Military Review

The National Interest sentenced the Russian fleet

149
Nice to read smart people. And smart ones are even nicer. In my opinion, Robert Farley is just one of the second. That is smart. Having carefully studied his article on the problems of the Russian fleet Russia Is Not The Soviet Union (But It Has the Same Navy Nightmares), considering that for us this is also a very burning topic, it’s strange, but I agreed with Farley’s opinion. Nearly.




The devil, as you know, is in the details. And there are a lot of details. But you should go in order and consider them all, and then draw your conclusions, no matter how they sound, because the opinion of the American is the opinion of the American, and we need to live our minds.

So what is Farley talking about and what are the conclusions?

Pays tribute to our efforts. Yes, it speaks with irony of the “deployment” of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier off the coast of Syria and its “successful” work there, but it is quite serious in assessing the launches of the Caliber from the Caspian. And Russian submarines, although their activity cannot be compared to Soviet times, but the fact is that the presence of our boats is increasing.

Farley believes that the Russian fleet and the term "mess" are synonyms. And in the future, things will only get worse.

Yes, the argument is strong and well thought out.

Indeed, the Russian fleet in its time inherited a huge number of fairly modern surface ships and submarines. But at the same time a headache in terms of content. And Russia did not cope with this task in the same way as Ukraine, everything is exactly the same, the difference in scale.

Quietly, the Soviet legacy was sawn into metal, sold to India, China, and to all who could pay, it (the legacy) quietly rusted along the bays “in storage” and so on.

And that's all, a decent Soviet fleet is over.

And what remains is not a particular threat to anyone. Well, perhaps the fleet of Ukraine will be afraid. There is someone to scare in Somalia, but nothing more.

Large ships of the Russian fleet, you must admit, are not young. Moreover, judging by Admiral Kuznetsov, there are a lot of questions to the state. True, in response to Mr. Farley, one can reasonably object to the fact that some nasty things are systematically and regularly falling on the newest Zamvolty, and even with the aircraft carriers not everything is what the Americans would like.

However, there is nothing to argue about age. Of the twenty-four main naval surface ships of the Russian Navy, only three Admiral Grigorovich class frigates were laid down after the collapse of the USSR. And the rest yes, they really survive, even if from time to time these ships are modernized and repaired.

And here it is difficult to disagree without the proper dose of cheers-patriotism. Indeed, how much Kuznetsov will now stretch without major repairs is a question. Yes, the question, and not only to him, in the North we have the question of dock repair - this is such a question ... below the running belt.

I don’t even want to talk about “Eagles”, because “Peter the Great” does not go anywhere for a suspiciously long time, and “Nakhimov”, I am afraid, will remain in the stage of talks about returning to duty.

And yet, yes, both cruisers are again not young.

In general, the American fellow, managed to grasp the essence of our entire system. I have repeatedly spoken about the fact that all these promises of our Ministry of Defense are just an empty air shake. But with very serious faces.

And Farley calmly says that if Russia really built every ship that has been loudly announced over the past decade, the Russian fleet would really have reached the world level. But the announcement of major projects in order to gain at least some political points is not the implementation of these projects.

And the statistics on the ships we have looks more than sad. Real statistics, and not the one they shout loudly about when by the 20 ... year will be built ...

There, across the ocean, everyone already understands that nothing will be built.

The actual data on Russian built surface ships at the international level look very regrettable.

The largest successes in Russian shipbuilding are the frigates Admiral Grigorovich (displacement 4 000 tons) and Admiral Gorshkov (5 400 tons).

The first was built for about seven years, the second - about ten. Two frigates of the Admiral Grigorovich class have already entered service, four more are under construction. The first "Gorshkov" should be put into service at the end of this year, three more are under construction.

Having scratched my head, I want to say only one thing: it could have been worse. It could be much worse, because with such enthusiasm we lost all our ancestors acquired with overwork, which could not have happened.

Of course, in comparison with real maritime powers, everything looks so-so, even in terms of terms. The British spent six years on their 45 type destroyer, the Americans spent four years on Arly Burke, the Japanese four years on Atago (which is a destroyer), and the Chinese four years on 052D type destroyer.

Yes, and these are destroyers, ships are an order of magnitude larger than our frigates, which are still under construction.

And the "Leaders" of all stripes, "Surfs", "Manatees" and other "Poseidons" - this, I am afraid, is just paper. Which will endure and not so, but you won’t let it down into the water, or rather, you can, but you yourself know under what conditions paper meets with water.

The reports on “ARMIES” are just bright words in assortment, but here are the things ... Cases that need to be considered at the shipyards - they look dreary.

And we already look funny, because no one in the world takes seriously all these hat-telling tales on the topic of building something there. The whole world understands perfectly well that no such monsters from our shipyards will splash into the water.

Say - I'm pumping? Not at all. Just agree with Farley. Smart man, why not agree?

But there is one caveat.

You know, it’s not the first year watching what they’re doing with our fleet, I understand that we are clearly following the path laid by Ukraine. That is, all the "old people" will safely rot, be decommissioned, there will be something there and a pair of mosquitoes "Grenov" as the largest ships that Russia could overpower.

But I'm sorry, we forgot about submarines. More precisely, they seemed to be behind the scenes.

But in vain. And the smart man Farley does not discount them. And rightly so, that does not reset.

Yes, I agree, with the dream of some kind of ocean fleet of Russia there, which will be demonstrating something there at distant frontiers - this is a myth. This will never happen, because we simply cannot build it. Nowhere, nothing, nothing. We really have nothing for this, no hands, no factories, no money.

And if money can still be found, then specialists and factories ... Alas.

But is it even necessary? Spending money and effort to “demonstrate the flag” is a very good idea, to be honest. It is clear that the penguins will be impressed by how the same Venezuelans were impressed by the sight of Peter the Great, but ...

But the Americans are not for nothing condescending chuckle. 22 cruiser "Ticonderoga" - yes. It will be enough four who shoot the contents of their cells for the "Axes", and this "Peter the Great" will simply end. It’s sad, but the fact that our cruiser simply doesn’t have enough ammunition to dismiss such a pack of Tomahawks.

But the submarines ...

No, really, if we can’t enter the surface ocean fleet, then why should the world be dishonored? But there are people in the country who have preserved and increased Soviet achievements in the submarine fleet.

And our nuclear submarines, both with ballistic missiles and with cruise missiles - this is really what we can put a trump card on the table with the words "And this is how?"

Of course, in comparison with the Soviet submarine fleet it looks modest. Thirteen SSBNs, seven SSGNs, seventeen multipurpose submarines and about twenty diesel. In which, I hope, soon it will be possible to shove the "Caliber".

Eight Boreevs, three are already in operation, another five are under construction - this is significant. The seven Ashes are also quite imagined.

The most important thing is that these boats will be built, I have not the slightest doubt. We can. Aircraft carriers cannot, cruisers cannot, destroyers cannot, many things we cannot. But atomic horrors are ours.

You can completely dream of an aircraft carrier on 100 000 tons, about a destroyer in 30 000 tons with nuclear power plants (crap, of course, but who will forbid delirium today), we were always strong in fairy tales.

But our nuclear submarine fleet, and only it will be the guarantor of the fact that "in case of something, nothing comes after us."

Farley is a smart person and says the right thing.

Yes, once we, the Soviet Union, took the second place in the world in the fleet. It was so. But then everything fell apart, approximately as after the 1917 revolution of the year, and the peak began.

And in the end, Russia was unable to save the fleet inherited from the USSR, much less afford the construction of new ships in proper quantities. Plus, we fell into the trap when money became less and less, and more and more money was required for servicing and upgrading old ships.

Ten years of crisis - and all, the fleet actually fell into a coma. Yes, except for submarine forces. Luckily.

And today, Russia on the surface of the oceans looks weak. Very weak. Frankly, I cannot believe that we will ever have a second aircraft carrier. And China will not calm down; soon it will have three pre-bearers, but three. And India and Britain will have at least two each.

Another question is whether we generally need this class of ships more than questionable for our fleet - this is the question.

Regarding conventional surface ships, the situation is even more deplorable. While we are proudly building missile boats and corvettes, the USA, France, Great Britain, Japan and China are building ships at an accelerated pace (especially the last couple) that are clearly superior to our “oldies”.

Especially, by the way, China is upsetting. The pace at which large surface ships are being built there is simply amazing. The figures Farley quotes say that since the 2000 of the year, China has built about 40 of large ships. For us, the figure is unattainable in principle.

And here we come to the most interesting. To the tips.

Well, we live in such a time, everyone believes that he can give them out. Although Farley teaches at the University of Kentucky. He specializes in military doctrine, national security and naval matters. So - everything on the topic.

So, Farley believes that without the restoration of its shipbuilding in the volumes corresponding to the Soviet, Russia will not be able to compete with China or Japan. But Russia will not be able to restore shipbuilding until it redraws the entire economy.

Is cunning? Maybe. A kind of promise for the future, as part of the race. It’s just not entirely clear, for what, for weapons, or something else?

But do we even need to compete in numbers with China or Japan? France or the UK? Well, we don’t take the USA at all in comparison; they have a printing press, which we lack.

And here comes the strategy.

Unfortunately, the Russian Navy is divided between four different fleets (Black Sea, Baltic, Northern and Pacific). The fleets are isolated from each other so that none of them can quickly help others. Payment for one eighth of the world’s territory, alas.

Of course, it’s easier for China, it can really put all three of its fleets into one fist in the shortest possible lines and hit them so well. I agree.

Is it necessary at all?

The Baltic and the Black Sea are two puddles of a regional scale, nothing serious has ever happened there and will not happen. There, we do not need fleets, or rather, just enough of all that we can build so far. Corvettes, frigates, diesel submarines, boats ...

And, by the way, it is on these seas that our achievements in equipping various ships with the latest missile systems will come in handy. Although many say that the INF Treaty, recently reposed, completely kills ships as rocket launchers weaponsbut it is very controversial. I am sure that small-class ships with Caliber will remain relevant.

And on large ocean expanses, all problems can be solved with the help of submarines. Today it is difficult to predict how and with whom we can enter into conflict in the open sea, but something tells us that this is unlikely to be the waters of the Black Sea or the Baltic. But in the Pacific - quite so.

Another question is which is better and more efficient: a containment fleet of all kinds of frigate corvettes or a fleet of total extermination from atomic submarines that, without surfacing, can eliminate both the hypothetical fleet of the enemy and the enemy himself, together with the islands on which he, the enemy, is located?

I agree with Mr. Farley that today we are not able to create fleet No. 2 in the world, which is equal in quantity and quality to the Soviet Navy. But I don’t see, to be honest, any sense in creating it.

Mr. Farley gives wishful thinking. Of course, it would be nice if we suddenly announced a campaign with the goal of restoring the fleet, this is "all for the fleet, all for ...", they would start rebuilding the economy, rebuilding something, they would have torn, as it had already happened more than once in stories...

Whether it is necessary?

What do these unfortunate surface ships, scattered across four water areas (without fleets) give, without the slightest chance of shining these ships in one fist or normally coordinate work if something happens?

It's nothing.

Chasing these numbers ... Stupid, probably. Well, we have 42 DMZ surface ships, spread over four fleets. Yes, and they are, by and large, on paper, this number includes Kuznetsov, which is either there or not, and Nakhimov, which is most likely not.

That’s not the point.

Let us all admit: we are forever behind the USA (126 DMZ ships) and China (123 DMZ ships) in the construction of large surface ships and we will never catch them.

And is there any sense in pushing around?

In general, apart from the notorious “demonstration of the Papuan flag,” the fleet really has no normal tasks. Just because he, the fleet, is unable to fulfill them. Nothing.

Although, I am sure that "the whole world is in ruin" underwater missile carriers will carry out. And it is already pleasing.

But we, in addition to aircraft carriers, have problems in the fleet above the waterline.

For all four fleets - the one and only modern rescue ship Igor Belousov. Everything else is rusty Soviet rubbish, capable of nothing, as the epic with Kursk showed.

There is not a single normal sea minesweeper left, which calls into question any kind of campaigns in hot areas.

Our anti-submarine aviation - These are pterodactyls that did not die out exclusively from Soviet perseverance. Although they are in the process of extinction.

And there are dozens of such examples. Bad in our fleet. Very bad. And here I agree with Farley that yes, we won’t be able to return the Soviet fleet to us, even if the whole government was dispersed and confiscated from them all “honestly acquired”.

And so, the only thing left for us is to stamp further submarines, which can pose the highest level of danger to any potential enemy. Well, the coastal trifle for protection and defense.

Not the most beautiful situation, but alas, this is our real level. All these paper projects of super-destroyers and mega-aircraft carriers are exclusively to crabs for laughter, populism of pure water.

Is it worth it then to make the world laugh at all with these frankly stupid statements, knowing in advance that we will not build anything? Especially without Nikolaev shipyards and Zaporozhye engines?

Indeed, than laughing at us, even better gentlemen of potential, remember that they cannot know at what point in the globe a packet of greetings of several hundred megatons can fly out from under the water column and simply demolish some part of the earth’s surface.

Also an option, since destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers are too tough for us. The teeth of the enemy can be knocked out with the help of submarines.

In general, I think, we will come up this time. Not the first time. The main thing is not to chase beautiful numbers in statistics.
Author:
Photos used:
wikipedia.org
149 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 7 November 2019 05: 46 New
    +8
    Novel! I always enjoy reading your articles with great pleasure. But, you know very well why and why our fleet is in such a state in which it exists. It’s unnecessary to embed some Farley and their thoughts on the present and future Russian fleet. It is very strange to hear from anyone that destroying production, destroying the school of mass vocational training, excluding the integration and economic ties of the regions, we have the right to expect a surge in labor productivity precisely in shipbuilding.
    We were offered other goals and ways to achieve them. So far, the authorities have been using this tacit consent very successfully. Only goals are achieved by other than prophesied to us. And, as for the confidence in the implementation of grandiose breakthroughs, the reformers themselves are already confused in the timing of delivery and the amount expected. We are still at the project stage.
    Therefore, we have everything: spaceships, and a mosquito fleet, and aviation, and ... In short - "E trohi tilke for sebe" ...
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 7 November 2019 06: 04 New
      11
      Everything is Roman ... right now, "patriots" will shower you with slippers, anathematize and brand you with eternal shame as "great all-propalschika" ... well, we don't like the truth. but with the article, I agree. I have already said this more than once, and I was always beaten mercilessly ... hi
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 7 November 2019 08: 10 New
        21
        I’m a patriot, but I’m not blind, because in the main message I agree with the author. In general, I often agree with people who critically perceive reality, because it is this very reality that somehow does not particularly dispose. More precisely, it seems that at all levels they declare dizziness from success, but in life in a positive direction, not much is changing. I don’t even know what the problem is: maybe the achievements of the national economy of recent years are successfully disguised so as not to anger anyone or God forbid not jinx it, but this, you know, is not accurate. The only thing I disagree with Roman is that
        And in the vast expanses of the ocean, all problems can be solved with the help of submarines

        I don't know if the author is aware of it, but at the end of the Second World War, the Kriegsmarine launched a submarine on a DAY, but even such a stunning rate of production could no longer change the alignment of forces of the war at sea. And the point here is not only that there was a lack of experienced crews, but that submarines are not a panacea. They are vulnerable both to other submarines (the so-called MCSLs, which we do not yet have as a class, because we do not count 1 unit in service as a series), and for surface ships. I'm not even talking about the fact that without the support of the latter, the submarines generally risk remaining on their piers, and most likely forever. And this is not a fiction - this is the harsh prose of life, confirmed by almost a century of experience in the existence of this type of weapon. This is exactly what the Allies did with the Reich submarine fleet, which was effective exactly until the moment when there were experienced specialists and a conditionally unhindered approach to the main sea communications remained ... As soon as the experienced crews with the forces of surface ships and aviation rested in the depths of the sea, and escorts began to lead each new boat from the pier, the German fleet ended as a type of troops. We also have an example from our own history, when following the adventurous and voluntaristic appeals of the leadership, we gave preference to missiles over ships. We all know what this led to. Fortunately, then we had the strength and ability to correct our own mistake. Today there are no such forces, just as there is no time for this. It was necessary to think about the fate of the fleet back in yesterday, at the beginning of the XNUMXs, when the Soviet reserve was still preserved and with proper care and timely modernization it could be extended for a long time. But this was not done, as a result, we have ... but we have nothing. But it does not mean at all that one should not strive to correct the situation even a little. In this vein, may Roman forgive me, all calls to concentrate on one direction, just because "we can do it," instead of at least trying to develop in other industries, in my opinion, are no less criminal than the actions of those persons that brought the Russian fleet to its modern depressing state. You propose, instead of rotten ships, to abandon the construction of new ones in favor of a larger number of submarines, to close unnecessary factories, and to fire or retrain people for the construction of missile submarines - fine, but stupid, because without surface forces our SSBNs will find themselves in exactly the same situation as the wolfs flocks of Doenitz, trapped in the corridor of red flags, at the end of which either a wolf pit (minefield) or a hunter's ambush was waiting for them. And just like the German officers of the Second World War, they will not be able to fulfill the task before them. Their struggle will be, though fierce, but hopeless, and the feat will not be glorified by the next generations, for there will be no one to remember the names of the heroes who fell trying to fulfill their duty.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri 7 November 2019 08: 39 New
          11
          Don’t get it wrong, I don’t propose chasing anyone or creating a fleet proportionally large in relation to our economy, I propose creating a fleet SUFFICIENT for submarines to fulfill their main task as an element of the nuclear triad - delivering an imminent nuclear strike against territory of the aggressor and it does not matter who will be the aggressor of the United States or China. To do this, you really need a little (at least thesis, because organizational work is darkness):
          1. Stop writing off Soviet first ranks. Each building - save to the last. First of all, we are talking about Lazarev, Kuznetsov, 1155s and 1164s. They should stretch exactly as long until a replacement appears. This means that modernization is needed, moreover, extended not for decades, as it is now, but accelerated, keeping within the 2-3 time period. There are ideas on how to do this, but all of them require a different principle for building the economy and a method of making decisions that are different from today's managerial standards.
          2. To abandon the construction of RTOs in favor of 20380 / 20385 corvettes. Timokhin repeatedly substantiated the need for this - there is no point in repeating. Already built units of RTOs should be distributed between the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet.
          3. Continue the series of frigates so that one 1155 / 22350-M falls on one 22350, and two corvettes on one frigate. Moreover, 22350 does not need to be considered as a replacement for the BOD, they only supplement them instead of the ruined 656, but do not duplicate them. The replacement should be the destroyer of a new generation, but this is how the business of the distant perspective is.
          Even the fulfillment of these three tasks will far advance us in building the fleet. Yes, difficult, but problematic, but overall possible.
          As a result, we get: 3 units of nuclear cruisers 1144, 3 units. cruisers 1164, 1 units 1143.5, 6-8 units BOD 1155 and 1 units 1155.1, 6-8 units frigates 22350, and 12-16 corvettes 20380 + a bunch of RTOs of which the most interesting are 22800.
          1. vmo
            vmo 7 November 2019 15: 53 New
            0
            your only clever thought-out article, out of all the panic rubbish that is described above, thanks for the rationality, without moaning and snot.
          2. Lexus
            Lexus 8 November 2019 00: 12 New
            +3
            Cyril, thanks for both of your comments! Everything about the case. And it’s very difficult to disagree. I wanted to write my own, but he would not be so significant. good
          3. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 8 November 2019 21: 10 New
            0
            Quote: Dante
            1. Stop writing off Soviet first ranks. Each building - save to the last. First of all, we are talking about Lazarev, Kuznetsov, the 1155th and 1164th. They should stretch exactly as long until a replacement appears.
            here I agree almost completely, but the question of price ?! if it turns out to be such that it does not allow building new 22350 (as the most developed project for today) then it is better to preserve the first ranks.

            Quote: Dante
            To abandon the construction of RTOs in favor of corvettes 20380/20385.
            concretizing: to finish building up the mortgaged ones, and in no case to spend resources on building new ones, moreover, first of all, just projects 20380/20385 (because their price is several times higher than their OVR capabilities in terms of armament composition). For OVR, in terms of armament composition, Project 11661 is arranged at times at the same GEM, and will cost 4-6 billion cheaper per unit. That is, from a brigade of 6 units, funds will remain for a full-fledged frigate 22350 !!!
            1. Dante Alighieri
              Dante Alighieri 9 November 2019 21: 29 New
              +1
              here I agree almost completely, but the question of price ?! if it turns out to be such that it does not allow building new 22350 (as the most developed project for today) then it is better to preserve the first ranks.

              Unfortunately, from our "conservation" ships, as a rule, do not return to service, while they continue to be on the balance sheet and funds continue to be allocated for their maintenance, the ships themselves do not go anywhere and hang like a dead weight around the fleet's neck. So this option is not as economical as it might seem at first glance. In general, in my opinion, the issue of modernizing Soviet ships is not so much a question of where to get money (in the country they are like a fool of candy wrappers), but rather a question of political will or even a desire to generally decide something specific in this direction. In particular, the lion's share of the issues with the modernization of Soviet ships could be resolved if there was an inclined PU ZS-14 Onyx / Caliber, which, on the one hand, would allow unification of the weapons of modern ships and their predecessors, and on the other, would significantly save time for modernization. since it would not have to make constructive changes to the hull of already quite elderly ships. Take at least the same 1155 on the example of Marshal Shaposhnikov, who is currently undergoing rework. In the presence of an inclined ZS-14 on its deck, instead of the Bell, it would be quite easy to install up to 12 such installations (or maybe all 16, since on the Nakat, which is much smaller than the BOD under discussion, there were already 12 of them), in while in place of the second AK-100 one could easily add 16-24 cells for the Calm complex, which for this ship is much more relevant than the rest of the weapons, since everything these ships have in terms of air defense now is, albeit very good, but very short-sighted along the radius of action of the Dagger complex. And the situation in this regard will not change in any way after the planned modernization. I am already silent about the fact that Calm is a much smaller complex, which means there is a great chance that the volumes of the already existing superstructure would be enough for its installation, which again reduces the time, because the workers do not have to spend extra time on cutting and redesigning the interior decoration of the ship ... Plus or minus a similar scenario is possible for the cruisers of Project 1164. Thus, we see a clear need to create an inclined ZS-14 installation, but for some reason there is no order for this product from the state, despite the fact that there are no technical obstacles for its implementation: an inclined start is traditionally simpler than a vertical one. and on the part of the missile manufacturer, it will not require fundamental changes in the design of the complex But meanwhile, time goes on, but no steps are taken in this direction.

              The only real problems with this would be with large ships like 1144 and 1143.5. With Nakhimov and Peter everything is clear: the first is launched, the second takes its place. The real question is only with Lazarev. His condition is much better than Kirov, in 2014-15. he went through a serious docking, which cost the state a pretty penny and now, to cut this handsome man you need another 350 ml. wooden from our pockets. It is clear that there is allegedly no money for its modernization, that Sevmash will not take up for it, and that they do not lick the Star for military courts. But let’s be realistic, even after the 4 troubleshooting a year ago, the ship still needs major modernization and repair, especially since the aggressive marine environment does not contribute to the preservation of the metal. My suggestion is this: even if the Star is not going to repair Lazarev, in order to preserve it, you still need to place it in the dry dock of the enterprise, even for an indefinite period. Yes, this will slightly affect the timing of delivery of tankers to Gazprom and Rosneft, but it will allow us to maintain a combat unit until better times when we really have people who are able not only to correctly distribute financial flows, but also competent in matters of how these funds are implemented.

              Regarding 1143.5, as well as the remaining more or less alive 4-ex 956 is still easier. As everyone knows, their Achilles' heel is their GEM. At the same time, the plant producing boilers for gas-fired heaters, located in the Russian Federation, did not close, but due to the fact that orders are unit cost of the units is very fabulous. The solution is simple and trivial: order a series immediately for all five units (16 boilers), which will reduce their cost and give an impetus to the plant for further development. Moreover, it should be ordered not outdated KVG-4, but automated KVG-6M, which again, for some reason, no one wants to point blank. Everything else (the composition of the armament and the air group) is already lyrics, either already worked out (MIG-29К) or similar to the techniques I described in relation to the BPC 1155.

              For OVR, in terms of armament, the 11661 ave is much better arranged at the same GEM, and will cost less by 4-6 billion, per unit

              Cheetahs, of course, are not bad boats, but with one BUT: if we are talking about the Vietnamese Navy. For our country, they are still not enough. As for 20380 / 20385, they would be perfect corvettes for me under several conditions:
              A) displacement + 500 tons (for which purpose further)
              B) power: 1 gas turbine afterburner and 2 diesel marching engines (ideally transferring energy not directly to the shafts, but to electric engines, which in turn already rotate the screws). For the sake of increasing the engine compartment, one can sacrifice a giant tank for aviation fuel for such a ship (at least it can be cut 2 times).
              C) To the existing 330 mm TA, place another 2x3 500 mm torpedo tubes. A place for this can be fished out under the take-off area by slightly raising it.
              D) To abandon the castrated Polyment in favor of 16 cells of the Dagger SAM, which in essence does not weaken the ship at all, but significantly saves its cost (especially since it never leaves the near sea zone, and there is someone to cover it inside) .
              I consider the choice of strike weapons between Caliber or Uranus not fundamental, and therefore, again for the sake of economy, but not to the detriment of the general defense capability, I admit that half of the ships can be equipped with one complex, and the other half with the other. Again, with the inclined control unit ZS-14, this can be done much cheaper than it was implemented in the 20385 project.
              1. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl 9 November 2019 23: 47 New
                0
                Quote: Dante
                In particular, the lion's share of issues with the modernization of Soviet ships could be resolved if there were an inclined launcher ZS-14 Onyx / Caliber, which on the one hand would allow for the unification of weapons of modern ships and their predecessors, and on the other, would significantly save time on modernization, since it would not have been necessary to make structural changes to the hull of already fairly elderly vessels. Take at least the same 1155 ...
                No one disputes this, but alas, there are none ...
                Quote: Dante
                Cheetahs, of course, are not bad boats, but with one BUT: if we are talking about the Vietnamese Navy.
                here it’s not clear to me why ?!
                Quote: Dante
                "The plant that produces boilers for GZA, located on the territory of the Russian Federation, has not closed, but due to the fact that the orders are single, the cost of the units is very fabulous." .... Moreover, you should order not the outdated KVG-4, but the automated KVG-6M, which again, for some reason, no one wants to be put into series.
                and here if you have information - why so?!, then please share
      2. CERBERFOL
        CERBERFOL 7 November 2019 08: 44 New
        +4
        Of course, I'm not an expert and not really a patriot, but as the saying goes, "Generals always prepare for the last war" I personally sincerely believe that the future is not in GIANTOMANIA, but just the opposite. I'm not afraid to assume that some kind of air defense or missile defense submarines, underwater drone carriers may appear soon. Scary toothy boats, stealth, Aircraft Carrier Assassins, and the like. In which country this is of course a question. But the fact that with the development of technology will change the very tactics, the strategy of using the Navy, that's for sure.
    2. kjhg
      kjhg 7 November 2019 07: 39 New
      11
      Quote: ROSS 42
      We were offered other goals and ways to achieve them.

      What goals did they offer us? Every decade to double the number of billionaires?
      With regard to the state and prospects of the fleet, everything is more or less adequate to all people. But I do not agree with the conclusion that the author drew from this. And specifically: do we need it?
      And I would have formulated the questions differently. Do we need an oligarchic system of government that does not allow us to maintain a fleet? Why did we come to terms with the existence in the country of such a system under which we can no longer afford the fleet? And it would be nice if it was only with the fleet. Why, under this power, we cannot afford the maintenance of healthcare, which, even after optimizing thousands of hospitals and clinics throughout the country, is a miserable sight. The other day, even Golikova admitted that this was a failure.
      Why, after 20 years of Putin’s education reforms, even Kiselev admitted that something is wrong with our education and it only stamps the discontented.
      You can go on and on, remember the antisocial policy, the failure of the pension policy, the collapse of industry, etc., etc. At first glance, all these issues are in no way connected. But if you look at the complex, then a holistic picture emerges of the ongoing plunder of the people and the country under the loud cackling from each iron and justifying the worthless and insignificant policy with the arguments that we do not really need it.
    3. Civil
      Civil 7 November 2019 08: 09 New
      0
      What tasks does the fleet have and what kind of money it has, that is, in general, the "fork" in which the RF Ministry of Defense is located.
    4. lifelong couch potato
      lifelong couch potato 9 November 2019 02: 57 New
      +1
      The first 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.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Far B
    Far B 7 November 2019 05: 52 New
    10
    If you disperse the government and confiscate everything acquired by them from overwork, you will only get, in fact, a dispersal of the government and confiscation of the acquired laughing And for the correction of naval (and not only) problems, a new government will be needed that will work, and not practice the vocabulary.
    And if money can still be found, then specialists and factories ... Alas.
    Specialists and factories are profitable business, there would be a desire and will. South Korea after the Korean War was nothing at all. From the word at all. But they set themselves a goal - and by the 80s they became in a row with the countries - the largest shipbuilders in the world. Just three decades later. Exactly as much as we build "developed capitalism". Well, and it’s possible to find grandmothers in our country, be it the sovereign’s will.
    So the situation is correctable if someone at the very top deigns to pursue this goal. True, there is no faith that this someone will ask such a goal. Therefore, the belief that the situation with the fleet will recover is not there either.
    But as for "is it necessary?" - here I agree with Roman. The huge navy did not fit us. But we need large shipbuilding / shipbuilding capacities, because not only are there a shortage of rescue ships - we now have complete seams even with civil shipbuilding. Scraps of the fishing fleet remained. So - give shipyards!
    PySy. All a Happy October Revolution !!!
    Especially Olgovich, Rotmistra and other monarchies wassat
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 7 November 2019 08: 19 New
      +1
      Select and share ... somewhere, when it already happened, more than once or twice, besides.
      There are a lot of "recipes" for general well-being, but there are many ways out, real, one, two, and countless and all of them are not simple.
    2. NEOZ
      NEOZ 7 November 2019 11: 43 New
      -5
      Quote: Dalny V
      South Korea did not represent anything after the Korean War. From the word at all. But they set a goal - and by the 80s they had become in a row with the countries - the largest shipbuilders in the world.

      South Koreans have nothing to do with this success ...
      This is the same as saying - if the Koreans set a goal, then the Korean auto industry can be pulled up to the world level !!!
      1. Islander-o
        Islander-o 7 November 2019 15: 50 New
        +7
        "... It's like saying - if the Koreans set themselves a goal, then the Korean car industry can be brought up to the world level ..."
        And aren't Hyundai, KIA, Daewo sold all over (well, in many countries)? Don't supertankers order the Yuzhkors? Yes, they poured a lot of money into YuK, stuffed them with equipment, but everything went into the fodder. And they work in factories and yards of yuzhkory. So "the road of a thousand li begins with the first step" (C)
        1. NEOZ
          NEOZ 7 November 2019 16: 18 New
          -8
          Quote: Islander-O
          But aren't Hyundai, KIA, Daewo sold all over (well, in many countries)?

          of course for sale! only Koreans have nothing to do with these achievements !!!!
          Quote: Islander-O
          Yes, in the UK they swelled a lot of money, stuffed with equipment,

          who swelled? what for?
          Quote: Islander-O
          Don't Southtankers order supertankers?

          who allowed the Koreans to have shipyards? Why were they allowed this?
          Quote: Islander-O
          And they work in the factories and yugra of South Korea.

          so what? Ukrainians work in my country house, what do they have to do with my country house?
          my opinion:
          Americans gave the Koreans production and part of the market.
          that’s the whole secret of the South Korean / Japanese / German economic miracle.
          this is easy to track by looking at% of industrial production globally in each country.
          Well, or in a specific industry, such as auto manufacturing.
          it is very exciting to watch over the years how American manufacturers are losing the world car market and how German (German order and pedantry rules) and Japanese (Japanese production model) flourish ... but I missed the "theory of the Korean car industry" ...
          1. Far B
            Far B 8 November 2019 01: 23 New
            +2
            Places in Busan, for example, visited? Are you sane at all?
            1. NEOZ
              NEOZ 8 November 2019 10: 56 New
              -3
              Quote: Dalny V
              Are you sane at all?

              who did your upbringing?
  4. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 7 November 2019 06: 15 New
    +2
    The ocean fleet is not and never will be! But the Russian oligarchs have the largest and most expensive yachts!
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 7 November 2019 08: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Pessimist22
      There is no ocean fleet and never will be

      The assumption is quite justified, but not final ....
      Let’s take a look from the outside (because the decision does not depend on us at the moment), although the position - my hut from the edge - is completely hopeless and very dangerous!
      What to do?
    2. NEOZ
      NEOZ 7 November 2019 11: 46 New
      -4
      Quote: Pessimist22
      But the Russian oligarchs have the largest and most expensive yachts!

      and what?
      humpback didn’t have a yacht ... so he handed over the USSR for only greenery ...
      but if she did, she wouldn’t have handed over because no one else can offer him a yacht! he is already the largest in the world !!!
  5. jonht
    jonht 7 November 2019 06: 38 New
    +2
    The main thing is that it’s not the first time we have how to break up and restore the fleet. The bad thing is that we still can’t learn from our mistakes. But I hope that this time we will be able to restore the fleet. hi
    1. NEOZ
      NEOZ 7 November 2019 11: 53 New
      -1
      Quote: jonht
      The bad thing is that we still can’t learn from our mistakes.

      this is because we don’t see our real mistakes ... and since there is no correct diagnosis, there is no right treatment!
      it reminds me: - "why do I fizzle out so quickly when I run?"
      - it's because you smoke the wrong brand of cigarettes! you will smoke the correct brand and it will be easier !!! "
      and so we’ll change cigarette brands from century to century ...
      ps
      no one offers to quit smoking since it is believed that cigarettes help while running ...
  6. cobalt
    cobalt 7 November 2019 07: 37 New
    -1
    The best aircraft carrier in the Black Sea is Crimea.
  7. The comment was deleted.
    1. NEOZ
      NEOZ 7 November 2019 11: 55 New
      -2
      Quote: ruslan
      you can never rivet surface ships again

      Well, maybe someday ...
      the author had in mind the near-medium term perspective
  8. rocket757
    rocket757 7 November 2019 08: 11 New
    -1
    swim out and this time. Not the first time. The main thing is not to chase beautiful numbers in statistics.

    Obviously, the problems are higher than the roof, even the outlined doctrine of the country's defense is difficult / impossible to fulfill.
    But, as always, it is necessary to take a rational, integrated approach, it will work out from those who are very above and stay at an acceptable level!
    And then, build, develop, WORK in this direction ...
    What and how come ??? this, probably, is already going to the fortuneteller, to find out.
  9. Naz
    Naz 7 November 2019 08: 31 New
    +3
    Happy November 7th! Hooray comrades!
  10. Boris55
    Boris55 7 November 2019 08: 32 New
    -14
    Yesterday, upon presentation to the Supreme Commander, the newly appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Black Sea Fleet reported on a complete renewal of the fleet. And Roman can continue to live in his illusory World and scare us with his articles, in the hope that we will begin to prove to him that this is not so and in a fit of discussion we will give out military secrets.

    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 7 November 2019 08: 46 New
      +3
      Well, once reported, then it is so wassat The Black Sea Fleet was updated only with submarines of 6 pieces, 3 patrol officers 11356 and, well, several RTOs. Compare with what was at the time of the collapse of the USSR
      In 1991, the Black Sea Fleet numbered about 100 thousand personnel and 60 thousand workers and employees, including 835 ships and vessels of almost all existing classes, including 28 submarines, 2 anti-submarine cruisers, 6 missile cruisers and large anti-submarine ships (BOD) ) I rank, 20 BOD II rank, destroyers and patrol ships of the II rank, about 40 TFR, 30 small missile ships and boats, about 70 minesweepers, 50 landing ships and boats, more than 400 units of naval aviation.
      The warship was not sewn, you can’t hide it and it’s ridiculous to call on military secrets
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 7 November 2019 08: 48 New
        -18
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        The Black Sea Fleet was updated only with submarines consisting of 6 units, 3 patrol officers 11356 and, well, several RTOs.

        You just laid out all the secrets.
        Wait for a package with cookies or are you convinced? laughing
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 7 November 2019 08: 55 New
          +6
          Quote: Boris55
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          submarines consisting of 6 pieces, 3 watchdogs

          That's it. And you just laid out all the secrets, wait for the package with cookies or are you convinced? laughing
          By conviction, by conviction, just don’t worry, wait for the orderlies hi
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 7 November 2019 14: 12 New
        +9
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        Well, if I reported it, it means that the Black Sea Fleet was updated only by submarines, consisting of 6 pieces, 3 patrol officers 11356 and, well, several RTOs

        It remains only to write off everything that remains from the time of the USSR - and the Black Sea Fleet will be completely updated. And the fact that at the same time he will shrink to a couple of brigades is another question.
        Moreover, there will be no problems with the write-off. For, with the exception of the three FRs of pr.11356 and the "Moscow", the Black Sea Fleet's surface ships brigade is a floating museum of ships that were considered obsolete in Soviet times. And the OVR "Albatrosses" have long been asking for retirement.
      3. Serg65
        Serg65 7 November 2019 15: 01 New
        0
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        6 missile cruisers and large anti-submarine ships (BOD) I rank

        How beautiful it sounds !!!! Even if we consider that there were only 2 missile cruisers, the number "6" has an impressive effect on the brain!
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        BOD II rank

        what What kind of beast is this?
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        about 40 SCR

        In fact, 15, of which 6 are quite battle-worthy, the rest is rubbish, and of 6-Pylky from the 87th was being repaired on "Yantar"
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        about 70 minesweepers

        Actually xnumx
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        50 landing ships and boats

        43 — where the lion’s share of the boat is 1176-85
        2 missile cruisers-8 missiles with a range of 150 km and 16 missiles with a range of 550 km
        3 TFR 11356 - 24 missiles with a range of up to 2000 km
        In principle, the same for missiles wink
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 7 November 2019 16: 14 New
          +1
          Quote: Serg65
          How beautiful it sounds !!!! Even if we consider that there were only 2 missile cruisers, the number "6" has an impressive effect on the brain!
          Do you have problems with text perception? There are written 6 missile cruisers and large anti-submarine ships (BOD) I rank.
          Quote: Serg65
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          BOD II rank
          What kind of beast is this?
          This beast stands for a large anti-submarine ship of rank II. Are you up to date on ranking by rank in the Russian (Soviet) Navy ?!

          The main strength of the Black Sea Fleet by 1990 was represented by the 150th brigade of surface ships and the 30th division of surface ships, based on Sevastopol.
          The 150th brigade of surface ships included: 2 missile cruisers: Glory (project 1164) and Admiral Golovko (project 58);
          -2 large missile ships "Discreet" (project 61M) and "Elusive" (project 56U);
          - 2 large anti-submarine ships Skory (project 61) and Agile (project 61E).
          At the end of 1990, the “Elusive” and “Agile” were put into reserve and then scrapped. The remaining ships - “Admiral Golovko”, “Restrained” and “Fast” - became part of the 30th division of surface ships, and the 150th brigade was disbanded.
          The 30th division at the beginning of 1990 consisted of 16 ships: anti-submarine cruisers "Moscow" and "Leningrad"; large anti-submarine ships (BPC) “Ochakov”, “Kerch”, “Azov”, “Komsomolets of Ukraine”, “Red Caucasus”, “Red Crimea” and “Sharp”; patrol ships “Inquisitive”, “Striking”, “Selfless”, “Immaculate”, “Active”, “Okay” and “Ardent”.

          From the Central Naval Portal information
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 8 November 2019 08: 29 New
            +1
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            Are you up to date on ranking by rank in the Russian (Soviet) Navy ?!

            Well, where can I, the old collective farmer !!!!! recourse
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            Do you have problems with text perception?

            Of course the problem! How can there be no problems with the Kombeda agitation?
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            large anti-submarine ship of the II rank.

            Here you are, as a specialist in the Navy, explain to me what the BOD of 2 rank is, and even better, name at least one of them!
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            From the Central Naval Portal information

            Ahhh, yes ... authoritatively!
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            At the end of 1990 .......... and the 150 brigade was disbanded.

            So, my friend Mikhail, the 150-I Red Banner DBK was disbanded in December of the 1994 year!
            Now, about 6 missile cruisers and BOD of the 1st rank .... RRC "Slava", RRC "Golovko", BOD "Kerch", BOD "Azov", BOD "Ochakov", BOD "Nikolaev", BOD " Krasny Krym ", BPK" Krasny Kavkaz ", BPK" Komsomolets Ukrainy ", BPK" Restrained ", BPK" Fast ", BPK" Sharp ", BPK" Smart "...... can you count yourself?
            1. Stirbjorn
              Stirbjorn 8 November 2019 08: 51 New
              -2
              Here you are, as a specialist in the Navy, explain to me what the BOD of 2 rank is, and even better, name at least one of them!
              As I understand it, you don’t know how to use search engines ... well, hold on fellow
              Large anti-submarine ship of rank 2 - Large anti-submarine ships - a class of high-speed warships, with a displacement of 3000 to 4500 tons, designed to search, detect and destroy submarines having a speed of underwater of more than 30 knots as part of ship formations in the far sea zone.
              The tactics of the combat use of large anti-submarine ships was to conduct combat operations as part of naval strike groups (ASG) as an anti-submarine and anti-aircraft defense ship during the transition to the far sea zone.

              The main weapon of large anti-submarine ships of the 2nd rank is anti-submarine and sonar systems, as well as 76-30-mm caliber artillery systems and air defense systems.

              The commander of a large anti-submarine ship of rank 2 is a senior officer (captain of rank 2).

              The list here of these ships here, with all their technical characteristics and history.
              http://and-kin2008.narod.ru/pr61.html

              What are you trying to prove to me? I bring the sources, you carry a gag. Or do you think that a certain Serge from the Internet is more authoritative for me than the same flot.com - this is ridiculous ... your admiral's online epaulets here are not at all an argument wassat
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 8 November 2019 09: 30 New
                +5
                Quote: Stirbjorn
                As I understand it, you don’t know how to use search engines ... well, hold on

                I'm losing weight Mary Ivanovna! Mikhail, especially for you, an amateur search engine, the only bearers of the formidable name of the BOD - 2 rank were 9 representatives of the 1135 avenue ... Vigilant, Peppy, Worthy, Ferocious, Strong, Valorous and Watchdog, and starting with the Friendly class BPC-2 rank re-qualified to the TFR class and it was in the 1975 year! Those. from the 1975-th in the Navy of the USSR BOD-2-th rank was NOT !!!!
                Quote: Stirbjorn
                The list here of these ships is here.

                Do you at least take an interest in what you post! Well, at least to expand your horizons! Since when did the "singing frigate" become a BOD-2 rank ???
                Quote: Stirbjorn
                What are you trying to prove to me?

                I'm trying to prove to you that thoughtless laying out of doubtful sources is not true!
                Quote: Stirbjorn
                you think that a certain Serge from the Internet is more authoritative for me than the same flot.com - it's ridiculous

                Here is a list of Black Sea Fleet ships starting with sailing ships, find me here at least one BNK of 2 rank! And for one, count the number of BODs of 1 rank yourself!
                https://www.kchf.ru/ship/
                Quote: Stirbjorn
                your admiral's online epaulettes are not an argument at all

                Not an argument, I don’t even argue! To me my honestly earned Kapleysky are much closer!
                Yes .. before spreading some heresy, take an interest in other sources!
  11. vanavatny
    vanavatny 7 November 2019 09: 51 New
    -3
    no money, but you hold on, in this case, afloat ...
  12. Grits
    Grits 7 November 2019 10: 00 New
    +2
    Indeed, even if we strongly want to, the first step will not be in money, and even more so, not in resources. And in personnel and in production facilities. shipyards are needed, comparable to the Nikolevsky ones. Such a building is being built in Bolshoy Kamen, but everything is imprisoned there for civilian ships to be sent abroad "of the national heritage". And it is unlikely to be used for military orders. Severodvinsk is suffocating and cannot cope with the task of building large ships and submarines. The Komsomolsk plant is in decline, like many others. The way out is the construction of new ones. Again, following the example of China and South Korea. Well, the second step will be in the absence of machines and equipment at these factories.
    1. max702
      max702 8 November 2019 00: 19 New
      +2
      All the problems that you voiced are MONEY! Need a shipyard? We build money and build, do we need workers, engineer institutes? We build money into the educational sector and build .. Need machines? money to factories, engineers, and workers .. But the problem is that MONEY for this whole circle goes VERY big .. And where to get it in such quantities? We are opposing the Western bourgeois world, which has long been one corporation country where both material and intellectual resources are common, but access to them is extremely limited. Korea needed shipyard machines, but please! Scientific developments in the field of shipbuilding and as many as you like, and now we see another miracle .. Why do not they give us? This is the main question! The answer is simple, we are too dangerous a competitor, there is EVERYTHING and if you play honestly, we will lose and must! THERE are well aware of this for more than one hundred years .. The same Korea will be able to build ships without steel from Sweden, machine tools from Germany, Japan at its shipyards? And without the scientific developments of engineering companies from around the world? And without the financial goodwill of the United States? Or without access to the market for products .. That’s how Korea is controlled and will NEVER change this situation .. With Russia, the picture is different, the resource base is available, there are also plenty of intellectual resources, and we sat down and didn’t put the wheels in the wheel, but vice versa give access to the latest achievements of science of technology (and the state of the corporation has all this) loans, a sales market, then what kind of competitor you can create! What the hell is the world bourgeoisie? It is very likely that the competitor will be very successful, and then goodbye to the monopoly and a sweet life with it at the expense of others .. Therefore, they are pushing everywhere just as they might not allow them to rise, absolutely everything is used! This is the support of the fifth column, and the financing of the sixth, in the person of officials sabotaging the necessary actions and decisions for the development of the country, the collapse in culture, education, medicine, this is the work of the sixth column, or do you think that they themselves think up idiotic laws and decisions, and not according to the recommended instructions and instructions, direct sanctions for both finance and technology, maximum restrictions on sales markets, financing of conflicts to create tension in the country and its borders, and much more. Therefore, the measure of any resources MONEY is not enough. We play on the opportunities that are, the same
      Quote: Gritsa
      civilian ships to be sent abroad "national heritage".
      it’s just that they will bring the money for which it will be possible to do something, even if not everything is in our pocket, but other options will bring even less. A difficult situation .. VERY! Each step has to be done very carefully and slowly for the reasons listed above ..
      1. lifelong couch potato
        lifelong couch potato 9 November 2019 02: 56 New
        0
        The first 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.
  13. rudolff
    rudolff 7 November 2019 10: 14 New
    +7
    We could well build an ocean-going fleet. This requires only two conditions. Intelligent specialists in the management of the state and the economy with GDP growth above the world average. In fact, we have what we have. Distribution of high positions for "feeding" on the principle of personal loyalty and degrading economy. GDP growth is below the world average, this is a lag. If this is not changed, nothing will change at all. I do not remember who said this phrase: our government is an amazing bunch of incompetent people. What can we talk about next? Which fleet? For reports and dust in the eyes and boats is enough.
    1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
      Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 November 2019 11: 17 New
      +2
      Rudolph hi "Sperm whale" at the plant will soon be disposed of. The 3-compartment block will be transported along the Amur River to the point of long-term storage. In the 20s, most likely almost all leopards will be utilized.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 7 November 2019 12: 45 New
        +5
        And it could have served if all types of scheduled repairs took place on time. And so of course, after a decade and a half of downtime, it’s easier to saw. In the next few years, many ships will go on needles.
        1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
          Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 November 2019 17: 43 New
          +3
          At the Amur shipyard, this year the governor's administration asked for help with the Kashalot, in any case, disposal is a solution to the problem.
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 7 November 2019 19: 10 New
            +4
            There, another 519th order of the slipway is occupied, unfinished Irbis. Unnecessary and abandoned ships.
            1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
              Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 November 2019 20: 21 New
              +3
              Quote: rudolff
              Unnecessary and abandoned ships.

              Shards of a great country. Flotprom writes that by the end of the 19 year, the Vepr 971 Ave.
              https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%822/
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 7 November 2019 20: 52 New
                +4
                In the 98th, corpses helped to pull out corpses from this Boar when the crazy eight sailor put them there. Or maybe not crazy.
                1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                  Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 November 2019 21: 06 New
                  +3
                  The case seems to be classified. I read that a phone was lowered into the torpedo compartment, where instead of a battery there was a low-explosive device. The device worked during a conversation between a sailor and his brother.
                  1. rudolff
                    rudolff 7 November 2019 21: 26 New
                    +3
                    I doubt the phone. The operation was led by local guys, not from the central administration, in the courtyard of the 98th year. Where do such little things come from? But the fact that there was a torn regeneration cartridge next to the body - a fact. This scumbag threatened to blow up the torpedoes, which is probably why he began to chemise with regeneration.
                    1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                      Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 November 2019 21: 29 New
                      +1
                      There they kind of came up with a combination to eliminate it, the device worked about the 45 minute of the conversation.
                      1. rudolff
                        rudolff 7 November 2019 21: 43 New
                        +3
                        I was there then. But I heard the story about the phone much later. Very similar to a beautiful bike
                      2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 November 2019 21: 44 New
                        +1
                        I agree, it seems like a bike.
                2. rudolff
                  rudolff 7 November 2019 21: 28 New
                  +4
                  How can you keep it secret if everything was Gadzhiev’s ears.
                  1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                    Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 November 2019 21: 43 New
                    +1
                    I doubt that the relatives of the victims were allowed to familiarize themselves with the criminal case on this fact. In addition to investigators and prosecutors, no one needs to know the details. In general, I will not guess, I am incompetent in this incident.
                    1. rudolff
                      rudolff 7 November 2019 21: 58 New
                      +4
                      There, these details were disassembled in seconds at the headquarters of the 24th DiPL. Such a thing could not be dreamed of in a nightmare, some sailor almost didn’t arrange it! It’s good that this happened at the end, and not at the beginning of the 90s, when the Grenades still lay on the shelves.
        2. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 7 November 2019 21: 45 New
          +2
          I wonder how Chirkov can make such a smart and courageous face?

          Although I had a comrade friend who had a similar talent, but he only grew up to a company, and it turned out worse for him, but this one ...
          1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
            Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 November 2019 21: 46 New
            0
            Who do you mean?
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 7 November 2019 22: 07 New
              0
              In the sense? Chirkova same. On the screen saver video from the NEA
              1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 November 2019 22: 12 New
                +1
                There, it seems, the governor of the Khabarovsk Territory Sergey Furgal what
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 7 November 2019 22: 15 New
                  0
                  Damn, I got it ...
                  1. rudolff
                    rudolff 7 November 2019 22: 18 New
                    +3
                    This is Furgal, but with Chirkov they are really very similar. Just now I noticed.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 7 November 2019 23: 27 New
                      +1
                      I hope only externally
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 November 2019 10: 21 New
    +4
    With all due respect to the author and full agreement with the problems listed by him, I have to state that the general tone of the article and the conclusions suspiciously resemble "to spite my grandmother, I will frostbite my ears." If you do not have a problem, then you should not take it for granted, but we must look for ways to solve it.
    1. karabass
      karabass 7 November 2019 11: 57 New
      -2
      Andrei, here on the site there is an opinion that you are not Andrei at all - you are a Kremlin boat (team) I do not mind that you (Kremlin boat) make money with your comments (change the patriotic logore for a decent salary) But I have a wish, - inform the powers that be are not pleasant to their ears, but at least sometimes the opinion of the people ... it will be a REAL patriotic act
      With respect to Karabass
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 November 2019 15: 50 New
        +5
        Am I a kremlebot? :) Taking into account the mass of criticism that I laid out in my articles on issues of the Navy, patriotic education, the Russian economy and politics? :))) And the president himself :))))))
        Nuuuu ....
        Honestly, if someone after all this manages to see me as a Kremlin boat, then this is already a medical question. And the opinion of this nectus does not interest me at all. You will not consult about the color shades of wallpaper in your apartment with a person blind from birth ....
        1. karabass
          karabass 7 November 2019 20: 09 New
          0
          Of course I won’t, I thought so too, but the opinion of these people may still be interesting to third parties if not for you! Indeed, here in VO, as indeed in any serious team, there are authoritative poles with a team of people who have joined them, and to distance oneself from the struggle, trying to stay away is a dead end
      2. Oleg Zorin
        Oleg Zorin 8 November 2019 14: 43 New
        -1
        I don’t think so. Andrei is a statesman, maybe even an imperial, but not a Kremlin boat, for sure.
        Sincerely, O.Z.
    2. Oleg Zorin
      Oleg Zorin 8 November 2019 14: 41 New
      0
      Hello, dear Andrey! Somehow I did not understand your remark. Treatment of the patient just begins with the diagnosis and assessment of its recovery capabilities.
  • Cyrus
    Cyrus 7 November 2019 10: 44 New
    -1
    And let's admit that the author offers to raise pens and give up, and to put it mildly, is mistaken in his conclusions. I do not belong to cheers patriots, and I understand that there are many problems in the fleet and the most important thing is that the fleet, as a single structure aimed at fulfilling a specific task, which has not changed by the way since the days of Roman Libourne, Russia does not have. There are ships, groups, moreover, if you pull yourself up, you can assemble one full-fledged OPEC and a couple of serious KUGs, but there is no fleet.
    The conclusions of this article are very controversial in some places (you understand that people of this caliber are not independent, they always represent someone's interests, and whose interests are represented by Mr. Farley ...?)
    What he does is ironic over Kuznetsov’s campaign, that is, he questions our ability to build an aircraft carrier fleet and its expediency, which is not new in principle, the states have always announced the end of the century of aircraft carriers as soon as the USSR / Russia intended to build them. And vice versa it sticks out firing with Caliber, which, given the demise of the INF Treaty, is no longer very important.
    The doctrine of the submarine fleet is flawed, read the story, it will tell you everything and show it, and it can only knock out teeth for its crew.
    And finally, the whole point of your article is in these words "...]Let's all the same admit: we are forever behind the USA (126 DMZ ships) and China (123 DMZ ships) in the construction of large surface ships and will never catch up with them ... " In general, you could just write this phrase, and not camouflage it with a wall of text, and everything would become clear, your position and the purpose of this "article". But you can continue, I must admit the author, you will die sooner or later, so why bother, to achieve something, maybe you shouldn't wait, eh? But for some reason I am sure that you will not agree and will fight for this life, until your last breath, all trying to postpone the inevitable, then why do you offer the country to surrender in a difficult but far from hopeless situation ?? Although I am sure that I will not get an answer to this question).
  • Ivanchester
    Ivanchester 7 November 2019 10: 50 New
    +3
    It is curious from what bins Roman extracted an article and decided to publish it today? smile

    Two frigates of the Admiral Grigorovich class have already entered service, four more are under construction. The first "Gorshkov" should be put into service at the end of this year, three more are under construction.


    Actually, the Grigorovichs have been in service for three since 2017 and are no longer being built due to problems with the gas turbine. "Gorshkov" was admitted to the fleet a year ago, five more ships are under construction.

    Eight Boreevs, three are already in operation, another five are under construction - this is significant. The seven Ashes are also quite imagined.

    The last Borey was delivered to the Navy five years ago. I don't even want to talk about "Ash" - it is absolutely obvious that six units will not be commissioned by the end of 2020. The situation with the construction of the submarine fleet in our country is as unenviable as with the construction of the surface one. sad

    22 cruiser "Ticonderoga" - yes. It will be enough four who shoot the contents of their cells for the "Axes", and this "Peter the Great" will simply end. It’s sad, but the fact that our cruiser simply doesn’t have enough ammunition to dismiss such a pack of Tomahawks.

    And that in the cells "Ticonderogo" have already appeared "Tomahawks", which can be used to shoot at ships? Or will they use a square-nested method to fire at the area of ​​the likely location of "Peter"? request
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 November 2019 14: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivanchester
      And that in the cells "Ticonderogo" have already appeared "Tomahawks", which can be used to shoot at ships?

      Apparently, I meant LRASMs. Which so far have only been made in the aviation version, and in the ship only they are tested (from Mark 41 they were already launched).
      1. Ivanchester
        Ivanchester 8 November 2019 09: 30 New
        0
        In my opinion, the situation in which four “Ticks” will converge with “Peter” is generally speculative.
        After all, basically they still operate as part of the ACG, in which the main striking force is airplanes.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 7 November 2019 11: 02 New
    +1
    everything was correctly written by the respected Roman Skomorokhov, he paid little attention to the minesweeper, the most important problem now is slowly being solved, and we don’t need a large surface fleet. This is obvious to everyone, it’s clear that the submarine fleet and coastal aviation, coastal assets are important ... and Kuzyu needs to be sold before it’s too late, and there’s nowhere to maintain expensive and repair
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 7 November 2019 11: 14 New
    -3
    It's hard to quote from a mobile, so sorry.
    1. What other Gauges in diesels? Normal torpedoes on an electric motor when will they take? Combined gas is a century before last.
    2. Nuclear boats in our country are very vulnerable, without a surface fleet they are doomed. Why? Ask Andrey from Chelyabinsk or Timokhin.
    1. We are not talking about cruisers and aircraft carriers. I would like to build normal corvettes in good series in an acceptable time frame, for example 20385. Karakurt is evil, especially IPC based on them.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 7 November 2019 11: 37 New
    -7
    Pessimism Detected ... But if you really look from the outside? We were inhibited for 5 years, unleashing the Svidomo dictatorship in the under-state in the neighborhood. This is a fact. Well, now we have chosen the moment when the recession has reached its greatest depth. 6 frigates of the Gorshkov type, pr.22350, were laid and will be built. This is our main strike fist in the far sea zone. Their continuation in the form of Super Pots 22350M needs to be replicated in dozens: 50 pieces. And it is necessary to build 4 Leaders 23560. And 18 pieces of Surfs, which are 15 thousand tons each. And to do it calmly, systematically, in order to increase production capacities. Then the result will be achieved. Desired.
  • iouris
    iouris 7 November 2019 11: 48 New
    +4
    This edition does not "condemn", but states. The expert's publication is not intended for readers in the Russian Federation. Sleep.
  • Sunstorm
    Sunstorm 7 November 2019 12: 17 New
    +1
    Of course, I’m not Farley, and not the author of the article ... but, it seems to me that Russia is really useless a large surface fleet, due to a) the size of the coast and the dispersion of the seas / oceans b) the speed of construction and production capacities (very modest) c) historical experience (Well, with whom did Russia successfully fight at sea? With the Swedes? Yes, it was, but at what cost? Moreover, without the success of the ground army .. it would not be possible. With the Turks? Yes, it was the case, they won, however, by that time the Turkish fleet and the army, to put it mildly, ceased to be significant in internal for political reasons ... With the Japanese ... yeah, we remember, we grieve ... and the defense of Port Arthur (heroically meaningless, which destroyed the entire fleet) and Rozhdestvensky’s campaign to Tsushima (with the collection of all possible forces from different theater and their transfer) ....Yes, in the article I read a lot about the successes of the Soviet fleet ... which ones? Is it "Riga campaign"? Or writing off sailors to the "Marines"? Something I personally have no associations with the special victories of the Soviet fleet. Maybe because of my scarcity, maybe because of the fact that they as such ... were not? If they would like to fill the gap in their knowledge and read
    1. Ivanchester
      Ivanchester 7 November 2019 14: 03 New
      +2
      Sorry, I can not resist a few questions:

      1. Did we fight the Swedes on land without losses? The campaign of our army to Narva in 1700, do you know how it ended? And with whom in general did they fight "with little blood": with the Germans, with the French? M. b. is it also useless to maintain the land army?
      2. How many unsuccessful attempts were made to seize the fortress of Azov while the army acted without the support of the fleet? How would the territories of Crimea and New Russia be conquered if there were no fleet?
      3. Andrey from Chelyabinsk has gigabytes of articles on the topic of how the events of the RYAV would have developed if General Noga's army had not been bound by the siege of Port Arthur, but you called it "heroically meaningless" with one stroke of the pen. By the way, can you say that the ground army in that war acted brilliantly, in contrast to the navy?
      4. The successes of the Soviet fleet included landing operations near Novorossiysk and the Crimea, the defense of Leningrad, the clearance of the Volga (which prevented fuel hunger). It’s not good news that, of course, but it is necessary to take into account that the backbone of the fleet was made up of ships of pre-revolutionary projects, so they couldn’t do anything supernatural.
      1. Sunstorm
        Sunstorm 7 November 2019 15: 34 New
        +2
        The points :
        1) With losses, with defeats and victories, but victory would have been won without the fleet, my personal opinion, maybe mistaken, do not pretend to be objective (in my opinion, Karl lost the war as soon as he retired .. from the coast ... from support of its fleet, which leads me personally to the idea that the role of the fleet in the Northern War is secondary and insignificant ...)
        2) "little-big blood" .. it's not about that, it's about the ratio of the victor's losses to the defeated's losses, just as there is no word about the uselessness of maintaining the fleet, it's about the fact that large surface ships are not needed, nothing more.
        3) The tactical moments of the siege of specific fortresses ... (coastal) are really easier to solve with the support of the fleet, but to put it mildly a long time ago;
        counter questions how many attempts (well stages) did Peter make to build a fleet, did he immediately build a large sailing fleet? Was everything okay with the construction of ships? Ships from the damp forest? Drifting off the serfs? And after the "Prut" campaign I remember what did Peter do there?
        4) The siege of Port Arthur, and the blocking of the fleet .... tell him, in gigabytes, it is indicated that the entire Japanese fleet stood and blocked the entire Russian fleet? (all meaning TVD). It was not about brilliant or disgusting, it was about pointless though heroically. Sorry, I'm probably wrong .. but the fleet should not be under siege, it should break through and go into the operational space.
        5) The successes of the Soviet fleet, what's this? Two or three landing operations? Maybe then remember the evacuation? I do not understand that the Soviet fleet was interfered with by some other fleet ???? Probably Goering's air force, huh? What was the conscientious fleet doing in WWII? landing and sitting in the blockade? Defense of Leningrad, why didn't you remember about Hanko then? Why then were surface ships needed at all, was it not cheaper to rivet armored trains (there are also guns there and they can be concentrated not only on the coast)? But let's take the "northern fleet" and submariners out of the brackets .. and the "Baltic and Black Sea" is just a shame and resources thrown to the wind. Well, God bless her with the war, and what next after the war? That the construction of "Eagles", "Kuznetsov" and so on ... had a positive effect on the defense of the USSR? That the surface fleet achieved something in the USSR?
        1. Ivanchester
          Ivanchester 8 November 2019 10: 03 New
          0
          With losses, with defeats and victories, but a victory would have been won without a fleet ...


          It depends on what is considered a victory. They could not have fought in Finland without a fleet - it was absolutely unrealistic to deliver troops and supplies there in the absence of roads. And the value of access to the Baltic under the dominance of the Swedish fleet would be small, not to say insignificant.
          there are no words about the futility of maintaining the fleet, the speech is that large surface ships are not needed, nothing more


          At this stage, of course, more needed are ASW corvettes, minesweepers and, possibly, torpedo nuclear submarines. This is the minimum that is required for the withdrawal of SSBNs into the "bastions".
          But if it is achieved, it will be necessary to start building larger ships in order to dominate not only in the "bastions".

          The tactical moments of the siege of specific fortresses ... (coastal) are indeed easier to solve with the support of the fleet, however, to put it mildly, a long time ago;


          Judging by the tactics of the British in the Falklands, this is not entirely true ...

          The siege of Port Arthur, and the blocking of the fleet .... tell him it says in gigabytes that the entire Japanese fleet stood and blocked the entire Russian fleet? (all meaning TVD). It was not about brilliant or disgusting, it was about pointless though heroically. Sorry, I'm probably wrong .. but the fleet should not be under siege, it should break through and go into the operational space.


          I do not understand your thought sad
          You wrote before that the defense of Port Arthur was pointless. I objected that this was not true, since otherwise the Japanese could have sent significantly greater forces against the Manchurian army.
          Now you are writing about the fact that the fleet should not be under siege ... With this I completely agree.

          What did the surface fleet achieve under the USSR?


          The Soviet Navy was quite specific, namely, "nuclear missile" (the definition of Admiral SG Gorshkov). That is, it was imprisoned for striking an SLBM against the United States. And he was probably able to solve this problem with a high degree of success, which, in fact, was the main achievement.
      2. ABM
        ABM 7 November 2019 15: 51 New
        0
        By the way, Crimea and Novorossia were conquered without the participation of the fleet (under Catherine);
        1. Ivanchester
          Ivanchester 8 November 2019 10: 21 New
          +1
          It is not.
          I recommend reading about the actions of the Black Sea Fleet under Ochakovo, the Kerch Sea Battle, etc.
          1. ABM
            ABM 8 November 2019 13: 16 New
            0
            The Black Sea Fleet was founded in 1783 by decree of Empress Catherine II AFTER joining the Russian Empire of Crimea
            1. Ivanchester
              Ivanchester 8 November 2019 13: 35 New
              +1
              The Black Sea Fleet was created on 13 on May 1783 of the year (when the ships of the Azov Flotilla entered the Akhtiar Bay), and the oath of Crimean elite and the publication of the manifesto of Catherine took place a month and a half later. So formally the Black Sea Fleet was founded BEFORE the annexation of Crimea to the Empire.

              But the point is not even the crocheting of dates, but in essence - without the Russian fleet it would be impossible to cope with Turkey, and this is what I spoke about above.
          2. ABM
            ABM 8 November 2019 13: 33 New
            0
            Quote: Ivanchester
            It is not.
            I recommend reading about the actions of the Black Sea Fleet under Ochakovo, the Kerch Sea Battle, etc.


            these battles took place AFTER the annexation of the Crimea and New Russia, as well as the creation of the Black Sea Fleet in 1883
            1. Ivanchester
              Ivanchester 8 November 2019 14: 47 New
              0
              Ochakov is a city in New Russia that was annexed just during the 1787-1791 war.
              I have already written about the order of establishment of the Black Sea Fleet and the annexation of Crimea above.

              Do you essentially have objections to the fact that the fleet played an important role in the annexation (or, if you like, retention) of these territories?
      3. ABM
        ABM 7 November 2019 15: 55 New
        +1
        how events would develop
        Quote: Ivanchester
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk has gigabytes of articles on the topic of how the events of the strategic nuclear forces would have developed if the army of General Nogi had not been connected by the siege of Port Arthur

        alternatives are the same charm. Why no siege of Port Arthur? if instead of one EDB there is one extra division in the Far East and instead of one cruiser a brigade? I hope this is taken into account?
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 7 November 2019 21: 41 New
          +3
          And will it be possible to supply them there? And if the Japanese fleet to Vladivostok? So their fleet was connected by ours, then, after Tsushima, we surrendered.

          And if their hands would be completely untied?
          1. ABM
            ABM 7 November 2019 23: 40 New
            0
            supply by sea was not carried out in any case, the Trans-Siberian coast does not go, so
            nothing would have changed. After Tsushima, the war continued for six months, and the front stabilized, the accumulation of reserves took place quite systematically, the Japanese economy began to deflate, unable to withstand the load. 13 submarines and 7 new large EMs by rail arrived in Vladivostok. The assault on Vladivostok is an even more serious operation than the assault on Port Arthur.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 8 November 2019 00: 03 New
              +4
              You are thinking wrong. What you described is the end of the war in the real 1905 year.

              But if there were no major forces in Port Arthur, Togo would be free to choose a target immediately after the Japanese landing in China.
              Where would he go? Who would stop him?
              1. ABM
                ABM 8 November 2019 13: 37 New
                0
                why shouldn’t they be there? Honestly, I don't like the alternatives! better reality
        2. Ivanchester
          Ivanchester 8 November 2019 10: 24 New
          +1
          And how would you send these divisions and brigades to the Far East?
          There was no BTA then, you personally refused the fleet, and the Trans-Siberian Railway was already fully loaded.
          So your alternative does not have enough accuracy even in the most general terms.
      4. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 7 November 2019 21: 37 New
        0
        landing operations are small ships and boats, and minesweeping minesweepers ..... the defense of Leningrad was aggravated by the need to protect battleships = burdens, and the loss of one of them right in the port
    2. ABM
      ABM 7 November 2019 14: 42 New
      +1
      Christmas
      1. Sunstorm
        Sunstorm 7 November 2019 15: 13 New
        0
        Seized, I admit
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 7 November 2019 17: 14 New
      +1
      how were the victories, Marinesco drowned the German liner, the little Brig Mercury defeated several huge bulky Turkish ships, More Grengam, the Swedish frigates defeated the boats, which conclusively proves the importance of the submarine fleet and small coastal ships, and the uselessness of surface monsters such as Kuzi and other AB and even more so the superlinkor destroyers leader, all sorts of stupid fishing rods and other surface rubbish there.
  • DWG1905
    DWG1905 7 November 2019 13: 53 New
    +5
    A good article, with the author I basically agree. It’s pointless to have a fleet for the sake of the fleet. The fleet is a means of armed struggle. The development of weapons of war should be guided by the forecast for the development of the international situation for the next 20-30 years. The fleet is primarily needed to protect maritime communications or their violation. Whether our country is tied to maritime communications, say not very. The task of the Northern Sea Route is solved by the development of the railway network, which may not be cheaper, but simpler and more resistant to external influences. So, the task remains to disrupt sea communications, the question of which and whose USA-Europe is too tough for us, we will not break into the Atlantic, unless we rely on underwater robots, in principle, I think the underwater fleet will go this way. The second option is to create an intelligence system for targeting various types of long-range missiles. The second main marine communication is the Middle East - Japan - USA - Australia. Here, of course, it is easier for us, in theory, boats can secretly go into the ocean. But there are thousands of goals in the ocean, there will not be enough resources for all, it is cheaper to endure ports and other infrastructure. But this whole scheme is designed to confront Anglo-Saxon civilization, and it is slowly blown away. Something tells me that the main future conflicts will be on land. The fleet is expensive, the main thing is not to make a mistake with the direction of development. In 1941, one heavy cruiser, in terms of labor intensity, materials and other things, was 600 KV tanks, i.e. tank army. Now I think the ratio has not changed. How long does a cruiser live in battle? A tank army of about two weeks in an offensive operation, until it is withdrawn. Plus, from three broken tanks in 5 days you can collect two, the ship is an irretrievable loss and you can’t quickly build a new one. Therefore, I invite the authors to express their opinion on the forecast of future armed conflicts and the means required for their management, including and marine.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 7 November 2019 14: 04 New
    +2
    And on large ocean expanses, all problems can be solved with the help of submarines.

    Doenitz thought so too.
    At the moment, our submarines even difficult to get out of the base. And without surface ships and aviation PLO, which will drive the adversary’s PLA from our bases, oh solving problems using submarines you can forget - at best our boats will lead from the bases, and at worst they simply will not let them out, putting mines at the base’s exit or hunting for submarines leaving the bases directly in the terraces.

    But even if the PLA succeeds in leaving the base unnoticed, then what next? And then we have a fun ride called crossing the Faroe-Icelandic border. And a meeting with the US Second Fleet, reinforced by NATO Allied PLO forces. And without help from the surface fleet and the Air Force, there our submarines will get bogged down.
    1. Alien From
      Alien From 7 November 2019 23: 41 New
      -1
      Here I myself am completely in solidarity. The entire submarine fleet is simply obliged to be covered by surface ships and PLO aircraft. Otherwise, it's just a target for the adversary. Let's look at the enemy, see how much effort and money they spend on the above. The time has come for us to turn on the head, a bad example of the non-brothers near by.
    2. max702
      max702 8 November 2019 00: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And without help from the surface fleet and the Air Force, there our submarines will get bogged down.

      Based on the fact that the surface fleet whichcan help our submarines in this conflict we can’t even build theoretically, then we don’t need the same PLA .. We are tied up with a game in boats and invested in aviation, space, rockets ..
  • Undecim
    Undecim 7 November 2019 14: 52 New
    +3
    The author’s amazing attempt, according to popular wisdom, is to eat a fish and not to stain a frying pan.
    On the one hand, reverence for patriots and supporters of realism: "And the statistics on the ships we have looks more than sad. Real statistics, and not the one that is loudly shouted about when by 20 ... - the year will be built ..."
    There, across the ocean, everyone already understands perfectly well that nothing will be built. "

    On the other hand - anthrax towards turbopatriots: "Although, I am sure that the submarine missile carriers will fulfill" the whole world in dust. And this is already pleasing. "
    However, as the comments show, the patriots remained dissatisfied, as they understand that the loss of competence in the construction of the surface navy will inevitably lead to the same result in the construction of the submarine and with the end of the Soviet legacy there will be nothing to turn the world to dust with.
    Turbopatriots are also dissatisfied, since they categorically disagree with the loss of prospects for "showing the flag to the Papuans" only from under the water and demand, albeit in the foggy far away, 20 ... a worn-out year of ocean fleets.
    In a word, as they used to say in ancient Nogorod: "Get between two on the legs."
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 7 November 2019 17: 19 New
      +1
      only Nakhimov is enough for the flag, it will be repaired, I’m not sure about Peter, Nakhimov turned out to be very expensive, but in any case, after the profitable sale of Kuzi, the super battleship Nakhimov will plow the oceans for another 15 years.
      1. ABM
        ABM 7 November 2019 23: 54 New
        +3
        one? Yes, at least two of them will plow - what's the point ?! Yes, even accompanied by a squadron, but at least with Kuzey at the same time - without a chance
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 8 November 2019 12: 33 New
          +1
          essentially true, enough frigates to carry flags, time of surface monsters is a thing of the past
  • ABM
    ABM 7 November 2019 15: 08 New
    +3
    Our fleet, in a potential war, will be the hardest! I will not even consider a non-nuclear version of confrontation, a nuclear one - "the whole world in dust", well, maybe they will shoot from the piers. Why is it harder? you will have to fight not with the United States, not even with NATO, with the whole world - to the NATO fleets you need to add Japan, Australia, South Korea, almost all of South America, Thailand, well, and so on. And, with some degree of probability, China. The ratio in ships is 1: 50-100, I think it's real. And without any tension, the whole world, if necessary, will build any armada. What to do with an economy of 1,7% of world GDP? It makes no sense to build ships, and the submarine, too, is "nothing after us", as the author writes, is also a dubious idea, and the supporters of the fleet cling to this; like, then minesweepers are needed, to bring SSBNs out to sea so that minesweepers do not need to be sunk, PLO ships are needed, to cover those destroyers are needed, which are helpless without air cover - therefore, an aircraft carrier is needed ... - after us nothing ”(C).

    And what needs to be done in this situation?
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 7 November 2019 15: 43 New
    +3
    IMHO, I agree.
    Since 2014, they have thrown all their hats, thrown them over, and here again recently: one of the senior officers - the total missile salvo of Amerov’s ...... is equal to the entire fleet of the World Cup .... (I don’t remember the details, alas)
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 7 November 2019 21: 39 New
      +4
      The total salvo of the old, retired by age "Spruance" (no longer in the US Navy) is MORE than the entire salvo of the Black Sea Fleet.
  • ABM
    ABM 7 November 2019 15: 58 New
    +3
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And on large ocean expanses, all problems can be solved with the help of submarines.

    Doenitz thought so too.
    At the moment, our submarines even difficult to get out of the base. And without surface ships and aviation PLO, which will drive the adversary’s PLA from our bases, oh solving problems using submarines you can forget - at best our boats will lead from the bases, and at worst they simply will not let them out, putting mines at the base’s exit or hunting for submarines leaving the bases directly in the terraces.

    But even if the PLA succeeds in leaving the base unnoticed, then what next? And then we have a fun ride called crossing the Faroe-Icelandic border. And a meeting with the US Second Fleet, reinforced by NATO Allied PLO forces. And without help from the surface fleet and the Air Force, there our submarines will get bogged down.

    and the conclusion is that the Strategic Missile Forces will do without these bold experiments. Submarines are also not particularly needed
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 7 November 2019 17: 21 New
      +3
      categorically disagree, putting everything only on the Strategic Missile Forces is dangerous, you still need to have a nuclear submarine, it’s more reliable ..... at least because the potential aggressor is forced to maintain an astronomically different fleet for the Russian apl
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 November 2019 18: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: ABM
      and the conclusion is that the Strategic Missile Forces will do without these bold experiments. Submarines are also not particularly needed

      The ambush is that we are forced to have a normal fleet - at least the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. Just because 40% of our strategic warheads are located on SLBMs. So, you want, you don’t want, but you need to ensure the withdrawal of the SSBN in positional areas.
      1. ABM
        ABM 7 November 2019 18: 13 New
        -1
        Kola Bay, White Sea, Sea of ​​Okhotsk - normal positional areas, almost completely protected from attacks by any means of the enemy
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 7 November 2019 21: 38 New
          +2
          The Sea of ​​Okhotsk is a vulnerable area for submarines; the rest, in general, are not fortresses either.
          1. ABM
            ABM 7 November 2019 23: 45 New
            -1
            The Kuril Straits are protected from penetration by submarines of a potential prospect, practically, the inland sea. Basic anti-submarine aviation will not be able to operate there either - they are far away and they will not destroy all our fighters with axes, there are no other threats to SSBNs.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 8 November 2019 00: 13 New
              +2
              This is nonsense, in reality, everything is exactly the opposite, the hydrology in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is such that American submarines from a great distance detect our SSBNs.
              They just grazed there at one time, as at home.
              Read Heroes of Bangor by Rear Admiral Dudko. It is very instructive there about the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Now Dudko, by his age, writes all kinds of things that he shouldn't, but in general he is the most productive submariner of the USSR, in any case, no one could look at American streets through a periscope and remain unnoticed either before or after him.

              The Americans always came through the fourth Kuril Strait, although this is not the only option.

              There is Fizik M on the website, he was convinced of this from his own experience, "Los Angeles" approached the SSBNs, which their boat was guarding at a distance of launching their torpedoes, took a position between the two boats, then fired a simulated torpedo at them.

              His reactor was at full power, the Americans wanted to provoke a torpedo salvo on their own, record a torpedo shot, take them to the SPGT and leave with a "jerk". They did not manage to pull the volley towards themselves, but they showed an almost instant exit to 30+ nodes then.

              There were such cases in bulk. The Sea of ​​Okhotsk is a trap for our submarines.
              1. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl 10 November 2019 21: 57 New
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                There is Fizik M on the website, he was convinced of this from his own experience, "Los Angeles" approached the SSBNs, which their boat guarded at a distance of launching their torpedoes, took a position between two boats, then fired a simulated torpedo at them
                there is a question, "why" ...?!
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                but in general it is the most productive submariner of the USSR, in any case, no one before or after could look at American streets at the periscope and go unnoticed.
                Is not a fact !!!, that is, you boldly assert that Shevchenko's capraz is a balabol ?! it seemed to me that the elders (with "Apport or Atrina", I do not want to "dive into reference books", he was .... yes, there were later "complaints and murmurs", I read about this too ....) but I spent my operation (of course, not mine, and by order of the General Staff of the Navy at that time) , but successfully and quite productively ... well, it seems to me .... only Gorbachev used the results of such trips not quite adequately .... well then that .... distant philosophy and not productive .....
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 11 November 2019 11: 16 New
                  0
                  there is a question, "why" ...?!


                  I wanted to "drag off" a retaliatory torpedo salvo. Record the noises, the work of the CLS torpedoes, take them to the SGPD, see how it will be in general. They had a reactor at full power, they threw it into heat. When they realized that they would not be shot at by a jerk, they went beyond the detection range, before breaking contact they had 38 knots. So they planned to set in motion simultaneously with the launch of the torpedoes.

                  From the 80s to the late 2000s, they behaved "on the brink of war" under water.

                  Shevchenko failed the operation, this is a well-known fact. The old propaganda chants can no longer be repeated.

                  Failed due to their mistakes - not well-established interaction between boats, oversized speed at transitions.

                  They were tracked back from the Barents Sea.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 7 November 2019 21: 23 New
        0
        firstly, what is a "normal" fleet, and wouldn't it be better to create large air bases in the Northern Fleet and Kamchatka to support the launch of nuclear submarines? And the fleet to support the nuclear submarine, to have several frigates, 1155, minesweepers, MPK, MRK DEPL.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 November 2019 11: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          firstly, what is a "normal" fleet, and wouldn't it be better to create large air bases in the Northern Fleet and Kamchatka to support the launch of nuclear submarines?

          And how will airbases help ensure PLO? We do not have new PLO aircraft (only eight modernized machines built in Soviet times) - we do not even have a fully localized basic civilian aircraft model for their construction.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 8 November 2019 12: 31 New
            0
            already discussed, that 214 (distant), or 114 (near) here is a localized model
      3. max702
        max702 8 November 2019 00: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Just because 40% of our strategic warheads are located on SLBMs. So, you want, you don’t want, but you need to ensure the withdrawal of the SSBN in positional areas.

        Well, we look at the future for 20-30 years at least, therefore we transfer these 40% to other carriers, which, due to the large series, will be much cheaper.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 November 2019 11: 39 New
          0
          Quote: max702
          Well, we look at the future for 20-30 years at least, therefore these 40% are transferred to other carriers

          These 20-30 years are precisely the service life of the new Boreyevs. So the Navy will have to provide their deployment.
  • Eugene (Eugene)
    Eugene (Eugene) 7 November 2019 17: 19 New
    +3
    Roman, an interesting article. But a submarine fleet alone cannot solve the problem, a potential enemy has a lot of anti-aircraft weapons, a variety of means, and there are also enough hunter boats. Overall a good analysis. Good luck, I look forward to new publications. When you look at the parade of ships (Navy), you see how some of them are panting, barely walking, and how much money actually goes to the parade to demonstrate "strength".
  • Basarev
    Basarev 7 November 2019 17: 39 New
    +3
    In my opinion, you overestimate the role of boats and the power of atomic weapons. Boats can only go where aviation allows them. That is, in the event of a serious upheaval, the enemy will raise anti-submarine aircraft - and the boats will not go anywhere, they will not launch a single missile. Boats are not omnipotent, they cannot solve all problems, as the article writes.
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 8 November 2019 22: 08 New
      0
      Quote: Basarev
      That is, in the event of a serious upheaval, the enemy will raise anti-submarine aircraft - and the boats will not go anywhere, they will not launch a single missile. Boats are not omnipotent, they cannot solve all problems, as the article writes.
      Well, this ... At the time of "Apport" and "Atrina", there were anti-submarine aircraft, but it also turned out to be a panacea ...?! The trouble is that now we do not have such a number of SSNS ... and I would welcome "a sufficient number of modern analogs of the same RTMK" (at the modern technological level, in the same or less VI), instead of building only 7 " Ash "(no matter how good they are in advertising MO), but apparently, so far, in reality, they are far from so good, at an exorbitantly fabulous price, and this is now, and in reality ...
  • ABM
    ABM 7 November 2019 18: 16 New
    0
    Quote: Max1995
    IMHO, I agree.
    Since 2014, they have thrown all their hats, thrown them over, and here again recently: one of the senior officers - the total missile salvo of Amerov’s ...... is equal to the entire fleet of the World Cup .... (I don’t remember the details, alas)

    destroyer ... well, on the Black Sea, our ships are needed exactly for a local conflict
  • Old Horseradish
    Old Horseradish 7 November 2019 20: 08 New
    -2
    I recognize the "hand of the master." So, everything we have is rotten - and this is true, but the conclusion of the "master of the pen" makes completely unexpected: it is necessary to stamp submarines. I would give even better advice: we need to make more motor boats and put machine guns on them.
    So, instead of a serious analysis, there is some kind of Tolstoyism. No, we will have a fleet. When "THEM" is gone, then a real fleet will be built. Russia to be. But this is in the future. In the meantime, we must wait and, probably, endure. Until you endure.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 7 November 2019 21: 37 New
    -1
    National Interest is a dump. It’s better not to comment on it, so as not to get dirty.
  • NordOst16
    NordOst16 7 November 2019 22: 16 New
    0
    The only question is who will cover the nagas nuclear submarines in the open ocean from anti-submarine aircraft? Otherwise, they will also be tied to the shore. And with a weak economy, we will not be able to build a sufficient number of nuclear missile carriers
    1. ABM
      ABM 7 November 2019 23: 50 New
      0
      they will shoot back from the pier, what should they do in the ocean? instead of 30 minutes of flight to the goal to achieve a 20-minute result? what for? let 10 minutes live
      1. max702
        max702 8 November 2019 00: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: ABM
        they will shoot back from the pier, what should they do in the ocean?

        And what's the point in them then? Is the pier shooting platform expensive? Can I give up strategic missile forces? There will obviously be more sense.
        1. NordOst16
          NordOst16 8 November 2019 10: 43 New
          +1
          For the marine component of the triad, we need a fleet that can ensure their safe deployment and on duty, ours, it seems to me, is either not capable of doing it or is doing it to the limit.
          And to abandon the strategic nuclear forces is to sign the inability of the fleet to carry out its tasks
        2. ABM
          ABM 8 November 2019 10: 50 New
          +1
          in fact of the matter
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 November 2019 12: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: ABM
        they will shoot back from the pier, what should they do in the ocean?

        Ensure the inevitability of retaliation.
        Because shooting from piers is a Russian roulette with a half-full drum: the start order will come in time and the RPKSN will have time to work it out before the mushrooms begin to rise above the base - or not in time. Moreover, if they didn’t have time, then the enemy at the price of only 8-10 NWS is guaranteed to disable one third of the strategic nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation.
        But if the SSBN secretly entered the position area, then you can search for it there for a long and tedious way. Especially if the approaches to the area are covered by the forces of the fleet. And not the fact that the SSBN will be detected before it launches.
        The main "feature" of the naval component of the nuclear triad is the secrecy and unknown location of SSBNs, which ensure their survival even in the event of a successful first enemy strike on ground and air components. That guarantees the inevitability of a retaliatory strike of power unacceptable to the enemy.
        1. ABM
          ABM 8 November 2019 13: 48 New
          +1
          go on! and to ensure it is necessary to cover the area, which requires the creation of the KPUG, special operations forces, mine-sweeping forces, multipurpose submarines - all of which should be covered by means of aviation and air defense, and it would be nice to deck, which will allow you to move position areas closer to enemy territory ... we have 1.7% of world GDP by the end of last year, we are building frigates for 10 years! what are you speaking about?
        2. lifelong couch potato
          lifelong couch potato 9 November 2019 02: 38 New
          0
          The main "trick" of the naval component of the nuclear triad .... Please read my comments ... Will the inevitability of a retaliatory strike with an unacceptable power for the enemy be guaranteed?
        3. lifelong couch potato
          lifelong couch potato 9 November 2019 02: 40 New
          0
          The main "trick" of the naval component of the nuclear triad .... Please read my comments ... Will the inevitability of a retaliatory strike with an unacceptable power for the enemy be guaranteed?
        4. lifelong couch potato
          lifelong couch potato 9 November 2019 03: 14 New
          -2
          lagging behind life: I will answer here.
          The first 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.
          A bitter joke, but for decades they could not create their cars (trucks and cars) without the participation of foreigners. And such examples - a lot!
          The second is a military problem. Even officially in the open press it was said that almost all submarines - both missile, and hunters, and special ones - graze at least the American submarine fleet. Each missile carrier is followed by two American submarines, which are waiting for the missile carriers at the stage of leaving the base. There are not enough normal ships, planes, helicopters and boats to drive off the adversary or provide a 100% secretive exit. If in the north there is still some chance, then in Kamchatka an incoming-outgoing boat is in full view! Only the surface position plus the ebbs and flows: with my own eyes I saw everything. In the north, the Americans are pushing with might and main under the ice even in groups: they are preparing for war under the ice ... Moral: at the time of X or the tank the tank lives up to 15 minutes, and how long will the missile carriers reach and manage to launch at least two rockets each? I don’t want to speak for the rest of the fleet (and the army): look at the first problem.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 8 November 2019 12: 20 New
    0
    Everything is written correctly. Especially with regards to the BF and the Black Sea Fleet. At the present time, due to the fact that these theaters are "shot through" to the entire depth of even a coastal-based anti-ship missiles, a surface fleet is simply not needed there.
  • ABM
    ABM 8 November 2019 13: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Ivanchester
    And how would you send these divisions and brigades to the Far East?
    There was no BTA then, you personally refused the fleet, and the Trans-Siberian Railway was already fully loaded.
    So your alternative does not have enough accuracy even in the most general terms.


    I don’t deal with alternatives - you can invent anything.
  • ABM
    ABM 8 November 2019 14: 11 New
    0

    Quote: Ivanchester
    And how would you send these divisions and brigades to the Far East?
    There was no BTA then, you personally refused the fleet, and the Trans-Siberian Railway was already fully loaded.
    So your alternative does not have enough accuracy even in the most general terms.


    From the fleet? where are the ROPiT and Dobroflot ships? The Trans-Siberian Railway and the VKZHD (East China Railway, later renamed the CER) were completely completed by 1903. No, I can dream up alternatives
  • ABM
    ABM 8 November 2019 15: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Ivanchester
    Do you essentially have objections to the fact that the fleet played an important role in the annexation (or, if you like, retention) of these territories?


    in retention - no objection
  • ABM
    ABM 8 November 2019 15: 14 New
    0
    Quote: Ivanchester
    Ochakov is a city in New Russia that was annexed just during the 1787-1791 war.
    I have already written about the order of establishment of the Black Sea Fleet and the annexation of Crimea above.


    On July 10 (21), 1783, Potemkin sent a message to the empress with the news of the final resolution of the Crimean problem from the camp at Karasubazar: “All the noblemen have already sworn an oath, and now everything will follow. It’s even more pleasant and glorious for you that everyone has resorted to your power with joy. True, there was a lot of difficulty because of the timidity of the Tatars, who were afraid of breaking the law, but according to my assurances, made by them, they are now so calm and cheerful, as if a century had lived with us.

    The document that formalized the formation of the Black Sea Fleet was the empress's decree of August 24 (13), 1785 "On orders for the establishment and management of the Black Sea Fleet and the Admiralty"

    it’s a little impossible - which, however, doesn’t matter
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad 9 November 2019 01: 43 New
    -1
    after the words below
    And Russia did not cope with this task in the same way as Ukraine, everything is exactly the same, the difference in scale.


    you can no longer read it because next comes the next analytical diarrhea from analyte experts on the Russian fleet. And what is interesting in the same 90s, when the entire Russian fleet rotted near the mooring wall, not a single ship was put into operation, the number of such articles was approaching to zero.
    Now everyone on the topic of the Russian fleet is writing in all corners of the world and everywhere the red line passes that our fleet has come to an end.
    From which I conclude that the state of our fleet is getting better, they notice it and try to defame it.
  • lifelong couch potato
    lifelong couch potato 9 November 2019 02: 29 New
    -1
    The first 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.
    A bitter joke, but for decades they could not create their cars (trucks and cars) without the participation of foreigners. And such examples - a lot!
    The second is a military problem. Even officially in the open press it was said that almost all submarines - both missile, and hunters, and special ones - graze at least the American submarine fleet. Each missile carrier is followed by two American submarines, which are waiting for the missile carriers at the stage of leaving the base. There are not enough normal ships, planes, helicopters and boats to drive off the adversary or provide a 100% secretive exit. If in the north there is still some chance, then in Kamchatka an incoming-outgoing boat is in full view! Only the surface position plus the ebbs and flows: with my own eyes I saw everything. In the north, the Americans are pushing with might and main under the ice even in groups: they are preparing for war under the ice ... Moral: at the time of X or the tank the tank lives up to 15 minutes, and how long will the missile carriers reach and manage to launch at least two rockets each? I don’t want to speak for the rest of the fleet (and the army): look at the first problem.
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 10 November 2019 21: 43 New
    0
    The British spent six years on their Type 45 destroyer, the Americans spent four years on Arly Burke, the Japanese four years on Atago (which is a destroyer), and the Chinese four years on Type 052D.
    good question?!. probably due to the fact that we currently do not have operating plants ( not a fact, regarding the construction of the buildings themselves ...), which, upon request - "even tomorrow", would be ready, would have been provided either by a SAC similar to Polynom or Zvezda-2 .... (suitable for ships of the first rank, of this class, with modern performance requirements), or (info. 2) oblique PU for "Onyx / Caliber / Zircon", which, as it were, suggests itself from the information of the same site - "Agat Inform System" or - https://ansokolov39.livejournal.com/2056680.html, but they are not stubbornly ordered by the Navy (as a customer, direct), / but this is perhaps the main problem, [b] [/ b] by no one regarding the performers /manufacturers, or manufacturers/, for this customer ?! This is a mystery not only for me, but also for Timokhin, Dante (Kirill), and for many other VO visitors .... the trouble is that there is no answer, ....?! not reaction, to such requests ... Do not browse VO sites, even out of curiosity ?! or do not pose questions to "neighbor sycophants" after viewing the site, - "And why such questions arise, in fact - AAA ?!"... in my opinion, this question would give rise to a normal one (I don’t believe that it is excessive, as they are in awe of Stalin, but close to that, almost “maximum” productivity) - when communicating with the “supreme”, on the issues of renewing a capable Navy ... Well, this is of course my subjective ... so simple, point of view ...
  • Ham
    Ham 14 November 2019 19: 10 New
    0
    Roma Skomorokhov needs to be the President! he would have shown you all ... but if it is serious it is like the Soviet government and personally comrade. Dzhugashvili in the 30s was accused of "insufficient pace of building the fleet"