Does a strong Russia need a strong fleet?
In general, reflective articles about how important a strong fleet is for Russia appear systematically and regularly. Perhaps the frequency of occurrence is influenced by the proximity of budget readings for the next year, but this is only an assumption.
For the most part, these are ordinary jingoes about the fact that Russia has two allies: the army and the navy. But there are also really smart articles with a balanced and well-reasoned approach. But we often want to argue with such materials, especially if political aspirations begin to dominate common sense in them.
This is another article that caught my eye, and, on the one hand, while agreeing with many things given in it, I strongly want to challenge the conclusions of this article.
There will be no strong Russia without a strong fleet.
The author is Vladimir Vasilievich Puchnin, captain of the 1st rank, retired, Doctor of Military Sciences, Professor, Professor of the Department of the All-Russian Scientific Center of the Navy "Naval Academy". That immediately excludes him from the number of "experts", and the text shows that he is a person who deeply understands the processes taking place in the country. However, it is very, very difficult to agree with some of the messages, and therefore it is worth asking a few questions.
In his article, Puchnin correctly notes that the gap between Russia and the leading shipbuilding countries in terms of finished tonnage is more than 100 times. And today in the country, unfortunately, the machine-tool building, machine building, the production of electronic devices and even individual components are in a very poor condition.
All our shipyards can process 400 thousand tons of steel per year. China has three shipyards, each of which is capable of processing over 1 million tons of steel. The Koreans have a shipyard (it is clear that "Hand"), processing 2 million tons.
The total share of shipbuilding in Russian GDP is 0,8%. Large-scale shipbuilding is going through not exactly the best times, we have big problems with the construction of large-tonnage ships.
And if we are talking about the so-called import substitution, then it is in shipbuilding that there is complete order with it. The share of foreign components in civil shipbuilding ranges from 40% to 85%, for military shipbuilding - from 50% to 60%
Are we talking about some kind of problems in the World Ocean? Yes, it doesn't look very good.
Despite the fact that the sea border of Russia is not what it is, it is, let's say, even in abundance. Two oceans, thirteen seas, almost as long as the equator ...
It would seem that Russia is a sea power?
The share of shipments by ships flying all flags for Russia amounted to 6% of the total traffic in 2019. It is difficult to say how much of this amount was made by Russian courts, but it is clear that even less.
But this is a separate conversation, we are talking about the military navy.
And with the military fleet, although it is somewhat better than with the civilian, that is, at the very least, something is being built, but all the same it is very far from the epithets "strong" and "great". The words "old" and "rebuilt" are very suitable, since many ships (especially large ones) sailed under the flag of the USSR.
The best example of the "modernity" of our fleet is the TAVKR "Admiral Nakhimov". Which in 2022 will have to go into operation and thereby significantly improve ... In general, it does not matter what it will improve. It is important that the ship launched in April 1986 entered service in 1988 and served until 1997, after which it got up for repairs. And to our time it continues to remain there.
23 years in repair - this is the most that neither is the indicator. It is clear that in 2022, 25 years after the start of repairs and upgrades, it will be almost a star cruiser with all the ensuing consequences.
I completely agree with Puchnin that building a fleet is a very difficult task. Here many factors come into play: the possibilities of the country's budget, the possibilities of designers, the possibilities of shipbuilding enterprises.
And the main thing is that the construction of such a huge organism as a military fleet should not bend the economy to the ground. No wonder they said in the last century: if you want to destroy the economy of a small country, give it a cruiser.
In our case, we are talking not only about the cruiser, but also about aircraft carriers, landing ships, cover ships, and so on.
Thus, the construction of the fleet is becoming an element of national policy. And here the most interesting thing begins: the clash of desires and possibilities. When loud phrases about a particular need are faced with engines, steel, working hands and other components.
I will allow myself a quote from Puchnin:
It is completely incomprehensible what this is about. No, the fact that "maritime activities", say, for the transportation of the same LNG to the United States from our northern terminal will have a positive impact on socio-economic development, is understandable. It is unclear what unfavorable conditions for maritime activities shackle Russia's hands. Apart from the absence of ships of the merchant and passenger fleet, nothing comes to mind. But what does the navy have to do with it?
Everything seems to be transparent. The merchant fleet makes money for the state. Rybolovetsky provides food. The military man guards and protects all this, if necessary. If necessary.
Whether such a need arises or not, in principle, one must have a fleet in any case. But it is even better when the concept of using this fleet is clearly explained. Which will cost not billions of rubles, but much larger amounts.
And this is where differences of opinion begin. According to Puchnin:
- ensuring the inviolability of the sovereignty, independence, state and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, extending to the internal sea waters, the territorial sea, their bottom and bowels, as well as to the airspace above them.
I agree. For this, they are building today MRC with modern missiles, submarines, coastal anti-ship missile systems, and so on. We really have something to defend. And today it would be nice to have as many specialized ships as possible for this. From missile boats to corvettes.
Well, the same thing, in principle.
Good. The freedom of the high seas is ensured by the relevant regulations. And politics. There is no need to look far for examples, the ongoing indistinct swarming around Nord Stream 2 indicates that the entire Baltic Fleet is not in a position to exert the slightest influence on the bans of other countries on the laying of the pipeline.
And what's more, in stories With the SP-2, it turned out to be much more important to have not strike ships, but an elementary modern pipelayer. Which turned out to be the only one for the whole of Russia and which had to be dragged across half the world from the Far East.
Okay, but here I want to ask a question: who in general can prevent the Russian Federation (or, perhaps, ships flying the Russian flag?) From guaranteed use of communications? The point is completely incomprehensible. Here again everything is regulated by legal documents, and if the world community suddenly decides that Russian ships have nothing to do in the World Ocean, then, forgive me, no fleet will help.
What does this mythical status of a "great sea power" give? Well, other than a reason to shout about it from the TV screen or on the pages of the relevant media? Nothing. This status will not lead to anything and will not give anything. Moreover, in our country you can reward anything, the whole question is how interesting it is to the rest of the world community.
Considering that this will not increase the cargo turnover and fish catch by one iota, Russia can be given the status of a "great sea power" right now. No one in the world is hot or cold from this.
"Maintaining strategic stability, increasing influence" - it looks ridiculous. There is only one fleet in the world to do such things - the American one. The United States can afford to increase its influence and everything else. I would say, of course, that where the US fleet appears, stability comes to a complete end, but let it look like strategic destabilization.
The main thing is that the Americans can afford it with their navy. Catch them up to parity? Fantastic.
And the last thing. Improving "partnerships" with warships is interesting. With whom can partnerships be improved in this way? And how long?
Strange statements, strange approach to business.
- development of the Northern Sea Route as a globally competitive national transport communication of the Russian Federation on the world market ...
Okay, I agree that the Arctic should be kept under supervision. But in the Arctic, no one can create a threat to us, except, perhaps, American submarines. This means that the presence of some classes of ships (which we will talk about at the end) is completely optional there.
It's clear here. More precisely, it is clear what, but it is not clear how. The only thing that can be seen is the warships plying over the pipes lying half a kilometer deep. How can a subsea pipeline be interrupted? To throw depth charges, or what? And how is it then necessary to protect and defend?
Looks frivolous. Fighting ships that, at the expense of taxpayers, will protect Gazprom's private pipelines from mythical terrorists. Laughter through tears.
And all this, excuse me, is served under the sauce of "realizing Russia's national interests in the World Ocean." And for this it is necessary to spend trillions of rubles.
Seriously? In terms of amounts, yes. In terms of tasks, no.
Moving on.
Further, we would need to consider how these tasks should be implemented.
Puchnin believes that "It is not possible to achieve the specified strategic goals of maritime policy by ships of the coastal and maritime zones".
This means that it is necessary to build ships that are not included, or rather, go beyond the specified framework.
Well, actually, the cherry on the cake. The possibility of a naval presence in the regions and show-off, that is, "display of the flag" somewhere else.
This stupid nonsense, "demonstration of the flag" somewhere in "key points of the world" such as Libya or Venezuela, is nothing more than a simple waste of budget funds. Mediocre and worthless.
Okay, if a museum exhibit of the Soviet era is dragged around the world on an atomic drive, at least it is not very expensive. But if an aircraft carrier trough on oil boilers spoils the atmosphere in different parts of the world, this is sad. And deservedly causes legitimate laughter and trolling on social networks.
And this, in fact, is what Puchnin wrote the whole article for.
That is, in the name of some completely vague ideas, it is necessary to spend enormous sums to make aircraft carriers, destroyers and UDCs appear. And they will defend obscure interests around the globe.
Actually, this is where we can finish. And not because we do not have the money to build such ships, we do not have the opportunity.
We need to start with whether we can even build such ships in the quantity that Puchnin talks about. Can our economy, which, to put it mildly, do not shine with indicators and, most importantly, with capabilities, master the construction of ships without prejudice to the country?
So, the economy and the budget. And ships.
Puchnin believes that by 2035 our fleet may have the following composition:
- strategic missile submarines - 8-10 units;
- multipurpose nuclear submarines - 16-18 units;
- multipurpose diesel and non-nuclear submarines - 24-27 units;
- aircraft carriers (aircraft-carrying cruisers) - 3 units;
- ships of the far sea and ocean zones (cruisers, destroyers, frigates) - 26-28 units;
- universal amphibious assault ships (UDC) - 3-4 units;
- large landing ships - 11-14 units;
- ships of the near sea zone (corvettes, small missile and patrol ships, minesweepers) - 77–83 units.
With the list, all questions disappear. For there is fiction - not the most scientific, unfortunately.
And it begins in the line "aircraft carriers / aircraft carrying cruisers." One, as it were, is still there, where Puchnin is going to take two more - the question.
Cruisers, destroyers, frigates, BOD - 20. But we are silent that the main majority are 30 years old and above.
UDC. After the Mistrals, body movements continue, but even in the “mistral” era, they did not explain to us so clearly where and, most importantly, whom we would strike with these ships and where to land the troops. The large landing craft came in handy in the "Syrian Express", after which the floating veterans of the Soviet era mostly played in repairs.
This "strategy" is estimated by Puchnin at $ 11 billion. In year. And half will go to the construction of new ships. That is, if the whole figure in rubles is 830 billion rubles, then for ships - 400 billion rubles a year. Well, for the entire program - over 4 trillion until 2035.
A very dubious figure.
But this is not the saddest thing. It is sad to read this:
When a person who seems to be related to the Navy, knows it from the inside and firsthand, writes this, it is, I repeat, sad. Because the presence "at key points" of three squadrons with aircraft carriers is already unscientific fantasy.
And on this you can already end the review. Because it's not worth taking projects seriously in our time. Yes, unfortunately there are "hawks" in any country. But not everywhere they are admitted to the budget. Fortunately for those countries where they are not allowed, everything is fine there.
Of course, we also have arms-rattles from among the sofa experts. They will, yes, they will be tickled by the vision of squadrons under the Russian flag in "key points" of the World Ocean. Only hardly anyone will be able to clearly explain what these squadrons will do there. How will they "effectively counter military threats in the oceans."
Well, yes, the standard set of boisterous phrases about nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence of the enemy, securing some "potential interests" and so on.
In general, there would be money, but on what nonsense to spend it, our "experts" will always figure out.
Okay, money can be found. As always, impose taxes and levies, urge once again to "tighten their belts", scare the "stirring of the enemy hordes" at our borders and stuff like that.
The accusation of unpatriotism should already follow, but ...
And even if money is found in such volumes, where will we build? Forgive us, even if the city of Nikolaev is annexed to Russia with a fight, everything is already destroyed and collapsed there. But we did not know how to build aircraft-carrying cruisers anywhere else. Alas. And there is no need to broadcast that an aircraft carrier with a capacity of 100 tons will be built in Kerch. They will not build. There is no one. And there is nothing.
Roughly the same with the ships of the far ocean zone. Yes, by 2022 they promised to withdraw Admiral Nakhimov from the eternal repair, but we'll see. When the repairs are finished, then we'll talk, it's too early.
And, in fact, rather than dream of squadrons plying key points in the ocean, it would be better to think about where to get engines for destroyer frigates. And then "Admiral Kharlamov" has been standing since 2004, restless, because, as always, there are no engines and not even expected.
However, there is someone to read about destroyers without it.
Russian Navy. A sad look into the future: domestic destroyers.
As a result, I express my deepest regret that such unscientific but fantastic materials still appear in our press. The thought creeps in that they appear for a reason, namely because someone is interested in allocating huge sums for the "development and construction" of nuclear aircraft carriers, nuclear destroyers and other nonsense.
It is clear that the higher the amount, the more you can saw off and gnaw off. This is clear. But how to build three aircraft-carrying ships in the conditions of modern Russia is completely incomprehensible to me. And it is difficult to understand people who speak quite seriously about the need to implement such plans.
Russia naturally needs a fleet. One that will protect the shores and coastal areas from any encroachments. The fleet that will actually threaten to strike a potential enemy with nuclear warheads.
But to play expensive toys such as cruisers-aircraft carriers ... Let's still take seriously the issue of "flag demonstrations". And let's estimate how economically profitable they are.
Sorry, but an old ship showing a flag to third countries like Venezuela is not a great maritime power. It is laughter through bitter tears.
Information