Military Review

The ability to fight at sea is a necessity for Russia!

293

Black Sea frigates fleet strike with cruise missiles at the enemy in Syria. A real photo from a real war. This photo is our destiny. Don't try to get away from her, it won't work anyway


Roman Skomorokhov asks the question: "Does it make sense for Russia to wage war at sea?" As a person who has studied and trained in warfare at sea for many years, I would like to comment on this article.

First, you need to agree with a number of critical opinions on the Russian Navy:

- the chatter and lies of our media, moreover, of the officials in the fleet;
- really very serious problems of the Navy, both with the ship and flight personnel, and combat training;
- huge, far from always justified investments in the fleet. First of all, it is the most expensive and controversial in the newest stories Russia's Borey-Bulava program, which became a weight on the neck not only of the Navy, but of all the armed forces in their most difficult financial years;
- and most importantly: a conceptual dead end, as a result of which there are no normal tasks (and as the task is set, it is carried out) and absolutely fantastic shipbuilding plans are announced, which are not even redrawn every year, but soon will be every month.

You need to start with the latter.

Real tasks of the fleet


Evil tongues say that the formation of our really rather strange conceptual documents of the Russian Navy had a hand in some people who were previously noticed in the active development of budget funds through certain defense industry organizations.

In short, we have a fleet and ships (and the sea aviation - especially) exist, in fact, not for the country, protecting its real interests and fulfilling real tasks, but for the comfortable development of budgetary funds for them.

Only this sad fact does not negate the fact that there are real tasks for the fleet: there are actually ours, and the opposition is not ours.

Let's start from the opposite.

The enemy who surpasses us and has the initiative will not bluntly knock his forehead against a solid wall where we are strong, he will strike where we are weak. Alas, the weak link of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is the navy (and in the navy, the submarine weapon).

Those. in the case of "zeroing" our fleet, it will be used with great pleasure by the enemy. Purely coastal systems (such as long-range coastal anti-ship missile systems (BPKRK) and over-the-horizon radars (ZGRLS)) have not so much limited capabilities (they are just great), but serious problems with combat stability as a system (with the reconnaissance subsystem disabled and target designation is of little use to long-range anti-ship missiles).

For example, an Ohio-class SSGN approaches the coast and fires a salvo of 154 cruise missiles (CR), and these missiles can have cluster submunitions and ensure the destruction of several targets. What kind of air defense is needed to contain such a (sudden - this is the key) strike, and how much can it cost?

However, things are much worse. At one time we abandoned Russian America out of fears of "the impossibility of holding back." We have Kamchatka "hanging" on sea communications (what is it like trying to replace them with aircraft, we understood in Syria, knocking out the resource of our military transport aviation), so we urgently start selling it?

The ability to fight at sea is a necessity for Russia!
Russian America remained only on the cards. Reason: the British could and may have intended to land there. Without a fleet, Russia sold it to the United States. There was no choice. What territory will we also give up next?


Maybe Kamchatka? From there it is several times closer to the USA than to Vladivostok. So what? We will have a land border with the United States. We are a "land power", we don't need a fleet

And, by the way, who should we rent the Kaliningrad region to? Germany, EU or Poland? And "if something happened", only the sea will remain for us, because the "Suvalka corridor" will be tightly "sealed" by an American division, and a non-combatant one (!).

In general, everything is clear with the thesis “let's hide from the sea”, this is from the category “into a white shroud and crawling into the cemetery”.

However, let's get back to our tasks.

1. In terms of the current situation (both in the short and medium term), the naval strategic forces (NSNF) are objectively indispensable in the system of strategic deterrence (primarily to prevent a “disarming” strike).

2. Provision of sea communications. This is not only the Pacific Fleet and the Baltic, but also Syria (and, if necessary, other countries).

3. The Syrian operation firmly outlined the need for effective expeditionary operational formations of the Navy, for the minimum participation of the fleet there occurred solely due to luck with the enemy. When Turkey entered the war, our air-land grouping there, without the support of an effective fleet (which we, alas, did not have) would inevitably suffer a quick and crushing defeat ... In addition, the very status of the country obliges us to be able to respond harshly in situations such as “landing in Mogadishu "In 1978

4. To "go to the seas and oceans", you must first get the right to go out in them, incl. in a combat situation, in conditions of enemy opposition. Accordingly, the fleet starts with a minesweeper, from the near zone (including its anti-submarine defense).

5. Economic activity. Despite the fact that the active development of the shelf has been postponed, we will not get away from this. And if "economic wishes" are not backed up by real force, "bad things can happen."

6. The political factor (here, to a large extent, and macroeconomics). Many people perceive the issues of demonstrating the flag ironically, but it is a really effective political instrument (the main thing is that what it was demonstrated on should not have been sent to the museum yesterday). Even more effective is the demonstration of strength during exercises and firing.

For example, in 1999, NATO members were not afraid of our paratroopers in Pristina, but of the fact that behind them were our Topol, and our BDRs, and BDRMs of the NSNF.

And the "Russian bear" then, of course, was "lying", "knocked down", but "who is supposed to" understood perfectly well that he could get up and cut. And so that "it will not seem a little."

Military-political conditions


Taking into account the nuclear factor, the United States will avoid a head-on collision as much as possible (while having options for a disarming strike at the ready). However, there is a very bad precedent - the confrontation with England in the second half of the XNUMXth century, which eventually ended in a devastating war with Japan (which England with great pleasure "put in place of itself"). The economic and military potentials of Russia and Japan were incomparable, but this enemy turned out to be extremely inconvenient for us. It seems that there is (was) a powerful army, but you cannot bring it to the theater of military operations through the “bottleneck” of the then Transsib. The fleet (on which the calculations were based) openly prepared for anything, except for a real combat clash (there were only a few admirals who understood where everything was going).

And what now?

After the amendments to the Constitution, Japan was left with the only option for the development of events in the Kuril Islands - force. Moreover, the main factor in this is not even we, but China, to counter which in Japan there is an extremely acute issue of complete "zeroing" of all military-political restrictions after the Second World War (flesh before obtaining nuclear status). All technical preparatory work for this has been carried out a long time ago. The question is a political decision, or rather, its passing through parliament. And the "little war" (preferably victorious) is very appropriate here.

Now the West. The war with Turkey, which we almost got in 2015 (and for which we were categorically unprepared then), prevented Erdogan's "miraculous rescue" during the coup attempt. Only the same thing can happen to Erdogan as to Anwar Sadat ...

However, to the north, everything is much more interesting. The Western media hysteria about the Russian military threat to the Baltic states only at first glance seems to be a collective insanity. If all this is compared with the military pumping up of Poland, including some of the most powerful tank kulaks in Europe and a serious ammunition load of long-range (and back-to-back) air missiles JASSM-ER, which she can shoot through everything, up to Moscow and St. Petersburg, the picture is not good.

Especially considering that ships in Baltiysk can be hit by long-range artillery from the territory of Poland (as well as a significant part of air defense facilities and airfields). At the same time, Poland has in its "stash" what, as the Poles believe, can be a casus belli ...


A bit of what people in the West are stuffed with. Russia is deploying nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. The civilized world has to do something about it. And people believe it

And here's a good question: is it only Poland? There is another country with a formal (and very strange) casus belli, and a very good question is how it will behave ...

Now for the technical details.

I repeat: the key problem of our fleet is that it is treated like a feeding trough and not like a tool.

Subplating


I have already cited an example many times, but it is worth reminding it again and again.


AICR "Omsk", October 2007, on the stocks of the DVZ "Zvezda" (author's photo)

In 2008 "Omsk" came out of the restoration of technical readiness and after serious emergency repairs from the "Zvezda" shipyard a year earlier than the time planned by the fleet! Moreover, it was generally the first ship of the 3rd generation that left the "Zvezda". And this is in the Far East, where, as they say, "all shipbuilding dies"!

It was just that then at Zvezda there was director Yu. P. Shulgan, who said he would do it by 2008 and actually ensured the implementation of this, despite the fact that the initial estimates of the volume of repairs turned out to be many times less than the real ones.

This is an example from the category that “in order not to do (or postpone), you can find 200000 reasons”. And you can DO it.

There are no unsolvable problems in our submarine! Yes, there are technological limitations, but we still have to “get there”, but we constantly stumble upon “later”, “we will not conduct such tests”, “we will not eliminate the shortcomings”, “it will do well”, “wars will still not will be"…

Is it possible otherwise? Yes, and here is an example from the distant 1981. The former chief of the Navy's OPV, Captain 1st Rank R.A. Gusev in the book "This is a torpedo life":

The scandal was huge. R. P. Tikhomirov took the blow as a plenipotentiary representative of the leadership of the Central Research Institute "Gidropribor". Leaving his office after a meeting chaired by the Minister of the Sudprom, he called Leningrad:
- Radiy Vasilyevich! They demand you personally, but you do not come. Here you can enter the office of the director, and leave as the youngest research assistant.
- Maybe we should demand that ...? I gave the command ...
- None of this is needed anymore. We were given one month ... ordered to finalize. I said it was unrealistic. Well, they made it clear to me that if this is unrealistic under the current leadership, it will have to be changed.
So, on June 26 of the 1981 of the year, Isakov gathered in his office specialists who, in his opinion, are able to solve the task set by the Minister ...
And they did it! Not in a month, of course, in two. Maybe a little more. ”

When USC President Rakhmanov complains in the media about the suppliers of the 677 project, it looks extremely pitiful and ridiculous, because to use power not only in his capabilities, but also in his duties. The situation with project 677 is really ridiculous and shameful - it is the "mouse fuss" of our managers instead of tough and decisive measures to ensure that the "problematic materiel" is brought in as soon as possible.

Even the notorious problem of VNEU is not a technical one. We have no fundamental technical problems with VNEU, and a long time ago (here you can also recall the Soviet project 613E)! We have problems with their aggregate capacity. Well, that's what you need to proceed from! The same Baltic, with its shallow depths, is very problematic for Varshavyanka-sized submarines ...


Gdansk, Polish Navy submarines of the "Cobben" and 877E type, the difference in size is clear

Few of 8 torpedoes, like on 205 and 206 projects, do the Germans have? There is "Amur-950" with UVP for 10 "Caliber" and 4 torpedo tubes. In the Baltic, it can always fall to the ground and charge there, this is not the Pacific Fleet, where there will be a lot of dragging along its currents ...

Arctic shooting? This is a question of six months, including the time for the necessary revision of the material part. But someone has to bang their fist on the table! The same goes for anti-torpedoes.


The world's first real aiming of running dummy anti-torpedoes on torpedoes in real conditions, 1998 (the USA and Germany still cannot repeat this)

There is good reason to believe that right now it is possible to install a TPK with anti-torpedoes on the deck of the strategic Ryazan (old project 667BDR) and a diesel submarine of Project 877, go to sea and successfully shoot (from a laptop) with anti-torpedoes with the actual destruction of attacking torpedoes. Borey and Ash? No, they won't be able to (without serious revision), although they are obligated (including under government contracts).

Aviation


Again, there are no fundamental technical problems (both with a backlog of promising means of searching for submarines, and with striking means), you just need to take and do ...

Long-range anti-ship missiles on submarines are good, but even better (and many times) they are on airplanes. Incl. because submarines do not fly from fleet to fleet through the air, but we, alas, have 4 separate theaters ...


A salvo launch of the Onyx anti-ship missile system from the Severodvinsk missile launcher. This is good, but even better than it from the carriers of the Su-34 type.

Instead, there are regular scams with ekranoplanes, seaplanes, attack helicopters (in the absence of a normal transport and multipurpose one), etc.

The experience of the Indian aircraft carrier contract has shown that we have no technical problems in order to have our aircraft carrier in working order and combat readiness. Technical ... For there are others, namely that an aircraft carrier is, first of all, the highest organization, it is a symphony orchestra, but we are used to playing three thieves ...


To have an aircraft carrier group similar to the Chinese Navy: we have no technical problems with this!

The thesis about the exceptional high cost of an aircraft carrier is also far-fetched. More precisely, there is such a problem, but due to our lack of experience, and, accordingly, the ability of those who like to master budgetary funds unrestrainedly draw zeros.

We need experience in real tough and intense combat training of an aircraft carrier, an air group and the entire operational formation. And already on the basis of it, it is necessary to form the appearance and requirements for the future. Now society (and a number of people in the leadership) asks a completely logical question: what kind of new aircraft carrier can we talk about if the only existing Navy could not bring it to a combat-ready state?

Warships


Creation of MRK project 22800 "Karakurt" showed that in spite of all the problems in our country, it is really possible to build ships quickly and inexpensively. An amazing fact, the construction period of the head "Karakurt" was even less than the same period for the head MRK project 1234 in the good times of the USSR!


RTO project 22800 "Karakurt"

Undoubtedly, it is positive that a series of frigates of Project 22350 was launched, moreover, with the improved anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) "Polyment-Redut".


Frigate project 22350

The problem of reducers on them is being solved, but too long. But again, the question is not technical, but purely organizational. If "Zvezda-Reducer" were transferred to the United Engine Corporation (UEC), then the issue with them would have been resolved a long time ago, in the form of a series.

A fleet for a country, not a country for a fleet


Of course, the construction of the Navy should take into account economic realities and opportunities. At the same time, you need to understand that resources are limited for everyone and always, both for the United States, and for the PRC, and even more so for us.

And in this regard, absolutely inadequate requests for NSNF, and especially the second NSNF (the Poseidon underwater strategic system) are far beyond common sense and real concern for the country's defense and security.

You need at least:

1. To resolve issues with the near zone (generally “to get the right to go to sea”), to ensure the real combat stability of the NSNF.

2. Create (after leaving the repair "Kuznetsov") a real and effective operational formation of the Navy.

3. Eliminate serious shortcomings in serial projects of ships.

4. To restore strike aviation as part of the sea, to ensure the real effectiveness of anti-submarine warfare.

5. We need real tough combat training (with anti-torpedoes and hydroacoustic countermeasures and torpedo telecontrol, ice firing, adequate targets for air defense, electronic warfare equipment, etc.).

P.S. From an article by historian Sergei Makhov about Admiral Lazarev. I highly recommend what this historian wrote, especially the Lazarev cycle.

... a battle between steam frigates on June 3, 1854 ... The British (Close) for some reason designated this battle on June 11, but it also says that “the enemy had organized an excellent look-out service along the coast, and noted and reported every movement of the frigates ”, but the fight was really on an equal footing. For - suddenly! - the sailors and captains did not know that the British could not be defeated, that, according to some, "Russia is not allowed to fight at sea in general", they just did what they knew how. What difference does it make who to shoot at? An Englishman dies in exactly the same way as a Turk.


We can when we prepare properly. And we can do it in the future.

If we prepare properly.
Author:
293 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 21 September 2020 05: 18 New
    11
    If we prepare properly.
    .... That's just the point .. If we will ..
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 21 September 2020 05: 33 New
      +5
      Quote: parusnik
      .If we will ..

      And it is necessary ! Really needed !
      1. Temples
        Temples 21 September 2020 07: 56 New
        -72 qualifying.
        The Internet is a good thing.
        With the help of this type of communication, one can gain access to the knowledge accumulated by humanity.

        But there is more and more crap on the Internet.
        And it (shit) is like him (shit) and is always supposed to float.
        You open your browser, choose the site you want.
        And at this time, streams of shit are dumped on you like from a tub.

        We even created special resources. The name of one such place is Zen.
        It's just a bunch of rubbish and stupidity.

        This note is just a representative of this substance.

        In essence, the author writes about his hatred of the Russian government. To the present and to the one that was before 1917.
        Everything and everything is done wrong.

        There used to be communists! They were great. laughing
        The country was really dismembered and sold, but the fleet was not disgraced. wassat

        And these are nowhere worse. laughing
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 September 2020 08: 11 New
          44
          So the insane contingent flooded ...
          1. Lexus
            Lexus 21 September 2020 13: 16 New
            +6
            Into the fleet! Send for "re-education". lol
        2. New Year day
          New Year day 21 September 2020 11: 26 New
          10
          Quote: Temples
          In essence, the author writes about his hatred of the Russian government.

          Well this is how it pins! laughing
          You confuse "Motherland, Russia" and "your superiority".
          1. Lexus
            Lexus 21 September 2020 13: 25 New
            11
            Dear Sylvester! hi
            You know that in some cases science is powerless. request


            Fragment from the movie "Unlucky" (2003)
          2. Revival
            Revival 21 September 2020 16: 03 New
            +4
            So for him "Your Excellency" is Everything! And even more ..
          3. Dart2027
            Dart2027 21 September 2020 19: 07 New
            -5
            Quote: Silvestr
            You confuse "Motherland, Russia" and "your superiority".

            Aren't you confusing the Motherland with the Communist Party?
            1. New Year day
              New Year day 21 September 2020 22: 07 New
              +5
              Quote: Dart2027
              Aren't you confusing the Motherland with the Communist Party?

              did not participate, although the last time was proposed on the day of the putsch
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 22 September 2020 19: 30 New
                0
                Usually those who constantly remember about "Your Excellency" do just that.
                1. New Year day
                  New Year day 23 September 2020 01: 29 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Usually those who constantly remember about "Your Excellency" do just that.

                  you flatter me, no one can tell VO about my love for power laughing
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 23 September 2020 19: 26 New
                    0
                    Quote: Silvestr
                    no one can say about my love for power on VO

                    And I didn't say that.
        3. Ryusey
          Ryusey 21 September 2020 15: 22 New
          +5
          You would end up sick with drugs until the remnants of your mind wasted.
    2. Hypertension
      Hypertension 21 September 2020 16: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: parusnik
      .... That's just the point .. If we will ..

      This is where the dog is buried. It seems to me that Roman Skomorokhov is simply starting from today's realities in his article.
      Roman Skomorokhov asks the question: "Does it make sense for Russia to wage war at sea?"

      Naturally, Russia needs both a strong fleet and a strong army. The question is - will the current economy be able to handle both? Will Bolivar handle two?
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 September 2020 18: 35 New
        +4
        It's not about economics, it's about organization. The economy is almost pulling.
        1. Hypertension
          Hypertension 21 September 2020 19: 12 New
          +5
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          The economy is almost pulling.

          She did not pull, but held out. Legs according to clothes. Not T-14, but modernization of T-72 and T-90. Not Kurganets, but BMP-2 with "Berezhk", plus a number of BMP-3. As you know, there is no money. A full-fledged fleet is expensive. Very expensive. Hold on.
          1. timokhin-aa
            21 September 2020 23: 22 New
            +8
            By the time the PLASN “Khabarovsk” is launched, the Poseidon will eat about half of the strike aircraft carrier.
            22160 PC series - 36 billion.
            A series of RTOs of two projects - well worth a hundred billion.
            "Corvette" 20386 - about 40 will be at the time of construction.
            Three already built "Ash" - about 300.
            Etc.
            We spend a lot of money and spend it WRONGLY.

            Have you noticed a series of RTOs with your pocket? This is already 1/4 of the strike aircraft carrier by now. And still to come!

            We didn't just have money for the fleet. We even spent them. We just spent on any unnecessary or limitedly suitable (at best) slag. And we continue to spend.
            For the Russian Federation to receive a world-class fleet, no more money is needed. It is necessary to spend those that are already spent in a different way.

            Legs according to clothes. Not T-14, but modernization of T-72 and T-90. Not Kurganets, but BMP-2 with "Berezhk", plus a number of BMP-3.


            It is necessary to build more Main Temples, conduct even larger-scale war games, conduct more luxurious Main naval parades, increase the number of political officers, allocate more ships to the Russian Geographical Society for expeditions to the Arctic, further increase investments in ekranoplanes, increase efforts to create SPA carriers "Poseidon", etc.
            Then both the T-90 will have to be abandoned, and the BMP-2, the infantry will be transported on the ZIL-131 taken from the conservation, and to fight on the remaining unmodernized T-72s from there, from storage.
            That's all. On such clothes legs and stretch.
            1. Hypertension
              Hypertension 22 September 2020 11: 47 New
              +2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              We spend a lot of money and spend it WRONGLY.

              About that and speech. But you do not think that those, thanks to whom this situation has developed, will suddenly become wiser and their conscience will wake up?
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              It is necessary to build more Main Temples, conduct even larger-scale war games, conduct more luxurious Main naval parades, increase the number of political officers, allocate more ships to the Russian Geographical Society for expeditions to the Arctic, further increase investments in ekranoplanes, increase efforts to create SPA carriers "Poseidon", etc.

              This is easier to cut. Business, nothing personal.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              By the time the PLASN “Khabarovsk” is launched, the Poseidon will eat about half of the strike aircraft carrier.
              Have you noticed a series of RTOs with your pocket? This is already 1/4 of the strike aircraft carrier by now. And still to come!

              You have a funny way of counting in attack aircraft carriers. laughing Do you think we need them?
              1. timokhin-aa
                22 September 2020 23: 20 New
                +3
                You have a funny way of counting in attack aircraft carriers. laughing Do you think we need them?


                This is for understanding the scale. Very easy to understand. Aircraft carriers are needed by any fleet with missions more than 200 km from the coast.
                1. Hypertension
                  Hypertension 23 September 2020 11: 49 New
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Aircraft carriers are needed by any fleet with missions more than 200 km from the coast.

                  Who would argue ... But for Russia, with its doctrine and military budget, aircraft carriers are the last priority.
        2. nnm
          nnm 21 September 2020 19: 33 New
          +4
          I will support you, colleague, with the words of the cat Matroskin (especially since his nickname corresponds to the topic): "We have the funds. We do not have enough intelligence!"
          More precisely, even the country has not lost its mind. But these minds, for some reason, somehow bypass the higher echelons of power.
          There is no one who will stop this bumpiness, throwing from side to side and plugging holes. Who calmly and with the involvement of specialists will determine the priorities, goals, attracted and available funds and implement a comprehensive program.
  2. Odysseus
    Odysseus 21 September 2020 05: 26 New
    14
    You can endlessly look at three things, how a fire burns, how water flows, and how the need for a fleet is being discussed in Russia.
    And all this absolutely senseless pounding of water in a mortar will continue until citizens realize that military strategy is a derivative of the general goal-setting of the state, that is, simply of politics.
    And there are simply no "objective" tasks for the Navy, as well as for the Air Force or the Army. Right now, Putin and his group are in power - the fleet has one task, tomorrow Navalny will be and there will be completely different ones, the communists will come to power - the third, etc., and so on. Where is "objectivity" here?
    Here the author writes that our fleet exists "for the comfortable development of budgetary funds for them." This is true, but why is this happening? Yes, because this is the real strategy of the state. We need to make money wherever possible and how possible. This is what everyone is doing, and it doesn't matter whether people work on TV or serve in the navy.
    Do you want to change this situation? Change the state. If you don’t want to, or you can’t, join the stream and beat the money yourself. Well, and write articles about a spherical horse in a vacuum, telling that we supposedly objectively need to do an activity that can be exciting, but meaningless.
    1. Aag
      Aag 21 September 2020 07: 30 New
      +6
      I do not argue. On the other hand, imagine a situation when everyone, regardless of professional affiliation, engages in politics ("change of state") ...
      Therefore, THANKS TO THE AUTHOR for another interesting, poignant, and, unfortunately alarming, article!
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 21 September 2020 10: 33 New
        +1
        And everyone is engaged in politics. They go to the polls
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 21 September 2020 16: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: AAG
        I do not argue. On the other hand, imagine a situation when everyone, regardless of professional affiliation, engages in politics ("change of state").

        This is not about everyone engaging in politics, but about the fact that if a person writes about the tasks of the armed forces (military strategy), he must connect them with the tasks of the state that are really existing now. Otherwise, abstract reasoning is out of touch with life.
        Now in the Russian Federation in relation to the fleet, the tasks of providing a threat to partners in the West with missiles (nuclear weapons and Caliber) are set, and this task appeared due to the impossibility of becoming junior partners for the West and the realization that the West, as the Russian Federation weakened, intends not only to take all post-Soviet assets but also to deconstruct the current power. Moreover, the threat is built on the type-leave us alone and leave us in power in Russia. We do not meddle with you, so you don’t meddle.
        And two particular tasks - money laundering and cutting and PR. Plus the maintenance of social stability, so that there is some kind of work. It's all.
        Accordingly, the real existence of the fleet is built according to these postulates.
        Quote: AAG
        Therefore, THANKS TO THE AUTHOR for another interesting, poignant, and, unfortunately alarming, article!

        Nobody argues with this. Thanks of course. But if we talk about the purely military wishes of the author, then here too there are many controversial issues. For example, about the need to preserve Kuznetsov, etc. But I didn't even bother to write about it - we will leave here again in particular
        1. Aag
          Aag 21 September 2020 19: 38 New
          +3
          Thanks for the detailed answer.
          The author, in the article, in his opinion, defined the tasks of the leadership, apparently from the facts available to him.
          IMHO: they, the tasks of the leadership, at least do not correspond to the interests of the majority of the country's population (as I understand it, -You are also talking about this). And the author about this, -with regard to the Fleet. What is the dissonance?
    2. Essex62
      Essex62 21 September 2020 08: 11 New
      0
      I agree completely.
    3. Doccor18
      Doccor18 21 September 2020 08: 32 New
      11
      there are simply no "objective" tasks for the fleet, as well as for the air force or army. Right now, Putin and his group are in power - the navy has one task, tomorrow Navalny will be and there will be completely different ones, the communists will come to power - the third, etc., and so on.

      This is surprising, to put it mildly ...
      Let different political views, but the borders of the state are the same, neighbors are the same, geopolitical opponents are the same .. So why does each of the "emperors" of Russia have their own approach to the country's defense capability ..? The United States has been riveting Burke for the fourth decade, and it does not matter who is in the oval office ... The naval strategy is the same, under Bush, under Obama, under Trump ... The strategy of dismemberment and military-economic strangulation of all competitors on the planet, where the Navy play one of the most important roles. Not a fan of America, but why is it wrong here ..?
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 21 September 2020 09: 53 New
        11
        because in the US the president has less actual power than ours .. there the main thing is the system, and not the person, which makes it more stable and consistent in the line of development, since one person cannot reshape the system (Kennedy tried) .. although sometimes , of course, our system is better when a person is in power, like Peter I or Stalin ..
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 21 September 2020 10: 20 New
          +5
          ... although, sometimes, of course, our system is better when a person is in power, like Peter I or Stalin ..

          It is very rare that such rulers come across throughout the history of our Motherland.
          because in the US the president has less actual power than we do ... the main thing there is the system ...

          In-in .. The main thing should be the strategy of the state, and it is oriented at least two generations ahead.
          And not momentary "important wishes" ...
          1. Aag
            Aag 21 September 2020 19: 09 New
            +2
            Out of respect for the author of the article: I would like him to give at least some answers to attacks, questions from commentators. I understand that in our reality, this can mean plunging into the routine of "couch" skirmishes. Nevertheless, IMHO, it is necessary to collect adherents, express opinions, argue ... Perhaps they will hear, not only adversaries ... (although there are their own tasks ... this is about ours, I don't know, put quotes or not) I hope, even if the young people think about it (the one in troops, the one who wants to serve for the good of the Fatherland, the people, and not the one who perceives shoulder straps as a means of personal enrichment).
            By the way, this applies to our society as a whole. Even at the household level. Before our eyes there are a lot of families destroyed by the sublemated phrase: "Are you stupid? Look how people live! What are your principles, if we cannot dress a child how ... to define in a kindergarten as ..."
            Etc. Etc...
            I understand that I look like a utopian, BUT, if the state, the country's leadership, could convince the people that the welfare of the country as a whole depends on its (people) labor, and it as an individual (with family, relatives, in particular), I think, problems and worries we would have diminished. hi
      2. Essex62
        Essex62 21 September 2020 09: 56 New
        -6
        The USA is not a state in the classical sense. This is the platform of the cut color paper printing press. It will be necessary, this rabble, will squeeze out another territory and put him there.
        All these bushes and obamas are for domestic consumption. Very different uncles rule. And the strategy is one to bend everyone under you. Russia will never do this and never did. Others have always enjoyed the fruits of our victories.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 21 September 2020 10: 22 New
          +1
          Others have always enjoyed the fruits of our victories.

          Precisely stated. This is depressing.
      3. New Year day
        New Year day 21 September 2020 11: 32 New
        10
        Quote: Doccor18
        but why is it wrong with us ..?

        Because with us, if you climbed onto the throne, then to the grave, and for the comfort of existence, in the position of either fools or friends. Only a strong leader gathers a smart team next to him, not afraid of competition and not worrying about his chair.
        Then the division of the branches of government and the competition of interests. In their dispute, in competition, truth is born, and in our country, money loves silence.
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 21 September 2020 14: 00 New
          +7
          money love silence

          And so that no one worries about their further "fate", violent activity is simulated everywhere. With fanfare and fanfare. You can make fun of the "stupid" Americans as much as you like, but the only thing in which we really, unfortunately, surpassed them is in the ostentatiousness of "emptiness". And so much so that already, really, it is not funny.


          Fragment from the film "Sergeant Bilko" (1996)
      4. Odysseus
        Odysseus 21 September 2020 17: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Doccor18
        So why does each of the "emperors" of Russia have their own approach to the country's defense capability ..? The United States has been riveting Burke for the fourth decade, no matter who is in the oval office.

        These are general principles. They are the same for the Russian Federation and for the United States and for Ancient Egypt.
        The difference between the Russian Federation and the United States is that the United States is a dominant country in the capital world with an established political system and a ruling political class. There is a formal election between two slightly different parties representing a virtual battle between a donkey and an elephant. Therefore, in a "normal" situation, the priorities in the development of the armed forces in the United States depend little on top officials in Washington.
        But as soon as a crisis occurs in American society, and a real struggle begins between various social forces, fundamental differences in military strategy are immediately manifested.
        This was the case after the Great Depression in the 30s. And so it is right now. Now in the United States, a lot in foreign policy and in the construction of the US armed forces depends on the choice between Trump (imperialists) or Biden (globalists).
    4. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 21 September 2020 11: 53 New
      19
      Ulysses, I disagree a little with you. When I was writing my first diploma, I had to study the evolution of the ideological aspects of the foreign policy of the Russian state in different historical periods. In particular, I compared the seemingly incomparable: pre-revolutionary paradigms, expressed in the desire to unite all Slavic peoples under the rule of the Russian Tsar, and the Bolshevik theses of the first 2 decades of the country's existence of the Soviets, calling for a world revolution and promoting the idea of ​​internationalism.

      It would seem that they are different epochs, in fact, different countries with diametrically opposite socio-economic bases, what can be compared here? However, I very soon became convinced that there are certain "constants" in foreign policy that do not depend either on the will of the leaders or on ideological attitudes. These "constants" are reproduced regardless of the form of government, since in many respects stem from the foreign policy disposition of the state, but this factor is not the key either. The main thing, in my opinion, is the mentality of the population, which is reflected in the ideas and moods, and also, here I agree with Lev Gumilyov, the passionate potential of the Russian people itself. What I had the opportunity to be convinced of just by tracking the dynamics of the gradual refusal of the leadership of the young Soviet republic from the messianic ideas of universal prosperity, which almost immediately after the creation of the USSR in 1922 gave way to a rational and pragmatic position of protecting the interests of the first state of workers and peasants. This process was not quick and finally ended only with the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943. It was at that moment that the idea of ​​a world revolution was finally finished. At the same time, it was after the Great Patriotic War that the age-old dream of Russian manarchs came true, all Slavic peoples, albeit for a short period of time by historical standards, were woven into a single union. "Stretching across the continent from Stettin on the Baltic Sea to Trieste on the Adriatic Sea, the Iron Curtain has descended on Europe. The capitals of Central and Eastern Europe - states with a history spanning many, many centuries - are on the other side of the curtain. Warsaw and Berlin , Prague and Vienna, Budapest and Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia - all these glorious capital cities with all their inhabitants and with the entire population of the surrounding cities and districts fell, as I would call it, into the sphere of Soviet influence "- this is how Churchill would later describe it in his famous Fulton speech. The irony is that in order to implement these plans, the Russians had only to abandon tsarism itself. Indeed, the muse of history, Clio, has a very specific sense of humor.

      There is no reason to hope that the Bolsheviks had their own reasons to realize the dreams of one of their late antogynists. As it is not necessary, to reduce the results of the Second World War to a banal accident: what happens twice can still be called a coincidence, but in the fact that Russia for almost a century (starting with the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878) at least three times in one or another degree becomes a collector of the Slavic lands - this is a regularity. Therefore, to deny the importance of "constants" in foreign policy is at least senseless.

      Proceeding from all this, I dare to assume that despite the persona of the one who will come to power in Russia, no matter what kind of system will be established in the country, sooner or later we will still return to those initial and those vectors to which we gravitate. Take, for example, the current president. He began his journey as a friend of the West, and ends it as a very unreliable partner with ambitions for autonomy. And even though this conflict is largely exaggerated, because is beneficial to both sides in order to please their domestic political goals, but nevertheless, a certain message to restore the status quo lost after the collapse of the Union among the Russian population is read quite clearly and it will not be possible to ignore it just like that. The only question is in what form it will be embodied this time. But there is no doubt that this will happen. Finally: What has been will be; and what was happening will be happening, and there is nothing new under the sun. It happens sometimes they say: "Look, this is new", but everything was already in the centuries that passed before us! - The Ecclesist's Book
      1. ban
        ban 21 September 2020 13: 49 New
        +3
        Good comment. Nothing to add
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 21 September 2020 19: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: Dante
        However, I very soon became convinced that there are certain "constants" in foreign policy that do not depend either on the will of the leaders or on ideological attitudes.

        You have written a lot and have written very interesting. In fact, I generally disagree with you, but a discussion about this will take us away from the topic. Without deviating from the topic, here is the naval strategy under the late empire and early Soviets. Where do you see the similarity and the presence of some objective constant? The state has changed; its priorities have changed radically, too.
        Quote: Dante
        The main thing, in my opinion, is the mentality of the population, which is reflected in ideas and moods, and also, here I agree with Lev Gumilyov, the passionate potential of the Russian people itself

        The search for the meaning of history in the mentality of the people is an explanation of one incomprehensible to another incomprehensible. For then the question arises, what determines this mentality and how to define the concept of a people? ... I do not share the point of view about a certain primordial essence (essence) reflected in blood, soil or landscape (as in Gumilyov). But here I repeat, we will go very far.
        Quote: Dante
        What I had the opportunity to be convinced of just by tracking the dynamics of the gradual refusal of the leadership of the young Soviet republic from the messianic ideas of universal prosperity, which almost immediately after the creation of the USSR in 1922 gave way to a rational and pragmatic position of protecting the interests of the first state of workers and peasants. This process was not fast and finally ended only with the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943. It was at this moment that the idea of ​​a world revolution was finally finished.

        This is a famous myth. The idea of ​​a world revolution was abandoned only after Stalin's death and moved to the concept of the possibility of "peaceful coexistence"
        The difference between Stalin and Trotsky is not at all that he abandoned the idea of ​​a world revolution, he simply changed his priorities. First, strengthening the concrete state, then expanding the space of the revolution. This is the correct strategy, but it is not a rejection of the world revolution.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri 22 September 2020 06: 38 New
          +1
          In fact, I generally disagree with you

          It is a pity that I did not convince. True, it must be admitted that it is almost impossible to fit the entire evidence base of a 70-page diploma into several sentences))))
          a discussion about this will lead us far away from the topic

          Come on. Who is interested in these ships? Moreover, you have correctly noted that the topic of the article is hackneyed before.
          Without deviating from the topic, here is the naval strategy under the late empire and early Soviets. Where do you see the similarity and the presence of some objective constant? The state has changed; its priorities have changed radically, too.

          Although I took a broader concept of foreign policy, I completely agree with you: the goals of the task, strategies and forms of their implementation are completely different, all the more surprising is the fact that the results that have been achieved conceptually fully correspond to the results that the tsarist government planned to achieve. You can, of course, write off this as an accident, it can be an excess of the performer, or you can try to identify a pattern. I tend to the latter, I will explain further.
          The search for the meaning of history in the mentality of the people is an explanation of one incomprehensible to another incomprehensible. For then the question arises, what determines this mentality and how to define the concept of a people? ... I do not share the point of view about a certain primordial essence (essence) reflected in blood, soil or landscape (as in Gumilyov).

          Here, I confess, I misled you by trying to use the notion of "mentality" that is most accessible to the broad masses, but apparently, one cannot do without additional deepening into the theory. In particular, we will talk about the theory of structuralism of the famous British sociologist Anthony Guydens and his "double structuring", which is that political actors reproduce social institutions and norms in which they exist, because outside these institutions and norms, their practices are useless and ineffective. Moreover, this is realized largely unconsciously and unconsciously, because the most convenient and familiar behavioral aspects are banally reproduced. Almost like circus poodles, over the years accustomed to the same tricks, and therefore inconceivable within the framework of other algorithms and new circus performances. It's about the same with people. The only difference is that people themselves come up with various "tricks", and then these "tricks" form the consciousness of future generations, which will again reproduce them to one degree or another. It turns out a kind of vicious circle. This very interesting theory allows us to look at many things from a different angle and explain many social paradoxes, for example, why no matter what party is created in Russia, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union still turns out, or why the people of Israel, after the exodus from Egypt, had to be driven across the Arabian Peninsula for 40 years in order to to eradicate in the bud the slave mentality, etc., including the main directions and vectors of foreign policy. This is what I talked about in my work, and not about the banal influence of soil and climate.
          This is a famous myth. The idea of ​​a world revolution was abandoned only after Stalin's death and moved to the concept of the possibility of "peaceful coexistence"

          In fact, Lenin himself began to abandon the idea of ​​a world revolution, even if he did not publicly post it. Russia was to become a beacon, guided by which the proletarians of the Western countries, themselves would overthrow their oppressors. However, it was not part of his plans to act as a direct catalyst and conduct aggressive external expansion, as Trotsky suggested. Well, Stalin only brought this process to its logical end, which became the stage of conditionally "peaceful coexistence", which came much before the death of Joseph Vissarionovich. This is evidenced by the history of the extinction of the Comintern and other conceptual moments in the foreign and domestic policy of the Soviet state. Take at least the name of the holiday on October 7, which, according to Fursov, until 1936 was referred to as the First Day of the World Revolution. Then it began to be called the Day of the Great Proletarian Revolution, and only then the Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution. But it is a very important point, especially considering the above, where not only reality forms norms, but norms also form reality. Something like this.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 23 September 2020 03: 57 New
            0
            Quote: Dante
            Come on. Who is interested in these ships? Moreover, you have correctly noted that the topic of the article is hackneyed before.

            Considering that we are on a military forum, good joke. And as for hackneyedness, it is because they are looking not where they have lost, but where it is light. They write about their brilliant strategic desires, but do not associate them with the desires of those in power.
            However, you can understand the authors: write-you need to do this and that, but the authorities will not do this, and therefore not everyone needs to change the government.
            Quote: Dante
            that the results that were achieved conceptually fully correspond to the results that were planned to be achieved by the tsarist government.

            Not quite understood, the tsarist government was planning a socialist revolution in Mongolia and China and the construction of a world socialist system? You hinted at "Pan-Slavism", but even for RI there was only one and even then not the dominant idea, but rather even a dream.
            For the USSR, only a shadow of this idea was used, and that short time after the war to create a strategic foreground in Europe and expand the space of socialism.
            Quote: Dante
            In particular, we will focus on the theory of structuralism by the famous British sociologist Anthony Gydens

            The transition from Gumilev to Giddens is, of course, a knight's move. Just check and checkmate smile
            Not being in any way an expert on Giddens, I will humbly say that I have nothing against the idea that people are not only determined by society, but also build it in their own image and likeness. But for my taste, you somehow fatalistically interpret it. It turns out for yours that nothing changes, which is especially strange to listen to from the Russian because in Russia literally everything has changed in one century and more than once.
            Quote: Dante
            In fact, Lenin himself began to abandon the idea of ​​a world revolution, even if he did not publicly post it. Russia was supposed to become a beacon, guided by which the proletarians of Western countries, themselves would throw off their oppressors

            And here I would confidently argue. Moreover, your first sentence is not in harmony with the second. True, Russia is a beacon that helps people. And where is the rejection of the world revolution here? The dispute between Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky is simply a dispute about the best ways to achieve the goal and the ways to achieve it. None of them gave up the goal itself. Although at first Lenin really thought that after the First World Cause we would go faster. Hence a certain idealism in the slogans. Which, in fact, he later recognized.
            The rejection of the goal (peaceful coexistence as a strategy, and not as a tactic a la "friendship" between Stalin and Churchill during the Second World War) is wrong twice.
            1) Possible only if the other side wants to "peacefully coexist" which was not observed.
            2) Transferred the conflict from the ideological and military plane to the economic plane, which, given the absolutely incomparable resources and opportunities, made the defeat of socialism almost inevitable.
    5. Ryusey
      Ryusey 21 September 2020 15: 23 New
      0
      ... until the air raid sirens actually go off ...
  3. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 06: 36 New
    -22 qualifying.
    Again these Moremans got excited from the early morning. As long as there are nuclear weapons, neither Poland, nor the United States, nor Britain, nor Japan will fight with Russia, they know very well that in the event of a war they will fire nuclear strikes on their own in full. As history shows, the Russian fleet never decided anything, with the exception of the Northern War, since Sweden is located on a peninsula, and it was impossible to get to Stockholm by land through the Lapland tundra. And in the war with Napoleon, and in the First World War, and in the Second World War, the fleet dangled uselessly, wasting resources in vain. The Russo-Japanese was lost because of the tsar-rag, under any other monarch Russia would have won by throwing the Japanese off the mainland, as the USSR did. To force every little thing like non-brothers and timid things into peace, the available fleet will be enough, no aircraft carriers are needed, army aviation will fly to Tbilisi or Kiev anyway. And the war with major countries will be exclusively nuclear, they know this very well, and therefore they do not go to war against Russia, as they did with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 21 September 2020 07: 00 New
      15
      Nuclear strikes? How many km from Poland, the Baltic States to the borders of Russia? It will be safer in Voronezh
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 07: 08 New
        -26 qualifying.
        The pan does not shake your head, a descendant of the Sumerians?
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 21 September 2020 07: 21 New
          12
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          The pan does not shake your head, a descendant of the Sumerians?

          judging by the fact that you answer a question with a question, you are a descendant ... not the Sumerians
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 07: 18 New
      27
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      As history shows, the Russian fleet never decided anything, except for the Northern War.

      I wonder how long this nonsense will be copied and pasted in discussions? (a rhetorical question)
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 07: 31 New
        -22 qualifying.
        Napoleon and Hitler were crushed by the navy, not the army? In World War I, did RIF smash the German fleet? Oh, yes, the whole war the Russian fleet cowardly hid in its bases, and the Kaiser's fleet gave high quality luli even to the British fleet. The RIF for the Kaiser's fleet was an easy snack, even on land, where the Russian army is traditionally strong, and even received high-quality lyules from the German army, the Russian army crushed only Austrians and Turks, the Kaiser's army of the Russian army was too tough.
        1. Temples
          Temples 21 September 2020 08: 04 New
          -15 qualifying.
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          The Kaiser's army of the Russian army was too tough.

          Did you read this from Lenin?
          This urka made peace with the losing side for the sake of the world revolution, putting a big bolt on Russia.
          And this is why our country, instead of Constantinople and the Straits, received a civil war and millions of deaths.

          There are a lot of those who say that the Hitlerite army was too tough for the Russians.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 08: 06 New
          21
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Napoleon and Hitler were crushed by the navy, not the army?

          Napoleon by the army, Hitler by the army and the navy. We just didn’t have a fleet, so others took the rap for us at sea - thank God that they were allies.
          In general, do you not understand how alternatively gifted the question is? Our fleet was well financed, if it is 1/5 of the army even in the best times, but do you expect it to decide the fate of the world? The fact that for these funds the fleet gave considerable operational and tactical benefits is not enough for you.
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          In World War I, did RIF smash the German fleet? Oh yes, the whole war the Russian fleet cowardly hid in its bases

          March to teach materiel. The fleet "cowardly hiding in the bases" in the Baltic did not allow the Germans to support the coastal flank of the army at Moonsund, and on the Black Sea it complicated the position of Turkey to the extreme, which went so far that it had to import coal from Germany with enormous difficulties - to the paralysis of the Turkish railway it didn't work out, but the restrictions were total. The Black Sea was ours, we did everything - and blocked the navigation to Zunguldak, which the Turks badly needed, and supported the coastal flank of the army, and large landing forces landed.
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          and the Kaiser's fleet provided high quality lula even to the British fleet.

          laughing fool The only unconditional victory of the Kaiserlichmarine in the naval battle was the Battle of Coronel. For which the British immediately avenged, beating down Spee's squadron. The case in the Heligoland Bay, the British won the battle at Dogger Banks and Jutland.
          Of course, the Germans also declared Jutland their victory. So they "won" that they did not dare to engage in battle with the Grand Fleet, and the "Jutland syndrome" tormented the Kriegsmarine officers even during the WWII ...
          1. timokhin-aa
            21 September 2020 08: 15 New
            +9
            And you, Andrey, are familiar with the text of Wolfgang Wegener "about"? I think there are a lot of frightening analogies with the state of the brains of our contingent.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 10: 09 New
              +2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              And you, Andrei, are you familiar with Wolfgang Wegener's text "about"?

              Ummm .... Alexander, I don't know what I'm talking about. Probably not familiar.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              I think there are a lot of frightening analogies with the state of the brains of our contingent.

              Tell me what to read!
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 21 September 2020 10: 53 New
                10
                As far as I remember, it will not work to read in Russian. Obviously, this refers to the "thesis of Wegener", the German admiral and naval theorist. He put forward the doctrine of the threat to British sea communications by surface and submarine forces.
                Some authors believe that it was Germany that used it during World War II.
                In English, you can read https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2228&context=nwc-review
                Article RAEDER VERSUS WEGENER Conflict in German Naval Strategy.
                Regarding the site contingent, the site, represented by the administration, made every possible effort to form one.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 11: 01 New
                  +7
                  Many thanks. In prompt it is completely shifted, so I will master it somehow :))))
                  1. Temples
                    Temples 21 September 2020 12: 28 New
                    -22 qualifying.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Hitler - both by the army and the navy. We just didn’t have a fleet, so others took the rap for us at sea - thank God that they were allies.

                    The Americans won the war, that's right, Andrei from Chelyabinsk. wink negative

                    Who was there for you, I do not know.
                    My grandfathers gave their lives for me at the front.
                    Their grandfathers fought for my neighbors.
                    And so throughout Russia.
                    All the people, both on land and at sea.

                    And the Americans took the rap for you. Or the British? Or together?

                    Who are you? request

                    We celebrate the victory on May 9.

                    When are you?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 12: 52 New
                      11
                      Vladimir, before you litter someone else's discussion with pseudo-patriotic nonsense, you at least learned to read. If you think you have already mastered this science, answer a simple question
                      I write
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      while we were puffed at sea by others

                      You write
                      Quote: Temples
                      Who was there for you, I do not know.
                      My grandfathers gave their lives for me at the front.

                      What sea or ocean did this front cross?
                2. timokhin-aa
                  21 September 2020 12: 27 New
                  +7
                  It's better to read a direct speech after all.

                  Here in this collection - https://eknigi.org/voennaja_istorija/67181-operativno-takticheskie-vzglyady-germanskogo.html

                  There is a complete translation of Wegener's text into Russian.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 12: 53 New
                    +2
                    I love these sources, thanks!
              2. timokhin-aa
                21 September 2020 11: 12 New
                10
                Operational and tactical views of the German fleet. Collection of articles from German naval literature.

                https://eknigi.org/voennaja_istorija/67181-operativno-takticheskie-vzglyady-germanskogo.html

                Everything is in Russian, you just need to search) By the content you will find.

                Please note that Wegener's operational views are one issue, and his diagnosis of German thinking, which made it impossible to take a conscious approach to planning a war, is another and is relevant for us.

                The last line is like the last nail in the coffin. I want to believe that they will never write such a thing about us.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 11: 23 New
                  +3
                  Thanks, I'm digging :)
          2. ban
            ban 21 September 2020 08: 21 New
            +9
            Andrey, this is useless ...
            Alexander is right - insane contingent
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 10: 10 New
              10
              Quote: ban
              Andrey, this is useless ...

              Why? :))) Someone will help, who read the controversy. Kuzya the cat is hopeless, of course, but ...
          3. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 09: 17 New
            -16 qualifying.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The Black Sea was ours, we did everything - and blocked the shipping to Zunguldak, which the Turks badly needed, and supported the coastal flank of the army, and large landing forces landed.

            There is no need to tell tales, only the German cruiser "Goeben" paralyzed navigation on the Black Sea for almost three years, and the fleet could not do anything with it, the German cruiser, thanks to a speed of 28 knots, maneuvered as he wanted, sank single ships and ships, and if the Russian squadron was numerous, he easily left it.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Of course, the Germans also declared Jutland their victory.

            In fact, the Germans won the Battle of Jutland, they lost only one battle cruiser and 2,5 thousand sailors killed, while the British lost three battle cruisers and 6 thousand sailors killed. And this is despite the fact that the British were far superior to the Germans in strength, for example, the British had 28 and 9 battle cruisers, while the Germans had only 16 battleships and 5 battle cruisers. That is, we can conclude that, on average, German sailors fought better, and German ships were better, and with an equal balance of forces, the Germans would have defeated the British. So the Russian fleet, which was destroyed even by the Japanese, cannot be compared with the German fleet.
            Napoleon by the army, Hitler by the army and the navy. We just didn’t have a fleet, so others took the rap for us at sea - thank God that they were allies.
            Hitler's fleet did not win; the fleet's share in the victory over Hitler is hundredths of a percent of the army's contribution. The Baltic Fleet, even in 1945, could not prevent the Germans from supplying the cut off Army Group North in Courland, where the Germans sat quietly until surrender, not experiencing a particular shortage of equipment and supplies regularly supplied by sea.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 10: 07 New
              12
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              There is no need to tell tales, only the German cruiser "Goeben" paralyzed shipping in the Black Sea for almost three years, and the fleet could not do anything with it,

              Kuzya the cat, I do not know where you got such fantasies. Goeben never paralyzed anything, it was Goeben who spent most of the WWI in the Bosphorus like a mouse under a broom. And these are our battleships, in anticipation of his release into the sea as much as the German or British dreadnoughts or battleships have never reeled.
              In general, as already mentioned, the march is to teach materiel.
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              In fact, the Germans won the Battle of Jutland

              Sit down, deuce
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              they lost only one battle cruiser and 2,5 thousand sailors killed, while the British lost three battle cruisers and 6 thousand sailors killed

              Does it bother you that according to your "logic" the Soviet army lost the Battle of Kursk?
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              That is, we can conclude that, on average, German sailors fought better, and German ships were better.

              You can not.
              If you look at Jutland even a little impartially, then:
              1) Beatty, despite the heavy losses of his ships, fulfilled his task and brought the main forces of the German fleet to the deployed British.
              2) Hipper, who acted almost flawlessly with his battle cruisers, DIDN'T COMPLETE his task, failed to detect the main forces of the Royal Navy, which led to Scheer simply burying his dreadnoughts in the center of the British formation.
              3) Sheer's absurd maneuvering led to the fact that, slipping out of the trap, he again climbed into it, substituting himself again. (second run for crossing T). And Scheer was forced to sacrifice his own battlecruisers, throwing them into a suicidal attack on the British dreadnought line.
              4) After that, the German fleet fled, because it was in such a state that it could no longer give a general battle to the British.
              And, finally, the reason for the relatively small losses of the Germans lies not in ships and not in sailors (although in a number of cases the Germans fired more accurately), but in the absence of full-fledged armor-piercing shells, which led to the fact that the German ships, having received a large number of large-caliber hits, all -so survived.
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              So the Russian fleet, which was destroyed even by the Japanese, cannot be compared with the German fleet.

              That's Goeben, every time he ran so that only his heels sparkled from one of our dreadnoughts or three battleships. And the first breakthrough into Moonsund was blocked by the Slava, and the Germans could not get through until dreadnoughts were brought against a single Russian battleship
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Hitler's fleet did not win; the fleet's share in the victory over Hitler is hundredths of a percent of the army's contribution.

              Oh yeah. Taking into account that it was the fleet that did not allow England to fall, that Lend-Lease deliveries from America were possible only thanks to the US and British navies, and that up to 2/3 of the Luftwaffe fighter aircraft were tied to countering bombers based in England (which would have fallen without fleet), landing in Italy and Normandy, etc. etc. The question is that there was someone to do all this for us
              Hundredths of a percent, yeah.
            2. timokhin-aa
              21 September 2020 10: 56 New
              14
              Hitler's fleet did not win; the fleet's share in the victory over Hitler is hundredths of a percent of the army's contribution.


              In 41st on the Black Sea and in the North, it was critical. Without the Black Sea Fleet landing in the winter of 41-42, the Germans would have had a free field army on the southern flank, and without the landing on Western Litsa, they could have taken Murmansk.

              In the first case, the results could be either the defeat of our counterattack near Moscow, or a blow to the Caucasus through the Kerch Strait and defeat next year during the Battle of the Caucasus, with the possible entry of Turkey into the war and the revolt of the entire population of the North Caucasus, cutting off oil from the USSR and the southern corridor Lend-Lease, and the fall of Murmansk cut off the Lend-Lease from the north.
              And it could have been immediately thrown by the storming of Leningrad, as it was in reality, but before we had accumulated troops there for our offensive.
              And then the fall of Leningrad, the union of the Germans with the Finns and the cutting off of the entire northern part of Russia from the rest of the USSR.

              All these events, except for the possible defeat near Moscow, meant guaranteed defeat in the war. The defeat of the counter-offensive near Moscow would mean additional huge losses, which were not in real life.

              In addition, you did not understand what Andrei wrote to you - the British fleet was against the Germans, the strength of which compensated for the weakness of ours. Otherwise, Murmansk would have met the German landing force and the Tirpitz cannons at the very beginning of the war.

              You just fundamentally don't understand anything about anything.

              Here's a read on the Second World War -
              https://topwar.ru/152300-realnyj-vklad-kakuju-rol-vmf-sygral-v-velikoj-otechestvennoj-vojne.html
              и
              https://vz.ru/society/2020/5/17/1039405.html
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 22 September 2020 09: 28 New
                -4
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Without the Black Sea Fleet landing in winter 41-42, the Germans would have had a free field army on the southern flank.

                The landing forces did not play any role in canceling the transfer of units of the 11th Army to the Kerch Front, but were part of Oktyabrsky's game with the Supreme Command Headquarters!
                1. timokhin-aa
                  22 September 2020 13: 27 New
                  +2
                  That's what I understand! That is, without the Kerch-Feodosia operation, Manstein would have stuck out in the Crimea as much as in reality?
                  Yes, you are introducing a new word in military science, Sergei!
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 22 September 2020 14: 24 New
                    -2
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    That is, without the Kerch-Feodosia operation, Manstein would have stuck out in the Crimea as much as in reality?

                    I'm talking about Epotorisky, Sudaksky and other small landings invented by Oktyabrsky !!! Although the Feodosia landing came up with the same Philip Sergeevich. How did the Feodosia epic end, I hope I don’t need to tell you?
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    That is, without the Kerch-Feodosia operation, Manstein would have stuck out in the Crimea as much as in reality?

                    Much less, at the end of January I would have already celebrated the victory.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      22 September 2020 15: 23 New
                      +1
                      How did the Feodosia epic end, I hope I don’t need to tell you?


                      This is not about the fleet, this is a unique combination of the psychic characteristics of L.Z.Mekhlis, the bad luck of D.T. Kozlov, the skills of E. von Manstein and his staff, German air supremacy and the fighting qualities of the Georgian infantrymen. A rare cocktail that gave such an effect.

                      Much less, at the end of January I would have already celebrated the victory.


                      As if not earlier. And where then?
                      1. The comment was deleted.
            3. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 21 September 2020 17: 18 New
              +5
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              There is no need to tell tales, only the German cruiser "Goeben" paralyzed shipping on the Black Sea for almost three years, and the fleet could not do anything with it

              Uh-huh ... so paralyzed that the Black Sea Fleet brought down the entire Turkish coastal flank of the Caucasian Front, over and over again landing troops in the rear of the Turks and shelling their positions from naval guns.
              Moreover, the Black Sea Fleet used to support the army not even the EBR squadron, but the lonely non-armored carrier "Rostislav" - apparently, they were so afraid of "Goeben". smile
              If anyone paralyzed shipping, it was the EM and submarine of the Black Sea Fleet, who worked on the communications of the Turks.
            4. Momotomba
              Momotomba 21 September 2020 20: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Hitler's fleet did not win; the fleet's share in the victory over Hitler is hundredths of a percent of the army's contribution.

              The main task of the fleet at all times is to send its convoys and cut the enemy's supply routes. This is what our fleet was doing during the Great Patriotic War. Well, the landing forces, of course.
              And watch the movie FOLLOW YOUR COURSE. There it is interesting about GRAPHINKI AND GLASSES overland reasoning. wink
              1. Kot_Kuzya
                Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 21: 27 New
                -5
                Until May 1945, the Germans quietly supplied Army Group North in Courland and removed troops from there to defend Berlin. What kind of "accomplishment of tasks" can we talk about in relation to the USSR BF? Perhaps you can recall Marinesko with his attack on the "Gustlav", but these are isolated cases.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  21 September 2020 22: 16 New
                  +4
                  Perhaps you can recall Marinesko with his attack on the "Gustlav", but these are isolated cases.


                  Do you want to remember L-3, for example? And explain why the Germans drove their vehicles only in convoys? And "Ilmarinen" where did the Finns go? Go and drown yourself, without help?
                  By the way, if we take into account not only torpedo attacks, but also mine laying, then the RKKF submarines have filled more targets than the Italian fleet in Mediterranean.
                  They would have filled more if from the late 20s to 1939 the supporters of "the fleet is not needed" would not have arranged for the fleet with a continuous pogrom with mass executions.
                  1. Kot_Kuzya
                    Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 23: 22 New
                    -5
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    They would have filled more if from the late 20s to 1939 the supporters of "the fleet is not needed" would not have arranged for the fleet with a continuous pogrom with mass executions.

                    I don't know what about the USSR, but the cost of the Bismarck cost Germany 196 million marks, for comparison, a T-4 tank of the F2 modification with a long-barreled gun cost 115 thousand marks. Interestingly, Germany would benefit from 3400 T-4s with long-barreled cannons, or 2 battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz, one of which sank in the first campaign, and the second stayed at the bases throughout the war? I now think that 3400 T-4s would have brought Hitler much more benefit, especially since the total release of T-4 was 8 thousand, that is, the funds spent on useless battleships could have increased the release of T-4 by almost one and a half times ...
                    In the same way, the USSR, instead of building useless battleships and cruisers, would send funds to the production of tanks, artillery, aircraft, trucks, there would be much more benefit. In exactly the same way, RI, instead of trying to build battleships and cruisers, would send funds to the purchase of machines and equipment for the production of weapons and ammunition, otherwise in WWI the Russian troops fought with one rifle for two and five cartridges for a brother, there were not enough shells, and the Germans fired on Russian positions with impunity, without fear of counter-battery fire.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      22 September 2020 00: 21 New
                      +3
                      I don't know what about the USSR


                      But write about the USSR! Stop already!

                      But the cost of the "Bismarck" cost Germany 196 million marks, for comparison, the T-4 tank of the F2 modification with a long-barreled gun cost 115 thousand marks. Interestingly, 3400 T-4s with long-barreled guns, or 2 battleships "Bismarck"


                      Such things should have been thought about in 1933-1935. If you first build ships and then get involved in a continental war, then who is their doctor there?

                      and "Tirpitz" ... spent the whole war at the bases?


                      Again, ignorance of the materiel in a wildly unclouded form.

                      I think that 3400 T-4 would have brought Hitler much more benefit,


                      Yes, then two hundred Ta-400 bombers would have been built, and the nuclear bomb would have been finished. And no tanks are needed. They would arrange a nuclear bombing of the USSR and the USA and that's it.

                      In the same way, the USSR, instead of building useless battleships and cruisers, would send funds to the production of tanks, artillery, aircraft, trucks, there would be much more benefit.


                      And a lot of the USSR built battleships, may I ask you?

                      By the way, the question is - I meet a bunch of zombies in the internet, with theses like yours, carbon copy, the same words.
                      Where are you getting all this?
                      What kind of information source is this?
                      1. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 22 September 2020 00: 45 New
                        -5
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Such things should have been thought about in 1933-1935. If you first build ships and then get involved in a continental war, then who is their doctor there?

                        In fact, Hitler did not prepare for a naval war; in September 1939, the Kriegsmarine had only 56 submarines. First, he hoped that England and France would throw the Poles, as they had thrown the Czechs before, and would not declare war on Germany; the declaration of war on England and France was a complete surprise to him. Secondly, he hoped that after the defeat of France, England would have no choice but to conclude peace, since England would have no allies on the continent. But as you know, England did not conclude peace after the defeat of France, and Hitler began to rapidly build submarines to force England to peace, in just less than five years, about 1100 submarines were built, that is, more than 220 submarines were built per year. Against this background, the presence of 56 submarines on September 1, 1939 looks simply ridiculous and serves as proof that Hitler, after the defeat of Poland, if France and England had not declared war on him, would have gone further east, attacking the USSR in the summer of 1940.But France declared war on Germany, and thus the attack on the USSR happened a year later. As for the construction of the Bismarck-class battleships, it is known that Hitler suffered from gigantomania, he ordered the building of the 800-mm Dora, the 180-ton Mouse, which were absolutely useless in battle. That is, these battleships were a kind of toy for Hitler.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Again, ignorance of the materiel in a wildly unclouded form.

                        "Tirpitz" in at least one sea battle? Have you sunk at least one ship? Throughout the war he stood at the bases until the British and Americans drowned him with aviation.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        And a lot of the USSR built battleships, may I ask you?

                        By the way, the question is - I meet a bunch of zombies in the internet, with theses like yours, carbon copy, the same words.
                        Where are you getting all this?
                        What kind of information source is this?

                        Before the war, the USSR laid down several battleships and cruisers in the shipyards, they did not have time to finish building them, and with the beginning of the war they were dismantled for metal. But people's money was spent anyway, and a lot was spent.
                        I read many authors, from Rezun to Starikov, so I know the opinions of both outspoken liberals and traitors, and the opinions of patriots, and on the basis of what I have read, I analyze the information and draw conclusions, and not like the majority who read either liberal authors alone or only patriotic ones. ...
                      2. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 22 September 2020 17: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        Throughout the war he stood at the bases until the British and Americans drowned him with aviation.

                        Well ... the Americans have already noted in the drowning of "Tirpitz". That way soon the Scharnhorst and Bismarck will be behind them. laughing
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        Before the war, the USSR laid down several battleships and cruisers in the shipyards, they did not have time to finish building them, and with the beginning of the war they were dismantled for metal.

                        It would be interesting to see how the USSR, with the beginning of the war, dismantled the battleship under construction in Nikolaev. smile
                        All LK pr. 23 were dismantled after the war due to the obsolescence of the project and the impossibility of completion. Although the theoretical possibility of completing at least one was.
                        And the surviving cruisers (including those that managed to be taken away from Nikolaev) were completed according to the corrected 68K project.
                      3. ban
                        ban 22 September 2020 19: 18 New
                        -1
                        I read many authors, from Rezun to Starikov

                        Great historians !!!
                  2. ban
                    ban 22 September 2020 19: 15 New
                    -1
                    The USSR, instead of building useless battleships and cruisers, would send funds to the production of tanks, artillery, aircraft, trucks, there would be much more benefit.

                    Before the war it was 20, TWENTY !!! mechanized corps for 1100 tanks and? Would a couple more buildings be added? Army generals would have pissed them off in the same way!
                    And it turned out that SIX tank armies with 600-800 tanks each were enough to win.
                    More questions?
                    An interesting fact - the shaves with mattress pads before the war considered how much it cost to build and maintain battleships and heavy bombers. It turned out that during the operational cycle 40-45 heavy bombers = one battleship. In the 30s we built 800 TB-3s (= 15 LC). Did it help a lot?
                    1. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 23 September 2020 02: 12 New
                      -2
                      You're just stubborn. What would have helped the Soviet fighters near Moscow - 2 battleships out of nowhere, or 4000 tanks?
                    2. ban
                      ban 23 September 2020 06: 43 New
                      -1
                      And what do you repeat other people's words, addressed, by the way, to you? Do you have any thoughts of your own?
                      Victim of TV propaganda ... laughing
                    3. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 23 September 2020 07: 00 New
                      -1
                      You would have looked less than Gordon, Shuster, Butkevich and other Mazur. I suppose they are also subscribed to Navalny and To Be Or?
                    4. ban
                      ban 23 September 2020 07: 19 New
                      -1
                      The roof has completely moved down.
                      Orderlies, ay !!!
                    5. ban
                      ban 23 September 2020 07: 21 New
                      -1
                      Or do they not give sour cream?
                    6. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 23 September 2020 07: 30 New
                      -2
                      It is better to eat sour cream than that odorous brown substance that is served to you in bulk and sorosity wassat
                    7. ban
                      ban 23 September 2020 09: 00 New
                      -1
                      This post illustrates your mental state well.
                    8. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 23 September 2020 09: 29 New
                      -1
                      Have you watched the issues of Navalny, Gordon and others like them today?
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 September 2020 18: 24 New
      0
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      And "Ilmarinen" where did the Finns go? Go and drown yourself, without help?

      Giggles ... both sides claim Ilmarinen. And from our side there are as many as six versions - who put that very mine.
  4. Momotomba
    Momotomba 21 September 2020 22: 35 New
    +1
    BF was indeed locked up with mines and nets. There is no point in arguing here, but what would happen if the ships from Tallinn had not crossed over to Leningrad? And he led convoys of the Northern Fleet. And what would the Red Army be like without these canvases?
    And let's not forget that the Germans were not planning any major naval battles. The destruction of the Soviet Navy was entrusted to the aviation and the Wehrmacht. Good or bad, but the Germans could not (or did not want to) put up an equal rival to our fleet.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 September 2020 17: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Momotomba
      There is no point in arguing, but what would have happened if the ships from Tallinn had not crossed over to Leningrad?

      By the time of the Tallinn transition, the core of the KBF was already in Kronstadt and Leningrad. In Tallinn there were only OLS with one "Kirov" and old EMs.
      1. Momotomba
        Momotomba 22 September 2020 19: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        By the time of the Tallinn transition, the core of the KBF was already in Kronstadt and Leningrad.

        The only main base of the fleet was Tallinn.

        Read at least the Wikipedia article titled THE TALLINN TRANSITION OF 1941. Everything is already written there.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 23 September 2020 09: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Momotomba
          The only main base of the fleet was Tallinn.

          Yes, the fleet could call the main base even Libau - the sign does not mean anything. smile
          "Marat" - since the beginning of the war in Kronstadt. "Oktyabrina" - since July 2, 1941 in the same place. "Maxim Gorky" - in the same place.

          By August 1941, the KR "Kirov", LD "Leningrad" and "Minsk", EM "Proud", "Ferocious", "Fast", "Glorious", "Sharp-witted", "Severe", old EM "remained in Tallinn. Artyom "," Volodarskiy "," Kalinin "," Yakov Sverdlov ". Long-range large-caliber guns, critical for the defense of Leningrad - only on the Kirov. The rest of the ships carried 130-mm and 102-mm, of which there were already a lot in Leningrad (unfinished + production of "Bolshevik").
          Quote: Momotomba
          Read at least the Wikipedia article titled THE TALLINN TRANSITION OF 1941. Everything is already written there.

          Why do I need Vika if there are Platonov? wink
        2. Momotomba
          Momotomba 23 September 2020 12: 40 New
          0
          If we consider the ships indicated by you in the ocean, then I agree with you.
          And the main base is where the commander sits. Where was Tributs in preparation for the transition?
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 23 September 2020 19: 25 New
          0
          Quote: Momotomba
          And the main base is where the commander sits.

          Pfff ... well, Oktyabrsky was in Sevastopol. But it is unlikely from this that Sevastopol, in which ships were sunk in the daytime right at the berths, could be considered the main base of the fleet.
        4. Momotomba
          Momotomba 23 September 2020 22: 04 New
          0
          Excuse me, but in Leningrad the ships at the wall did not sink during the blockade? And you can also remember the passage of boats from Leningrad to Kranstadt under the fire of the coastal batteries of the Germans in 41-42.
          I agree with you that the 41 OCEAN fleet was stationed in Leningrad, but the main forces were in Tallinn.
  • Niel-le-Calais
    Niel-le-Calais 21 September 2020 07: 34 New
    -5
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I wonder how long this nonsense will be copied and pasted in discussions? (a rhetorical question

    Hurray patriots do not like RYA.VV (KV) PMV.RT / RT and even the Great Patriotic War campaign .. And maybe they still remember RA. LV.
  • Aag
    Aag 21 September 2020 08: 53 New
    12
    Moremans were "excited", apparently,
    because they don't give a damn about their life's work and the country as a whole ...
    "As long as there is nuclear weapons ..." If we limit ourselves to nuclear weapons, then we will be like a monkey with a grenade on a barrel of gunpowder. The thing is certainly necessary, and has already helped. But this is not a panacea. Especially, if the triad is cut off at the NSNF, we will leave them without proper support and cover (about this, including the author writes).
    The author gave a very realistic option for a non-nuclear start of the conflict, therefore, NK also needs naval aviation.
    And rightly, the author says that you need to start with clearly formulated tasks. Goal-setting, -as Odysseus writes. And with them we are all sad. Ablo, loot ... Not to the treasury, -talk about your pocket. From the last: type in a search engine "Siver SV" ... Deputy Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces! Okay bribes. I had a chance to communicate with former colleagues who graduated from the academy and related to it. Let's just say that their goal-setting has been greatly adjusted by the existing reality, by such figures.

    Let the specialists explain the history of the Fleet and its merits ...
  • dauria
    dauria 21 September 2020 12: 24 New
    0
    As history shows, the Russian fleet never decided anything,


    I agree. Moreover, Hitler was not prevented by the lack of a fleet to capture Europe and Africa. Where was the magnificent fleet of England and France? If you hadn't got into a land grinder from the USSR, you would have ruled from the Suez Canal to Greenland. And England would raise its paws and prudently conclude a "decent peace". What good would it be for her to sit on a bump, not daring to poke her head on the mainland?
    The fleet may be needed, but first you need to buy a refrigerator, and only then a painting on the wall.
    1. ban
      ban 21 September 2020 13: 55 New
      0
      Moreover, Hitler was not prevented by the lack of a fleet to capture Europe and Africa.

      Well well. Operation Weserubung - have you heard?
      And in Africa (North) what ended, in the course?
      1. dauria
        dauria 21 September 2020 14: 40 New
        0
        And in Africa (North) what ended, in the course?

        In the course that Stalingrad was. And against the background of his fight in the pub, a couple of Germans and five Italians El Alamein. And what if a horde of divisions, instead of the USSR, were sent through Spain to Gibraltar (would Spain's neutrality last long?), And, together with Turkey, divide the Arabian nomads up to the Red Sea? The Mediterranean puddle would now be called "Lake Berlin". And Erdogan would not have to bother now with Syria, Israel and other Greece.
        1. ban
          ban 21 September 2020 15: 16 New
          -2
          In Tunisia, a German-Italian group surrendered, comparable to the Stalingrad one. Something like this. Learn history
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 15: 56 New
            -2
            Don't write nonsense. 330 thousand Germans and Italians surrendered in Tunisia? For your information, there were only two German divisions in the "Africa" ​​corps, which is 32 thousand people in the state. Or are you saying that there were also 300 thousand Italians in Tunisia?
            1. ban
              ban 21 September 2020 16: 55 New
              -1
              Tank army "Africa" ​​by May 43, if that. More than 230 thousand prisoners.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 21 September 2020 18: 09 New
              +3
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Don't write nonsense. 330 thousand Germans and Italians surrendered in Tunisia? For your information, there were only two German divisions in the "Africa" ​​corps, which is 32 thousand people in the state. Or are you saying that there were also 300 thousand Italians in Tunisia?

              That is, there were no corps and army units in DAK and Panserarmy Africa?
              And Nering's corps was not in Tunisia either?
              And nobody was transferred from Sicily to Tunisia (about 240 people)? wink
            3. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 21 September 2020 21: 10 New
              +4
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              For your information, there were only two German divisions in the "Africa" ​​corps, which is 32 thousand people in the state.

              Two divisions initially only. 5 light and 15 tank. Then another 90 light infantry division (from 155, 201 and 361 motorized regiments) and 334 infantry were formed on the spot. And in 1942 they were joined by the 10th Panzer.
              Plus, tankers and paratroopers from the Hermann Goering division showed up there (there were some).
              And also separate signal battalions, two supply battalions, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, two spare ...
              So about 150 thousand l / s and accumulated. Plus, the Italians.
        2. ban
          ban 21 September 2020 15: 20 New
          -1
          together with Turkey, divide the Arabian nomads up to the Red Sea

          And supply them with camels?
          I was always pleased with the funny pictures of the Soviet agitprop about the plans to conquer the world of German, Italian and Japanese "fascists" wassat
      2. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 15: 54 New
        -4
        There were only two German divisions in Africa, so the African campaign ended in failure. All the forces of the Wehrmacht and the SS were thrown into the Eastern Front, where fierce battles were fought near Rzhev and Stalingrad. But even with these two divisions, Rommel nearly made it to Suez. If Hitler had not attacked the USSR, and sent 50 divisions to Africa, and not two, then he would have reached India without hindrance.
        1. ban
          ban 21 September 2020 16: 58 New
          +1
          Well, how much can you already! Before writing nonsense, at least take a look at Google) ()
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 14: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: dauria
      Moreover, Hitler was not prevented by the lack of a fleet to capture Europe and Africa.

      The Italian navy provided for this displeasing task.
      Quote: dauria
      Where was the magnificent fleet of England and France?

      French - lay at the bottom or stood disarmed according to the Vichy obligations. The British opposed, but did not have enough funds in the theater to interrupt the supply of troops, etc. from Italy.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 16: 01 New
        -4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        French - lay at the bottom or stood disarmed by Vichy commitments

        So the French navy helped the French against the German blitzkrieg? The answer was that it didn't help. So the point was then for the French to spend money on the fleet, if it is useless in war? Maybe the French should have spent money on the army, and not on a useless fleet? After all, France is not an island like Britain, the border with Germany goes by land.
        1. K298rtm
          K298rtm 21 September 2020 22: 43 New
          +4
          So after all, the army did not help - they surrendered to Hitler. Why spend money on the army too? Or maybe more tanks and airplanes were built with the funds that went to the fleet? Do you have any calculations on this issue?
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 21 September 2020 23: 34 New
            -4
            The French surrendered because the British threw them. On May 10, the Germans launched an offensive, and already on May 21, the British began to evacuate their troops, although if the British had attacked the flank of the breakthrough Germans from the north, they could have been completely stopped, and it is likely that the "miracle on the Marne" of 1914 would be repeated and in 1940 France one on one could not resist Germany, in 1914 Britain and Russia were allies of France, and then the Germans almost captured France.
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 September 2020 00: 06 New
              +1
              This is what I understand the level of stubbornness! Is it dashing to look at the map of the German offensive?
              1. Kot_Kuzya
                Kot_Kuzya 22 September 2020 00: 20 New
                -4
                Dunkirk is actually in the north of France. Do not confuse you with Marcel or Bordeaux, please.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  22 September 2020 15: 24 New
                  +1
                  And what follows from this? What counterattack and how were they supposed to deliver? And where?
                  1. Kot_Kuzya
                    Kot_Kuzya 22 September 2020 16: 53 New
                    -3
                    From Dunkirk to the south and cut off the German advancing part. Do you have no imagination at all?
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      22 September 2020 19: 47 New
                      -1
                      The upcoming part? !!!! The normal "part"! laughing
                      Sorry, but you don't deserve to be seriously communicated by normal people.
                    2. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 23 September 2020 02: 09 New
                      -1
                      What can we expect from Moreman. Continue to dream about aircraft carriers frozen into the ice of the Baltic, Novaya Zemlya, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and locked in the Black Sea. It is impossible to communicate seriously with people like you.
                    3. timokhin-aa
                      23 September 2020 10: 58 New
                      0
                      You can't even read what the "part" was. Man is an anecdote and I don't need to attribute any nonsense like
                      about aircraft carriers frozen into the ice of the Baltic, Novaya Zemlya, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and locked in the Black Sea.


                      this is your nonsense, not mine.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 23 September 2020 09: 56 New
          -1
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          although if the British had struck from the north to the flank of the breakthrough Germans, then they could well have been stopped

          They struck and stopped - a counterstrike at Arras and a stop order from von Rundstedt. smile
          Arras is all the mechanical parts that the Britons had.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 23 September 2020 10: 24 New
            -1
            Do you continue to deny Gort's order to halt the advance and begin the evacuation, which was supported by the head of the Cabinet Churchill and King George 4?
            1. timokhin-aa
              23 September 2020 10: 58 New
              -1
              They had no choice given the balance of power
              1. Kot_Kuzya
                Kot_Kuzya 23 September 2020 16: 43 New
                -1
                Well, of course! The gentlemen had no choice.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 September 2020 07: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      So the French navy helped the French against the German blitzkrieg? The answer was that it didn't help.

      You have already been answered completely correctly - the army did not help the French either, it merged in a month.
  • Momotomba
    Momotomba 21 September 2020 22: 38 New
    +2
    Read about F.F. Ushakov. Under his command, the fleet decided a lot ...
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 21 September 2020 15: 24 New
    +2
    It would be better if you licked sour cream more sense and less harm ...
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 September 2020 17: 04 New
    +4
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Again these Moremans got excited from the early morning. As long as there are nuclear weapons, neither Poland, nor the United States, nor Britain, nor Japan will fight with Russia, they know very well that in the event of a war they will fire nuclear strikes on their own in full.

    Sure? Pomnitz, the good British TV series "Yes, Mr. Prime Minister" showed all the perniciousness of hope only for nuclear weapons - for its use requires a threshold clearly written in the law, a line, in general, something absolutely definable and inevitably leading to the use of nuclear weapons ... Type: when the enemy reaches the XYZ line: all strategic forces - launch.
    Otherwise, the politicians, in the hope of "but maybe it will," will postpone the decision to apply it until then. until the enemy is already at the capital ..
    1. Essex62
      Essex62 21 September 2020 21: 13 New
      0
      This is precisely the problem. To make a decision to bury the planet ... Probably it is possible only in a state of affect. It was when the enemy had already erased the KR half of the country, wiped out the entire personnel of the army and there was no chance. Or immediately, with their first launches, from a conventional warhead, slap a vigorous response in the direction of the explored habitats of the puppeteers. I wonder what option is in the head of the Supreme? He had already decided something, making a famous statement.
  • Sentinel-vs
    Sentinel-vs 21 September 2020 08: 06 New
    +2
    It's nice to read the analysis with a neutral emotional coloring, instead of the partisan populism of Skomorokhov. The article is a definite plus!
  • Doctor
    Doctor 21 September 2020 08: 36 New
    +3
    Eh sailors, sailors ...
    Not from under water we need to be afraid of a blow, but from near Kharkov.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 09: 33 New
      0
      People who wound the Ukrainian army on tracks in 2014 could fit in one frame of the photo if they lined up together without military equipment. There will be no blow from near Kharkov, never.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 21 September 2020 10: 01 New
        +1
        People who wound the Ukrainian army on tracks in 2014 could fit in one frame of the photo if they lined up together without military equipment. There will be no blow from near Kharkov, never.

        They would not have wound anyone without the support of Russia. But that is not the question.

        While we are discussing the hypothetical possibility of capturing Kamchatka that no one needs, the formation of a 760 million state, hostile to Russia, continues 40 km from Moscow.

        In 10 years it will be ready.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 10: 27 New
          +3
          Quote: Arzt
          While we are discussing the hypothetical possibility of capturing Kamchatka that no one needs, the formation of a 760 million state, hostile to Russia, continues 40 km from Moscow.

          So what?
          Quote: Arzt
          In 10 years it will be ready.

          Rather, after 10 years, its military forces will finally go over to the category of armed formations of the "barmaley" type
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 21 September 2020 10: 38 New
            -1
            So what?

            And the fact that we have a bunch of people and institutions that seem to be engaged in strategic planning, and at the end - zilch.
            Not able to prioritize threats.

            Bombed Syria, now rebuild, build this stupid base in Tartus, continuing to pump up a lot of money.
            Meaning?

            In 5-6 years, the Americans will shoot Erdogan, then Assad and the new governments of these countries will ask us to get out, closing the straits.

            And again you will have to make a "strong protest". Or start the third world war.
            And it looks like against the whole world.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 10: 53 New
              +5
              Quote: Arzt
              And the fact that we have a bunch of people and institutions that seem to be engaged in strategic planning, and at the end - zilch.

              So the president is like that
              Quote: Arzt
              Bombed Syria, now rebuild, build this stupid base in Tartus, continuing to pump up a lot of money.
              Meaning?

              We really need the base in Tartus to ensure the presence of the fleet there. If we are to restore Syria, it will be for Assad's money, although, of course, anything is possible ...
              Quote: Arzt
              Not able to prioritize threats.

              Russia should not have allowed the emergence of a state banned in the Russian Federation "isis". This is definitely not in our interests
              Quote: Arzt
              In 5-6 years, the Americans will shoot Erdogan, then Assad and the new governments of these countries will ask us to get out, closing the straits.

              We have had Tartus since 1971 - and they did not squeeze out even in the wild 90s. The straits have never been closed to us by EMNIP since tsarist times (they were closed for the period of Turkey's war). Where does this pessimism come from?
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 21 September 2020 11: 14 New
                0
                We really need the base in Tartus to ensure the presence of the fleet there.

                Yes, she is not needed there even once, it will be suppressed in half a day with a serious batch.
                Moreover, the supply of water and air is controlled by the Turks.

                For the presence, as I understand it - for show-off.
                As with Venezuela, only worse, in order to keep something there you need a full-fledged oceanic fleet.
                In short, pontovers.

                I recall a joke:
                Vasil Ivanovich, NicaraguA is worried about something.
                And you are his Petka, less scratching ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 11: 28 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Arzt
                  For the presence, as I understand it - for show-off.

                  If for you "presence" = "show-off" then, alas, I can hardly explain the opposite in the format of a comment. In short, please read the "show-off" that "beat" two hundred Russian paratroopers, making a march on Pristina, and the significance of these "show-offs" in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation. Please note that 206 people with 15 armored personnel carriers are not a serious force in any way
                  Quote: Arzt
                  with a serious mix.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 21 September 2020 11: 59 New
                    -1
                    In short, please read the "show-off" that "beat" two hundred Russian paratroopers, making a march on Pristina, and the significance of these "show-off" in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation.

                    A good example of show-off.

                    Who now lives in Pristina, and what impact did this raid have on the foreign policy of the Russian Federation?

                    This is called the lack of strategic thinking.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 12: 54 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Arzt
                      A good example of show-off.

                      Yes? Well ... okay :)))) On this, I think, the discussion can be ended. I believe that those who read our correspondence are already clear :)))
                      1. Doctor
                        Doctor 21 September 2020 13: 30 New
                        +2
                        Yes? Well ... okay :)))) On this, I think, the discussion can be ended. I believe that those who read our correspondence are already clear :)))

                        I think not to everyone.

                        On June 12, 1999, a battalion of the Russian Airborne Forces, after a 600 km march, took control of the Slatina airfield in Pristina and held it for several days, not allowing NATO to use it.

                        The Russian Federation also could not use it, because the "brothers" Bulgarians and Hungarians closed the airspace for our aircraft.

                        After negotiations, the airfield was opened. The Russian Federation has deployed its contingent in the former Yugoslavia, but withdrew it in 2003, since his further stay became meaningless, which of course does not diminish the heroism of our soldiers.

                        Well, the United States and its allies have solved all their strategic tasks in Yugoslavia.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 14: 03 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Arzt
                        I think not to everyone.

                        And if not for everyone, then it should be noted that the march to Pristina, together with Primakov's "U-turn", marked the exit of the Russian Federation from the wake of the US policy, and this gave the effect of an exploding bomb. Unfortunately, we did not use the obtained effect to the proper extent (chernomyrdin ...) but there were such opportunities. Ivashov, for all its peculiarities, did not describe all this so badly http://jarki.ru/wpress/2009/03/31/581/
                      3. Doctor
                        Doctor 21 September 2020 14: 55 New
                        +1
                        And if not for everyone, then it should be noted that the march to Pristina, together with Primakov's "U-turn", marked the exit of the Russian Federation from the wake of the US policy, and this gave the effect of an exploding bomb.


                        I don't know where you saw the bomb:

                        After the lecture, there was silence in the hall. The pause was interrupted by a phrase uttered with the well-known Yeltsin intonation: “Well, finally, I clicked on the nose ...” (here the President named some leaders of NATO countries).

                        In general, the reading is interesting, thanks, as it was not interested in the details until now.

                        They give an order, then they cancel it, some send a battalion, others call it off, agree on one thing, do another and all intrigue against each other, trying to curry favor with Eltsin.

                        You can say classic, swan, cancer and pike. wink
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 15: 44 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Arzt
                        I don't know where you saw the bomb:

                        The bomb was that the unexpected appearance of our guys in Pristina could be perfectly used by us in order to demand a much better alignment for Yugoslavia and for us. That is, if it weren't for our small forces, NATO could simply give up on us and take everything under their control, but no, they could not.
                        It is simply not necessary to measure the usefulness of the Armed Forces exclusively by the yardstick of a global war - in politics, the presence, the flag is often important, and it will really help to squeeze something out in your favor.
                        Quote: Arzt
                        They give an order, then they cancel it, some send a battalion, others call it off, agree on one thing, do another and all intrigue against each other, trying to curry favor with Eltsin.

                        Quite right, the opportunity arose almost spontaneously (thanks to responsible people on the ground) and was missed
                  2. K298rtm
                    K298rtm 21 September 2020 22: 52 New
                    +1
                    In those days, our "epic" planes (which should "roll" the airborne forces) flew to China (like shuttles) - there were no other options to maintain the technical readiness of the aircraft and the skills of the pilots.
        2. Doctor
          Doctor 21 September 2020 12: 07 New
          -4
          Russia should not have allowed the emergence of a state banned in the Russian Federation "isis". This is definitely not in our interests

          The Islamic State is one of the main horror stories of the Chekists of the 70s. Read, for example, the memoirs of the deputy head of the PSU Y. Drozdov.
          Our president, as their student, was also impressed, this is one of the main reasons for the Syrian campaign.

          Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Maghreb, Malaysia, etc. are also Islamic states, not to mention some republics of the Russian Federation.
          So what? We coexist somehow.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 12: 56 New
            +2
            Quote: Arzt
            Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Maghreb, Malaysia, etc. are also Islamic states, not to mention some republics of the Russian Federation.
            So what?

            Having fallen out, and you are still writing about the strategy ... That is, you do not even realize the difference between ISIS (prohibited in the Russian Federation) and the Muslim countries you listed? M-dya ...
        3. Igor Semenov
          Igor Semenov 22 September 2020 17: 52 New
          +1
          If we are going to restore Syria, it will be for Assad's money
          Andrei Nikolaevich, my dear, have mercy - where does Assad get the money? Unless the Russian Federation will take a bad loan
    2. Doctor
      Doctor 21 September 2020 10: 51 New
      -2
      Rather, after 10 years, its military forces will finally go over to the category of armed formations of the "barmaley" type

      Why would you? They are being actively transferred to NATO standards. It will be necessary and the fleet will be repaired in a couple of years, up to and including the aircraft carrier.

      In Philadelphia alone, there are 24 ships in the sump, allegedly decommissioned.
      Including 3 Ticonderogs and AB.





      Apart from the "little things" like landing and frigates.





      samsebeskazal.livejournal.com

      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 11: 10 New
        +5
        Quote: Arzt
        Why would you? They are being actively transferred to NATO standards.

        They also translated Georgia.
        Yuri, let's look impartially. Ukraine received one of the best military districts during the collapse of the USSR. Today in Ukraine there is practically no combat-ready aviation, but sometimes something can take off. In 10 years this will not happen either. The bulk of heavy armored vehicles in 10 years will also be requested for scrap, but there will not be a new one (the budget will not master, and production capacity will not last forever). Ukraine today is not capable of producing many heavy weapons, modern ammunition, etc.
        Quote: Arzt
        It will be necessary and the fleet will be repaired in a couple of years, up to and including the aircraft carrier.

        Theoretically, Ukrainians can be pumped up with imported military equipment. In practice, no one will do this, because no one needs Ukraine. They were not given equipment even in the Donbass, so, some stubs. What makes you think that the situation will change?
        The same fleet ... there will be no fleet. The decommissioned ships need to be repaired for a couple of years in order to put them back into operation, but where can we find sailors on them in Ukraine? There won't be enough on the "saiga-dachny", and even the one in the sea only on holidays.
        In general, if NATO wants to recreate the Ukrainian Navy, it must first repair the ships for a couple of years, then teach the crews to serve on them for 3-4 years, then throw out the ships, as they have completely exhausted their resources and give new ones :)))) Why ?
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 21 September 2020 18: 30 New
        +2
        Quote: Arzt
        Why would you? They are being actively transferred to NATO standards. It will be necessary and the fleet will be repaired in a couple of years, up to and including the aircraft carrier.

        Mmmm ... just to clarify - are we still talking about a country that in the "fat years" of Pasechnik and Profesor did not master the construction of a corvette just because there was no money for the weapons and electronic equipment included in the project? wink
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 21 September 2020 18: 40 New
          -1
          Mmmm ... just to clarify - we are still talking about a country that, in the "fat years" of Pasechnik and Profesor, did not master the construction of a corvette just because there was no money for the weapons and electronic equipment included in the project? wink

          We are talking about an ally of the United States, which, if necessary, will roll out not only fifty destroyers with amphibious assault ships, but also 6-7 hundred aircraft from fighters to bombers.

          And let this weapon be, like ours, of the late 80s, but all reconnaissance from satellites to UAVs is the most advanced in the world.

          We will not deal with Ukraine, but with the entire West, understand this simple thing.
          They are simply not in a hurry, they are waiting for our president to grow old.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 September 2020 17: 57 New
            0
            Quote: Arzt
            We are talking about an ally of the United States, which, if necessary, will roll out not only fifty destroyers with amphibious assault ships, but also 6-7 hundred aircraft from fighters to bombers.

            And we will get another "Goeben" in Turkey - the same one that, after a year of stationing outside the Reich, barely left the 21-node "Empresses".
            Will the US bases be adjusted to them too? Fuel, ammunition, consumables, technical personnel - too? And money to maintain all this splendor?
  • timokhin-aa
    21 September 2020 10: 31 New
    -2
    They would not have wound anyone without the support of Russia.


    I'm not talking about the rebels.

    While we are discussing the hypothetical possibility of capturing Kamchatka that no one needs, in 760 km from Moscow the formation of a 40 million state hostile to Russia continues.
    In 10 years it will be ready.


    Well? Ukroarmiya trample tanks on Moscow? It's not a problem to make a nightmare of these. When the border guards introduced their quasi-blockade of Mariupol, the exodus of the population began from there, they became so bad there. And if EVERYTHING was blocked? Ukraine can be strangled without firing a single shot, if it squeezes.

    FROM THE SEA.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 21 September 2020 11: 07 New
      -4
      Well? Ukroarmiya trample tanks on Moscow? It's not a problem to make a nightmare of these. When the border guards introduced their quasi-blockade of Mariupol, the exodus of the population began from there, they became so bad there. And if EVERYTHING was blocked? Ukraine can be strangled without firing a single shot, if it squeezes.

      FROM THE SEA.

      To begin with, to the Crimea. Hiding behind international support for the "annexation".))

      And then you have to fight.
      Only not just with the Ukroarmiya, but with the whole West behind it.

      They have enough weapons for conservation, I wrote about the ships above, the same topic with aviation, they will catch up with conservation from the deserts as much as necessary.

      There would be meat.
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 September 2020 11: 17 New
        +1
        The West will not be able to transfer troops to Ukraine faster than we defeat it, this is technically impossible. They will begin to shift forces - they will receive a sharp aggravation with the hecatomb of Ukrainian corpses. And they know it.

        And you would know what is worth at least to supply an American ship from a non-American coast with electricity - an epic.
        There it will be necessary to rebuild all the bases so that at least one dead "Perry" can be handed over to them.
        1. New Year day
          New Year day 21 September 2020 11: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          The West will not be able to transfer troops to Ukraine faster than we defeat it

          I do not agree.
          In addition to foreign troops, there is also a local resource. And you shouldn't rely on the "brotherly people". A new nation has already been formed, which is alien to it. The most important thing is motivation, and it is
          1. timokhin-aa
            21 September 2020 12: 19 New
            0
            There is motivation, there are no cartridges. The bottom line is a bit predictable.
            ISIS also had motivation.
            On motivation, you can only go in a fight with melee weapons on an absolutely homogeneous terrain and nothing more.
            1. New Year day
              New Year day 21 September 2020 13: 30 New
              +3
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              no cartridges.

              This will not be a problem. It's better to drag chestnuts out of the fire with someone else's hands.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              ISIS also had motivation.

              And how many years they have been at war with them! And there is no end and edge. The USSR with its car could not destroy the Banderaites by military means
  • Sentinel-vs
    Sentinel-vs 21 September 2020 11: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    760 km from Moscow, the formation of a 40 million state hostile to Russia continues

    Literally immediately in the subject of fresh news: "The population of Ukraine during the years of independence has decreased from 52 to 32 million people, said the former Prime Minister Mykola Azarov."
    So you look, in another 10 years, not 40, but the crumbling state of 20 million will remain.
  • Nastia makarova
    Nastia makarova 21 September 2020 18: 13 New
    -5
    there are 25 million left and then not everyone is hostile
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 21 September 2020 23: 46 New
      -1
      there are 25 million left and then not everyone is hostile

      The owl will tear from this pulling it on the globe.
      1. Nastia makarova
        Nastia makarova 22 September 2020 07: 11 New
        -7
        poor owl
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 22 September 2020 10: 10 New
          0
          Why are you with her then?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 September 2020 18: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: Arzt
    While we are discussing the hypothetical possibility of capturing Kamchatka that no one needs, the formation of a 760 million state, hostile to Russia, continues 40 km from Moscow.

    Hos-spodya ... we have already 15 years as the border with NATO is 550 km from Moscow and 130 km from the second city of the Russian Federation. And this somehow does not bother anyone.
    But here is 760 km to Ukraine - this is horror, horror, horror.
  • WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 21 September 2020 22: 50 New
    0
    ... and how many of them there will be in 10 years (from the hypothetical 40 mil ... hypothetical already now) .. if 2/3 go to work .. (well, who is lucky in Europe and who is especially lucky in Russia ..) skoka- then it will die from medicine and GMOs .. well, and the waste of all Europe will be taken back to Batkovshchina and this will not improve the ecology .. so how many of them there will be .. the blood of the Sumerians who once flew from Venus and dug up the sea to warm up .. about zbroyu..that in 10 years will remain of the plundered legacy of the USSR if already now the aviation and the navy are at the last ... and the Kharkov tank MAX can shaman the battered equipment ... so no need ... they are not worth it..bite poison from under tishka - they can, but face to face .. (.. face to face eyes to eyes knives to knives ..) .. hardly ...
  • Avior
    Avior 21 September 2020 10: 56 New
    +4
    There will be other people from near Kharkov, from a completely different country.
    If nothing changes in the current situation, it is a matter of time before they gain a foothold there.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 11: 04 New
      +1
      Russia preempts the deployment of anyone other than the Poles near Kaliningrad. The specifics of the historical moment.
      1. Avior
        Avior 21 September 2020 11: 25 New
        +2
        Once they gain a foothold there, defense problems will multiply.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 September 2020 12: 20 New
          -1
          They may not be allowed to gain a foothold - a matter of political will.
          1. Avior
            Avior 21 September 2020 16: 46 New
            +3
            not only the will and the possibilities.
            but they are not.
            Yes, and there is no will - for this, decision-makers will have to give up too much.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 21 September 2020 12: 40 New
    +1
    People who wound the Ukrainian army on tracks in 2014
    Have they reeled up everything, or is there something left?
    Timokhin is an amazing mixture of an informed author and a turbopatriot. Two in one.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 13: 16 New
      +3
      So my comrades were reeling. Personally. Hence the understanding of the issue. They reeled up everyone they saw fit.

      Please don't be under any illusion, okay? The capabilities of the RF Armed Forces to destroy units and formations of the Armed Forces are limited exclusively by the political will of the RF leadership and nothing more. That is, your chances are stupid, none at all. Either surrender / defect in advance or then flee under fire scattering heaps of corpses along the way, as it was. According to the results of the drape with scattering of corpses, shoot the heroic action movie "Raid-2".

      And then, if you're lucky. I would like to remind you that the Ukrainian troops in all cases had a 5-6 times superiority in numbers, and in border battles, they also often had absolute superiority in armored vehicles. Absolute, that is, Ukrainian armor against foot soldiers. Battalion combat groups of the Armed Forces of Ukraine against airborne or motorized rifle companies without equipment in open areas. Remind the result? And we shouldn't think that it cost us some fantastic losses. Here you should, yes.

      If they take you seriously, then even this will not be done. The option will be strictly one - to die, not having time to understand where to shoot. Remember this, please.

      I do not think that the RF Armed Forces are somehow omnipotent, but modern war is, first of all, an organization, and highly organized societies can oppose us or even win. Japan, for example.
      Someone from NATO. In exceptional cases, if we substitute ourselves, a country like Poland can create problems for us in Kaliningrad. Turkey can be in Syria or Armenia.

      But not Ukraine.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 21 September 2020 13: 26 New
        0
        A fiery speech. Straight Genghis Khan.
        That is, you openly admit that the regular Russian army fought against the Ukrainian army in the Donbass without declaring war, and not some hero miners who dug up Berdanks in the mines?
        And here on the site the hamsters still deny it.
        So my comrades were reeling. Personally. Hence the understanding of the issue.
        Have they told you everything, dear man? Maybe they hid it?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 14: 23 New
          +2
          Quote: Undecim
          Have they told you everything, dear man? Maybe they hid it?

          Well, tell us what you have hidden. From trusted sources
          Quote: Undecim
          That is, you openly acknowledge that the regular Russian army fought against the Ukrainian army

          Some of their representatives on vacation, etc. so, officially speaking, without the knowledge of the command :))))) This was enough
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 21 September 2020 14: 34 New
            +3
            Some of their representatives on vacation, etc. so, officially speaking, without the knowledge of the command :))))) This was enough
            Andrey, with all due respect to you, here we are not talking about the Tsushima battle, therefore, your awareness of the issue does not rise above TV.
            Alexander writes about the participation of airborne and motorized rifle companies. Do you think that they go on vacation in the army, together with weapons, ammunition, logistical support, reinforcement equipment, hospitals and transport? And the anti-aircraft gunners along with the anti-aircraft guns? Tankers with tanks? And the command is not even aware of this movement?
            Andrey, write better about the ships.
            1. timokhin-aa
              21 September 2020 14: 45 New
              -1
              So we went on vacations and battalions, so it’s unclear? wink
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 21 September 2020 14: 49 New
                +4
                Yes, everything is clear. The battalion got together, wrote vacation applications, got vacation pay, loaded onto regular transport with standard weapons, refueled it for vacation pay, bought cartridges, grenades in a hunting store, medicines and bandages in a pharmacy, stewed meat in a grocery store and went on vacation. And the command, of course, did not know anything.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  21 September 2020 14: 54 New
                  0
                  Eh, if only all the standard weapons were there ...
                  1. Undecim
                    Undecim 21 September 2020 15: 00 New
                    +3
                    Eh, if only all the standard weapons were there ...
                    It wouldn't change anything at all. And what, they were not allowed to take on vacation, "Cornflower" or "Fagot"?
                  2. Engineer
                    Engineer 21 September 2020 15: 05 New
                    +7
                    And what, they were not allowed to take on vacation, "Cornflower" or "Fagot"?

                    So they found it in the mines. As well as the T-90A with ammunition.
                  3. Undecim
                    Undecim 21 September 2020 15: 11 New
                    +4
                    Yes, there are deep mines, if you look, what is not there.
                  4. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 21 September 2020 18: 40 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Engineer
                    As well as the T-90A with ammunition.

                    Actually, the T-72B3. For the opening of the presence of which, special thanks to journalists and commanders, EMNIP, LPR, who allowed filming inside the BO of a "twice captured" tank. The received frames coincided by 99% with the well-known "pictures from the exhibition" T-72B3 arr. year 2013.

                    Ukraine is generally a generous place. There, in the eastern regions, you can find the same "Nony-K" in more quantities than they were officially in the whole of Ukraine. smile
                  5. Engineer
                    Engineer 21 September 2020 18: 45 New
                    0
                    Three T-90s were indicated in Russian sources as being in service with the republics. For another three months it was struggling to find.
                    T-72 with pine, armored personnel carrier -82 and other things are separate songs. As well as the fighters for the "Russian world" with cries of Allah Akbar.
              2. timokhin-aa
                21 September 2020 18: 42 New
                +1
                Even a regular uniform was not allowed.
                But in essence - guided projectiles were not allowed, heavy flamethrower systems were not allowed, SPTRK - were not allowed, none, OTRK were not allowed, aviation was not allowed.
                The authorized density of weapons per kilometer of the front - they were not allowed to reduce the enemy's numerical superiority even to 1: 2 - were not allowed.

                I had to work with my bare hands, literally. And in the minority. We got out on the "class".
              3. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 21 September 2020 19: 02 New
                +3
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                But in essence, guided projectiles were not allowed, heavy flamethrower systems were not allowed, SPTRK was not allowed, none, OTRK was not allowed, aviation was not allowed.

                Wow, wow, take it easy. Aviation and OTRK are no longer North wind, Northern hurricane some. It would definitely be impossible to make a legend of their presence in those parts of "vacationers" and volunteers. This means that this is an open interference of the RF Armed Forces in the conflict.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 21 September 2020 13: 45 New
    +5
    Well, just don’t need these shap-off moods. Yes, in '14, our elite units of contract soldiers pounded the stupid, completely disorganized and untrained Ukrainian Armed Forces from conscripts, and at the same time semi-partisan volunteers, where there was no organization and discipline at all and they performed even worse than regular troops.
    But since then six years have passed, the ukrovermacht has pulled itself together, put together formations and units, conducts combat training, has any experience, and was staffed with contract soldiers. And although they will still be defeated, especially if we use aviation, with which the 404 is very bad, but do not think that it will be an easy walk.
    It is very dangerous to underestimate the enemy! In 1904 we also talked merrily about "macaques". And in the end, a mouthful of earth ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 14: 48 New
      +2
      In 2014, even a regular uniform could not be used, there was no talk about equipment and weapons, aviation did not participate + Ukraine's numerical superiority was always several times higher.

      Since then, something has changed in numbers, and this time the planes will be allowed to work, apparently.

      An easy walk will be strictly depending on the operators in the headquarters. But in any case, there is no terrible Ukrainian threat to Russia today.
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 21 September 2020 14: 52 New
        +3
        And what did they fight with?
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 21 September 2020 16: 15 New
          +4
          And what did they fight with?
          So Timokhin wrote to you - with his bare hands, stones, sticks. Moreover, naked.
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 14: 49 New
      +1
      in the 14th year, our selected parts from contract soldiers


      You are a bit off topic, apparently, who was really there.
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 21 September 2020 14: 52 New
        +2
        Are the Pskov paratroopers not selected enough?
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 September 2020 14: 54 New
          0
          Let's just say - not contractual enough.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 21 September 2020 19: 54 New
    +3
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The capabilities of the RF Armed Forces to destroy units and formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are limited exclusively by the political will of the RF leadership and nothing more.

    This is undeniable. The truth at Debaltseve was already more difficult. But with the use of all means of destruction, purely military problems will be resolved.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    But not Ukraine.

    But this is doubtful. And first of all, the General Staff does not agree with you, which after 2014 was forced to plan an expensive program to cover the Ukrainian border with the restoration and transfer of many parts and a significant part of fresh equipment. To close all the holes now you have to take equipment from storage bases. Moreover, offensive tasks are not set.
    Only the 150 half-tank division covers the corps in the Donbas.
    As for the problems from Ukraine to NATO, only NATO planes using JASSM-ER cover almost the entire European part of the Russian Federation up to St. Petersburg.
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 21 September 2020 09: 04 New
    -11 qualifying.
    "... The boss is gone ..."! Wai-wai is completely white and hot, it's time for the author to come to his senses, otherwise there will be no crap left for the whole Russia! But there are difficulties, and when in Russia there were none: "... we have a short shirt, then x ... long". And what did the author specifically suggest?
  • doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 21 September 2020 09: 11 New
    +2
    Reasonable. Otherwise, it turns out a picture similar to the construction of a fleet in the 30s - a lot of wishes, a lot of theorizing, a couple of successful projects brought to the series (actually a little more, of course), and an almost complete lack of adequate small forces.
  • Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar 21 September 2020 09: 23 New
    -4
    The Russian Empire, in contrast to the British and North American, is a land power, fact.
    The only state in the world that can completely abandon foreign trade due to its endowment with all the natural resources existing in the world in almost unlimited quantities, and this is also a fact. The only question is the price - it is cheaper to transport coal to the Anadyr CHPP from distant Korea than from the neighboring Beringovsky one, and to buy rare earth metals from China than to develop our own, and everything else is easier and cheaper to buy over the hill than to do it yourself, such as all consumer electronics.
    The most important trade routes of the Russian Federation, unlike all other states of the world, run by land and are minimally dependent on sea communications. Based on this, the task of the navy is to ensure the protection of the maritime economic zone and the bases of naval strike complexes that can strike from territorial waters and without even leaving the bases.
    The experience of the First World War and the Great Patriotic War unambiguously showed the inferiority of the costly armored fleet to the detriment of the needs of the ground army.
    Nobody denies the need for effective expeditionary operational, namely, operational, formations of the Navy, but everything is within reasonable limits, unless of course the Russian Federation has plans to wage colonial wars far from its borders, to defend its territory from the claims of almost all neighboring states.
    In this regard, the question arises, by what forces and means the Russian Federation will respond to their use of low-power nuclear weapons or a genetic attack collected in secret laboratories on the Russian Federation - will it hit with all the power of its nuclear missile potential or will it be lost and bring the question to the UN ???
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 09: 34 New
      +4
      The only state in the world that can completely abandon foreign trade due to its endowment with all the natural resources existing in the world in almost unlimited quantities, and this is also a fact.


      No, this is not a fact. The fact is the opposite.
      1. Essex62
        Essex62 21 September 2020 16: 36 New
        +1
        Based on what is this conclusion?
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 September 2020 23: 08 New
          0
          From knowledge of the subject.
          1. Essex62
            Essex62 22 September 2020 06: 55 New
            -1
            And why can't Russia do without foreign trade? Explain. Given the current realities. Without going into the political and economic model of society and the ability to bury the whole world in cash. Components for these funds have already been obtained from the enemy, nuclear weapons are a durable thing. What do you know that others do not know? Why can not Russia do without the rest of the world, in terms of providing the people with daily bread and consumer goods? Having all the industries that are needed for this. The USSR proved the opposite.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 September 2020 11: 30 New
              +3
              Quote: Essex62
              What do you know that others do not know?

              The rest know. You do not know.
              Quote: Essex62
              And why can't Russia do without foreign trade?

              There is not enough food - and there will be a shortage even more, since we buy seed potatoes and so on abroad. That is, it is not even bad to reduce the volume of food as such; with the refusal to import, we will reduce the yield.
              Own machine-tool building is practically destroyed. With the termination of foreign trade, not only will we not receive new machines, but the existing ones will also quickly fail - there is nowhere to buy spare parts.
              Transport collapse - a huge amount of traffic is carried out by imported vehicles. In the conditions of refusal from foreign trade, you will quickly say goodbye to them.
              Clothes - go to any store and estimate the share of domestically produced goods. Questions will disappear by themselves.
              Quote: Essex62
              Why can not Russia do without the rest of the world, in terms of providing the people with daily bread and consumer goods? Having all the industries that are only needed for this.

              You have slept for the last 30 years. And during this time, about ... well, in general, we profited a lot of "all industries." Moreover, I will tell you a secret that the Russian Federation did not initially possess "all industries", since much was supplied from the fraternal republics.
              Quote: Essex62
              The USSR proved the opposite.

              So where is the USSR and where is the Russian Federation. By the way, the USSR could not do without foreign trade - even he.
              1. Essex62
                Essex62 22 September 2020 12: 05 New
                0
                I know that. You did not understand my message. It's not for nothing that I wrote to you about the formation. If the margin is at the forefront, it will be as it is. If only the priorities in the USSR changed, the expenditures on armaments were reduced, at least by a few tens of percent, and they began to develop consumer goods, the empire would stand. Never when would the people not support the bourgeois coup, would not remain indifferent. The Kremlin elders did not understand that women needed tights and men needed jeans. Both cars. They transferred their fear from that war, when a little bit and everything, transferred for a while with other containment capabilities and riveted armor by the thousands.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  22 September 2020 13: 33 New
                  +1
                  Listen, I have some experience in foreign economic activity, but you? We cannot make a seamless pipe of large diameter, a drill is made of a non-sparking alloy, a bearing that is quite accurate in fits, the Elbrus processor is made in Taiwan, etc.

                  There are no countries in the world today that are not included in the world trade turnover, even the DPRK will die of hunger if its ports are closed.

                  Well, there are fruits, different generics, etc.

                  Natural rubber for tires. Opiates for pharmaceuticals. There are a lot of positions.

                  All exports also go by sea, except for gas.
                  1. Essex62
                    Essex62 22 September 2020 20: 17 New
                    -1
                    The bulging of my ego, otherwise I cannot perceive your endless messages about involvement in all projects of the Russian fleet. You have to be more modest, you are a Soviet officer. Soviet people did everything for the good of the people and society, and not for the sake of awards, and even more so for profit. This is the problem, why we do not have and will not have a fleet. The margin is at the heart of everything, sawing as much chips are flying.
                    Do not take me as an implacable opponent. I have nothing against the reasonable strengthening of the fleet, to protect communications, to protect our main trump card, in the turnover, SSBN. Only for this it is necessary to put the country on a different track. Tighten the belts, some around the neck, and plow, plow, plow. No margin and personal enrichment. We do not and will not have a machine for cutting the world paper. Russia has never been a predator, if it has attached anyone, it has benefited so much. Often at the expense of yourself. It makes no sense to look to the west, as they have everything curly on the sea. Reasonable sufficiency and inevitable circulation in the habitats of puppeteers is our motto. In an ordinary war, we cannot cope with the entire collective West, in modern conditions, and Washington, as a result, cannot be taken.
                    I understand your message about stupidity and lack of understanding of the strategic tasks in building the fleet of the current leadership. Only in another way, with these, will not be. Their tasks are different, and the thought "maybe they won't rush, they won't take away what they have acquired."
                    And Russia, not the DPRK. Able to provide herself with everything. The tasks must be set correctly and clearly monitor their implementation. Stalin did it. Especially in the late, when with a vigorous bomb propped up and the question was whether the country should live or die.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      22 September 2020 23: 29 New
                      +1
                      I'm not a Soviet officer, no. I just know from my own experience what I'm talking about in this case. The year of the blockade will be North Korea.

                      As well as everywhere else, the stern of North Korea itself.
                      In which it will be even worse than in North Korea.
                      1. Essex62
                        Essex62 23 September 2020 06: 50 New
                        -1
                        Nonsense. Everything depends on the habit of a comfortable life. Let's break it, it's time to get out of the habit. Once again, you need to work hard, produce your own product. And our number of managers exceeds those working with their hands at times. And hunger now is generally from the realm of fantasy. Reasonable approach and self-management.
                        I have been growing potatoes in my garden for 30 years now, from my own seeds, not imported
                        And my neighbors are also. The union has always lived behind the fence, but was not in complete isolation. They can't live without our resources, what a blockade? What is needed anyway, they will give in exchange for our gas, and what they don’t give we will do like the Chinese. The blockade, hehe, break off. The enemy is on the other side, but not stupid. They can't do without us. Trade is not an end in itself, as it is now. Not to extract margin, but for reasonable need. The bourgeois Russian Federation is vulnerable in this sense. About that and speech.
                        Are you not an officer? Surprised.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        23 September 2020 10: 57 New
                        +1
                        [/ Quote]

                        To begin with - https://vz.ru/society/2020/6/11/1044473.html
                        Then - https://vz.ru/world/2020/8/29/1057558.html

                        Pay attention to facts and figures.

                        [Quote] And our number of managers exceeds many times working with their hands.


                        Soon it will be dozens of times. There is robotization, even here. The metal processing workshop is being replaced by one five-axis milling cutter and one plasma cutting unit with two workers. This is already the case with us. I already have a store not far from my house without cashiers, and this is never the capital, and the area is bad, poor.
                        This is actually normal.

                        The union has always lived behind the fence, but was not in complete isolation. Can't they be without our resources, what a blockade?


                        They can. You just have to rebuild. If you press, they will cost. But how do we manage? The same tires without natural rubber will wear out twice as fast, many of us simply do not know how to make medicines, this alone will spur mortality like nothing. For the oil industry, there are many of their own reagents, in fact, the list of vulnerabilities is simply gigantic.
                        And yes, doing like the USSR means ending up like the USSR.
                      3. Essex62
                        Essex62 23 September 2020 14: 07 New
                        -1
                        The USSR has not ended and has not gone anywhere. We are its citizens are alive, and the people are the country. And the usurpers will certainly be punished. Never when will you convince me that our talented people will not be able to create everything that does not exist now, because it does not fit into the economy of the pipe on which the clan of fighters sits. In your opinion, only the West is capable of anything, but we are popuas? You are a strange patriot.
                        And robots are good. People, not in a hobbyist society, will have free time for creativity.
                        I suggest finishing the discussion. You will never convince me that social stratification is good and you just need to adjust the program. And at once the fleet and everything else. A society focused on making profit will never be fair and harmonious. For a person. The jungle will be there.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 10: 25 New
    +8
    Quote: Jacques Sekavar
    The only state in the world that can completely abandon foreign trade due to its endowment with all the natural resources existing in the world in almost unlimited quantities, and this is also a fact.

    This is not a fact, it is pure manilovism. Both in tsarist times and in our time, the rejection of foreign trade will be a disaster.
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 21 September 2020 16: 35 New
      +3
      Andrei. Alexander. with your permission, I will add my 5 tugriks to Olga Alexandrovna's explanation of her delusions.

      Trade is always based on sea traffic, because no matter how paradoxical it may sound for an ordinary person, despite the need to maintain port infrastructure, the tendency to corrosion and other costs, sea transport is the cheapest way of transporting people and goods, significantly bypassing this criterion its automobile and railroad counterparts. The thing is that sea transport is practically devoid of the costs necessary to maintain the routes and roads in working order, because nature has created an almost ideal transport artery for us. Yes, traffic regulation on it is much more difficult in view of the unevenness of the seabed and, let's say, the "instability" of the main coverage, prone to waves, but modern technology makes it possible to practically neutralize this impact. At the same time, there is absolutely no need for speed limiters and surveillance cameras (since in view of the greater water resistance than air, almost all ships are limited at speeds of 33 knots, i.e. a little more than 61 km per hour), and everything you need equipment is successfully placed on the deck, bridge and hull of the ship itself. All this ultimately has a positive effect on the cost of delivery. That is why, for example, liquefied gas, despite the high costs in its production, costs the end consumer much cheaper than the same gas, but delivered through a pipeline, which must be constantly repaired and serviced, and that means including in the final cost the costs of maintaining a whole army of hired workers , whose task is to ensure the functioning of the pipe over tens of thousands of kilometers. Moreover, this work cannot be entrusted to anyone, which means that they have to be included in the permanent staff. Sailors and captains, as a rule, do not come from the street either, however, they are required much less. And this again leads to a reduction in the cost of the final cost. In the end, the consumer does not care how his product was delivered, especially if there are practically no differences in it. The principle of the invisible hand of the market in its full glory: why pay more when you can pay less?

      This is precisely where the importance of sea communications lies and that is why a force is needed that can provide and protect them, i.e. fleet.
  • unknown
    unknown 21 September 2020 22: 39 New
    -2
    Oddly enough, but from the point of view of astrology, the animals of the annual signs are divided into water, that is, sea, and terrestrial, that is, land. There are only two marine animals: the Rat and the Monkey. The Rat is Great Britain and the Monkey is Japan. The rest are overland. Russia is the Horse, the USA and Germany are the Ox.
    Germany in WWI had a strong fleet, but lost in the confrontation with the sea mark.
    But in WWII, the US Land Bull defeated the Japan Sea Monkey. He fought at sea, rather on land, but won.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 21 September 2020 09: 24 New
    +1
    Dear Maxim Klimov, in general, is right, and in particular, he is wrong, he wants everything at once and a lot, it would not hurt to prioritize, especially since there will not be much and there will not be too much right away. So priorities 1. SNF, (strategic and multipurpose nuclear weapons). 2 ensuring the exit and return of the nuclear submarine. (underwater tracking systems, sea coastal aviation BE200 PLO, coastal strike aviation including long-range ones, minesweepers, ships flat (frigates corvettes). These two tasks are quite real, and until they are solved, one should not engage in other tasks. Peaceful patrolling tasks solve the same frigates, I'm not a coward and I'm not afraid of patriots, I think that talk about aircraft carrier groups is nonsense, they won't be, it's not real, you should sell Kuzya while it's worth something, even if sometime in 20-40 years, An aircraft carrier group will be needed, Kuzya will not survive, and his maintenance is $ 10 million a month and a blow to the first two main tasks of the fleet, for which there is no money.Whoever minus is a patriot who, for the sake of his vanity, is ruining the country's defense.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 09: 41 New
      +6
      These two tasks are quite real, and until they are solved, one should not engage in other tasks.


      Ensuring the combat stability of forces in the BMZ is ensured by the fact that the enemy forces in the DMZ are chained in battle. Didn't you know?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 21 September 2020 19: 51 New
        -4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Did you not know?

        no, dear Alexander, you are wrong and do not know anything, you do not seem to have cold options, do not foresee moves, do not take into account the situation, you are a lousy strategist and tactician ... we were taught on tactics, and this is the basics 1 to understand task 2 to evaluate the situation and its influence on the task ... and only then 3 make a decision. 4 to perform, and I will supplement the second and third and fourth paragraphs from myself, it is permissible to revise repeatedly ... well, where did you get this nonsense
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Ensuring the combat stability of forces in the BMZ is ensured by the fact that the enemy forces in the DMZ are chained in battle
        it is not at all necessary that a number of options are possible there, 1 defensive defense, 2 air domination 3 domination under water, 4 nuclear strike 5 chemical strike 6 destruction of communication lines 7 psychological attack 8 attraction of allies 9 causing a natural cataclysm 10 prayer 11 roundabout 12 throwing hats 13 distracting the enemy to another theater of military operations 14 terrorist attacks in Washington 15 hostage taking 16 poisoning the enemy general staff with a rotten carrot and a number of other options based on the specific situation ...... but you have only one option .. that is the difference a stupid person from a smart one that a smart one can give out in half a wink 14 options, each of which can work, but you have one option and that is unrealistic ...
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 September 2020 23: 07 New
          +3
          For fairy tales, songs, dances, and horse races on the circus arena, please contact other people.

          well, where did you get this nonsense


          I am quoting a man who is now the deputy commander of one of the fleets. What position did you have before dismissal?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 September 2020 10: 16 New
            0
            I can't be crushed with stars, I'm retired and for a long time the young man saw different admirals, both smart and not so ... and that's why, with such a respected by you
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            deputy commander of one of the fleets.
            in our fleet and everything is ruined? obviously he is not Lazarev, so maybe the manager is just a parquet? and now you gave yourself away, you are quoting ..... it means you are not used to living with your mind, I noticed this about you for a long time, all from the books, all from the words of your authorities ... this is the difference between a cadet and a senior officer, you are not yet passed a young man read Sobolev, "the birth of a commander", an officer a young man, must be able to think and make decisions reasonably, and not how to repeat after the admiral "I cannot know, I cannot know"
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 September 2020 16: 20 New
              0
              in our fleet and everything is ruined? obviously he is not Lazarev, so maybe the manager is just a parquet?


              No, not even close.

              this is the difference between a cadet and a senior officer you have not yet passed a young man read Sobolev, "the birth of a commander", an officer a young man, must be able to think and make decisions reasonably


              Well, you have that argumentation - wow! laughing
  • Alexander X
    Alexander X 21 September 2020 09: 29 New
    +3
    Having a powerful fleet is, of course, highly desirable. But the budget is limited, the capacities of specialized enterprises are also limited. I ask myself the question: why the United States and NATO are still only malignant at the borders of Russia and do not go over to military operations? And the answer is obvious: we have nuclear weapons of various delivery methods. Therefore, I consider the thesis of the author of the article about the uselessness of Poseidon to be fundamentally wrong! Only guaranteed destruction of the enemy will ensure the security and inviolability of Russian territories. Well, while the development of Russia's fleets should be carried out without getting involved in an arms race. And it looks like Rossit is trying to impose this race.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 09: 38 New
      +6
      And the answer is obvious: we have nuclear weapons of various delivery methods.


      And the basis of their military research today is to find a threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, so as to fight with Russia, without bringing them to use.
      On such a move, for example, who should you bomb?
      https://vz.ru/world/2020/8/29/1057558.html

      Therefore, I consider the thesis of the author of the article that Poseidon is unnecessary!


      The author, by virtue of his official position, had access to documents for this program and writes from the standpoint of detailed knowledge of the subject. And you?

      Only guaranteed destruction of the enemy will ensure the security and inviolability of Russian territories.


      This is achieved without Poseidons, with the available means.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 21 September 2020 11: 00 New
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        On such a move, for example, who should you bomb?
        https://vz.ru/world/2020/8/29/1057558.html


        By the time it comes to that, SWIFT will be turned off. And "this will already cause huge losses to both the port and shipowners." And so huge that the blockade is no longer needed.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 September 2020 11: 02 New
          -1
          This was relevant in 2014, now such a shutdown will create difficulties for three months. We have already prepared.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 21 September 2020 11: 14 New
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Now such a disconnection will create difficulties for three months


            Even if we assume that you are right (which in itself is not a fact), 3 months of "huge losses" is very bad in itself.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            We have already prepared.


            Prepared for what? SWIFT is a system of international payments. I believe that within the country, settlements will go through some kind of alternative network (you probably mean SPFS). But those very "communications with the outside world" will be impossible for some time, and then they will become difficult at best. And all these losses can be caused without using the fleet.
        2. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 22 September 2020 13: 34 New
          -1
          Quote: Eye of the Crying
          By the time it comes to that, SWIFT will be turned off. And "this will already cause huge losses to both the port and shipowners." And so huge that the blockade is no longer needed.

          RF has already prepared for SWIFT disconnection
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 21 September 2020 20: 50 New
        -1
        here's an educational program on tactics to the dear Alexander ... from 4 minutes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ue8f-kaIM here's an educational program on tactics to dear Alexander ... from 4 minutes, Alexander as the youngest son , "go out to everyone from the ports to the dmz and there show Kuzkin's mother to the Americans with their hundreds of destroyers, moose and 11 AB ... in 30 days how to attack our neighbors, we will go to meet them, meet them at sea, take the battle and win home "Timokhin quote
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 September 2020 23: 04 New
          +2
          You, Vladimir, have begun to lose cognitive capabilities in my opinion. To put it mildly.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 September 2020 10: 01 New
            -3
            now, you have no arguments against the saprykin bone ..... where are the objective arguments? only you can call your opponent, because of your powerlessness and awareness of your wrongness, which has exceeded the depth of the Mariana Trench and the height of Everest
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 September 2020 16: 21 New
              0
              Let's start with the fact that the topic with which you started to flirt and write nonsense is operational art, not tactics.

              Your turn.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 22 September 2020 22: 19 New
                0
                TACTICS
                Feminine
                1.
                The art of fighting.

                Tactics (the word was formed in the 1th century from the French tactique, in turn formed from the Latin tactica, tracing paper from Old Greek τακτικός "related to the formation of troops", from τάξις "formation and arrangement") [XNUMX] - the ability to arrange available troops and forces:

                Tactics is a section of the theory and practice of military art.

                Operational art (OI) is an integral part of the art of war, which occupies an intermediate position between tactics and strategy.

                Operational art (OI) is an integral part of the art of war, which occupies an intermediate position between tactics and strategy [1].

                He studies the methods of preparing and conducting joint and independent operations (military (combat) actions) by large military formations at the level of formations of the branches of the armed forces [1] - corps, armies, etc.

                Operational art is subordinated to strategy, and its decisions directly follow from strategic decisions. Occupying a dominant position in relation to tactics, operational art determines its tasks and direction of development. However, it is clear that the capabilities of tactics affect operational art in the same way that the capabilities of operational art affect strategy [1].

                STRATEGY
                Feminine
                1.
                The science of warfare, the art of warfare.

                Strategy (ancient Greek στρατηγία - the art of a commander) is a general, non-detailed plan covering a long period of time, a way to achieve a complex goal, later any human activity. The objective of the strategy is the effective use of available resources to achieve the main goal (strategy as a method of action becomes especially necessary in a situation when there are not enough available resources to directly achieve the main goal).

                The concept comes from the concept of military strategy - the science of warfare, one of the areas of military art, its highest manifestation, which covers the theory and practice of preparing for war, its planning and conduct, and explores the laws of war.

                Tactics are a tool for implementing the strategy and are subordinated to the main goal of the strategy. The strategy achieves the main goal through the solution of intermediate tactical tasks along the "resources - goal" axis.

                According to Karl Clausewitz [1], the conduct of war involves two completely different types of activities:

                organization of individual battles and their conduct;
                linking them to the common goal of the war.
                The first is called tactics, the second is called strategy.

                Tactics are needed to win the battle. Strategy is needed to win the war. From the second half of the twentieth century, strategy as a practice and methodology began to develop in the field of business and gradually developed in the field of public administration. Vladimir Kvint defines strategy as a system for searching, formulating and developing a doctrine that will ensure long-term success with consistent and complete implementation [2].

                ..... so my move .... firstly, in our time, the term operational art was not, secondly, this is the word amoeba from the American lexicon, which does not mean anything particularly in practice. Since the strategy deals mainly with the general military actions of the country and is linked to the types and types of troops, everything that is done in the navy is tactics, which was required to be proved.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  22 September 2020 23: 31 New
                  +2
                  He studies the methods of preparing and conducting joint and independent operations (military (combat) actions) by large military formations at the level of formations of the branches of the armed forces [1] - corps, armies, etc.


                  First army of surface ships laughing ... Start to calm down already, Vladimir.
        2. Undecim
          Undecim 22 September 2020 00: 24 New
          +1
          .we were taught on tactics
          If you set the task for your subordinates in the same language, they had only one way out - to shoot you and not suffer.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 September 2020 09: 56 New
            -2
            this is the language of the great Pushkin
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 22 September 2020 10: 17 New
              0
              Pushkin would not challenge you even to a duel for such a comparison, he would have nailed you with a candelabrum.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 22 September 2020 10: 25 New
                -2
                what are you Pushkin? it is clear that you do not have objective arguments for your position, and you, from the awareness of your powerlessness, find fault with words ...
                1. Undecim
                  Undecim 22 September 2020 11: 05 New
                  0
                  what are you Pushkin?
                  No, a candelabrum.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 22 September 2020 22: 23 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Undecim
                    what are you Pushkin?
                    No, a candelabrum.

                    well then I see
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 September 2020 10: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: Alexander X
      Therefore, I consider the thesis of the author of the article that Poseidon is unnecessary!

      Such a conclusion can be made by a person who does not understand the capabilities of the strategic nuclear forces in general, the NSNF in particular, and has an extremely vague idea about the Poseidon itself.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 September 2020 10: 17 New
        -2
        agree with dear Alexander X
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 September 2020 11: 19 New
          -2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          agree with dear Alexander X

          Vladimir, do you seriously think that I am interested in your opinion? Completely in vain
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 September 2020 22: 28 New
            -1
            and I did not write for you, and why are you so worried that I would find out that you are not interested in my opinion? ... all by
            Mikhail Zhvanetsky: quotes and aphorisms
            I'll tell you about my feelings. I carried this feeling to you throughout my life. I carried him through the war, through an even more difficult time of peace. I carried this feeling throughout my life and today I say: "I do not love you!"
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 September 2020 08: 18 New
              +1
              Quote: vladimir1155
              and I didn't write for you

              Why then did they contact me? (Your message is written as a response to my comment. This is, in fact, an analogue of a personal appeal)
              Quote: vladimir1155
              and why are you so worried that I would know that you are not interested in my opinion ?.

              In my opinion, you shift from a sore head to a healthy one :)))))
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 21 September 2020 21: 04 New
      -1
      Quote: Alexander X
      Therefore, I consider the thesis of the author of the article about the uselessness of Poseidon to be fundamentally wrong! Only guaranteed destruction of the enemy will ensure the security and inviolability of Russian territories. Well, while the development of Russia's fleets should be carried out without getting involved in an arms race. And it looks like Rossit is trying to impose this race.

      absolutely correct statement!
  • Sailor
    Sailor 21 September 2020 10: 24 New
    +6
    Good article, everything to the point. And we have NO fleet! There are separate ships (for 4 fleets, I do not take into account the Caspian Sea), and then the time of their construction is the same as for an aircraft carrier, I generally keep quiet about naval aviation, it has always been a stepdaughter, and without her, no military operation can be performed.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 21 September 2020 10: 51 New
    +3
    Here we are building expensive boats (Ash, Borei), but there is nothing to attack the enemy (under water), ancient torpedoes are our everything? The same MK 48 in terms of range nullifies all efforts ..... where are modern torpedoes ........? Or are we going to fill the entire NATO fleet with hats again?
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 21 September 2020 10: 53 New
    0
    we do not have any technical problems in order to have our aircraft carrier in working order and combat readiness.


    Are there no problems with money either?
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 13: 42 New
      +1
      Also, no, over the past ten years, the Russian Federation has just captured the aircraft carrier in various dead undertakings. Already.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 21 September 2020 14: 00 New
        +3
        So now there is less money than 10 years ago, and just one aircraft carrier is practically useless. Besides, the cost of an aircraft carrier is not the cost of the hull + engines + catapults + weapons + aircraft. First you need to develop all this, and then, probably, build a shipyard.

        What is the general purpose of the fleet development? Klimov's article says little about this. The fight against the blockade described in your article on Gaze is not a real goal. First, because the objectives of the blockade (if it is a weakening of Russia) can be achieved by the conditional West without the use of force. Secondly, because Russia will never have sufficient forces to resist the blockade.
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 September 2020 00: 14 New
          -1
          So now there is less money than 10 years ago


          And in numbers?

          and just one aircraft carrier is practically useless.


          We already have one, and it is never useless, with a normal level of combat capability. It is necessary to repair it and finish the air regiments to the required condition. A question of political will and nothing more.

          Besides, the cost of an aircraft carrier is not the cost of the hull + engines + catapults + weapons + aircraft. First you need to develop all this, and then, probably, build a shipyard.


          https://topwar.ru/167092-avianosec-dlja-rossii-bystree-chem-vy-ozhidaete.html

          Klimov's article says little about this.


          Klimov's vision of the tasks of the Navy in the article is completely sorted out.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 September 2020 10: 19 New
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And in numbers?

            here's the figure, the budget deficit is 10 trillion rubles
          2. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 22 September 2020 21: 13 New
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            So now there is less money than 10 years ago


            And in numbers?


            The budget of the Moscow Region in 2019 is 1.776 trillion, in 2010 - 1.78 trillion. If we take into account inflation and the depreciation of the ruble, it turns out less. How much less is to count too lazy, and it is unlikely that it will be possible to agree on how to take into account the fall of the ruble.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            https://topwar.ru/167092-avianosec-dlja-rossii-bystree-chem-vy-ozhidaete.html


            I read it when it came out. This is a verdict on the idea of ​​building aircraft carriers:


            the main way to reduce the cost of a ship - a series - is unlikely to be available to us.



            - the possibility of creating a power plant based on serial turbines;
            - the ability to create an aircraft for an ejection launch based on the serial MiG-29K;


            Those. The power plant and the aircraft will have to be created (and the water in the clouds is dark with the power plant), and it is not even planned to recoup money from the series. And about AWACS is not mentioned (well, or I don't remember).

            About the catapult - generally a satire:


            at least there is a factory where it was made, and it works.
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 September 2020 23: 37 New
              +1
              In recent years, there have been a lot of things in the expenses of the Defense Ministry that do not belong to military equipment and are not necessary; it is necessary to compare the costs of state armament programs.

              Those. The power plant and the aircraft will have to be created (and the water in the clouds is dark with the power plant), and it is not even planned to recoup money from the series.


              The aircraft is a MiG-29K with a reinforced airframe nose and landing gear. Not God knows what.
              SDRLO as an option to buy from the Chinese.
              GEM based on GTU M90FRU. Nothing complicated, work for five years. A reducer-adder is much simpler than what is being done for the fleet now, incommensurable.
              At the same time, the GEM will be quite mapssa, it, like the Americans, can be put on literally everything.
              The plane is almost serial, it may be possible to sell it to the Indians for the future "Vishal".
              Not everything is so bad, in short.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 23 September 2020 01: 02 New
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                SDRLO as an option to buy from the Chinese.


                Will they sell? And in an amicable way, you need to buy before the construction of the aircraft carrier - who knows what the situation will be later.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                GEM based on GTU M90FRU. Nothing complicated, work for five years


                Quote: timokhin-aa
                At the same time, the GEM will be quite mapssa, it, like the Americans, can be put on literally everything.


                Making the LM2500 is, of course, a noble task, but it still needs to be done. M90FRU, as they write on the Web, has 20000 kW of power, the modern version of the LM2500 is 25000 kW. Why do you think that it is "nothing difficult" to bring it, I do not understand.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Not everything is so bad, in short.


                They didn't say about the catapult.

                The probability of success of several projects is the product of the probability of success of each of them. And they are less than one. But the probability of spending money is always exactly one.
                1. ZEMCH
                  ZEMCH 23 September 2020 02: 29 New
                  0
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  Making the LM2500 is, of course, a noble task, but it still needs to be done. M90FRU, as they write on the Web, has 20000 kW of power, the modern version of the LM2500 is 25000 kW. Why do you think that it is "nothing difficult" to bring it, I do not understand.

                  General Electric LM2500 - 18,4 MW, 24,050 hp s., General Electric LM2500 + - 29 MW, 40,500 hp s., General Electric LM2500 + G4 - 35,32 MW, 45,370 hp. c .. All differ in size, both in length and width. They are about the same in height. (I mean the case with mounted units).
                  The resource of our turbines, and Ukrainian ones, is 20000 hours before overhaul, i.e. 2 years and 4 months of continuous operation, then unloading, repair and loading, or loading a new or repaired one. And this is in the conditions of the SRZ (about the timing of the repair of turbines, I already wrote) in 2017, only three prototypes of the M90FR were produced. How much do we need a fleet for new and needing repairs?
                  M70FR produced three prototypes in 2017. Stand at 1135 (6), 1155 (1), 1164, 1241.
                  The LM2500 is used in the fleets of 24 countries.
                  The first project in the world with a ship-borne gas turbine engine pr. 61, "singing frigates", the USSR was the first to master the production of such power plants, but then "went" to various gas turbine engines - sustainer and afterburner, for different operating modes. The Americans did not become wise))) As a result, for our fleet, both a project and a new power plant with various gas turbine engines and gearboxes.
                  Therefore, everything is difficult for us)))
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 23 September 2020 09: 14 New
                    0
                    Quote: ZEMCH
                    General Electric LM2500 - 18,4 MW, 24,050 hp from.


                    This is some kind of ancient data. Modern LM2500 - 25000 kW.

                    Quote: ZEMCH
                    The first project in the world with the ship's gas turbine engine pr. 61, "singing frigates", USSR


                    The USSR is another country that has not existed for almost 30 years.
                    1. ZEMCH
                      ZEMCH 23 September 2020 10: 22 New
                      0
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying
                      The USSR is another country that has not existed for almost 30 years.

                      School of design, and ships grow from there)))
                      In institutes and other places, old school teachers teach from old textbooks)))
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 23 September 2020 10: 26 New
                        0
                        Quote: ZEMCH
                        School of design, and ships grow from there)))


                        It's fine. Only for some reason the Soviet Union knew how and had much more.

                        Quote: ZEMCH
                        old school teachers teach from old textbooks)))


                        This is so bad.
                2. timokhin-aa
                  23 September 2020 11: 29 New
                  0
                  Will they sell? And in an amicable way, you need to buy before the construction of the aircraft carrier - who knows what the situation will be later.


                  They will sell, there it is a fix idea - to start supplying weapons to the former elder brother. They have been running around our exhibitions with their equipment for years. The same 054 frigates "under the Russian Federation" worked as the TFR pr. 054E. So they will sell it.

                  Making the LM2500 is, of course, a noble task, but it still needs to be done.


                  It is necessary. And it is possible.
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 23 September 2020 12: 05 New
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    It is necessary. And it is possible.


                    There are too many such statements.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      23 September 2020 13: 11 New
                      0
                      Oh well. Let's go from the opposite - it's impossible right?
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 23 September 2020 13: 12 New
                        0
                        May be. Therefore, the only reasonable approach is step by step. For example, do the GEM first. Moreover, it will come in handy without an aircraft carrier.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        23 September 2020 13: 46 New
                        0
                        We would still ride horses using step-by-step methods. This is not how planning is done.

                        The starting point for the Baltic shipyard is the launch of the last icebreaker. Knowing it, you can predict the moment when you need to install a power plant on an aircraft carrier, catapults, etc.
                        Based on this, set the dates for the start of OCD, etc.
                        Roughly speaking, GTU, CPP, reducer-adders, catapults and REV can be started to design right now.
                      3. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 23 September 2020 14: 18 New
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        We would still ride horses using step-by-step methods.


                        Demagogy.

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Knowing it, you can predict the moment when you need to install a power plant on an aircraft carrier, catapults, etc.


                        If they are.

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Based on this, set the dates for the start of OCD, etc.
                        Roughly speaking, GTU, CPP, reducer-adders, catapults and REV can be started to design right now.


                        You proceed from the premise "all this can be done". And this is not a fact.
          3. ZEMCH
            ZEMCH 23 September 2020 01: 34 New
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            GEM based on GTU M90FRU. Nothing complicated, work for five years. A reducer-adder is much simpler than what is being done for the fleet now, incommensurable.

            Not everything is so simple on the power plant, we run into gearboxes, the maximum speed of the highest-speed diesel engine М507 (produced by "Zvezda") is 2000 rpm, the speed of the screw turbine (propulsive) М90ФР is 3500 rpm (if memory serves), М70ФР - 7000 rpm. Reducers for such revolutions were not made in Russia, especially reverse ones. Therefore, such problems with the gearbox for the frigate and corvette. The cycle of design, manufacture and testing takes time, then getting rid of the "sores", increasing the manufacturability of production and launching into series. The first ship must be driven in almost all possible modes, in various climatic conditions, and preferably before the resource is exhausted. Foreign adversaries have CPP propellers, i.e. the gearbox is not reversible, the motors are not reversible, which makes the power plant more versatile and lighter.
            In Russia, the CPP is just planning to start doing on "Zvezdochka" (project of the CPV-M). Those. the whole cycle described above))).
            Electric propulsion can solve problems with gearboxes, but it adds problems with the generator and electric motors, but also the CPP)))
            1. timokhin-aa
              23 September 2020 11: 01 New
              0
              However, these are all solvable issues.
  • iouris
    iouris 21 September 2020 10: 58 New
    +2
    Fighting and winning are two different things. It is not possible to win in every single kind of "sport". The only thing that can be done is to threaten to cause unacceptable damage. But it is one thing to threaten, another to really intimidate against ..., sorry, a partner and a colleague.
    The need for the Russian Federation is to conduct limited demonstration tests of nuclear weapons. Otherwise Stanislavsky won't believe it, and kaaak ...
  • New Year day
    New Year day 21 September 2020 11: 21 New
    +8
    I read it with pleasure!
    Both are right, but the problem is that managers have not only the fleet, but the whole country to cut the budget!
    And for the sake of money and enrichment, they will sell their own mother.
    The sad thing is that the cut involves everyone up to the top or covers it up.
    And in this case, under the current regime, all the proposals of the respected authors will be "Yaroslavna's cry" ... unfortunately
  • tivivlat
    tivivlat 21 September 2020 11: 30 New
    0
    "No need to brick-clean guns"
  • CTABEP
    CTABEP 21 September 2020 11: 47 New
    0
    The article is correct. Just now :
    After the amendments to the Constitution, Japan was left with the only option for the development of events in the Kuril Islands - force.

    unclear. Our new Constitution clearly states
    2.1. The Russian Federation ensures the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Actions (with the exception of delimitation, demarcation, re-demarcation of the state border of the Russian Federation with neighboring states) aimed at alienating part of the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as calls for such actions, are not allowed.
    Delimitation of the border - its definition through negotiations. The conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan with the delimitation of the border and the surrender of the Kuril Islands to it does not in any way contradict the Constitution, for we have a "wonderful" exception here. Although, let's hope, this, as well as an armed conflict, will not come to pass.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 21 September 2020 21: 10 New
      -1
      Quote: CTABEP
      The conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan with the delimitation of the border and the surrender of the Kuriles to it does not in any way contradict the Constitution

      Quote: CTABEP
      The conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan with the delimitation of the border and the surrender of the Kuriles to it does not in any way contradict the Constitution

      contradicts, and even spam, the idea of ​​this is a criminal offense and soon they will be given ten years for it ..... of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 280.1. Public calls for the implementation of actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation
      (introduced by the Federal Law from 28.12.2013 N 433-FZ)

      1. Public calls for the implementation of actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, -
      shall be punished by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the convict's wages or other income for a period of one year to two years, or by forced labor for a term of up to three years, or by arrest for a term of four to six months, or by deprivation freedom for up to four years with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for the same period.
      (in the edition of the Federal Law from 21.07.2014 N 274-FZ)
      (see the text in the previous wording)
      2. The same acts committed using the media or electronic or information and telecommunication networks (including the Internet), -
      shall be punishable by compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred eighty hours, with deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or imprisonment for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.
      (Part 2 as amended by the Federal Law of December 21.07.2014, 274 N XNUMX-ФЗ)
      (see the text in the previous wording)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmnsJIalrVE
  • srelock
    srelock 21 September 2020 14: 42 New
    -4
    It is clear that all this is just another delirium of a mine, but ...
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    First, you need to agree with a number of critical opinions on the Russian Navy:

    Why then further text? laughing
    1. timokhin-aa
      23 September 2020 11: 29 New
      0
      Of course you know how it really is.
  • Evgeny Kelpsh
    Evgeny Kelpsh 21 September 2020 14: 56 New
    +5
    A terrible misfortune not only for the Russian Navy, but for the entire defense industry complex - the monstrous collective irresponsibility of developers and manufacturers of weapons and military equipment. Even if they do not steal, they disrupt the deadlines for fulfilling contracts, push products with performance characteristics that do not correspond to those specified in the technical task, they give a high percentage of banal rejects. Because the winner is not the best, but the most cunning and arrogant. Shows the price and terms alone, and when the tender is won, it puts the Customer in front of the fact: we increase the price and extend the terms, or you will not get anything at all. Do you think these are my inventions? Unfortunately no. In the period from 2013 to 2018, he worked as an advisor to the Director of the Branch of KBP JSC - TsKIB SOO, and many times attended the meetings of the Interdepartmental Working Group of the Military-Industrial Commission of Russia. There I saw enough of this and heard enough that heart problems began. And the Customer is also good now, sometimes it seems that these gentlemen did not finish the Military Schools, and even more so the Academies. There is no systematic approach based on an analysis of real military threats and the economic state of the Oboronka enterprises. The Ministry of Industry and Trade is mostly delusional, it cannot regulate anything. It is long overdue to restore the Ministry of Defense Industry with the function of controlling the defense industry enterprises and the ability to punish the negligent.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 21 September 2020 15: 09 New
    +7
    It takes money to build a fleet.
    The main money comes from taxes on industrial enterprises.
    And from taxes from the middle class and wealthy people.
    You can't make money on raw materials.
    Until a modern CIVIL (not a military-industrial complex) economy develops, there will be no money. If there is no money, there will be no fleet.
    1. iouris
      iouris 21 September 2020 16: 27 New
      -1
      There is money for the fleet. To the yacht fleet.
    2. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 21 September 2020 16: 45 New
      +3
      Alexey, you are a little mistaken in saying that the beneficiaries of the oil and gas industry form the budget of the Russian Federation. Just look at how much we invest in the budget, we are ordinary citizens and it becomes clear who pays the lion's share of the banquet
      So, the income of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation from taxes on personal income. persons:
      2017 - 3 billion rubles.
      2018 - 3 billion rubles.
      2019 - 3 billion rubles.
      To them, you can easily add income from VAT charges, because the costs for them are ultimately always paid by the consumer. And this:
      2017 - 5 billion rubles.
      2018 - 6 billion rubles.
      2019 - 7 billion rubles.
      The total amount that citizens put into the country's budget in 2019 - 11051,8 billion rubles! Almost 8 times more than the state recovered from PJSC Gazprom, which in 2019 paid taxes only 1409,2 billion rubles!

      A reasonable question arises: whose contribution is greater and do we really need all these "effective managers" who put the "walrus" from the sale of our resources into their seemingly bottomless pockets?

      PsAll figures are taken from the official website of the Ministry of Finance and are available at the link: https://minfin.gov.ru/ru/statistics/conbud/execute/?id_65=93449-yezhegodnaya_informatsiya_ob_ispolnenii_konsolidirovannogo_byudzheta_rossiiskoi_federayan_byudzheta_rossiiskoi_federayan
  • Interlocutor
    Interlocutor 21 September 2020 15: 59 New
    -10 qualifying.
    At first I thought, all the skiff to the fleet. Everything is bad. Trample ...
    And then I looked at the author's articles and calmed down. Maxim Klimov. His season continues. The season is called "everything is lost". Nothing good. All g "clearly. The strategy is not correct. The tactics are not correct. The ships are bad, the sailors are worthless." Torpedoes of the wrong caliber.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 September 2020 18: 45 New
      +1
      But how really?
      1. Interlocutor
        Interlocutor 21 September 2020 20: 00 New
        0
        But how really?

        Quote from the same article.
        "For example, in 1999, NATO members were not afraid of our paratroopers in Pristina, but of the fact that behind them were our Topol, and our BDRs, and BDRMs of the NSNF."

        This is the answer to all questions.

        Everything else is chatter. We have the fleet today. Tomorrow will be different - we will proceed from those realities. But moan from every article. What an approach ...
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 September 2020 23: 02 New
          +3
          Is it okay that the enemy has been pumping the means of the first disarming nuclear strike since 1997, that the capabilities of its anti-submarine forces have multiplied since then, while our NSNF, guaranteeing the inevitability of a retaliatory strike even with a successful disarming enemy strike on the Strategic Missile Forces, have also been reduced several times? Doesn't it count? Just in case - the author is a submariner, he personally participated in the protection of the SSBN, and he personally knows what the launch of a torpedo simulator from Los Angeles is.
          So, by the way.
        2. Igor Semenov
          Igor Semenov 22 September 2020 11: 29 New
          +1
          The chatter is referring to 1999. 20 years have passed since then. And they slept "not so that everyone"
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 23 September 2020 10: 08 New
            +1
            Quote: Igor Semenov
            The chatter is referring to 1999. 20 years have passed since then.

            And it got worse. For the ships are not getting younger.
            In our country, 40% of strategic SBS are SSBNs. Which today, even from the base, there is practically nothing to withdraw, not to mention the cover in the deployment areas. KON, judging by the famous photo of Gadzhievo - "one boat in the sea." That is, the adversary has every chance, at the cost of 3-4 SBS, to disable all SSBNs except two. And the remaining two - to nail down "Virginias". And 40% of our SBCHs are yok.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 21 September 2020 17: 38 New
    +1
    To expect that a naval fairies will appear, wave a magic wand ... And appear in the Russian Federation a powerful balanced Navy equal to the American one? wassat
    The difference, however, is that, despite all the problems in Soviet times, the shipbuilding industry was 100% state-owned and controlled by order, and now there are many private shipyards and it should be profitable for them to build warships in order to make a profit. But here there is no confidence that the customers from the Navy work only for the power, and not for their own pocket either.

    After the crushing defeat of Tsushima in Russia, the patriots formed a Public Committee, collected "for a pretty penny" in all strata of society in tsarist Russia, millions of rubles. And strictly under their control, the excellent destroyers "Novik" and several dozen other amphibious ships of the Navy were developed using public money.

    And that was 110 years ago. And the people were Russian. And the country was - Russia!
    1. unknown
      unknown 21 September 2020 22: 29 New
      0
      "Volunteers" are mainly mine cruisers, a class of ships that evolved into the class of destroyers. And "Novik" became the last "volunteer", the founder of several series of turbine destroyers.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 September 2020 10: 14 New
      0
      Quote: xomaNN
      After the crushing defeat of Tsushima in Russia, the patriots formed a Public Committee, collected "for a pretty penny" in all strata of society in tsarist Russia, millions of rubles. And strictly under their control, the excellent destroyers "Novik" and several dozen other amphibious ships of the Navy were developed using public money.

      "Volunteers" with this money were developed and built. Strange ships of the transition period - "low-speed destroyers" with a 25-knot speed, armed a little better than the "Falcons" - a pair of 75-mm, four 57-mm, 2-3 TA. Later, however, the artillery was replaced with a pair of 102 mm.
  • Igor Semenov
    Igor Semenov 22 September 2020 11: 28 New
    +1
    In short, our fleet and ships (and naval aviation - especially) exist, in fact, not for the country, protecting its real interests and performing real tasks, but for the comfortable development of budgetary funds for them.
    Just like the construction of gas pipelines and the construction of spaceports. And much more. Alexander, the development of the country is not about the current ones, they are about something else.
  • K298rtm
    K298rtm 22 September 2020 21: 51 New
    0
    1. The required minimum of measures presented by the author is what was needed yesterday.
    2. Question to the author: What is needed tomorrow (according to the distinguished author)?
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 23 September 2020 00: 59 New
    0
    We had problems with designers both in the USSR and remain in Russia.
    Name a problem-free NK project during the Soviet era, there were none)))
    All projects are not very suitable for modernization, each project has its own power plant, how many projects of foreign ships with the installation of LM2500 are dozens, name a Soviet-built gas turbine engine, which can be installed without significant alteration to another project! GTE LM2500 are repaired in 72 hours in 40 countries producing them under license. How much is required for medium repairs, for example DT59, with pr. 1155? KMOLZ plant (shop 38) has been repairing for 1 year!
    Try to change weapons on existing ships! It's easier to build a new one)))
  • Stalnov I.P.
    Stalnov I.P. 25 September 2020 12: 36 New
    0
    This requires professionals. who were in the USSR, and not the current managers from journalism, lawyers, economists and the like, people who know how to do their job, and not close to the body, busy only with sycophancy and cutting budgets. The most severe discipline, not idle chatter, fairy tales.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 25 September 2020 13: 33 New
    0
    author, why Britons land in Alaska?
    they didn't even have the strength to squeeze more convenient and tasty pieces
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 28 September 2020 08: 55 New
    0
    So the author himself answered his own questions, all military operations in the past 30 years have been ground and aviation. The fleet only drowned a Georgian boat. Accordingly, any questions about tanks and aircraft are resolved sooner or later, and the KLA knows how to work. Even the Strategic Missile Forces can do just fine without submarines. In the end, how many missiles are deployed on 1-2 submarines on duty, which you still need to call if something happens, and how many launchers roll around the country, or sleep in mines, so that they will not be destroyed by saboteurs or a disarming strike, just due to the number and impossibility of having all the information about them at any given time. And only in the navy, until 2015, there were no tasks at all related to real databases. And in Syria, we do not need aircraft carriers, and not heavy cruisers, like the notorious "leader", there we need a bunch of transports and frigates with corvettes. Maximum analogs of the good old "Atlant".
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 4 November 2020 15: 54 New
    0
    Good article. Information about something serious has simply been reported. No snot and rose-colored glasses.
  • Ersh
    Ersh 20 November 2020 17: 58 New
    0
    The author claims that he served in the navy and trained personnel. May be.
    But then why such bloopers, unforgivable even for a "jacket"?
    Which shore will Ohio come to? Specifically, to which shore? Why would the RPCS "come ashore"? And who will let him release all the ammunition? 154 ??? cruise missiles? It's not for you to throw matches out of the box, it takes time.
    Why write about the Baltic? All normal naval officers, especially submarine officers, know that the Baltic is being bombarded with mines in a very short time. So it was in the Great Patriotic War, so, in case of war, it will be now. All ships of all countries in the Baltic will sit in their ports under the bombing. The same can be attributed to the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea.
    The author, it seems, does not know, at least does not mention our new submarines - Borey and Ash.
    The author served in the navy, if he served, for a very long time, this is evidenced by his tales of "the times of the Ochakovsky"
    Actually, it seems to me that everything was written for other purposes: everything is lost, everything is bad, there are only thieves around!
    It seems that the author is very worried that he himself cannot steal and therefore envies those who, in his opinion, can and should steal. Everyone judges others by himself, to the extent of his depravity.
  • Selevc
    Selevc 23 November 2020 14: 02 New
    0
    People wake up - no one will attack the Russian Federation either on land or at sea !!! Nobody even attacked North Korea - although they scared them for a long time !!! And they will not attack, not because the army and navy of the Russian Federation are the greatest and most powerful in the world (and this is far from the case in reality).
    They will not attack because the USA, Britain, France and other members of the pack (but the main thing is the gang leaders) do not like to fight with great risks for themselves !!! They are used to fighting without losses or with minimal losses !!!

    Other plans to destroy the country have long been implemented against the Russian Federation:
    1) Plan A (soft). The war against the elites of Russia - against those who run the country !!! According to this plan, it is planned in Russia to displace the country's leadership with the help of an organized riot or in some other way and organize Perestroika No. 2. At the same time, the outskirts of Russia will again sprinkle, as in Perestroika №1 - this is the main prize of the conquerors !!! At the same time, mind you, this plan almost does not directly affect the Russian people - the conquerors hope that the people will sleep through their country again as in 1991 !!!

    2) Plan B (hard). The former Soviet republics will be set up against Russia - right up to the creation of anti-Russian alliances and an open war between the outskirts and the metropolis. Naturally, the collective West will actively throw wood into the fire of any new war against the Russian Federation in the post-Soviet space. This is their favorite pastime - in this they are the # 1 pros in the world.

    This is what threatens the Russian Federation now and really in the near future - and hardly anyone will unleash a third world nuclear war over Crimea !!!