The development of the Russian Navy: is it worth trying to sit down on all the chairs at once

68

All the talk about the prospects of our country creating a modern and powerful naval fleetAs a rule, sooner or later they come down to a discussion of the main question: what and how much to build? Each of the warships is in its own way necessary, in its own way demanded, designed to perform specific tasks. In a word, everyone is needed and everyone is important! However, as the classic wrote, one cannot “grasp the immensity” or sit on all chairs at once (from corvettes to cruisers): even the United States with its defense budget, which is on the verge of fantasy, cannot afford to lay the “dimensionless” navy. Obviously, you still have to make a choice. But which one?

It should be noted that in this matter the opinions of experts inevitably clash, each of which, hoarsely, will uphold a point of view based on a commitment to certain types and types of ships. Someone believes that Russia can not claim to be a maritime power, without actually having a single aircraft carrier. Others are convinced that in order to achieve strategic parity, a sufficiently large number of submarine missile carriers will be enough for the eyes, capable of both turning American aircraft-carrying attack groups into piles of scrap metal, and hitting targets on the territory of a likely enemy. In their own way, those who continue to insist on the need to saturate the Russian Navy with the same frigates that are necessary in modern conditions to protect and defend the country's borders and quickly respond to threats will be right in their own way.



As already mentioned, the option to “build everything at once” is hardly feasible for Russia. With this approach, we risk getting a lot of ships laid on the stocks, which will turn into costly and unpromising "long-term construction," morally obsolete even before the moment we launch ourselves. Of course, all segments of the Russian Navy are subject to updating and strengthening, but priorities must be chosen now. Perhaps it is worthwhile to soberly weigh the options of exactly which theaters in which our fleet may be most in demand in the coming years. Objectively consider the prospects of possible scenarios of confrontations in which the presence or absence of the Russian Navy’s potential for a worthy response to the enemy will determine the further course of events.

According to many experts, the most conflict-prone regions requiring significant fleet cover can be considered quite remote from each other. We are talking about the Black Sea, the Baltic, the Northern Sea Route and the entry points to it, as well as the Asia-Pacific basin. In the last of the aforementioned places, the military-political confrontation between the United States and China is becoming increasingly aggravated, but Russia has its own very specific interests there. We should not forget about the ongoing disputes between our country and Japan, which has territorial claims against Russia and refuse them, apparently, not going to.

The Black Sea water area has lately been fraught with danger of conflict with Turkey, which theoretically could result in the need for confrontation with the united fleet of the whole of NATO. As for the situation with the Northern Sea Route, then there, without a doubt, we will have to deal primarily with the 2nd fleet of the US Navy. Well, and again with the number of American allies in the North Atlantic Alliance that the United States will be able to connect to its own operations.

Do we need the same aircraft carriers on these potential theater of operations? Pretty controversial. Unless in the Pacific Ocean. But without modern submarines can not do, perhaps, nowhere. On the same Black Sea, frigates and ships, capable of operating effectively in the coastal zone, are certainly necessary. The construction of the fleet is an extremely serious matter, and manilism and hatred are unacceptable here. Without a doubt, over time, as the radius of the sphere of Russia's geopolitical interests grows, so to speak, aircraft carriers will be in demand. However, realism and pragmatism should now become the main approaches in the vital planning of the future fleet.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    27 February 2020 06: 42
    Transport-landing, universally landing ships and supply and support ships are very necessary ... With them now generally
    1. +3
      27 February 2020 10: 57
      Quote: svp67
      Transport-landing, universally landing ships and supply and support ships are very necessary ... With them now generally

      I would also add ships, and PLO aviation.
      UDC and TDK also need a security order from the same frigates / corvettes, BOD / MPK and PL.
      1. +3
        27 February 2020 13: 38
        Quote: PSih2097
        need a security order from the same frigates / corvettes, BOD / MPK and PL

        Well, these at least appear ...
        1. +1
          27 February 2020 21: 50
          Quote: svp67
          Well, these at least appear ...

          With PLO everything is, if not very bad, then just bad ... there was an article about the write-off of the BOD "Kerch" ... Everything is written there in the comments.
    2. +3
      27 February 2020 11: 08
      Who is stopping you from buying a dozen roller skaters in China, Indonesia or South Korea?
      Compared with the proposals of domestic shipbuilders, they will cost mere pennies.
      1. +1
        27 February 2020 21: 51
        Quote: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH
        Who is stopping you from buying a dozen roller skaters in China, Indonesia or South Korea?

        we don’t have VTOL aircraft like the British did during the Fockland War ...
        1. +1
          29 February 2020 07: 48
          Quote: PSih2097
          we do not have VTOL aircraft

          Yakovleva’s design bureau is just now preoccupied with them.
          1. 0
            29 February 2020 17: 44
            Quote: bayard
            Quote: PSih2097
            we do not have VTOL aircraft

            Yakovleva’s design bureau is just now preoccupied with them.

            the finished project is also concerned - different things ...
            1. +1
              29 February 2020 17: 49
              There were enough promising projects. According to one of them, the F-35V was typeset, using the designers of Yakovlev Design Bureau. And since they have been working on the project for three years now, apparently there has been a sketch for a long time, but no one is making noise - designing is a long business.
              And the engine is not ready yet (most likely it will be based on the "Product-30"). But by the end of the construction of the UDC (those that will be laid in Kerch on May 9), the result will most likely be.
              I hope so.
  2. +1
    27 February 2020 06: 51
    There have been many controversies and will continue to be ..... one thing is clear, many "sitting chairs" are harmful.
    1. 0
      27 February 2020 09: 36
      to sit - for decided. standing at the post (even in a sitting chair) is quite different.
      mentioned the division of Antarctica after 2040 - must be prepared now
      1. +1
        27 February 2020 09: 52
        So it is necessary, to set priorities correctly, to do what is necessary tomorrow.
      2. 0
        27 February 2020 21: 53
        Quote: antivirus
        mentioned the division of Antarctica after 2040

        we by that time will be on the drum, most members of the forum simply will not live up to this time ...
        Quote: rocket757
        So it is necessary, to set priorities correctly, to do what is necessary tomorrow.

        And who needs it? from existing?
        1. 0
          28 February 2020 08: 33
          means there is both the term itself and the matter of Victory - "people of long will", but not in VO.
          the psychology of warrant officers swallowed up VO- "we are not badly fed here", that's enough for our century, after 2043 - beyond the horizon of readers.
    2. 0
      22 March 2020 16: 27
      The fleet must be born comprehensively, you miss one link and all count the fleet is not.
  3. +3
    27 February 2020 06: 54
    Russia does not need to spend money on aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers. Enough destroyers, light cruisers and boats. As the experience of both World Wars showed, the fleet simply stood idle and had absolutely no influence on the strategic situation on the fronts, all the fighting on land decided everything. All these millions and billions of full-fledged tsarist and Stalinist rubles were wasted. It would be better if this money would be spent on the construction of new plants, and not puffed up with battleships, trying to stand on one foot with England, France and Japan. During World War I, sailors who were stupid from idleness became the detonator of the February Revolution, which caused the subsequent collapse of the country, the shameful defeat of the defeated Germany, the Civil War and the tens of millions of people killed in the fighting, famine and epidemics. In the Great Patriotic War, sailors were used as ordinary infantry, since there was nowhere to use sailors anymore. Unless you need to intensively build submarines with nuclear missiles, which are the main scarecrow for our sworn partners.
    1. +4
      27 February 2020 07: 08
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Unless you need to intensively build nuclear-powered submarine cruisers

      I agree, you can endlessly grind projects like a super-aircraft carrier, a destroyer, and so on at exhibitions. We build the best nuclear submarines in the world. If we are not now able to build missile cruisers and destroyers, then maybe an exit in missile submarines? Yes, strategic missile submarine cruisers (RPK SN) in operational terms are not so much related to the Navy as to means of nuclear deterrence (SNF), nevertheless, these are combat ships. And the salvo of such a ship is in no way weaker than that of a surface colleague. We are not even talking about stealth. In general, in terms of the number of RPK SN, if we are lagging behind the United States, then this lag is not so critical. So is it worth spending time, money and brains of designers on creating empty projects such as the Shtorm aircraft carrier or the destroyer " Leader "if today we are simply not able to organize the production of elementary propulsion systems for destroyers and frigates? If our ships run on Chinese diesel engines? I think the answer is obvious - we need to balance needs and capabilities ..
      1. -1
        27 February 2020 09: 14
        Quote: DMB 75
        So is it worth spending time, money and brains of designers on creating empty projectors such as the aircraft carrier "Storm" or the destroyer "Leader"

        These are pure export projects, as well as Almaty, Terminators, etc. Only here the buyers say - put them into service, and we'll see. Here you have to puff up.
      2. +4
        27 February 2020 09: 45
        Unfortunately, to be honest with ourselves, the best submarines are still building striped beetles.
      3. +2
        27 February 2020 12: 15
        Quote: DMB 75
        If we are now unable to build missile cruisers and destroyers, then maybe a solution to missile submarines?

        ... which right at the exit from the base will fall into the open arms of the "moose" and "Virginia". smile
        The SSBN requires protection for normal operation. He even needs cover to exit the base.
        1. 0
          28 February 2020 23: 10
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: DMB 75
          If we are now unable to build missile cruisers and destroyers, then maybe a solution to missile submarines?

          ... which right at the exit from the base will fall into the open arms of the "moose" and "Virginia". smile
          The SSBN requires protection for normal operation. He even needs cover to exit the base.

          Here ... If there is no way to ensure the withdrawal of SSBNs from their bases, then why are they needed? We cannot build a fleet for these actions! Therefore, we remove this component from the strategic nuclear forces board .. We compensate with the number in the Strategic Missile Forces, which will be much more reliable, and with a large series, it is an order of magnitude cheaper than another most expensive branch of the strategic nuclear forces .. As a result, we do not need to build an expensive fleet, there will be enough multipurpose nuclear submarines, frigates, corvettes, minesweepers and RTOs, all of the above we are less able to build .. SSBNs to convert into CD carriers, especially "Zircon" on the way .. Then there will be enough funds and the fleet will have such a meaning ..
    2. -1
      27 February 2020 07: 27
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Russia does not need to spend money on aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers.

      then continue in the same spirit that Russia does not need to spend money on aviation, tanks .... you only need air defense and strategic missile forces .... negative
      1. +2
        27 February 2020 07: 37
        Actually, I didn’t say anything about the ground forces. Russia is a continental power, it has many neighbors around its borders. These are island states like England and Japan that emphasize the fleet, since they do not have land borders with other countries and the main protection for them is the fleet, not the army. The United States can also be considered an island state, since Canada and Mexico can not be considered opponents of the United States. Therefore, Russia must first of all make efforts for the army and aviation, and the fleet can be financed on a residual basis.
        1. -5
          27 February 2020 09: 18
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Actually, I didn’t say anything about the ground forces. Russia continental power

          I didn’t read further, since this is nonsense of the liberal - study geography (the length of the coastline of the Russian Federation) and do not shout that half is in the ice negative
          1. 0
            27 February 2020 10: 36
            Well, the AUG will come to Tiksi, Dixon, Anadyr. And then what? Will the brave American marines reach the Krasnoyarsk, Novosibirsk and Omsk through the tundra and taiga? Do not write nonsense. The entire northern and Far Eastern coast of Russia freezes in winter, with the exception of the coast of the Kola Peninsula and Avacha Bay.
        2. +3
          27 February 2020 23: 38
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Therefore, Russia must first of all make efforts on the army and aviation, and the fleet can be financed on a residual basis.

          Well stupid! (with) M.N. Zadornov
          Kuzya, "strategists" like you, brought the Fleet to its present state ...
          And this despite the fact that it is from the sea that the pin-dos are planning to deliver the first, disarming strike ... It is the MPRO that becomes the "fence" on the path of our land-based ICBMs (Except for Sarmat, but it is not yet there!) It is by sea that they will be transported to ETVD its heavy weapons and a contingent of "super soldiers".
          As you can see, the desire to remain "one-armed" is a distinctive feature of sofa theorists, like you, Kuzya the Cat.
          AHA.
    3. 0
      27 February 2020 07: 48
      Sorry, for almost everything you wrote, stupidity.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      As the experience of both World Wars showed, the fleet simply stood idle and had absolutely no influence on the strategic position on the fronts

      The defense of Leningrad, the escort of convoys in the North, the defense and liberation of the Black Sea cities, this is the strategy as it is.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      During World War I, sailors stupid from idleness became the detonator of the February Revolution, which caused the subsequent collapse of the country, a shameful defeat from defeated Germany
      Tsaristyushka, as if not to relate to him, was overthrown by the generals who had changed the oath.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      In the Great Patriotic War, sailors were used as simple infantry, since there was nowhere to use sailors more

      Was the defense of Leningrad, the escort of convoys in the North, the defense and liberation of the Black Sea cities by sea elves carried out?
      1. +3
        27 February 2020 08: 11
        .
        The defense of Leningrad, the escort of convoys in the North, the defense and liberation of the Black Sea cities, this is the strategy as it is.
        In fact, Leningrad was defended from land. Why then the same Tallinn fleet did not protect? Until the summer of 1944, the Baltic Fleet did not show its nose beyond the Gulf of Finland, since the Germans simply stupidly pulled the net and covered everything with mines. Convoys in the North could be carried out by the Allies. And you should not exaggerate the Northern Lend-Lease Way, 25% of the total Lend-Lease was spent on it. As for the Black Sea cities, the fleet did not defend Odessa, Sevastopol, Kerch and Taman in any way. Yes, and liberated the Black Sea cities again from land.
        . Tsaristyushka, as if not to relate to him, was overthrown by the generals who had changed the oath.
        The riots in Petrograd in February 1917 began the sailors of the Baltic Fleet.
        . Was the defense of Leningrad, the escort of convoys in the North, the defense and liberation of the Black Sea cities by sea elves carried out?
        See the answer above. And by the way, the same sniper Zaitsev was a sailor, and moreover a personnel one. But he fought as an infantryman.
        1. +3
          27 February 2020 14: 01
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          The riots in Petrograd in February 1917 began the sailors of the Baltic Fleet.

          The riots in Petrograd started the population - the Bread riots. And, apparently, it was the true authors of February, the very "elite" who wanted the power, that organized the food shortage in the capital.
          And the sailors in Petrograd - there was a cat crying. The fleet sat in Helsingfors, Revel and Kronstadt. If anyone took an active part in the riots, these were army reservists.
    4. 0
      27 February 2020 08: 07
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      During World War I, sailors who were stupid from idleness became the detonator of the February Revolution, which caused the subsequent collapse of the country, the shameful defeat of the defeated Germany, the Civil War and the tens of millions of people killed in the fighting, famine and epidemics.

      The sailors did not want to go to the front, to the German barbed wire, where, according to the infirmary, the sweetest aromas of German chlorine with mustard gas are floating to the ear-caressing accompaniment of the explosions of German shells and bombs.
    5. +4
      27 February 2020 09: 01
      In the early nineties, similar speeches were conducted. De why Russia needs a fleet, and the Black Sea Fleet especially ...
      . Closed sea, and generally useless fleet .. Time proves the opposite! Both heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers are needed, submarines are needed, tugboats and melt. workshops, shipyards ... etc. ... And the workhorses of MRK and IPC are needed! Another thing is that all this is very, very expensive.
    6. +3
      27 February 2020 12: 13
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      During World War I, sailors who were stupid from idleness became the detonator of the February Revolution, which caused the subsequent collapse of the country, the shameful defeat of the defeated Germany, the Civil War and the tens of millions of people killed in the fighting, famine and epidemics.

      Oh yes ... but Guchkov, Milyukov, Rodzianko, Alekseev and other financial-industrial-military-political "elite" are not at all involved here. Well it was the sailors who sent telegrams to the Emperor and demanded renunciation. It was the sailors who made problems with the delivery of bread to Petrograd. And undoubtedly the sailors came to Nicholas on the royal train for the act of abdication. smile
      The sailors in February were not a detonator, but sheep in the change of the state system arranged by the "elite".
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Unless you need to intensively build submarines with nuclear missiles, which are the main scarecrow for our sworn partners.

      And here we again find ourselves in the situation described by Krylov.
      By themselves, SSBNs do not make sense - they need to somehow be withdrawn from the base and brought to the positioning area. For if we accept the concept of “shooting from the berths,” then SSBNs are not needed for this - the same PGRKs will be more effective and tenacious.
      So we need OVR. They built an IDF - he pulled along the coastal aircraft for his cover.
      OVR ensured the SSBN exit from the base - now we need to ensure a safe transition to the position area. That is, we need our own ICAPL and FR / BOD to combat the ICAPL of the enemy / cleans the area. But the FR needs air cover, because the enemy will not calmly look at how someone is hunting for his nuclear submarines. And in the end, this whole chain ends with the need to build an AB. smile
    7. -1
      22 March 2020 16: 29
      With one condition, that you personally and your children would serve on mosquito forces and the first to go into battle against the AUG.
  4. +4
    27 February 2020 06: 58
    Nonsense all this. Need yachts for the oligarchs, and several. They are being built, the cost reaches 400 million euros like that of the coal king of Siberia Melnichenko

    And you about some warships.
    1. -15
      27 February 2020 08: 51
      You were not told in childhood that envy is bad?
      Earn as much as Melnichenko, and buy the Russian Federation a pair of 20380.
    2. -8
      27 February 2020 09: 04
      Quote: avia12005
      Need yachts for the oligarchs, and several. They are being built, the cost reaches 400 million euros like that of the coal king of Siberia Melnichenko

      One of the deadly sins of greed (this is the oligarchs) and envy, this is some comrades ...
    3. +3
      27 February 2020 13: 47
      Then all that remains is to "dispossess" the oligarchs and re-equip their confiscated yachts with missiles. smile
      1. 0
        28 February 2020 08: 07
        Good idea. Only this Melnichenko is not a resident of the Russian Federation, and does not pay taxes with us. There are persistent rumors that he is also a citizen of Belarus, and is one of the oligarchs there. And he receives money from the territory of the Russian Federation. Such is the "leavened patriotism".
  5. +3
    27 February 2020 07: 37
    It is necessary to be able to build everything, to have technical achievements. Diesel, gas turbines, nuclear reactors with turbines, VNU, radars, sonars, rockets; the best in the world. But the fleet, with all the most advanced, has a compact, with powerful aviation and coastal support.
    1. +4
      27 February 2020 08: 04
      We are talking about the Black Sea, the Baltic, the Northern Sea Route and its entry points, as well as the Asia-Pacific
      Four directions! And everything needs to be provided! And it was very difficult, even for the USSR, and even more so now.
      1. +3
        27 February 2020 08: 58
        It seems to me the most dangerous now are the Mediterranean and the Asia-Pacific.
        1. +3
          27 February 2020 09: 26
          Quote: Cyrus
          most dangerous

          All directions are dangerous now .... And always!
      2. -6
        27 February 2020 09: 32
        Four directions!

        Yes. But they were never involved at the same time.
        It is necessary to predict the most probable, and such, where one cannot do without a fleet.
        My vision:
        Baltic - the fleet is not needed.
        The Black Sea is a regional auxiliary fleet.
        North - submarines, frigates PLO, aviation.
        The Far East is now the most dangerous direction. The main destabilizing factor is the territorial claims of Japan.
        The Japanese had already suddenly started wars twice. Now, with the support of the United States, they may well try to “squeeze” the disputed islands.
        Without a fleet, they cannot be displaced.
        The composition of this fleet is a question for professionals.
  6. -2
    27 February 2020 08: 06
    Remember, in the days of the USSR there were "sponsored" ships? "Komsomolets Kuzbassa" or something similar? And now the authorities need to "oblige" to build "Businessman of the Moscow Region", "Businessman of Leningrad", "Showbiz of Moscow" and so on. Name it, of course, then change it.)))
    1. 0
      27 February 2020 09: 33
      "Fanners pops", "Sharkers Sochi", "Thimblers of the Moscow region", "Kidaly",
      "Legal Businessmen", "Shadows", "Tough Boys", "Specific Boys"
      "Offshore and Business", "Honest Developers" ....
      1. +4
        27 February 2020 14: 02
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        "Legal Businessmen", "Honest Developers"

        M-yes ... these ships with chefs were unlucky. laughing
        By the way, there is also the third ship in the series - "Honest Politicians".
    2. -2
      27 February 2020 11: 20
      It is logical.) It’s possible, and the drug trafficker of Moscow ,, This ship ,, chiefs ,, in general, will be covered with gold, on the proceeds from the ,, labor activity, means ..))
      1. -4
        27 February 2020 11: 49
        "Worker of Tverskoy", "Worker from Leningradka"))) laughing
    3. 0
      28 February 2020 14: 06
      you can simply oblige, and immediately give the names normal ... Storm, Guardian, etc.
  7. +1
    27 February 2020 08: 16
    In order not to try to sit on several chairs, it is necessary to develop a universal ship.
    Large submarine landing missile aircraft carrier anti-submarine minesweeper ...
    To equip it with Zircons, Caliber, Poseidons, lasers, S-500, deck Su-57, load Armata and Boomerangs in the hold, dress the personnel in Ratnik equipment and tremble the NATO bloc partners.
    The only thing I did not decide with which pistol to equip the crew and the landing party instead of Makarov ...
    1. +3
      27 February 2020 09: 24
      Quote: Professor Preobrazhensky
      personnel

      Forgot to include the armored-horse division of underwater skiers on dog teams!
    2. 0
      27 February 2020 14: 03
      Quote: Professor Preobrazhensky
      decked Su-57

      I hope with "Dagger"? wink
  8. +4
    27 February 2020 08: 32
    Realism and pragmatism, so now called attempts to ditch and prevent the development of the fleet, hmm interesting.
  9. +2
    27 February 2020 08: 48
    In the United States there is a Ministry of the Navy .. Which decides. In the Russian Federation, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy is practically a nominal figure. Fleets are included in the composition of the DRYOKhUTNY okrugs. ALL are again not decided by sailors.
    And they build, mostly "trifle". "Breakthroughs" like frigates, if there is a foreign order. Then something will break off for itself. Shipyards have turned into shipyards, there is nowhere to repair nuclear submarines. During the time it takes to repair (without modernization ???) a patrol ship, the Chinese launch several destroyers, which Russia practically does not have.
    T, E need to raise / equip enterprises. Well, and without import substitution, all conversations are in vain.
    And to build what we can not stand any budget.
    1. +4
      27 February 2020 14: 40
      Quote: knn54
      In the Russian Federation, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy is practically a nominal figure. Fleets are included in the composition of the DRYOKhUTNY okrugs. ALL are again not decided by sailors.

      It's even worse and more confusing. Now part of the fleets is subordinate to the districts, and part has central subordination (USC "Northern Fleet"). And for greater joy, now the sailors have subordinated the army and aviators.
      On the same bf complexity it blooms and smells: ZVO commands the fleet, and the fleet commands the army corps and the air force stationed in the Kaliningrad region.
  10. +2
    27 February 2020 08: 53
    The article does not contain any information. absolutely empty.
    For check?
  11. +4
    27 February 2020 08: 55
    An unjustified point of view that does not take into account the peculiarities of Russian foreign policy, for example, be there now a naval strike carrier group from the Syrian coast, at least from Kuznetsov, Moscow, Ustinov + a pair of BOD + a pair of nuclear submarines 949A, Turkey is unlikely to be aggressive.
    Nuclear submarines without surface forces = suicide bombers.
    Against a more / less powerful opponent, both frigates and corvettes are powerless, capable of heroic death no more.
    Further, from all the places of potential confrontation that you indicated (for some reason they forgotten the Middle-earth), on the TF, on the North Sea Route and in the Mediterranean Sea, it is precisely the ships of the 1st rank (real, not miserable ersatz models), cruisers, aircraft carriers and destroyers, that are needed.
    1. -2
      27 February 2020 11: 01
      Quote: Cyrus
      for example, be a naval strike carrier group now off the coast of Syria, at least from Kuznetsov, Moscow, Ustinov + a pair of BODs + a pair of nuclear submarines 949A, it is unlikely that Turkey was also aggressive.
      Nothing would have changed because the ship group will not help storm Idlib, and Turkey is not the country that Russia can "force to peace" without consequences. Unlike the fleet, planes and ground units are really needed and useful, for which you need to spend resources.
      1. 0
        28 February 2020 15: 32
        This is your point of view, just yours.
  12. -4
    27 February 2020 11: 15
    We are not an island state, like England? .. Let it have a “powerful” fleet. Although this statement is relative. But we must have a fleet. Modern and combat ready. So, we pay taxes, and let the strategists from the MO think for themselves. I am sure that there are experienced and smart people.
  13. -7
    27 February 2020 11: 56
    Realism in the construction of the domestic Navy:
    - two types of NK (frigate with a displacement of 4000 tons and a corvette with a displacement of 1000 tons);
    - two types of nuclear submarines (ICAPL with a displacement of 1000 tons and a nuclear submarine with a displacement of 44 tons).

    The rest is for remelting.
    1. +3
      28 February 2020 00: 15
      Quote: Operator
      two types of nuclear submarines (ICAPL with a displacement of 1000 tons and a nuclear submarine with a displacement of 44 tons).

      Oh how ... But the men don’t know! (with)
      For what the French are "aesthetic" in terms of volumes and sizes, they piled Ruby, and even then, they barely fit into 2,7 thousand tons. What will you fit into 1000 tons?
      And what is 44t (?), If a railway tank for fuel and lubricants and then a volume of 60t !!!
      Maybe enough nonsense on the VO site to sculpt !? Or have a better snack!
    2. -2
      28 February 2020 15: 31
      fabulous .... it's about you.
  14. +3
    27 February 2020 12: 42
    The development of the Russian Navy: is it worth trying to sit down on all the chairs at once

    No! not worth it! I have not read the article, but the author wants to persuade me to reach the conclusion he needs by the title. After all, it is clear to everyone what sitting on two or all chairs leads to. True, it may turn out that the path of development of the Russian Navy is not an attempt at such a sitting, but why bother oneself with names like "development of the Russian Navy - an attempt to sit on all the chairs or not?" So why read the article? I am the correct reader, my brain reacted to the title and agreed with the author. Check mark! I pressed the star too. Have a nice day!
  15. +2
    27 February 2020 13: 40
    Here in the Asia-Pacific basin is really complete zilch.
  16. +2
    27 February 2020 13: 44
    Upstairs (GMS Navy and even higher winked ) well understand that from the ships where to direct. The fact that after a long break a full-fledged submarine team appeared on the Black Sea Fleet and several new SKR frigates this shows. And for the Pacific Fleet, six diesel submarines, although for a while to smooth out the problem. I would like more and larger NK for all four fleets am .
  17. +3
    27 February 2020 14: 01
    Placing in the "Analytics" section of the "creativity" of a certain Kharaluzhny is a clear disrespect for normal, thinking site visitors who come to get information, and not read a loud headline, a few hackneyed propaganda slogans and mark themselves with duty comments to collect pluses for marshal shoulder straps.
  18. 0
    28 February 2020 21: 34
    Well, now it seems that the time has come to check how your RTOs and submarines will cope with the situation.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"