would have a normal Huck and would be a pretty decent budget frigate for a large series.
                I know that now there is a problem with the power plant. Well, the duck for 22350 is almost ready, that's it to adapt. The 22350 series is still being completed anyway and then there will be 22350M, and there is a completely different displacement and another GEM, so the question of the massive budget frigate remains open. And the version with 11356+ can become quite out of place - mastered by industry, unification with the ones already in service, cheaply, angrily, functionally.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  2 November 2019 18: 40 New
                  +2
                  Its price is higher than that of the frigate 11356


                  1) 11356 already have an infinite price - there is no such money for which Russia could build it.
                  2) 20385 is much cooler - it has PLUR, it uses the whole range of anti-ship missiles under 3С14, the life cycle is cheaper.
                  3) As an anti-submarine, 20385 is immeasurably better.

                  In general, "not everything is so simple."
              2. tlauicol
                tlauicol 2 November 2019 06: 04 New
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Laughter with laughter, and there the UKKS is not slaughtered, so if Zircon is brought to the series and if he really knows what they are writing, then he will get up at 20385.

                One of the reasons I feel sorry for these ships.

                I believe that the zircon will turn out to be so not the same rocket as we are promised. Rather, a new modification of onyx or caliber. No hypersound.
                Two months before the new year - they promised to pulnit from Gorshkov. Let's wait ...
                1. timokhin-aa
                  2 November 2019 19: 22 New
                  +1
                  I personally expect an analogue of the "Waverider", but launched on a solid-propellant accelerator upwards, and from there falling with acceleration on the target.

                  It is unclear just what they decided with plasma. And will there be a maneuver in the final stretch.
          2. Orkraider
            Orkraider 1 November 2019 19: 41 New
            +3
            God grant that this time it was not Tsushima. I’m all waiting for it when it comes and they begin to lay 20380 again. It’s a disaster to stop laying an established series and start an adventure from 20386 ... maybe it will be good, but it’s am
            1. bayard
              bayard 2 November 2019 04: 43 New
              +2
              He will not be good and will be very expensive.
              This is a diversion.
              We need a cheap corvette (MPK) with a good GAK and rocket-torpedoes on board - at least in the UVP, at least in inclined ones. And for air defense, the Pantsyr-M is enough for him.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 3 November 2019 00: 02 New
                -1
                or maybe better PLO planes, they quickly and totally examine the water area, by the way planes
                1. bayard
                  bayard 3 November 2019 00: 58 New
                  +2
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  or maybe better PLO planes,

                  And where do you get them?
                  In Russia, the old IL-38 and Tu-142 aircraft dozens of three or four left. The sides are old, most without modernization, their effectiveness (especially IL-38) even after modernization is much lower than the American and Japanese counterparts. New sides are not being built, and there is no base (plane) for them.
                  So the new PLO planes will probably begin to build sometime, but when and when they will saturate the naval aviation - a secret covered in darkness.
                  The weather is also not always flying and in the far zone, such aircraft will not be able to work for a long time. So ships are needed.
                  But not by any means 20386.
                  I repeat - this is a diversion. This project is failed, inefficient and prohibitively expensive.
                  The fleet needs an integrated approach - both submarine aircraft, anti-submarine ships, and bottom sensor fields (which are also expensive, complex and vulnerable to sabotage of enemy submarines).
                  Everything needs a balance and compliance with financial capabilities.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 3 November 2019 09: 31 New
                    -1
                    The total cost of the ship will be 9 billion rubles.
                    Unit cost, Tu-160 - 6 billion rubles
                    and BE 200 is only 3 billion rubles, that is, instead of one slow-moving frigate, we get three high-speed aircraft

                    Quote: bayard
                    Everything needs a balance and compliance with financial capabilities.

                    You are not logical, I know that PLO aircraft are not enough, but that means you need to do them, and not spend money on surface ships
                    .https: //topwar.ru/152155-mo-rf-prinjalo-reshenie-o-modernizacii-parka-samoletov-amfibij-be-12.html
                    https://topwar.ru/160770-starejshie-samolety-vmf-rossii-poluchat-vtoruju-zhizn.html
                    "According to Admiral Valentin Selivanov, the former chief of the General Staff of the Navy, the upgrade of equipment on board the Be-12 amphibious aircraft will provide this veteran of the Navy with a second life. At the same time, the admiral believes that in addition to the new onboard equipment and submarine detection equipment, the aircraft new aircraft engines will also be needed. ”In an interview with Izvestia, the admiral said that such modernization of veteran aircraft is quite justified, since aircraft are able to search for enemy submarines much more efficiently and faster than ships. can explore half of the Black or Baltic Seas, while anti-submarine ships would need two or three days for this. ”According to the admiral, based on the flight range of the Chaika amphibious aircraft, they could be especially effectively used in the Black, Baltic, Barents and the Sea of ​​Japan Based on the tactical capabilities of the aircraft and its locationsbasing, it can be assumed that the main task of the Be-2 will be the search for modern diesel-electric boats of a potential enemy, while Tu-3 aircraft will better cope with the search for nuclear submarines. "
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 3 November 2019 13: 48 New
                      0
                      We, it seems, have nothing newer than Novella, but whether she finds Virginia is a question. Perhaps that’s why they don’t build the base aviation of the PLO. In addition, it is not very clear what base to build it on: the old IL is very old, just stupid, the old Tu is old and expensive (both by itself and in operation), you must first make a new one a platform. Ideally, I would start work on creating a single medium and heavy transport platforms. And then I would have washed down on them (with the maximum unification) and the transporter, tanker, AWACS, PLO, repeater, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, missile carrier and so on (maybe even a passenger version would make sense).
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 3 November 2019 15: 28 New
                        0
                        be 200, tu 214, ms 21
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 3 November 2019 16: 20 New
                        +2
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        be 200, tu 214, ms 21

                        - Be-200 - without motors. What is being built in a small "series" is a foreign order on Zaporozhye engines. An attempt to adapt the "Saffron" to it with the localization of production in Russia for the SSJ-100 and Be-200 failed - the French refused. And talk about the upcoming PD-8 \ 10 is TALK, because PD-14 is still not certified and has not been brought to the norm in terms of emission, what can we say about its modifications, which simply do not exist. Therefore, the Be-200 is no longer in the medium term. And you can't build a normal anti-submarine on it, perhaps a patrolman and a rescuer.

                        - MS-21 is a good aircraft for civil aviation and is potentially ideal as a base for a whole family of specialized aircraft, but ... COMPOSITE WING. That plus for the citizen is a huge minus for military aviation. In case of damage, penetration, defeat from countermeasures ... the wing is NOT REPAIRED from the word at all. Not in the field, nor in stationary. Only a replacement. And duralumin when breaking through / defeat \ damage can be repaired in a couple of hours at the airport by regular aircraft technicians. And again in battle.
                        Therefore, the MS-21 is unlikely. At least with such a wing.

                        Tu-214 ... yes, perhaps only he remains. Radio engineering reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare systems, repeaters are already being built on its base. There is a desire and intention to build on its base an AWACS aircraft instead of \ along with the A-100 (it will be cheaper to manufacture, more economical to operate, and even have a longer range). Therefore, if they will build a new anti-submarine, then it is better to do it on a single base for the RF Armed Forces - Tu-214.
                        Well, do not forget about the Tu-142. With proper modernization, they will serve another 20 to 30 years. And in range, no one can compare with them.
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 3 November 2019 19: 30 New
                        -1
                        set a plus, I’m not good at aviation, but I realized that it was also necessary for the old planes (I fully support) to upgrade and build new ones on the Tu 214 platform, totaling 1.5 billion, that is, instead of one frigate, we get 6 modern long-range PLO aircraft.
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        3 November 2019 19: 46 New
                        +4
                        Tu-214 ... but perhaps only he remains.


                        Some wanted it as a base for PLO. But while MA Navy steers Kozhin, the question of a new aircraft will not even be raised.

                        In my opinion, we need a massive, simple and cheap patrol aircraft based on the Il-114 to work in the BMZ and a certain number of Tu-214 PLOs as a "wunderwaffe" to replace the Tu-142. Or a plus to them.
                      5. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 5 November 2019 21: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        In my opinion, we need a massive, simple and cheap patrol aircraft based on the Il-114 to work in the BMZ and a certain number of Tu-214 PLOs as a "wunderwaffe" to replace the Tu-142. Or a plus to them.

                        I think this would be the right decision
                  2. VasilyI
                    VasilyI 5 November 2019 18: 04 New
                    0
                    IL-96 forgot)
                  3. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 5 November 2019 21: 35 New
                    0
                    too big, then silt 76
            2. Polinom
              Polinom 10 November 2019 12: 38 New
              -1
              Thanks, have fun. When I was flying on Beshki in the late 70s, it was already an old man. Selivanov was sung in the ears by advisers who wished to warm their hands on a cut.
              Saw-Olympiad, Poseidon, Vanguard, Zircon- was a good idea. Now, who is that?
  5. Storekeeper
    Storekeeper 2 November 2019 20: 42 New
    +2
    Until the thunder clap man does not cross!
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 1 November 2019 06: 53 New
    14
    A well-thought-out naval development requires a well-thought-out naval doctrine, which, in turn, follows from a long-term foreign policy doctrine. Which we do not have and is not expected. Situationalism rules the show. And even the notorious "honey badger doctrine" is just a response to external stimuli. This time.
    And two. A completely different economy is needed, and it requires a completely different motivation of the ruling elite. While in my head there are only ideas like "take as much as you can, give as much as you need, the difference for yourself" or "steal and flow", we will not get any normal fleet, but the Cut and Rollback will rule.
    In short, we need some other Russia. And then it will be possible to take up the fleet and other derivatives.
    1. Astra wild
      Astra wild 1 November 2019 07: 39 New
      +7
      "we need some other Russia", or rather with a reasonable leadership
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 1 November 2019 07: 03 New
    +7
    The logic of the author is clear. But let's try to hypothetically correlate country B with Russia. Well, in order to understand how a poor oligarchic country to build a fleet. Even if she had one marine theater. But Russia has 4 (four) of them! In the example with air divisions, the variability of amplification of one or another theater is still understandable. But this does not work with the fleet - all options for reinforcing one or another theater of operations by reserves of another are extended in time and risk. Therefore, we have that the poor country cannot have a fleet adequate to a hypothetical opponent on each of the 4 theater of operations, is content with the construction of a small number of 2 and 3 rank ships for each of them with a clear prospect of their destruction in case of war, because a hypothetical adversary is superior to any of the fleets in his theater. Morality - the option of building a fleet on the principle of a poor country is not suitable, because we need to multiply everything by 2 (let’s get down to the fact that the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet are secondary theater of operations). And now we have a hypothetically quite powerful fleet, but on one condition - if all the forces were on the same theater. And so, sorry, everything written by a filkin letter, fantasies on paper. Adequate Fleet was in a country with other economic principles. And now, only coastal zone ships are capable of doing tiny amounts and perverting on paper how to get out of a deep dark well with an unpleasant smell in the letter J.
    It is better to buy a foreign football club or yacht than a new frigate for the country. wink
    Pechalka
    1. Lannan Shi
      Lannan Shi 1 November 2019 13: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Adequate Fleet was in a country with other economic principles.

      Even with current principles, a fleet can be built. If you bring them to the world standard. In Russia, more than 70 million officially working. The average salary is 43.000. More than 3 trillion per month. Moreover, almost half are in the 20% of the richest. The introduction of a progressive income, at least starting at 100.000, and with a ceiling of 25%, which is very liberal, will yield 2,5 trillion a year. 2-4 aircraft carriers. Annually. And we did not touch stock returns and other things. But only the taxation of Rosneft shareholders, private, at the global average level, will give money in the amount of 2 frigates per year.
      The problem is not even in economic principles, but in a pathological, on the verge of mental illness, greed of our type of elite.
      1. frog
        frog 1 November 2019 14: 10 New
        +7
        At the holy decided to swipe? Oh well....
      2. alexmach
        alexmach 3 November 2019 14: 45 New
        +1
        at least starting at 100.000

        why with 100 then? let's start progressing from 30, or from 20, you can build even more frigates.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 3 November 2019 14: 49 New
          0
          Quote: alexmach
          why with 100 then? let's start progressing with 30, or with 20

          Do not scare ostriches, the floor is concreted (s).

          There are no thoughts, there ... a training manual request
          1. nickname7
            nickname7 9 November 2019 11: 27 New
            0
            . There are no thoughts, there ... a training manual

            So it’s you who work by training manual, once you make fun of the progressive tax adopted in developed countries. Meanwhile, there is no progression in Africa, which hints at what level of the Russian Federation.
        2. nickname7
          nickname7 9 November 2019 11: 23 New
          0
          . why with 100 then

          You do not seem to understand the meaning of the progressive tax. If the tax is from 20, then this is not progressive, it is a tax on the entire population. And the meaning of progression is that taxation increases by billionaires. They still will not notice, and the country will be richer.
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 9 November 2019 12: 06 New
            0
            You don't seem to understand the meaning of the progressive tax.

            Frankly, I didn’t understand. As a person earning more than 100, I don’t understand why I have to pay more taxes. And so by the way I pay them more, even with a flat tax system, and I get back from the state as much as any other. For this, I studied for 15 years noticeably better than average and then for a long time built a career, what would you climb into my pocket?

            But you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the progressive tax yourself.
            And the meaning of progression is that taxation increases by billionaires.

            So for billionaires or the same from 100? Confused nothing? Are there problems with school arithmetic?
            I will greatly surprise you if I say that they do not pay billionaires even flat income tax? Because they have billions not in income but in assets, and they have ample opportunities to optimize taxes. A progressive tax is not a tax on the rich, but on the "middle class", on those who have achieved at least something in life. I would advise you to refrain from giving advice on a cosmic scale ...
    2. Yuri Simple
      Yuri Simple 1 November 2019 14: 05 New
      +2
      Playing football is purely better than doing rescue work, and a football club is better than even an aircraft carrier. This is if at all. And specifically, garbage in a wet place. This is me about the theater, which allegedly 4. They may be so much, but not all of them are equivalent. And missile launchers do not have to be deployed on naval aviation. In essence, for Russia, in the foreseeable future, it’s enough to have 1, but a powerful aircraft carrier group, 1 group of response ships: the BDK’s security forces with 1-2 cruisers, and 3-5 groups of auxiliary vessels ( high-speed transporters) with one two frigates and a couple of minesweepers. The rest can be solved from space, but with good rockets with a decent range.
      1. nickname7
        nickname7 9 November 2019 11: 32 New
        0
        . Playing football is purely better than doing rescue work

        Provided that the club is located in the Russian Federation, and if the club abroad pays expensive rents to foreign capitals, for Russian resources, this is not good.
    3. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 47 New
      +4
      But Russia has 4 (four)! In the example with air divisions, the variability of amplification of one or another theater is still understandable. But this does not work with the fleet - all options for reinforcing one or another theater of operations by reserves of another are extended in time and risk.


      Under the article, a list of previous parts of the series, there in the second part the issue is fully considered.
  • avia12005
    avia12005 1 November 2019 07: 33 New
    11
    Brevity is the soul of wit. This article can be reduced four times, and then there will be an effect. About air divisions and their transfer from one theater to another. After the flight, you need time to study another theater of operations, reconnaissance of enemy forces, etc. But will the enemy give it? Will there be enough money for BTA to transfer the aviation technical staff? And if the adversary waits for the transfer, and how the hell is helling on the weakened first theater of operations, where did the air units go from? It’s easier to admit that thanks to the clear work of the government and the Ministry of Finance, we cannot defend such a large territory ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 22 New
      +8
      Brevity is the soul of wit.


      So here briefly))

      This article can be reduced four times, and then there will be an effect.


      At ten then, why trifle?

      After the flight, you need time to study another theater of operations, reconnaissance of enemy forces, etc. But will the enemy give it? Will there be enough money for BTA to transfer the aviation technical staff?


      And why on theater of operations division control with intelligence then? The theater itself should be studied by all regiments before the war, so that all these difficulties are not present, the technical staff can be in place.

      And if the adversary waits for the transfer, and how the hell is helling on the weakened first theater of operations, where did the air units go from?


      Will the Japanese bomb Sevastopol?

      It’s easier to admit that thanks to the clear work of the government and the Ministry of Finance, we cannot defend


      This is not so, to put it mildly, the only question is to begin to act effectively. That is - spend available money really.
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 1 November 2019 17: 44 New
        +5
        Alexander, with your appearance on the site, I realized that I was not alone. I, too, were always blamed for allegedly graphomania, and no one ever understood that interrupting a thought without explaining it in key aspects meant scattering it no less. I do not accept and do not support such a crime over the radio. This is despite the fact that the text is actually written in a simple language that is accessible to most people and in full accordance with all literary norms. If some readers lack the willpower to read a few paragraphs, my insistent recommendation is: gentlemen, be content with the descriptive part on the back of the toilet air freshener - anything more complicated than this level is not for you.
        Ps As you understand, for me the text did not create any problems whatsoever. I have only one question: is there more?
        1. timokhin-aa
          1 November 2019 18: 14 New
          +2
          There are many)))
      2. avia12005
        avia12005 1 November 2019 17: 49 New
        -2
        You are famously. It can be seen that they served a lot in aviation. Maintenance personnel to keep without planes next to the division’s control without planes. The enemy is in shock.
        1. timokhin-aa
          1 November 2019 18: 15 New
          +2
          In the period of the crisis, it will be necessary to ensure readiness for receiving aircraft on a heap of airfields, even on those where there are no such aircraft in peacetime.

          There are no options.
          1. avia12005
            avia12005 1 November 2019 18: 48 New
            -1
            Oh well. That is, the technician will see the Su-34 for the first time in his life and prepare him for the flight? In this case, immediately transfer all the pilots to the kamikaze.

            And you do not know at all that in military aviation aircraft is assigned to one or two aircraft? And no one has the right to take his place.

            And we still need a crowd of specialists, besides him, communications, electronic warfare, armed men, etc. They all need to be transferred.

            However, one can later call the management of the divisions of the air innovation armies of the ground forces of the navy.
            1. timokhin-aa
              1 November 2019 20: 27 New
              +3
              That is, the technician will see the Su-34 for the first time in his life and prepare him for the flight?


              Of course not. A technician trained on the Su-30СМ and having experience working with these aircraft will do the same.

              When people flew to Khmeimim from "our local" (no details) airbase in July-August 2015, a rather small number left, less than half of the seats in Ila.
              1. avia12005
                avia12005 1 November 2019 20: 43 New
                -2
                I would ask you not to offer things that are more completely unacceptable from the point of view of flight laws. Or to propose changing the laws themselves, written including with blood. Su-30 and Su-34, Su-35 are different machines. Technicians must have clearance after retraining.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  1 November 2019 22: 47 New
                  +7
                  Are you trying to understand the meaning of what you read? In naval aviation, the base attack aircraft is the Su-30СМ.
                  Technicians trained on Su-30СМ should and will work with them.

                  I wrote just that. What else is not clear to you?
                  1. avia12005
                    avia12005 2 November 2019 06: 17 New
                    -2
                    And I wrote to you that the technician cannot, at the request of the author Timokhin, serve someone else's plane. Do you understand this?
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      2 November 2019 19: 24 New
                      +1
                      Technicians can be brought in one Ile, I even gave you an example of one operation where they really did it, but drivers of airfield fuel dispensers and the like can be deployed in advance with equipment
                      1. avia12005
                        avia12005 3 November 2019 06: 12 New
                        0
                        I recommend that you ask yourself the question of how all such elements as the transfer of aviation units, formations and even large formations were worked out in Soviet times. Forward teams of aviation, rear and communications units, along with equipment, were sent to new airfields by air and ground echelons. Drivers, of course, can be "deployed", but where to get the equipment. Where can I find TEC specialists who will repair aircraft? There is, of course, a rational link in your thought, but the devil, as always, is in the details. winked
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        3 November 2019 19: 54 New
                        0
                        Where to get TEC specialists who will repair aircraft?


                        Well, generally speaking, planes are not being thrown into the desert, but to a place where there is already a incomplete division of the same aircraft, and in general troops in bulk.
                      3. avia12005
                        avia12005 4 November 2019 05: 57 New
                        0
                        It is felt that in relation to aviation, your knowledge needs to be improved. To provide only one take-off aircraft, several dozen ground-based specialists and pieces of equipment are required. If the number of aircraft increases, and the number of ground personnel remains the same, then how to ensure the necessary intensity of sorties, as well as maintenance and repair of equipment? Moreover, I repeat: each aircraft is assigned its own aircraft. In general, you partially repeat the concept of air bases, which you justifiably abandoned.
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        5 November 2019 12: 59 New
                        0
                        and the number of ground personnel remains the same,


                        She will not stay.
                        It’s just that the same refueling drivers mentioned can be taken from anywhere, and in general you should be prepared to maneuver personnel in advance in a military district, in order to carry only a minimum of technicians for the planes.

                        These are all organizational issues and they are SOLVED.
                      5. avia12005
                        avia12005 7 November 2019 04: 54 New
                        0
                        And who will serve the planes at those airfields from where you will take the "tankers"? In short, not convinced at all belay
  • Polinom
    Polinom 10 November 2019 12: 57 New
    0
    AU from which they did not fly for 10 years, bring back to normal two to three months. With funding and the availability of technical equipment. When the USSR sat on the AC commandant's office and reception group-release. You can plant, cook with what?
    Melitopol. One third of the equipment needed to prepare the sketch (photo). The rest are on airplanes. You forgot about the means of RSTO (Drive, ARP, RSP, P-18, identification.) Have operators and regularly "turn". Dining room, fuel and food supplies.

  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 1 November 2019 07: 37 New
    +3
    Colleagues, when I read, I thought: a) is it really true that women are stupid: if I can not understand the author?
    b) the author has a mess in his head. "the likelihood of a" border conflict "with Poland is several times higher than the likelihood of a war with Japan," but in this case we are already at war with Ukraine, at least they think so.
    If according to the author: the likelihood of war with America is very small, and with Japan is several times higher, then the likelihood of war with America is several times higher. After all, everyone knows that "striped ears" stick out behind the Japanese.
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 46 New
      +6
      They stuck behind Georgia in 2008, and where is the Apocalypse, why didn’t it come?
      1. bayard
        bayard 2 November 2019 05: 26 New
        +1
        Well, Georgia was not a member of NATO, and everything quickly ended without occupation.
        As for Japan and Poland (to Kaliningrad), everything is true - these are the most probable threats. Potential.
        And about the proposal to make Iran a sea power, I liked it. In any case, from next year it will become quite possible (the term of UN sanctions is running out), only Israel will be against it. He is always against - like Baba Yaga (from the cartoon). In general, Iran needs to be re-equipped - both the Air Force, and the Navy, etc. And they have oil.
  • Grits
    Grits 1 November 2019 08: 04 New
    +2
    From the article, you can safely throw out the philosophical preamble. The article will not suffer from this and will not even notice its absence.
  • vladcub
    vladcub 1 November 2019 08: 18 New
    +1
    "The General Staff of the Navy is needed" comrades, what do you think: the author corresponds to the position of the Chief of the General Staff of the Navy, or is this position small for him?
    1. bayard
      bayard 2 November 2019 05: 14 New
      +1
      In vain do you scoff. Now the fleets are subordinate to the districts, in other words, to the land investigators, and the commanders-in-chief of the combat arms have only supervisory and advisory power. That's just the SF from the subordination of the infantry the other day, apparently as a pilot project.
      So the author is right - the fleet should command the commander in chief and have its own headquarters with the function of strategic planning.
      1. Astra wild
        Astra wild 2 November 2019 08: 23 New
        0
        I was told that the fleets in the Second World War were in operational submission to the ground forces. In the Soviet Union, even under Gorshkov, fleets were subordinate to ground commanders
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 1 November 2019 08: 26 New
    +2
    The author is worried about our fleet, this is understandable, only the VO website does not make decisions on the application of option A or B or maybe Yu, so the effect of its publication is roughly equal to zero. As they said with us, they conducted an outage.
  • Eug
    Eug 1 November 2019 09: 17 New
    -2
    The inter-theater maneuver of forces and means looks right and beautiful in theory, but the realities will be different. For now - to close the "internal" seas and ensure the deployment and use of naval strategic nuclear forces, with the onset of economic prosperity - ocean interest groups. I see the following composition - Leader, three large Gorshkov, an aircraft carrier, periodically UDC like Mistral and supply ships can join. In ocean theaters, it is desirable to have three such groups. But that is if everything is beautiful. And the allies in this version will resort themselves - they always make friends with the strong. Conclusion - to become strong as soon as possible☺ ......
    1. Yuri Simple
      Yuri Simple 1 November 2019 14: 09 New
      +3
      It is clear that 6-8 aircraft carriers - this is karosho. However, take money?
    2. Polinom
      Polinom 10 November 2019 13: 05 New
      -1
      You are right, this maneuver is a deceit and an imaginary reassurance of the country's leadership.
      All this was discussed almost 20 years ago. Then there was no chance. At present, the forces of the alliance have tripled, the RF has halved. I do not take into account Georgia and Ukraine.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 1 November 2019 10: 36 New
    -5
    Dear Alexander Timokhin, is trying to solve all problems arithmetically.
    .... Ecclesiastes 1: 14-15
    "14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun, and behold, everything is vanity and vexation of the spirit! 15 A crooked cannot become straight, and what is not, that cannot be counted."
    Russian Synodal Translation (Protestant Edition)

    https://www.bibleonline.ru/bible/rst66/ecc-1.14-15/

    © Bible Online, 2003-2019.
    we need a more fruitful approach, you probably need to think deeper, first you need to develop effective weapons (coastal aviation and submarines) and roll inefficient (surface ships = easily noticeable slow-moving vulnerable), and if you roll up, roll up and not try to sit on two chairs, making frigates, +4 BdK, + 12 krv + 24 MRK. It is necessary to stop the laying of surface ships, the completion of the started enough. But advances in naval aviation, on submarines (especially nuclear submarines) are so far meanwhile, in the sense of a high demand for this type of weapon.
    1. bayard
      bayard 2 November 2019 05: 49 New
      +4
      And how will you cover the coveted nuclear submarines during deployment?
      By sea aviation?
      This is all from languishing spirit and jealousy out of reason.
      The fleet must be balanced and in line with its tasks.
      Quote: vladimir1155
      if you roll up, then roll up and not try to sit on two chairs, making frigates, +4 BdK, + 12 krv + 24 MRK. Need to stop laying surface ships

      Funny ...
      So take it and
      Quote: vladimir1155
      roll

      ?? lol
      These are not "two chairs", Vladimir, these are four legs of ONE chair.
      Even several RTOs having a leader in the form of a corvette or frigate (for cover from the air and from submarines), with proper target designation, are capable of much.
      But flawed due to low seaworthiness, autonomy and security. Therefore, their role is to protect the naval base and coastal zones.
      But on the question of a RATIONAL approach to building a fleet, optimizing costs and choosing the right priorities, the author is absolutely right. The example with countries A and B is especially good - very clear and indicative ... And in my opinion, it is quite intelligible.
      Don't you think so?
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 2 November 2019 07: 31 New
        0
        Quote: bayard

        These are not "two chairs", Vladimir, these are four legs of ONE chair.
        Even several RTOs having a leader in the form of a corvette or frigate (for cover from the air and from submarines), with proper target designation, are capable of much.

        Tell me, why are several RTOs better than several planes?
        1. bayard
          bayard 2 November 2019 08: 04 New
          +1
          And why instead, and not together?
          RTOs can be on duty for a long time in a zone, say, near the straits of the Kuril ridge ... But airplanes cannot do that. But they will react much faster to the threat and go to the line of attack. And a submarine will not be able to attack them ... And also, if necessary, IRAs will be able to shoot with "Calibers" even from the base pier ... and an airplane from an airfield cannot do that ... if it wants to.
          1. SVD68
            SVD68 2 November 2019 10: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: bayard
            And why instead, and not together?

            Because airplanes can perform the same strike missions as RTOs. At the same time, planes concentrate their strike power better. Aircraft can be used to maneuver on domestic operating lines.

            Quote: bayard
            RTOs can be on duty for a long time in a zone, say near the straits of the Kuril ridge ...

            The long duty of purely strike ships is doubtful.

            Quote: bayard
            And also, if necessary, IRAs will be able to shoot with "Calibers" even from the pier of the base ... and an airplane from an airfield cannot do that ... if it wants to.

            Wow. Like missile batteries, MRCs are definitely better.
            1. bayard
              bayard 2 November 2019 14: 02 New
              +6
              Yes, I am not defending the RTO program, but since they have been laid down and are under construction, they need to be completed. And then we already have such a historical illness in the construction of the fleet - we lay it in, and then we cut the finished hulls into metal and pour huge sums into the toilet bowl. From the "Izmail" still the tsarist bookmark, Stalin's cruisers, to the "holy 90s" and "unbending zero".
              What is laid down must be completed, but from now on, do not rush into such nonsense, build a balanced fleet with cheap corvettes, budget frigates and perfect destroyers.
              And what is already there should be used prudently and creatively.
              1. SVD68
                SVD68 2 November 2019 18: 50 New
                +1
                I agree with this.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 2 November 2019 23: 36 New
          -2
          "Or what king, going to war against another king, will not sit down and consult first, is he strong with ten thousand to resist the one who comes against him with twenty thousand?" from Luke ch. 14; 32 ... so stop puffing up and call for total control of remote waters ... I do not think that MRK is better than aircraft, I am a supporter of coastal aviation, coastal assets and submarines. I think that RTOs need to be completed, but no new ones should be laid, as well as, in principle, not to lay surface ships at all except minesweepers. All surface missions (ASW near bases and ports, protection of fishing and shipping, demonstration of the flag), on the shoulder of several frigates and BOD1155, together with minesweepers and IPC).
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 2 November 2019 23: 24 New
        -3
        of course I don’t think ...... you are talking about abstract theoretical meaningless discussions about country A and B ....... empty words about fictions, about fiction, about Martians, about just lying really .... you need to go down to the earth and talk about the real country of the Russian Federation, a country with land and interests on the earth, and not on some abstract Indian oceans ...... the strength of the submarines is stealth, and Russia is unable to cover them away from its shores (in a system of two old cruisers and two destroyers) only secrecy will save the nuclear submarines, you are talking about distraction, but you need to talk about reality. The reality is that there is an ICBM and there is a nuclear submarine, this is the long arm of Moscow, and everything else is offshore only on land. Lx 14

        Art. 28 For who of you, desiring to build a tower, will not sit down first and calculate the costs, whether he has what it takes to complete it, 29 so that when he has laid the foundation and is not able to complete it, all who see will not laugh at him, 30 saying: "this man started building and could not finish"?
        1. bayard
          bayard 2 November 2019 23: 51 New
          +3
          I have to admit that it is you who fly in the clouds and abstractions. hi
          How ? How are you going to cover the exit of their submarine-carrier bases and ensure their safety in the areas of combat deployment? If you cut everything and sell it \ for scrap?
          The fleet must be balanced!
          And for each SSBN there should be an outfit of surface forces to cover it during deployment. This is an axiom. yes because at our bases the nuclear submarines of the Russian Navy on an ongoing basis are on duty multi-purpose enemy nuclear submarines - low noise, with sensitive acoustics and effective torpedoes. They wait in ambush and, without due opposition, destroy our SSBNs in the very first minutes of the war.
          It is a fact .
          And to counter them, they need effective anti-submarine forces - IPC (corvettes), frigates, BOD, anti-submarine aircraft and bottom fields of sonar sensors.
          This is a complex task.
          American (and not only Japanese, NATO also has such) anti-submarine aircraft very effectively detect our submarines, especially nuclear submarines, there are a lot of them ... And what forces do you think should provide air defense of the BR area? Basic aviation will not be able to barrage far and constantly. We have one aircraft carrier, and he is under repair with a not very clear perspective. Therefore, you can only rely on air defense of surface ships ... well, support from the base aircraft on call in case of a threat (but it is late and it will be necessary to hold out somehow).
          So it turns out that before the spoken word is necessary
          Quote: vladimir1155
          to sit down first and calculate the cost, does he have what is needed to accomplish it, 29 so that when he has laid the foundation and is not able to complete it, all those who see do not laugh at him, 30 saying: "This man began to build and could not finish"?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 2 November 2019 23: 59 New
            -1
            Coastal air defense and anti-aircraft defense can only be effectively provided by coastal aviation and bottom fields.
            Quote: bayard
            anti-submarine aircraft very efficiently detect
            . it can also cover minesweepers ..... of course, surface ships can and should be used by surface ships that remain, but they will have to be covered by the same coastal aviation, and their air defense and anti-aircraft defense capabilities are flawed, due to the low speed .....
  • Serg65
    Serg65 1 November 2019 10: 42 New
    +3
    Welcome Alexander! hi
    And so ... I read and concluded ... your dissertation has more political meaning than operational tactical! You can almost immediately forget about the transfer of forces to various TVDs! Now about countries A and B, virtually the reader is on the side of country B, but the author did not knowingly designate country U, in which, after the collapse of country C, the lion's share of the military factories working for the fleet and without the products of this country remained, country B would not be able to build the first 4-8 years of their identical corvettes! The factor of the country U and other countries that had on their territory a large number of military factories, which also appeared after the collapse of country C, you always underestimate!
    Now about Oliver Hazard ..... I agree, a good excursionist, but at the same time Perry was built and Spruns ... and also in a considerable series, and a year after the launch of the first Perry, the first Ticonderoga was laid! Therefore, your expression ...
    Americans, being a richer country than the USSR, applied the methods of the poor in their naval construction

    looks to put it mildly not true!
    Here's a quick overview of your article!
    1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
      Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 1 November 2019 13: 11 New
      +5
      Sergei hi It also seemed strange to me how country B should reanimate four new first-ranking out of the eight available running gears if products remained in country U. There are problems with the repair of turbines manufactured in country U. Novik OJSC, which was repairing turbines in country A, was covered and did not even pay its salary. https://severpost.ru/read/85003/
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 1 November 2019 13: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
        Novik OJSC, which was repairing turbines in country A, was covered and did not even pay its salary.

        hi Welcome Ludwigovich! How are you doing in Saturn?
        1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
          Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 1 November 2019 14: 04 New
          +2
          Everything is good on Saturn, the main thing is that Saturn finish the Star with gears for frigates. drinks
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 1 November 2019 14: 11 New
            +2
            Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
            Everything is good on Saturn

            Well, already happy, a chicken by the grain drinks
      2. timokhin-aa
        1 November 2019 16: 45 New
        +3
        And 956 destroyers? A purchase of spare parts before 2014? Who bothered?

        “Novik” still put “Yaroslav” on the move.
        1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
          Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 1 November 2019 17: 00 New
          +3
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          A purchase of spare parts before 2014? Who bothered?

          The question is rhetorical, but the fact that the manufacturer of ship turbines after the annexation of Crimea remained behind the front line must be taken into account.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          “Novik” still put “Yaroslav” on the move.

          Well, yes, even problematic parts were found in the turbine. If only this would not affect the operation of the turbine. But the workers were thrown in vain with a salary, this is very bad.
          During the repair of GTU "Wise" employees of "Novik" made an unexpected discovery. It turned out that the rapid failure of the GTN M90 of two TFR of the 11540 project has the same reason. This is a dubious modernization of the M90 pair, carried out at the beginning of the “zero”, thus the Nikolaev “Zorya-Mashproekt”. A word to Leonid Belov, Novik Design Bureau Chief Designer: “A damper bush was placed on the front support of the rotor of the high-pressure compressor. Installed it completely wrong. As a result, after all the 1200 hours of operating time, these bushes on both GTUs collapsed. Of course, this is a mistake. I do not rule out evil intent ... ".

          https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1999396.html
          1. timokhin-aa
            1 November 2019 18: 18 New
            +4
            The question is rhetorical, but the fact that the manufacturer of ship turbines after the annexation of Crimea remained behind the front line must be taken into account.


            I take into account. The question is that for the first time the topic of repair and modernization of old ships was voiced somewhere in the 2003 year. 2009 years passed from 2014 to 4, and plus January of 2014, when it was possible to order anything in Ukraine. There was money.
    2. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 30 New
      +3
      You can almost immediately forget about the transfer of forces to various TVDs!


      Is the idea of ​​maneuver obsolete?

      Now about countries A and B, virtually the reader is on the side of country B, but the author did not knowingly designate country U, in which, after the collapse of country C, the lion's share of the military factories working for the fleet and without the products of this country remained, country B would not be able to build the first 4-8 years of their identical corvettes!


      Well, how is it? Country AB started laying new warships already in 2001 EMNIP, and serious money went to 2009, and country W broke away already in 2014! What prevented you from getting anything from it until 2014? Money? No, they were from 2009.

      In addition, the corvettes in A-B are equipped with a 2DDA12000 power plant, with diesel engines from the Kolomna plant and gearboxes of OOO Zvezda-reduktor from St. Petersburg, and if you build smaller corvettes, you can get DRRA-6000 - the same ones that are real baked for the 22160 project.
      They already exist, Sergei! Non-country "U" is past the checkout here.

      The factor of the country U and other countries that had on their territory a large number of military factories, which also appeared after the collapse of country C, you always underestimate!


      Well, you see, your lie, it turns out.

      Now about Oliver Hazard ..... I agree, a good excursionist, but at the same time Perry was built and Spruns ... and also in a considerable series, and a year after the launch of the first Perry, the first Ticonderoga was laid! Therefore, your expression ...


      I just wanted to draw your attention to the approach to designing Perry. Domestic "Ticonderogs" and "Spruens" are too tough for us yet, but about the Russian "Perry" it's time to get confused in full. Not in the sense of the same, but in the sense of just as simple and cheap. Do not agree?
      1. bayard
        bayard 2 November 2019 06: 35 New
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        in the sense of being as simple and cheap.

        So the Chinese did it, project 054 is simple and cheap. And massive. On diesels, therefore - economical.
        In our case, an analogue of "Perry" could be sculpted from 11356 with a GAK from "Gorshkov" and rocket-torpedoes in ammunition load. If at one time it had been decided that the function of the frigate was an escort and an ASW, then they would have saved time and money, and would have had a quite decent fleet of these steamers (in any case, they would have had time to build a lot by 2014), 22350 should have been immediately designed as destroyer - with 48 UVP, corresponding to the displacement and power plant.
        And so, now a destroyer is hastily made from a frigate, corvettes are built at the price of frigates, and it is still not clear which ship to be the main horse of the fleet.
        And gentle:
        - simplified PLO corvette (cheap and mass)
        - budget frigate (with sharpening on anti-aircraft defense and moderate air defense)
        - destroyer type 22350M
        and unfilled and partially modernized old paranoids.
        This is a combat surface.
        Later, when the saturation with new ships will be in full swing, one might think (if he suddenly gets baked and there will be money) about building a cruiser of 12 tons on four turbines, under 000 UVP - an analogue of Chinese pr. 80 - as a further development of 055M. but it’s better not to do this, but limit yourself to a large series of the same type 22350M.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 4 November 2019 10: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Is the idea of ​​maneuver obsolete?

        laughing And how !!!!
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, how is it?

        Alexander, you understand very well that a warship consists not only of a hull and a power plant! In Ukraine, in addition to the Nikolaev Shipyard and Zorya-Mashproekt, there were still more than 60 plants operating at the USSR Navy! The loss of Kiev Quantum, Petrel, Zaporizhzhya Spark resulted in problems with the A-190, SAM Redut and Shtil, radar detection and fire control. The loss of the Moldavian Meson and the Latvian Alpha is hardly compensated just now! In Kazakhstan, there remained 50 factories working for the Navy, from here there are problems with trawls, anti-torpedoes, and with conventional torpedoes. In Kyrgyzstan, 8 factories and + deposits of rare earth metals (microcircuits).
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, you see, your lie, it turns out.

        Well, where is the truth?
        1. timokhin-aa
          5 November 2019 13: 05 New
          0
          And how !!!!


          Well, you are in your inimitable style as usual

          The loss of Kiev Quantum, Petrel, and Zaporizhzhya Spark resulted in problems with the A-190, the Redut and Shtil air defense systems, and the fire detection and control radar.


          There were no problems with the Redut air defense system, there were problems with its pairing with the Poliment radar complex, they were solved for a long time because the funding was going on with huge interruptions.
          Calm blinded by a whistle for 11356.
          A-190 sharply became an ideal gun as soon as several dozen people planted it. And it worked, imagine?

          In Kazakhstan, there remained 50 factories working for the Navy, from here there are problems with trawls, anti-torpedoes, and with conventional torpedoes.


          There are no problems with trawls or anti-torpedoes, except that the trawls do not take modern mines, and the torpedoes are not purchased in the required quantity (despite the fact that the product is brought to the series and does not need to be finalized).

          You're dramatizing.
  • +5
    +5 1 November 2019 10: 45 New
    +2
    Have you heard the "Sample Fleet"? This is not about our time and not about us at all.
    Only a richer and more developed country can afford to build many of the same type. And "samples" are not built because they are stupid, because:
    1. Cannot in a large series and quickly. They build on different plants who master what.
    2. The pace of construction is low, the ships become obsolete during the construction process, due to this, and different types with small series.
    3. A less developed / poor series will a priori be smaller, and the ships themselves will be worse. This is a priori loss. See the example of RI, and Reich, in part, in the dreadnought race. (the problem is well described in the science fiction "Fortress Sol" by P. Anderson)
    Therefore, the less developed side is looking for an "asymmetric answer", moves away from the mainstream, submarines, raiders and all sorts of anti-ship missiles.
    And to be young, rich and healthy is better of course ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 32 New
      +2
      1. Cannot in a large series and quickly. They build on different plants who master what.
      2. The pace of construction is low, the ships become obsolete during the construction process, due to this, and different types with small series.
      3. The less developed / poor series will have a priori less, and the ships themselves - worse.


      These are all false statements.
      20380 were built slowly only because, firstly, the Ministry of Defense delayed the money spent on other things, such as Poseidon, for example, and secondly, because the Ministry of Industry and Trade did not push through the second assembly stand for diesel-diesel units.
      Without the level of two problems in the second round, these corvettes would be lowered like pies every 4 of the year both at the North Shipyard and at the gas station, where they were actually being built, and Amber would easily have mastered it.

      So by.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 3 November 2019 09: 50 New
        -1
        you do not take into account that corvettes were absolutely unnecessary, due to the redundancy of the surface fleet remaining from the USSR, they are built only instead of the retired Soviet ones, and again we get an excess. If we conventionally consider decommissioned until 2025 the entire Soviet fleet except two tanks and one brand. There will be 6 modernized 1155, 8 frigates, 14 corvettes, 28 RTOs ........ a clear oversupply, enough to lay them already ...... only minesweepers are not enough
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 19: 57 New
          0
          Corvettes we have now the most scarce position, if that. When will you already understand that submarines cannot act on their own?

          To withdraw ONE strategic submarine from Vilyuchinsk at the time they attracted an IPC brigade, a minesweeper division, three or four TFRs (frigates with our money) and an anti-submarine aviation regiment.

          And this was, firstly, the minimum, the staff complained that they were not given a PAY, at least one, and this is a minimum of PEACE TIME, and in the threatened period the composition of forces would be completely different, both on water and in the sky.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 4 November 2019 08: 11 New
            0
            Dear Alexander, then explain to me why 1155 are located in Vladivostok, and not in Kamchatka? and why were there so few minesweepers?
            1. timokhin-aa
              5 November 2019 13: 00 New
              0
              What am I affirming? And shipbuilding programs?
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 5 November 2019 21: 37 New
                0
                I wanted to hear your opinion as a respected specialist .....
          2. Polinom
            Polinom 10 November 2019 13: 13 New
            0
            Peacefully, two IPCs, one TSC, a pair of Be-12s. On the war - "shuttle". up to 5 IPC, 4 TSC, 3 SKR 1135 (can up to 2 PSKR-if given) up to 10 self-departures Be. Deployment time 5 SSBNs - 8-12 hours. BEFORE THE DIVE POINTS. Then yourself. There are cover forces-877 and 641. In the far zone of the PLO. Radius from Shipunsky and beyond.
            1. timokhin-aa
              11 November 2019 11: 27 New
              0
              Now the PSKR is no longer fighting. Even at the Kamchatka Nerey, the wires to the HAK were cut, the air defense systems were looted, the fire control radars were turned off and partially dismantled. In fact, they can only fire a cannon.

              And the new ones are generally non-combat, there are no ASGs and anti-submarine weapons or REVs there.
              1. Polinom
                Polinom 24 November 2019 08: 51 New
                0
                I did not know that everyone was dismantled. 1135p and then were, to put it mildly, costly. In the early 90s, Japanese poachers had an alert network. And chasing after small size burning a huge amount of fuel and resource is very expensive. And then they had ships that he could not catch up with.
                Sometimes we talked with the border guards on shish kebabs. They said that the ship was bulky and uncomfortable for security tasks.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  25 November 2019 13: 23 New
                  -1
                  1135p had to be redone in anti-submarines and taken to the Navy, but the Navy refused. Right now they have less DMZ ships on the Pacific Fleet than fingers on their hands.

                  For a long time, the border guards have "go and call your big brother" - the offender is given a stop command, if he does not understand, An-72P arrives and slashes with missiles and 23-mm bursts. Somehow they even managed to drown the poacher after this.
  • +5
    +5 1 November 2019 10: 53 New
    0
    By the way, the strategy "order beats the class" and "a larger number of medium-quality units are driven by a smaller number of high-quality units", "better worse, but more and now, the better, but less and then" the USSR played in WWII and won .. .so in the subject ... but after the war I did not do this with my Navy, because I understood that there would be no "more" in any case ... at least do pies with one torpedo and a machine gun
    1. Vadmir
      Vadmir 1 November 2019 12: 59 New
      +2
      after the war I didn’t act like that with my navy, because I understood that there wouldn’t be "more" in any case ... at least make pies with one torpedo and a machine gun
      In fact, the number of ships in the USSR Navy at some point exceeded the number of ships of the US Navy, only the ships were smaller and the leader in terms of total US tonnage.
      But I agree with your thought - we cannot take with numbers, we are not so rich as to buy cheap things.
    2. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 33 New
      +2
      And this, in general, is also a false statement, or take the trouble to prove it.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 1 November 2019 11: 01 New
    0
    The author, of course, discovered America, it turns out that for a short period it is possible to increase the intensity of use of available capacities. In Syria, crews and obsl. the personnel of the aircraft work in shifts, at least one 2 brigade for one aircraft, and the pilot, who is on duty shift, simply gets an available car through the conveyor and fly to bomb. Of course, in ordinary parts in peacetime this is not organized. I suspect that we and the Su-30CM exist in part in order not to introduce separate sparks, that is, to manage with a smaller number of cars, at the cost of a resource. If the aircraft is very reliable, then this will work, they will simply be written off not after 30 years, but through 25.

    But in general, the fundamental mistake of this whole concept of the frontier is that if we set ourselves the task of winning at sea, then this is now our frontier.
  • Operator
    Operator 1 November 2019 11: 27 New
    -9
    Kindergarten with drug addiction in one bottle laughing
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 34 New
      +7
      Well, at least not a Swedish family with Poseidon and haloperidol. Like some laughing
  • Tektor
    Tektor 1 November 2019 11: 31 New
    -3
    A fleet can only be built around combat units capable of ensuring the safety of the full spectrum for themselves and their area of ​​responsibility. We are talking about mighty fulcrum - about the Eagles project 11442M and the like, with the sea S-500. Only having such combat units in the composition, it is possible to create ship strike groups of the open ocean. And without them, the only hope remains the forces of the submarine fleet, characterized by stealth. If we cannot create 2 KMGs in the Northern and Pacific fleets, then it will be pointless to make any claims to the solution of world problems.
    1. Yuri Simple
      Yuri Simple 1 November 2019 14: 22 New
      +1
      Solve world problems? There’s nothing more for us to do. Yes, within the country, only listing the problems themselves will take two to three days. Why on earth are we? By means for sobering up as the Papuans, the same Papuan-like should be. And in any case, money must be saved. And the achievement of one or another, including purely defensive, goals should be sought not in yesterday, but in tomorrow. What is the use of referring to the experience of the Cold War - well, Trump understands that this is a fake conflict. Therefore, new technologies and new solutions are needed.
    2. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 34 New
      0
      Well, 8-10 of the first ranks of the Russian Federation will be fully mastered to 2030, if you take it, but no more. Not America.
  • Gust
    Gust 1 November 2019 11: 33 New
    -2
    The article came out too messy, the same could be described by a much smaller number of letters. But the author is in many ways right. Our doctrine is defensive, and the primary task of the fleet is the protection of maritime borders, SSBN deployment areas, and the removal of land attack lines from the sea.
    For this case, "super-Gorshkovs" and DPLs (it is possible with the beloved VNEU, you can simply with a powerful battery) are just well suited with the full support of naval aviation. The detachment of forces in the defense is several times less than in the attack, this time, we learned how to build frigates and submarines, this is two, and with the support of coastal aviation, you can keep the "partners" at a respectful distance of three. This will be the option for the "poor" but effective - the same asymmetric answer.
  • Vadmir
    Vadmir 1 November 2019 13: 33 New
    0
    Country "A" and country "B" are like the notorious spherical horses in a vacuum, don't you think?
    In real life, you need to consider a lot of factors and money (read the price of oil with its fluctuations), and the possibilities of industry and the international situation.
    The author from article to article promotes the idea that RTOs are evil, they cannot be built, but universal corvettes must be built. The fact that a corvette is a better idea is generally sound, but a corvette cannot be considered the main ship - it is a ship of the near sea zone with low autonomy, cruising range and seaworthiness. The same Perry mentioned by the author was a frigate with a displacement of 4200 tons and a range of 5000 miles. It is necessary to build ships of different classes and purposes.
    And versatility for a small ship is not an advantage, but a disadvantage. It is necessary to proceed from the destination of the ship, for a corvette it is a submarine in the near sea zone, including for providing an SSBN access to the sea. Yes, it is good if the ship can protect itself from enemy ships and aircraft, but these are auxiliary tasks, they should not interfere with the main task, taking away the displacement for non-core equipment and weapons. And they should not make the corvette too expensive, which always leads to a decrease in the number of ships released.
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 42 New
      +3
      The fact that a corvette is a better idea is generally sound, but a corvette cannot be considered the main ship - it is a ship of the near sea zone with low autonomy, cruising range and seaworthiness.


      What about RTOs? You have some strange logic. The corvette is superior to the MRK in seaworthiness, and can do everything that the MRK can do, and can also solve the acute problem of anti-submarine defense and costs like the 1,5MRK, but the VHR is good, and the corvette is bad, so what?
      1. Vadmir
        Vadmir 1 November 2019 17: 51 New
        0
        What about RTOs? You have some strange logic.
        Nothing strange, since I did not say that RTOs are better than corvette in anything; on the contrary, I noted that building corvettes instead of RTOs is a good idea. I did not write that the corvette is bad. In the article, you contrasted country A with RTOs to country B with corvettes, and I objected to this that corvette is a BMZ ship and it is unreasonable to build only corvettes.
        1. timokhin-aa
          1 November 2019 18: 19 New
          +5
          To build only corvettes is unreasonable, but to build at least corvettes so far there is no money and the industry was quite reasonable, very much so.

          Because now we have a hole in the PLO, right now.
          1. SVD68
            SVD68 2 November 2019 08: 24 New
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            To build only corvettes is unreasonable, but to build at least corvettes so far there is no money and the industry was quite reasonable, very much so.

            Because now we have a hole in the PLO, right now.

            Here, by the way, without touching the stated principles, because I basically agree with them, wouldn't it be more reasonable to build submarines?
  • Vadmir
    Vadmir 1 November 2019 13: 52 New
    +3
    And now the United States, set up for confrontation with both Russia and China, is forced to consider the balance of forces, starting from the TWO opposing fleets.
    Allies are good, but as history shows, unreliable. Today they are friends, tomorrow enemies, the day after tomorrow they are neutral. The example of the USA is not indicative here, since they have not allies, but vassals. Reliably tied to their overlord bases, the purchase of weapons, finances.
    Can Russia notice the vassals? Of course, but it is a very expensive pleasure.
    As for China, we are not allies, we just coincided with some interests, and then temporarily.
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 43 New
      0
      Can Russia notice the vassals? Of course, but it is a very expensive pleasure.


      Include them in your economic system, ruble loans, etc. - will become cheap. Or even profitable.
    2. Polinom
      Polinom 10 November 2019 13: 15 New
      -1
      Reliably tied to their overlord bases, the purchase of weapons, finances. laughing
      Hello to you from Ukraine. Get attached?
  • Vadmir
    Vadmir 1 November 2019 14: 23 New
    +1
    And so the “first” year came, the year when the money appeared.

    A was a jolly chaos. Having received instructions from the General Staff to provide a missile salvo, and money from the Treasury, A quickly designed a series of small missile ships. These ships could launch cruise missiles from a universal installation of vertical launch on eight missiles, they could attack surface targets from it and conduct artillery fire. They had problems with seaworthiness, but no one set the task of providing them with combat use in the far sea zone.
    If this is an attempt to describe the actions of Russia, then you are wrong, it all started just from the corvette of project 20380, which was supposed to be built in large series, then there was the frigate of project 22350, which was also to be built in large series, then the destroyer, UDC, aircraft carrier were planned .
    And there was a plan and there was money; only the industry didn’t pull it.
    And RTOs in plans there were almost no they wanted to build only for the Caspian Sea and a little for the Baltic.
    But a plan is just a plan. 20380 did not quite arrange the Navy, did 20385 but it turned out to be too expensive.
    22350 could not finish because of Polement Redoubt. For 11356 there were no engines.
    And the international situation sharply escalated and only at that moment it was decided to build a lot of RTOs, since there was no alternative.
    We still do not have a corvette that would completely suit the fleet, and the frigate was brought recently. What was to build, if not MRK?
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 40 New
      +2
      And there was a plan and there was money; only the industry didn’t pull it.


      It's a lie, 20380 was funded on a residual basis, like Polement Redoubt. This is the whole problem and nothing else, I know this directly from the people in the Moscow Region who were involved in all this, better not argue.
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 4 November 2019 21: 54 New
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        20380 was funded on a residual basis,
        So they got the option of country A., and if 11661 were built instead, then for every 6 units (brigades, as I understand it), would there be money for one 22350 ?! Which is much closer to the example of country B. Isn't it Alexander ?! :)
  • dgonni
    dgonni 1 November 2019 14: 53 New
    +4
    Respect to the author! He is strongly in the subject of headquarters and covert horror stories and tediousness.
    For China! China cheerfully sits and waits for the corpse of the Russian Federation floating on the river! No offense, but it is.
    As for the mess with projects and reality, it’s noticed exactly.
    It will be difficult to try with politics. The Union could the Russian Federation at the moment can not. But the union fell under heavy load.
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 35 New
      +5
      For China! China cheerfully sits and waits for the corpse of the Russian Federation floating on the river! No offense, but it is.


      So are we too. Everything is honest))
  • Basarev
    Basarev 1 November 2019 15: 43 New
    -2
    It sounds extremely reasonable. Especially the idea of ​​a base ship. Now, if it were still possible to create a scalable ship ... That is, by adding sections of the hull from the original corvette to build even a cruiser.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 1 November 2019 15: 50 New
    0
    It is a pity that the author caught the eye of Mahan's book "The Influence of Sea Power on the History of 1660-1783" and not Fisher's "Elementary Principles of Economic Science". Then he would have directed his extraordinary literary talent and extensive awareness not to "fighting the seas" and developing ways to create an all-destructive bullet from waste products, but to creating ways to develop the state's economy to such heights when the creation of any necessary fleet is not a problem.
    As the unforgettable Nursultan Abishevich Nazarbayev said: "The economy is always the basis of politics. First, the economy is built, then politics is built up."
    No less famous Karl von Clausewitz bequeathed that war is nothing more than a continuation of politics, with the involvement of other means. "
    Thus, the economy is the foundation of both politics and "other means" in the form of a fleet, an army, etc. etc.
    But Timokhin invents everything as having no economy to have politics.
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 16: 38 New
      +5
      and the creation of ways to develop the state economy to such heights when the creation of any necessary fleet is not a problem.


      For the Russian Federation, this will never be possible. I fumbled a lot in foreign economic activity, and I see what makes the countries competitive.
      We can spin our exhaust from world trade twice as fast as we can. Everything else is through the power inclusion of other countries in their currency and credit zone.

      When the British colonized India, its economy was many times more, but they fought poorly.

      This is something that the liberal can not understand on their own - the economy does not give military force. Military force allows you to squeeze out a piece of the global economy sufficient for a comfortable life.
      First, aircraft carriers, then money, on the contrary, it doesn’t happen,
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 1 November 2019 17: 57 New
        +4
        First, aircraft carriers, then money, on the contrary, it doesn’t happen,
        Strange, I always considered you a sober person, but addicted. Obviously wrong.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 1 November 2019 18: 24 New
          +2
          Timokhin is sane only in "military" affairs
        2. timokhin-aa
          1 November 2019 18: 25 New
          +2
          No, we weren't wrong. How to include Nigeria in the ruble zone? If they agree on their own, then a black Maidan and Boko Haram will be arranged for them there. I communicate with the locals, I even supplied some "products" there, and I know a lot of things about these movements that are not in the press.

          Accordingly, it will not work to drag them into their own currency zone without the ability to quickly deploy troops there and return the legitimate authority to its place / to defeat international terrorism.

          Right now, there is an opportunity for Assad to fasten to his leg and not militarily. For ruble handouts, for ruble loans, for export at reduced prices in the Russian Federation for the repayment of these ruble loans, Russian-language trading portals, etc.
          I don’t know whether ours will master or not. Maybe not, we do not know how to imperialism.
          But there is an opportunity.
          And if we had not got into 2015 there, would it have been?
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 1 November 2019 18: 27 New
            -1
            And without Nigeria in the ruble zone, as I understand it, is it impossible to develop the Russian economy?
            1. timokhin-aa
              1 November 2019 18: 32 New
              +4
              Perhaps it is necessary, but to develop it

              to such heights when the creation of any necessary fleet is not a problem.


              without "Nigeria" in the ruble zone will not work.

              Therefore, the idea of ​​how to get more fleet for the same money is quite out of place and on time.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 1 November 2019 18: 38 New
                0
                It is clear, I thought you were only fond of "militarifentesy", and you also develop "economic fantasy". We are waiting for the article "Nigeria - the Tug of Russia's Economic Development".
                1. timokhin-aa
                  1 November 2019 20: 30 New
                  +2
                  I will answer according to the classics - do not wait laughing
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 1 November 2019 21: 57 New
        +4
        "This is something that a liberal cannot understand with their heads - it is not the economy that gives military strength. Military strength allows squeezing a piece of the world economy sufficient for a comfortable life" ////
        ----
        1) The economy is high-tech and low-tech.
        2) England with a high-tech economy conquered India, whose economy
        It was a huge volume, but low-tech.
        3) People with higher technical education create a high-tech economy
        and creative approach to business. Without such people, nothing can be created.
        Where there are concentrations of such people, there is technology. There appears military force.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 1 November 2019 22: 21 New
          +1
          The author has less than vague knowledge about the history of India, the political structure of the Indian subcontinent at that time. All the more about its economy)
        2. timokhin-aa
          1 November 2019 22: 49 New
          +2
          3) People with higher technical education create a high-tech economy
          and creative approach to business. Without such people, nothing can be created.
          Where there are concentrations of such people, there is technology. There appears military force.


          Do you throw exceptions?
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 2 November 2019 03: 49 New
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Do you throw exceptions?


            One counterexample is enough to refute the thesis. Your thesis about "military force to squeeze out" (Gopnik Style analyst) is refuted at least by the example of Japan.

            But throw exceptions, of course.
            1. timokhin-aa
              2 November 2019 18: 37 New
              0
              refuted even by the example of Japan.


              Not refuted. If these guys were not allowed to enter the American market at one time and would not turn a blind eye to their protectionism, then Japan would have had exactly the same way to disperse the economy by which they once solved the resource issue - power.
              Or on your knees, and goodbye.

              But throw exceptions, of course.


              An exception to the rule "high-tech economy gives rise to military power" - the USSR. It had military might, and a lot of high-tech weapons systems, but the economy was so-so, to put it mildly.
              1. Good_Anonymous
                Good_Anonymous 2 November 2019 19: 28 New
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa

                An exception to the rule "high-tech economy gives rise to military power" - USSR


                An exception? Only if you do not look carefully. The Union was formed in 1922, and the next 15 years in terms of military power was about nothing. We have to pay tribute to Comrade Stalin - he understood this and pushed progress, ignoring any victims. As a result, the Union’s economy has risen (in the military fields, by the standards of those times) to a quite decent level. After the war, the Union had the then military high-tech - nuclear bombs, missiles, jet aircraft. But life and technology became more complicated, progress in civilian areas became increasingly important, and the Union (and even the entire CMEA) could not keep up with its much larger and much more flexible West. The Union, in general, merged the digital revolution, did not manage to reform the inflexible political system, and as a result it is no more. But the heyday of Soviet military power is a period of relative high-tech Soviet economy and a certain period of inertia after that.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  2 November 2019 19: 30 New
                  -2
                  The heyday of Soviet military power is 1970-1980. Well, remind me of the high-tech Soviet economy in those years?
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 2 November 2019 19: 35 New
                    -2
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    The heyday of Soviet military power is 1970-1980. Well, remind me of the high-tech Soviet economy in those years?

                    And by what lands and ruble Nigeria did the USSR grow in the 70 / 80s? Except for Afghanistan). He poked his head in the BV and Jews piled in the tail and mane. He only grew in the ground, as the comrade correctly pointed out in the late 30s and 40s
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      3 November 2019 22: 26 New
                      -1
                      No growth. He didn’t have a modern economy.
                      Jews piled on to Arabs, not the USSR, if you want to remind about the air battles of 1970, then this is a single episode, the clash of the Air Force with combat experience and the Air Force without it.

                      By itself, it proves nothing. If there had been a slaughter with the USSR, Israel would not have left the classroom.
                      1. Polinom
                        Polinom 10 November 2019 13: 17 New
                        0
                        Beck Valley. Such a density of air defense was not even in the USSR. And you go laughing
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        11 November 2019 11: 29 New
                        0
                        Any air defense breaks. This is a question of the amount of strength in an attack. The Jews lifted 200 vehicles in one climb to strike, and this despite the fact that Arab fighters almost did not interfere with them and did not bomb them at airfields.

                        Israel simply doesn’t have so many people and equipment; one cannot leave the class against large battalions.

                        Bekaa Valley.
                      3. Polinom
                        Polinom 24 November 2019 08: 56 New
                        -1
                        It’s clear that it’s breaking. It’s just a fact that was considered at the Politburo. It was perceived as a disaster.
                        Bekaa is not the first swallow. But what about the six-day war? References to the cowardly Egyptians again?
                        And the first months in 1941?
                        Justification can be found throughout.
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        25 November 2019 13: 29 New
                        -1
                        It was accepted, but in fact, how else could it be? If you give the enemy the initiative, the opportunity to concentrate superior forces and strike at a favorable moment for him, then it will only be this way and nothing else, it is no longer a matter of Arab Jews. In the six-day war, there was a missed strike, where any army feels the same. These are examples of "something else".

                        Ultimately, the strength of straw breaks and large battalions are stronger than small ones.
                        Jews, Arabs as fighters, by the way, were very highly appreciated, more than once I met assessments like "we are as tankers number one in the world, and the Syrians are number two. All the rest are so ..."
            2. Good_Anonymous
              Good_Anonymous 2 November 2019 19: 35 New
              0
              At the beginning of the 70s, the Soviet economy was quite at the level, then everything went on for some time by inertia. Well, what happened in the early 80s - here I skipped a link to how Soviet submarine enthusiasts hunted American SSBNs. And for the real results of the famous "Aport" and "Atrina".
        3. alexmach
          alexmach 3 November 2019 20: 50 New
          +1
          An exception to the rule "high-tech economy gives rise to military power" - the USSR. It had military might, and a lot of high-tech weapons systems, but the economy was so-so, to put it mildly.

          I slam my eyes in surprise.
          By the standards of the 20th century, the USSR had a very technologically advanced economy.
          1. timokhin-aa
            3 November 2019 22: 27 New
            -2
            Yes, I didn’t. They could not make large-diameter pipes; comrade Stalin ordered the diesel to be made of medium power for a truck in 1933, made in 2008, etc.

            Far from the USSR was to a high-tech economy. Although not Africa, of course, not China.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 3 November 2019 22: 33 New
              0
              No, to say that everything was perfect and better than stupid than everyone, but nonetheless
              1. mass mechanization of labor in all areas
              2. Developed agriculture
              3. Heavy industry
              .....
              Space flights in the end
              Far from the USSR was to a high-tech economy. Although not Africa, of course, not China

              Not Africa or China. The most developed countries were in some ways unconditionally inferior, in some ways superior. I missed the window of opportunity for further development ... And you are talking about the military power of 70-80, and this is a function of the economy of the 60s ...
        4. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 9 November 2019 13: 16 New
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          An exception to the rule "high-tech economy gives rise to military power" - the USSR. It had military might, and a lot of high-tech weapons systems, but the economy was so-so, to put it mildly.
          One, the other pulls, well, in my opinion ...
          Quote: voyaka uh
          1) The economy is high-tech and low-tech.
          here I completely agree with him, and therefore, I am tormented by the question of why the Russian Federation, from about 2013-2014, realizing what the "Ukrainian coup" will lead to, did not invest in the creation of a second gas turbine marine engine building enterprise, for example, on the basis of "Metalist-Samara" (or it could be, say, "Kronstadt plant", ie, an enterprise familiar at least with the repair of gas turbine engines of the former Ukraine) ....?! They did not understand and do not understand that one /one enterprise/ NPO "Saturn", will not be able to meet the ever-increasing needs of the naval naval shipbuilding, both in terms of the creation of the gas turbine engine, and gearboxes for the power plant, which are composed of them ?! Will not be able to rapidly develop shipbuilding programs for the Navy, without having a wider choice /range/ gas turbine engines, and again gearboxes for such power plants. Therefore, hoping for only one "Saturn" (with its two turbines) and one "Star-Reducer" with its gear assembly speed is criminal negligence, not even that ?! So far, only 5-6 years have been lost in the net (thrown back), and this is a significant gap. Not to correct this mistake - to widen the gap in this chasm ...
  • SVD68
    SVD68 2 November 2019 07: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh

    2) England with a high-tech economy conquered India, whose economy
    It was a huge volume, but low-tech.

    No, the East India Company conquered India because India was politically fragmented.
  • Town Hall
    Town Hall 1 November 2019 22: 26 New
    +3
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    When the British colonized India, its economy was many times more

    How many states were in India by the time of its colonization and what kind of economies did they have?)
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 22: 48 New
      -1
      The important thing is that they won all of them.)))
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 1 November 2019 22: 50 New
        +4
        These states didn’t lie about in terms of economic power with the WB)
        1. timokhin-aa
          1 November 2019 23: 25 New
          0
          Separately taken, but firstly they were taken out all and completely, and secondly, with small forces. "All the power of the WB" was not even close to being used there.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 1 November 2019 23: 40 New
            +2
            I’m saying that .. You don’t really have an idea how, when and how India (or rather the numerous states of the Indian subcontinent, because India in the current sense did not exist then) became an English colony. This process lasted a couple of centuries as
          2. Eroma
            Eroma 11 November 2019 11: 10 New
            -2
            Indian Rajas or princes themselves invited European units to fight their neighbors and to protect themselves from other Europeans (Portugal Indians have been kashmari for more than a century). The first to appear on such a mission in India were the French, and then the British, but in the course of various disassemblies the British remained alone, and their units became the basis of the military power of various principalities! after which the British declared that now, in fact, we are in charge! That's the whole colonization of India, it came at the expense of India itself hi . (this is how I know this question repeat )
  • Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri 1 November 2019 17: 55 New
    +1
    As the unforgettable Nursultan Abishevich Nazarbayev said: "The economy is always the basis of politics. First, the economy is built, then politics is built up."

    Marx did not hear the surname? Or maybe the name Lenin tells you something?
    Hammer in the search engine the phrase "Politics is a concentrated embodiment of the economy" before referring to the leaders of the modern ulus of the once really great country, where everyone knew these names.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 1 November 2019 18: 06 New
      -2
      Have you heard the name of Freud? Or maybe the surname Aoshuang tells you something? Type in the phrase "Sense of humor" in a search engine.
      And Lenin, as I recall, was an opponent of great-power chauvinism.
  • Wildcat
    Wildcat 1 November 2019 18: 10 New
    +4
    A very interesting discussion, and if in earlier articles the idea of ​​"escalation for de-escalation" (with a reasonable explanation of why it smacks of insanity) was mildly touched upon, now it is more fun.
    In this article:
    "Despite the fact that Russia will never be able to concentrate on the fleet as many resources as countries free of problems and challenges on land can do, this problem is not insurmountable. It can be reduced to negligible organizational methods.
    These included replacing the missing troops and forces with their maneuver from other theater of operations and bringing the staff of command structures to a state where they could manage such maneuverable reserves without problems.
    ", it looks like the author politely reminds of a certain reform laughing , as a result of which the Western, Southern, Central, Eastern ("and the" North "that joined them) appeared -" what they wanted and what came of it. "
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 20: 34 New
      +1
      For some reform I have a big article))
      https://topwar.ru/156970-razrushennoe-upravlenie-edinogo-komandovanija-flotom-davno-net.html

      Only in a couple of districts, instead of the actual commanders at that time, did he indicate the former ARIOs who had already been transferred to another position. Fundamentally, this does not change anything.

      Well, here he hinted, but how?
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 1 November 2019 22: 38 New
        +3
        hi
        It is strange, of course: even for an unprofessional view, the idea should have been good, not requiring global infusions of money, but in practice, apparently, not feasible.
  • Corn
    Corn 1 November 2019 19: 04 New
    +2
    The article would be relevant if approached from the point of view of rationality and increasing the real combat efficiency of the fleet.
    But the leaders (command, captain of the military industrial complex, politicians) have completely different, personal interests.
    1. timokhin-aa
      1 November 2019 20: 35 New
      +5
      If the leadership of the country had the political will and understanding of the issue, they would have pushed these interests very deeply into the account of "times".
  • karabass
    karabass 1 November 2019 20: 44 New
    0
    good article needed. thank
  • Observer2014
    Observer2014 1 November 2019 21: 16 New
    0
    Simple. Multifunctional. Cheap Massive. The same. Clear?
    Personally, I have understood this for a long time. But to our MOs who is responsible for all this, it was never clear. Do not believe it. Name a series of more than 20 units in our and the USSR fleet of ships with a rank of at least a frigate.
    1. timokhin-aa
      2 November 2019 19: 32 New
      0
      I will not name, alas.
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 8 November 2019 20: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Observer2014
        Simple. Multifunctional. Cheap Massive. The same. Clear?

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I will not name, alas.

        Alexander, and the answer did not suit you, under the number of pr. 1135 ?! That is, you confidently continue to consider the Soviet Union as the homeland of fools who do not have their own version of a budget frigate in their price segment, by analogy with Oliver Perry ?! And now, there is no such option ?! Let's say the same 11356 R / M (according to some sources, it's 1135.7), there is no point in "trying to reanimate" by trying to test a power plant from 20386 (with partial electric propulsion, but possibly with stronger electric motors, in terms of cruise ones), or some then another option with a diesel / sustainer / and a turbine from NPO Saturn / afterburner / ?!
        1. timokhin-aa
          9 November 2019 00: 33 New
          0
          I would not call 1135 simple. Yes, and it could have been cheaper. Plus, it is without aviation and without RCC.

          As for now, this is an interesting question.

          On the idea of ​​a basic GEM, you can take 2DDA-12000 from the 20380 corvette, but you need to quickly develop a gas turbine utilizer for using exhaust gases that have passed through a turbocharger. For large diesels, the energy loss in the fuel cell is not as great as for small engines, plus a part of the exhaust gas is generally bypassed (here about the Kolomna engines I’m not sure if it is there or not, but this is not fundamental).
          It is short-lived and not expensive. Such a turbine will give approximately 10% increase in maximum power.

          And with such a power plant it is already possible to build a frigate somewhere in 3800 tons.
          Next, you need to connect the Krylovsky SCSC so that they allow the contours to win another ton of 200.

          Well, let's go - Diesel power plant, two helicopters at the stern, ZAK based on "Duet" but with sighting systems mounted on the turrets, 1 pc. at the stern.

          Forward - 100-mm gun.

          1 PU 3S-14, all radars and antennas on the same mast, PU anti-ship missiles "Uran" 8 pcs., SAM "Redut" but with some simple radar, not with "Polyment".

          In the Bulk GAS Zarya, in the stern of the Bugas Minotaur.

          Packed NK, but with normal torp. devices instead of CM-588

          Something like that.
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 9 November 2019 12: 52 New
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            I would not call 1135 simple. Yes, and it could have been cheaper. Plus, it is without aviation and without RCC.
            Well, as a "convoy-escort" ship, in my opinion 1135 was quite good for itself ... The same "Oliver Perry" also did not differ especially strongly in shock anti-ship missiles (for sure) ....
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            As for now, this is an interesting question.
            Well, if we proceed from the GEM of the order of 30450 hp. (of what happened with 2 × 30 450 hp, GTA M7N1), the assumption was born of an analogy (in power) with the 20386 power plant. I think that you perfectly understood the train of thought ?!
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            On the idea of ​​a basic GEM, you can take 2DDA-12000 from a corvette 20380, but you need to quickly develop a gas turbine utilizer for using exhaust gases that have passed through a turbocharger.
            maybe then just DDA-12000 for the march, and on the turbine GTE M-70FRU, as an afterburner, to each shaft line ?! Also, an output of almost 30000 hp, on each line, will come out ?! Or as an alternative: on each shaft line as a marching diesel - 61D (at 8000 hp) is possible with a turbocharger ?! or the prospective D-500 (in 10000 hp), and as the afterburner GTE M-90FR (maybe a little deformed) ...?!
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Next, you need to connect the Krylovsky SCSC so that they allow the contours to win another ton of 200.
            there simply cannot be any objection. everything looks logical ...
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            1 PU 3S-14,
            and preferably "not truncated"
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            all radars and antennas on one mast, Uran missile launchers 8 pcs., Redut air defense missile systems but with some simple radar, not with Polyment.
            Don't you think that without Polyment there is no point in putting on an expensive Redoubt, because it is unlikely to work "at full strength" then ...?! And "Calm-1" (in my subjective opinion, of course) for an escort (inexpensive and massive TFR), is it enough for itself ?! There is no point in raising the cost of a project in vain, which may well become massive ?!
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            In the Bulk GAS Zarya, in the stern of the Bugas Minotaur.
            Yes, of course, there’s nothing to argue about.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Packed NK, but with normal torp. devices instead of CM-588
            "Package-NK" for self-defense - perhaps yes (then instead of RBU-6000), but the normal 533 mm TA, I would not remove ... !!! On the contrary, the fact that there are none on 22350 is strange in my opinion ?!
            1. timokhin-aa
              9 November 2019 20: 55 New
              0
              The same "Oliver Perry" also did not differ particularly strongly in shock anti-ship missiles (for sure) ...


              It is a very big mistake to think so. In the "one-armed bandit" it was possible to carry dozens of missiles, including anti-ship missiles, the only problem is that it was possible to shoot only one missile in 22 seconds (for anti-ship missiles), but Perry was not supposed to fight alone.

              maybe then just DDA-12000 for the march, and on the turbine GTE M-70FRU, as an afterburner, to each shaft line ?!


              This implies a very hemorrhoidal CODOG / CODAG reducer. It is not in nature. And for DDA-12000 - is. The issue is the transfer of increased power, but solving it is dozens of times easier and cheaper than sawing a new gearbox, maybe there will be nothing to do.

              Plus, in a turbo ship, the cost of a life cycle is several times higher in both fuel and repair.

              Don't you think that without Polyment there is no point in putting on an expensive Redoubt, because it is unlikely to work "at full strength" then ...?! And "Calm-1" (in my subjective opinion, of course) for an escort (inexpensive and massive TFR), is it enough for itself ?!


              The redoubt shoots quite normally with any full-fledged RLC. It’s even right to say - It shoots well. Not only with Polenta. In the cost of PR, the main culprit is precisely Poliment, but in general the redoubt is simply PU. It can be merged with the Karakurt RLK. And everything will work.

              Calmness is already a very outdated system, firstly, and secondly, do not think that there are only PUs, this complex has a very large list of RE-tools. 4 radios alone necessary. This is money and mass.

              In 2024, Redut and I will have 18 ships in service, with 3 Calm. Everything is obvious.

              "Package-NK" for self-defense - perhaps yes (then instead of RBU-6000), but the normal 533 mm TA, I would not remove ... !!! On the contrary, the fact that there are none on 22350 is strange in my opinion ?!


              This is firewood.
              In the presence of PLUR - a useless thing.
    2. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 4 November 2019 22: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Observer2014
      Name a series of more than 20 units in our and the USSR fleet of ships with a rank of at least a frigate.
      "Petrel pr 1135", fits ?? Or pr.956 "Sarych" (if you count with those released for China) ?? although under -
      Quote: Observer2014
      Simple. Multifunctional. Cheap Massive. The same. Clear?
      it is the first one that falls (i.e. 1135) ...
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 1 November 2019 21: 17 New
    +8
    This is not an article! But scientific work. I started to look in the morning, looked at the volume and realized, turn off the tablet, I’ll be very late for work (to build the same steamboats). Right now, too, began to read, there are a lot of questions. Thoughtfully will not work at a time. Beau is already tired, and there are no problems whatsoever.
    * Engineers B cheated - they provided a reserve of space for more powerful diesel generators, the main power cables could transmit twice as much current as needed, all the equipment that was part of the ship’s electronic weapons could be dismantled without entering the plant, just by crane and forces of personnel. Engineers B analyzed the growth dynamics of the mass and dimensions of various equipment (the same radar) and provided for reinforcing and reinforcing decks where in the future it could become necessary, and the free volume they needed, where it was possible *
    what The devil knows him. But when I studied shipbuilding, and even then read smart books, they informed me that military ships were being built a little bit wrong all the way. From steam to nuclear.
    It was reported that a warship cannot afford such luxury as dragging on itself unused empty seats and the same unused reinforcements of the set of the same pillers, and to the heap, apparently, beams, carlings, heaps of knights, etc.
    (how else to strengthen the reinforcement of the deck).
    Because this directly leads to unjustified weight gain (read displacement). Which adversely affects the speed indicators of the ship. And it leads to an increase in power and overall dimensions of the power plant, as well as related mechanisms, fuel reserves. To achieve a given speed and compliance with customer specifications. Which again leads to an increase in displacement.
    In confirmation of your words, you were on the ships. In any ship, in a sweatshirt it is problematic to crawl through. Not clinging to something, not hitting the head against something. There is a suspicion, not casual? ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      2 November 2019 19: 36 New
      +4
      It was reported that a warship cannot afford such luxury as dragging on itself unused empty seats and the same unused reinforcements of the set of the same pillers, and to the heap, apparently, beams, carlings, heaps of knights, etc.


      It's just our design school and nothing more. The same Americans have a different approach to surface shipbuilding. In Spruens, for example, there was such a reserve for modernization volumes that it was possible to stick in as many as 64 launch "cells" during the modernization. And we stuck sixteen in 1155 - there is a difference, right?

      What I wrote is a "fresh" American approach - to have a supply of electricity and volumes, and the possibility of simplified assembly and disassembly of important systems by "nodes". It will be heavier, but the contours are more important for the ship, and not the displacement, the speed will be won back by the contours.

      Or you have to put up with the fact that the ship is not subject to modernization.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 2 November 2019 14: 24 New
    +2
    Interesting article. But there are a number of reasons that I disagree with. I strongly dislike the idea of ​​"Design to cost", it should be "Design to task", otherwise we will get a lot of useless ships for cheap. An example of "Design to cost" - RTOs, which, as far as I remember, the author does not like. The idea of ​​a modular corvette also seems dubious: it turns out too expensive: 20380 cost $ 250 million, modular 20386 - $ 400 million. In general, I have serious doubts about the need to create corvettes at a price of $ 400 million, when the frigate 22350 costs $ 450 million. Can we put on corvettes and build frigates? And it's easier to upgrade (stupidly more space), and unification, and more opportunities. 8 frigates instead of 10 corvettes is a profitable exchange, IMHO. No, if a corvette is half the price of a frigate, then this is quite promising, but I do not see the possibility of reducing the cost of corvettes specifically for us: our most prospective enemy relies on deck and base (Poseidon) aviation - we need a zonal air defense complex, he has a breakthrough submarines of new generations - you won't save on PLO - they will overheat, he has many ships with Izhis - heavy anti-ship missiles are needed, just for survival. You can only save money on work along the coast, but we have it "comes in a set" with anti-ship capabilities. So it turns out that a cheap corvette will not work - a specialized ship can only work "under the coastal umbrella" to provide cover at sea, we have too few ships, and some boats or small ships are enough to work near the coast.
    I really liked the idea of ​​reserving when building a place for a power plant for the future. It’s also possible to make an electric motor and, even during missile defense tasks, move quietly, and in the event of a failure of the main power plant, you can finish off somewhere.
    I would also like to remind you about the possibility of maneuvering the forces of nuclear submarines between the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet along the Northern Sea Route, as well as the possibility (theoretical) of transferring mobile coastal defense complexes between fleets. On the scale of the Baltic Fleet and Black Sea Fleet, the same Bastion is quite a "strategic" weapon.
    1. timokhin-aa
      2 November 2019 19: 39 New
      +2
      An example of "Design to cost" - RTOs, which, as far as I remember, the author does not like.


      No, this is exactly the approach that Karakurt did not use - there was "no new OCD", and this is somewhat different.
      Incidentally, he came out not cheap in the end - now with the Shell of 10 billions.

      Can score on corvettes and build frigates?


      In part.
      There is also the cost of the life cycle - fuel, crew. Sometimes a corvette is more justified. In addition, 15 billions per corvette is now a very real price.
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 4 November 2019 22: 22 New
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        In addition, 15 billion per corvette is now a very real price.
        But just 20380 does not fit into it anymore. 20385 is better, but even more expensive ... And 11661 would probably fit in, but the Navy does not order it ?! About 20386, and its price .... So what interesting project with a given price are you interested in? Would you like to please us ?!
        1. timokhin-aa
          5 November 2019 00: 34 New
          0
          1166X would fit in easily.
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 8 November 2019 20: 41 New
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            1166X would fit in easily.
            I wonder who is lobbying about this issue, because the attention of the Navy (as a customer) is so "directly selective" ?!
            1. timokhin-aa
              9 November 2019 00: 36 New
              0
              No one, Zelenodolsk slammed his own design bureau, refusing to lobby his own project for the Navy. Like, they feed us so well, they give patrols, they give MRCs, and norms.

              And the Navy doesn’t give a damn.

              And the project still has difficulties with GAS.
    2. Scaffold
      Scaffold 3 November 2019 10: 17 New
      +2
      Designing for value does not mean that we are doing what we get. It means that we design what is required, but we optimize it by cost, we keep it and we impose strict cost requirements on all components. It is not meant that, while experiencing the need for a truck, we design a car because it is cheaper.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 3 November 2019 13: 58 New
        0
        Then I do not see any differences from ordinary work: PZ always makes brains about the price of a product.
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 November 2019 19: 49 New
          0
          Do you have systems that design different departments or organizations, etc.

          Each is given a ceiling of value.

          They are also lowering their ceiling on their subcontractors.

          And so do what you want. The throttle speakers were thrust on Perry, so that a ship with one valine could somehow maneuver. Complete freedom in general.
  • Angry
    Angry 2 November 2019 22: 06 New
    0
    Bravo Author! YOUTH! I agree with everything!
  • Storekeeper
    Storekeeper 3 November 2019 00: 41 New
    0
    An interesting cycle, the author writes everything correctly. The series is logically built first, problems, then tasks, and now we come to the ways to solve them. Each following article answers the questions that were asked in the comments in the first articles. From the articles and answers in the comments, it is clear that the author is at least "in the subject", and not just started articles on the Internet and makes a compilation of them. I look forward to continuing. Alexander I wish you success in your career and creativity.
    1. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 3 November 2019 18: 31 New
      +4
      * An interesting cycle, the author writes everything correctly. The series is logically built first, problems, then tasks, and now we come to the ways to solve them. Each following article answers the questions that were asked in the comments in the first articles. The articles and answers in the comments show that the author is at least "in the subject"
      Without detracting from the merits of the author, there is a great suspicion that theory is at the forefront here. Moreover, a beautiful theory must be said. She has the right to life.
      But there is also a harsh reality. From which practices repel. Which every day of God has to solve a bunch of real problems. Which do not count the numbers.
      1. Storekeeper
        Storekeeper 3 November 2019 19: 54 New
        +1
        “A theory without practice is dead, practice without theory is blind.” Practice does not always coincide with theory; here I will not argue with you. But without theory, nowhere.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 3 November 2019 18: 20 New
    +4
    * These include replacing the missing troops and forces with their maneuver from other theater of operations and bringing the staff of command structures to a state where they could manage such maneuverable reserves without problems. It’s worth starting with the revival of centralized fleet management from the General Staff of the Navy and the High Command. *
    Question number two. I personally don’t quite understand what kind of missing troops from other theater of operations and in what terms should I expect? Especially when it comes to the fleet.
    Throwing ships back and forth, back very long and troublesome. For example, transfer ships from the Black Sea Fleet to the Pacific Fleet. What will it look like?! .. And it’s expensive why it’s a sin to hide.
    If we are talking about strike naval aviation, then this is a completely different conversation ...
    1. Storekeeper
      Storekeeper 3 November 2019 20: 05 New
      0
      In a previous article, it was written about the maneuver of ships. True, this idea was strongly criticized. I understand that in practice this theory will be implemented solely by volunteers. For there is a great risk of repeating the fate of the Christmas squadron. But if it works out then the surprise for the adversary will be very serious!
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 4 November 2019 17: 19 New
        +4
        I am not a strategist from the word at all. The academy did not finish. Therefore, my posts are usually informational and advisory in nature.
        By no means wanting to offend anyone, I look at the situation exclusively * from the ground * so to speak. The author’s theory is certainly interesting (and where do you get to without a theory?). But we must also pay attention to practice.
        And try to relate the desired with the real and possible. Otherwise, as they say, you * Kremlin dreamer * is obtained. And the sense of these dreams is zero.
        At this stage, everything rested in the absence of its engines, gearboxes and other. Those. write articles, do not write articles, but there is no dvigla. Moreover, not that of the frigates, corvettes. On the unfortunate A40- no. Four Scania diesels are put there according to the drawing. Two on one, two on the second. The month is already past due. And when will what ....
      2. ABM
        ABM 5 November 2019 20: 09 New
        0
        Christmasly right
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 5 November 2019 00: 08 New
      0
      I personally don’t quite understand what kind of missing troops from other theater of operations and in what terms should I expect?

      And this is all because you did not read the article, neither the previous nor the past, where it is mainly about maneuver.
      Which troops? Aviation, nothing more, still had an idea with reserves-conservation, but this is not about us at all ...
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 5 November 2019 20: 51 New
        +2
        No, I understood about aviation.
        But as if it was a matter of building a fleet. The power of the poor.
        But how do I build a ship related to the aviation industry? ... request
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 5 November 2019 21: 20 New
          +1
          I'll give a link to an article by Alexander, where about the maneuver
          https://topwar.ru/162604-stroim-flot-posledstvija-neudobnoj-geografii.html
          But how do I build a ship related to the aviation industry ?.

          You and the aviation industry live in the same country and provide general security.
          But there was about shipbuilding programs. If in short and with my (my words) there are not many ships, and besides the operated ships, we also need a mobilization reserve - mothballed ships. Then the crew can make the maneuver, and take the ship to the theater with conservation ...
  • Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky
    Morzh Redkovich Borschitsky 7 November 2019 23: 46 New
    0
    ... And country B has chosen the path of radical lack of fleet. To control the sea and influence the sea, she uses:

    1. Long-range transport aircraft delivering 100 tons of cargo.

    2. Ekranoplanes long-distance transport, delivering cargo 1000t.

    3. Submarines,

    and 4. Crypto-ships: civilian vessels capable of working for military purposes.

    All of the above is primarily used as a transport for

    5. Buoys, mines, underwater robots, flying robots.

    Suppose that the AUG is walking along the sea, and country B wants to influence, intervene. She sends an ekranoplan, he flies around the AUG along the perimeter and pours out a minefield. It can consist of radar detecting buoys, disposable launch capsules with torpedoes, the same capsules with missiles, and self-propelled robots.
  • lifelong couch potato
    lifelong couch potato 9 November 2019 03: 25 New
    0
    The first and main problem: to cut the Gordian knot, when the robbery of the people and all natural resources continues cynically. The tsar on a 20-year-old throne will not give offense to all his pack of officials, oligarchs, military and all kinds of special services working for them. You can simply make all these parasites give to the treasury 60-70% of the stolen from the people. Education is falling deliberately at all levels, problems in social programs, medicine, etc. Russians are dying out - worse than cockroaches. The number of officials should be reduced at least 10 times - the effect will be positive. There are still pest traitors at all levels. And the people are silent and chewing snot: it’s calmer.
  • Eroma
    Eroma 11 November 2019 12: 24 New
    -2
    Honestly, an attempt to describe the real world with a situation from a parallel universe about countries A and B without taking into account the actions of various other partners is a discussion about a spherical vacuum that has nothing to do with life!
    We either live in such a country, or at such a time that often situations develop so that for a good solution there simply is no time and you are forced to choose from a bad and very bad decision! No.
    It seems to me that the boat criticized by the author of the RTOs is not about the fleet at all! it is a strategic need to correct the balance with our partners in medium-range cruise missiles as soon as possible without violating the INF Treaty. For at that time, as I understand it, the Caliber appeared in us, but where it wasn’t from! And there wasn’t even time to create their Arly Burke and the technical ability to build them, so they decided to create what they could create, because the partners urgently needed to show that Europe was in sight. am
    RTOs are a strategic weapon of the EUROPEAN theater of operations with the ability to transfer and use the inland waterways, it is necessary to hijacked to the north, it is necessary to the south, and it is also necessary from the walls of the Kremlin from the Moscow River.

    I am not a naval strategist and a specialist, but there is a popular wisdom: "Take it by yourself, so as not to fall when walking!"
    The plan to transfer forces between 4 TVDs in the case of local conflicts is quite a solution, but in the case of a global conflict this is not realistic negative
    Trying to take on tasks with insufficient forces is pure valentarism! It’s silly to count on the adversary not understanding your vulnerability! They will play a big battle with a specialist in a convenient theater and break your forces, or inflict unacceptable losses, after which they will untie their hands ANYWHERE! stop As I understand it, there are tasks of different complexity and there are 4 TVDs, just because of the importance of a TVD, you need to create a self-sufficient grouping for each task on each TVD. And to have MRA as a mobile reserve, but formed not by the principle with the world on a thread, but full-fledged units but, for example, to the detriment of forces capable of solving some tasks on secondary theater stages.

    With regard to diplomacy, the author is right, but here, too, not everything is clear! Enemies of the United States are not all suitable for full-length friendship! Some of them must first be whitened before the world community and only after that pump them up with weapons, otherwise Russia itself risks becoming a "toxic" partner for the world and losing its diplomatic ability to create alliances! stop

    in addition, the fleet is not the whole army, for example, a local war with Japan over the Kuril Islands, if someone on the side of Japan does not get into this conflict. Japan, having sea superiority and accepting losses, can recapture the islands, but the determination of the Russian leadership to fight to the end will put Japan on its knees! For in terms of the potential impact on the country's infrastructure and the degree of its vulnerability, our capabilities are not comparable! we will stupidly begin to destroy the country's ports, energy and transport infrastructure with calibers and other missiles, the Russian Air Force is much stronger than the Japanese Air Force, our potentials in missiles are not comparable at all, therefore, in this case, Japan simply has nothing to oppose to us!
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 8 December 2019 18: 04 New
    0
    The author has gone into geopolitical wilds, comparisons with US experience, forgetting about the circumstances that are in sight. Make a strong fleet and link yourself to the clerical Islamist Iran? With his idea, fix fix the destruction of Israel, kill, drive the Jews from the Middle East? Having become, involuntarily, a part of the implementation of these plans (yielding nothing but chaos)?
    Further: industrial capacities and potentials, skills and groundwork in shipbuilding are slightly different. Compare the pace of construction and the displacement of the received ships.
    About China: we are not talking about any alliance. But the leadership of the Russian Federation really wants to convince a number of Western countries (not so simple) and its citizens (it’s easier here).
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 8 December 2019 21: 46 New
    0
    As for the approach to the construction of the fleet, everything is true for the goals and own forces.
  • con_nick
    con_nick 29 December 2019 00: 02 New
    0
    Mahan))) And one more thing. Let me remind those who do not know that Mahen's work was written before the opening of the Panama Canal. About the US Navy, he said that while the US does not need it, and therefore it is not, but with the opening of the Panama Canal, as he put it, the US will no longer be able to stand aside. And so it happened, and the conquest of the frontier has nothing to do with it, and the frontier in the understanding of the Americans is a "restless border", a "wild field" in our opinion. Also Mahan wrote, something like "Without the need for that, a large fleet can only be created by the will of a tyrant." So we now have))) Imitation of the construction of the fleet solely for the sake of show-off. We are on the periphery of the world's sea routes. But with the opening of SevMorPuti everything will change))) It will not be long to wait.