Military Review

Does a strong Russia need a strong fleet?

242

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.

Does a strong Russia need a strong fleet?

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:

The National Maritime Policy is an integral part of the policy of the state and society, which is aimed at defining, implementing and protecting national interests in the World Ocean and creating favorable conditions for the maritime activities of the Russian Federation in the interests of its sustainable socio-economic development.

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:

In accordance with the currently valid conceptual and regulatory documents, the national interests of the Russian Federation in the World Ocean in modern geopolitical conditions and for the long term are:
- 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.

... - ensuring the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf of the Russian Federation.

Well, the same thing, in principle.

… - ensuring freedom of the high seas, including freedom of navigation, flights, fishing, marine scientific research, laying of underwater cables and pipelines, the right to study and develop mineral resources of the international seabed area.

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.

… - ensuring guaranteed access of the Russian Federation to global transport communications in the World Ocean.

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.

… - consolidation of the status of a great maritime power for the Russian Federation, whose activities in the World Ocean are aimed at maintaining strategic stability, increasing influence and mutually beneficial partnerships in the conditions of the emerging polycentric world.

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 Arctic zone of the Russian Federation as a strategic resource base and its rational use;
- 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.

… - safe operation of offshore pipeline systems of hydrocarbon raw materials, which are strategically important in the foreign economic activity of the Russian Federation.

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.

A necessary condition for the implementation and guaranteed protection of the national interests of the Russian Federation in the World Ocean is the presence of such a naval potential that can provide the right and opportunities for a naval presence and demonstration of force in strategically important, including remote, areas of the World Ocean. "

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.

A necessary condition for the realization and guaranteed protection of the national interests of the Russian Federation ... we need surface ships of the far sea and ocean zones, including destroyers, universal amphibious assault and aircraft-carrying ships, capable of appearing at the right time and in the right area of ​​the World Ocean in accordance with the changing geopolitical and military-strategic landscape ...

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:

The specified naval composition of the Navy, in which the share of modern weapons will be at least 75-80%, is capable of providing a permanent naval presence in three or more key regions of the World Ocean of the grouping of forces with a total composition of: one aircraft carrier, at least one UDC, up to six ships of the far sea and ocean zone, at least four multipurpose nuclear and up to five non-nuclear submarines. Additionally, in the waters of the Black, Baltic and Sea of ​​Japan (in the near sea zone), have at least 10 corvettes and small missile ships with high-precision weapons long range.

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.
Author:
242 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 7 September 2020 05: 05 New
    11
    The answer is unequivocal - Russia needs a fleet !!!
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 7 September 2020 05: 14 New
      16
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      The answer is unequivocal - Russia needs a fleet !!!
      Who is arguing? fool
      Does a strong Russia need a strong fleet?
      The statement of the question is not correct. What kind of fleet does Russia need? From the beginning to decide on the enemy, then on the task for the fleet, and then on its composition. And the highlight is the performance characteristics of the ships. request And we have only colleagues and partners, in politics and at the "front" what
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 7 September 2020 06: 10 New
        12
        The statement of the question is not correct

        From tasks: 1. Ensuring the use of SSBNs.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 7 September 2020 07: 17 New
          -3
          From tasks: 1. Ensuring the use of SSBNs.

          This is also a question. Are SSBNs needed?
          With their current real combat effectiveness.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 7 September 2020 10: 14 New
            19
            Quote: Arzt
            This is also a question. Are SSBNs needed?
            With their current real combat effectiveness.

            There are no options. We have already have SSBNs, which contain 40% of strategic SBS. This is the reality given to us in sensations. And we will have to dance from her - we have to provide them with a way out of the base, safe passage into position areas and safe patrols in these areas.
            1. bayard
              bayard 7 September 2020 11: 34 New
              11
              If you look closely at the numbers on the payroll of the fleet expected for 2035, then there is nothing particularly fantastic there. Well, you can argue about three aircraft carriers and 3 - 4 UDC.
              Moreover, it is better not to argue about UDC, because 2 pcs. have already laid and the deadline has been set in 2025 and 2027. , so by 2035 it will not be a problem to build 4 pieces.
              The situation with aircraft carriers is somewhat different, but if we consider that from about 2025 the Zaliv's acquired competencies will already be sufficient for the construction of aircraft carriers (conditionally gas turbine middle class - VIs of 45 - 000 tons), then everything is also quite realistic.
              For DMZ and OZ ships, the figure is also quite realistic, based on plans for the construction of frigates 22350 (the series of which will most likely be continued up to, approximately 12 pcs.) And frigate destroyers 22350M (12 - 18 pcs.), Already existing frigates built in the last decade (Black Sea) and 2 - 3 still Soviet-built cruisers.
              About the participation of "Kuznetsov" in the proposed 3 aircraft carriers - a gross mistake of the author. By that time (2035), this ship will most likely have already been decommissioned. Like almost all Soviet-built ships.
              Age is unforgiving.
              And in order to talk about the fleet (necessary or unnecessary), you need to decide very well for yourself - is Russia going to participate in international maritime trade, is it going to have a large merchant fleet and is it going to have interests and assets overseas.
              As far as I know, there are such plans.
              The same Far East "Zvezda" intends to build a lot of very large vessels for the transportation of hydrocarbons. Consequently, in the foreseeable future, Russia will have a large merchant fleet, the safety of navigation for which will have to be ensured by the Navy.
              And no lawyers and international treaties will save our merchant and fishing vessels from international terrorists and pirates, who are in essence a national symbol and a classic "hero image" of the Anglo-Saxon world.
              Not a single treaty is worth the paper on which it is written if it is not confirmed by the MILITARY. In this case, the Russian Navy.

              But if we completely abandoned maritime trade and interests abroad, then the fleet is really not needed. Enough coastal aviation (patrol, anti-submarine, fighter and strike), coastal SCRC, minesweepers, corvettes and missile boats.

              But the merchant fleet is already being built, sea trade is developing, Russian companies are investing more and more and deploying their production abroad.
              So the fleet - TO BE.
              1. Eskobar
                Eskobar 7 September 2020 20: 09 New
                +4
                So we have minesweepers with naval aviation with a gulkin nose
                1. bayard
                  bayard 7 September 2020 20: 17 New
                  +2
                  So until 2035, both minesweepers and naval aviation can be raised and deployed from scratch. bully
                  Well, this is if we live.
                  There are no pilots for aviation today - there are not enough of them for the Aerospace Forces - after Taburetkin and Medvedev at one time closed all flight schools. Young lieutenants of the Shoygo-Putin draft have just begun to enter the regiments. First.
                  And this is not yet combat pilots, they are still in the regiments to teach and teach
                  1. Kasym
                    Kasym 8 September 2020 00: 09 New
                    +1
                    In order to develop trade, it is necessary to ensure the safety of routes. Sea routes are now the main ones - then it is necessary to ensure their safety. hi
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 8 September 2020 06: 51 New
                      +2
                      And you also need to build your own merchant and fishing fleet, so as not to charter other people's ships, but on the contrary - to carry everything of your own, and to earn money on the freight. The merchant fleet is not only a market for ships by industry, but also a labor market for officers and sailors who received a profession in the Navy, this is maintaining the required level of draft mobilization potential ... And in general, it is an incentive for the development of the entire industry, from metallurgy, metalworking , mechanical engineering, chemistry ... to electronics and electrical engineering. This is a huge labor market and a source of budget replenishment.
                      And now all THIS wealth must be PROTECTED, cherished and protected.
                      Gorshkov, when he was compiling his concept of building the ocean-going fleet of the USSR, put the creation of the largest COMMERCIAL and FISHING fleet in the world at the forefront.
                      And there was a strict rule - before the laying of one warship (let's say a submarine), the industry had to build about ten new ships for various purposes. For instance :
                      - one large ocean-going tanker;
                      - one ocean-going dry cargo ship;
                      - a couple of port floating cranes;
                      - one passenger / cruise liner;
                      - and up to five fishing vessels (seiners, trawlers, floating fish processing plants.
                      And when these ships were put into operation and began to make a profit, only then the submarine was laid.
                      How quickly did these commercial vessels pay off?
                      For example, a large ocean tanker paid off for ONE flight Hamburg-Melbourne! And for the rest of his life he worked exclusively for profit and replenishment of the budget of the Country of Soviets.
                      Fishing vessels also paid off very quickly. Therefore, FISH from all the oceans of the planet in the Soviet Union was simply FALLED. And it was very cheap.

                      Therefore, the scheme is as follows - the Merchant Fleet earns, the Navy - protects and is built on money from the merchant fleet. That is why efforts are being made to force shipowners to register in Russia, as well as laws on the right to pass through the NSR only for ships built in Russia. But ... there are problems.
                      If Faberge was in power like Stalin, all problems would have been solved long ago. But our government does not know political economy.
                      Or does not want to know.
                      And it should be.
                      It's time to invite political economy teachers (!) To power.
                      And there are such in Russia.
                      They are practically ONLY in Russia.
                      It's time.
                      1. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 8 September 2020 09: 33 New
                        +4
                        Quote: bayard
                        Fishing vessels also paid off very quickly. Therefore, FISH from all the oceans of the planet in the Soviet Union was simply FALLED. And it was very cheap.

                        Uh-huh ... just first fish was considered a hake. Then the hack began to disappear and fish pollock began to be considered. Then the pollock began to disappear - and fish began to count all the notes. sad
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 8 September 2020 09: 51 New
                        +1
                        A HERRING, HERRY, FORGOT!
                        And Iwashi?
                        Sea bass, cod, squid, whale meat (until the whales were knocked out) ...
                        Soviet fishers even fished off the coast of Antarctica, off the coast of Chile and South Africa ...
                        Yes everywhere!
                        They fed the people with seafood and earned currency by selling part of the fish in foreign ports (and stealing from it). But the country had enough fish!
                        And she was - cheap.
                        And about
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        any kind of notation.

                        we did not hear then. smile
                    2. Zementbomber
                      Zementbomber 17 September 2020 07: 41 New
                      -1
                      Gorshkov, when he drew up his concept of building the ocean-going fleet of the USSR, put the creation of the largest COMMERCIAL and FISHING fleet in the world at the forefront.

                      Admiral Gorshkov, although he did not shine with genius, was not so stupid and stupid to carry such delusional plans.
                    3. bayard
                      bayard 17 September 2020 11: 34 New
                      +1
                      These were the plans of the Soviet State Planning Committee, which linked all programs of economic development and issues of optimal utilization of all enterprises. And neither Gorshkov, nor any other admiral, the State Planning Committee was unable to jump over.
                      A large Navy is important and the ability to maintain ONLY in the presence of a large Merchant Navy, and the needs to protect its interests. This knowledge is easy to glean from studying the history of both domestic and foreign navies, as well as from communication with the leading employees of the shipbuilding industry of the Soviet Union. I had such communication. And I learned about such plans and methods of correlating the laying of civil ships and warships from communication with them.
                      Yes, in fact, what did you see the "delusion" of these plans? The fact that the State Planning Commission linked all programs into a single system? In the fact that the State showed concern for the employment of seafarers who have served their term? In an effort to organize a harmonious workload for all enterprises in the industry?
                      This is a scientific approach to state planning for the development of interrelated branches of the socialist state and concern for replenishing the state. budget for these same programs.
                      The lack of such an approach is the fever of the rearmament programs of modern Russia, and the construction of the Navy, in particular.
                    4. Zementbomber
                      Zementbomber 17 September 2020 12: 45 New
                      0
                      "delirium" I "saw" in the fact that anyone in the USSR - the Main Command of the Navy, the General Staff, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Justice Industry, the Minmorflot, the Ministry commercial ("merchant") and fishing fleets "the largest in the world." Or even at least - "one of the largest". In 1970, the total displacement of only the merchant fleets of the United States, Liberia and Panama (the last two countries - "flags of convenience" mainly for American shipping companies) - exceeded 56 million grt (and this is only ships larger than 500 grt).
                    5. bayard
                      bayard 17 September 2020 13: 12 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Zementbomber
                      ... 1970 - the total displacement of only the merchant fleets of the USA, Liberia and Panama

                      And in 1984 the total tonnage of the US merchant fleet was in 6th place in the world, in the first and second - English and Dutch (this is without taking into account the place of the USSR).
                      And I hope that the Soviet fishing fleet was the largest in the world, won't you argue?
                      And it was not so much about making our fleet the largest, but at least including it among the largest, because only then the construction of a navy equivalent to the United States could make sense and an opportunity.
                      And the fact that American shipowners have registered their ships in other jurisdictions is no secret, and this explains their 6th place in the 1984 rating.
                      And in terms of the rate of military shipbuilding of the USSR and the USA, the last 10-15 years of their coexistence went head to head (the total tonnage of warships handed over in a year).
                    6. Zementbomber
                      Zementbomber 17 September 2020 14: 53 New
                      0
                      1. Once again: the US merchant fleet operates mainly under the flags of Liberia, Panama and Honduras. Therefore, "the US-flagged merchant fleet" and the "US merchant fleet" are two very big differences in Odessa. The US merchant fleet is several times larger than the US-flagged fleet.
                      2. Why won't I? Of course I will. It is common knowledge. that the largest sea fishing fleet was (and remains) the Norwegian.
                    7. bayard
                      bayard 17 September 2020 15: 30 New
                      0
                      Quote: Zementbomber
                      the US merchant fleet operates mainly under the flags of Liberia, Panama and Honduras. Therefore, "the US-flagged merchant fleet" and the "US merchant fleet" are two very big differences in Odessa.

                      In the Soviet Union, they rather proceeded from the British rule that the merchant fleet feeds / provides for the construction and maintenance of the military fleet. Moreover, then offshore registration of assets was not practiced in our country.
                      Therefore, the English experience was taken, and the US military fleet was the benchmark for parity.
                      And everything turned out very well, considering that the Union began building the ocean-going fleet only at the turn of the 60s - 70s. If he had 10 more years in reserve, parity would have been fully achieved, and the USSR Navy would have been completely balanced in its surface, underwater component and Naval Aviation. Would have in its composition 10 aircraft carriers (of which at least 4 nuclear), MRA on hundreds of Tu-22M3 (and Tu-22M4 with NK-32), dozens of cruisers and destroyers ... and naval bases in all parts of the world ...
                      But.
                      It's all with the prefix WOULD.
                      The union was cut off for us on takeoff.
                    8. Zementbomber
                      Zementbomber Yesterday, 01: 09 New
                      -1
                      Oh, how AntiresnA !! Tell me, plz, - how the USSR in 2002 could have 4 AVMA, if the first ATAVKR was laid only on 25.11.1988/01.11.1991/20 and at the time of the cancellation of the order on 1143.7/XNUMX/XNUMX was at least XNUMX% construction (not even technical) readiness - and the rest of TAVKR pr. XNUMX were not even included in the construction plan?
                      Well, to the heap: how a wretched deal with the wretched aircraft of Project 1143 could "ensure parity" with "Chester William Nimitz"?
                    9. bayard
                      bayard Yesterday, 03: 07 New
                      0
                      Parity is a complex concept and not always a mirror image.
                      The aircraft carrier's slipway period is about 3 years, then the launching and laying of a new one, and the deflated one - to the outfitting wall. The dock is again nearby. So they were built.
                      "Ulyanovsk" was the lead - the first atomic, with a flat continuous deck and catapults. The hull itself was actually 20% ready, but many units and equipment had already been delivered to the shipyard and were in readiness for installation, this should also be taken into account.
                      The construction cycle of the "Ulyanovsk" type was estimated at 7 years together with tests and refinement. Therefore, by 2002, the entire series could be in service. Well, or the latter would be in completion or testing.
                      Quote: Zementbomber
                      Well, to the heap: how a wretched deal with the wretched aircraft of Project 1143 could "ensure parity" with "Chester William Nimitz"?

                      Even one rearmament of the air wing on the Yak-41 would have brought our AUG to parity with the Americans' AUG. Not in terms of the number of aircraft, but in terms of strike capabilities. After all, our "Gyrfalcons" carried in themselves very serious anti-ship missiles, to which the Americans took very seriously. And if we consider that our AUG would have at least one cruiser 1164 (planned for construction 10 units) with 16 heavy anti-ship missiles and one SSGN 949 with 24 units. similar missiles + destroyers "Sarych" (in an already modernized form - with 32 pieces of missile launchers "Granat" and "Onyx" in the UKSK instead of the stern tower) and BOD 1155 ... also in a new look (up to 48 cruise missiles in the UKSK instead of the second turret , "Onyx" in inclined PU and PLUR "Waterfall") ... well, sliders 1135 for PLO.
                      The Yak-41 would provide air defense of the grouping together with shipborne air defense systems and reconnaissance, and strike functions would be on missile ships.
                      "Sarychi" and 1155 were really going to be radically modernized in the course of medium repairs, and some of the already built ones would have been modernized. And the next ones would be laid according to a new project, conventionally - 1155.2.
                      "Sarychi" are more than those already laid down by 1991, they did not intend to lay them down, considering the project 1155.x more promising.

                      To balance our large fleet, we lacked full-fledged aircraft carriers. "Ulyanovsk" would solve this problem in full, being approximately equivalent to "Nimitz", but the first 6 gyrfalcones were going to be modernized, and some of them to the level of "Kuznetsov" during the planned overhaul.
                      Such were the plans.
                      The Yak-41 was equal in speed to the F-18, and was not even much inferior in the combat radius, and in terms of armament (including the radar) it was equivalent to the MiG-29. So I could provide air defense.
                      There would have been problems with AWACS aircraft, but there were already helicopters with such functions, but with lower characteristics. The Yak-44 was to be based on the Ulyanovsk.
                      Given our superiority in anti-ship missiles, the parity of surface forces would have been achieved by the beginning of the XNUMXs.
                      By the middle of the XNUMXs - exactly and without reservations.

                      This is all, of course, from the field of extrapolations, but quite realistic and based on real plans, developments and available capacities.

                      Shipyard "Zaliv", by the way, could in the 90s begin the construction of amphibious helicopter carriers.

                      And in the United States in the 90s, an economic and financial crisis would have raged.

                      4 things. atomic 1144, 10 pcs. 1164 and 10 pcs. pr. 949 with reliable anti-submarine and air cover would ensure SUCH parity with the US Navy that the anthem of the Soviet Union would be sung all over the world, and Russian kvass would be much more popular than Coca-Cola.

                      Here's an alternative. bully
  • SVD68
    SVD68 7 September 2020 14: 06 New
    -2
    Quote: Alexey RA

    There are no options. We have already have SSBNs, which contain 40% of strategic SBS. This is the reality given to us in sensations. And we will have to dance from her - we have to provide them with a way out of the base, safe passage into position areas and safe patrols in these areas.

    So a typical suitcase without a handle.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 September 2020 16: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: SVD68
      So a typical suitcase without a handle.

      And what to do? The time frame for replacing the submarine component of the strategic nuclear forces with ground-based systems will be even longer than the time frame for the construction of the fleet supporting them.
      And in the presence of support forces, SSBNs will already be able to take advantage of all their advantages - guaranteed retaliation due to secrecy.
  • Temples
    Temples 7 September 2020 10: 21 New
    -9
    It is clear that the higher the amount, the more you can saw off and gnaw off. This is clear.

    Skomorokhov Roman, normal people do not saw off or gnaw.
    Normal people fulfill the order. State contract.
    They get money on it.
    The product costs exactly as much as they are willing to pay for it.
    There are contracts in which there are amounts that satisfy both parties.

    Wake up already.
    Saw off, gnaw.
    It seems like an adult uncle already. wink

    And the fact that all sorts of rubbish do it to the customer.
    What the customer wants, the performer does it for him.

    If you are a customer, you will demand what you want. wink


    Outstanding Epilogue:
    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.


    Straight on Trump
    The fleet is good.
    The lack of a fleet is bad.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 September 2020 11: 56 New
      +8
      Quote: Temples
      And the fact that all sorts of rubbish do it to the customer.
      What the customer wants, the performer does it for him.

      Come on, dictatorship of industry has not been canceled yet. "Take what they give - still nothing else will happen".
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 7 September 2020 13: 54 New
    +5
    Are SSBNs needed?

    They are needed, with the right approach, they provide the possibility of a retaliatory oncoming strike.
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 7 September 2020 14: 13 New
      -2
      Quote: strannik1985

      They are needed, with the right approach, they provide the possibility of a retaliatory oncoming strike.

      How's that?
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 7 September 2020 14: 20 New
        +1
        How's that?

        Mine defense, anti-submarine, air defense (the latter, ideally, up to and including the aircraft carrier).
        1. SVD68
          SVD68 7 September 2020 14: 54 New
          -2
          And the counter?
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 7 September 2020 15: 56 New
            +2
            The early warning system detects the launch of an ICBM in our direction (even a single one), there is an alert on all strategic nuclear forces, carriers on the base station launch missiles before the American ballistic missiles reach their targets.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 September 2020 16: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: strannik1985
      They are needed, with the right approach, they provide the possibility of a retaliatory oncoming strike.

      And the recipient too. Moreover, with a power sufficient to provide the enemy with an unacceptable level of losses. With normal provision of SSBNs, this is inevitable retaliation.
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 7 September 2020 21: 21 New
      +3
      Responsive, not reciprocal.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 14: 31 New
    +2
    They are already there.
  • CTABEP
    CTABEP 7 September 2020 08: 56 New
    +5
    The main task. Which spending 100500 million on UDC and BDK will not help in any way. So I will support the author. If we have the third economy in the world, it will be possible to think about the rest.
  • Zementbomber
    Zementbomber 16 September 2020 16: 18 New
    0
    1. Do you really need ARPKSN?
    2. There are "natural bastions" for Russian SSBNs: the White and Okhotsk seas. For their reliable shelter in these bastions - surface and submarine ship forces of the General Purpose Navy - in general not are needed.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 16 September 2020 16: 35 New
      0
      1. But what, as one of the means of ensuring a retaliatory strike.
      2. Are these inland seas?
      1. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber 16 September 2020 16: 42 New
        0
        1. What's the point? The Strategic Missile Forces, DA and Sistema-6 aka Poseidons can fully provide a retaliatory strike.
        2. Yes, the White Sea is full. your int. Okhotsk - the entrance to its international waters can be completely blocked "in a" threatened period "without any use of surface and submarine forces of the Navy. See map.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 16 September 2020 17: 17 New
          0
          1. Needed, has its pros and cons.
          2. The system must be stable in any situation, not only in the presence of a special period. Ok, blocked, "Quickstrike-ER" allows you to lay mines with high accuracy at a distance of up to 75 km.
          1. Zementbomber
            Zementbomber 16 September 2020 17: 32 New
            -2
            1. Well, what are the "+ sy"? In addition to the empty talk on the training manual, what is needed once the Party orders [flog the garbage]?
            2. Secondly, there is a long way to go to "high accuracy". At first - you claim that you (allegedly) have air defense, don't you? With some air defense systems that you even declare as "modern", no?
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 16 September 2020 17: 57 New
              0
              1. Decide what you are arguing about.
              2.

              The firing range is due to the jamming environment.
              And if you put him to lie down and die? laughing
              1. Zementbomber
                Zementbomber 17 September 2020 07: 24 New
                0
                1. I not I argue - for me the picture has been clear for a long time - since the 1980s. it fool I ask a question to the representative of the sexta of the Witnesses of the NSNF RF: What + s besides -sov gives Russia in its specific, stubborn physical and political geography due to its geostrategic position - the presence of a sea component ("classic", i.e. SSBNs - "Poseidons" and SSGNs now not discussing) the "strategic nuclear offensive triad" instead of concentrating efforts on the quantitative and qualitative development of the Strategic Missile Forces, YES Air Force VKS MRA MA Navy and MFA SV?
                2. Well, if your IA and ZRV with RTV are so vanilla that they will allow B-52N at an altitude of 11000 m closer than 40 miles to the positional areas of SSBNs during Internal waters - then you neither SSBN nor the whole "triad" not will help. And we must immediately follow the example of Czechoslovakia in 1939 and 1968 - what is already there!
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 17 September 2020 08: 11 New
                  0
                  1. You have a question in your message about the absence of the need for SSBNs and BNK / submarines to provide them. Decide what you are don't argue.
                  2. They can be destroyed or restored to combat readiness after an exchange of nuclear strikes, radars can be jammed with interference, but you never know what.
                  Further, we blocked the entrance to the White and Okhotsk Seas with ASW lines, sensors detect the PL, what will you do to destroy it?
                2. Zementbomber
                  Zementbomber 17 September 2020 09: 24 New
                  0
                  What am I with NOT argue? OK.
                  - with the need for the Russian Navy to have at least 4 at least medium multipurpose aircraft carriers
                  - ships arsenals URO
                  - with the need for you to have - aircraft carriers attacking UDT and attacking DVKD
                  - ocean-going fire support ships
                  - ships of the class EM URO or LKR URO for escorting all the listed wealth smile
                  - attacking submarines and ocean submarines
                  - PLA - carriers of "Poseidons"
                  - PLA - DT SSO
                  - deep-sea combat submarines a la "Losharik"
                  This is if we talk specifically about the ocean-going combat fleet.
                  + naturally light and "medium" warships, boats and submarines for littoral and isolated maritime theaters.
                  blocked the entrance to the White and Okhotsk Seas with PLO lines, sensors detect the submarine, how will you destroy it?

                  bottom, conventional anchor and anti-submarine anchor mines, anchor torpedo mines, hydro-missile mines.
                  + light anti-submarine surface forces and BMZ submarine aviation.
                3. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 17 September 2020 12: 19 New
                  0
                  This is speaking

                  Flood is off-topic, it was about SSBNs and their support. Have you decided against what opinion do you have?
                  + light surface anti-submarine forces

                  Which should be covered from naval aviation.
                4. Zementbomber
                  Zementbomber 17 September 2020 14: 24 New
                  0
                  1. For the 100500th time I repeat: SSBNs as part of the Strategic Nuclear Forces - RF are not needed. And I have already explained here why.
                  2. From deck and base strike aircraft of the enemy - it will be necessary to cover even coastal batteries and groupings of BO troops. And also ports. So, ground air defense and air fighter cover of the coast and the adjacent sea zone will still be required.
                5. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 Yesterday, 07: 25 New
                  0
                  1. You will oppose yourself, you yourself have painted a scenario, thanks to which, in your opinion, SSBNs in the air defense missile systems will be difficult to detect and destroy. L - logic.
                  2. Radio horizon.
                6. Zementbomber
                  Zementbomber Yesterday, 12: 21 New
                  0
                  1. And if you think about it? I have written a scenario that ensures the combat stability of your NSNF. But from this absolutely not follows need you NSNF according to the criterion "cost - efficiency" (of course, after the maximum allowable time has been served, cash and SSBNs that are still in 15% or more construction readiness).
                  2. What are the problems with the radio horizon? In the pouring zones no more than two or three tens of miles wide, and even having an airborne cover and a BMZ BPA with an airborne radar?
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 06: 30 New
    +3
    the navy is one of the instruments for the continuation of the policy by other methods different from it
    politics is largely a concentrated expression of the economy
    let's dig even deeper and ask ourselves a question:
    What do we need from the fleet in order not to squeeze the shelf under someone else's drilling?

    by the way, why shouldn't the fleet guard Gazprom's pipes? this is the same source of dollars that many sew into a pillow for a rainy day
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 7 September 2020 09: 01 New
      +6
      The criticism voiced in the article is justified.
      But what does the author of the article suggest? Maybe this will be announced in the next article?
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 7 September 2020 10: 21 New
        +5
        The criticism voiced in the article is justified.
        But what does the author of the article suggest? Maybe this will be announced in the next article?

        1000 Su-35.
        500 modern analogues of Tu-22.
        2000 T-90.
        4000 modern armored personnel carriers.
        Normal military bases at the newly formed units on the borders with Ukraine, not barracks built on flooded meadows.

        A lot of smart and useful things can be built with this money.
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 7 September 2020 10: 24 New
          +2
          Why not 2-3 times more?
          The medium-term prospects for the development of the economy and technology in the Russian Federation will hardly provide even half of what you have listed.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 7 September 2020 10: 30 New
            -2
            Why not 2-3 times more?
            The medium-term prospects for the development of the economy and technology in the Russian Federation will hardly provide even half of what you have listed.

            Yes, it won't. But this is necessary, this is a priority.
            And if we start to stir up a full-fledged fleet, then again we will fight at Poltava with the last bit of strength.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 7 September 2020 14: 17 New
          -3
          "Modern analogues of Tu-22". It is already outdated physically and morally, and Russia does not need any analogues of it, but what is really needed is a supersonic seaplane, a missile carrier with a large combat load and combat radius, as well as the ability to perform ASW rescue functions on the seas and oceans.
          1. bayard
            bayard 7 September 2020 19: 24 New
            +3
            Quote: Vadim237
            "Modern analogues of Tu-22". It is already outdated physically and morally, and Russia does not need any analogues of it,

            Are you suggesting that you give up the opportunity to have an MPA?
            And what can you replace?
            Coastal complexes?
            Or surface ships?
            And underwater?
            How many of them do we have and what is the speed of their reaction with weapons?
            How quickly can they appear in the required area of ​​the database?
            Nothing more operative than naval missile-carrying aviation has not yet been invented, and given that new missiles (including Zircon, Dagger) have become lighter and longer-range, then the carrier for them may be easier than the Tu-22M3, which are few, they are old and no longer correspond to the standing knowledge base. In the role of such an aircraft, the Su-34 can become in a new modification - with new, more powerful and economical engines (the promising "Product-30" would be ideal), an increased airframe and wing area (which will increase the range and combat load) and equipped with the aviation version of Zircon (work on this has been going on for a long time). The wearable ammunition load of such an aircraft in terms of the number of missiles would be equal to the ammunition load carried by the Tu-22M3 (X-22).
            Namely :
            - 3 missiles "Zircon" in the version of the maximum load (the possibility of such a configuration was confirmed by the chief designer of the Su-34);
            - 2 missiles "Zircon" in the optimal combat load mode;
            - 1 missile "Zircon" + 4 anti-ship missiles X35 and / or X-31.
            And of course 4 - 6 explosive missiles for self-defense.
            Such aircraft would become the backbone of the MPA, would provide it with maximum efficiency in responding to a threat and would not require excessive costs for the development and launch of something fundamentally new for the aviation industry.
            And they would remove from the surface ships of the Russian Navy the daunting task of stopping threats from ALL ships and fleets of powers hostile to Russia.
            Deployed MPA regiments will be able to control the HUGE waters adjacent to our maritime borders. Of course, in cooperation with reconnaissance aircraft and a satellite constellation for reliable target designation.

            If difficulties arise with the creation of a new, modernized version of the Su-34 with an enlarged airframe and new engines, even the existing version of this aircraft, with proper adaptation, is capable of taking one or two Zircon missiles on suspensions and launching them from a line up to 1000 km from the airfield basing (+ the range of the missile itself is up to 1000 km.), and even more in the case of air refueling. That is, to ensure the radius of destruction of targets, equivalent to the previous Tu-22M3 \ X-22.
            That is, the creation / reconstruction of MPA is possible on the samples already available.
            Quote: Vadim237
            but what is really needed is a supersonic seaplane missile carrier with a large combat load and combat radius,

            This is nonsense inspired by Bartini's projects from the 50s.
            Where are you going to plant him?
            Yes, at SUCH speeds?
            SUPERSONIC!
            HYDROPLAN!
            Where can you find smooth water for him?
            How will you save its air intakes from splashes?
            Marine.
            After all, it will simply break on the wave.
            All these experiments (both in our country and in the USA) ended in the early 60s.
            Complete disappointment.
            Quote: Vadim237
            as well as the ability to perform the functions of PLO rescue in the seas and oceans.

            But for this, supersonic speed is NOT needed at all.
            Moreover, it is HARMFUL.

            All experiments have been carried out for a long time, the results have been obtained, the ways of solving the existing problems are KNOWN.
            The point is ONLY the competent implementation of these developments in LIFE.
            But whether MIND will win corruption and stupidity ... QUESTION.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 8 September 2020 01: 20 New
              -1
              Why complicate everything - takeoff and acceleration on conventional turbofan engines - supersonic flight on a ramjet engine will be much cheaper than installing a jet engine with an afterburner like the NK 32 which costs 1,5 billion rubles apiece and this is not at all stupid, and compared to the 60s - progress in everything has stepped far ahead, including materials. And yes, coastal complexes with Zircon missiles and MiG 31 with Daggers may well replace the Tu 22M3.
              1. bayard
                bayard 8 September 2020 07: 32 New
                +2
                Quote: Vadim237
                Why complicate things - takeoff and acceleration on conventional turbofan engines - supersonic flight on a ramjet engine will be much cheaper

                Are you sure it's cheaper? lol
                Did you count the economy?
                And in general, THEY -
                Quote: Vadim237
                Ramjet

                we have ?
                And why do you need a ramjet engine?
                For what speeds?
                And what should be the glider at such speeds?
                How to deal with aerodynamic heating, which in the MiG-25 \ 31 raises the temperature of the lamp to 3000 degrees Celsius at speeds close to 300 km / h? And it, together with the leading edges, has to be vigorously cooled by the circulation of alcohol and fuel ...
                Do you even IMAGINE the complexity and cost of such technical solutions?
                Or do you think that since the mid-70s, all the leaders of the world military aircraft industry have simply limited the speed of their 2M supersonic fighters, to a maximum of 2,5M?
                Why did they do this and are in no hurry to abandon their decision?
                Yes, because at a speed of 2M you can do WITHOUT cooling the leading edges and the airframe itself, you do not need to use heavy and expensive heat-resistant alloys.
                And the plane will not be able to maneuver at such high speeds - only flight in a straight line.
                Look at the turning radius of the MiG-25 at a speed of 2500 km / h.
                Quote: Vadim237
                NK 32 which costs 1,5 billion rubles apiece and this is not at all stupid

                Yes, this is a unique engine and expensive.
                Do you have any idea how much the above-described power plant will cost?
                And its development?
                And the timing?
                The ramjet is justified ONLY on combat missiles to increase their range at high supersonic (up to 5M) and hypersonic speeds.
                And the hybrid you declared (turbojet engine + ramjet engine) ... can you even imagine it? Such hybrids were painted in the journal "Technology of Youth" in the 70s \ 80s.
                To excite the engineering thought of the younger generation.
                But since then, no one in the world has presented a working model for practical use. Maximum - engines with a freewheeling flow (part) from the compressor to the afterburner (MiG-31, SR-71). Moreover, the Americans did it very difficult and expensive, for each flight the plane was prepared as for a flight into space.
                You will look at the materials on the "Blackbird", especially on the design and execution of fuel tanks and the whole "circus" with their refueling. It will be fun .
                Quote: Vadim237
                And yes coastal complexes with Zircon missiles

                Coastal complexes "Zircon" will have a maximum range of 1000 km. (And at the maximum range in real conditions they try not to shoot). Do you think that's enough?
                What is the range of the Tomahawk?
                And the radius of their carrier-based aircraft + the range of new stealthy cruise missiles?
                Is that enough?
                Quote: Vadim237
                and MiG 31 with Daggers may well replace the Tu 22M3.

                The possibility of using the "Dagger" against mobile sea targets, and at such a range, has not yet been confirmed by anyone.
                It is rather an analogue of the MRBM - an aeroballistic missile for hitting stationary objects (bases, ports, command centers, troop concentrations, infrastructure facilities).
                The Su-22M \ M3 with Zircon missiles can become an analogue of the Tu-22M34 and X-2 bundle. And this is the opinion of honored pilots and commanders of the MRA, as well as the chief designer of the Su-34.
                And Klimov thinks so too.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 8 September 2020 13: 39 New
                  0
                  And the hybrid you declared (turbojet engine + ramjet engine) ... Above such installations are already in full operation in Russia Germany Great Britain USA China and at the expense of heat-resistant alloys they are now not as expensive as they were in the 60s when they created SR 72 and you can use to cool the edges nebulizers with argon or helium - fortunately, in Russia these gases will begin to produce millions of tons in the next few years. And yes, I do not care about your Klimov - have your opinion.
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 8 September 2020 18: 27 New
                    0
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    And yes, I do not care about your Klimov - have your opinion.

                    Yes, this is my opinion, and I know the opinion of Klimov from personal correspondence.
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    SR 72

                    Of course SR-71, I hope the error is purely technical.
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    Such installations are already in full operation in Russia Germany Great Britain USA China

                    They have been working for a long time, there is no result yet.
                    Yes, and the need for such a PILOTED apparatus - too.
                    At the proposed / declared speed of 4 - 4,5M, what is the temperature of the aerodynamic heating on the hull?
                    Not only at the edges.
                    At the same "Concorde" when flying at 2M, due to aerodynamic heating and EXPANSION, the body was lengthened by 40 cm. ...
                    What will happen on 4M?
                    And by 4,5M, considering that the expansion coefficient for different fuselage materials will (of course) be different.
                    And of course, this mandolin will be able to fly at this speed only in a straight line ... well, chu-oo-oo turn a little (with large overloads at the same time) and risk falling apart with each such "maneuver" not only from overload, but also from overheating, because almost all the loss of speed with such a maneuver will go into additional (!) thermal heating of the fuselage.
                    And he cannot use weapons at such speeds smile , well, except that from the ass to shoot bombs, as they wanted to do for the A-5 "Vidzhelent" lol ... but it's risky ...

                    Tell me honestly, do you need it?
                    Here is it?
                    For what ?
                    If you need to reach someone at a great distance, there are rockets in all their variety for this. request
                    And for air targets too. yes
                    Including missiles from the pylon of a completely normal fighter.
                    What are all these passions and records for?
                    What is the point of these monstrous spending without a practical result with obvious benefit?
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    and to cool the edges, you can use sprays with argon or helium - fortunately, in Russia these gases will begin to produce millions of tons in the next few years.

                    And you will take these "thousand tons" (just kidding) with you on the flight?
                    But this is minus fuel, equipment ...
                    For MiG-25 \ 31 and SR-71, fuel was used as a working medium for cooling, alcohol (with distilled water) to cool the flashlight, so these are at least ordinary liquids ...
                    Don't you think that you are screwing something up?
                    The Concorde and Tu-144 were abandoned due to the high cost of operation.
                    The Valkyrie B-70 was abandoned due to its prohibitive cost and complexity.
                    Of course, for the sake of experiment, it would be possible to do something there - with an EXCESS of funds.
                    But there is no excess.

                    Flights in the atmosphere at speeds above 2M are not advisable for manned vehicles for economic and safety reasons.
                    For combat vehicles, the limit is 3M.
                    Anything faster is for unmanned vehicles.
                  2. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 9 September 2020 17: 38 New
                    0
                    Now there are alloys and materials that are necessary and new technologies for processing and construction - all these MiG Concordes SR 71 XB 70 were created in the 60s, like experimental samples of supersonic seaplanes - in fact, at the initial stage of creating supersonic aviation, like astronautics, then everything was expensive and very difficult now everything is no longer fine-tuned and progress does not stand still - one such supersonic seaplane will cost a maximum of 13 billion rubles in mass production - for comparison, the Tu 160 costs 17 billion - in the end, such an aircraft will be cheaper and more efficient than a destroyer for 100 billion rubles. content even more so.
        3. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 7 September 2020 21: 22 New
          +6
          The flying battleship Yamato is needed. Galactic laughing
          1. bayard
            bayard 8 September 2020 07: 45 New
            0
            This is youth, when knowledge is raw and not systematized, and a violent imagination paints majestic pictures ... and absolute ignorance of the technical and technological (as well as economic) component of these projects.
            But for the gymnastics of a young mind, it can also be useful.
            hi

            Will you continue to promote the topic of MRA with Maxim?
            This is very necessary now - when a quick result is needed to stop threats, the threats have already been realized, and the previous plans to build the Navy have gone down the drain.
            To form in the minds (including those of the authorities) the image of the future is the lot of writers and publicists.
            So I'm waiting.
            I will gladly take part in the discussions.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 8 September 2020 09: 55 New
              0
              It should be somehow necessary, but I do not like to repeat myself. I already had an article on the topic on VO, and two on Vzglyad, with Klimov in NVO and in the military-industrial complex-courier.
              I wrote the last one in July.

              We need to think about how to present it and in connection with what.
              1. bayard
                bayard 8 September 2020 10: 33 New
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                We need to think about how to present it and in connection with what.

                In connection with the continuation of the Su-34 series and preparations for the launch of its modernized version. And due to the fact that its production at the Novosibirsk plant has not been phased out and has not been transferred to Komsomolsk-on-Amur, where the Su-57 will not be launched into production anyway.
                And due to the fact that the latest contracts for the fleet (for the Army-2020) have shown that common sense is breaking through the rubble of corruption and blockhead.

                Tests of "Zircon" are coming to an end and the appearance of its aviation version is not far off, and there is no suitable platform for it, except for the old Tu-22M3 for MRA. And young wine is not poured into old skins.

                In addition, the authorities need spirit-lifting, but not as idiotic as before, weapons programs, and a program for creating an "enlarged" Su-34, but using engines from the second stage of the Su-57 ... here you and Maxim and his future manufacturers will thank you for a program to increase its seriality.
                It is also better to take the air intake from the Su-57, so as not to bother unnecessarily.
                The fuselage should be lengthened, the wing area increased (as was done with the MiG-29 fuselage, having received the MiG-29M \ M2 and MiG-35).
                This will increase the flight range (internal volume of fuel tanks) and the maximum weight of the combat load.
                And the speed and dynamic characteristics will improve.
                And the cockpit of the Su-34 for the MRA aircraft is simply wonderful.

                And this topic must constantly stir up the authorities and the concerned public, because everything worked out with the corvettes, and the extension of the 22350 series also took place, so there is a positive result of this approach. And it (a similar approach) should be practiced REGULARLY - "Repetition is the mother of learning."
                The topic should resonate, cause controversy, discussion, reaction of the military and industry.
                This should be DISCUSSED, along with the whole range of challenges and problems.
                hi
                Good luck.
                I look forward to new publications with serious analysis and preferably as a cycle (digging through history, reviewing unrealized projects, suggesting new concepts., A lot of new, interesting, promising things will emerge on the forums, the topic will be heard and I will have to react to it ... the last reaction to me liked).
                bully
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Kolka Semenov
        Kolka Semenov 7 September 2020 14: 35 New
        0
        I put a plus, but the plans are fantastic and impossible.

        500 Tu-22s cannot be pulled out, maximum it is possible to raise the fleet of these aircraft to 15 in 100 years.

        1000 Su-35 is too much for this type. Better Su-57 at least 500 pieces made. I think the total fleet of 1000 fighters is the height of dreams in our situation.

        2000 T-90 (M) is superfluous. Unlike many who are suffering from the early appearance of Armata in the army, I understand that a modern tank on the battlefield is not at all a tenant without a KAZ and instead of riveting new ones, you need to equip the existing T72B3 with KAZ, incl. and protection against roof breakers.

        On the barracks, airbases (for example, normal armored hangars for fighters) and others, plus.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 16: 46 New
          +4
          Quote: Semenov Kolka
          e.g. normal armored fighter hangars)


          Will it help? The main thing is to ensure at least daily activities. I've figured out a pre-fabricated hangar for civil construction projects, without a foundation it will cost about 1.5 million rubles. We will wind up well twice, due to the fire extinguishing system. Well, 3 million rubles. A modern fighter of one and a half to two billion. Can't you include a hangar in the delivery set?

          I think the total fleet of 1000 fighters is the height of dreams in our situation.

          It would really be nice to have 1000 fighters and information security in the Air Force and another 150 aircraft in the Navy

          it is necessary to equip the existing T72B3 with KAZ, incl. and protection against roof breakers.

          100500
          1. Kolka Semenov
            Kolka Semenov 7 September 2020 20: 59 New
            +3
            "Can't you include a hangar in the package?"

            How then can dear partners be able to read our aircraft from satellites ?! Commercials you will swing at the foundations of statehood! They will start to build normal hangars - the third world war will begin!
            But seriously, I'm serious: there is not a single rational reason why normal protected hangars are not being built for our fighters.

            "It would really be nice to have 1000 fighters and information security in the Air Force and another 150 aircraft in the Navy"

            Still, I do not consider IS to be normal fighters, it would be better to build MFIs and not IS.
            Nevertheless, according to estimates, taking into account new data from the Army of 2020, we will not see thousands of fighters until 2030.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 8 September 2020 01: 23 New
              -1
              Protective hangars are what - now modern guided aerial bombs and missiles can penetrate several meters of reinforced concrete - penetrating warheads.
              1. Kolka Semenov
                Kolka Semenov 8 September 2020 08: 01 New
                -1
                The fact is that from space (the UAV version) it is not visible whether such a hangar is empty or not.
                Yes, the bomb will easily pierce the hangar and destroy the plane (if there is one), but the bomb / cruise missile will not touch the neighboring planes, now standing side by side at the airfields.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 8 September 2020 13: 44 New
                  -1
                  And it doesn't matter - all hangars will be hit like all equipment in them, we now have an era of high-precision weapons of maximum accuracy and destruction of objects. Without air defense, they are essentially useless as bunkers, bunkers, dugouts and trenches.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 7 September 2020 10: 14 New
    -2
    by the way, why shouldn't the fleet guard Gazprom's pipes? this is the same source of dollars that many sew into a pillow for a rainy day


    It's pointless. The article is just about that.

    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.


    Nobody bothers to complete the construction of the SP-2 by military force. And if they want to interfere, not only the Baltic, but the entire Russian fleet will not help.
    Even if we finish building, the Germans can stupidly refuse to take gas from this pipe for legal reasons.

    You need to invest money in education, train intelligent international lawyers.

    "One lawyer with a briefcase in his hands will rob more than a hundred ignoramuses with machine guns."
    Don Vite Corleone.
    1. Charik
      Charik 7 September 2020 10: 43 New
      +2
      "One lawyer with a briefcase in his hands will rob more than a hundred ignoramuses with machine guns."
      Don Vite Corleone. good
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 7 September 2020 21: 26 New
      +4
      Nobody bothers to complete the construction of the SP-2 by military force.


      Yes? And who dropped the anti-mine RAR-104 this year near the chimney? Aliens? And he could deliver an overhead charge, incl. corded.

      You would be pacifists there to the depth, robots to catch with your hands. Don't know the subject - don't write anything.
  • Charik
    Charik 7 September 2020 10: 42 New
    0
    do not sew up, but fold back into their papers and pantries
  • Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 7 September 2020 06: 40 New
    +4
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    The statement of the question is not correct
    So this is not a question, this is a form of the author's statement, in which he directly says that Russia should not and cannot have global political aspirations, and naturally, it does not need such a component as a strong navy.
    I don't understand this statement either.
    Despite the fact that the sea border of Russia is not what it is, it is, let's say, even in abundance
    How shoud I understand this? What kind of redundancy are we talking about? What should be given and to whom?

    Once, the head of the department of journalism Nikolai Svanidze said
    The most unforgivable thing is to replace information, i.e. truth, propaganda. To lie under any pretext, under the pretext of national interests, under the pretext of love for the motherland.
  • Starshina
    Starshina 10 September 2020 15: 59 New
    0
    From the beginning, you need to make Russia strong both economically and politically, and a strong Russia will have ships and everything else ...
  • Civil
    Civil 7 September 2020 07: 58 New
    +7
    And what quality / quantity do you need a fleet? If a:
    1. Around the ring of enemies, you need to urgently abandon everything and begin to mine the border with nuclear bombs and build a fleet with an emphasis on submarines, for the possibility of breaking through this ring into the open sea.
    2. The main enemy of NATO, and this is an alliance with nuclear weapons, it is necessary to overwhelm the SSBN fleet and its cover.
    3. And if you remove the noodles from your ears and accept the harsh truth that money and allies are tight, then the fleet will be as it is. Stretch your legs along the length of the blanket.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 7 September 2020 09: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: Civil
      Stretch your legs along the length of the blanket.
      The Procrustean bed turns out, who defined it for Russia, maybe you still need to choose a blanket according to the length of your legs? It seems that our capitalists, oligarch brothers, by and large, do not need a fleet or an army, but there is a great Soviet legacy left from a space and nuclear superpower. Probably, the newly-minted "bad boys" in power would immediately surrender to the masters of world capitalism, so the people would not understand, you see, they would have lifted the open traitors to the pitchfork. And so, the rating under Yeltsin fell to zero, they had to puff out their cheeks, butt demonstratively, depicting a "multipolar world", sitting in selected capitalism, at the only pole, with its world leader and master.

      So it remains to sell natural resources and Soviet military developments, this is the most profitable, until the Soviet margin of safety runs out, and talk about the uselessness of the fleet. So, we do not "need" science with education, and why bother with new factories, pump up raw materials and build new shopping centers for the consumer society, and if anything, the "elite" will dump them to the West, where everything has long been theirs.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 7 September 2020 11: 37 New
        +4
        That way, we don't "need" science with education either, and why bother with new factories, download raw materials and build new shopping centers ...

        You say everything correctly, but ...
        I often disagree with Skomorokhov's opinion, but then he got to the point with his article. The Russian fleet is needed! This is an axiom. But which one? Such as in the USSR - no, this is not needed. Even the USSR in the 80s did not need such a thing. But the Russian fleet also clearly does not meet modern challenges. For the same money, it was possible to build something more useful and combat. That's where the problem lies ...
      2. your1970
        your1970 10 September 2020 08: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: Per se.
        The Procrustean bed turns out, who defined it for Russia, maybe you still need to choose a blanket according to the length of your legs? It seems that our capitalists, oligarch brothers,

        There was such a state of the USSR in which there was no capitalism, no lads, no oligarchs ..... True, there were no aircraft carriers either ... For some reason.....
        If even the USSR with its militarized economy did not pull the Big Fleet - where did you get the idea that the Russian Federation could? Can you still be realistic?
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 7 September 2020 08: 46 New
    +8
    Of course you do! And he is.
    The share of foreign components in civil shipbuilding ranges from 40% to 85%, for military shipbuilding - from 50% to 60% ...

    On this sad note, one could have ended. "Great sea power", where every second detail is due to a hillock ... It's not even funny.
    However, the state can afford to spend in proportion to how much it earns. The USSR was a powerful power, had a huge fleet, Spain was a superpower - too .. Britain, the USA, now the PRC has gotten rich - voila, is building a huge fleet. You cannot be a Great Sea Power, but at the same time an economic dwarf. The fleet is very expensive. Russia is not, at this stage, an economic superpower, therefore, it cannot handle a large balanced fleet.
    Everything else is add-ons. People study shipyards and factories are built, but huge sums of money do not fall from the sky.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 14: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: Doccor18
      for military shipbuilding - from 50% to 60% ...

      The source of this revelation is interesting to me.

      Quote: Doccor18
      "Great sea power", where every second detail is due to a hillock ... It's not even funny.

      We have had some STE since the "glorious" times of the Tsar. In Soviet times, it is true that they did everything to ensure the independence of the military-industrial complex, but went too far. Well, now, as the Andreev flag was raised, everything went along the rolled one ...
  • rocket757
    rocket757 7 September 2020 05: 25 New
    +3
    The eternal question ... cannons or oil ???
    It is difficult and expensive to combine!
    Distortions in any direction are fraught with these or those consequences! A reasonable decision is needed, not to the detriment ...
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 7 September 2020 05: 57 New
      +4
      Which turned out to be the only one in all of Russia and which had to be dragged across half the world from the Far East.
      fool For 30 years, 3 pipelines have been built, now 4 are being cut. For each maximum 0,5 years. So who should support pipelayers, teams, and specialists that have not been working for 30 years? Leasing to China, India, Japan? Will they take it?
      Quote: rocket757
      The eternal question ... cannons or oil ???

      No, not so categorically. The question is, how much for guns, how much for butter. We are always ready to give up oil. If only there was no war.
      Another thing, according to our tradition, and there is no oil and rusty guns, or grenades of the wrong system.
      There are successes in Syria and in strengthening the Crimea. Dvizhuha in the North, in the Far East ..... But "it will be small" request
    2. Doctor
      Doctor 7 September 2020 10: 39 New
      0
      The eternal question ... cannons or oil ???

      Not this way.
      Cannons or boats.

      What to buy for a resident of central Russia: a boat with a Honda engine for 3 Llamas, or a Toyota Prado?
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 7 September 2020 11: 01 New
        0
        Not funny. We have many where people live. The dispersion, of course, is not uniform throughout. Where he lives and what you say for bread ... in very different ways.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 7 September 2020 11: 08 New
          0
          Not funny. We have many people where they live.

          About what and speech. The peasants from Bakhta on the Yenisei do not need Kruzak, they need a boat.
          Countries with overseas interests need to protect communications, but what do we do?
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 7 September 2020 11: 55 New
            +1
            From the point of view of a defense concept, an ocean-going fleet is needed, in reasonable quantities, of course ...
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 7 September 2020 12: 14 New
              +2
              From the point of view of a defense concept, an ocean-going fleet is needed, in reasonable quantities, of course ...

              Undoubtedly. But for solving specific problems that will always be.
              Otherwise, we have SSBNs capable of destroying the planet, but there is nothing to escort a peaceful cargo ship with a forest. wink
              Reconnaissance ships, ASW frigates, Loshariki, a brigade of multipurpose destroyers with a displacement of 10. And then we'll see.
      2. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 16: 59 New
        -1
        a boat with a Honda engine for 3 lem, or a Toyota Prado?


        + 100500
    3. Aag
      Aag 7 September 2020 13: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      The eternal question ... cannons or oil ???
      It is difficult and expensive to combine!
      Distortions in any direction are fraught with these or those consequences! A reasonable decision is needed, not to the detriment ...

      It seems that the author did not mention "butter" ... Only about WHAT "guns" are needed .. repeat
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 7 September 2020 06: 02 New
      -2
      Quote: apro
      but resources and clear goal-setting are not availablebroad gullaet.

      1. -lag - lie-
      2. Very controversial. Resources are not just money, rather they are not money at all.
      3. Clear goal-setting - here is the root and the problem. So here is the question in the solution, volley... What are the costs here? request
      1. apro
        apro 7 September 2020 06: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        ... -lag - lie-

        How does it lie?
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        ... Very controversial. Resources are not just money, rather not money at all

        Of course, but the ability to produce a product, to organize the technical process and exploitation.
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        A clear goal-setting is the root and the problem. So here the question is in decision, will. What are the costs here?

        Is there a will?
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 7 September 2020 06: 48 New
          -2
          Quote: apro
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          ... -lag - lie-
          How does it lie?
          This is grade 5 of high school. Like this.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 7 September 2020 06: 25 New
    +9
    All our shipyards can process 400 thousand tons of steel per year.
    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%
    ... Judging by the figures given, the Russian fleet is almost not needed with such an attitude to business ... Here in our town the SRZ is on its way, but what happened before? I do not even remember the Soviet era, in the 90s it worked, and until the beginning of the 10s of this century .. There was a dock for river-sea vessels, then the dock was sold and moorings were leased, so they live, in the sense they exist. .The plant was repeatedly resold .. Why did it happen? But there were no specialists ... there was no one to work ... they gradually left for retirement. New personnel did not come. Roughly the same story with another shipyard ... Such a rich country and such sad numbers in the field of military shipbuilding. that we are discussing whether the Russian navy is needed, what is needed ..
  • Per se.
    Per se. 7 September 2020 06: 46 New
    +8
    Russia naturally needs a fleet. One that will protect the shores and coastal areas from any encroachments.
    Roman, the "coastal fleet" a priori will not be able to protect Russia "from any encroachments." If you ask the title itself "Does a strong Russia need a strong fleet?", so a counter question immediately arises: can Russia be strong in general without a strong fleet? Naturally, we cannot build more aircraft carriers than the United States, we cannot even build more frigates and corvettes than the United States, especially in conjunction with NATO and Japan, but we need a COMPLETE fleet capable of performing ALL missions at sea, and this is not only littoral zone.

    As long as naval aviation is needed, as long as aviation itself is a demanded type of weapons, its naval carriers will also be needed - aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers. All those who stand up for the "land" nature of Russia, for the economy of the people's penny in the navy, at best, from those who always wanted "what is best." The problem with the fleet is not a lack of money, but fools and traitors. The development of the fleet is not only the security of Russia, its confidence in international politics, it is also the development of our economy, our scientific and technological potential.
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 7 September 2020 06: 57 New
      +1
      alas ... only naval aviation was optimized by the chief chef of helicopter construction (now) ... Tu-22 (modifications) is not in the MPA. and it's very bad.
    2. pin_code
      pin_code 7 September 2020 06: 59 New
      0
      I totally agree, we need carriers of anti-aircraft defense helicopters and air defense planes in the far zone (at least)
    3. Doctor
      Doctor 7 September 2020 07: 21 New
      +2
      so a counter question immediately arises: can Russia be strong in general without a strong fleet?

      The most correct question.
      The whole history of Russia shows, yes, it can.
      And it's easy.

      Conversely, the larger the fleet, the worse the land army, the more problems in wars.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 7 September 2020 08: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: Arzt
        The whole history of Russia shows, yes, it can.
        And it's easy.
        So easy? If Peter I hadn't hung you on a yard for being "overland", then he made him memorize his statement.
        "The state, which has one land army, has one hand, and which the fleet also has, has both hands."

        Peter I made this famous saying after the Battle of Gangut. As for the fleet and the army, they must correspond to the national interests of Russia and its security. In any case, having a fleet, it must be complete and balanced.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 7 September 2020 09: 30 New
          -2
          So easy? If Peter I hadn't hung you on a yard for being "overland", then he made him memorize his statement.

          Yes, I would.
          But if he had invested the money that he had thrown into the fleet into the land army, there would have been no Swedes near Poltava.
          And the French in Moscow.
          And the Germans near Moscow.

          Did Gorshkov's fleet save the USSR or contributed to its collapse?
          The big question is ...
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 7 September 2020 11: 25 New
            +3
            Quote: Arzt
            But if he had invested the money that he had thrown into the fleet into the land army, there would have been no Swedes near Poltava.

            In fact, they began to "throw in" basically after Poltava. Just look at the dates of the laying down of the Peter's battleships.
            I agree that Peter did a lot through one place. But they began to build a large fleet when it became clear that the land army was not able to force the Swedes to peace.
          2. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 17: 01 New
            +1
            it was very difficult to defeat the Swedes without a fleet at that time, in this case Peter 1 was right
        2. Doctor
          Doctor 7 September 2020 09: 34 New
          -2
          As for the fleet and the army, they must correspond to the national interests of Russia and its security

          Undoubtedly.

          In any case, having a fleet, it must be complete and balanced.


          The United States has a defective and unbalanced fleet. There are minimum boats, no corvettes, no frigates, no diesel-electric submarines, no minesweepers.

          The fleet must meet the needs and tasks of the country.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 7 September 2020 11: 00 New
            +2
            Quote: Arzt
            Did Gorshkov's fleet save the USSR or contributed to its collapse?
            Of course, not everything was perfect and correct, but the fleet developed, including the aircraft carrier, as the country itself developed. The Soviet Union did not die from spending on the navy or space, it was betrayed by opportunists, those who were only "members" of the party, not communists. Now these renegades are in the new party of power, at a new feeding trough and a new career ladder, now they are gentlemen, not comrades. Also, we have lost to hard-core political cheats, hypocrites and scoundrels from capitalism, with their "democracy". Well, the people wanted the forbidden fruit, especially since the renegades, as they could, perverted the great idea, as they could, defamed socialism with their stupidity and sabotage.

            Quote: Arzt
            The fleet must meet the needs and tasks of the country.
            This is the problem, hundreds of billions were flowing out of the country, millions were stolen from the budget, but science, healthcare, production were "optimized" and reduced ... What is easier, to take and reset the same "ZIL" than to build a new car plant or reconstruct old. Why, we’ll buy everything in China, there’s little of our own left ... So, the USSR has been rebuilding the fleet for decades, this is personnel, and capacity, and experience. Collaborated with the Italians before the war, studied captured ships for reparations from Germany and Italy. Profiting everything is easy, it is very difficult to recreate. The very first, is the fleet of today's capitalist Russia really needed, if a strong fleet is primarily a military and political instrument of an independent country with ambitions of its national interests, for a raw materials colony a strong fleet is not needed.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 7 September 2020 11: 42 New
              +3
              The Soviet Union did not die from spending on the navy or space, it was betrayed by opportunists, those who were only "members" of the party, not communists.

              If we had a normal economy, no "restructuring" would be needed.
              We overstrained trying to fight the whole world.

              Do you think Belarusians would go to rallies with an average salary of 50 thousand?
              Never.
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 7 September 2020 12: 25 New
                +4
                Quote: Arzt
                If we had a normal economy, no "restructuring" would be needed.
                Yuri, what is the "normal" economy? The richest country, the United States, has the largest national debt. The United States gained its wealth by capitalizing on the Second World War, imposing its colored paper, dollars, as the main international currency. The Great Depression in the States, a natural "freeze" of the capitalist model of the economy, from which the exit in new bloodletting, like "reset". It was during the Great Depression that one inquiring mind suggested deliberately lowering the quality of goods so that their "disposability" would provide constant demand and constant job security for producers. At that time, this was still hampered by competition, both among the companies that remained outside the monopolies, and external competition with socialism, in the new pole of power - the USSR.

                Now competition is increasingly turning into fiction, transnational monopolies have already taken shape, the pole of socialism has disappeared. The capitalist no longer needs to dress in sheep's skins, the nuts of social concessions have begun to tighten back, "disposable" goods, limited by a warranty period, this is our near future. To sell more today than yesterday, and tomorrow more than today. This is a consumer society, a planetary virus that has no bright future. Capitalism has outlived its usefulness, it has become mortally dangerous for the planet and civilization itself. Is this a normal economy? "Economics" itself, as a science, is, by and large, quackery, and economists no more influence the economy than meteorologists influence the weather. From science in economics, only mathematics, everything else from the rules of casinos, where currency speculators raise or destroy stocks in world trades, and those who have come up with these rules are warming their hands on this.

                A new war, this is another "reset" of an obsolete system, new troubles, these are the next super profits, for the sake of which the capitalists will commit any crimes. Pandemic Covid - 19, only flowers. Here is a "prelude" for you, who has a fleet and why the powerful of this world need it.
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 7 September 2020 12: 45 New
                  +1
                  Yuri, what is the "normal" economy? The richest country, the United States, has the largest national debt.

                  I agree with everything said. And they have problems.
                  But this does not negate the problems of the USSR.
                  If the leaders of the Union chose the strategy of creating "Greater Switzerland" and spent their resources not on Fidel and Bokassa, but on Voronezh and Khabarovsk, the world would itself become socialist.
                  1. Per se.
                    Per se. 7 September 2020 14: 15 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Arzt
                    If the leaders of the Union chose the strategy of creating a "Greater Switzerland"

                    Have you ever wondered why Hitler didn’t swallow up little Switzerland, along with all its chocolate, watches, and, most importantly, many banks filled with currency and gold bars? Hitler himself was a henchman of world capitalism, who from Germany defeated in World War I, bound by the restrictions of Versailles, decided to make an anti-USSR. So from the Germans, on their infringed dignity, they made cannon fodder, and on Nazism, anti-communism. There is no more mortal enemy to the capitalists than was socialism, the USSR and the communists. The flirtation of Khrushchev and Gorbachev with the capitalists, the antipode of socialism and communism, in the illusion of peaceful coexistence with "democracy" largely predetermined the collapse of the Soviet Union, shattered ideals, and corrupted the party nomenclature.

                    The Soviet Union could not be a big "Switzerland", it is not for us to live in the shadows and under the roof of big capital, on loan interest, parasitizing on the troubles of the rest of the world. The same States, like their actual progenitor, Great Britain, were getting richer, robbing the whole world, which they still live with. Russia differed from the Anglo-Saxon parasites by the fact that even under the kings, it had its own spirituality and notions of justice. In this, the future belongs to Russia, if, of course, our newly-born billionaires, traitorous renegades, do not have time to squander the Soviet reserve of strength, and we have time to return a renewed socialism.
                    1. Doctor
                      Doctor 7 September 2020 14: 34 New
                      +2
                      The Soviet Union could not be a big "Switzerland", it is not for us to live in the shadows and under the roof of big capital, on loan interest, parasitizing on the troubles of the rest of the world.

                      Why in the shade? We would be an example for the working class of the whole world, who would actively fight for their rights and in the end won.
                      And now we are all waiting for the capitalists to tighten the screws.
                      Until next time ... wink
    4. saigon
      saigon 7 September 2020 11: 26 New
      +2
      In addition to fools and traitors, the problem is that there is no clear understanding of WHAT fleet is needed!
      There are no clear tasks for the fleet, there is no justification for which and how many ships we need.
      Without this, building a normal fleet is impossible.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 7 September 2020 12: 03 New
        +1
        In addition to fools and traitors, the problem is that there is no clear understanding of WHAT fleet is needed!
        There are no clear tasks for the fleet, there is no justification for which and how many ships we need.
        Without this, building a normal fleet is impossible.

        This is the main problem.
        Nobody says that there should be no fleet at all.
        But the old Moremans, brought up in the Gorshkovskaya school, see only the fleet in which they served.
        They also make decisions and form government orders.
        And since there are no means and opportunities, then what we have is obtained.
    5. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 14: 40 New
      +1
      - 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.

      From this list, the priority should be
      - multipurpose nuclear submarines - 16-18 units;
      - multipurpose diesel and non-nuclear submarines - 24-27 units;
      - ships of the near sea zone (corvettes, small missile and patrol ships, minesweepers) - 77–83 units.

      And of course Naval Aviation.

      And all this must be considered a top priority in fleet construction. And the numbers are more than real.
      But the rest is already secondary.
    6. your1970
      your1970 10 September 2020 09: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      The problem with the fleet is not a lack of money, but fools and traitors.

      Now show me please, you can even use your finger, where does the threat of the Russian Federation come from from the foreign FLEET?
      Black, Caspian and Baltic seas?
      DV?
      North?
      Not even funny ...
      Are you waiting for the amphibious assault? ? ?? Who decides to experiment with a nuclear power?
      Well, the Japanese have landed, let's say a landing in the Kuril Islands ...
      An ultimatum will be quite enough - "if the islands are not left within 24 hours - the Russian Federation reserves the right to launch a nuclear strike on Tokyo"
      After that, peaceful Japanese residents scattering from there will arrange a collapse of the Japanese economy, complete ... well, and the world exchanges at the same time ...
      After that, the landing from the Kuriles will run "on water like dry"
      For the USA - to show that no strikes are prepared
      Even if after the ultimatum nothing is done at all, the Japanese are more likely to believe that the Russians "With a bear, vodka and balalaika" can Puff- than your own government trying to pacify the panic ...

      The fleet is needed - a fleet covering the shores of the Russian Federation and providing a strike with nuclear weapons, and a small one - long-range.

      Z. Y at Nikolae2 - the fleet sailed around the world. But at the same time, RI was not considered an outstanding sea power.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 7 September 2020 06: 47 New
    +4
    The article is really controversial, but ...
    At least there are numbers in it! More often, "analytics" of such a plan is based on patriotic slogans, but here, I repeat, there are figures. Controversial, but numbers. Another would be the alignment of them - that's the author of 3 aircraft carriers suggests. And in what areas and with what tasks does he represent their application? The same applies to other courts.
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 7 September 2020 07: 05 New
      -7
      my personal opinion is that the Pacific Fleet needs at least 3 aircraft carriers, and the Northern Fleet at least 5-6 (taking into account repairs and upgrades). in any case, on the one hand, it shows a figure of 8-9 units, on the other hand ... they will not be built at the same time and finances will not be spent immediately 100 trillion rubles, but the same amount but for several decades. as I understand, so wrote, do not blame me ..
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 7 September 2020 08: 17 New
        0
        Quote: pin_code
        The Pacific Fleet needs at least 3 aircraft carriers, and the Northern Fleet needs at least 5-6 (including repairs and upgrades).

        To do this, you need to abolish pensions and the entire social sector.
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 7 September 2020 09: 04 New
          +6
          For this, all the oligarchs' megayachts must be confiscated and sold to sheikhs and emirs. And with the money raised to build submarines, frigates, and most importantly, restore naval aviation.
          All that will be left for the destroyers and cruisers is to lick their lips.
          1. pin_code
            pin_code 9 September 2020 12: 30 New
            0
            somehow modest, and even then lick your lips. better not modestly and in full ...
        2. Pechkin
          Pechkin 7 September 2020 09: 30 New
          +2
          This requires Russia's GDP of $ 20 trillion. Social networks and pensions are not enough for these Wishlist)
          1. pin_code
            pin_code 9 September 2020 12: 32 New
            0
            Enough without whining about pensions and social services, there would be a desire ...
        3. pin_code
          pin_code 9 September 2020 12: 28 New
          +1
          for this you need to take someone by the coca and shake it well. you look and there will be money for an increase in pensions, and not only for aircraft carriers. everything is in the hands of the authorities, they just don't want to take it, but they iron it like ...
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 7 September 2020 10: 26 New
        -4
        my personal opinion is that the Pacific Fleet needs at least 3 aircraft carriers, and the Northern Fleet at least 5-6 (taking into account repairs and upgrades).

        Can you imagine what will happen if the current rulers are given at least a couple of full-fledged AUGs?
        They will drag the country into all the conflicts that exist, and they themselves will stir up a dozen.
        Everything will end or the third world war or the collapse of Russia. wassat
        1. pin_code
          pin_code 9 September 2020 12: 44 New
          0
          the answer is simple, even with a pair of AUG, no one will even blink openly, only according to unconfirmed data, etc.
          , well, some sanctions will be introduced. I personally don't get in the way of sanctions, do you?
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 9 September 2020 14: 35 New
            +1
            the answer is simple, even with a pair of AUG, no one will even blink openly, only according to unconfirmed data, etc.
            , well, some sanctions will be introduced. I personally don't get in the way of sanctions, do you?

            I'm talking about AUG for OURS. They will immediately send them to Venezuela or Cuba or somewhere else.

            And on sanctions, it seems, yes, they do not interfere, at first glance.
            But you will compare the standard of living before 2013, when they began to enter according to Magnitsky and now.
            The dollar rate, for example.
      3. pin_code
        pin_code 9 September 2020 12: 36 New
        0
        I am deeply indifferent to each separately Mr. Minusator. no aviks, no future for Russia, if God forbid war happens. and I don't need to rub in on all sorts of corvettes, frigates and submarines. if they are not covered from the sky, they are just targets in the shooting range.
        1. your1970
          your1970 10 September 2020 09: 34 New
          0
          If God forbid - war, then absolutely on the drum those AUG will be. We will beat nuclear weapons against the United States and NATO, they are against us ...
          And the whole war will be over within 30 minutes
  • pin_code
    pin_code 7 September 2020 06: 54 New
    0
    Roman, this is not good, but absolutely unsatisfactory, when in military shipbuilding even 20% of foreign equipment, it was not relevant 130-110 years ago, now electronics are everywhere. which is fraught with irreversible consequences. to hell with cooperation and the world market, you just need to be self-sufficient. it would be better if our equipment would be larger, but would not depend on suppliers from outside.
  • Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 7 September 2020 07: 32 New
    +1
    Here, without options - Russia needs, or rather - needs a strong fleet!
  • Alceers
    Alceers 7 September 2020 07: 53 New
    +5
    Novel. One submarine on a BS in the Sargasso Sea makes it possible for the enemy to have an anti-submarine defense system, in terms of resources and cost, incomparable with it.
    And it doesn't matter to us. Will drown for someone or not if something happens. She has already completed the task. The system will then consume resources that would otherwise have gone to armada of tanks and other evil spirits near our borders ...
    That's it.
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 7 September 2020 11: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Alceers
      One submarine on a BS in the Sargasso Sea forces the enemy to have an anti-submarine defense system incomparable with it in terms of resources and cost.
      on the one hand, yes, but (!) ... and how many are now (just not our submarines) may be located in the regions of the Okhotsk and Chukchi seas (?!) .... what kind "they have already completed the tasks" (?!)... and how much it costs us ?!....
      How solved /is decided (if solved /is decided ?! ?!) this problem ?!... By an order at the Amur shipyard, a new batch of corvettes 20380 (?!), which if they can suddenly detect an enemy submarine (underneath), they will not be able to effectively attack it (?!), because according to the composition of its weapons (due to the lack of PLUR), nothing (?!), and each of which is already worth more than 21 billion rubles. - EVERY !!!, with their own-those not legal capacity (?!).... And it is contracted EIGHT more ?! .... !!!
  • Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 7 September 2020 08: 04 New
    +3
    The navy should not depend on imports. This is not serious. However, this applies not only to the fleet. Probably, the question posed should be answered like this: a semi-import fleet is not needed. We need our own, without imports.
    1. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan 7 September 2020 08: 19 New
      +4
      Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
      You need your own, no import.

      The DPRK seems to have such a fleet.
      1. Daniil Konovalenko
        Daniil Konovalenko 7 September 2020 08: 23 New
        0
        I accepted the irony ... But Russia is not the DPRK ... Is it really so neglected that much is missing
        The share of foreign components in civil shipbuilding ranges from 40% to 85%, for military shipbuilding - from 50% to 60%
        1. Bashkirkhan
          Bashkirkhan 7 September 2020 08: 39 New
          +4
          Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
          what is missing

          For this information, contact the governments of Russia, which were not eager to organize the production and repair of the same turbines, and when the roasted rooster pecked in the ass, then all the ships with the GTU stood up almost tightly: Fearless, Chabanenko, 1155th and 1135th ... Until recent years, they were all eager to buy everything for petrodollars without any production in their country.
          1. Daniil Konovalenko
            Daniil Konovalenko 7 September 2020 08: 52 New
            +2
            In Russia, it seems that they do not burn at all, something to develop .. We will buy, as the LADIES said .. The oligarchs, too, are not interested ..
          2. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 7 September 2020 11: 47 New
            +4
            Quote: Bashkirkhan
            Undaunted, Chabanenko, 1155th and 1135th. Until recent years, they were all eager to buy everything for petrodollars without any production in their country.
            !!! hi absolutely in the bag !!!.... While a center for marine gas turbine engine building (and gearboxes for them), like China, for the start of shipbuilding programs to have, on its territory !!! yes
  • Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 7 September 2020 08: 21 New
    +4
    Quote: Vladimir61
    Once, the head of the department of journalism Nikolai Svanidze said
    The most unforgivable thing is to replace information, i.e. truth, propaganda. To lie under any pretext, under the pretext of national interests, under the pretext of love for the motherland.

    Not a good example, your Svanidze did this with success. On the contrary, he offered to hate the national interests and history of the Soviet state, as well as love for the homeland. The fleet is definitely needed, otherwise foreign ships will be at our borders, bays and harbors. the appetites of oligarchs with national interests close to Putin? They did not ruin the country for this, so that they would again serve the interests of the new state? The problem of capital flight and curbing appetites will be solved, and there will be a fleet, and not only the Navy. and we build something for which there is enough finance and strength. Putin always speaks beautifully, but his wishes are not always feasible.
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 9 September 2020 12: 49 New
      +1
      noticed right!
  • Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 7 September 2020 08: 21 New
    +2
    "Admiral Nakhimov" was taken out of the filling pool of SEVMASH.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 7 September 2020 08: 34 New
    0
    The fleet is definitely needed ... we have a large coastline ... the insular part of sea trade communications in very turbulent areas ... protecting the interests of the State (and the allies) in remote points of the waters of the seas and oceans ... in terms of the composition of the fleet and tasks of course one can debate ... BUT the question of price (the economic factor affects the speed of equipping, the plus is high-tech jobs at the country's enterprises) here is not in the top five for sure ...
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 7 September 2020 08: 40 New
    +4
    Amazing. Skomorokhov's article, in which there is almost nothing to argue with.
    Besides.
    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.


    In an HBO article, the author examines the situation while maintaining the current ($ 11Y / year) funding. Another thing is that the results that he expects to get by 2035 are absolutely fantastic.

    And in essence, the article under discussion answers three questions fairly correctly.
    1. Does the Russian Federation need a fleet?
    2. Is it possible to create it from an economic point of view.
    3. Is it possible to create it from a technical point of view.

    The answers are correct. 1.No. 2. No. 3. No.

    Starting with the latter.

    No country in the world currently builds a fleet alone. On the last American frigate, we see the Italian corps and Norwegian missiles. On the new Little Englishman - a Danish project, American weapons, Dutch electronics. China, from a distance, is independent, but to look closely - it was Russian, this is Ukrainian, this is German, this is Chinese, but it is produced in a factory built by the Americans.

    Russia, for obvious reasons, is cut off from international cooperation in the military sphere. How import substitution ends over the past 5 years has been said a lot, using the example of the same engines. Russia can still build some ships (Soviet projects), but not create a balanced fleet.

    Theoretically, it is possible to get attached to the big yellow brother, but it is completely unclear why he might need this, and why - the Russian Federation.

    On the second point. Generally speaking, it follows from the first. If the Russian Federation is going to buy ships in China for a fixed price, that's one thing. If we are talking about building a military shipbuilding from scratch, it’s ridiculous to talk about amounts like $ 5G per year.

    On the first point. The fleet can be viewed in three aspects.
    1. Coast Guard. It is more or less clear here.
    2. Strategic component. The essence of the underwater nuclear component is to ensure the inevitability of a retaliatory strike. Is he provided now? Not. What could be the way to improve the situation? Transfer the BS to the inland sea, there are two of them - White and Black (Another Caspian, but SSBN in the Caspian is a bit of a drug addiction). Is this necessary for the Yars? You need to consider the pros and cons. Does NK construction require? Little or no.
    3. The fleet itself. Who needs it? Countries for which maritime communications are critically important (at different times the United States, Britain, Japan, China) and countries that hope to knock them out to the enemy (Germany WWI and WWII, USSR). Does Russia have such a situation? Yes, Kaliningrad. Is it possible to create a fleet in the Baltic, capable of providing communication with Kaliningrad under any conditions? Of course not, the Baltic is NATO's inland sea. If there is a decision to destroy, they will destroy anything at sea.
    As for the rest of the sea trade, Russian trade is not British trade with colonies in the XNUMXth century. She turns off without question from the other side.

    And the idea of ​​"showing the flag" is an ordinary sabotage. Under Comrade Stalin, people were shot for such ideas. Those who like to show the flag where they don't need to risk getting on board with some random Exocet, there were precedents for anyone. And then what to perform, about tomatoes again?

    If you cannot love - sit, be friends (s).

    Taking into account the style of the current foreign policy - petty mischiefs under the guise of private companies - transports under the military flag are needed (which also do not exist, although they can be built for now). Everything, nothing else.
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 7 September 2020 12: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      ...China, look from afar, independent, but take a closer look ...
      But China has already practically localized production /issue EVERYTHING necessary for the implementation of shipbuilding programs, at home, on its territory !!!, and that is why, now it is gaining momentum so FAST (!).
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 7 September 2020 13: 22 New
        0
        Localized production, development is not particularly.
        1. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 7 September 2020 22: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Localized production, development is not particularly.
          But also Development DA-91 (or what we now proudly call M-90FR, (!)...) also seems to be not ours, but Nikolaevskaya (!)..., but even with its localization, not everything went smoothly with us ... and even about the gearbox for these gas turbine engines for the same DGTA M55-R .... (?!) ... and even more so !!!... But if during (before the coup 2014 in / in Ukraine), The Russian Federation would acquire licenses for the production of main gas turbine engines of which the power plant consists BOD 1155 and SKR 1135 (DT-59, D-090, or the same DK-59 for 18000 hp, and a gearbox for them (?!) and would localize their release on YOUR territory ...), how many troubles the shipbuilding programs for the Navy could avoid now ?!... I think both with the release of 11356Р / М and with the move (meaning) modernization of the BOD following the example of "Shaposhnikov", now would not arise (!)....?! The Kaliningrad "Yantar" could release them "updated" (i.e. new now, in the "Shaposhnikov plus" layout !!!) ...
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 8 September 2020 07: 40 New
            -1
            Excuse me, what is your post about, do not quite understand? That the Chinese military shipbuilding and all related industries, to put it mildly, are stronger than the Russian ones? I don't argue with that.
    2. pin_code
      pin_code 9 September 2020 12: 55 New
      0
      in short we are "giving up!" The fleet is built not in 5-10 years, but at least 50. But since it was destroyed by all sorts of fucks and their hangers-on. then you need to build almost from 0 ...
  • ban
    ban 7 September 2020 08: 55 New
    0
    TAVKR "Admiral Nakhimov" is strong.

    Further, the article of the self-made author could not be read!
  • Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 7 September 2020 09: 01 New
    -2
    I agree with the author of the article. We have a lot of flotophiles here who dream of a fleet equal in power to the American and British fleets combined. I just want to ask these alternative thinkers, why the hell do we have such a fleet? Do we have overseas possessions and territories like the United States and Britain? I understand when Britain has a powerful fleet, since in addition to the Metropolis, it also includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Falklands, the Bahamas and a dozen more territories throughout the World Ocean, or the United States, which has two states - the United States and Hawaii are overseas territories. In addition, the ocean-going fleet is an instrument of aggression and intimidation; it is not for nothing that the United States, if necessary, send its fleet all over the world to bomb the natives and spread "democracy" using missiles.
    I would also like to ask, do we generally have ports for basing AUG? Russia is located on the shores of the freezing seas, we will not consider the Black and Baltic Seas, since they, in principle, are not suitable for basing the AUG. It turns out that Russia has only two small pieces of ice-free coastline - the coast of the Kola Bay near Murmansk, and Avachinskaya Bay in Kamchatka. All. Nowhere else can the AUG be based, since the AUG frozen into the ice is a useless and very expensive piece, moreover, being deprived of mobility, is an excellent target. In the United States, for example, ALL the Pacific and Atlantic coasts are non-freezing and have hundreds of beautiful bays and bays for basing the fleet, even the Pacific coast of Alaska does not freeze, as it is heated by the warm Alaska current, an analogue of the European Gulf Stream.
    And finally, I will add that in the entire history of Russia / USSR, the fleet was useful only once - in the war with Sweden in the early 18th century. All. Never again did the fleet STRATEGICALLY decide anything. They fought with Napoleon on land, the Turks were crushed on land, the fleet shamefully lost in the RYAV, the fleet also did not help in WWI, the ships and personnel sat for three years at their bases, and it was the BF sailors who were stupefied from idleness that became the detonator of the revolutions of 1917. During the Second World War, the fleet also did not solve anything global, the sailors were simply stupidly used as ordinary infantry, recall the same Zaitsev, who was a naval foreman, and who fought as an ordinary infantryman at Stalingrad. But billions of tsarist and Stalinist rubles, which were then backed by gold, were literally thrown into the wind into the navy. How many tanks, artillery, aircraft, trucks could have been built in the 30s instead of all these battleships that were laid down and which did not have time to be completed before 1941? And how many guns, rifles, machine guns, cartridges and shells could have been made before WWI in tsarist Russia instead of useless battleships and cruisers? But in WWI, Russian soldiers went on the attack with one rifle for two and five rounds for a brother, since the industry of tsarist Russia simply could not provide the front with the necessary number of rifles, machine guns, cartridges, shells and cannons. For comparison, Russia produced 28 thousand machine guns in WWI, while Germany produced 280 thousand machine guns, a 10-fold difference !!!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 September 2020 10: 41 New
      17
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      And finally, I will add that in the entire history of Russia / USSR, the fleet was useful only once - in the war with Sweden in the early 18th century.

      M-dya. Seeing such a "deep" knowledge of the issue, I don't even want to object.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Never again did the fleet STRATEGICALLY decide anything.

      Even if this were so (and this is far from the case), with the quality of its financing (usually Russia spent no more than 20% of all expenses on the Armed Forces on the fleet, but more often even less), operational-tactical usefulness would be quite enough
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      They fought with Napoleon on land, the Turks were smashed on land

      That is, the fact that, for example, the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Battle of Kerch did not allow the Turks to transfer troops to the Crimea and led to the collapse of the ideas of the Turks to recapture the Crimea in the 1790 campaign - this is so, complete nonsense.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      in RYAV, the fleet shamefully lost

      RYAV is just an example of strategic ... no, not so - as the cat Kuzya writes of the STRATEGIC value of the fleet. All Russo-Japanese was built on the dominance of the Japanese fleet at sea. If this domination could be overthrown, the war would have ended on the same day. That is, in order to defeat Japan, Russia needed an effective fleet and nothing else. Alas, we did not have an effective fleet. From this it would be logical to conclude that we still need an effective fleet, but where there ...
      In other words, the fact that the fleet in the RYAV did not cope suggests that our fleet was not good, but does not mean that the fleet is not needed
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      in WWI, the fleet did not help either

      We study the work of the Black Sea Fleet in WWI and do not write nonsense. Even the Baltic did something in fact, defending Moonsund did not allow the Germans to support the coastal flank of the armies. And how important it is .. see the history of the Black Sea Fleet in WWI.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      During the Second World War, the fleet also did not decide anything global

      It's right. Although it is impossible to deny the need for combat-ready forces in the North and the Pacific in WWII, there were practically none of them there, and what was was minuscule.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      But billions of tsarist and Stalinist rubles, which were then backed by gold, were literally thrown into the wind into the navy.

      Trillions. Kuzya, let your fantasy die, please
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      How many tanks, artillery, aircraft, trucks could have been built in the 30s instead of all these battleships that were laid down and which did not have time to be completed before 1941?

      So we already built more tanks in the 30s than the rest of the world combined. And how did it help?
      But the production facilities, expanded for the production of armor for battleships - they really helped in WWII.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      But in WWI, Russian soldiers went on the attack with one rifle for two and five rounds for a brother, since the industry of tsarist Russia simply could not provide the front with the necessary number of rifles, machine guns, cartridges, shells and cannons.

      What was a mistake of judgment - the production of the same rifles before WWII was curtailed, the factories were shut down, although the groundmen had a fair amount of money. The generals believed that they had enough rifles for war.
      1. DrEng527
        DrEng527 7 September 2020 12: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        From this it would be logical to conclude that we still need an effective fleet, but where there ...

        the conclusion was made - before WW1, the construction of the fleet began, the BP was dramatically improved ... request
        another thing is that because of the 05g revolution and a number of factors, everything went with a delay ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 September 2020 13: 44 New
          +4
          Quote: DrEng527
          the conclusion was made - before WW1, the construction of the fleet began, the BP was dramatically improved ...

          I meant the conclusions of Kota Kuzi, who decided that since the fleet could not reach the RYA, then it is not needed :)))))) And so yes, there were a lot of conclusions
        2. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 7 September 2020 23: 00 New
          -4
          Quote: DrEng527
          That is, the fact that, for example, the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Battle of Kerch did not allow the Turks to transfer troops to the Crimea and led to the collapse of the ideas of the Turks to recapture the Crimea in the 1790 campaign - this is so, complete nonsense.

          For your information, Crimea is a PENINSULA, that is, the Turkish fleet could in no way prevent the Russian troops from transferring forces to Crimea and keep it from being captured by a Turkish landing. In the same way, Manstein, with his 11th Army, crossed to the Crimea along Perekop and captured it in the fall of 1941.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The entire Russo-Japanese was built on the domination of the Japanese fleet at sea

          Don't write nonsense. RYAV was mediocrely asked ... but not because of the weakness of the Russian fleet, but because of the cowardice of Kuropatkin and personally of the rag tsar. Nothing prevented the transfer of troops along the Trans-Siberian Railway to the Far East, and the idea of ​​transferring the Baltic Fleet to the Yellow Sea is the height of idiocy.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          We study the work of the Black Sea Fleet in WWI and do not write nonsense. Even the Baltic did something in fact, defending Moonsund did not allow the Germans to support the coastal flank of the armies. And how important it is .. see the history of the Black Sea Fleet in WWI.

          Don't write nonsense. The fate of the Eastern Front was decided on the battlefields in East Prussia, Poland and Galicia, but not on the Baltic Sea.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Trillions. Kuzya, let your fantasy die, please

          The cost of building a battleship at the beginning of the 20th century was about 50 million rubles, this, with the content of one ruble in 0,78 g of gold, is almost 40 tons of gold. But under Nikolashka, they built not only one battleship, but several, plus cruisers, destroyers and other ships.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          So we already built more tanks in the 30s than the rest of the world combined. And how did it help?

          Tukhach, who raved about 100 thousand tanks with bulletproof armor, should be "thanked" for this. It did not even occur to this "genius" that tank divisions and corps needed to be supplied with trucks and tractors for supplying and transporting artillery.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          What was a mistake of judgment - the production of the same rifles before WWII was curtailed, the factories were shut down, although the groundmen had a fair amount of money. The generals believed that they had enough rifles for war.

          The money was redirected to restore the fleet after the Tsushima defeat. Instead, this money would be used to build weapons factories and purchase machines for the production of weapons and ammunition.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 September 2020 13: 18 New
            -1
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Do not write nonsense.

            I don't need your laurels
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            For your information, Crimea is a PENINSULA, that is, the Turkish fleet could in no way prevent the Russian troops from transferring forces to Crimea and keep it from being captured by a Turkish landing.

            laughing fool
            M-dya ... Kuzya, I understand that cats do not need history, but you would at least briefly study the history of the Russian-Turkish wars. Our victories of ground forces on the coast of the World Cup, including the capture of Izmail, became possible precisely because the Turks could not transfer armies by sea
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            RYAV was stupidly asked ... but not because of the weakness of the Russian fleet, but because of the cowardice of Kuropatkin and personally the tsar-rag.

            Kuzya, I understand that cats should catch mice, not prove Fermat's theorems, but turn your head on at least a little. A strong Russian fleet would simply make it impossible for Japanese troops to land on the continent. What does Kuropatkin have to do with it?
            yes, I know that Russia could continue the war and defeat the Japanese on land. But it would be a bloody meat grinder, with the loss of tens (if not more) thousands of people and enormous expenses (for some reason people think that land war is much cheaper than sea war). And the fleet could solve the matter elegantly - having defeated the Japanese in general attack (with the loss of hundreds of people), any peace terms could be dictated.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Nothing prevented the transfer of troops along the Transsib to the Far East

            For those who have never encountered transportation - certainly.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            The cost of building a battleship at the beginning of the 20th century was about 50 million rubles,

            29,4 million - for one Baltic Sevastopol. 29,8 - for the Black Sea. In fact, the Black Sea ones came out more expensive, but this is inflation during the war years.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            But under Nikolashka, they built not only one battleship, but several, plus cruisers, destroyers and other ships.

            Yes. And as a result, for example, having built 3 LCs at the World Cup, they had complete domination, supported the coastal flank of the army, paralyzed the supply of coal to Turkey, which had an extremely negative effect on its transport capabilities (steam locomotives) and so on and so forth.
            But you could do nothing of this - not build ships. True, it would be necessary to build fortresses to repel attacks from the sea. The cost of a first-class fortress of those times (that is, fortifications capable of covering a large city a la Sevastopol or Vladivostok) was about 60-100 million rubles.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            The money was redirected to restore the fleet after the Tsushima defeat.

            I'm afraid to mislead, but EMNIP, even in the most "unfortunate" years for the land department, it still had more than 75% of all funds allocated to the armed forces of the Empire. But here you have to check.
            1. DrEng527
              DrEng527 8 September 2020 15: 36 New
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              For those who have never encountered transportation - certainly.

              they started with 4 pairs per day, reached the end of the war to 14 ... as far as I remember, the train was then 400 tons, and it was necessary to carry almost everything - for the army. fleet and population ... request
            2. DrEng527
              DrEng527 8 September 2020 15: 50 New
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              having defeated the Japanese in general battle (with the loss of hundreds of people), any peace conditions could be dictated

              The most offensive thing is that RIF could well have concentrated 10 EBRs on the theater, Oslyabya could have been added to the 7 existing ones and not sent with Chukhnin EBR Sisoy and Navarin. And in a successful scenario, the EBR IA3 could be in time for the war ...
            3. Zementbomber
              Zementbomber 17 September 2020 07: 52 New
              0
              29,4 million - for one Baltic Sevastopol.

              Fleet General, then Chairman of the ITC and Ch. shipbuilding inspector Krylov wrote about approx. 180 million rubles gold for four Baltic dreadnoughts - not counting the additional appropriations allocated already during the construction.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 September 2020 08: 17 New
                0
                Quote: Zementbomber
                shipbuilding inspector Krylov wrote about approx. 180 million rubles gold for four Baltic dreadnoughts

                And the contract value of one battleship is 29,4 million rubles.
                1. Zementbomber
                  Zementbomber 17 September 2020 09: 43 New
                  0
                  The total cost of building the ships was estimated by the Marine Ministry at 147,5 million rubles.

                  The approximate estimated cost of building four ships was estimated by the Naval Ministry at 148 million rubles in gold: 37 million for one ship, including 27,2 million for the hull, armor and equipment, 2,2 million for artillery weapons and 7,5 million for spare guns. and ammunition.

                  If you intend to argue on this point with Tsvetkov himself - bring A-proof, at least similar in authority to his work.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 September 2020 10: 18 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Zementbomber
                    If you intend to argue on this point with Tsvetkov himself - bring A-proof, at least similar in authority to his work.

                    "Himself" Tsvetkov is funny :)))))) And so please - Vasiliev, "The First Battleships of the Red Fleet", p. 14.
                    "The contract value of one battleship was 29,4 million rubles."

                    But the catch is that Tsvetkov does not contradict Vasiliev. The point is that you completely in vain include the cost of 7,5 million "for spare guns and ammunition" in the price of the battleship - they are not included in it. A fully finished battleship with all the guns and a set of ammunition (or even two, I don't remember) cost exactly 29,4 million rubles. (according to Tsvetkov, this amount is 27,2 + 2,2 million) The rest is consumables for the period of its existence.
                    They, of course, are also needed, but the question here is how to calculate - either the cost of the ship itself, or the cost of its life cycle. In the second case, the cost of the sea fortress (60-100 million) should be added to the cost of the sea fortress (29,4 million). construction cost. And she, I repeat, is XNUMX million rubles
      2. alstr
        alstr 7 September 2020 17: 07 New
        0
        It remains to add.
        About the Second World War. Despite the swaying passivity of the fleet, upon closer examination, it turns out to be not so simple. But the most significant contribution, oddly enough, was made by small ships, often converted from civilians.
        And there is one battle that, oddly enough, would be lost without the fleet - this is Stalingrad. It was through the efforts of the Volga flotilla that the defense of Stalingrad was ensured. Without her, the city would have fallen.
        Yes, and the landing on the Kuril Islands somehow forget about them. If they did not exist, there would be NATO bases in the Kuril Islands - that would be absolutely bad.

        As for investments in the fleet, and not in the land army, it should be noted that the main problem was not the availability or lack of funds for the production of tanks (as they were rightly noticed here, and so they produced enough), but the availability of normal engines, optics and radios. And to them trained and competent military. And neither was in abundance (the same B-2 became normal in 42-43).
        Therefore, these things did not intersect in any way (practically).
      3. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 17: 16 New
        +2
        the landlords had a fair amount of money


        already sorted out on this topic, did not find confirmation (refutation too) this fact, if you share the source of information, I will be grateful

        How many tanks, artillery, aircraft, trucks could have been built in the 30s instead of all these battleships that were laid down and which did not have time to be completed before 1941?


        alas, they would have been lowered not on a 45-mm anti-tank gun, not on a 14,5-mm anti-tank rifle, but on another thousand B-4

        The navy, of course, is needed, but the navy must correspond to economic and political tasks, that is, be not redundant, but not too weak, this is the great art of a strategist - we are waiting for Roman to reveal it in his next post in relation to modern Russian realities :)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 September 2020 13: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrei Shmelev
          already sorted out on this topic, did not find confirmation (refutation too) this fact, if you share the source of information, I will be grateful

          You have puzzled me - I simply don't remember the source. I will look, and if I find, I will unsubscribe in a personal (it may take time)
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 8 September 2020 13: 22 New
            +1
            Thank you very much in advance, just everyone knows the catch phrase about account balances, but taken out of context, it cannot be interpreted unambiguously, therefore I am very much looking for context in the original source
      4. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber 17 September 2020 08: 19 New
        0
        RYAV is just an example of strategic ... no, not so - as the cat Kuzya writes of the STRATEGIC value of the fleet. All Russo-Japanese was built on the dominance of the Japanese fleet at sea. If this domination could be overthrown, the war would have ended on the same day. That is, in order to defeat Japan, Russia needed an effective fleet and nothing else.

        Download or open online for example here: https://www.litres.ru/evgeniy-martynov/iz-pechalnogo-opyta-russko-yaponskoy-voyny/ Сб. "Из печального опыта Русско-Японской войны" авторства генерал-лейтенанта Генерального штаба Мартынова, прочтите, что он пишет во 2-м и 3-м абз. Гл. I предпоследнем абз. Гл. II - и перестаньте сочинять Альтернативную Историю.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 September 2020 10: 29 New
          0
          Quote: Zementbomber
          by Lieutenant General of the General Staff Martynov

          If he is an Indisputable Authority for you - alas, these are your personal problems. But the problem is different
          Quote: Zementbomber
          read what he writes in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Ch. I penultimate paragraph. Ch. II

          You don't even understand what this discussion is about - your quotes are completely out of place
          1. Zementbomber
            Zementbomber 17 September 2020 10: 44 New
            0
            For me - nothing else - not is "Indisputable Authority". smile
            But the fact is that the judgments of Lieutenant General of the General Staff Martynov - in this particular case - absolutely "notkillable. "A good double-track railway in the Far East with the Kruglo-Baikal section - and the Japanese could have been, at most, in the first six months of the war - stupidly crushed with a mass (yes, thus" throwing corpses "," classic zergrash "). Even if on the Far East on the eve of the war - just as in reality - there was not a sufficient army grouping, and the naval forces of Russia in the Far East - would be limited to the East Siberian and Kwantung customs flotillas, ships for defense from the sea Port Arthur and Vladivostok fortresses and auxiliary cruisers mobilized from ROPiT ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 September 2020 10: 56 New
              +1
              Quote: Zementbomber
              For me - vAASCHsche nothing - is not "Indisputable Authority".
              But the fact is that the judgments of Lieutenant General of the General Staff Martynov - in this particular case - are absolutely "indestructible". A good double-track railway in the Far East with the Kruglo-Baikal section - and the Japanese could have been, at most, in the first six months of the war - stupidly crushed with a mass (yes, thus "throwing corpses", "classic zergrash")

              You can't, but let's say you can. I'm writing
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But it would be a bloody meat grinder, with the loss of tens (if not more) thousands of people and enormous costs (for some reason people think that land war is much cheaper than sea war). And the fleet could solve the matter elegantly - having defeated the Japanese in general attack (with the loss of hundreds of people), any peace terms could be dictated.

              What am I refuted by Martynov? :)))
              Furthermore. If we recall at all why we needed this Far East, then we will realize that for us it was a geopolitical trump card in the political alignment with England. The Far East was valuable to us for the ability to base a fleet of sufficient strength on it to threaten British shipping in Asia. We could afford to keep the main forces of the fleet in the Far East, but the British could not, because they could not ignore the French and German fleets.
              That is why, according to the shipbuilding programs of Nicholas II, the Pacific Fleet was supposed to become the strongest fleet of the Russian Empire :) That is, politically, we needed the Far East for the fleet, and it was a well-trained fleet that could stop the Japanese aggression with minimal costs and losses.
              Where is your "zergrash" here? :)))
              1. Zementbomber
                Zementbomber 17 September 2020 11: 37 New
                0
                1. Less blood - far away not always means cheaper money. Quite often the opposite is true.
                2. The aspirations of Russia to the Far East - including China - both initially and further carried Ch. arr. economic nature. Strategic benefits were never rejected at all - but economic and financial benefits were valued first and foremost.
                3. Russia too not could "ignore" the emerging Kaiserlichmarines.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 September 2020 12: 07 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Zementbomber
                  Less blood does not always mean "cheaper in terms of money." Quite often the opposite is true.

                  There is information that the First World War cost the Russian Empire 12 million rubles a day. This is the cost of a squadron battleship of the RYAV era. I also remember the mention that in major WWII offensives, the French and British spent ammunition at the cost of EMNIP for 2 dreadnoughts in 3 days.
                  Quote: Zementbomber
                  Russia's aspirations to the Far East - including to China - were initially and further worn by Ch. arr. economic nature. Strategic benefits were never rejected at all - but economic and financial benefits were valued first and foremost.

                  Which, again, largely boiled down to trade, and to a large extent - sea. The same Vladivostok was based not just anywhere, but in a place where there would be a protected harbor.
                  Quote: Zementbomber
                  ... Russia, too, could not "ignore" the emerging Kaiserlichmarines.

                  Nevertheless, the program for the construction of the Russian fleet assumed a critical weakening of the Baltic
                  1. Zementbomber
                    Zementbomber 17 September 2020 12: 31 New
                    0
                    There is information that the First World War cost the Russian Empire 12 million rubles a day. This is the cost of a squadron battleship of the RYAV era. I also remember the mention that in major WWII offensives, the French and British spent ammunition at the cost of EMNIP for 2 dreadnoughts in 3 days.

                    It remains only to understand: how WWI could either side win without major ground operations of a decisive nature? Could the allied fleet somehow save the Third Republic in the event of the implementation of the "Schlieffen plan" or defeat on the Marne (which in the situation of 1914 meant the defeat of the entire Entente)? Even if the Kaiserlichmarine could “copenhage”? Could the Imperial Navy be able to defend Petersburg from a land threat from the Ostsee Territory?
                    At the same time, a good chance for the victory of the Empire in the Second Patriotic War would remain even if no "programs for the renewal of the fleet" after the Second Russian-Japanese War would have been adopted and implemented at all.
                    Which, again, largely boiled down to trade, and to a large extent - sea. The same Vladivostok was based not just anywhere, but in a place where there would be a protected harbor.

                    Which
                    was insignificant, and was carried out for the most part on foreign ships

                    Nevertheless, the program for the construction of the Russian fleet assumed a critical weakening of the Baltic

                    It just isn't true. The military shipbuilding programs of the Empire until 1904 assumed the priority of the planned creation of the Pacific Fleet - but in no way not "weakening" of the fleets of the Baltic and Black Seas. On the Black Sea, the most active work was carried out to strengthen the local armored squadron (remember at least the same two Black Sea "pre-dreadnoughts" ordered before the "Second Japanese").
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 September 2020 12: 59 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Zementbomber
                      It remains only to understand: how WWI could either side win without major ground operations of a decisive nature?

                      It only remains to understand where this question belongs to the discussion (no hint). Let me remind you that we talked about the cost of land warfare and I said that it is very expensive. Let me also remind you that in the RYA, thanks to the fleet, it was possible to avoid large-scale military operations on land.
                      Quote: Zementbomber
                      It just isn't true.

                      Did you try to teach materiel?
                      Quote: Zementbomber
                      The military shipbuilding programs of the Empire until 1904 assumed the priority of the planned creation of the Pacific Ocean Fleet - but in no way "weakening" the fleets of the Baltic and Black Seas.

                      Firstly. Where did I even write a word about the Black Sea? Secondly, a special meeting of 1895 outlined the need to bring the Pacific Fleet to 10 battleships, while concentrating all existing and under construction armored cruisers, 10 cruisers of the 2nd class, as many - 3rd class, 2 minelayers, 36 fighters and 11 destroyers.
                      Comparing this with the actual presence of ships and programs for their construction, we see that the Baltic is literally left with nothing. It was only after the specified program was carried out that a new program was supposed to be formed, right up to 1920, which would somehow make it possible to level the situation with Germany. At the same time, the presence of a strong Pacific Fleet remained uncontested, but it was allowed to use it in case of need to support the Baltic
                      Quote: Zementbomber
                      On the same Black Sea - active work was carried out to strengthen the local armored squadron

                      Uh-huh. After Potemkin, laid in 1897, there was a break until 1904, when Eustathius and Zlatoust were laid. At this time for the Pacific Fleet Pobeda, Retvizan, Tsarevich and five EDR "Borodino" were laid, and at the beginning of 1905 - also 2 First-Called
                      1. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber 17 September 2020 14: 03 New
                        0
                        It only remains to understand where this question belongs to the discussion (no hint). Let me remind you that we talked about the cost of land warfare and I said that it is very expensive. Let me also remind you that in the RYA, thanks to the fleet, it was possible to avoid large-scale military operations on land.

                        Hint: Your argument was about the cost of ground operations versus the cost of dreadnoughts. In response, it was reasonably indicated that comparing the cost of a dreadnought and the formation and maintenance of one field army is somewhat silly.
                        Second hint: if sufficient ground forces had been concentrated in the Far East in advance and a decision had been made in a timely manner and unambiguously voiced in the event of an obvious threat from Japan to preemptively introduce some of them into Korea, there would probably not have been any war at all.
                        Did you try to teach materiel?

                        Well - let's mutually check each other for knowledge of the materiel! wink
                        A special meeting in 1895 outlined the need to bring the Pacific Fleet to 10 battleships, while concentrating all existing and under construction armored cruisers, 10 cruisers of the 2nd class, the same number - 3rd class, 2 minelayers, 36 fighters and 11 destroyers.

                        And what prevented this? After all, at the beginning of 1903 the Russian Imperial Fleet had sufficient naval forces to fulfill this epic plan ...
                        Uh-huh. After Potemkin, laid in 1897, there was a break until 1904, when Eustathius and Zlatoust were laid. At this time for the Pacific Fleet Pobeda, Retvizan, Tsarevich and five EDR "Borodino" were laid, and at the beginning of 1905 - also 2 First-Called

                        In fact - the Empire has undertaken to comply with the limit on the armored squadron of the Black Sea - no more than 7 pennants.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 September 2020 14: 40 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        Hint: Your argument was about the cost of ground operations versus the cost of dreadnoughts. In response, it was reasonably indicated that comparing the cost of a dreadnought and the formation and maintenance of one field army is somewhat silly.

                        I'll just fall under the table now :))))) The argument was presented as an illustration of the fact that land war may not be cheaper at all than sea war.
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        The second hint: if sufficient ground forces were concentrated in advance on the Far East

                        And through what are you going to concentrate them there? :))))) Is it okay that the East China railway was built only in 1904? Or we bring them to Vladivostok (not to mention the fact that it was unrealistic to deliver a sufficient number of troops there simply because of the carrying capacity) and from there - by self-help? :))))
                        We did not have the opportunity by 1904 to concentrate an army of several hundred thousand strong there.
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        And what prevented this? After all, at the beginning of 1903 the Russian Imperial Fleet had sufficient naval forces to fulfill this epic plan ...

                        Yes, nothing stopped - in 1905 the plan would have been executed. Only now the war began, disgusting, in 1904 :))))
                        But in general, if you have forgotten - we did not discuss the implementation of the plan, but the formation of the Pacific Fleet to the detriment of the Baltic. Can you argue on the merits of the question?
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        In fact - the Empire has undertaken to comply with the limit on the armored squadron of the Black Sea - no more than 7 pennants.

                        And how does this remark disprove the fact that the bulk of the shipbuilding programs were shifted to the Far East - in favor of the Pacific Fleet?
                      3. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber 17 September 2020 15: 26 New
                        0
                        I'll just fall under the table now :))))) The argument was presented as an illustration of the fact that land war may not be cheaper at all than sea war.

                        Erase - don't hurt yourself. laughing Land warfare can really be more expensive than sea war. Or maybe cheaper. Or maybe it is impossible to avoid the simultaneous waging of both land and sea wars. It is necessary to watch in each specific case.
                        And through what are you going to concentrate them there? :))))) Is it okay that the East China railway was built only in 1904? Or we bring them to Vladivostok (not to mention the fact that it was unrealistic to deliver a sufficient number of troops there simply because of the carrying capacity) and from there - by self-help? :))))
                        We did not have the opportunity by 1904 to concentrate an army of several hundred thousand strong there.
                        .
                        Several hundred thousand - and it was not necessary. But the main thing: it is not clear what kind of Jewish religion prohibited the resources used for the construction of the Pacific squadron, the base and fortress in Port Arthur - to be used for a more expanded and faster railway construction to the Far East and the DR?
                        Yes, nothing stopped - in 1905 the plan would have been executed. Only now the war began, disgusting, in 1904 :))))
                        But in general, if you have forgotten - we did not discuss the implementation of the plan, but the formation of the Pacific Fleet to the detriment of the Baltic. Can you argue on the merits of the question?

                        Yeah. The enemy did not want to wait, insidious!
                        And if you have forgotten: your initial thesis was that the Pacific Ocean fleet was not just given preference in replenishing with new ships, but it was created at the expense of weakening Baltic Fleet. The first is the truth. The second is no longer.
                        And how does this remark disprove the fact that the bulk of the shipbuilding programs were shifted to the Far East - in favor of the Pacific Fleet?

                        Did anyone argue with this? request
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk Yesterday, 09: 24 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        Erase - don't hurt yourself

                        Thank you! laughing
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        It is necessary to watch in each specific case.

                        I agree. And that is why I said that in the specific case of the RYAV naval war had a good chance of being cheaper than the land war, especially since the fleet was formed not only under the defeat of Japan specifically, but also for other important political needs of the Russian Empire
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        Several hundred thousand - and it was not necessary. But the main thing: it is not clear what kind of Jewish religion prohibited the resources used for the construction of the Pacific squadron, the base and fortress in Port Arthur - to be used for a more expanded and faster railway construction to the Far East and the DR?

                        You see, usually a railway does not just stretch, it stretches somewhere :))))) How do you propose to pull it into emptiness? We need footholds, settlements, which will, among other things, also protect the piece of iron (see the Hunghuz attacks on the Chinese Eastern Railway) and on the basis of which it will be possible to deploy an army. Or do you propose not having a fleet to land an army in a clear field, and let them live in tents? After such wintering it will be possible to take it with bare hands ...
                        Thus, if we are already climbing into Manchuria, we need Port Arthur, and if we need it, we need to protect it, and much more seriously than in reality, because you want to put the fleet on sleepers. So expect an increase in the cost of the fortress and a multiple - for "winter quarters" for the deployment of the army.
                        As for the redistribution of resources, I will tell you this - 9 mothers will not give birth to a child in a month. And it is difficult to understand how, leaving out of work the skilled workers of St. Petersburg and Central Russia (the production of armor and weapons for the fleet), you will receive an increase in resources for the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway.
                        Well, the cherry on the cake. The CER cost the treasury more than 200 million (where the price of the road reached 90 thousand per kilometer), and the cost of one battleship was 12,5-14 million rubles
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        And if you have forgotten: your initial thesis was that the Pacific Ocean fleet was not simply given preference to replenishment with new ships, but it was created due to the weakening of the Baltic Fleet. The first is the truth. The second is no longer.

                        Given that ALL heavy ships in 1895-1904 were ordered specifically for the needs of the Pacific Fleet, I don’t know how to comment. If the Baltic fleet is simply not replenished with heavy ships (yes, in general, and light ones too) in the face of the growing threat of the German - then what else to call it?
                      5. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber Yesterday, 13: 05 New
                        0
                        I agree. And that is why I said that in the specific case of the RYA naval war had a good chance of being cheaper than a land war

                        Maybe. But there is a nuance: since a naval war, especially one conducted on the basis of the doctrine of a "general battle", there is always a risk of crushing (important!) Losing even by a simple "unfortunate coincidence" or as a result of "one but fatal mistake of the senior flagship" - in regions , where a strategic amphibious landing operation of the enemy is possible - you still have to secure the fleet by concentrating a large land force, provided with supplies and the necessary basing infrastructure and communications - incl. (and even first and foremost) and strategic communications (i.e., in this case, by the same TransSib).
                        Ie: "No matter how strong our armored squadron of the Pacific Ocean is - and a large field army in Manchuria with a reliable land link with European Russia - all one thing is needed!"
                        the fleet was formed not only for the defeat of Japan specifically, but also for other important political needs of the Russian Empire

                        And what real "important tasks" were for sea ​​and ocean armored fleet of the Empire outside the Black Sea?
                        Or do you propose not having a fleet to land an army in a clear field, and let them live in tents? After such wintering it will be possible to take it with bare hands ...

                        More than a million in total number of the Manchu Armies - survived the winter of 1904/05. exactly "on bivouacs". The Japanese in Manchuria are similar.
                        If the Baltic fleet is simply not replenished with heavy ships (yes, in general, and light ones too) in the face of the growing threat of the German - then what else to call it?

                        I would call this a "temporary" freeze "of the further build-up of the Baltic Fleet's squadron and cruiser forces." By the way, the Baltic battleships and cruisers continued to modernize quite thoroughly - both in artillery and in boilers and vehicles.
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk Yesterday, 13: 55 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        But there is a nuance: since a naval war, especially one waged on the basis of the doctrine of a "general battle", there is always a risk of crushing (important!) Losing, even by a simple "unfortunate coincidence" or as a result of "one but fatal mistake of the senior flagship"

                        This is true, but not entirely true. The military science of those years operated with the doctrine of general engagement not only at sea, but also on land, and a land battle could be lost in the same way for the same reasons as a naval one.
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        in areas where a strategic amphibious assault operation of the enemy is possible - you still have to secure the fleet by concentrating a large land force

                        In this case, the 40-thousandth garrison of Port Arthur would be enough. existed in reality and other ground forces available in the theater (and even a significantly smaller number of them)
                        The bottom line is that the landing of the Japanese on the continent in itself does not threaten anything, except, perhaps, Port Arthur, but it cannot be taken on a swoop. The possible advance of the Japanese army is threatening, and they would not have gone anywhere in the event of a naval victory over the sons of Yamato.
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        And what real "important tasks" did the Empire's naval and oceanic armored fleet have outside the Black Sea?

                        Hello, we've arrived :)))) Well, didn't you write
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        Russia's aspirations to the Far East - including to China - were initially and further worn by Ch. arr. economic nature. Strategic benefits were never rejected at all - but economic and financial benefits were valued first and foremost.

                        So a strong army in the Far East could help us win the war with Japan, and a strong navy could make such a war impossible in principle. The Japanese generally decided to go to war solely due to the fact that, thanks to the British, at some point they secured superiority at sea. Until they had it, no landings were possible by definition.
                        In addition, a strong fleet in the Far East was a direct threat to the British, which was a significant argument in any political negotiations and alliances. In the Baltic, no one canceled the need to defend St. Petersburg from the sea, as did the coastal flank of the armies fighting the same Germans.
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        More than a million in total number of the Manchu Armies - survived the winter of 1904/05. exactly "on bivouacs". The Japanese in Manchuria are similar.

                        In wartime. When the soldiers are very motivated, because they simply want to live. In peacetime it will be completely different, see the history of the riots in Vladivostok.
                        Quote: Zementbomber
                        I would call this a "temporary" freeze "of the further build-up of the Baltic Fleet's squadron and cruiser forces."

                        Very nice :)))) Let's clarify. Alexander and Nikolai, built for the Baltic Fleet, almost never served in it, Alexander spent 61 months in Mediterranean, and Nikolai also noted in the Far East. Navarin actually completed the tests in 1895, in 1896 he left for Mediterranean, in 1898, without returning to the Baltic, he left for the Far East and only in 1902 returned to the Baltic for repairs. "Sisoy" - about the same. Gangut - sank. After that, the "battleships-cruisers" "Peresvet", "Oslyabya" and "Pobeda" were built, which were originally intended specifically for the Far Eastern theater, where they were sent immediately when ready.
                        That is, even the battleships built for the Baltic in fact practically did not serve there, but were either in the Mediterranean or in the Far East, returning to Kronstadt only for repairs. In fact, only 3 BRBOs were built for the Baltic, which were located there. Together with "Peter the Great", forming the "relics" of our grand Baltic fleet :)))
                        If this is not a weakening of the Baltic Fleet, then I really don't know what to call a weakening
                        By the way, destroyers were also built mainly for the Pacific Fleet :))))
  • Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 7 September 2020 10: 50 New
    +1
    We will not consider the Black and Baltic Seas, since they, in principle, are not suitable for basing AUG.
    .... And the problem is not only in basing, but also in repair, especially on the Black Sea coast ...
  • ban
    ban 7 September 2020 20: 33 New
    +1
    You sir, just a traitor and saboteur)))
    It's a pity that now is not the 37th)))
  • ban
    ban 7 September 2020 20: 36 New
    -1
    "How many tanks, artillery, aircraft, trucks could have been built in the 30s instead of all these battleships that were laid down and which they did not manage to complete until 1941?"

    It has been calculated that instead of 3000 useless KVs, a dozen Kirovs and fifty Sevens could be built.
    And minus, if anything, I put
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 7 September 2020 09: 04 New
    -3
    I fully support the respected Roman Skomorokhov, you should not enter into a senseless arms race for ephemeral tasks, otherwise there will be a Maidan from the poverty of the population .... Uv Puchnin apparently lost his mind with his aircraft carrier ideas. At the same time, he clearly underestimates the importance of the Premier League, as an effective long arm of Russia, indicating in his desires. scanty numbers of nuclear submarines. Underestimates the importance of minesweepers, without which the fleet generally turns into a cardboard fool, counting in 70 ships of the third rank mrk mpk and minesweepers, if now there are already or are being built three dozen mrk, then it turns out that on Puchnin only 20 minesweepers for 5 fleets are enough? Does he even understand the importance of PMO, or will the minefields pass through the air? and finally about maritime policy and maritime boundaries. The borders are long but run through the tundra and taiga. only point defense is needed, Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky, Vladivostok, Nakhodka. and the Black Sea, a large oceanic fleet is not so needed for this .... and the maritime policy can be provided by several patrol frigates, 6 per ocean and a couple of three on the Black Sea, that's all the needs of the oceanic fleet. All the more useless are aircraft carriers, destroyers and UDC, there is no one and nowhere to land troops, except for tactical landings near the actions of the ground army, for which even Dugongs are enough, and the available airborne ships are more than enough.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 14: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: vladimir1155
      that on Puchnin only 20 minesweepers are enough for 5 fleets? Does he even understand the importance of PMO, or will the minefields pass through the air?


      This is of course nonsense.
      Now let's get back to the adequate approach.
      At the Baltic Fleet, you must have an OVR Brigade and an OVR division, that is, at least one KPGUG and 2 KTG.
      On the Black Sea, it is necessary to have 2 brigades of the OVR with at least 2 KPUG and 3-4 KTGs.
      At the Pacific Fleet, it is necessary to have at least 2 OVR brigades and 2-3 OVR divisions with at least 3 KPUG and 5-6 KTGs
      On the Northern Fleet, you must have at least 2 OVP brigades, which include at least 2 KPUG and 4-5 KTG
      OVR - protection of the water area
      KTG - ship sweeping group
      KPUG - ship anti-submarine group.
      Taking into account the fact that at best we have 75 percent of SIS in constant readiness, the minimum need of the fleet is at least 32 corvettes-carriers of the Minotaur SJC with GPBA, and at least 50-60 TSCHIM, which, moreover, need to be supported by the same RTOs. We count - 32 corvettes, 60 TSCHIM, 18 MRK (21631 do not count) - already 110 units.
      And this is the minimum reference figure.
      In addition, based on the fact that in anti-submarine warfare, the main thing is, the more sensors in the sea, the more efficiently the problem is solved, as a mini mine-sweeping ships of the pr. 12700 level, it is desirable to supply a SAC of the corresponding class

      With regards to aviation - the minimum requirement is 5 shAPs of two-squadron composition on the Su-30SM., And at least 5-6 squadrons of base patrol aircraft.
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 17: 19 New
        -2
        that on Puchnin only 20 minesweepers are enough for 5 fleets? Does he even understand the importance of PMO, or will the minefields pass through the air?


        no, we will not, we will simply respond to mining attempts with ONE ICBM, after which all mines will be removed themselves
        thus, four minesweepers for the fleet will be enough
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 18: 02 New
          +3
          Quote: Andrei Shmelev
          we will simply respond to mining attempts with ONE ICBM,


          And for whom? Here, for example, they will put a scow bought for example with some kind of apricots 18 self-made anchor mines at the exit from Avacha Bay ... For whom we will fire ICBMs. By the way, having ready-made components an anchor non-contact mine is quite realistic to pile on your knee ...

          The Houthis won't let you lie, the truth is it's floating ..

          And a floating mine can be balanced so that it will float at a depth of 2-3 meters.
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 18: 42 New
            -1
            A scow bought, for example, with some kind of apricots 18 self-made anchor mines at the exit from Avacha Bay ...


            1.there are 4 minesweepers against them
            2. on the routes of the exit of warships a ban on the appearance of scow
            3.random shalanda truth serum and find which Yemen to send the missile to
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 19: 35 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrei Shmelev
              here are 4 minesweepers against them

              a) Earlier you said about the minesweeper for the fleet, which will be under repair for a quarter of the time .. wassat
              b) on the routes of the exit of warships, the ban on the appearance of scows will not come out and warships and ships go in the same Petropavlovsk along the same fairway
              c) This is not advisable for political and military reasons. And suddenly, uh, the Houthis hired Israel for this business, and the one who was in the know already self-destructed with a grenade.
              1. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 19: 52 New
                -2
                four minesweepers per fleet

                read carefully
                one fairway

                the separation of bases and peaceful ports is a question that can and must be resolved
                hired Israel for this

                in Israel, a terrorist's house is demolished, exposing all his relatives on the street - it helps, you know :)
      2. ban
        ban 7 September 2020 21: 16 New
        +1
        "With regards to aviation, the minimum requirement is 5 two-squadron ShAPs on the Su-30SM., And at least 5-6 squadrons of base patrol aircraft."

        And the fighters? And MRA? Refuellers, AWACS?
        Reconnaissance and CU?
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 21: 55 New
          +1
          Quote: ban
          What about fighters?


          Su-30cm does not solve fighter missions? Forget about MRA ..
          1. ban
            ban 7 September 2020 22: 59 New
            0
            And what about the flight personnel? The tasks of conquering air supremacy and striking are still different
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 23: 16 New
              +1
              It means that this issue must be resolved as Americans. For example, half of the squadrons on Hornets of aircraft carrier air groups are aimed at solving air defense missions, the other half also on Hornets for solving strike missions.
              1. ban
                ban 7 September 2020 23: 45 New
                0
                Then 5shap for the fleet.
                When solving shock missions against surface targets, losses will be mama do not cry
          2. ban
            ban 7 September 2020 23: 03 New
            0
            Forget about MRA ..

            In light of the way things are, this is perhaps at the moment our only equalizer of the odds on the criterion of cost / efficiency, and in time.
            I do not insist, this is my personal opinion
            1. The comment was deleted.
      3. ban
        ban 7 September 2020 21: 22 New
        +1
        "as a minimum mine-sweeping ships of the pr.12700 level, it is desirable to supply the SAC of the corresponding class"

        And anti-submarine weapons.
        Let us recall the American WWII minesweepers - GAS, Hedgehog, a good supply of GBs - and we and the Canadians with the brites used them as PLO ships.
        But history teaches that it does not teach anything, somehow)
    2. ban
      ban 7 September 2020 20: 43 New
      +1
      "At the same time, he clearly underestimates the importance of the nuclear submarine."

      The Germans built more than 1100 pl.
      And it helped them a lot without aviation and a balanced surface fleet?
      Probably, you need to learn from the mistakes of others, and not jump all the time on the same rake) (
    3. ban
      ban 7 September 2020 21: 31 New
      +1
      And, I will add, the Yankees built only about 200 submarines, but with the dominance of the American fleet at sea and in the air, they (American submarines) destroyed about 2/3 of the Japanese merchant tonnage, not counting warships.
      And, like the icing on the cake - take an interest in the losses of German and American submariners.
      So, the submarine fleet by itself, without the support of aviation and NK, will be able to do little.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 21: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: ban
        And, like the icing on the cake - take an interest in the losses of German and American submariners.


        I somehow know, yes ..........
        1. ban
          ban 7 September 2020 22: 56 New
          0
          About pl I wrote not to you, but to Vladimir 1155
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 7 September 2020 10: 05 New
    +3
    The navy and, to summarize, all the armed forces, if viewed only as an instrument of defense, will always be only a bottomless hole that absorbs funds.
    Military power should be an instrument of domination and reformatting of the world economy in the interests of the state that possesses it. Only then will it pay off.
  • Charik
    Charik 7 September 2020 10: 24 New
    0
    TAVKR-actually Kuznetsov
  • Charik
    Charik 7 September 2020 10: 32 New
    -2
    Let this Ha ... ohm buy from the state Akulu 941 - fix and protect his pipes
  • Charik
    Charik 7 September 2020 10: 37 New
    -1
    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 - a question. - The Americans have to exchange for gas oil as an option, well, or the Chinese, as an option, for the Yamal subsoil, then we change for pieces of paper, otherwise we can change it for pieces of iron
  • ALARI
    ALARI 7 September 2020 11: 03 New
    0
    The question needs to be paraphrased a little, whether a fleet is needed, and whether Russia can now build a strong fleet. You can want anything, but where is the money?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 7 September 2020 14: 19 New
      0
      Maybe - but he, now, it is not needed, and there is no money for it to build and maintain.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 7 September 2020 11: 22 New
    +3
    Ethereal Debate - Need Not Need Fleet! Needed !!! "Hotelki" of the Navy will only shorten the real state of the Russian economy: finances and shipyards, cooperation across the entire range of ships.
  • iouris
    iouris 7 September 2020 13: 24 New
    0
    Strong is needed. The weak one is not needed. And what is the fleet now?
  • mz
    mz 7 September 2020 13: 48 New
    +1
    It seems to me that to consider R. Skomorokhov's articles analytical is a mockery of the word "analysis". The author mentions a fact, but is unable to draw some conclusions:
    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.

    Russia is not a naval power precisely because there is no numerous "civilian" fleet. For the normal functioning of such a fleet, an appropriate military fleet is needed (I don’t know which one, let the experts think, but not R. Skomorokhov).
    The freedom of the high seas is ensured by the relevant regulations. And politics.
    Politics is nothing without military force. According to what regulations does the US seize Iranian tankers?
    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.
    Anyone who has enough strength to close the ocean area from Russian civilian ships, forcing them to follow inconvenient routes, increasing the shoulder of transportation and increasing the cost of delivery.
    I do not know in what area R. Skomorokhov is a specialist, but definitely not in the field of naval and shipbuilding and maritime policy.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 7 September 2020 14: 05 New
    0
    Engines already have the same line of Kolomna D500.
  • Alexy
    Alexy 7 September 2020 15: 34 New
    +1
    The author is very far from understanding the necessity and importance of the navy. As I understand it, in the current conditions, he proposes to be limited to the coast guard. Oh well. Probably the governments of all countries with strong and modern navies are short-sighted, stupid and influenced by the so-called hawks. And this is not only the United States.
  • Proxima
    Proxima 7 September 2020 16: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
    The answer is unequivocal - Russia needs a fleet !!!

    Alexander the First had a different opinion on this matter, that Russia was a great land power, and she did not need a strong fleet. You see, he was offended by the naval forces, that they were devouring a huge segment of the military budget and were absolutely useless in the fight against Napoleon. As a result, the cost of the fleet was greatly reduced and what did we get in the end ?! - rightly so - the shameful Crimean War, where we were almost turned into a semi-colony like China. Indeed, why send an army of half a million to Moscow, when you can block all ports (Sevastopol, Odessa, Taganrog, Petersburg, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Arkhangelsk, and so on). Which by the way they tried to do. Further, the state simply suffocates. What am I all for? Everyone who serves in the Navy, know: you are not eating your bread in vain and listen less to different wiseacres, as if the fleet for Russia is an expensive useless toy!
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 17: 21 New
      +3
      Here Alexander the First had a different opinion on this matter ... As a result, the cost of the fleet was greatly reduced and what did we get in the end ?! - rightly so - the shameful Crimean War, where we were almost turned into a semi-colony like China.


      I thought that the Crimean War was under Nicholas 1, who invested quite well in the fleet

      you can block all ports


      Do you really think that Russia could have built a fleet that would have lulled the combined forces of Britain and France?


      1. Proxima
        Proxima 7 September 2020 20: 43 New
        -1
        I rarely see such stupid posts. Nicholas was the first to disentangle what Alexander had done. The Navy did not need to do any lullies, but only a little to interfere with their complex maritime logistics.
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 7 September 2020 21: 07 New
          +1
          Nicholas was the first to disentangle what Alexander had done.


          more than a quarter of a century? I do not want to be banned for honestly assessing your intelligence

          but just a little to interfere with their complex maritime logistics


          yeah, but before that, and for this, it was necessary to hang them with lyuly :)

          re:
          I do not want to be banned for honestly assessing your intelligence


          Shl. minus;)
  • Shadow041
    Shadow041 7 September 2020 16: 10 New
    +1
    The coastal fleet was already being built in the USSR. After the war in Spain, everyone who shouted that the USSR fleet had enough torpedo boats and mini-submarines were shot, because such a fleet was not wealthy
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 16: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: Shadow041
      The coastal fleet was already being built in the USSR. After the war in Spain, everyone who shouted that the USSR fleet had enough torpedo boats and mini-submarines were shot,


      So they shot every now and then. For an adequate coastal fleet was never built. But the ocean fleet of the USSR on the eve of the Second World War - let's not talk about the sad ...
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 September 2020 01: 33 New
      +2
      Now this entire mosquito fleet can be armed to the teeth - with hypersonic anti-ship missiles and also create coast-based anti-ship MRBMs - and here it is already a purely economic calculation that will be cheaper to build and maintain: destroyers, aircraft carriers, large transports, missile cruisers with large crews and complex equipment, or rockets and their small platforms capable of sending all these super-expensive troughs to build and maintain with one hit.
  • tinkle
    tinkle 7 September 2020 18: 33 New
    0
    "23 years under repair" (Nakhimov). The author mistakenly added during this period of standing idle at the Sevmash quay wall without a clear understanding of what to do with it.
  • zxc15682
    zxc15682 7 September 2020 18: 43 New
    +1
    You just need a lot of such ships
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 September 2020 01: 34 New
      0
      Shipyard Zvezda to help.
  • Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 7 September 2020 18: 53 New
    +1
    it's not about the total tonnage of the fleet
    with anti-ship missiles Zircon and Dagger, the usual flying boat Be-12 "Chaika" is enough
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 8 September 2020 17: 07 New
      +1
      Hypothetically. We will open a missile base in Cuba tomorrow. How will you cover the supply ships.
    2. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 16 September 2020 16: 32 New
      -1
      Be-12PL - not able to carry not that "Dagger" or "Zircon" - but even the subsonic anti-ship missiles of the past generation. Learn materiel.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • PROXOR
    PROXOR 8 September 2020 17: 05 New
    +1
    Auto RU. Why do we need an ocean-going fleet so that there is no second Cuban missile crisis. The striped ones will spit on all legal documents when it comes to the appearance of missiles in the nearest zone with an arrival time of 5-7 minutes. And to provide such a base, a warrant from warships is needed. Attempting to attack a transport ship accompanied by warships is nothing more than a declaration of war.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 September 2020 17: 41 New
      -1
      And why will it be - Russia will not deploy any ballistic missiles in Cuba, and Cuba will not give it.
    2. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 16 September 2020 16: 36 New
      -1
      "striped" - in 1962 ordered the US Atlantic Fleet to open fire (to kill) on Soviet ships (including warships) if they try to cross the line of the outer border of the blockade of Cuba. CHSKh, the Bolshevik women went crazy and stopped.
      1. PROXOR
        PROXOR 17 September 2020 10: 21 New
        0
        This is not 1962. Americans with "eggs" are gone.
        1. Zementbomber
          Zementbomber 17 September 2020 11: 05 New
          -1
          Everything is relative. Taking into account the fact that the Russians have eggs at the moment - really "half-six" ...
          In the boxing round between disabled persons, the disabled of the II group has a clear advantage over the disabled of the XNUMXst group.
          Well, so something - yes:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA9CK-11UZI
          - if only a brigade of my yombe boy girls, whom I led into battle in 1996-1997. - chase with good translators through the 169th training, and give them standard means of reinforcement - they would tear any Ukrainian or Russian brigade into bloody little pieces. And even any Polish or American one. yes
          The whole white race is not the same ... negative
          However - the Great Colonel Muammar Gaddafi warned about this Glorious Memory - see Ch. "Blacks" of Part III of the "Green Book".
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 8 September 2020 17: 29 New
    +1
    There is such a science - geopolitics. This is the direction of political thought, the concept of control over the territory, about the patterns of distribution and redistribution of spheres of influence (centers of power) of different states and interstate associations.
    Geopolitical strategy is the creation of forms of control over space, taking into account the technological capabilities possessed by the state (forms of such control: political, military, economic, civilizational, communication, demographic, informational).
    One of the instruments of the geopolitics of the state is the Fleet, both commercial and military.
    Geopolitical benefits always prevail over any others. Short-term economic benefits can lead to long-term losses, and vice versa.
    For example, Russia has interests in South America. The presence of a fleet in this region "cools" the thoughts of some "partners" in promoting their interests, i.e. to protect our interests (economic, political, etc.), the presence of a fleet in some regions of the planet is not only desirable, but vital.
    To the question from the title of the article, the answer is Yes, a strong fleet is needed.
  • Boris ⁣ Shaver
    Boris ⁣ Shaver 9 September 2020 00: 31 New
    +1
    hurray-chants about the fact that Russia has two allies: the army and the navy.

    Alexander III is a hooray patriot.
    Roma Skomorokhov is a natural patriot.

    Ugh.
  • Zementbomber
    Zementbomber 16 September 2020 16: 08 New
    0
    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.

    It was quite realistically explained in fact - an air-sea counter-landing operation to repel an attempt to seize the Kuril Islands by Japan in alliance with the United States. How realistic it is to carry out such an operation both in cash and in the planned detachment of the KTOF forces is a separate question. But there is no doubt that the task is urgent.
    PS And yes, I support Japan's claims to the Kuril Islands. All Kuril Islands, not just the South. But in this case, we are talking about Russia's interests. Which is obliged to be ready to oppose such claims. Incl. and direct armed force - if necessary.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 17 September 2020 07: 49 New
      0
      Quite realistically explained actually

      Not relevant, especially now, after the cancellation of the INF Treaty. The combined forces of the USA / Japan are in any case stronger than the Russian Armed Forces in the Far East, stability is provided not by conventional weapons, but by strategic nuclear forces.
      1. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber 17 September 2020 08: 30 New
        0
        Strategic Nuclear Forces (and even tactical. Nuclear weapons) - in the future Great War, it is more than likely that the role of HBW will be comprehended in WWII.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 17 September 2020 09: 01 New
          0
          There are no prerequisites, they do not know how to neutralize the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion.
          1. Zementbomber
            Zementbomber 17 September 2020 09: 58 New
            0
            The reason for not using CBW in WWII was completely not "the ability to neutralize its damaging factors" (which skill did not exist). А clear awareness by the political, military-political and top military leadership of the belligerent countries that the use of CBW and the subsequent massive use of CBW and its subsequent massive similar use by the enemy will "cost" itself more than even a complete, catastrophic loss in the war. With nuclear weapons now (and for a long time) - exactly the same situation. Only even more pronounced and even more clearly understood by everyone.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 17 September 2020 12: 04 New
              0
              The use of CBW does not ensure the infliction of unacceptable losses, while nuclear weapons will. That's the whole difference.
              Mriyas on the topic "they won't dare" are just attempts to justify the concept of a limited high-intensity conflict in Europe or the Far East.
              1. Zementbomber
                Zementbomber 17 September 2020 13: 16 New
                0
                Just check out the striking effect of CW and BW on the eve of WWII in the event of its massive use by strategic aircraft carriers in non-evacuated large cities. And it will open to you ...
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 17 September 2020 13: 42 New
                  0
                  OK. Will McNamara's score work? 25-30% of the population of the USSR. Will it be difficult to link to documents?
                  1. Zementbomber
                    Zementbomber 17 September 2020 15: 04 New
                    0
                    Documents Editing about what?
                    And what does the "McNamara assessment" have to do with it - who in August 1939 - was just a graduate business administrator and in the then HBO understood like Jozhik in pineapples? request
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 17 September 2020 15: 30 New
                      0
                      About the fact that the Germans could destroy 30% of the population of the USSR with the help of the BHO, or did you take your opinion from the finger?
                      1. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber Yesterday, 01: 14 New
                        0
                        А where i referenced for such documents?
                        I only mentioned that the stocks of the plague stick culture accumulated by August 1945 alone in the Japanese Imperial Army alone should have been theoretically enough to infect the entire human population of Planet Earth with it approximately twice ...
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 Yesterday, 07: 22 New
                        0
                        Those. it is not clear what the personal opinion based on. Thank. The question is cleared good
                      3. Zementbomber
                        Zementbomber Yesterday, 13: 12 New
                        0
                        Please. hi
                        The Japanese have a plague stick - this is the data of Soviet military historians. Quite a lot was written and filmed about the "detachment 731" in the USSR. Incl. and quite seriously.
  • Zementbomber
    Zementbomber 16 September 2020 16: 29 New
    0
    Nobody bothers to complete the construction of the SP-2 by military force.

    And let me be curious: if they refuse to accept and buy gas through the gas pipeline built "with the help of" military force "- what will you do?
    Declare nuclear war?
    So NATO is "maliciously damned" - maybe its prospects and not get scared (google the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis). With all that it implies ...