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?
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.