Military Review

Does Russia make sense to wage war at sea?

371

Yes, as promised, we will now bring together the two articles and add some analysis. And the main purpose of this material will be to answer the question: can we in 10 years even think about the fact that our fleets will be able to provide at least minimal resistance if something happens?


In fact, we cannot build as we did under the Soviet Union. Proven. We cannot allocate so much money for the construction of new ships. We can, perhaps, only sound the projectors. All kinds of nuclear destroyers and nuclear aircraft carriers.

But let's not talk about the sad, let's talk about the very sad.

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation in which our potential adversaries will cease to be potential, but become real. For example, a military coup took place in Russia and completely different people came to power who are ruling the country now.

On the one hand, there is no particular cause for concern, on the other hand, in such a situation anything can happen.

We will reason reasonably, that is, we will not talk about delivering nuclear strikes. There will be no winners in the last war, so we will leave the nuclear broom for all living things for later.

So, our enemies decided to arrange something like that at our borders. And sirens howled, commanders of all levels and ranks began to open packages and stuff like that.

Let's start with Baltic.

The political alignment in the region is just fine. We have no allies, except for neutral Finland, which is unlikely to participate in the carnival. But the Finns just have nothing to participate. Yes, with the help of their minelayers, they will be able to block half of the Gulf of Finland with mines, but this is where the capabilities of the Finnish Navy end.

We do not take inflatable boats of the Baltics seriously either. But then serious games of adult guys begin. Capable of putting the submarine fleet into the sea and covering it with surface ships.

Poland.

The Poles can exhibit 5 submarines (one our Halibut and four German ones) and 2 frigates of the Oliver Perry type made in the USA.

Everything, let's say, is not the first freshness.

Germany.

6 newest submarines, 9 frigates (3 newest Saxony-class), 5 new Braunschweig-class corvettes.


Unfortunately, all equipment (with the exception of two Bremen-class frigates) is very fresh.

Sweden.

Eternal neutrals that breathe unevenly towards us. And our boats are constantly staggering off the Swedish coast.

5 submarines and 11 corvettes.

The state is so-so. Mostly from the last century, with the exception of the five Visby corvettes, which are quite new.

Norway.

6 German-built submarines, 4 newest frigates of the Fridtjof Nansen class, 6 newest subcorvettes of the Skjeld class.


Frigates are designed specifically for anti-submarine defense.

Denmark.

7 frigates, three of which, of the Yver Huitfeld type, are the newest.


Netherlands.

4 submarines and 6 frigates, of which 4 of the "De Zeven Provinciën" types are the newest.


Total: 26 submarines, 28 frigates, 22 corvettes.

What can the Baltic Fleet offer in terms of submarine forces and support?


1 ancient Project 956 destroyer, constantly under repair.
2 frigates of project 11540. Not less ancient.
4 corvettes of project 20380. New.
6 small anti-submarine ships of project 1331-M. Also antiquity comes from the 80s of the last century.
2 submarines (1 under repair) of project 877 "Halibut". Also from the 80s.

What can you say based on these numbers? Well, just that the only function that our "modern" Baltic fleet can perform is to die heroically. Moreover, this does not even require the British and French, who play not the last violins in the NATO forces. Small-town regionals will cope.

Of course, "Bali" and "Iskander" on the shores can moderate the ardor, but this applies only to surface ships.


As for the submarines, everything is very sad. And the fact that Alrosa, breathing in incense and living from repair to repair, will be transferred to the Baltic, will not change anything. She will also stand there under repairs.

Black Sea.

It is a little better here than in the Baltic, but just a little bit.

Romania.

3 frigates, 4 corvettes.

They are Romanian, that is, bought as used and very old.

Bulgaria.

4 ancient frigates, 2 ancient corvettes.

Bulgaria is generally a difficult country for us today. It is difficult to say where its command will turn, but Bulgaria is a NATO member. So the floating junk obeys orders, you know where.

Turkey.


12 submarines (4 are the latest diesel-electric submarines), 16 frigates, 10 corvettes.

Turkey, no matter how it is fed with gas pipelines, will remain a country that pursues its own policy. And a Russian ship can receive a torpedo from a Turkish submarine in the same way as it received a Su-24 missile.

Black Sea Fleet of Russia.

We don't see any allies here either.


6 Varshavyanka-class submarines (3 of them are under repair).
3 frigates of project 11356 and 2 semi-frigates of project 1135 (1981 and 82 years of construction).
6 small anti-submarine ships of project 1124M. Originally from the 80s, but better than nothing.

And that's all. In principle, the Baltic submarine can be covered even better than the Black Sea ones. He deliberately kept silent about "Moscow", this veteran as a cover / opposition to the PL is completely useless.

In general, the Turkish fleet, if desired, will solve all or almost all tasks to counter our the fleet... Simply because it has more submarines and ships to counter our submarines.

Pacific Ocean.

Here, of course, rules the ball US Pacific Fleet.


5 aircraft carriers, 34 destroyers (including both Zamvolta), 12 coastal zone ships, about 40 nuclear submarines and 12 Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

Japan.

20 submarines, 4 helicopter carriers, 39 destroyers, 6 frigates.


All this is very ambitious for the Japanese and was built recently.

South Korea.


18 submarines, 12 destroyers, 16 frigates, 28 corvettes.

Not the newest building, but impressive in number.

China.


9 multipurpose nuclear submarines, 53 diesel submarines of various years of construction, 31 destroyers, 43 frigates and 56 anti-submarine corvettes.

The PLA aircraft carriers of the PRC do not carry anti-submarine weapons, unlike the American ones.

China in our case is an independent player like Turkey, but if everything is clear with Turkey in terms of which side it will take, then it is absolutely unrealistic to plan something with China. Yes, the PRC has "graters" both with the United States and with allies / satellites of the Americans, but this does not mean at all that we can consider the PRC a full-fledged ally. Rather, on the contrary, nothing more than a possible companion, nothing more.

Russian Pacific Fleet.


5 nuclear submarines of project 949A, of which 3 are in service.
4 nuclear submarines of project 971, in service 1.
6 diesel submarines of project 877 "Halibut", all in service.
1 diesel submarine of project 636 "Varshavyanka".

A total of 4 nuclear and 7 diesel submarines.

1 Project 656 destroyer and 1 more under repair. The old ones.
3 large anti-submarine ships of project 1155 and 1 under repair. The old ones.
2 corvettes of project 20380 (two on the way). New.
8 small anti-submarine ships of project 1124. Old.

The missile cruiser of the project 1164, as well as the heavy cruiser of the project 1144, if, after all, another one is refurbished, are not of particular value in this aspect.

In fairness, it should be said that the anti-submarine capabilities of the American cruisers of the Ticonderoga class are not at the highest level.

What's the bottom line? And in the end, if you remove China from the scene, and remove it fairly, then in the event of an aggravation of the confrontation with Japan, behind which the United States sticks out, the Pacific Fleet is no better than the Baltic. Or Black Sea.

The main problem: the ships are still of Soviet construction, which have not yet been repaired or modernized properly. They are still not bad for Navy Day parades, but their combat capabilities can be questioned.

Yes, if we carry out general modernization, install new weapons systems, yes, something can be achieved. But cases and mechanisms that are more than 30 years old are still a problem. As well as old communications on ships, and it is clear that the larger the ship, the more difficult it is to carry out the appropriate repairs.

It is clear that it is not numbers that are fighting, people are fighting in the first place. But if you look at the numbers, then any operation of our submarine fleet (and let me remind you that we are talking about the problems of the submarine) is doomed to great difficulties, if not to complete failure.

A minimum of 2 submarines, 4 surface ships and a pack of helicopters will operate against each submarine in the Pacific Ocean. This is minimal. And at the maximum, everything will be even sadder.

All that can be said by looking at the numbers is that we have coastline guard fleets.

This is a fact, dear readers. In addition to strategic missile carriers, all other ships are simply not able to move away from the coastline, where Bali, Iskander, airfields with bombers, and so on, are deployed without damage to themselves.


Yes, perhaps no country in the world is in such an ugly position as we are. The United States and China are able to operate their ships as they please, and we are forced to maintain 4 fleets and a flotilla, all of which, except for the Northern Fleet, are an incapable parody of the fleet.

Yes, I deliberately "did not pay attention" to the Northern Fleet. Just because it doesn't make any sense. Nobody in the world just pokes into those parts. The game is not worth the candle. Plus the Northern Fleet is still 10 nuclear submarines (and 5 more under repair) and 5 diesel ones. Given the weather and ice conditions, even Americans cannot afford to visit those places often.

And the result is not a very beautiful thing: we can definitely perform only one operation. Demolish the entire world with strategic submarine cruisers. The rest of the tasks such as local non-nuclear wars, counteraction, coastal defense - alas.

What can I say if the Black Sea Fleet was too tough for the supply of not the largest group of troops in Syria! I had to buy and rent motor ships all over the world, including in Ukraine. And the landing ships that have blown up on the Syrian Express should be sent urgently for repairs.

About the "feats" and "successful combat work" with the half-empty Su-33 fighters of our "aircraft carrier" also want to remain silent.


I started with diesel submarines, continued with nuclear submarines. And now we can conclude that even though we have problems with submarines, there are no less problems above the water.

Even if you strain and eliminate all the problems associated with submarines, the headache will not be much less. Because there is no surface fleet.

Although, of course, submarines can perform most of the tasks without interacting with surface ships. And this is even somehow encouraging.


It remains only to build, repair, modernize. As they say, start and finish.

In the title of the article, I asked a question. Should we even plan military operations at sea if, in fact, we cannot do anything?

No, we can, of course. Populist statements and utterly false promises about what and when we will have a fleet of the far sea and ocean zone "to show the flag" on the most distant shores. That's what we can do well.

And the engine for the destroyer - alas. And an air-independent installation for diesel-electric submarines - alas. And so you can collect a lot of points. And we always knew how to throw hats. Now we are demonstrating miracles in this regard. They began to fight in cartoons.

Cartoons telling about our supernova weapons, - this is, of course, good. But I would like to at least put the old in order and clean the rust. Because tomorrow you will have to go into battle with him. With Soviet weapons. Soviet tanks T-72, Soviet Su-35 aircraft (which is still a modernized Su-27), Soviet AK-74, Soviet submarines and anti-submarine ships.

And soon it will be 30 years since the Soviet Union was destroyed. And we still hold in our hands a shield and a sword with the "Made in the USSR" brand.

Not noticing that both the shield and the sword have already been pretty much spent with rust ...


And the "new", all this "not having ..." - it really does not. Only not the declared analogs, but their physical embodiment in metal.

Otherwise, why do we have to patch up Soviet submarines by hook or by crook? Yes, because the Russian "Ash" is worth two "Boreas". Even if it is at least three times multi-purpose and low-noise, but to cost like two strategic submarine cruisers capable of demolishing half of America with their missiles, "Ash" simply has no right.


Well, or the state guardians responsible for the construction of new boats should not grab that.

Many readers will say: is it really bad? Okay, let's think about where we are good in the navy. Under water, above water ...

You, in fact, the word ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Following the "Armata": the crisis of the Russian submarine forces
Following the "Armata": the crisis of the nuclear submarine forces of Russia
371 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. certero
    certero 18 September 2020 05: 09
    -12 qualifying.
    Russia as a country cannot afford a powerful fleet. And it will never be affordable, because no country can develop its army and navy equally strongly.
    The only way for Russia at sea is to stay ahead of the curve and build unmanned ships and submarines
    1. Tired
      Tired 18 September 2020 05: 23
      -12 qualifying.
      I agree. Small but high-speed missile-armed ships (with low-power nuclear charges) are the best option for modern Russia. Other options are simply too expensive.
      1. Sofa
        Sofa 18 September 2020 05: 53
        12
        Why do we need small ships, what good are they if they have no anti-submarine weapon ??? they will be replaced by a ball and a bastion or Iskander. The USA left the frigate from small ships in general, there is no use if only the fleet of Ukraine or Georgia. From 20 frigates 22350 would not be enough and 20380 and diesel submarines Lada would not hurt, it would at least somehow bring our fleet out of the crisis
        1. Tired
          Tired 18 September 2020 06: 45
          -5
          Iskander will not replace, because the flight time decides. Less is better. And not against the enemy fleet, but against the enemy cities. You didn’t understand what it was about.
          1. Temples
            Temples 18 September 2020 08: 27
            -24 qualifying.
            Do Russian wars want to happen?
            You ask the silence.

            Does Russia make sense to wage war at sea?


            It makes sense to defend your country.

            Didn't play enough war novel in childhood?
            Or come up with the main title?
            1. Temples
              Temples 18 September 2020 08: 31
              -13 qualifying.
              Quote: certero
              Russia as a country cannot afford a powerful fleet.


              Is there no metal in Russia?
              Or is there no oil?
              Maybe the forest is over?
              Or has the Motherland lost its brains?
              Maybe all people are busy and there are no workers?
              Maybe the engineering thought has dried up?
              Or are there no modern weapons left?

              With what fright you decided that "you can't afford it"?

              The most important thing is to make a decision based on appropriateness.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 18 September 2020 09: 34
                +7
                In fact, any fleet is extremely expensive and is built only to support economic activity in the colonies, or to control critical waters. Since neither one nor the other applies to Russia, then instead of investing in a useless fleet, no matter how much it costs, you should invest in aviation, which has long been a decisive factor in a major war. And then the infantry comes with tanks and cleans it.

                There are really not enough workers in Russia. They are always in short supply.
                1. aleksejkabanets
                  aleksejkabanets 18 September 2020 11: 41
                  23
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  There are really not enough workers in Russia. They are always in short supply.

                  You tell this in the employment center of some provincial town, then they will laugh.
                  1. Grits
                    Grits 18 September 2020 12: 56
                    11
                    Quote: aleksejkabanets
                    You tell this in the employment center of some provincial town, then they will laugh.

                    Or in any Russian village
                    1. Shurik70
                      Shurik70 19 September 2020 19: 07
                      +2
                      The navy, of course, is needed.
                      The closest example is to guard a ship that the Americans did not like. They easily, if not drown, then arrest him. The same pipelayer for SP-2 had to be guarded by news.
                      But to fight seriously - we will not pull now. Which means yes. Drones with nuclear weapons. Both tactical and doomsday. There is no way out, otherwise they will attack.
                  2. Nemchinov Vl
                    Nemchinov Vl 18 September 2020 22: 49
                    0
                    Quote: aleksejkabanets
                    You tell this in the employment center of some provincial town, then they will laugh.
                    well register at the employment center, this is does not mean at all to be able to do something really и be a specialist !!!. yes
                  3. Sergey Sfiedu
                    Sergey Sfiedu 19 September 2020 14: 07
                    +1
                    No, they won't laugh. There are plenty of unemployed people, but you won't find intelligent specialists in the daytime with fire.
                2. AAK
                  AAK 18 September 2020 14: 32
                  +3
                  Colleague, with marine aviation (carrier-based aircraft carrier, base anti-submarine and naval missile-carrying aircraft), our situation is almost worse than with the fleet itself, and the construction of more or less significant air groups for each of the fleets will cost (in relative terms) no less expensive than ships and submarines. Here the law of the economy - 2-3% of GDP for defense in peacetime is the limit for its normal development, and the purchase of new military equipment is less than half of the defense budget ... Hence - our more than modest possibilities (GDP of the Russian Federation = about a little less Japan and a little more South Korea), but the ship and aircraft building capacities are known to everyone ...
                  1. AAK
                    AAK 18 September 2020 15: 34
                    +5
                    Colleagues, if our shipbuilding grew from the number of minuses to the post, I myself would click my "mouse" for days without rest, but alas .... :))
                3. PSih2097
                  PSih2097 18 September 2020 15: 51
                  +4
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  There are really not enough workers in Russia. They are always in short supply.

                  for some reason in the USSR there was enough, but in the Russian Federation there is not enough, you can ask the question "darkest" with his retinue and Co. "why so ... And the answer will be like this:" 90s are to blame for everything "with a continuation about" the legacy of the 90s in the 2000s " , and he has nothing to do with it, straight from the word quite (the tsar is not to blame - the boyars are to blame for everything)

                  I also added - position and personal interest.
                  Banshee, tell me honestly - something is planned, is it time to update the "alarming backpack" and buy everything you need for families?
                4. Aag
                  Aag 18 September 2020 17: 21
                  +2
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  In fact, any fleet is extremely expensive and is built only to support economic activity in the colonies, or to control critical waters. Since neither one nor the other applies to Russia, then instead of investing in a useless fleet, no matter how much it costs, you should invest in aviation, which has long been a decisive factor in a major war. And then the infantry comes with tanks and cleans it.

                  There are really not enough workers in Russia. They are always in short supply.

                  "should invest in aviation, which has long been a decisive factor in a major war."
                  A VERY controversial statement ... It seems that you have not heard about ICBMs (it's a shame, I, and many, put their lives on it) ... We are not heroes, so "the chip went down"
                  I do not beg other types of aircraft! ALL their application, tasks and goals. Sorry, if they "do" you, only the Strategic Missile Forces will remain. And then, not a fact, depending on the plot of the development of the conflict ...
                  Conclusion: Companions, regardless of belonging to one or another type of armed forces, let's strengthen the country's defense ?! Regardless (sometimes in spite of), I'm not afraid, the ruling elite, they have, their own limitations ...
                  Sorry for the fervor, pathos, but, something, it became quite hot ...
                5. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 18 September 2020 23: 10
                  +1
                  "But at the same time, aircraft carriers are the most expensive military units. The cost of building such a ship with a nuclear propulsion system reaches $ 4-6 billion. Monthly costs for its maintenance will amount to over $ 10 million. In addition, when going to sea, aircraft carriers need a substantial escort, otherwise this large ship turns into a slow and vulnerable target for the enemy.Therefore, the protection and support of the aircraft carrier is always very significant: about 10-15 ships - this is up to five ships of the cruiser-destroyer class, multipurpose nuclear submarines, several universal supply transports and tankers. that even the most ordinary launch of an aircraft carrier at sea turns into a high-budget event.
                  Source: https://versia.ru/soderzhanie-odnogo-nenuzhnogo-avianosca-budet-stoit-10-mln-dollarov-v-mesyac "
              2. NEOZ
                NEOZ 18 September 2020 12: 40
                +9
                why can't you personally afford a palace?
                there are no building materials in Russia?
                is there no energy in Russia?
                do you have no brains?
                maybe the guest workers are over?
                maybe it's hard with projects?
                or is there no modern instrument?
                Why did you not build a palace for yourself?

                the most important thing is that you have not made an appropriate decision on the construction of the palace!
              3. New Year day
                New Year day 18 September 2020 19: 05
                +6
                Quote: Temples
                Or has the Motherland lost its brains?

                Judging by the conclusions of the author, exactly so.
                Indicate breakthroughs in 20 years that you can be proud of
              4. Vladimir Mashkov
                Vladimir Mashkov 18 September 2020 21: 13
                +1
                It is VERY good that many countries - Russia among them - do not do arithmetic calculations, but simply do their own thing. If "Soviet Russia" (as the West called the USSR) and Stalin took up arithmetic, then the USSR surrendered. And not even Germany, but Japan: it had more ships then.

                And you shouldn't find fault with Roman: he wrote his REGULAR article, he sees it SO.
              5. IC
                IC 27 September 2020 01: 18
                0
                It's just that Russia is stagnating in the economy and there is no money to increase the military budget. Or do you propose further cuts in the education budget, health care and subsidies to the Pension Fund.
              6. IC
                IC 27 September 2020 01: 23
                0
                By the way, they have not lost their brains. Can be found in many in the Selikon Valley.
            2. Serg4545
              Serg4545 19 September 2020 07: 39
              +5
              The author generally burns!

              // Imagine a hypothetical situation in which our potential adversaries cease to be potential, but become real. For example, a military coup took place in Russia and completely different people came to power who are ruling the country now.

              I alone did not understand, what is the connection with the military coup in Russia and a possible war?

              Next.
              From the very beginning, the author proposes to exclude our use of the main means of destruction. Rocket nuclear forces. As simple as that.
              Why does the author suggest such, let's say, nonsense?
              Because we have an overwhelming advantage in tactical nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. And in reality, using this weapon, we will take out any fleet that is at least 1000 km away from our borders. And all bases, both land and sea, are at the same distance.
              But the author had a different task. He had to cheat: that everything is bad, we will lose to everyone.
              And for the same reason, he proposed not to take into account our Northern Fleet. In fact, the author did not even consider it necessary to justify such a trick. Let's just ignore it. They say, in my opinion, the enemy will not fight with us in the North. Hmm. No comment.
              With a shudder I imagine what will happen if the author analyzes a future boxing match. Most likely this "analysis" will look like this:

              Let's imagine that one boxer broke both legs before entering the ring. Not! This is not enough !! Let him pierce his lung with a sharpener.
              Now, with this in mind, let's look at how this boxing match can go ...

              Ridiculous?
              But in fact, the author walked through our fleet in the same way.
              First, he deprived our fleet of 80-90 percent of the strike and firepower. Then he reduced our Navy by 30-40 percent (at the expense of the Northern Fleet). And I came to an "unexpected" conclusion:
              It turns out that even if a very strong fleet is deprived of 95 percent of its combat potential, it will yield to the majority of opponents.
              Fuck analyst! Don't write the author yet !!

              Another gem from the analyst:

              // Yes, perhaps no country in the world is in such an ugly position as we are. USA and China are able to operate their ships as they please //

              Well, surely Pakistan is doing better? Argentina?
              Author, I will reveal the truth for you. The navies have 100+ countries. Of these, our Navy is second only to the United States and China. All others are superior. And so many are normally so superior. At times and dozens of times!
              Now you know the truth. And live with her!)

              The author apparently believes that the 3rd place in our fleet is a disaster?
              So I can say:
              You got sick, my dear! 3rd place is awesome!
              And I can prove it. The US economy has 1 economy in the world - it has 1 fleet in the world. China has 2 economies in the world - has 2 fleets in the world. Russia has 6 (approximately) economies in the world - it has 3 fleets in the world.
              So that's it. The Russian fleet turns out to be in fact not proportionally strong!

              Well, it also amused:

              // Other tasks such as local non-nuclear wars, countermeasures, coastal defense - alas. //

              Tell Georgia. And Ukraine.

              It makes no sense to analyze everything else, because it is a consequence of the above described monstrous manipulations of the author, which he committed at the very beginning.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Beregovic_1
                Beregovic_1 19 September 2020 15: 30
                +1
                [quote] Russia has 6 (approximately) the world's economy - it has 3 fleets in [quote] the author, we must give him his due (albeit crookedly) the capabilities of the fleet in specific theaters. The Russian Navy in wartime does not have the ability to maneuver between theaters. So don't talk about 3rd place in the World. It is necessary to compare the Pacific Fleet with the coalition of Japan and the US Pacific Fleet. Federation Council of the Russian Federation with the coalition of the Atlantic fleet of the USA, the navies of Britain and Norway.
                1. Serg4545
                  Serg4545 19 September 2020 16: 54
                  0
                  Quote: Beregovyhok_1
                  appreciated (albeit crookedly) the capabilities of the fleet

                  Crooked !?
                  Yes, he cut these opportunities by 95 percent!
                  Here the term is more likely to fit - screwed up.
                  Quote: Beregovyhok_1
                  The Russian Navy in wartime does not have the ability to maneuver between theaters. So don't talk about 3rd place in the World.

                  Why doesn’t it?
                  When we forced Georgia to peace, returned Crimea, changed the situation in Syria - we had every room for maneuver. And even sometimes they realized these opportunities when they wanted. So it's not yours.
                  Of course, I understand that you mean only one situation - the war against Russia of all NATO and all American satellites around the world (without any exceptions and "deserters"). But I hope you understand how unlikely this is? Our Strategic Missile Forces are too sharp an argument for such a situation to become real.
                  And if such a situation does occur, then the use of all kinds of nuclear missile weapons will not be easy inevitable. It will be as massive as possible. And the author denies this.

                  Quote: Beregovyhok_1
                  Federation Council of the Russian Federation with the coalition of the Atlantic fleet of the USA, the navies of Britain and Norway.

                  You probably didn't read the author's article well. Just the author said that such a comparison is meaningless. For the enemy fleet does not appear at the rendezvous)
                  1. Beregovic_1
                    Beregovic_1 21 September 2020 13: 48
                    +1
                    Yes, he cut these opportunities by 95 percent!
                    Here the term is more likely to fit - screwed up
                    It is really incorrect to compare the capabilities of the fleet only by counting the pennants. In the Black Sea Fleet, it seems to me, without taking into account the Mediterranean squadron, the fleet is quite capable of performing all tasks. Considering the geographical position of Crimea, the presence of aviation and coastal complexes. In the Baltic, the author modestly kept silent that all German and Polish boats are not on the move, the sea is all under fire and controlled from Kaliningrad. Therefore, taking into account the renewal and replenishment of the BF is enough. But the author is absolutely right about the fact that the fleet is in a hell of a bum in the north and far east. Without the use of nuclear weapons, the fleet does not take out the conflict with conventional weapons either against Britain or against Japan (even without any coalitions). Moreover, it is incapable of ensuring the deployment of strategic nuclear forces. Much has been written about this on VO. And Timokhin, and Andrey from Chelyabinsk, and Klimov.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 21 September 2020 16: 07
                      -1
                      Yeah, many write, they offer a lot, only if you objectively look at all these proposals, then they either do not work, or they will not work after the slightest change in the enemy's situation (introduction of countermeasures), or they will be so expensive that they simply do not make sense (we repeat the fate THE USSR).
                      1. Beregovic_1
                        Beregovic_1 21 September 2020 18: 27
                        0
                        Well, do not give up ... The authors mentioned by me open the public's eyes to the weak points of the fleet and offer solutions that are quite cheap for the state. And at the same time they gently ask where and on what taxpayers' money is spent. Because looking at what the industry is doing, their lobbyists in the Main Command, close bad thoughts about the fifth column.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 21 September 2020 20: 38
                        0
                        Well, let's say I agree about the weak points, but I don’t remember any sensible proposals, there were srachiks and holivars for sure.
                        Quote: Beregovyhok_1
                        Well, don't give up ...

                        So, personally, I do not give up, and I wish that we had a strong and powerful fleet capable of performing ALL tasks, up to the "invasion of America" ​​well, or at least Australia ... BUT I perfectly understand that other methods and technologies need to be developed , and not get up again on the same rake ...
                    2. Drёma
                      Drёma 21 September 2020 21: 17
                      0
                      Not at all expensive - it is enough to bring to mind the Tu-22M3M with Daggers on board and a couple of regiments will be enough for the entire surface fleet of the Baltic region. But I think it will be enough just to warn that the already existing Daggers on the MiGs will be enough so that in the event of an impact on their (still numerous in NATO countries) nuclear power plants, all their "flourishing" town-towns-townships will turn into lifeless Pripyat.
                      And it is possible and more "humane" - with one salvo of the CD from all adjacent seas (including the Caspian) and the base of the Iskander OTRK (and other Bastions), as well as strike and strategic aviation - to destroy the electrical substations of all large, medium and smaller power plants ... At the same time, we will not kill anyone (!) At all, because in normal mode there is not a soul. But the absence of electric power in the "sockets" is not only dark and there is no way to sip on Russia in the internet and other rags, it is also the absence of water (including hot in CO), since - neither one pump! This is the absence of "wheels" for the same reason, and as a consequence, the lack of food from strategic stores. This is essentially the absence of life; and in case of death, there is a big problem with burial ... In this case, this is not Pripyat, but it is Siege Leningrad, only without shelling and bombing. Well I say - "more humane".
                    3. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 21 September 2020 22: 27
                      0
                      I only agree with you that the main stake should be made on the aircraft, but definitely not on the Tu-22M3M, in my opinion it should be "an airplane-like military transport aircraft with vertical takeoff and hovering, with a carrying capacity of 10 + t and a spreader. a hoist that allows you to unload into the water and lift from the water various types of manned and unmanned vehicles "such an aircraft and plus a set of special means to it will reduce the small surface fleet, and use the saved money on submarines and a large surface fleet (50 + kt, 100 + kt ). If we take into account the small organizational staff changes in the SV / VDV / SSO so that they can be subordinated to the Navy and based on ships, then this should be enough to complete all tasks at minimal additional costs ...

                      But everything that you wrote about "humanity" is from the category of double standards and shit on this topic, in my opinion it is easier to bomb the peace people right away and not try to present yourself as white, clean and fluffy .... (I hate such a state license )
                  2. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 27 September 2020 22: 50
                    -1
                    even a simple castling will work ....... if you just transfer all the ships of the first and second rank from the Baltic Sea of ​​the Sea of ​​Japan and the Caspian Sea to Kamchatka and to the sf, abandon the UDK, then all the tasks of defense of the bases of nuclear submarines will be solved, and all tasks are closed seas can be successfully solved by ships of the 3rd rank (by the way, they also go well between the seas on the GDP), and on the Black Sea Fleet also by submarines. It is not too expensive, only the northern length of service and the delivery of supplies will be complicated, and if Kuzya is sold or at the Black Sea Fleet as an unnecessary toy for parades, then we will compensate for all the costs of northern seniority and supplies, for his crew of the entire ocean fleet is worth it. Kuzya is all the more not suitable for the north, and the period of summer weather will increase for him and Nitka is nearby, he can sometimes go to parades or raids so that everyone knows that Russia has, though unnecessary, but AB. I don’t know there is a berth for him in Sevastopol?
                2. Serg4545
                  Serg4545 22 September 2020 11: 56
                  0
                  Quote: Beregovyhok_1
                  Without the use of nuclear weapons, the fleet does not take out the conflict with conventional weapons

                  Again a conventional weapon !!
                  Why are you arguing for the second comment in a row with a statement that I did not make?
                  The coalition supposed by the author - NATO fleets + a bunch of allies 20 times stronger than our Navy. Under no circumstances will our Navy be able to withstand such power with conventional weapons.
                  And that is why I believe that in large-scale battles, in the situation described above, the massive use of nuclear missile weapons is ABSOLUTELY INEVITABLE.
                  And therefore, the entire article of the author and all the conclusions of this article are built on the wrong postulate (that nuclear weapons will not be used).
                  Quote: Beregovyhok_1
                  does not export the conflict with conventional weapons either against Britain or against Japan (even without any coalitions)

                  What are you)
                  If there is no coalition, then what prevents the Northern, Baltic and Black Sea fleets from concentrating on Britain at once? Or Japan?
                  Or will you argue that Britain or Japan, individually, is the strongest of our Navy? Probably still not.
      2. Sofa
        Sofa 18 September 2020 09: 50
        +1
        But what about the enemy's ships, we don't need to touch them, let them shoot them. And they themselves did not understand what the article is about, the conflict without nuclear weapons is clearly written., This was already with Georgia, but there were only boats there. Nuclear weapons are understandable and what will happen without them. what is the question? escanders are just intended to destroy military bases, etc. also come with a nuclear night light
      3. Postum
        Postum 18 September 2020 10: 05
        0
        What's the point, as soon as a blow to the enemy cities follows, the return will follow. Only small ships do not have such combat stability.
      4. Essex62
        Essex62 18 September 2020 10: 56
        +1
        I would clarify that their cities "did not resist to the pepper".
        The habitats of puppeteers, this is the main goal, they are extremely rare on the mainland. They are constantly being hoisted. One word is backstage. Reconnaissance and reconnaissance again, know the square, vigorous circulation, retribution. Red signal, in front of their disgusting mugs.
      5. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 19 September 2020 08: 02
        -1
        Against the cities of which enemy? RTOs will not reach New York. A ground Caliber is enough to reach London. However, New York is no longer a tenant in the event of a nuclear apocalypse. As long as we have the PRK SN and the Strategic Missile Forces, only a madman will dare to use nuclear weapons against us. But a local conflict at sea cannot be ruled out. Tomorrow again someone will drop a chlorine barrel on a hospital in Idlib and NATO will block Tartus, and the Turks will block the Bosphorus - what shall we do?
        1. bayard
          bayard 19 September 2020 10: 02
          -2
          Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
          Tomorrow, again, someone will drop a chlorine barrel on a hospital in Idlib and NATO will block Tartus, and the Turks will block the Bosphorus - what shall we do?

          Bomb. yes bully
          Bomb.
          And once again - bomb. yes
          And then bomb the survivors.

          Then we will negotiate. smile
          And if it doesn't help, then bomb again. request
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 19 September 2020 14: 14
            -1
            "Bomb, bomb and bomb again, and then bomb the survivors" - sounds like an order from the American President, or Hitler. Considering the difference in the quantity and quality of combat aircraft and the ASP - in a nuclear-free conflict we are much more likely to be bombed into the Stone Age than we are.
            1. bayard
              bayard 19 September 2020 18: 10
              -1
              Why create difficulties for yourself out of the blue? repeat
              Bomb with what you have. yes
              Nuclear performance is even more fun. fellow
              And profitable.
              Do not be ashamed of your complexes ... if you certainly have them. wink
              And many previously "unsolvable" questions will be resolved quickly and in your favor. yes
              Comrade Eun won't let you lie. bully
    2. lucul
      lucul 18 September 2020 10: 12
      -13 qualifying.
      What are small ships for what good are they if they do not have a submarine weapon ???

      Just screw it up - another propaganda article ...
      It feels like he came back in 1987 - then, too, similar articles came out in batches - they say the Russians do not know how, they have a useless army and navy, their hands grow from one place, and they have no brains. All that remains is to kill yourself against the wall, wrap yourself in a sheet and slowly crawl into the cemetery ...
      They simply do not give us other options - it starts right away: note cheers-patriots, uryakalka, zaputintsy and so on, so on ...
      1. Moore
        Moore 18 September 2020 14: 57
        +2
        Loud headlines are our FSE. Another sketch.
        I will allow myself a phrase from Mr. P.I. Belaventsa:
        "Sincerely loving their fatherland, Russian people who want the development of Russian power and integrity (as in the author) of the Russian state cannot insist that the fleet is not needed."
        And if it is necessary, then planning will correspond to the possibilities. What they manage to build in the conditions of thieving, through and through corruption schemes of muddy, near-power characters, so they will meet the enemy. Nothing new.
      2. New Year day
        New Year day 18 September 2020 19: 09
        +6
        Quote: lucul
        Just screw it up - another propaganda article ...

        So refute! With numbers and calculations! And if you can't, then you are
        Quote: lucul
        hurray-patriots, uryakalka, zaputintsy and so on, etc ...

        in fairness and in life
  2. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 18 September 2020 09: 41
    14
    Quote: Tired
    I agree. Small but fast missile-armed ships (with low-yield nuclear warheads)

    And why are they like this - without PLO, without normal air defense? We will spend more energy covering them than they will be useful. With the same success, you can use the coastal SCRC instead.
    One can not hope for the notorious "secrecy" of small ships - back in the early 80s, the Libyan MRK, trying to pretend to be a fishing vessel, was singled out from the crowd of marks, classified and struck after the only turning on of the radar.
    1. DrEng527
      DrEng527 18 September 2020 13: 31
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And why are they like this - without PLO, without normal air defense? We will spend more energy to cover them than they will do any good.

      because the United States does not build ships less than frigates ...
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 18 September 2020 16: 06
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And why are they like this - without PLO, without normal air defense?

      This contingent believes that anti-submariners and fighters from coastal airfields will do their job better than sailors from warships of rank 1 and 2, from submariners ... to pilots.
  3. w70
    w70 19 September 2020 11: 04
    0
    Of course there is, Rossi just has nowhere to put money
  4. zenion
    zenion 25 November 2020 18: 24
    0
    The author forgot a bit of history. Before the war with Nazi Germany, the USSR had no allies. During the war, the allies appeared, and by the end of the war they did not have time to record such a long queue. The point is different, does the government have an alliance with its people?
  • Machito
    Machito 18 September 2020 05: 26
    0
    Armed icebreakers.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 18 September 2020 07: 00
      14
      And also put Caliber on all tugs. laughing
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 18 September 2020 16: 09
        +1
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        And also put Caliber on all tugs. laughing

        and specifically in containers and it is imperative that the warhead was am exclusively in Special execution of the order so in 300Kt ... wassat laughing
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 18 September 2020 17: 39
          +3
          Quote: PSih2097
          about 300Kt ...
          bully
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 18 September 2020 17: 41
            +1
            it makes more sense to put on the CD, only if it is to detonate a missile from air defense systems ... an example is the same "Garnet" and "Ax"
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 18 September 2020 17: 41
              +2
              Yes, of course, a bit joking. It's Friday and I'm still at work. We need to somehow raise the mood wink
              1. PSih2097
                PSih2097 18 September 2020 17: 43
                +1
                Yes, I'm joking too, it's clear that nothing like this will happen ... request
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 September 2020 17: 42
        +3
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        And also put Caliber on all tugs. laughing

        "Petrel" in the sky, "Caliber" on the water, "Poseidon" under the water! So we will win! smile
        1. New Year day
          New Year day 18 September 2020 19: 12
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          "Petrel" in the sky, "Caliber" on the water, "Poseidon" under the water!

          In the Kremlin, Putin, and in the Duma, United Russia.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          So we will win!

          laughing
        2. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 19 September 2020 08: 52
          0
          After such a victory, there will be no living. Neither we, nor them.
          1. awesom3-lutsevich
            awesom3-lutsevich 19 September 2020 20: 42
            +2
            But we will go to heaven. GDP
  • Victor67
    Victor67 18 September 2020 05: 32
    32
    Well, why, many countries have good army and navy at the same time: the USA, China, Japan, South Korea, everything is written in the article, and it is also written that you should not deal with projects and cartoons, but you just need to stop grabbing with your mouth and one place in the back , then there is enough money for everything.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 06: 02
      -3
      Well, why, many countries have good army and navy at the same time: USA, China, Japan, South Korea

      Simply because the United States has a larger military budget than all countries in the world combined, so the Yankees can invest equally well in the navy and in the army. In addition, the American dollar is the main world currency, and the United States can print and draw dollars on electronic accounts as much as they need, it is not for nothing that the United States is also the largest debtor in the world at the same time, the US national debt is 26 trillion dollars, that is, the United States has benefits for 26 trillion is completely free and undeserved precisely because their dollar is the world currency and the United States can borrow dollars from the Fed indefinitely. China has an equally weak army and navy, Japan has no army, South Korea also has a navy and an army that is not so hot, they completely rely on the United States for protection in the event of a war with the DPRK, as it was during the Korean War.
      1. Victor67
        Victor67 18 September 2020 06: 16
        24
        Let me disagree, the fleet of each of the listed Asian countries is orders of magnitude (exactly like this: not by an order, but by orders of magnitude (tens of times)) superior to the entire Russian Navy, taken together in quantity and quality, except for several strategists of the Northern Fleet. And the reason for this is precisely the lack of money in our budget. And you know where this money is: either the colonel will be caught with 9 billion in cash, then the general with 12 billion, or the governor with a watch worth the price of a frigate. I'm afraid to guess how many uncaught people are sitting in their offices under portraits of VVP. Plus constant wars in all world cesspools such as Syria and Libya with incomprehensible goals. For example, the Japanese don't go anywhere, that's why the fleet is like that.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 06: 25
          -11 qualifying.
          Why maintain a fleet in the Pacific that is comparable to that of China, Japan or South Korea? To protect the taiga in the permafrost? For your information, Russia in the Pacific Ocean has only one non-freezing bay suitable for basing the fleet - Avachinskaya. All other bays and bays in the Pacific Ocean are freezing, that is, unsuitable for basing a military fleet, since a fleet frozen in the ice is a useless and extremely vulnerable thing. That is, Russia physically has no place in the Pacific for the basing of a large fleet comparable to the fleets of China, Japan or South Korea.
        2. Eug
          Eug 18 September 2020 08: 17
          +2
          How is it - with incomprehensible goals? And what about the interests of the shareholders of Gazprom and Rosneft (and a number of other companies)?
          Another thing is that for some reason these "interests" negatively affect the living standards of the majority ....
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 18 September 2020 07: 02
        11
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        China's army and navy are equally weak,

        Are you seriously? belay
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 07: 14
          -15 qualifying.
          The population of China is 4 times that of the United States, but it is the United States that dictates to the Chinese what they need to do and imposes sanctions on them. If China had a strong fleet and army, this would not have happened.
          1. 2 Level Advisor
            2 Level Advisor 18 September 2020 08: 00
            14
            so dictate and sanctions depend on the army and navy? Have you confused the real and the economic war? we have a lot of vigorous loaves - enough to demolish everyone, but against sanctions, something doesn't help nuclear weapons ..
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 08: 05
              -15 qualifying.
              The United States and Britain are stronger than Russia, and therefore it is London and Washington that dictate to Russia what to do and impose sanctions. If Russia were stronger than Britain and the United States, then Russia would dictate to the United States and Britain what they need to do. And the Americans and the British are not fools to fight and die for the sake of non-brothers or timid, they themselves want to fight with Russia to the last Georgian or Ukrainian.
              1. 2 Level Advisor
                2 Level Advisor 18 September 2020 08: 08
                +8
                "The United States and Britain are stronger than Russia" - economically, first of all, they are stronger and in terms of influence in the world.
                You now, in other words, just repeated my thought ..
                example: the USSR had an army stronger than Britain? but there were still sanctions ..
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 08: 18
                  -14 qualifying.
                  The USSR had an army stronger than the British army, but the British fleet was stronger than the USSR fleet.
                  1. 2 Level Advisor
                    2 Level Advisor 18 September 2020 08: 27
                    +5
                    I will simply add to your quote: "If China had a strong fleet, the army and the economy would not have it."
                    1. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 09: 04
                      -12 qualifying.
                      I will add that the population of China is 10 times the population of Russia, plus the economy is 50 times stronger. And Britain, even taking into account its dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, has a population of about 135 million people, the figures are quite comparable to the population of Russia. And taking into account all sorts of Papua New Guineas, Falklands, Bahamas, Virginia and other Gibraltars, there will be even more population of Russia. So Russia cannot even defeat Britain in a one-on-one war, the power of the British economy is simply incomparable with the Russian economy, and the natural resources of Canada and Australia are enormous, so even in a hypothetical war of attrition, Russia has no chance.
                    2. Nastia makarova
                      Nastia makarova 18 September 2020 12: 48
                      -8
                      where does canada and australia? only England should be considered
                    3. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 17: 39
                      -1
                      For your information, the heads of Canada and Australia are the British monarch, and he is also the commander-in-chief of their armed forces, and the military of Canada and Australia take the oath to the British monarch.
                2. shahor
                  shahor 18 September 2020 16: 09
                  -2
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  I will simply add to your quote: "If China had a strong fleet, an army

                  I will also add. If China had a strong army and navy, they would not have an economy.
              2. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 19 September 2020 00: 02
                +1
                Was not. Royal Navy without the help of the United States of the year that since 1980 would have been carried out by the Northern Fleet "in one gate"
              3. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 19 September 2020 08: 57
                0
                “The USSR had an army stronger than the British army, but the British fleet was stronger than the USSR fleet.” “- not entirely true, or not at all true. Since the mid-60s, the Soviet fleet was much stronger than the British.
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 19 September 2020 11: 33
                  -3
                  If the fleets of Canada, Australia and New Zealand are added to the fleet of the mother country, then the fleet of Britain will be stronger than the fleet of the USSR.
                2. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 19 September 2020 14: 24
                  0
                  "If the fleets of Canada, Australia and New Zealand are added to the fleet of the mother country, then the fleet of Britain will be stronger than the fleet of the USSR" - of course not. Not even on the surface fleet. And even taking into account the submarine forces.
    2. Essex62
      Essex62 18 September 2020 11: 08
      -1
      China is a manufacturing appendage of the global bourgeois world created by the Naglo-Saxons. Therefore, they do not rock the boat. Being the world's blacksmith is the only way, a yard and a half of the population, not to die of hunger. Mao held back, as he could, the unrestrained growth of the livestock, but even the cruel destructive method, when it was possible to cut down on your own, did not help in addition. They are some kind of maniacs, these Chinese. On a par with the Indians.
  • New Year day
    New Year day 18 September 2020 19: 14
    +1
    Quote: Victor67
    you shouldn't deal with projects and cartoons, but you just need to stop grabbing with your mouth and one place in the back

    The key to success in a normal country
  • Finches
    Finches 18 September 2020 06: 45
    +6
    These conversations about whether Russia needs a criminal fleet - after the revolution, unfortunately, the Bolsheviks did not pay much attention to the fleet as under the tsarist regime, but nevertheless - the fleet developed! You need to understand one simple thing that Peter I immediately understood - A country that is preparing only for the defense of close borders, without combat ships in the far ocean zone, cannot be a subject of global politics. Therefore, it is necessary to purposefully restore industry, shipbuilding and develop the Navy! Anyone who thinks that Russia will get by with boats - that, excuse me, is either a traitor or d. Fools!
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 07: 18
      -2
      Quote: Finches
      after the revolution, unfortunately, the Bolsheviks also did not pay much attention to the fleet as under the tsarist regime, but nevertheless - the fleet was developing!

      Another lover of crunching a bun? Apparently, under the kings, they paid so much attention to the fleet that in 1904 almost the entire fleet was drowned by the Japanese, who 40 years ago were sailing on wooden ships, and the entire Black Sea Fleet was also uselessly drowned in Balaklava Bay during the Crimean War , since against modern ships, outdated sailboats were useless.
      1. Finches
        Finches 18 September 2020 07: 21
        -1
        Why crunch a bun? It is a fact! Not because the Bolsheviks are bad, not at all, but because there were always objective factors - there was stupidly not a lot of money, then the restoration of the country after the revolution, then the war ... But the fleet still did not forget, as they forgot in 1991! Beginning in 1981, the process went much more lively in the construction of the fleet, but Gorbachev came ... You read carefully and carefully when cornering! hi
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 07: 53
          +1
          As the history of Russia shows, the fleet did not bring any benefit in wars, the only exception was the Great Northern War, since it was impossible to defeat Sweden by landing troops on Swedish territory except by the fleet. In the wars with Napoleon, in the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese, the First and Second World Wars, the fleet was hanging useless ballast, wasting resources in vain that would be better directed to the army. In the First World War, it was the sailors who had been idle for three years that became the detonators of both revolutions, in the Great Patriotic War, the sailors were used as infantry, let us recall, for example, Vasily Zaitsev, a career naval sergeant who fought as a simple infantry sergeant in Stalingrad.
          1. Finches
            Finches 18 September 2020 08: 11
            +1
            I will still stick to my point of view!
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 18 September 2020 10: 40
              +1
              Quote: Finches
              I will still stick to my point of view!

              And rightly so!
              Before you inflate snot with a bubble and bend your fingers like a fan, you need to understand ... why does Russia actually need a fleet? What tasks will be assigned to the fleet? And only after realizing this, you can talk, blame and puff out your cheeks ..... the rest is all from the evil one ... or working off someone else's order, and this is article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation!
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 18 September 2020 17: 44
                +4
                Quote: Serg65
                Before you inflate the snot with a bubble and bend your fingers like a fan, you need to understand ... why does Russia actually need a fleet? What tasks will be assigned to the fleet?

                Judging by the current shipbuilding programs, the Navy itself does not understand what it is for. sad
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 21 September 2020 09: 58
                  -6
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  he himself does not understand why he is needed.

                  Well, from what, Alexey?
                  The navy orders what the industry can build at the moment. From here, tasks are being developed ..... at the moment! Ideally, there are tasks formulated by Gorshkov. Cover for the deployment of NSNF, the feasible postponement of possible launch areas for sea and air-based cruise missiles (AUG), the fight against Atlantic NATO convoys, cruise missile strikes on strategic points in Europe and the US coastal zone, support for the coastal flanks of land forces, military support of the state abroad.
                  The fleet, in fact, is just beginning to be built and it is difficult now to demand from it the fulfillment of our wishes!
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 22 September 2020 18: 12
                    +1
                    Quote: Serg65
                    The navy orders what the industry can build at the moment.

                    IPC - where? TSC - where? wink 3 TSCs per fleet by 2023 is not serious.
                    Or is it difficult to conclude from the fact that there are 30-35-year-old Albatrosses in the fleet and the same TSC that this moth-beaten splendor needs to be changed?
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Cover for the deployment of NSNF

                    How will we ensure the exit from the SSBN base?
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 23 September 2020 08: 42
                      -2
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      IPC - where?

                      I understand that they will soon begin to rivet from the Karakurt.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      TSC - where? 3 TSCs per fleet by 2023 is not serious.

                      Alexey, let's start with the fact that under the Union minesweepers were built at the Sredne-Nevsky and Khabarovsk plants. Now only Sredne-Nevsky is engaged in minesweepers, and then it is undergoing a deep modernization. Khabarovsk Shipyard cannot get out of the debt trap rooted in the dashing 90s. One thing is good, the new acting governor forced the Amur river workers to renew the ship's composition and order cargo and passenger ships at the Khabarovsk Shipyard ... God forbid, it will come to the minesweepers. By the way, project 266 in 8 years was built only 40 units at two plants.
                      Now, in addition to the three operating Alexandrites, there are 9 more in varying degrees of readiness.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      from the fact of the presence in the fleet of 30-35-year-old "Albatross" and the same TSC it is difficult to conclude that this moth-beaten splendor needs to be changed?

                      The conclusion is that SNSZ promises to reach full capacity by the second quarter of 21 and to hand over to the fleet 2-3 minesweepers per year.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      How will we ensure the exit from the SSBN base?

                      Fighting swimmers! laughing hi
          2. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 18 September 2020 09: 41
            +6
            In the First World War, the Black Sea Fleet proved to be excellent.
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 09: 56
              -8
              Yeah, fine, fine. But the fate of the war was decided not in the Black Sea, but in the fields of Galicia and in the Masurian swamps, and the Black Sea Fleet had no role in the Eastern Front.
              1. Sergey Valov
                Sergey Valov 18 September 2020 10: 00
                +7
                The Black Sea Fleet, like any army / naval association, had its own tasks and it fulfilled them perfectly. Do not consider it a labor, explain to me how the Black Sea Fleet could have influenced the battles in Galicia, etc. according to your list.
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 10: 10
                  -6
                  The Black Sea Fleet could not influence the Eastern Front in any way, and therefore it was a useless ballast that ate up a lot of resources allocated for military spending before WWI, and continued to eat up huge resources during the war.
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 18 September 2020 12: 23
                    0
                    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                    The Black Sea Fleet could not in any way influence the Eastern Front, and therefore it was a useless ballast, devouring a lot of resources allocated for military spending before WWI

                    what And how much resources were specifically allocated to the Black Sea Fleet and how many resources in percentage terms did the army not receive because of this?
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 18 September 2020 17: 45
                      +2
                      Quote: Serg65
                      And how much resources were specifically allocated to the Black Sea Fleet and how many resources in percentage terms did the army not receive because of this?

                      About the same as at the BF. The same 4 new LCs, 4 new KRLs and a crowd of "Novikov-worsened".
                    2. Serg65
                      Serg65 21 September 2020 09: 59
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      4 new LCs, 4 new KRLs and a crowd of "Novikov-worsened".

                      Did this greatly affect the pre-war development of the army?
                2. DrEng527
                  DrEng527 18 September 2020 13: 33
                  +1
                  Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                  The Black Sea Fleet could not influence the Eastern Front in any way,

                  from what? Kolchak had the task of taking the straits and could well have done it in 1917, if not for the revolution hi
                  1. Sergey Sfiedu
                    Sergey Sfiedu 19 September 2020 14: 29
                    +2
                    "Kolchak had the task of taking the straits and could well have done it in 1917, if not for the revolution" - yeah. The British also thought the Dardanelles operation would be an easy walk.
                  2. DrEng527
                    DrEng527 19 September 2020 18: 12
                    -3
                    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                    The British also thought the Dardanelles operation would be an easy walk.

                    compare the results of the offensive on the Somme and the Brusilov breakthrough ... wink
          3. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2020 12: 21
            +6
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            the fate of the war was decided not on the Black Sea, but on the fields of Galicia and in the Masurian swamps, and the Black Sea Fleet had no role in the Eastern Front.

            You either take off your pants, or put on a cross! The fate of the war was decided on the Caucasian front no less than Western front! The defeat and withdrawal of Turkey from the war firstly opened the straits for allied assistance, which in turn would have a positive effect on the actions of the armies of the western front! Secondly, a large number of troops were freed for operations on the same Western Front!
      2. Egoza
        Egoza 18 September 2020 09: 46
        +8
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        As the history of Russia shows, the fleet did not bring any benefit in wars, the only exception

        Fear God! Ushakov and Nakhimov turned over in their coffins! I'm not talking about sailors during the Second World War!
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 10: 05
          -5
          Quote: Egoza
          Fear God! Ushakov and Nakhimov turned over in their coffins!

          And what benefit did the victories of Ushakov and Nakhimov bring? Just don't talk about the annexation of Crimea, Crimea was annexed in 1783, when Russia did not even have the Black Sea Fleet, the Crimean Khanate was conquered exclusively by the army, and not by the fleet.
          As for Nakhimov, what was the point in the Sinop victory, if, as a result, Russia still lost, and the Black Sea Fleet was drowned mediocre?
          Quote: Egoza
          I'm not talking about sailors during the Second World War!

          I am not belittling the feat of Soviet sailors during the Second World War, but admit that neither the Black Sea nor the Baltic fleets played any role in the victory over Nazism. Even with the escort of Arctic convoys by the sailors of the Northern Fleet, everything is pale, the main role in escorting the convoys was played by American and British sailors, they also escorted the convoys through the most dangerous section in the North Atlantic, and the sailors in the convoys were British and Americans, not Soviet sailors. It would be better if Stalin spent the funds allocated for the construction of the fleet in the 30s for the army and aviation, and for the construction of plants and factories, there would be much more benefit. The fleet for Russia is just a stupid devourer of resources.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2020 12: 30
            +3
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            It would be better if Stalin spent the funds allocated for the construction of the fleet in the 30s for the army and aviation

            Well, the army would have profited from these funds in the summer of 41, like most of the rest of the funds!
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 18 September 2020 16: 19
              +2
              And what if these funds were invested in factories for the production of radio stations and training ground forces using them?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 18 September 2020 17: 52
                +3
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                And what if these funds were invested in factories for the production of radio stations and training ground forces using them?

                The funds had to be invested in education. But, unfortunately, this had to be done in the early 30s, when neither the funds nor the teaching staff were available.
                What is the use of producing what the troops generally do not know how to use? And who will produce it?
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 18 September 2020 18: 47
                  0
                  firstly, "cutlets separately, flies separately" in the sense that one-piece and mass production of radio stations should not be confused, in the second case, even housewives and children can participate in production, provided that this production is properly organized. You don't have to go far for an example in WWII, women and children worked in factories.
                  secondly, I even specifically indicated above (in bold):
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  And if these funds were invested in factories for the production of radio stations and ground training exercises using them?

                  so we could well learn from the exercises.
              2. Serg65
                Serg65 21 September 2020 10: 13
                -3
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                if these funds would be invested in factories for the production of radio stations and training ground forces using them?

                If the districts before the war were commanded by brigades and division commanders, and the chief of the General Staff was in fact a corps commander, then what's the difference what kind of communication means you have !!!
          2. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 18 September 2020 23: 18
            +3
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            ... the main role in escorting the convoys was played by American and British sailors, who also escorted convoys through the most dangerous section in the North Atlantic
            ?! apparently BUT ONLY in the absence of news that "Tirpitz" comes out.... Otherwise, - they are, - ALREADY Did NOT carry out escorting convoys ... (The most striking examples of PK-17 and PK-18) and saved their skins but not at all allied interests in WWII !!!.
        2. AAK
          AAK 18 September 2020 15: 28
          +4
          Colleague, Odessa, Sevastopol and Novorossiysk are a feat of Black Sea sailors ON LAND. You just don't compare Oktyabrsky with Ushakov and Nakhimov, then they will definitely turn over in their graves ...
      3. Serg65
        Serg65 18 September 2020 10: 05
        0
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        As the history of Russia shows, the fleet did not bring any benefit in wars

        How interesting your story shows !!!!
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        the only exception is the Great Northern War

        laughing As far as I understand, Russian-Turkish wars don't count at all?
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        In the First World War, it was sailors who had been idle for three years who became the detonators of both revolutions

        Again, do we patriotically spit on the actions of the Black Sea Fleet from the high bell tower? Yes, and the Baltic Fleet was not sitting in the air! And the "idlers" you mentioned were called upon to defend the path to Petrograd and it was not their fault that the enemies of the Russian state whispered in their ears about the sea of ​​vodka, stout women on the shore and seduced sailors with free land! By the way, as a connoisseur of history, a connoisseur of history, the detonator of the first revolution was the pop-rastrigue, and the second guards infantry regiments !! wink
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 10: 14
          -9
          Quote: Serg65
          As far as I understand, Russian-Turkish wars don't count at all?

          The fate of the Russo-Turkish wars was decided on land, not at sea.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2020 12: 13
            +7
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            The fate of the Russo-Turkish wars was decided on land, not at sea.

            Oh, is it ???? The supply of the Turkish troops went by sea, and the fate was decided on land ..... bravo! monsher !!!!
      4. Serg65
        Serg65 18 September 2020 10: 06
        +1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Let us recall, for example, Vasily Zaitsev, a career naval foreman who fought as a simple infantry sergeant in Stalingrad.

        By the way, why did the career naval foreman fought in Stalingrad ???
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 10: 12
          -1
          Quote: Serg65
          By the way, why did the career naval foreman fought in Stalingrad ???

          And what did he have to do? It is useless to spend the whole war in Vladivostok just because he is a sailor, not a soldier? How was it with the RIF sailors in WWI?
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2020 12: 11
            +5
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            And what did he have to do?

            what And what was the land army doing at that time that Zaitsev had to be pulled from the crew? Moreover, from the crew, hourly expecting a Japanese attack!
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 20: 09
              -4
              The fact that it repelled the attack of the strongest army in the world at that time. By the way, did their fleet help the French a lot in repelling the German blitzkrieg? Maybe the French should have spent their resources on the army, and not on the fleet, ineptly profiled in World War II?
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 21 September 2020 10: 22
                -2
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                The one that repelled the attack of the strongest army in the world

                Or climbed headlong into the Kharkov cauldron, as a result of which the Germans ended up on the banks of the Volga and played snowballs on the elephants of Elbrus?
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                Maybe the French should have spent their resources on the army, and not on the fleet, ineptly profiled in World War II?

                As far as I understand, you are a fan of alternative history and it was the fleet that defended the Maginot Line?
      5. ban
        ban 18 September 2020 10: 43
        +2
        let us recall, for example, Vasily Zaitsev, a career naval foreman who fought as a simple infantry sergeant in Stalingrad

        Isn't it because the army generals pissed away everything, and the fleet had to rake everything out to help the army, no?
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 10: 51
          -6
          Quote: ban
          Isn't it because the army generals pissed away everything, and the fleet had to rake everything out to help the army, no?

          No fighting took place in the Far East. In your opinion, would it be better if thousands of career seamen of the Pacific Fleet were idling in the rear, and not fighting on the Eastern Front? Lord, where do such alternatively gifted people come from?
          1. ban
            ban 18 September 2020 10: 55
            +4
            And, you, our not alternatively gifted, know how much it costs to train a ship specialist, for example?
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 10: 59
              -8
              Quote: ban
              And, you, our not alternatively gifted, know how much it costs to train a ship specialist, for example?

              Has it ever occurred to you that for the USSR, which is a land country, it is better to train five army specialists than one naval one? Which in the end had to be sent to the front as a simple rifleman? The main enemies of the young USSR in the 30s were Germany and Poland, the war with which would have been fought not at sea, but on land. And in such a situation, wasting resources on the fleet was simply criminal?
              1. ban
                ban 18 September 2020 11: 08
                +3
                England and France were the main opponents in the 30s - learn history
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 11: 14
                  -5
                  Quote: ban
                  England and France were the main opponents in the 30s - learn history

                  In the 30s, Germany and Poland were the main enemies. Learn history. Britain and France, which did not have a common border with the USSR, were not dangerous. But the Poles dreamed of a power from sea to sea, in which all of Belarus, Right-Bank Ukraine and the Smolensk region would be part of Poland, and Hitler wrote in his book that Germany should expand its "living space in the East at the expense of Russia, and on the lands of Russia ".
                2. Serg65
                  Serg65 18 September 2020 12: 37
                  -2
                  Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                  Germany was the main enemy in the 30s

                  Strange, then why did they trade so hard with the same Germany? Why did they order submarines, airplanes, cannons, machine tools, factories, cargo and passenger ships from the enemy? Was it such a distracting multi-move?
                3. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 18 September 2020 16: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Strange, then why did they trade so hard with the same Germany?

                  They do not trade with "friends" (in quotes) but with those who have there is something that I don't have... Germany at that time had devices, equipment and knowledge, and they bought them. We even today buy technologies from NATO countries, even during the sanctions, and there is nothing "like" about it ...
                4. Serg65
                  Serg65 21 September 2020 11: 48
                  -3
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  They do not trade with "friends" (in quotes), but with those who have something that they do not have.

                  But the Axis countries, Germany and Italy were chosen ... why?
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  Germany at that time had devices, equipment and knowledge, and they bought them.

                  And France, Britain and the United States did not have this nomenclature ???
                5. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 21 September 2020 16: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Serg65
                  And France, Britain and the United States did not have this nomenclature ???

                  They were, but the Germans sold ... because they sell not when there is "something to sell", but when they "offered something in return" (needed by the seller) ... In this case, France, Britain and the United States had their own products food, forest, etc. but Germany had a shortage of these resources ...
                6. Serg65
                  Serg65 22 September 2020 07: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  In this case, France, Britain and the United States had their own food, timber, etc. but Germany had a shortage of these resources ...

                  what If it were so simple ...
                  The actions of the Red Army in East Turkestan angered Britain and the United States, which in turn blocked trade with the USSR. England even refused to buy Soviet timber, timber without which the British mines were simply suffocating! Well, France in the 20s and 30s shamefully lagged behind Britain and did not dare to pursue an independent policy towards the USSR.
                7. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 22 September 2020 15: 13
                  0
                  I believe that the rule “there would be a desire, but there would be a reason” in the sense of the USSR became uncontrollable on the part of Britain, it is not profitable for it in the super long term, because it introduces sanctions, bike boots, etc., and everything else is just an excuse ... You don't have to go far for an example, the US + EU sanctions against the Russian Federation, the US-China trade war ...
                8. Serg65
                  Serg65 23 September 2020 09: 28
                  -2
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  "there would be a desire, but there will be a reason

                  In those days, everything was a little different .... any inclinations of Russia-USSR towards British India caused strong indignation in London! Xinjiang trade blockade! Active assistance in the German "colonization" of Afghanistan (yes! Yes!) - the threat of bombing Baku and Grozny!
      6. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 17: 48
        -1
        Why are liberals so stupid? Take the pan off your head and stop jumping. In the summer of 1939, the USSR received a loan from Germany in the amount of 200 million gold marks for 5 years, and repaid this loan with grain and other fur and feathers, with which the rhesunoids love to poke, that supposedly Soviet echelons with grain went to Germany even on the night of June 22, 1941 The USSR, in turn, for these 200 million marks, bought in Germany the latest machine tools, machinery and other equipment, on which they subsequently made equipment for the fight against Hitler.
      7. Serg65
        Serg65 21 September 2020 11: 53
        -4
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Take the pot off your head and stop jumping

        what The arguments are running out!
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        The USSR in the summer of 1939 received a loan from Germany in the amount of 200 million gold marks for 5 years

        Most of this loan remained unpaid.
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        he paid off this loan with grain and other fur and feathers, with which the rhesunoids love to poke, that supposedly Soviet echelons with grain went to Germany even on the night of June 22, 1941 USSR

        Personally, on my side, the conversation turned to the fact that your lordship said that in the 30s the USSR considered Germany the main enemy for itself, and now you are trying to change your shoes in a jump .. from here is your psychosis and your rudeness!
      8. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 12: 06
        0
        You are really a saucepan. Come, a descendant of the Sumerians, or even Adam and Eve? After all, Adam and Eve were Ukrainians?
        Quote: Serg65
        Most of this loan remained unpaid.

        That is, you have to pay the loan even after Hitler's aggression? Are you really that?
        Quote: Serg65
        Personally, on my side, the conversation turned to the fact that your lordship said that in the 30s the USSR considered Germany the main enemy for itself, and now you are trying to change your shoes in a jump .. from here is your psychosis and your rudeness!

        In 1933, after Hitler came to power, cooperation with Germany was curtailed, and resumed only in the summer of 1939 after the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact. So yes, Germany in the 30s was an enemy of the USSR, and after the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact, Stalin continued to consider Germany an enemy, it was not for nothing that he intensively re-equipped the army and increased its size both in 1940 and in 1941, and began build fortifications on the new border. If you think that Stalin was friends with Hitler and trusted him, then you are a patented rhesunoid.
      9. Serg65
        Serg65 21 September 2020 12: 18
        -5
        Do you have a deliberate brain injury or what ???
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        That is, you have to pay the loan even after Hitler's aggression?

        Where do I say about payment? On the contrary, Uncle Joe initially understood that the loan is essentially free!
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        So yes, Germany in the 30s was an enemy of the USSR,

        what Then, in the light of your statement, can you explain the birth of Project 26 cruisers with their 180-mm guns?
      10. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 12: 34
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        Then, in the light of your statement, can you explain the birth of Project 26 cruisers with their 180-mm guns?

        Stalin was not a military man, and therefore did not particularly understand the tactics of using military equipment, it was not for nothing that Tukhach, who became Deputy People's Commissar of Defense for Armaments in 1931, spent millions of people's rubles and invaluable years on the development of useless teletanks, DRP, universal guns, monstrous T-35s, unfit for combat, etc. And only after Tukhach was removed, the army began to receive normal equipment - anti-aircraft guns and DShKs, tanks with anti-cannon armor, normal divisional guns and howitzers, etc. So in the case of cruisers with useless 180mm cannons, I guess the same situation. Incompetent admirals, like Tukhach, ordered unusable weapons. Stalin simply physically could not follow and control everything.
      11. Serg65
        Serg65 21 September 2020 12: 52
        -4
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        And only after Tukhach was removed, the army began to receive normal equipment

        Those. Was Voroshilov more competent than Tukhachevsky?
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        So in the case of cruisers with useless 180mm cannons, I guess the same situation

        laughing Yes, my friend, you will wipe your nose according to your competence !!!
      12. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 12: 58
        -2
        Sure! Tukhach is an absolute mediocrity and ignoramus. And Voroshilov understood more in military affairs than the lieutenant, who fought for 4 months at the front of the First World War, and then remained in captivity until the end of the war.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 18 September 2020 17: 56
    +3
    Quote: ban
    England and France were the main opponents in the 30s - learn history

    Not certainly in that way. The main opponents in Europe were Finland, Poland, Hungary, Romania (with the support of England and France). In short - a cordon sanitaire.
    In the Far East, Japan was the main enemy.
    Moreover, even in the second half of the 30s, the joint attack by Poland and Romania was considered for the Red Army as a big war with a strain of forces. And if Japan also joined, then it was already a question of the survival of the Soviet state.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 18 September 2020 12: 33
    +4
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    The main enemies of the young USSR in the 30s were Germany and Poland

    Then why were France and England going to bomb Baku and Grozny in 40? Why was the expeditionary force sent to Finland?
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 17: 50
      -4
      So were you going to ship or did you send? Do you turn on highley likely again?
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 21 September 2020 09: 18
      -3
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Do you turn on highley likely again?

      Since when did the offensive of the North-Western Front under the command of the new commander become hailey like?
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 19 September 2020 14: 37
    0
    In 1940, the AIF considered the USSR an ally of Hitler, who attacked the allied AIF
    Finland, therefore, they were going to bomb. What's not clear then?
  • Essex62
    Essex62 18 September 2020 11: 19
    +4
    Well, the detonator - it was the half-wit Nicolas and his thieving family and entourage. But great performers - yes. And why idleness? The sailors recruited the most "advanced", in contrast to the peasant mahra. At the beginning of the 20th century, the ship possessed rather complex mechanisms. A literate person, from the bottom, was imbued with the idea of ​​equality from birth willingly.
  • Kuroneko
    Kuroneko 18 September 2020 13: 12
    +2
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    As the history of Russia shows, the fleet did not bring any benefit in wars, the only exception is the Northern War.

    Dear, and numerous Russian-Turkish wars - will we pretend that the Russian fleet is like that in them, went out to smoke, and only spoiled everything?
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 18 September 2020 16: 36
      -1
      Quote: Kuroneko
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      As the history of Russia shows, the fleet did not bring any benefit in wars, the only exception is the Northern War.

      Dear, and numerous Russian-Turkish wars - will we pretend that the Russian fleet is like that in them, went out to smoke, and only spoiled everything?

      As for me, both of you do not take into account what the then fleet was from the point of view of its use, that is, yes, there was a fleet, it was useful, but he had a functional task similar to today's coastal anti-ship missiles and therefore the question arises, do we need analogues of the fleets of that time today? in my opinion, the fleet is needed, but there are no analogues, because today the same tasks are solved by other methods at a different level.
  • WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 18 September 2020 19: 49
    +5
    .. I agree .. the fleet in Russia ended with Ushakov .. already the next generation of admirals pulled the fleet to the bottom .. (the beginning was laid by the self-flooding of the fleet in Sevastopol, instead of going out and giving battle, they drowned .. well, yes .. reasons and so on, etc.) then Russian-Japanese .. then do not add or subtract .. samotopes .. then WW I .. and then it sucks .. (.. in the sense of defended at the bases throughout the war .. well, perhaps that the submarines and the OLS ..) .. and these samotopes became teachers of the future Navy of the Red Army .. well, how our fleet fought in WW II, everyone knows the same .. (and only optimists can calculate the costs and results commensurate .. (example at the beginning war submarines in the Navy of the Red Army was more than ... all ... but for some reason I know everything about the successes of the Deutsche Marikans, but in the submarine of the RRKA there is one Marinesco ... and then ... unless in comparison with Schwiger and Lusitania) .. well and the post-war Navy ... there was just no K-19 (Hiroshima) and the Cuban crisis with the campaign of our B-shek .. (as always, the unpreparedness to compensate for heroism, yeah) and the `` roaring cows '' yeah, these are our nuclear submarines .. .and that in the end .. in 2020 is still the backbone of the fleet of the times of the USSR .. and MAX what is our ship-industrial Frigate da Corvette..ya das ist fantastish..ya
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 19 September 2020 00: 03
    0
    How long can you drive already?
  • Serg65
    Serg65 18 September 2020 09: 51
    -4
    Quote: Finches
    Since 1981, the process has gone much more lively in the construction of the fleet,

    Seriously though, since 1959, and since 1973, the fleet began to bleed with megaprojects 1144 and 1143.
  • shahor
    shahor 18 September 2020 16: 14
    -9
    Quote: Finches
    You read carefully

    Yes, you at least read something. When Gorbachev came, he saw only an empty treasury and a bankrupt country. Then the main thing was to feed the country. And not indulge in the fleet. Hence the calls for peace and detente ...
    1. Finches
      Finches 18 September 2020 16: 17
      +5
      Mikhail Sergeevich, isn't that you? laughing

      He fed the country, his mother is the soul of God ..., heartburn still torments!
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 September 2020 17: 59
      +3
      Quote: shahor
      Yes, you at least read something. When Gorbachev came, he saw only an empty treasury and a bankrupt country. Then the main thing was to feed the country.

      And how - fed? Has the Food Program been implemented?
      "Polyustrovo" with noodles -
      We live well!
      © "AuktsYon"
    3. strannik1985
      strannik1985 18 September 2020 19: 46
      +4
      But he did exactly the opposite, the law on cooperation led to a total commodity and food deficit. The medicine is worse than the disease.
      1. shahor
        shahor 18 September 2020 22: 32
        -4
        Quote: strannik1985
        But he did exactly the opposite, the law on cooperation led to a total commodity and food deficit.

        Well, first there was the illegal labor law. Really forgotten? Well, there, greenhouses, vegetable gardens on the plots, etc. And the deficit was formed long before the MC. His trouble is that, seeing the problem, he could not decide to take decisive action, for he himself is an indecisive person. Throwing from one extreme to another is his style. Catastrophic. I wanted the best, but it turned out ...
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 19 September 2020 06: 17
          +1
          Quote: shahor
          illegal work law

          Quote: shahor
          illegal work law

          do not write nonsense young man, illegal labor activity, this is 1. moonshine and 2. production of order strips, 3. raising predatory animals for fur. Everything else, let alone vegetable gardens, was not limited in any way, was not subject to any taxes, just salaries were guaranteed to everyone and were high, so not everyone wanted to dig in the gardens. Under Stalin, LPH provided almost half of the food, with Khrushchev they tried to ruin it and tax it, and under Brezhnev, everything was already allowed and ceased to control, grow everything except hemp
          1. shahor
            shahor 20 September 2020 00: 32
            -1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            don't write nonsense young man,

            Do not write fairy tales, veteran of the zhekovsky red corner. You will take an interest in the village how the greenhouses were destroyed.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 20 September 2020 23: 26
              0
              Yes, there were many of them, no one counted how many, maybe you confused Brezhnev with the Khrushchev? we really fought against the subsidiary farming, but it was quickly removed to the joy of the general
    4. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 19 September 2020 06: 12
      0
      I even survived the Khrushchev reptile, under Brezhnev under Andropov under Chernenko, and under Gorbachev there was no famine, the collapse definitely began not before, but after the humpback ...
  • Serg65
    Serg65 18 September 2020 09: 44
    0
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Another lover of crunching a bun?

    And where is Zyablitsev wrong?
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    under the tsars, they paid so much attention to the fleet that in 1904 almost the entire fleet was drowned by the Japanese, who 40 years ago sailed on wooden ships under sail

    If the tsar poured into his fleet, as much as the Rothschilds poured into the Japanese, then the RIF would simply roll Japan to the very edge of the water!
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    the entire Black Sea Fleet was also uselessly drowned in Balaklava Bay

    In what bay ????
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    since against modern ships, outdated sailboats were useless.

    Against the Turkish, they are quite useful for themselves, but besides the Turkish fleet, other fleets on the Black Sea were not foreseen until Russia climbed into Central Asia, the underbelly of British India!
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 10: 09
      +3
      Quote: Serg65
      If the tsar poured into his fleet, as much as the Rothschilds poured into the Japanese, then the RIF would simply roll Japan to the very edge of the water!

      But tsarist Russia was a poor agrarian country, and spending money on the navy, and not on the army and industrialization, was simply criminal.
      Quote: Serg65
      Against the Turkish, they are quite useful for themselves, but besides the Turkish fleet, other fleets on the Black Sea were not foreseen until Russia climbed into Central Asia, the underbelly of British India!

      Well, yes, the fleet is against the Papuans - this means "in tsarist Russia, they paid great attention to the fleet."
      1. ban
        ban 18 September 2020 10: 46
        +1
        spend money on the navy, not on the army and industrialization

        And by spending money on the fleet, we are not building factories and shipyards, we are not promoting science, we are not creating jobs, we are not developing infrastructure - is that right?
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 10: 54
          0
          Quote: ban
          And by spending money on the fleet, we are not building factories and shipyards, we are not promoting science, we are not creating jobs, we are not developing infrastructure - is that right?

          Yes Yes. It is much more rational for Russia, as a country that is not an island power and a power with overseas territories, moreover, surrounded by hostile countries along land borders, to spend precious resources on a useless fleet, and not on an army and industrialization.
          1. ban
            ban 18 September 2020 10: 56
            +2
            Heavy case
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 11: 07
              -6
              A difficult case is when the USSR in the 30s would spend its main funds on building a fleet, not an army, while Germany and Poland represented the main danger. I now believe that if you were deputy people's commissar, you would do more harm than Tukhachevsky. He at least was not a Moreman, and did not waste money on the fleet.
              1. ban
                ban 18 September 2020 11: 10
                +3
                Discussion about nothing - before speaking nonsense bordering on treason - march to teach history am
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 11: 15
                  -5
                  True eyes hurts?
                2. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 19 September 2020 00: 05
                  +2
                  You look like it hurts.
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 18 September 2020 13: 25
              +2
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              He at least was not a Moreman, and did not waste money on the fleet.

              Only when Spain flared up and the German-Italian Navy began to sink our transports with weapons and volunteers, then it dawned on Comrade Stalin that torpedo boats and baby boats are not a fleet at all and cannot protect the transports!
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 18 September 2020 12: 09
      +1
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      But tsarist Russia was a poor agrarian country

      laughing It's only in your wet dreams!
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      spending money on the navy, and not on the army and industrialization, was simply criminal.

      The state building battleships and battleships can hardly be called non-industrialized!
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      navy against the papuans

      Was this Turkey a country of the Papuans? Until the middle of the 19th century, these Papuans bent half of Eropa in a pose!
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      the fleet against the Papuans - this means "in tsarist Russia they paid great influence on the fleet."

      At that time, yes ... they paid exactly the attention that the situation demanded!
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 September 2020 18: 20
        +4
        Quote: Serg65

        The state building battleships and battleships can hardly be called non-industrialized!

        Remember the history of the Izmailov - the guns are English, the details of the towers are German. The result - you finish building the hell.
        From the earlier one, we can recall poor Frantskevich, who did not have time to rush around British factories, accepting mechanisms and steel for Russian ships.
        Well, my favorite example:
        A significant obstacle to the development of the Izhevsk military complex was the lack of a railway connection with the general imperial road network. Having no access lines, the Izhevsk plant used river routes during the navigation period. The access road to the Golyany pier on the Kama is a 40-kilometer tract - in the summer during the rainy season, in the fall and spring, it became impassable. Traveling even in a light carriage this distance could take 18 hours, and the carriage of goods stopped.

        For a moment: this is the only plant in the Empire that produced steel of the highest grades - shield, spring and tool steel. The problem was partially solved only in 1915, by throwing a time line to Kazan. The constant line was bogged down in discussions for more than two decades.
        In 1915, exploration work was completed for the construction of a railway with access to the Perm line, which was supposed to open access to the Urals and to the Kizelovsky coal basin. The research began in 1913 (the idea had been discussed earlier for two decades), but practically no construction was started at that time.
        © Polikarpov
        Quote: Serg65
        Was this Turkey a country of the Papuans? Until the middle of the 19th century, these Papuans bent half of Eropa in a pose!

        With the same success, you can remember about Venice and Portugal. smile
        Judging by the technical condition of the ships of the Turkish fleet and the results of Turkey's naval battles before WWI, the Ottoman Empire in part of the fleet slipped into Papuan. In WWI, the situation was partially corrected by the Germans in the Turkish service, but they were not omnipotent either. The 28-knot battle cruiser struggling to escape from the 21-knot battleship is the best illustration of the technical condition of a ship in Turkish service based at a Turkish base. smile
  • Ivanchester
    Ivanchester 18 September 2020 19: 22
    0
    I will allow myself to note that during the Crimean War the ships were sunk not in Balaklava, but in the Sevastopol bay.
    And this was done on the initiative of the commander-in-chief of Prince Menshikov, and not of the naval commanders, the eldest of whom, Vice-Admiral Kornilov, on the contrary, proposed to bring the fleet to sea to fight the Anglo-French squadron.
  • ban
    ban 18 September 2020 09: 34
    +5
    "Anyone who thinks that Russia will get by with boats - that, excuse me, or a traitor or d.urachek"

    Rather an enemy of Russia

    Greetings opponent wink
    Here I support with both hands.
  • AAK
    AAK 18 September 2020 15: 22
    +3
    Colleague, EMNIP under Peter, there were no campaigns beyond Aland. The first thing that can be recognized as such was the raid under Catherine-2 of the Greig-Orlov squadron from the Baltic to the Greek Archipelago, which ended with Chesma.
    Well, the fact that the Russian fleet is definitely needed is understood by all colleagues at the VO, however, there are questions:
    - What doctrine of fleet development are we guided by?
    - what money are we building with?
    - at what enterprises and for how many years have we been building?
    - on what projects are we building?
    - what equipment and weapons do we equip?
  • New Year day
    New Year day 18 September 2020 19: 17
    +4
    Quote: Finches
    it is necessary to purposefully restore industry, shipbuilding and develop the Navy!

    Who's in the way? What prevents a bad dancer from everyone knows, so maybe the beds should not be moved, but the service staff should be changed?
  • saigon
    saigon 18 September 2020 08: 43
    +3
    Regrettably, the only way for Russia is to deliver nuclear strikes, the assumption in the article is very controversial and not obvious.
    Speaking frankly, Japan is just an aircraft carrier, with a high population density in very small areas., Baltic - all ports and capitals are covered with missiles (not even nuclear ones), the question is a simple one who wants to die for an unclear purpose and benefit.
    The fleet, of course, is not bypassed, but first of all we need a doctrine of its use.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 18 September 2020 09: 29
    +4
    Russia, as a country, simply cannot afford a powerful fleet. And it will never be affordable, because no country can develop its army and navy equally strongly.

    Russia is a great country! Her needs are great, but there are many opportunities. Will Russia be able to develop simultaneously the Land Forces, Aerospace Forces and the Navy? Of course he can. There was (and is) everything for this: resources and people. There is only one thing - the desire of the "elite" to develop all this. Therefore, our country will not have a balanced fleet.
    Many readers will say: is it really bad? Okay, let's think about where we are good in the navy. Under water, above water ...

    You, in fact, the word ...

    The fleet has never been cheap. He has always been a very "expensive toy" for any state. Therefore, in order to spend huge amounts, you need to clearly understand: for what and why. Russia is unique in this regard. We are building a fleet, and no one knows what kind and why. The Soviet Navy was to contain the United States in all points of the world's oceans. And who should Russia restrain? Where?
    The fleet has to be built for decades, therefore, thinking about 30 years ahead, the fleet should have a strategy and clear tasks. There is none of this. Therefore, throwing, diversity, failures, various tasks and contradictions ...
    The fact that the top officials need to be built quickly and on time: Yeltsin centers, Cathedrals of the armed forces, tens of thousands of shopping centers and so on ... But it seems that they have not decided yet whether the country needs a real combat-ready fleet ... Well, let's wait another 30 years ..
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 18 September 2020 13: 32
      -6
      Quote: Doccor18
      There is only one thing - the desire of the "elite" to develop all this.

      what Where are the firewood from?
      Quote: Doccor18
      Therefore, our country will not have a balanced fleet

      Balanced fleet at the moment, how do you think?
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 18 September 2020 15: 30
        0
        Where are the firewood from?

        From Mother Russia ...
        Balanced fleet at the moment, how do you think?

        And explain to me "admiral" what a balanced fleet is ...
  • strelokmira
    strelokmira 18 September 2020 12: 12
    +8
    Russia as a country cannot afford a powerful fleet. And it will never be affordable, because no country can develop its army and navy equally strongly.
    The only way for Russia at sea is to stay ahead of the curve and build unmanned ships and submarines

    At first, the country cannot afford to maintain an efficient army and navy, then it cannot afford to maintain its own production, and then it cannot afford to maintain its territories.
  • New Year day
    New Year day 18 September 2020 19: 02
    +3
    Quote: certero
    Russia as a country cannot afford a powerful fleet.

    И
    Quote: certero
    The only way for Russia at sea is to stay ahead of the curve and build unmanned ships and submarines

    Where is the logic? Don't need money to create drones?
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 20 September 2020 15: 03
    +1
    Not affordable, because the economy is rather weak. The budget is $ 260 billion. Japan has 1500 money for development? construction and maintenance of new ships. The larger the economy, the larger the budget, including the military. It's bad that our leadership is more interested in foreign policy .. I understand, it's boring to deal with routine request
  • UFO
    UFO 9 November 2020 21: 16
    -1
    Admirals of past wars are fighting in modern fleets. Today the Turks demonstrated the destruction of tanks by drones. They have already made marine drones, which, together with smart mines, put an end to any submarine. Underwater communications for 100 km and underwater locators for 10 km were invented a long time ago, and once they are installed on underwater drones, submarines will not be needed. The first swallow - "Poseidons". Next - type "Skif", scattered along the coast of the enemy. Therefore, it is high time to throw tanks, airplanes, submarines into the trash heap of the history of past wars. Future wars are drone-AI wars. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to build land, air and sea-based drones and drone carriers and catch up with Turkey.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 18 September 2020 05: 17
    11
    It's good over the water.
    The yachts of our guardians are the most yachts in the world.
    Even just to get them out of the Baltic Sea, they had to arrange a whole special operation, because they do not fit ...
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 18 September 2020 05: 34
      16
      on the other hand, the parades of the Navy, the pompous ones, are able to be arranged by our drivers ... it is normal that in 20 years they "re-armed" ... it was less necessary to arrange "olympics". And Americans are also called "showmen".
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 18 September 2020 07: 04
        19
        Quote: Dead Day
        "... it was less necessary to organize" Olympiads ".

        Moreover, both the Olympics and the World Cup have no analogues in the world in terms of cost. Vanity fair damn it. am
        1. 2 Level Advisor
          2 Level Advisor 18 September 2020 08: 14
          18
          "In 2021, almost 102,8 billion, writes RBC with reference to the explanatory note to the draft law on the federal budget. "
          \
          the cost of the Borey nuclear submarine is 32 billion rubles (roughly for 5 years), i.e. only the media in a YEAR receive more than 3 ready-made Boreas for the maintenance .. only one RT receives a year-count ready Boreas for food .. say no money? maybe all the same just desires?
          1. moreman78
            moreman78 18 September 2020 12: 18
            +7
            And what did you want - the Solovievs, Skabeyevs, Simonyan and other Kiselevs - want to EAT VERY GOOD AND LIVE BEAUTIFULLY, so they need real estate in Europe. And the fleet and the army did not surrender at all - if only the Boeing was under steam at Sheremetyevo or Domodedovo!
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2020 13: 35
            -12 qualifying.
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            only one RT per year receives - count ready Borey for food

            RT NOW is fighting no less than the future Boreas!
            1. New Year day
              New Year day 18 September 2020 21: 37
              +2
              Quote: Serg65
              RT NOW is fighting no less than the future Boreas!

              you exaggerate the importance of Simonyan
              1. 2 Level Advisor
                2 Level Advisor 20 September 2020 08: 34
                0
                yes .. let's get a couple of divisions Simonyan, the whole world will start to fear us)))))
          3. ycuce234-san
            ycuce234-san 20 September 2020 00: 31
            0
            Long-wave and medium-wave radio broadcasting has now almost disappeared, while this is a relatively cheap means of delivering information within the country and not only but also conveying its position to the whole world.
        2. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 18 September 2020 08: 25
          18
          Here's what I found on the Internet: "The total cost of hosting the World Cup in Russia is more than 880 billion rubles - over $ 14 billion."
          And one submarine Borey costs 23 billion rubles.
          The price of the Olympics in Sochi reaches $ 50 billion, according to data from the network. Well, what country can withstand such expenses? Especially when there is no fleet, no pensions and many other things. Yes, with this money, it was possible to rebuild a real fleet if you were smart enough, but the current rulers do not have a mind. But they love parades terribly.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 18 September 2020 08: 34
            11
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            But they love parades terribly.

            And animation! laughing
            1. Grandfather
              Grandfather 18 September 2020 08: 57
              10
              Quote: 2 level advisor
              "In 2021, almost 102,8 billion, writes RBC with reference to the explanatory note to the draft law on the federal budget. "
              \
              the cost of the Borey nuclear submarine is 32 billion rubles (roughly for 5 years), i.e. only the media in a YEAR receive more than 3 ready-made Boreas for the maintenance .. only one RT receives a year-count ready Boreas for food .. say no money? maybe all the same just desires?

              what to say...
          2. AML
            AML 18 September 2020 10: 00
            -13 qualifying.
            Ie you want to say that the World Cup was unprofitable for Russia? :)
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 18 September 2020 13: 41
              -10 qualifying.
              Quote: AML
              Ie you want to say that the World Cup was unprofitable for Russia? :)

              And not only the World Cup, but also the construction of federal highways, machine-tool, composite-producing, gas-processing, electronic, aircraft-building, processing, agricultural machine-building, troop-rolling plants, Crimean bridge ... yes, and Crimea in addition !!!! All this is well, just archeological !!! wink
              1. AML
                AML 18 September 2020 14: 13
                -3
                It seems to me that it is time to expand the concept of a foreign agent. Together with the recognition it also strikes in civil rights.
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 18 September 2020 14: 38
                  -3
                  strike in civil rights after what?
                  1. AML
                    AML 18 September 2020 14: 59
                    0
                    o_O After being recognized by a foreign agent
              2. AML
                AML 18 September 2020 23: 14
                0
                Today we are just great fellows - so many farts to undermine this must be able to. :) Well, let them now be like with a sealed ass.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 18 September 2020 05: 25
    15
    In fact, the whole question is in goal setting.
    What are the goals and objectives of the Russian government.
    There is hardly a war with those with whom they keep their money and where their children live.
    Accordingly, they do not strain too hard to have a real fleet.
    So, missile cruisers, so that the partners are not too impudent, because you can always take the whole world with you to the grave. And for more there is no money, no desire, because we still need yachts ...
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 18 September 2020 13: 43
      -8
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      There is hardly a war with those with whom they keep their money and where their children live.

      what If they have money there, then why do they offend those who keep money ... are they that idio / you ???
      1. New Year day
        New Year day 18 September 2020 21: 41
        +2
        Quote: Serg65
        If they have money there, then why do they offend those who keep money ..

        “What are the real chances for Dmitry Medvedev to regain the status of the presidential“ successor ”No. 1 among the other contenders, and do the aforementioned consultations with Joe Biden's team mean the intentions of our elites to put Dmitry Anatolyevich in the presidential chair ahead of schedule if the candidate from democrats? "
        - As soon as it becomes clear that Joe Biden wins in America, many of our oligarchs will defect to this camp, given that they are all tightly tied to the West, - the expert noted. "
        They are already trying on the president's chair, and you ...
        Quote: Serg65
        . they what idiyo / you ???
  • Per se.
    Per se. 18 September 2020 05: 43
    14
    In the title of the article, I asked a question. Should we even plan military operations at sea if, in fact, we cannot do anything?
    Novel, so you can generally make the title of the article shorter - "Does Russia make sense to wage war?" ... Maybe our bad boys are burdened by the Soviet military legacy of a superpower, which does not allow immediately surrendering into the arms of "democracy", to be afraid of the people's anger, for ratings cheeks inflate, squeeze a share from the masters of world capitalism hopes fatter, trite loot sawing, on military projects?

    In fact, traitors will be dealt with, and for a war at sea, in the air or on land, any self-respecting state must always prepare and be ready to repel aggression, even at the most inconvenient time, in the most inconvenient form of hostilities.
  • Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 06: 09
    -13 qualifying.
    Russia has a Strategic Missile Forces and nuclear-powered submarine cruisers, so it makes no sense to build and maintain a huge fleet capable of fighting on equal terms with the combined fleets of the United States and Britain. And the Russian economy will not be able to build and maintain such a fleet in any case, even the USSR could not build and maintain a fleet equal to at least one American or one British, what can we say about Russia! The ocean fleet is very expensive, extremely expensive.
    Russia does not have overseas territories, like the United States and Britain, so there is no point in having an ocean-going fleet for Russia, since there is no need to defend overseas territories. Such strong powers as the United States and Britain will not attack Russia with open aggression, since we have the Strategic Missile Forces capable of wiping out any country from the face of the planet. And to enforce peace, a trifle such as the Sumerians or timid ones, the fleet that Russia already has is enough.
    1. Dilettante grandfather
      Dilettante grandfather 18 September 2020 06: 24
      10
      That is, in your opinion, Russia does not need to fight back in the event of a non-nuclear conflict with NATO?
      It is just about the confrontation between the parties without the use of nuclear weapons. Our navy will not be able to resist NATO countries in such conditions. And nuclear submarines carrying strategic nuclear weapons are not invisible: they can still be detected. Will the submarine be able to fire all the missiles in time when the torpedoes of the hunter boat are directed at it? Not. From one to three missiles, no more, starts before the torpedo hits.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 06: 28
        -4
        In the event of a conflict with NATO, the conflict will be nuclear in any case, this is inevitable, Brussels, London and Washington understand this well, and that is why Russia has not yet been bombed and torn apart, as happened with Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and Iraq. ...
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 18 September 2020 08: 30
          10
          Why, then, we still cannot win in Syria? Or will we also beat the Barmaley with nuclear weapons? So do not rely only on nuclear weapons.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 09: 07
            -7
            So what? Should barmaleevs, whose price is a nickle per bunch on a market day, spend vigorous loaves? The Anglo-Saxons are just waiting for Russia to waste its nuclear capabilities irrationally.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 18 September 2020 13: 46
              -4
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Should barmaleevs, whose price is a nickle per bunch on a market day, spend vigorous loaves?

              laughing Kuzma, you are digging a hole for yourself "
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Russia has a Strategic Missile Forces and nuclear-powered submarine cruisers, so it makes no sense to build and maintain a huge fleet capable of fighting on equal terms with the combined fleets of the United States and Britain.

              good drinks
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2020 13: 45
            -1
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            Why, then, we still cannot win in Syria?

            And there are many of us there ... well, what would you win tomorrow?
        2. svoit
          svoit 18 September 2020 10: 08
          0
          And if not with NATO, but only with individual and completely non-nuclear countries, and their goals will not destroy Russia, but much more modest ones. But even with these assumptions, the prospects for Russia are not very bright.
      2. your1970
        your1970 18 September 2020 07: 18
        -1
        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
        That is, in your opinion, Russia does not need to fight back, in case non-nuclear conflict with NATO?

        It should!
        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
        Our navy will not be able to resist NATO countries in such conditions.

        I will say more - even the USSR would not have pulled - NOT nuclear war with NATO. This is why NATO will never start not nuclear war, they perfectly understand this.
        Therefore, we need a fleet, but according to our tasks, a coast guard fleet. The ocean fleet is alas unattainable
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 18 September 2020 08: 34
          +5
          Quote: your1970
          Therefore, we need a fleet, but according to our tasks, a coast guard fleet.

          So easily you gave up, so easily you forgot the greatness of the USSR. Instead of mobilizing, rebuilding the economy and politics, you propose to live like this without doing anything.
          1. your1970
            your1970 18 September 2020 09: 48
            -1
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            the greatness of the USSR. Instead of mobilizing, rebuilding the economy and politics, you propose to live like this without doing anything.
            - the greatness of the USSR? Fleet? Tell me the names of the hota 5 aircraft carriers of the USSR !!! Oh, wasn't there?
            The USSR correctly focused on the submarine fleet - weapons of prevention and retaliation ... Even he did not pull the ocean fleet.

            Quote: Ingvar 72
            Within 2 weeks would have reached the English Channel,
            - you yourself confirm that a nuclear war would start
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            It was not for nothing that the United States kept tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

            And this is exactly what I was talking about- NOT a NATO-RF nuclear war is impossible.
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 18 September 2020 08: 38
          +7
          Quote: your1970
          even the USSR would not have pulled - NOT a nuclear war with NATO

          You are wrong. Within 2 weeks, they would have reached the English Channel, NATO knew this, and it was not in vain that the United States kept tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 09: 08
            -9
            Well, we would have reached the English Channel, and then what? Britain and the United States could not have been captured.
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 18 September 2020 21: 09
              +2
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Well, we would have reached the English Channel, and then what?
              And then the states have no airfields, no ports, no bases with warehouses, no allies. Try it - fight.
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Britain and the United States could not have been captured.
              Who needs the British radioactive wastelands? And with the states, everything is not so obvious, there were not only restoration and landing projects, but also all kinds of exoticism. For example, a project was being worked out for a throw across the North Pole. For the USSR, the exchange of nuclear strikes was the beginning of the war, but not the end.
              1. ycuce234-san
                ycuce234-san 20 September 2020 01: 12
                0
                And with the states, everything is not so obvious, there were not only restoration and landing projects, but also all kinds of exoticism. For example, a project was being worked out for a throw across the North Pole. For the USSR, the exchange of nuclear strikes was the beginning of the war, but not the end.


                To frighten so on a large scale, in the style of the notorious writer F. Berezin.
                After a general nuclear war, a "nuclear winter" should come - this is known from examples with historical volcanic eruptions. There is nothing left to lose. So, in case of a protracted war, you can use climatic weapons, burning out forests on the planet and peat bogs and provoke further cooling of the planet - for 2-3 years the seas must freeze with the formation of such thick ice that it will make any fleet and icebreakers useless, but will perfectly withstand any and the heaviest armored vehicles.
                Then, having teamed up with the Chinese and possibly the Indians, you can advance directly across the frozen sea. I think the thought of tens of millions of hungry and angry, who have lost everything in the world and no longer have any reason for self-restraint in the war, advancing through the Arctic hummocks and endless ice fields, immersed in an endless night, the Chinese and Indians will not like the warmongers, very much. Until the end of the world has come - you can safely conclude appropriate political agreements with the Chinese and Hindus in order to deter those who wish from nuclear conflicts - the old deterrence treaties stop working before our very eyes.
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 20 September 2020 11: 30
                  0
                  Quote: ycuce234-san
                  After a general nuclear war, a "nuclear winter" should come
                  Should not: there is a chance that it will come, but small (when calculating the nuclear winter, a bunch of coefficients were involved, the values ​​of which we do not have (to obtain statistically reliable values ​​of these coefficients, it is necessary to deliver nuclear strikes on at least a dozen cities and take measurements), and they were adjusted to create a nuclear winter). Volcanoes should not be leveled up here: humanity's gut is too thin - to throw so many cubic kilometers of soil so high one-time. As a climate weapon, we can begin to drain the great Siberian swamps, the gas hydrates located there will release methane, such a greenhouse effect will begin that the states will turn into the Sahara, and Sochi will come everywhere.
                  1. ycuce234-san
                    ycuce234-san 20 September 2020 11: 49
                    0
                    Well, the agreement, just in case, can now be concluded as insurance against a nuclear attack on weak countries - there will be no winter, something else can be invented.
                    And the drainage and rise of the sea due to melting ice can be used if there is no cold snap. It is impossible to build any fortifications and ports on the coastal zone, which is being destroyed by sea waves and intensified tropical storms, and it is impossible to build any fortifications and ports - any bunker and pier will wash away the frequent superstorm. And you can land almost everywhere, after having nailed down the enemy's fleet without normal bases, which, like any infrastructure, are adapted to the typical climate conditions at the location.
                  2. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 20 September 2020 22: 32
                    0
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Volcanoes should not be leveled up here: humanity's gut is too thin - to throw so many cubic kilometers of soil so high one-time


                    One-time and unnecessary. Chemical plants and oil fields can burn for months.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 18 September 2020 13: 48
      -1
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      even the USSR could not build and maintain a fleet equal to at least one American

      Why couldn't he?
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      or one British

      belay and the British the same was stronger than the Soviet Navy ?????
  • parusnik
    parusnik 18 September 2020 06: 17
    12
    I don’t know where we are doing well in the navy on water and under water. I will say in our management, in civilian life. The towing fleet is 90% Soviet, modernized with Chinese engines. There is a new one, our hardware, Chinese engines, our navigation is made of imported parts. Pilot boats, the same picture. There are two Russian-built engines and navigation German, but Russian conventional fuel does not digest, we buy a special one. Repairs, we used to repair it, there were two SRZs, they are still there, but they are not doing repairs, we carry the devil knows where. But not everything is so bad, here one company goes bankrupt, we are going from her to buy used Spanish-built tugboats, though not new, but built in the 21st century, they are only 15 years old. There is a problem with tugs and pilot boats, what can I say about the rest.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 18 September 2020 06: 28
    10
    As we stood on a razkoryag at the tsar-father, so we stand and will stand. If we do not take up the mind. what And even then, 4 theaters of the VD not connected during the war, this is not a joke. The experience of WWII in the Baltic showed that ships and submarines have nothing to do there. "Soup with dumplings" and no need to shaggy grandma. crying Only light forces and border guards. The same goes for the Black Sea, "Bottle with a narrow neck". Planes and rockets. Destroyers, cruisers, nuclear submarines are not needed there. fool The Pacific Fleet is facing serious battles. It is cheaper and more useful to build jump and temporary airfields in the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin and along the coast.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2020 06: 45
      -19 qualifying.
      In the Pacific Ocean, Russia has no one to fight. China is a benevolent neutral to Russia because of the races with the United States and Japan, the DPRK is also a benevolent neutral, since its main enemy is counter-revolutionaries and traitors in the south of the peninsula, plus China and the DPRK have no territorial claims or historical grievances against Russia. South Korea is simply neutral. Graters may be with Japan because of the southern Kuriles, but the Japanese are not fools to fight with Russia for the sake of deserted and especially unnecessary tiny islands, especially since the Japanese have not really settled even in Hokkaido, since for the Japanese in Hokkaido it is too cold and snowy climate, let alone the Kuril Islands, where the climate is even harsher. Hokkaido makes up 22% of Japan's territory, but only 4% of the country's population lives there.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 19 September 2020 15: 34
        0
        I would not be under any illusion about China. Everything is very complicated there. A bunch of elite groups with diametrically opposed views. Today is a benevolent neutral, and even the Chinese themselves will not say what will happen tomorrow.
    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 18 September 2020 08: 39
      +4
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      As we stood on the razoryag with the tsar-father, so we stand and will stand

      The situation was better under the king.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 19 September 2020 01: 55
        +1
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        The situation was better under the king.

        Naturally. Only update the main BF and Black Sea Fleet. SF was not. The Pacific Fleet has just begun to be assembled. And everything in the world did not flow so rapidly. "Kukareku! Reign lying on your side." Today every week the enemy will fly in and then swim. request
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 19 September 2020 09: 34
          0
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          ... And everything in the world did not flow so rapidly.
          Then new ships appeared like iPhones now. Let me remind you that the Dreadnought appeared in 1904, made all battleships obsolete, and in 1914 it was itself considered so outdated that it was not taken to Jutland for dismantling.
          1. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 19 September 2020 12: 58
            0
            Quote: bk0010
            and in 1914 he himself was considered so outdated that he was not taken to the showdown in Jutland

            Humor is good. But why is that? This is nonsense, not humor. fool
            By 1914 England had accumulated 40 pre-dreadnoughts, I don't want to take it apart. request and all of them are "participants of WWI" hi
    3. Machito
      Machito 18 September 2020 16: 06
      +2
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      As we stood on a razkoryag at the tsar-father, so we stand and will stand. If we do not take up the mind. what And even then, 4 theaters of the VD not connected during the war, this is not a joke. The experience of WWII in the Baltic showed that ships and submarines have nothing to do there. "Soup with dumplings" and no need to shaggy grandma. crying Only light forces and border guards. The same goes for the Black Sea, "Bottle with a narrow neck". Planes and rockets. Destroyers, cruisers, nuclear submarines are not needed there. fool The Pacific Fleet is facing serious battles. It is cheaper and more useful to build jump and temporary airfields in the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin and along the coast.

      Comrade Stalin built the canals of the Belomorkanal, Moscow-Volga, Volgodon. We still use them. Maybe the time has come to modernize the canals, which will allow the transfer of warships along the internal river routes to the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Baltic and the Northern Fleet. In addition, river transport of civilian cargo is much more economical than other modes of transport, except for pipelines.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 19 September 2020 02: 03
        0
        Quote: Bearded
        Comrade Stalin built the canals of the Belomorkanal, Moscow-Volga, Volgodon. We still use them. Maybe it's time to start upgrading the channels,

        Comrade Stalin was always right, but ..... I think this is a decision for the last century. Now having missiles and aircraft with radii of 500 - 1000 km there is no need not only to transfer but also to maintain "court fleets". They're just admirals' feeders. At the World Cup, half a dozen diesel submarines will close the entire water area. And in the Baltic they are not needed either.
  • avia12005
    avia12005 18 September 2020 06: 39
    17
    To carry out missions at sea in the near zone, Russia needs powerful naval aviation (!). One Su-3 division (a regiment, as in the USSR, a 40-squadron of 34 aircraft) for each fleet, plus target designation equipment. And then, at least within the range of their action, they will very, very much complicate the life of the enemy.
  • certero
    certero 18 September 2020 06: 51
    -6
    Quote: Victor67
    the fleet of each of the listed Asian countries is orders of magnitude (exactly like this: not by an order of magnitude, but by orders of magnitude (tenfold)) surpasses the entire Russian Navy, taken together in quantity and quality, except for several strategists of the Federation Council

    How you smartly cleaned out the most expensive ships from the fleet.
    Well, let's not build strategic nuclear submarines, we will build destroyers instead. And we will overtake the South Korean fleet in their number.
  • Zhenya from Kharkov
    Zhenya from Kharkov 18 September 2020 06: 58
    +5
    Theoretically, everything is correct. But we must remember the end of the forties, the beginning of the fifties. The situation was no better then. The most possible direction was chosen for the construction of the fleet. Large ships were postponed until better times, they built a submarine with support forces created a naval aviation.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 18 September 2020 07: 00
    +5
    Algerian frigate in Turkish photo
  • Angelo Provolone
    Angelo Provolone 18 September 2020 07: 18
    +8
    The article is somehow sad. Roman, let's talk about fun
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 18 September 2020 08: 41
      +3
      Clown LADY, even in the manner of moving noticeably.
      1. New Year day
        New Year day 18 September 2020 22: 22
        +3
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        Clown LADY

        clown is not a clown, but aimed at the president
  • Sentinel-vs
    Sentinel-vs 18 September 2020 07: 22
    -11 qualifying.
    Even during the peak of the dawn of the USSR, the union's fleet was several times weaker than the NATO fleet. Why is this cry of Yaroslavna here again? The long-standing rule of all-fledged people - if you want to pour out your poop, start comparing the Russian and NATO fleets. You can also indulge in the comparison of aviation, amuse your polymers. Skomorokhov, take note!
    1. common man
      common man 18 September 2020 08: 47
      +3
      Quote: Sentinel-vs
      Even during the peak of the dawn of the USSR, the union's fleet was much weaker than the NATO fleet.

      Any fleet in the world will be weaker than all the others put together. Even American (albeit "probably"). We need adequate tasks and ships for these tasks.
      1. Sentinel-vs
        Sentinel-vs 18 September 2020 08: 57
        -4
        The fact of the matter is that the "analysis" in this article is crooked and purely populist. Even the pictures are as selected.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 18 September 2020 07: 23
    -4
    If at the beginning of the article there was some kind of analysis, then the end is propaganda propaganda. I shouldn't have read it.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 18 September 2020 07: 31
    -3
    The author will forgive me, but this is not an analysis, but some kind of nonsense. If we use numbers in this way and we don't need a ground army, NATO countries, even without the United States, are many times superior to the Russian Armed Forces in terms of the number of tanks / aircraft / armored combat vehicles / artillery.
    In the confrontation with the NATO OVMS, the fleet needs to live an hour or two, it takes time to organize a retaliatory strike by NSNF forces. All. After all, the military will have no time for war, the elimination of the consequences of an emergency is not an easy task, and in the conditions of the possible collapse of some states, it is generally unpromising.
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 18 September 2020 07: 35
    +3
    Damn, what is the war in the Black and Baltic puddles? All will roll out from the shore.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 18 September 2020 09: 04
      +2
      Will there be something left on the shore? This time. And two: how to find and sink a submarine from the shore?
  • Escobar
    Escobar 18 September 2020 07: 51
    +8
    The only way is total cleansing of the bureaucratic apparatus, the introduction of a raster article for embezzlement, the abolition of some of the buns of officials, for example, service apartments, the reduction of the bureaucratic apparatus, at least in the regions (as they said about medicine in this case, "optimization") the shipbuilding industry - to purchase equipment for the production of scarce components, to make workers' specialties at shipyards attractive in material terms, to subsidize the retraining of workers, to bring to mind strategically important R&D (diesel, VNEU, new torpedoes)
    1. ban
      ban 18 September 2020 09: 24
      +2
      For this, Stalin is needed, not a bald prince
      1. Escobar
        Escobar 18 September 2020 10: 47
        +3
        Well, then we smoke bamboo until someone resurrects Stalin
        1. ban
          ban 18 September 2020 10: 52
          0
          How else? Think for yourself. New 37th
          total cleansing of the bureaucracy, the introduction of a raster article for embezzlement
        2. ban
          ban 18 September 2020 10: 52
          -1
          Do you see other ways?
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 18 September 2020 14: 03
        -4
        Quote: ban
        For this, Stalin is needed, not a bald prince

        what Was it better under Stalin?
        1. ban
          ban 18 September 2020 14: 49
          0
          I don't speak for better or worse.
          Read the post above.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 18 September 2020 14: 54
            -6
            Quote: ban
            For this, Stalin is needed, not a bald prince

            So I ask, was the construction of the fleet better under Stalin?
            1. ban
              ban 18 September 2020 15: 02
              0
              After the civil war and the subsequent NEP and Tukhachevism (this reminds me very much of the present times) it was definitely better. After the devastation of 6 Kirovs and fifty sevens, two hundred submarines, coastal defense, naval aviation (this is before and during the war) - compare with the landslide reduction of the fleet over the past 20 years, the destruction of naval aviation, etc.
              In my opinion, everything is obvious
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 18 September 2020 15: 06
                -5
                Quote: ban
                After the devastation of 6 Kirovs and fifty sevens, two hundred submarines coastal defense, naval aviation (this is before and during the war)

                With shootings, landings and huge disruptions of work!
                Quote: ban
                compare with the collapse of the fleet over the past 20 years, the destruction of naval aviation

                the landslide reduction of the fleet began 20 years ago? Or before? And naval aviation 20 years ago?
                1. ban
                  ban 18 September 2020 15: 11
                  +3
                  Who sold Gorshkov to the Indians? Etc. In the 90s, rarities were scrapped, but in the XNUMXs - quite modern ships and submarines, which still sail and sail. All infa is publicly available. And when MRA was transferred to the VKS?
                2. ban
                  ban 18 September 2020 15: 14
                  +3
                  With shootings, landings and huge disruptions of work!

                  And now? We build a corvette or a frigate for 10-15 years!
                  In the recent past, he worked a lot with Roscosmos. Hair on end! I don’t think it’s any different at USC. Therefore, without executions and landings, order is now impossible to restore. IMHO
    2. New Year day
      New Year day 18 September 2020 22: 24
      0
      Quote: Eskobar
      The only way is total cleansing of the bureaucratic apparatus, the introduction of a raster article for embezzlement, the abolition of some of the buns of officials, for example, service apartments, the reduction of the bureaucratic apparatus

      they destroyed the country for this, and you ... request
      So far, we vote together for EP and GDP and enjoy life:
      "The population of the Russian Federation with incomes below the subsistence level in the second quarter of 2020 increased by 1,3 million people compared to both the second quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 and amounted to 19,9 million people, Rosstat reported on Friday."
  • Woodman
    Woodman 18 September 2020 08: 06
    0
    It is clear that numbers are not fighting, people are fighting first of all
    And also "they fight not by number but by skill." One can, of course, assume that the fleets will converge "wall to wall". Moreover, on the one hand, the "wall" will be very uneven - I mean a jumble of fleets of Norway, Sweden, Germany and Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania ... And you can also remember how NATO said, roughly speaking, that the Turks themselves got into the conflict with Russia - let them figure it out ... This is me about
    how I got a Su-24 missile in due time
    .
    Yes, I deliberately "did not pay attention" to the Northern Fleet. Just because it doesn't make any sense. No one in the world just pokes into those parts.
    Yeah. Those. Sweden and Norway will calmly concentrate their entire fleet against the Baltic fleet, and the Northern Fleet will calmly observe all this from their bases ...
    The numbers are not really fighting, otherwise you can already "wrap yourself in a sheet and slowly crawl towards the nearest cemetery." But "this is not our method." We prefer Gangut, Chesma, Sinop.
    А
    Populist statements and utterly false promises about what and when
    "we will all die" we will leave the alarmists.
    1. ban
      ban 18 September 2020 09: 50
      +1
      And also "they fight not by number but by skill."

      This is correct, but apparently, we also have problems with this.
    2. Escobar
      Escobar 18 September 2020 10: 48
      -1
      "we will all break" will leave the cheers-patriots
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 18 September 2020 08: 06
    -3
    The novel is in its repertoire - the plaster cast is removed, the client leaves and further in the same spirit. Do you really want to play war at sea, as in the time of Ushakov? Well, okay, like in WWII, so that the enemy could be seen on the horizon.
    If Russia were really weak, we would have been torn to pieces as Yugoslavia long ago and Roma would not have written his nonsense.
    1. Escobar
      Escobar 18 September 2020 10: 51
      +2
      Well Duc with such a relative speed of rearmament of the fleets in 15 years in the Baltic / Black Sea, the Pacific Ocean, and so on. dry any of the above countries in the region will be nightmarish. The problem needs to be solved right now, and not wait for the wunderwaffe by the "... th" year
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 19 September 2020 06: 33
        +1
        Are you serious? If they could, they would have been nightmarish a long time ago, and every year they have less and less chances. Compare our army and navy in 2000 and 2020.
    2. New Year day
      New Year day 18 September 2020 22: 28
      +3
      Quote: Ros 56
      If Russia were really weak, we would have been torn to pieces long ago as Yugoslavia

      what for? Russia sells natural resources to the West and receives currency, then leaves this currency in Western banks at interest, developing the economy of the West. Banshee described how money is invested in the development of the country.
      Why slaughter the goose that lays the golden eggs? What the West needs, he got everything.
      And if you take the enterprises in Russia belonging to the West, then they will bomb their factories?
      It is enough to cut off money, food and alles!
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 19 September 2020 06: 39
        +1
        In some ways you are right, and the question of patriotism of our elite is very serious, but why is there such a universal howl for our souls, it is not clear that everything is as simple as you describe. And about food, and as bread is known to everyone, we ourselves can cut off the oxygen. Yes, and the grandmother said in two with the money, but your position to lie on your back, with your paws raised, leads to certain reflections.
  • Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 18 September 2020 08: 11
    +7
    Therefore, perhaps the "partners" behave in this way knowing about the state of our affairs.
  • Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar 18 September 2020 08: 37
    +2
    War at sea, with whom?
    A war with the United States and NATO means a war of destruction, which big capital will never go for, because the armed forces are not intended for war, but for the military support of economic interests and are themselves part of the economy, i.e. sources of income.
    The question is how to respond to deliberate provocations and border violations in the air and at sea, the use of low-power nuclear weapons, cyber attacks like attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and the Venezuelan power system, biological and genetic aggression.
    1. AML
      AML 18 September 2020 10: 13
      0
      More difficult and unprovable. Whoever did it could be traced, but it was impossible to prove.
      They carried out a provocation - a ship burned down at the docks. We spent one more trouble with another. Smart people will sooner or later discover a pattern, you can even suggest.
  • Kolin
    Kolin 18 September 2020 08: 43
    +1
    Meanwhile, the attack on Taranto will soon be 80 years old, but fans of hopping movements still do not consider aviation.
    1. ban
      ban 18 September 2020 09: 47
      +2
      Is everything OK with aviation?
      1. Kolin
        Kolin 18 September 2020 15: 21
        -1
        Compared to the navy, yes.
        1. ban
          ban 18 September 2020 15: 32
          0
          Well I do not know. Naval aviation was almost completely wiped out
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 18 September 2020 08: 44
    -1
    the analysis made by the respected Roman Skomorokhov is objective, except that some of the things he listed, both with us and with them, have not gone to sea for a long time and will never go out ... In the case of limited funds, efforts should be concentrated on those areas where there is an opportunity achieve results and curtail where their use is meaningless. 1. The peculiarity of the submarine is its secrecy and autonomy, it needs cover only near its base, then it is even alone in the field. This means it is necessary to develop submarines and coastal defense. 2 It is necessary to concentrate the ships in those points where they are needed, and not to spread the crumbs across different seas for the sake of admiral's posts. The Baltic and the Caspian Sea are completely hopeless, and they do not need a fleet, whether it will be there or not, it will simply be jammed with missiles and mines. To reduce it to the arena of three9 ships of the third rank, the same applies to the Caspian and the Sea of ​​Japan. These are closed reservoirs. There should definitely not be cruisers on the Black Sea, and frigates are not needed, but he has a task, this is the blockade of the Bosphorus, for this we need Pl and even more than there are, and coastal aviation, which is needed everywhere. If all the ships of the first and second rank are assembled in the North and Kamchatka, then you will get a completely combat-ready force that ensures the entry of nuclear submarines into the sea and even their return. 3. Refuse unnecessary UDCs and sell Kuzya (pump for the destruction of military budget money) to China or India, which have tasks for him and the possibility of escorting at sea.
    1. ban
      ban 18 September 2020 09: 27
      -1
      Only the enemy of Russia can think and speak like this
    2. ban
      ban 18 September 2020 09: 45
      +1
      PS Learn the history - many submarines fought without support balanced surface fleet and powerful naval aviation ???
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 18 September 2020 22: 26
        0
        not only, Marinesco, but all other submariners fought without the support of the surface fleet and ... such is the specificity of the submarine, not to use support, but to act alone, track down, hide
        1. ban
          ban 18 September 2020 23: 12
          0
          Strikes of heterogeneous forces of the Federation Council on German convoys in 44 - familiar?
          And also the Mediterranean Sea, convoys, both the British to Malta, the Italian to North Africa - when it was possible to establish interaction between aviation, submarines, NK - the convoys had a very bad time, in the absence of interaction, the convoys broke through, basically, without great losses
    3. K298rtm
      K298rtm 18 September 2020 20: 07
      +1
      Kuzya, of course, can be sawed on needles. Sell ​​needles. Arrange a banquet with the money raised. Only here is a small problem - there will be no school of deck pilots (at all). And if in 20-30 years the Russian Federation is honored to build aircraft-carrying ships (and they will not interfere with the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet at all), it will have to start all over again.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 18 September 2020 22: 29
        +1
        Why should I maintain such an expensive school? 3000 personnel (more than all the military academies) is a super dock, for billions, hundreds of tons of fuel, as the entire RF Air Force consumes, ... a little expensive for the sake of dubious need in 30 years ... or maybe in 30 years and not will need
        1. K298rtm
          K298rtm 18 September 2020 23: 35
          +1
          The question is completely fair. You can and forget the expensive school of deck pilots. This is a question of strategic planning - do we need aircraft-carrying ships as part of the Russian Navy or not. In my opinion (purely amateur opinion), the presence of aircraft carriers (in pairs) in the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet makes it possible to significantly expand the information and combat space.
  • Volly
    Volly 18 September 2020 09: 04
    +2
    So for 20 years already as the fleet is only capable of local operations. This is the first thing.
    And secondly, as the fleet is not in formation, it will still yield to opponents. Therefore, the only argument can be multipurpose nuclear submarines. If, of course, their exit from the base is ensured.
    1. ban
      ban 18 September 2020 09: 30
      +3
      And the bases will be if they are suddenly covered with tomahawks from the sea?
      1. Hermit21
        Hermit21 18 September 2020 10: 40
        -3
        Suddenly - how is it? Materialize out of thin air?
        1. ban
          ban 18 September 2020 10: 48
          +2
          From under the water, for example. Or with the KUG conducting "exercises" near our tervod
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 18 September 2020 22: 30
        0
        and c400 for what?
        1. ban
          ban 18 September 2020 23: 07
          0
          Against the tomahawks s400 is not ice at all - within the radio horizon, the range is small, the BC is small, and the cost of the missiles is comparable. It is slightly tailored for other tasks
  • Yaroslavl
    Yaroslavl 18 September 2020 09: 20
    +2
    Everything in the country is now in such a state as a fleet, and there is really no way to hide behind cartoons or lies, the fleet is a cut of the entire system of Putin's Russia ... a complete nightmare ... applause to the author
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 September 2020 09: 37
    +1
    Well, the Swedish frigate will receive a missile from the "Soviet" Su-35, or even from the simpler Su-34, and in the best case for themselves, will go for repairs, or simply drown.

    Skomorokhov know that the F-22 from the 80s and only in the 2000s received new miracle processors for 200+ MHz? The Su-35 is much younger and has better electronics.
    1. AML
      AML 18 September 2020 10: 21
      0
      Yes, military equipment does not need an exorbitant processor base. 200mhz head. The main consumption of a PC resource is rendering. And BK stupidly there is no need to draw polygons, calculate vertices and transformation. That is why some consumer video cards can cost more than other hardware, including a monitor and mouse. At one time I met a video card on which 4 ordinary stones were placed.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 September 2020 10: 42
        0
        Radar data processing. It's just that in the military commissariat, household technical processes are too delicate, and the equipment changes every 10 times less often.
        1. AML
          AML 18 September 2020 10: 49
          0
          For radars, parallelization of tasks is necessary, the frequency is secondary.
      2. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 18 September 2020 12: 51
        0
        Quote: AML
        Yes, military equipment does not need an exorbitant processor base. 200mhz head. The main consumption of a PC resource is rendering. And BK stupidly there is no need to draw polygons, calculate vertices and transformation. That is why some consumer video cards can cost more than other hardware, including a monitor and mouse. At one time I met a video card on which 4 ordinary stones were placed.


        It depends on what tasks ...
        1. Requirements for computing power increase dramatically in image processing. Look at the onboard electronics of the f-35 - the implementation of "transparent skin", when the pilot turns his head in the helmet and sees a seamless picture of the surrounding space, required enormous computing resources. This is a huge advantage, the F-22 does not have such technology, there is only radar data processing and communications (also not the most advanced).
        2. Network centric - real-time data compression to reduce the load on data transmission channels, and even with encryption.

        Those. There are two extremely resource-intensive tasks - video processing and data archiving.
        1. AML
          AML 18 September 2020 13: 35
          0
          Image gluing can occur without any preprocessing at all. There is nothing abstruse in this technology.
          Encryption encryption strife. There is such a thing as encryption strength. I am more than sure that in network centrics, persistence is not needed for more than a couple of minutes. It is processed by a dedicated chip and not by a general processor.

          Okay, I would still understand if it was about f117 or about su 27 and beyond, to give aerodynamic stability. For 117 without correction of parameters by electronics, it would fly no better than an iron, as well as su
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 18 September 2020 16: 40
            0
            Quote: AML
            Image gluing can occur without any preprocessing at all. There is nothing abstruse in this technology.
            Encryption encryption strife. There is such a thing as encryption strength. I am more than sure that in network centrics, persistence is not needed for more than a couple of minutes. It is processed by a dedicated chip and not by a general processor.


            So I'm not saying that there is a supercomputer, but still you can't do with electronics "from a calculator".

            Quote: AML
            Okay, I would still understand if it was about f117 or about su 27 and beyond, to give aerodynamic stability. For 117 without correction of parameters by electronics, it would fly no better than an iron, as well as su


            So modern aircraft are all unstable in flight, everywhere EDSU stands.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 23 September 2020 08: 58
              0
              Instability is associated with the position of the aerodynamic focus, the plane can be stable, but the EDSU will still be installed. The Wright brothers' plane was unstable, but it flew.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 23 September 2020 08: 57
          0
          The pilot needs not to turn his head, but to have a beat card. the situation before the eyes. Therefore, such nonsense is not done in our country, in Europe, or in China. But here, for example, they study extremely diligently what, for example, the pilot sees, specifically, the direction of vision.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 23 September 2020 09: 30
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            The pilot does not need to turn his head, but to have a beat card. the situation before the eyes.


            One does not contradict the other. By the way, the F-35 HMDS tracks eye movements.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 23 September 2020 09: 42
              0
              Contradicts and requires different implementation.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 23 September 2020 10: 09
                0
                Modern helmets (not only HMDS) track both head position and eye movements. But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course.
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 20 September 2020 22: 46
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      Skomorokhov know that the F-22 from the 80s and only in the 2000s received new miracle processors for 200+ MHz? The Su-35 is much younger and has better electronics.


      F-22s are being updated right now. And the Su-35 has not been updated ... for 10 years?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 23 September 2020 08: 59
        0
        Updates are ongoing. But electronics are not expected to last less than 10 years.
  • Alvis07
    Alvis07 18 September 2020 09: 46
    -2
    For the Black Sea, they forgot to include the Ukrainian fleet and the Georgian fleet in the allied forces. Mosquito Fleet - Do not underestimate, there are many historical examples. And ground-based missile systems of Ukraine or Georgia, in the event of an armed conflict, can greatly moderate the ardor of the Black Sea Fleet.
    1. AML
      AML 18 September 2020 10: 27
      0
      I propose to promote in the UN the idea that the excavation of the Black Sea has caused irreparable harm to the environment. Let them bury them. Plus, they will be in business all the time and any garbage will not come into my head.
    2. Hermit21
      Hermit21 18 September 2020 10: 39
      0
      Yes, yes, especially the recent "breakthrough" of Russian heroes. So they tempered the ardor, so there is already nowhere to go
  • Maxim364364
    Maxim364364 18 September 2020 10: 08
    +1
    Yes, it is clear that, according to pure mathematics, any of our fleet in its theater of operations loses the sum of the enemy's fleets, only now it is necessary to take into account whether all these Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, tourism and others like that are ready to receive at least a tactical nuclear weapons strike on their capitals and bases; in a critical situation, I think they will not screw up the country.
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 18 September 2020 10: 24
    +3
    But the capacities of the Russian shipyards have been contracted for the construction of supertankers and gas carriers.
  • Hermit21
    Hermit21 18 September 2020 10: 33
    0
    The year was 2020. Topvar's experts continued to measure the strength of the fleets by their tonnage and numbers. With the fleet, of course, there are enough problems, but there is absolutely no need to juggle.

    This is a fact, dear readers. In addition to strategic missile carriers, all other ships are simply not able to move away from the coastline without damage to themselves.


    This is a lie, dear readers. There are DMZ ships in the Russian Navy. Although you need more
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 18 September 2020 10: 39
    -1
    However, each of the fleets is capable of organizing the defense of the Russian Federation from sea areas together with the BRAV and the army of the Navy. So it's too early to "cover yourself with a copper basin"! drinks

    And the threat of a domestic "nuclear baton" will quickly cool any annoying neighbors along with their fleets. They will not be beaten at their naval bases, but at their strategic centers
  • slm976
    slm976 18 September 2020 10: 40
    +2
    The article is propagandistic and biased, this was also evident from the two previous creations of this author on the DPL and the nuclear submarine, but here the author openly adjusts the facts to his concept, especially hooked on a number of points:

    1. The author very scrupulously counted our ships that cannot participate in hostilities (which are being repaired and modernized), while on the enemy ships he gave the list, apparently from NATO countries and their allies, according to the author, the ships are not repaired and they at one point ready to deploy their entire fleet. Particularly pleased with the passage about 5 US Navy AUGs simultaneously taken into account in the layout!
    The enemy's submarines also apparently do not need repairs and are also ready to join the battle with their entire payroll!
    I wonder if this is an omission of the author, or was it done by him specifically to enhance the propaganda effect? So the real picture is rather sad, so why exaggerate even more?

    2. The author counted all the American aircraft carriers, but at the same time did not give a damn about our naval aviation and the Aerospace Forces, which is absolutely incomprehensible, especially in the context of the closed seas - the Baltic and Black, and even during military operations in the Pacific Ocean, this factor must be taken into account, since if a collision with NATO fleets, then obviously it will be in our coastal seas, I can hardly imagine an attack by our fleet on the United States ...

    3. The author excluded from the alignment our small missile ships (apparently due to the lack of anti-submarine capabilities) as well as missile cruisers, while the enemy has everything counted .... I do not understand this, consider this to be the case.

    4. And finally, the author proposes not to consider the factor of the use of nuclear weapons, that in the situation we are alone against the entire NATO bloc and their allies, in principle, is not possible! And this applies not only to the fleet, our army and the Aerospace Forces also look pale against the background of the combined army of NATO + USA + Allies ... And it makes no sense to consider such scenarios without taking into account the factor of nuclear weapons.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 18 September 2020 21: 26
      0
      Quote: slm976
      2. The author counted all the American aircraft carriers, but at the same time did not give a damn about our naval aviation and the Aerospace Forces, which is absolutely incomprehensible, especially in the context of the closed seas - the Baltic and Black
      Did it right: look for information on the current state of the MPA. In short, "Izya everything".
      Quote: slm976
      3. The author excluded from the alignment our small missile ships (apparently due to the lack of anti-submarine capabilities) as well as missile cruisers, while the enemy has everything counted .... I do not understand this, consider this to be the case.
      And this is true. Theoretically, Karakurt (7 pieces) can participate in naval battles, but not far from the coast and they need to be protected from enemy aircraft and submarines, but there is no one to do this especially - there are more priority "clients". Brawlers cannot shoot at ships - they did not come out with a radar.
      Quote: slm976
      4. And finally, the author proposes not to consider the factor of the use of nuclear weapons, that in the situation we are alone against the entire NATO bloc and their allies, in principle, is not possible!
      And here not everything is rosy: because of the agreements we have only about 1500 warheads: there is absolutely not enough for all partners.
      1. slm976
        slm976 19 September 2020 09: 14
        0
        Did it right: look for information on the current state of the MPA. In short, "Izya everything".


        You know, I am aware of this situation, but with all this, the naval aviation and especially the aerospace forces, where the remnants of missile carriers from the MRA were transferred, exist and in any scenario will participate in hostilities at sea, as well as coastal complexes, and if the author claimed at least some kind of analyst, then he should not have forgotten about it.
        As for the MPA specifically, heavy multifunctional fighters are used in it all over the world, I see no reason that would not allow us to restore it on the basis of the SU-30SM or SU-34, making them friends with a heavy anti-ship missile, as the Indians did with Brahmos.

        And this is true. Theoretically, Karakurt (7 pieces) can participate in naval battles, but not far from the coast and they need to be protected from enemy aircraft and submarines, but there is no one to do this especially - there are more priority "clients". Brawlers cannot shoot at ships - they did not come out with a radar.


        What can be fair in excluding missile ships from the layouts? If they operate as part of the fleet and under the cover of aviation from the coast? And why should Buyany be excluded? Does external target designation no longer exist? You have delicately kept silent about the Soviet-built MRK, just like the author itself. But he went even further and did not even count the Missile Cruisers.)))

        And here not everything is rosy: because of the agreements we have only about 1500 warheads: there is absolutely not enough for all partners.


        These are deployed on the BR, under an agreement that will cease to exist in the coming years. There are uncharges in storage and there are tactical nuclear weapons that can be equipped with our anti-ship missiles and CD.

        At the same time, even the simple danger of slipping conflicts and exchanging nuclear strikes is the best way to prevent such a conflict.
  • Hermit21
    Hermit21 18 September 2020 10: 48
    +3
    What would I like to say about the "article" in general. Full of simplifications, assumptions, omissions, distortions. The Russian fleet is rusty and useless for anything, the enemy's boats are always fully operational and ready for battle, the TNW factor is not taken into account (just no need to tell the cool story about "nobody will use"), which only Russia has at sea, heavy anti-ship missiles , the defense of the inland seas is not considered in conjunction with ground and air forces, the idea is constantly being suggested that victory can be achieved with at least equal numerical strength and tonnage. In general, such analytics
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 18 September 2020 11: 49
    +1
    Again the game of checkers.

    1. It is the atomic broom that prevents wars. And precisely the willingness to apply it. And in the case of a hypothetical aggression, it is with atomic weapons that the answer should be given to everything that is advancing outside its territory. If this does not sober up the attackers, then it is too late to do anything anyway.

    2. We can wage local wars far from our borders as much as NATO will tolerate. If any of the NATO members decides to go to a direct conflict with the Russian Federation, then this is either a nuclear broom or the actual end of NATO (which is a strategic victory).

    3. The Baltic is a puddle that can be shot through almost from cannons. It is possible to block the cargo turnover of the Leningrad port without a fleet at all, from the coast. Conversely, it is much easier to conduct offensive operations by land. The tank army will be more reliable.

    4. The Black Sea is Turkey. Turkey is NATO. The strait is there. There is no point in fighting Turkey in the Black Sea, neither are we, but they are unable to carry out an effective landing operation. But, quite calmly, we can mutually drown everything that is above the water level from the banks. And, again, NATO, see above.

    5. And in the Atlantic we have no bases either. There are only all sorts of pirates to drive and demonstrate moisture.

    6. The Pacific Ocean .. the most controversial. The main question is - what have we forgotten there? To share the Kuriles with the Japanese?
  • Selevc
    Selevc 18 September 2020 12: 19
    0
    One most curious trend can be observed in the history of Russia. - The Russian Navy has a tendency to rust once every 50-70 years and take the form of a set of rusty iron (in the era of sailing photography - the appearance of rotten wood).

    This happens for 2 global reasons: 1st) Russia is a land power and not a sea power, but for some reason stubbornly strives to be - or rather to seem like it !!!
    2) Russia has a unique geographical position in which it has to independently serve 3,5 fleets ... (0,5 is the Caspian Flotilla). These fleets, ideally, should be absolutely self-sufficient and independent of each other, since any interaction between them ends in failure (a vivid example of Tsushima) ...


    Proceeding from the above axioms, it is necessary to build a strategy for the development of the Russian Navy for decades to come ... And if you walk by leaps and bounds as at the end of the 19th century or as in the era of the post-war USSR, then you will only tear your pants and nothing else !!!
    So at least sculpt plasticine aircraft carriers at least cut out wooden ones - in the end you will get another Kuzya !!!
    1. slm976
      slm976 18 September 2020 12: 51
      +2
      2) Russia has a unique geographical position in which it has to independently serve 3,5 fleets ... (0,5 is the Caspian Flotilla).


      It's funny, I always thought that we have 4 fleets (Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet, BF, Black Sea Fleet) + Caspian Flotilla .... Which of our fleets did you decide to abolish?)
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 21 September 2020 10: 23
        +1
        Quote: slm976
        It's funny, I always thought that we have 4 fleets (Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet, BF, Black Sea Fleet) + Caspian Flotilla .... Which of our fleets did you decide to abolish?)

        4,5 was wrong - but this does not change the essence of what was said ... I can confirm everything with historical facts:
        1) Peter's favorite brainchild actually rotted away by the beginning of the reign of Catherine II and the empress had to rebuild the navy almost from scratch ...
        2) The Russian sailing fleet by the beginning of the Crimean War could only compete with the Turkish one !!! And when the Anglo-French sailing-steam squadron appeared, the Russian Black Sea Fleet could only be heroically drowned, without allowing the enemy to enter the harbor of Sevastopol.
        3) By the end of the 19th century, Russia had built a strong fleet of battleships - which turned out to be a heap of scrap metal - the Tsushima practice proved this.
        4) Russia, along with other superpowers, joined the Dreydnout race, but did not manage to build this fleet by the beginning of World War I - but it nurtured whole gangs of naval revolutionaries in its rear.
        5) Under the pre-war USSR, the construction of the tsarist battleships was not fully restored and only almost completed projects were completed. As a result, during the already Great Patriotic feats of seamen are more numerous on land than at sea - which in itself is already strange.
        6) The post-war USSR was never able to create an aircraft carrier fleet and collapsed before the 2nd series of aircraft carriers was built.
        As a result, I sincerely do not want modern Russia to step on the same rake as its predecessors. And she created and developed her 4,5 fleets more reasonably and consistently - without race and show, but at the same time with high quality !!!
        1. slm976
          slm976 21 September 2020 11: 54
          0
          As a matter of fact, I did not have any special objections to your comment!))) About 3,5 fleets, it is quite clear that it was a slip of the tongue, about which I pinned you, purely for good.)))
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 18 September 2020 12: 30
    -5
    the author in his repertoire: "Chief, everything is gone")))) if hostilities start with the participation of Holland, Germany, Norway and further on the list, then the number of submarines they have will no longer matter. Generally. The number of nuclear warheads and their carriers will matter.
  • Nazaroff
    Nazaroff 18 September 2020 12: 44
    -1
    The author has laid out everything in the case! Critical and real. Everything is as it is at the moment. Critics, or hurray-patriots, or those who cannot see beyond their own noses and who cannot think. Well done Roman. Thanks for the interesting Report.
    1. Butchcassidy
      Butchcassidy 18 September 2020 13: 20
      0
      Yes, weakly and about nothing. What is the point in grieving over the past? What is the point for us to compete with the United States or Japan on the open ocean using only ships? What fantastic problem should you solve?
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 18 September 2020 13: 04
    0
    Sad .. but what can I say - there is no strong economy, and there will be no strong army.
  • Volder
    Volder 18 September 2020 13: 11
    0
    One can disagree with the author on literally every analytical point. Not to mention the errors in the number of enemy ships (for example, Poland has already written off almost all of the 5 submarines, and which it did not write off are not combat-ready), without taking into account those under repair or simply not ready. But in our Navy, the author took into account all non-functioning ships. It is utter nonsense to evaluate combat power solely by the number of pennants! During the Great Patriotic War, the USSR was significantly inferior to Germany in terms of fleet capabilities. The Germans and their allies had a much stronger fleet than ours. However, who won in the end, I think, is not worth reminding. And by the way, ships are just platforms for placing weapons and missiles. If the rockets are good, then it really isn't that critical how old the platform is.
  • Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy 18 September 2020 13: 18
    +1
    Strange article. What is the point of comparing purely ships, not even fleets? And the question is what? Someone is tasked with defending Tuvalu from American aircraft carriers?

    There is enough work in Belarus for now.
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 18 September 2020 13: 35
    -2
    it's all gone, chief ... bully
  • Tektor
    Tektor 18 September 2020 14: 06
    -4
    Let's consider. The Baltic Sea is completely covered by the Bastion and Iskander complexes. That is, in the presence of target designation, all ships and submarines (anti-submarine aircraft) can be destroyed within a few minutes. 10 minutes should be enough (for Iskander, 3 minutes is enough). The situation is similar with the Black Sea-Mediterranean region. The whole question is in the presence of the Central Authority, for which we must create the UNEGS, which, within the framework of the GPV-2020, must cover 50% of the world's oceans by 2020. Let it be at least 20% at the moment. Well, it is advisable to build Ash trees at an accelerated pace, not forgetting about the Cephalopods, which for Ash is like the S-70 Hunter for the Su-57. With superweapons, like Peresvet for the Aerospace Forces, our chances have increased dramatically, and our partners have realized this. They have no advantage, but quite the opposite.
  • awesom3-lutsevich
    awesom3-lutsevich 18 September 2020 14: 50
    +1
    If you pin down, then you have to fight with what you have. Or self-flood
  • Ersh
    Ersh 18 September 2020 15: 43
    0
    The author initially set the task incorrectly, excluding the possibility of Russia's immediate use of nuclear weapons.
    Imagine, you have a machine gun and a stick, people with sticks attacked you. Are you going to wave a stick as well? Hardly, throw off the machine gun from your shoulder and put the guys with sticks.
    Read our new military doctrine, it says something like that.
    1. Germanium
      Germanium 18 September 2020 16: 43
      +1
      At the top, they apparently believe that it is enough to have an Ultimate weapon of total destruction. Therefore, you can save on conventional weapons.
  • srha
    srha 18 September 2020 16: 49
    -1
    Analytics not based on foundations is not analytical. Where is the basics lost in the article? We are looking for: war is a continuation of politics; politics is the expression of economics. Where in the article is there even a word about economics, except for the usual shouts - is it bad? Now for an example. Our Baltic Fleet is forcing NATO and other Baltic countries to maintain five or ten more powerful fleets - i.e. spend, spend and spend. If the Pacific Fleet ensures constant patrolling of at least one nuclear submarine in the southern part of the TO, then the US costs to neutralize this threat will exceed the cost of dozens of nuclear submarines. Etc. You can't look so narrowly when discussing strategy.
  • Yusufjon Nuritdinov
    Yusufjon Nuritdinov 18 September 2020 17: 26
    0
    I have been reading your articles for a long time. VO.But in general, responsible comrades read your articles in the Kremlin and in the Ministry of Defense.
  • New Year day
    New Year day 18 September 2020 19: 00
    +2
    I knew that it was bad, but that it was very bad I did not guess. And where is our "genius" and "father" with the money-box?
    Apparently, apart from the National Guard, he cooked nothing up.
    "What would they not do, things are not going
    Mother gave birth to all of them on Monday "
  • Suslin
    Suslin 18 September 2020 19: 38
    -1
    The article is nothing, the author thinks in terms of the eighteenth century. The modern Russian Navy is not only ships and anchors, but also aviation and ground units. And also a developed infrastructure of bases and engineering structures.
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 18 September 2020 20: 06
    -2
    "In the title of the article, I asked a question. Should we even plan military operations at sea if, in fact, we cannot do anything?"
    Who told you that?
    Let's talk, they declare war on us, who dares?
    What country? Sanctions may be imposed, but the consequences of military action against the Russian Federation outweigh!
    As long as there is a Strategic Missile Forces, the possibility of launching a ballistic missile from the area where nuclear submarines are based, there are no countries and blocs ready to risk the consequences)))
    Hence it follows that to plan military operations at sea against those countries. which you stated makes no sense.
    It is necessary to carry out modernization and build a new fleet, but it may be worth building the next generation submarines and NKs, which will not yield to "partners" and weapons based on new physical principles.
  • K298rtm
    K298rtm 18 September 2020 20: 24
    +1
    1. The author as a whole truthfully described the current state of affairs with our Navy.
    2. The fact that Russia needs a navy must be clear to everyone (who has a head to think, and not just have it). Our sea borders are too long.
    3. In fact (this is my value judgment) we have only one fleet (as a strategic formation) - SF. The rest, especially the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet, are practically flotillas of heterogeneous forces that are subordinate to the "infantry".
    4. Historically, our Navy has always (almost always) played an auxiliary role with the support of ground forces (although in the Crimean War it could have caused serious damage to the allied landing force at least twice: during the passage of the Bosphorus and during the landing in Evpatoria).
    4. With 2% of the world economy, without powerful allies, it makes no sense to talk about parity in general-purpose forces. (the hat should be according to Senka).
    5. The fact that it is necessary to put things in order with the financing of the military-industrial complex, only the lazy one did not speak about this (by the way, one of the attempts to put some order in this area is the appointment of Serdyukov to the post of the Ministry of Defense. What happened in the end is known to everyone).