Military Review

Is Russia ready for sea defense?

85

TARKR "Peter the Great"


The eminent ruler of Russia, Emperor Alexander III, said that our country has only two allies: the army and navy. About Russia's second ally, about its naval navy. and will be discussed in this article.

The author of this material is not an expert in naval matters, however, she is actively interested in it and wants to share her observations, fears, ideas with people who are partial to the fate of our country and to questions of its defense potential.

The latest history of the Russian Navy


Consider the latest history Russian Navy. Russia inherited the second largest combined fleet in the world, second only to the US Navy. It should be noted that Russia got not only ready-made ships, but also backlogs at shipbuilding enterprises, which helped our Navy to stay afloat in the dashing 90s. From 1991 to 2000, the Russian fleet received the following ships: 2 destroyers of Project 956 Sarych, 2 RTGs of Project 12341 Ovod, 9 RTGs of Project 12411 Lightning, 1 RTG of Project 1239 Sivuch, 6 base minesweepers of the project 1265 Yakhont, 5 raid minesweepers of Project 10750 Sapphire, 1 marine minesweeper of Project 12660 Rubin, 4 MPK of project 1124M Albatros, 1 TARKR of project 11442 Orlan Peter the Great, 1 BOD of project 11551 Admiral Chabanenko ”, 5 nuclear submarines of Project 949A Antey, 6 nuclear submarines of Project 971 Pike B, 1 nuclear submarine of Project 945A Condor, 1 nuclear submarine of Project 671RTM Pike, 4 nuclear-powered submarines of Project 877 Halibut, 1 small landing ship hovercraft project 12322 "Zubr", 2 BDK 775M project.

As can be seen from the statistics, in the 90s the Russian Navy replenished well, although, of course, it must be borne in mind that these were still Soviet backlogs that were being completed. New ships for our fleet at that time were almost never laid down, which was reflected in the shipbuilding disaster of the 2000s, when the ships that entered the armament of the Navy could be counted on the fingers.

It is easy to find out from open sources that between 2001 and 2010 the Russian Navy was replenished with: 1 TFR of project 11540 Hawk, 1 corvette of project 20380, 1 sea minesweeper of project 266ME Aquamarine ME, 1 sea minesweeper of project 02668 Agat, 1 submarine of project 971 “Pike B”, 1 RTO of project 12411 “Lightning”, 1 corvette of project 11661K “Cheetah”, 1 small artillery ship of project 21630 “Buyan”. A few landing and anti-sabotage boats could be added to the above, however, they have neither strategic nor even tactical significance, and they can be ignored.

Did Russia build in the period 2001-2010? large surface and submarine ships? It turns out very much! But for the Navy of China, India, Vietnam. Sevmash was in full swing loaded with the work of modernizing the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Gorshkov in the interests of the Indian Navy. If even a part of the ships built during this period in commercial interests would be transferred to the Russian fleet ... This situation is especially surprising given that this was the period of the greatest economic success of market Russia. There were funds in the treasury.


Nuclear submarine “Severodvinsk” of project 885 “Ash”

Nevertheless, with the beginning of the 2010s, the situation begins to change for the better. The State Arms Program 2020 is adopted, in which the Navy is given a significant place. It cannot be called revolutionary or breakthrough for the fleet, but finally, in recent history, we began to meaningfully build a navy.

Alas, this program was not implemented within the framework in which it was planned. Western sanctions imposed in 2014 and the unavailability of industry and production chains, which had to be built in places from scratch, also played a role. Nevertheless, in 2011-2020, the fleet received: 5 corvettes of project 20380, 2 missile regiments of project 22800 Karakurt, 8 missile regiments of project 21631 Buyan-M, 1 corvette of project 11661K Gepard, 2 small artillery ships of project 21630 “ Buyan ”, 3 sea minesweepers of project 12700“ Alexandrite ”, 3 frigates of project 11356Р, 2 patrol ships of project 22160, 7 diesel-electric submarines of project 636“ Varshavyanka ”, 1 frigate of project 22350, 1 nuclear submarine of project 885“ Ash ”, 3 strategic missile carriers of project 955“ Borey ”, 1 BDK project 11711. In addition, this year our Navy should receive: 1 frigate of the project 22350, 2 corvettes of the project 20380, 1 corvette of the project that 20385, 1 RTO of the project 21631, 5 (most likely less) RTOs of the project 22800, 1 patrol ship of the project 22160, 2 sea minesweepers of the project 12700, 2 RPKSN of the project 955 "Borey", 1 BDK of the project 11711, 2 nuclear-powered submarines of the project 885M, 1 diesel-electric submarine project 677 "Lada", 1 diesel-electric submarine of project 636. Thus, 2020 should be a very fruitful year for the Navy. It is not a fact that all of the listed ships this year will be included in the fleet, but this will certainly happen in the near future.

I would like to ask: what after 2020? How will the shipbuilding program develop further? Is a new catastrophe like the catastrophe of the 2000s awaiting us?

Today in construction are: 4 frigates of project 22350, 4 corvettes of project 20380, 2 corvettes of project 20385, 1 corvette of project 20386, 4 missiles of the project 21631, 13 missiles of the project 22800, 2 missile boats of the project 12418, 4 patrol ships of the project 22160, 3 BDK of the project 11711, 4 sea minesweepers of Project 12700, 5 RPKSN of Project 955, 6 nuclear submarines of Project 885M, 2 diesel-electric submarines of Project 677, 4 nuclear-powered submarines of Project 636. This is what will go into service of our fleet in 2020 and later.

Will ships still be laid? I would like to believe that, despite the turbulence in the economy and the presence of many uncertainties, the country will still find funds for the construction of the fleet.

What is the modern Russian fleet? Right now, the Russian Navy’s permanent readiness forces include: 26 ships of 1-2 rank (from cruisers to corvettes), 40 small missile ships and boats, 26 small anti-submarine ships, 42 minesweepers, 16 diesel-electric submarines, 13 multi-purpose nuclear submarines. It is not necessary to list strategic missile carriers and landing ships here, since the SSBNs will be used in a military conflict at sea only in the most extreme case, and landing ships do not matter in naval combat. Also, ships for repair and modernization are not listed here.

Is it a lot or a little? For example, the Turkish Navy has 13 DEPLs and 26 surface ships from frigate to corvette, the Japanese Navy - 20 DEPLs and 49 large surface ships. Of course, it is naive to believe that all these ships are now ready for battle, some of them are probably under repair. However, the above countries can assemble their fleets in a single fist, our ships are scattered across separate waters and practically cannot come to the aid of each other in case of war. Our isolated fleets are not able to defeat either the Baltic over the German Navy, the Black Sea over the Turkish Navy, or the Far East over the Japanese Navy. There is no need to talk about the huge fleets of the USA and China, they are now inaccessible to us. Therefore, the author, in no way calling for war with any of these countries, believes that a strong fleet is a reliable means against military conflicts. For example, if we had a fleet in the Far East comparable with the Japanese, the issue of the Kuril Islands membership would hardly have been raised. A strong fleet in the Black Sea would be a weighty argument in negotiations with Turkey over Syria.

The need for a clear concept of naval construction


Now let's talk about the problems of our fleet, which must be solved as soon as possible so that the Russian Navy is a reliable tool for protecting the integrity and independence of our country.


Patrol ship project 22160

1. We need a clear concept of naval construction. We need an answer to the questions: which fleet we need, which fleet we can build, in which regions of the country the most powerful naval groups should be located, and where there are enough coastal troops.

Why does the author ask such questions? Indeed, there are probably people in the Ministry of Defense who are responsible for such tasks. I would like to believe that such people really are there, but the author also has concerns. They are associated with the construction of two series of ships: patrol ships of project 22160 for the Black Sea Fleet and patrol ice-ships of the project 23550 "Arctic" for the Northern Fleet.

The ships of the project 22160 would be good corvettes if they had at least some weapons. In reality, these are almost unarmed ships. They talk about the possibility of placing containers on them with the Caliber RK or X-35 Uran missiles, but there are no such containers in the fleet (according to data from open sources). Moreover, even if such containers appear, these ships still have neither air defense systems nor anti-aircraft defense systems and remain mediocre “fighters”. With the ships of project 23550 the same story, with the only difference being that the "Caliber" will definitely be there, but that’s the list of their weapons practically ends - despite the fact that their displacement is about 9000 tons, the displacement of the destroyer! Why do the Northern Fleet need such ships when there is an acute shortage of warships of 1-2 ranks? Thus, for the Navy, 8 (!) Ships are being built with unclear prospects for their use.

2. The problem with propulsion systems for new ships. At present, we cannot build ships larger than a corvette, since there simply are no engines for them. According to media reports, Chinese engines are used for RTOs of project 21631, Russian engines are used for RTOs of project 22800, but St. Petersburg Zvezda can’t cope with deadlines, so delivery of ships of project 22800 to the fleet is delayed. The problem with engines for frigates is solved by the Rybinsk Saturn, there is success, but it will be possible to talk about solving the problem only when the frigates of project 22350 finally receive Russian engines.

3. Torpedo armament caliber 533 mm. Our submarines are armed with a USET-80 torpedo, which was adopted in 1980. And even then, its characteristics did not strike the imagination. USET-80 has a range of 18 km, the range of the American Mark-48 torpedo is more than 50 km. Moreover, according to media reports, USET-80 cannot operate in the Baltic Sea, since the electricity in the batteries begins to be generated when interacting with sea water, and in the Baltic there is an insufficient concentration of salts in the water. Whether this is true or not is unknown, but on the BF we have only one submarine, which is quite indicative.

This is not to say that our military problems do not see. In 2015, the UGST “Physicist” was adopted by the Navy with a range of 50 km. According to data for 2018, the torpedo entered service with all fleets in an amount of at least ... 20 pieces. Just one for each combat-capable submarine! I would like to hope that the “Physicist” torpedoes continue to enter service and now there are already noticeably more of them. In parallel with this, the Navy will purchase 2023 UET-73 torpedoes of 1 mm caliber with a range of 533 km until 25, which, of course, is very small, but undeniable progress compared to the 18-km USET-80. In addition, the nuclear submarines of projects 949A and 971B seem to still have torpedoes of project 65-76A "Kit" with a caliber of 650 mm with a range of about 100 km.

4. The need to update anti-submarine aviation. Aviation of the Russian Navy has 15 IL-38 anti-submarine aircraft and 7 modernized IL-38N and 12 Tu-142MK / M3. For comparison: Japanese naval aviation has 78 P-3 Orion anti-submarine aircraft and 13 Kawasaki P-1 aircraft. A ratio of more than 1 to 3 in favor of Japan.

Problem solving


After identifying the list of problems, it seems correct to consider possible solutions. The main task is a victory at sea over a potential adversary. We will not consider the likely conflict between the Russian Federation - NATO or the Russian Federation - the United States, or the Russian Federation - the PRC, since here we can only rely on the strategic nuclear forces. We will proceed from the premises of a local conflict with countries like Turkey or Japan, with which we have difficult relations.

1. In the new “State Arms Program 2018-2027”, the shipbuilding program should be continued to the extent comparable to the previous state program. The emphasis should be placed on projects already successfully mastered by industry: corvettes of project 20380, MRK 22800, diesel-electric submarine 636, nuclear submarine 885M; if the problem with the engines is successfully resolved, then the frigates of project 22350 will also be justified. The development of a new small anti-submarine ship seems justified.

2. Obviously, in the next 10 years we will not be able to cover the shortage of large surface ships, so we could consider expanding military cooperation with China with the possible purchase of frigate class ships in China. According to media reports, by the way, China is ready to sell us warships. Of course, this is an unpopular decision, but it will do for operational replenishment of the Navy.

3. It is necessary to develop a new anti-submarine aircraft and its speedy serial production. Perhaps this could be the resumption of the production of IL-38 on a new elemental base.

4. The solution to the “torpedo problem” is the speedy entry into the fleet of the UGST “Physicist” in significant quantities.

5. The revival of naval missile aircraft. This applies not only to Tu-22M3 bombers with X-22 missiles, but also to Su-30 SM fighters and Su-34 fighter-bombers. Su-30 SM and Su-34, according to data from open sources, can use anti-ship missiles X-35 "Uranus" with a range of up to 260 km. In addition, integration into the weapon system of the Su-30 SM and Su-34 anti-ship missiles P-800 Onyx, our best anti-ship missile today, with a range of up to 600 km, would be justified. An early armament of the Tu-22 M3 with the X-32 missile, which seems to have passed the tests, is also necessary. Consideration should be given to the arming of anti-ship missiles of the Tu-160 missile carriers. Separately, it should be said about the dagger hypersonic missile used with the MiG-31K. In this case, you should consider basing aviation on a possible theater of operations. This primarily concerns the Far East, where the distances are especially large, and the infrastructure is underdeveloped. Here it is necessary to create new airfields and reconstruct hundreds of combat aircraft available for acceptance.


Tu 22M3 with X-22 missiles

6. Continuation of the deployment of DBK “Ball” and “Bastion” with missiles “Uranus” and “Onyx”. These missiles can be used against ground targets, so their purchase increases not only the combat effectiveness of coastal forces, but also ground forces.


DBK "Bastion" with the P-800 Onyx missile

7. You can consider the development of a ballistic anti-ship missile, following the example of China. It is known that in the USSR there were similar developments. If earlier the development of such a missile was impossible due to Russia's obligations under the INF Treaty, now our hands are untied. A similar missile can be used for ground targets, which is by no means superfluous.

Conclusion


Summing up the problem raised in the article, it should be said that our Navy is not ready for a serious confrontation at sea today.

There is a very acute shortage of surface ships of 1-2 ranks, our submarines do not have modern torpedo weapons and are therefore very vulnerable, our anti-submarine aviation is in decline and needs to be replenished as soon as possible.

In the event of a conflict with a major naval power, our fleet has two ways: to die heroically on the high seas or to defend near their bases under the cover of aviation and DBK.

In the next ten years, the main ships of our Navy will be Project 885M Yasen submarines, Project 636 Varshavyanka missile submarines, Project 22800 Karakurt RTOs, project Alexandrits 12700 minesweepers, maybe Project 22350 frigates. Even if the series of these ships will be continued, it’s still very little, especially considering that all this will be “spread out” in four fleets.

There are also “growth points,” opportunities for an asymmetric response. This is the use of naval missile aircraft armed with X-35, Onyx, X-22 and X-32 missiles, the Dagger hypersonic missile against the ships of a potential enemy; widespread use of DBK “Ball” and “Bastion”; possible development of a ballistic anti-ship missile.

If the new state armament program will have the Navy and MRA as its priority, then, provided that it is implemented, by the 2030s Russia will have the Navy, coastal troops and MRA capable of repelling a serious enemy at sea near our coasts. But this requires political will, determination to solve the problem, readiness to go even to unpopular measures like raising military spending.

It is necessary and urgent to solve the problem of protecting the country from threats from the sea, because the sea is the first line of defense of Russia, our Russian land lies further.
Author:
85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 9 2020 09: 42 New
    11
    According to media reports, by the way, China is ready to sell us warships. Of course, this is an unpopular decision, but it will do for operational replenishment of the Navy.
    It's a shame of course to read this, but it's really a way out! And to start up oil on this, and not on the purchase of green candy wrappers with portraits of dead US presidents!
    1. Mitroha
      Mitroha April 9 2020 10: 11 New
      10
      It's a shame of course to read this, but it's really a way out! And to start up oil on this, and not on the purchase of green candy wrappers with portraits of dead US presidents!

      It’s better then to buy equipment and finished production for the military-industrial complex, and not to feed ONLY potential opponents. And candy wrappers to invest in training and retraining of personnel.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 9 2020 11: 23 New
        +6
        Quote: Mitroha
        It’s better then to buy equipment and finished production for the defense industry
        So certainly better, but it's YEARS.
        1. Mitroha
          Mitroha April 9 2020 12: 33 New
          +9
          So we thought with engines from Ukraine. And they were much closer to us than the Chinese. Therefore, well, what’s better
          1. mole
            mole April 9 2020 12: 57 New
            +2
            Quote: Mitroha
            So we thought with engines from Ukraine. And they were much closer to us than the Chinese. Therefore, well, what’s better

            And the spaceport East ...
            A lot of what was being built, and later UD were excited. So do not make out what is cheaper !?
            More promising are their production capacities, jobs!
            But if, nevertheless, we are a GASOLINE, and we need a fleet here and now, then China remains.
            It's time to deal with this issue to the end!
      2. smart fellow
        smart fellow April 9 2020 16: 35 New
        +2
        Who will sell them? Moscow, even from Yeltsin’s time, limited the transfer of military technology to China, and everyone is proud of it at the Military District. It seems that China also limits the transfer of equipment and technologies to Russia. Moreover, there is a large share of US and EU licensing rights, and Western sanctions have not been canceled against Russia. It’s like with the turbines for the Crimea. Chinese companies do not want to receive sanctions from the United States. And this cannot be blamed because even Sberbank for example does not work in the Crimea.
        Moreover, you need to work on the equipment. But perhaps the only qualified migrant workers were from North Korea, who worked as welders in shipyards. But their own do not want hard and low-paid work, for example, workers receive 40-80 thousand at the SRZ, and middle managers 200-500 thousand.
    2. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov April 9 2020 10: 27 New
      14
      “But it’s really a way out!” - This is not a way out. A warship is a weapon system, and having bought a ship from China, we will be forced to buy Chinese weapons with all the consequences. Buying only a hull and stuffing with your weapons will not work, or it will, but it’s very bad, because creating a ship is a complex solution for shipbuilders and armed men. All spaces of the ship are pre-designed for pre-defined weapons systems, for a wild number of all kinds of cables, for antenna management, for the national principles of locating l / s, fighting for survivability, etc.
      As a way out, you can order the construction of ships according to your documentation, but this means letting a goat into the garden, which is by no means impossible.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 9 2020 11: 30 New
        +2
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        A warship is a weapon system, and having bought a ship from China, we will be forced to buy Chinese weapons with all the consequences.
        If there is little time, and there is not enough power, then buying even a finished weapon is better than picking up candy wrappers.
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        Buying only a hull and stuffing with your weapons will not work, or it will, but it’s very bad, because creating a ship is a complex solution for shipbuilders and armed men.
        This is where the notorious modularity can be used! The Chinese have ships with UVP, aren’t ours going to replace their UVP ?! After file processing, of course. )) Well, I do not think that this is directly a problem! The same with electronics, in the end you can buy boxes with power plants, and add-ons themselves.
        1. Sergey Valov
          Sergey Valov April 9 2020 18: 22 New
          +2
          “That’s even the purchase of ready-made weapons” - this is not just a springback purchase, it is a bondage for decades with the repair, operation, purchase of ammunition. This is an armament system that does not mate with the existing ones. This is one big headache.
          “In the end, you can buy boxes with power plants, and add on your own add-ons” - I suspect that you simply do not understand the essence of the problem.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U April 9 2020 18: 42 New
            +1
            Quote: Sergey Valov
            I suspect that you simply do not understand the essence of the problem.
            Perhaps, however, let me remind you that during the overhaul of ships, rearmament and re-equipment are very often carried out, and literally transforming the ship. I could be wrong, but it is much easier to saturate the "box" with prepared seats and inter-compartment cable-pipe junctions with equipment and weapons than to dismantle and re-mount them during overhaul. And superstructures are superstructures so that they can be superstructured, rebuilt and completed. ))) Especially when you need to install your own radars and so on.
            1. Sergey Valov
              Sergey Valov April 9 2020 19: 14 New
              0
              Of course, you can order the hull “with prepared seats” on the side, but the problem of modern domestic shipbuilding is not to build the hull, this is just a relatively easy task, the problem is in the “fillers” of the hull, but they cannot be ordered.
    3. Doccor18
      Doccor18 April 9 2020 22: 16 New
      +1
      Yes, we do not need Chinese ships, we will completely lose, even in the future, the opportunity to build ourselves. The shipyards will rust, the personnel will leave, the gold fund of the KB shipbuilding will leave and that's all ...
      We need to design and build ourselves! By yourself! We have everything for this: shipyards, money, people.
      One is not, there is no desire, the desire to create the Great Fleet of the Great Power.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 10 2020 03: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: Doccor18
        Yes, we do not need Chinese ships, we will completely lose, even in the future, the opportunity to build ourselves
        In the absence of a stamp ... In the USSR, not all ships were built on their own shipyards, for another reason, however, I generally agree with you, but even smart and serious people, in acute need, take loans. And in weapons, as a rule, the need arises acute and urgent!
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 10 2020 09: 17 New
          0
          In the USSR, they ordered in Finland sea and ocean tugboats, floating workshops, in the GDR and Poland, BDK and KFOR and other auxiliary ships. Exclusively due to lack of berths. Destroyers and Frigates abroad did not even have thoughts to buy.
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl April 11 2020 02: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Doccor18
        We need to design and build ourselves! By yourself!
        perhaps yes, but the author not in vain noticed that -
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        Did Russia build in the period 2001-2010? large surface and submarine ships?
        winked and even claims that -
        Quote: Doccor18
        It turns out very much! But for the Navy of China, India, Vietnam. Sevmash was in full swing loaded with the work of modernizing the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier cruiser in the interests of the Indian Navy.
        And what is the use of his navy(?) request Maybe to maintain competence. Attract currency. Retain qualified staff. Keep cooperative chains in shipbuilding. recourse and ... didn’t work out ?! No. and then already -
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        Western sanctions imposed in 2014 also played a role. unavailability of industry and production chains, which had to be built in places from scratch.
        belay request For example, you say that -
        Quote: Doccor18
        We have everything for this: shipyards, money, people.
        winked belay But the problems with the power plant have not been resolved ?! what The center of offshore gas turbine engine building and the creation of gearboxes for them doesn’t need anyone ?! recourse So the speed of creating turbines (only two types in Rybinsk) suits everyone ?! And the speed of creating gearboxes on the "Star-Reducer" ?! fool GEM assembly speed for even the most developed pr. 22350?! No. request
        Almost the same with the promising 16SD-500 ?! No, okay ?!
  2. awdrgy
    awdrgy April 9 2020 09: 45 New
    +6
    You can write like this - "Yes, we will bomb everyone with even one 50-year-old ship! In general, it's better not to think about it, and besides, the fleet is so expensive. It's better to sell oil and gas for our lifetime. there seems to be power, after all, we are selling ships for export, so if something happens we will mobilize Yes, no one will attack us anyway, we have nuclear weapons. "
  3. Chaldon48
    Chaldon48 April 9 2020 09: 52 New
    -6
    Now all the hope is to protect the coast on missiles and aircraft, and in case of a serious conflict, let the heroism of the cruiser "Varyag" follow, and at the same time it is good to learn the song dedicated to him to raise morale.
  4. knn54
    knn54 April 9 2020 10: 07 New
    11
    ! Kursk ", Kuznetsov", who have been waiting for the repair of nuclear submarines for years, emergency at the shipyards. All exits (even "Lada") cannot do without a tug.
    When there is a maintenance problem, the question is redundant.
    1. mole
      mole April 9 2020 13: 02 New
      +2
      They raised a serious topic! hi
  5. Amateur
    Amateur April 9 2020 10: 09 New
    -1
    Summing up the problem raised in the article, it should be said that our Navy is not ready for a serious confrontation at sea today.

    The author believes that the fleet will defend the Motherland on its own, the VKS - separately, also on their own. Well, the army generally does not know what it will do.
    Is self-isolation affected?
    The author of this material is not an expert in naval matters, however, she is actively interested in it and wants to share her observations, fears, ideas with people who are partial to the fate of our country and to questions of its defense potential.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 9 2020 11: 40 New
      +6
      Quote: Amateur
      The author believes that the fleet will defend the Motherland on its own, the VKS - separately, also on their own. Well, the army generally does not know what it will do.
      The author of the videoconferencer definitely mentions
      In the event of a conflict with a major naval power, our fleet has two paths: heroically die on the high seas or defend near their bases under the cover of aviation and DBK
      . There is practically no aviation fleet, which means VKS. Well, the army will help than it can. laughing
    2. awdrgy
      awdrgy April 9 2020 15: 24 New
      -4
      Yes, in the first minutes and even hours, the fleet will be on its own, and if it is very unlucky (and this will happen if the attack is otherwise they will not be resolved) then generally by itself
  6. Octopus
    Octopus April 9 2020 10: 24 New
    +1
    I look, Andrei from Chelyabinsk found followers.

    Now let's talk about the problems of our fleet that need to be solved as soon as possible so that the Russian Navy is a reliable tool


    Empty. The first measure is to stop lying to yourself and others, to tell loudly and clearly what is happening with the fleet and what we (the Russian state) want to get in its place. If obvious nonsense is told (the aircraft carrier "Storm", etc.) - expel the narrators and find adequate ones.

    Obviously no one is going to do this.

    Adopt a fleet development program until 2030. To classify. In 2025, take a new one. To classify.
    1. ser56
      ser56 April 9 2020 15: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Octopus
      Secret

      so they don’t know what will fail? bully USA does not secret ...
      1. Octopus
        Octopus April 9 2020 18: 05 New
        0
        Quote: ser56
        so they don’t know what will fail?

        Sure. So that the questions "where we were", "what should we achieve" and "where are we now" was impossible even to ask.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 April 9 2020 22: 22 New
      +2
      What is there to keep in secret, 25 small, but very "serious" missile ships - super mega-corvettes?
      There is no adequate strategy, no adequate shipbuilding program for 15-20 years in advance.
      There is nothing. It does not seem to be.
      To my great regret.
  7. pmkemcity
    pmkemcity April 9 2020 10: 24 New
    0
    ... for taking hundreds of combat aircraft.

    I am now reading on the site "Memory of the People" about the military actions of 1066 SP 281 SD for February-March 1942, during which my grandfather died. So, in the regiment of "active bayonets" before the start of the March offensive, there were 14-11 men and 1 heavy machine gun (this is on the front line). Then they replenished up to 700 people, put them down in three days, and after the onset of March 8-12, 47 fighters remained ...
    Dmitry from Voronezh, what are you talking about ???
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh
      April 9 2020 12: 56 New
      0
      Hello! First of all, I meant Su 30 and Su 34, of which we have a total of more than 2 hundred
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity April 9 2020 18: 10 New
        +1
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        Hello! First of all, I meant Su 30 and Su 34, of which we have a total of more than 2 hundred

        Good evening! I had the same idea that the current situation in the country, and especially in the Far East, strongly resembles 42 years. This is the "easel machine gun for the entire regiment" against 260 F-15 and 160 F-16 only in Korea and Japan. There is no fleet at all. As a naval officer, I declare this to you. The situation is such that a new Ermak will soon be needed to "conquer" Siberia. Everything has been destroyed, I mean the military and military-industrial infrastructure. We have not yet been conquered, not because we have nuclear weapons, but because we are plowing for a plate of soup for an American capitalist, and the maintenance of the local "headman" costs him much cheaper than the maintenance of the occupation regime.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 9 2020 19: 36 New
          -1
          Quote: pmkemcity
          We have not yet been conquered, not because we have nuclear weapons, but because we are plowing for a plate of soup for an American capitalist, and the maintenance of the local "headman" costs him much cheaper than the maintenance of the occupation regime.

          And of course you know for sure that nuclear weapons Putin will never apply. Personally, you know.
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 9 2020 20: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: pmkemcity
          There is no fleet at all. This I declare to you as a naval officer.
          Paul, brace yourself! We experienced the dashing 90s. Survive this. Moreover, after the modernization, Nakhimov is going to be sent to you at the Pacific Fleet. The same fate awaits Ustinov. Yes, and a pair of 955M will be sent to you in 25 DiPL. A trifle Komsomolsk-on-Amur has already begun to rivet. Aviation seems to be also tossed ... Nothing, I can handle it.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 9 2020 19: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        First of all, I meant Su 30 and Su 34, of which we have a total of more than 2 hundred

        Yeah. Only now, nobody will let them all be involved in naval tasks. And in all naval aviation - a few dozen Su-30 and MiG-29KR
        1. Dmitry from Voronezh
          April 9 2020 21: 03 New
          +1
          Here you are right. Of course, the Aerospace Forces aviation has many other tasks. Yes, and arming anti-ship missiles 2 hundreds of combat vehicles, I'm afraid for modern Russia, the task is too heavy. Even the X-35 not to mention the Onyx, Dagger or Zircon. On the other hand, not to support the fleet and naval aviation in the event of a serious conflict by the forces of the Aerospace Forces means dooming ships and people to senseless death.
  8. Dart2027
    Dart2027 April 9 2020 10: 39 New
    +1
    Most likely, in the case of a hypothetical war with Turkey, both fleets, both ours and them, will sit at their bases and not stick their nose out. Cause? The World Cup is shot through by missiles, so if they crawl out from under the cover of coastal air defense they will immediately be thrown by everyone than is possible. In this sense, Crimea is an ideal platform for placing DBK on it.
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 April 9 2020 12: 36 New
      -1
      Quote: Dart2027
      from under the cover of coastal air defense they will immediately be thrown by all than possible.

      Do they have coastal air defense? IMHO except for the old junk and MANPADS they have nothing.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 9 2020 16: 55 New
        +2
        Quote: Winnie76
        Do they have coastal air defense? IMHO except for the old junk and MANPADS they have nothing.

        And to whom have we recently delivered the S-400? wink
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 April 9 2020 19: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: Winnie76
        Do they have coastal air defense?

        There is some kind. You can talk about quality separately.
  9. iouris
    iouris April 9 2020 10: 47 New
    -3
    On the Caspian Sea, perhaps. By the way, in the presence of coastal anti-ship complexes, why do you also need an aviation component in the form of a Tu-22Mxx ??? This LHC was created under the USSR and the Department of Internal Affairs. A limited number of these vehicles can perform the functions of a "long arm" on the near continental terrain against an obviously weak enemy, which has only military air defense systems.
    1. ancient
      ancient April 9 2020 11: 19 New
      +4
      Quote: iouris
      aviation component in the form of Tu-22Mhh ???

      And do we have such ... still "left"?
      Quote: iouris
      A limited number of these vehicles can perform the functions of a "long arm" in the near continental terrain against an admittedly weak enemy, which has only military air defense systems.

      Here the "conversation" is about the maritime theater, not the land soldier
      All operations on airborne military aviation were possible only during the time of the USSR Air Force soldier
      1. iouris
        iouris April 9 2020 11: 22 New
        -2
        Take a closer look at the discussed text and pictures, in particular, Fig. "Tu 22M3 with X-22 missiles".
        1. ancient
          ancient April 9 2020 12: 16 New
          +4
          Quote: iouris
          Take a closer look at the discussed text and pictures, in particular, Fig. "Tu 22M3 with X-22 missiles".

          And what to see? .. For a "showy" photo? Moreover, 2 of them ... well, not on ships ... only if on a naval base on the territory of a potential enemy ... but there, unfortunately, Tu-22M3 ... well, no way ... ."can not" wink
          1. iouris
            iouris April 9 2020 12: 47 New
            0
            And what claims to me?
            1. ancient
              ancient April 9 2020 14: 27 New
              +2
              Quote: iouris
              And what claims to me?

              To you? belay .. absolutely no drinks
  10. Comrade Michael
    Comrade Michael April 9 2020 10: 59 New
    +3
    At the end of the year, it will be clear what we are ready for ...
  11. AAK
    AAK April 9 2020 11: 08 New
    +9
    The presence of a combat-ready fleet is the tip of the pyramid of a normally developing economy, there is no economy - there is no army and fleet, in addition, there is no intelligible doctrine of the fleet ...
    1. iouris
      iouris April 9 2020 11: 17 New
      -1
      It's not just about the economy, but also about the lack of normal access to the ocean. Peter I only pierced the "iron curtain", so we, his descendants, managed to roll back very far back. Where is the Oldenburg dynasty now? In England, and "shits".
  12. Shadow041
    Shadow041 April 9 2020 11: 09 New
    +4
    First of all, we need consistent work to create a new one that eliminates incompleteness, since considerable funds and time were spent on many unfinished and utilized by stupidity ships, but the fleet never received combat units ..
  13. Sailor
    Sailor April 9 2020 11: 11 New
    +5
    What fleet, what are you talking about, and what about Rotenberg Vekselberg Potanin, etc. (I will not list the entire list of these respected people and friends of the government), they also need new yachts at the price of a cruiser, islands in warm, exotic places, etc.
  14. Connor MacLeod
    Connor MacLeod April 9 2020 11: 27 New
    +6
    In the new "State Arms Program 2018-2027", the shipbuilding program should be continued in an amount comparable to the previous state program. The emphasis should be placed on projects already successfully mastered by the industry: corvettes of project 20380, MRK 22800, diesel-electric submarine 636, nuclear submarine 885M; if the problem with the engines is successfully resolved, then the frigates of project 22350 will also be justified. The development of a new small anti-submarine ship seems justified.

    If the new State weapons program will have the Navy and MRA as its priority, then, provided that it is implemented, by the 2030s Russia will have the Navy, coastal troops and MRA capable of repelling a serious enemy at sea near our coasts. But this requires political will, determination to solve the problem, readiness to go even to unpopular measures like raising military spending.

    What's the point? 20 trillion rubles were allocated for the last Rearmament Program, and most likely more, almost a trillion bucks is obtained at the old rate. So where is the fleet? What did we get for this money?

    The main problem is probably not the lack of a "clear concept" and "political will", but the lack of banal control over the spending of allocated funds? This is the paradox that money is allocated for the Fleet, billions of dollars are annually dissipated among numerous defense contractors, and the Fleet is not.

    If financial reporting would be available, could you delve into and try to figure out where the money goes? It is necessary to calculate and crush these maggots mercilessly! How much can you endure all this?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 9 2020 17: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: Connor Macleod
      If financial reporting would be available, could you delve into and try to figure out where the money goes?

      Well, it will provide the Navy with the information that he ordered patrol ships and patrol icebreakers for a certain amount. The money was spent, the ships were actually built ... but there is nothing for the fleet to fight. Because the fleet, due to the lack of a clear concept and guided solely by the will of the commander in chief, ordered for some reason unarmed troughs ships under the project of PSKR for the FSB, and even in a stripped-down version. And I did not order modules for them at all.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 9 2020 19: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Connor Macleod
      20 trillion rubles were allocated for the last Re-equipment Program, and most likely more

      More. Than half.
      In general, up to 2017 inclusive at the highest estimates - a maximum of 8,4 trillion. rub.
      Quote: Connor Macleod
      The main problem is probably not the lack of a "clear concept" and "political will", but the lack of banal control over the spending of allocated funds?

      There is plenty of control there for a long time
      Quote: Connor Macleod
      If financial reporting would be available, could you delve into and try to figure out where the money goes?

      And who's stopping? USC, for a second, 100% federal property. And the costs of all its counterparties go through coordination with military representatives. What other reporting do you need?
  15. IL-18
    IL-18 April 9 2020 11: 36 New
    0
    for an asymmetric answer
    then underwater droneless. It would be nice with the possibility of mine laying, because even only a threat can force the enemy to spend time and resources on reconnaissance of a mine situation, measures for "preventive" etching, diversion of forces and means to guard and search for these Drones. Well, at least on paper bully
  16. Operator
    Operator April 9 2020 11: 39 New
    -9
    On the fig, we defend ourselves at sea - our business is to attack from space with the help of the Strategic Missile Forces (reciprocal, counter, vestim) am
  17. Robocat
    Robocat April 9 2020 11: 42 New
    +4
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    And to start up oil on this, and not on the purchase of green candy wrappers with portraits of dead US presidents!

    And what to pay the Chinese, if not "green candy wrappers"? They don't need Russian candy wrappers, but green ones are always welcome.
  18. xomaNN
    xomaNN April 9 2020 11: 53 New
    +2
    The idea of ​​ordering at a shipyard in China a series of at least 052D destroyers, as semi-finished products with URO equipment, is already not so flawed in Russia. China is an ally at the present time. It is important not to miss the time, our shipyards will not be able to build NK more than now. The Chinese normally ordered in the Russian Federation in 2005 the EM 956 project and 4 of these ships with Chinese missiles in service. There is nothing gapy in such an order.
    1. iouris
      iouris April 9 2020 13: 42 New
      +5
      Quote: xomaNN
      China - Ally

      A great power has no allies. Keep that in mind.
      1. xomaNN
        xomaNN April 9 2020 17: 41 New
        0
        So is it about the Russian Federation or about the PRC?
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 April 9 2020 16: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: xomaNN
      The idea of ​​ordering at a shipyard in China a series of at least 052D destroyers, as semi-finished products with URO equipment, is already not so flawed in Russia. China is an ally at the present time. It is important not to miss the time, our shipyards will not be able to build NK more than now. The Chinese normally ordered in the Russian Federation in 2005 the EM 956 project and 4 of these ships with Chinese missiles in service. There is nothing gapy in such an order.

      And if you take into account, 10 Type 052D destroyers can be under construction right away, then in general ... and the construction time on average is 4 years, since 2012 (the main one) there are already 15 pieces in the fleet from a series of 22 - 25 pieces.
  19. Snail N9
    Snail N9 April 9 2020 12: 16 New
    +6
    In the country there is no PLO at all, this time. Second, Russia, which was once spoken of in the West as a country that possesses the art of mine and anti-mine warfare, now has none of this (the art of mine and anti-mine warfare), from the word "absolutely" .. And that's all this and there is a basis for the protection of the country's maritime borders and "calibers" crammed into various types of "galoshes" alone, and the S-300-400-500 cannot provide this protection.
    1. huntsman650
      huntsman650 April 9 2020 12: 27 New
      0
      All hope for special forces, tactical, work in the districts is possible. Submarine does not come up)))
      Poacher fish is caught by electric rods, but if the discharge is more powerful, submarines can withstand it?
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 9 2020 13: 14 New
        +1
        No laughing it makes no sense, modern boats are all in rubber, you can’t take them with electric current!
  20. huntsman650
    huntsman650 April 9 2020 12: 25 New
    +1
    And about the preparation of hp In contrast to the West, we train specialists of a wide profile)
  21. Undecim
    Undecim April 9 2020 12: 30 New
    +1
    The author of this material is not an expert in naval matters, but is actively interested in it and wants to share his observations, fears, ideas
    Recently, this is the direct creative motto of most authors on the site - to write about what they "are not experts in."
    Due to some strange pattern, the author did not have a desire to "share his observations, concerns, ideas" in the subject in which he is an expert. Or are there none?
    1. Okolotochny
      Okolotochny April 9 2020 13: 00 New
      +1
      Plyusanu. Indeed, there is a feeling that a general "optimization" has taken place in the General Staff. And the optimized crowd poured into VO.
    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 9 2020 13: 17 New
      +3
      Quote: Undecim
      Recently, this is the direct creative motto of most authors on the site - to write about what they "are not experts in."
      Well, there are authors who do not "flog" in the topic at all, but they post translated articles with pictures, and nothing. And here a person is not an "expert" due to the lack of a diploma from some "Academy of Experts", but in fact "fumbles".
  22. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 9 2020 14: 47 New
    -7
    As long as there are air forces and missiles, 500-1000 km from the coast are under control. Next, the big question.
  23. ser56
    ser56 April 9 2020 15: 50 New
    0
    article with no regards .... request
  24. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter April 9 2020 18: 05 New
    +2
    To discuss this issue today is useless.
    In my unenlightened view. To put it mildly, this is empty.
    I am not a strategist, but for some reason I am aware of this.
    First, the so-called struggle with a lyhoman will end. Then, we will be told how much money the country lost in it.
    Then they will report that the money has run out. Presumably, everything has gone on the mask. Which are nowhere to be found. AND.....
    What the hell ships ?!
    If we give you at least one A40, it will be a holiday!
    Honestly, somehow I see the prospects for myself.
    God help us to prevent this from happening (I'm a real pessimist, really).
    Therefore, about (quietly, began to engage in repair / decoration). Like good old times.
  25. Tomich3
    Tomich3 April 9 2020 20: 19 New
    -6
    Well this is nonsense. For some reason, the authors divide the Russian fleet into parts. The Russian fleet tends to gather very quickly in a particular direction. And then how many pennants will be in one place? A lot .. For good reason, our fleet is one of the ten strongest fleets in the world.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 10 2020 11: 47 New
      +2
      Quote: Tomic3
      The Russian fleet tends to gather very quickly in any particular direction.

      Yeah ... Admiral Rozhdestvensky an example. smile
      A simple question is how we will strengthen the Pacific Flotilla, if what? By SMP? Ali around the whole of Eurasia let's go? In any case, the squadron speed of such a connection will be equal to the economic speed of the slowest of the support ships, minus a couple of knots.
  26. LeonidL
    LeonidL April 9 2020 20: 25 New
    0
    "We need a clear concept of naval construction. We need an answer to the questions: which fleet we need, which fleet we can build, in which regions of the country the most powerful naval groups should be located, and where there are enough coastal troops.“- Equally important are the questions:“ What kind of fleet can Russia maintain? ”,“ What coastal infrastructure can it build? ”I’m not sure that the Russian Federation should be harnessed to a race at sea either with the United States or China - most likely this is a topic direction. Everything indicates that the leadership of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Defense will follow the path of “asymmetric” responses and the creation of the latest weapons based on “new highly scientific technologies of fundamental scientific developments.” In addition, there is no particular reason to pull and “pull up” all the fleets and flotillas. given to the Northern Fleet, including the creation of combat icebreakers, in second place - TF with a grouping sufficient to cool the flames of both Japan and the PRC. an analogue of a squadron of the times of the USSR. In terms of combat training, in the first place will be precisely "naval training" - long voyages with the main purpose of demonstrating the flag. Strategically, surface ships are gradually losing the lead their role, and the first are large ships, which, together with groupings, are turning into easily accessible first strike targets for strategic weapons. And the transience of a possible (a huge question!) Global conflict completely excludes the traditional battles of the fleets. And for local wars and to prevent them, what is and what is planned to be more than enough. The principle of "cannon or butter" has not been canceled, and this should be clearly understood by the townsfolk, who so ardently advocate for the "Big Fleet" - as a result, they may find themselves without "oil", and what was built again, as in previous attempts, either rotted away as unnecessary, or left as nothing in the wrong hands.
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh
      April 10 2020 00: 29 New
      +1
      You are asking good questions. wink I am also of the opinion that Russia should not try to compete at sea with the United States or China. This is absolutely impossible for us now. Also, perhaps, it was correct not to "spread" the naval forces across several fleets, but to choose in the end one direction and concentrate the main forces on it. It is better to have a strong fleet somewhere than to have several weak fleets practically isolated from each other. But in reality this will be difficult to do, since it will take a lot of work to create the necessary infrastructure in the chosen direction, move a large number of people, change the way of thinking of senior military officials in the Ministry of Defense.
      ,
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl April 11 2020 02: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        ... also, perhaps, it was right not to "spread" the naval forces across several fleets, but to choose in the end one direction ...
        It is interesting (!) But how exactly can you imagine this ?! belay cancel geography? winked request
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        It is better to have at least somewhere a strong fleet than to have several weak fleets practically isolated from each other.
        what or ban it? lol sad
  27. exo
    exo April 9 2020 20: 27 New
    +1
    The trouble is that even those built in the 90s were not able to save.
    To restore the production of IL-38, it makes no sense. Cheaper and more reasonable is the development of an anti-submarine based on the Tu-204. He, though in a small, but series. Where and in what condition the equipment on the IL-18 / IL-38 is not known.
    The revival of the MPA based on the Su-34, in my opinion, is more than a real option.
    As for the construction of ships of the 1st, rank: I think we won't see such ships for a long time, but you shouldn't mess with China either. He is a conditional "friend", only for a short historical period. Unfortunately, little is written about the quality of their military shipbuilding. But the fact that in aviation they cannot repeat the Soviet engines of the late 80s is alarming.
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh
      April 10 2020 00: 37 New
      +2
      I also thought about the Tu-204 as a platform for a new anti-submarine aircraft. Perhaps we have no other suitable "candidate" now. I wrote about the purchase of ships in China out of despair. I cannot calmly watch how China or Japan are "stocked" with the latest destroyers, while our sailors are on starvation rations. All I think is how we can get a "piece of happiness" in the short term.
  28. fomin
    fomin April 9 2020 21: 07 New
    +2
    Dear author, the "physicist" has been discontinued, there will be a "case" instead. but with modern methods, means of detection at sea, long-range torpedoes are an anachronism. and a physicist and a case that are built on the principle that the Americans used in the 60-70s of the last century, they were already "not born out of date" I was blocked here thanks to the intrigues of a laboratory assistant from the Research Institute of Captain 3rd Rank M. Klimov, but you can understand this topic in detail in general article " right "respect to you!
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh
      April 10 2020 00: 56 New
      +1
      Thanks! That "Physicist" was removed from production is upsetting. So the fleet will not see the new torpedo yet. So it was no coincidence that we decided to purchase 73 UET-1. My knowledge in the field of torpedoes is not very great, but still I would venture to suggest that the "Physicist" or "Case" is still better than the USET-40 adopted 80 years ago, if not due to the range, then at least due to a more advanced guidance system ...
      1. LeonidL
        LeonidL April 10 2020 06: 01 New
        0
        Dmitriy! Again, "sorry" only for the amount of open information. Do you really think that the dumb with stripes took and shot something excellent? So there were quite justified reasons for this.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. LeonidL
      LeonidL April 10 2020 18: 52 New
      -2
      You are right, Semyon! times change and often developments become obsolete before they can go into production. This is also true for torpedo weapons. Heavy torpedoes were created as a weapon for fighting large targets, but modern AUG, and other "worthy" targets have counter-torpedoes, are surrounded by an ASW escort, that is, even Physicists and Cases have very little chance of getting close to the submarine's firing range unnoticed at a firing distance. ... And indeed, modern war at sea, and its probability in the event of a global conflict with its transience and destructiveness, is practically zero. Any excessive activity in the basing areas, alarm fees, loading of ships and platforms ... and besides, there are families, which means a leak. After all, you can't hide an sewn in a sack, and one other boss will whisper in your ear, they say, shake it away from the base beyond the Urals ... And in the age of the Internet, a leak is guaranteed ... and so on. All this is a trigger for the opposite side. Neither side will wait and wait, and then only Akopolipsis. Therefore, the leadership of the Russian Federation chose the path of creating weapons to prevent a global conflict, and everything else is secondary and only burdens the budget. Do you need a Fleet in this case, above all surface ships? Yes, it is necessary, because if the likelihood of a global conflict is not great, then the likelihood of conflicts with petty provocateurs always exists. It is these conflicts, in my opinion, that the development of the fleet is oriented, and this is reasonable. Protection of their interests in the Arctic, in the Pacific Ocean, demonstration of the flag in Africa, operations like the Syrian ... For these purposes, the announced programs for the construction of the Fleet are quite enough. The balance of "guns and butter" has not been canceled. If a little less guns - then it will only cause screams and squeals of a certain circle of couch super patriots, but the lack of "oil" can cause a wave worse and larger.
  29. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo April 10 2020 00: 34 New
    +2
    the article correctly began with the words about the allies: "army and navy" - no need to divide and divide them (!)
    everything in our complex
  30. LeonidL
    LeonidL April 10 2020 05: 58 New
    -3
    Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
    a change in the way of thinking of senior military officials in the Ministry of Defense.

    Dear Dmitry! This addition is surprising! You yourself stated that you are not a professional. How can you assess the professionalism and "way of thinking" of people who have never come close? You can and are based only on the very tip of the iceberg, without understanding the logic of decision-making, but it is based on information that is not available to you. I accept your style of the article as an expression of your personal vision of the situation, but this, again, is just your personal point of view.
  31. SVD68
    SVD68 April 10 2020 07: 31 New
    -1
    The very first issue that needs to be resolved is the question of the development path of our naval strategic nuclear forces.
    Now they are hanging weights on the development paths of our fleet. And scary to abandon them, and no funds are enough to properly ensure them in the form as they are.
    There are four options.
    1. Development of anti-aircraft defense, anti-aircraft and anti-mine forces to ensure the existing type of strategic nuclear forces. The remaining tasks of the fleet can be solved as much as possible by the same forces.
    2. Abandon the NSLF. Transfer nuclear deterrence to the Strategic Missile Forces.
    3. Move the strategic nuclear forces to areas fundamentally inaccessible to enemy anti-aircraft defense forces. If the Sea of ​​Okhotsk cannot be made like this, then to the Caspian and Ladoga.
    4. Leave the NSLF only against China. Then you can score on the PLO.

    In 2-4 options, it will be possible to begin to build a fleet for the struggle for supremacy at sea. At first against regional powers. Of particular danger here are Japan, Turkey, Pilsen and Sweden. Then it will be possible to think about the confrontation of the USA and NATO on their shores.
  32. Old26
    Old26 April 10 2020 16: 24 New
    +3
    Quote: SVD68
    Abandon MSNS. Transfer nuclear deterrence to the Strategic Missile Forces.

    Maybe abandon the aviation component and leave only the aviation? And what about almost 70 combat aircraft. Haha spend that kind of money on Strategic Rocket Forces. Because of them, general forces cannot develop. Or vice versa. ASNF multiplied by zero. No sense from them.

    Quote: SVD68
    3. Move the strategic nuclear forces to areas fundamentally inaccessible to enemy anti-aircraft defense forces. If the Sea of ​​Okhotsk cannot be made like this, then to the Caspian and Ladoga.

    Yeah. especially to the Caspian. There the flotilla from Astrakhan was relocated to Kaspiysk due to the fact that the shallowing of the Volga delta could one day "lock up" the flotilla in Astrakhan.
  33. lot
    lot April 11 2020 11: 57 New
    +1
    They wrote about Medvedev’s fishing compound for $ 65 million. Which shipyards? which engines? not those worries.
  34. Grading
    Grading April 13 2020 11: 28 New
    0
    Quote: lot
    They wrote about Medvedev’s fishing compound for $ 65 million. Which shipyards? which engines? not those worries.