Military Review

Historical question: do we need a fleet?

Since the time when Peter the Great issued a decree on construction fleet, the same question sounds: why do we need it and is it needed at all? At one time, the questioning voices were almost completely abated, while at others they gained new strength. In the last twenty years, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the “choir” of doubters has reached perhaps the largest size in the whole history domestic navy. How can you not ask yourself the question: why do we need a fleet?

First you should read the history of the issue. The first doubters were the very bearded and uneducated boyars. Due to the revolutionary novelty of the reforms of Peter the Great, they simply did not have time to change their outlook accordingly. In addition to this, Tsar Peter mercilessly harassed some centuries-old foundations incompatible with modernity. The boyars and other dignitaries, accustomed to the established order, hardly joined the new policy and, as a result, they perceived quite harshly various innovations. One of these victims of perception difficulties was the fleet. We must pay tribute to Peter I and his associates - by joint efforts they convinced the highest circles of the country of the need to build a navy, a merchant and a military.

HER. Lancere. Fleet of Peter the Great

The next historical character on which it is worth dwelling while studying the past of our question is Count Alexander Romanovich Vorontsov. Shortly after the assassination of Paul I and the accession of Alexander I, Vorontsov was appointed head of the Navy Education Committee. Such a decision of Emperor Alexander can hardly be called correct, and here's why. Count Romantsov, as well as his brother Semyon Romanovich, was an ardent opponent of the powerful navy. In his official speeches he repeatedly mentioned the uselessness of this kind of troops:
For many reasons, both physical and local, Russia cannot be among the preeminent maritime powers, but neither need nor good is foreseen

In the course of the reforms under the authority of the Committee, the navy was reduced in several years, and all its tactical tasks were reduced to the protection of the waters of the Black and Baltic Seas. Despite the gradual increase in funding, the fleet ceased to make long trips.

Not only the position of A. Vorontsov, but also some facts from his brother’s biography are often cited as the reasons for such changes in the life of the fleet. Semen Romanovich Vorontsov was an Englishman, which affected his judgments, including on the defense of his country. Sometimes there is an opinion stating that the British through S.A. Vorontsov influenced his brother. As proof of this, respect is given that the British showed to Semyon Alexandrovich during his embassy, ​​as well as the reluctance of Great Britain to have a strong competitor on the seas.

We have to admit that the new policy regarding the fleet, pursued by Alexander I and his officials, did not put an end to the naval part of the domestic armed forces. Yes, long hikes stopped, but the sailors had to make war and at a relatively short distance from their native shores. As an example of this, the Dardanelles and Athos battles of 1807, when the Russian squadron under the command of Vice-Admiral D.N. Senyavina with a difference of a month twice broke Turkish. The scale and political consequences of these battles can be compared with the Mediterranean campaign of F.F. Ushakov at the end of the previous century. In addition, Senyavin’s not too distant march forced the Ottoman Empire to sign a truce and start rebuilding its navy — after two battles, its combat capability dropped significantly.

Athos battle 19 June 1807 of the year. 1853, Bogolyubov Alexey Petrovich

The last major surge of "activity" on the theme of the need for the fleet dates back to our time. After the collapse of the USSR, questions about the need for a fleet, as well as military aviation, strategic missile forces and other branches of our armed forces, began to rise especially often. In most cases, the rhetoric was the same. Firstly, it was argued (and sometimes it is still claimed) that the Cold War was over and we no longer need to conflict with someone and prepare for war. The second argument was the notorious balance of guns and oil - cutting military spending was the only way to save the economy. As it turned out later, the country was left without guns, and without oil. Nevertheless, hotheads who criticized the fleet did not stop improving their discussion skills and promoting clearly anti-navy proposals.

As you know, the best and most important proof of something is the experience that confirms it. What can our navy say "in its defense"? The Russian fleet began to prove its importance and necessity in the 1714 year, when it won the battle at Cape Gangut. Thanks to this victory over the Swedes, Russia gained access to the Baltic Sea. Later on, during the Northern War, the Russian fleet gained several more victories. With our victory in the last major naval battle of the Northern War - under Grengam - one of the elements of the marine form is connected. It is precisely the victory at Grengam that is symbolized by one of the stripes on the sailors' collar.

At the end of the Northern War, several relatively calm decades began, during which the Russian fleet continued to be built and developed. In an updated form, he participated in all the Russian-Turkish wars, marching for domination in the Black Sea. Soon after Russia established itself on its shores, the Black Sea Fleet was founded. It was the Black Sea sailors under the command of F.F. At the very end of the 18th century, Ushakov won a number of victories in the Ionian and Mediterranean seas.

Nineteenth century can not be called fully successful for the Russian fleet. The same applies to the beginning of the twentieth century. The victory in the Battle of Sinop and the heroic defense of Sevastopol, as it turned out, only alienated the sad end of the Crimean War, and the heroism of the sailors of the Pacific and Baltic fleets did not help to win the Russian-Japanese war. The First World War was a bit more successful - Russian sailors with varying success carried out operations to destroy enemy ships and disrupt cargo transportation. At the same time, the power of the German fleet did not allow Russian sailors to be particularly active in the Baltic. A bit more successfully fought the Black Sea Fleet, which in the first few months of the war managed to establish control over the whole sea, where its bases were located. Ultimately, the difficult economic and social situation in the country weakened all the armed forces and led to the October Revolution, after which our country withdrew from the First World War.

By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union was able not only to restore the former power of the military fleet, but also to significantly increase it. The feats of Soviet sailors during the Great Patriotic War are widely known. As for the effectiveness of their combat work, it can be assessed by the numerical results of attacks and operations. During the war years, the Black Sea, Baltic, and Northern fleets of the USSR destroyed over five hundred enemy warships, at least 1200 transport and auxiliary vessels, as well as about 2000-2500 enemy aircraft. In addition, the Northern Fleet provided 76 escorts for convoys with military cargoes, in which almost a thousand and a half transport ships and more than a thousand escort ships took part. There were considerable losses. It should not be forgotten that without the participation of the Navy the ground forces would have been in an even more difficult situation, unable to receive cargo by sea, both from the allies and from Siberia and the Far East.

In recent decades, the Soviet Navy and Russia have not participated in major military conflicts. However, a peaceful life is not without characteristic incidents. Thus, in recent years, long hikes of Russian ships have become frequent. Almost every such campaign is accompanied by a specific reaction of foreign countries. Their officials are trying to keep within the bounds of decency, but some foreign citizens sometimes get hysterical. It is curious that in previous years, when all domestic ships and submarines were constantly at berths, foreign “partners” were not nervous and even to some extent rejoiced.

What can such a reaction of foreign gentlemen say? First of all, the fact that on a global scale the navy experienced a number of fundamental changes in the structure and equipment of armies, but, as before, remained one of the most important shock and defensive forces. Moreover, a number of recent military conflicts began with the fact that strike groups of the fleet came to the area of ​​future military operations. Based on these theses, it is possible to draw a completely logical and viable conclusion regarding the cause of a specific foreign reaction to the voyages of Russian ships. The gradual strengthening of our fleet simply acts on the nerves of some states that do not want to see a strong competitor.

What should Russia do in this case? The answer is obvious: to continue the implementation of the programs started. Such a large country definitely needs a powerful and modern fleet, and the entire history of the Russian Navy is a direct confirmation of this. As for a foreign reaction, this is not the thing that should be paid special attention and taken into account when drawing up and implementing its plans. Flaming speeches of officials and ordinary foreign citizens speak only about their attitude to Russian intentions, but no more. Much more important is the creation of a clear and concrete program for the development of the navy. To do this, it is necessary to analyze the existing state of affairs in the world and its specific regions, to create an approximate image of the world in the near future and, with such information, to develop the image of a promising military fleet. For example, for actions in the coastal zone and the immediate protection of maritime boundaries, either rocket / artillery boats or small-displacement guards are needed. For actions at a large distance from the base, in turn, ships of other classes are required. Geographical features of the Russian territory and intentions to renew its presence in a number of remote regions transparently hint at the fact that the fleet should include all types of ships, from light boats to heavy missile cruisers with a nuclear power plant.

Until the end of the current 2012, the Russian Navy will receive at least ten new warships. Approximately the same is now in various stages of construction. Obviously, the country's leadership has a unanimous opinion on the question “Do we need a fleet?”. And this opinion entailed a number of other questions of a more specific nature, concerning the necessary number of new ships, their types, aids, etc. A considerable part of the public agrees with this opinion. But why, with such a huge combat experience and an extensive list of victories, is the need for a fleet still in doubt?


Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 11 August 2012 08: 34
    The Russian fleet needs this clearly as God's day. Without a strong fleet, the state will not be able to defend its interests in the ocean and project forces if necessary. Lot is an essential element of geopolitics. In addition, the fleet is the forefront of state defense.
    However, the fleet is a very expensive pleasure and you need to develop it wisely. The construction of ships should be combined with the development of infrastructure, in addition, the construction of ships must be competent, you need to build not just what, but exactly what you need.
    1. Slayer
      Slayer 12 August 2012 17: 54
      I agree that the fleet needs to be built competently, let's say we do not need aircraft carriers, in principle 1 is enough to maintain a presence in various parts of the world, it does not carry a defensive purpose in itself, it is an expensive "toy" for geopolitics and attack. The submarine fleet should be built and developed. patrol ships and destroyers.
  2. itr
    itr 11 August 2012 08: 54
    Strange article! I did not understand what the author wanted to say. In an article in the history of the fleet, there are gaps of 100 years or even more. Judging by it, it was necessary to start not with Peter the Great, but with his father Alexei Mikhailovich, the first ship of the Western European model he built "Oryol" was called. The age of Catherine II is not clearly described, the Russian fleet made a rustle.
    1. Ross
      Ross 11 August 2012 11: 36
      Our ancestors had a fleet much earlier than Peter. From the prophetic Oleg to the Cossacks. The Russian fleet cannot be without an independent Power.
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 11 August 2012 14: 00
        The word "Fleet" (military) does not mean the presence of troughs as such, but consistency. From seafarer training and construction to military use according to the charter. This only happened under Peter the Great. What happened before Peter is not a fleet in the full sense. This is approximately how to say that the presence of swords among the inhabitants of ancient Russia implies the Regular Army. But this is not the case. Just as regular troops differ from the militias and squads of the past centuries, so the Petrovsky fleet differs from ships before the Peter's era. The first, purely military ship in the history of Russia is the three-masted "Eagle". All types of ancient ships before him, these are cargo and passenger ships that were used in conflicts, but were not built as purely military ones. Their military function is not the main one, but "arising out of necessity." Even the Viking Drakkars. If I may say so - a gang of armed bikers on a truck tractor with a semitrailer, who is engaged in robbery and trade, is not the Navy. Yes, they are excellent wars, but they are excellent seafarers, travelers and merchants, but they are not the Armed Forces, and even less the Navy.
        1. soaring
          soaring 11 August 2012 21: 40
          Well said!!! good I agree 100% My +
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 13 August 2012 03: 01
            thank you for rating smile
        2. Barrel
          Barrel 11 August 2012 23: 41
          The Cossacks had a constant flotilla of seagulls, and experienced sailors who sank Turkish galleys on these "troughs". Why do we need these whoppers if they are drowned by ordinary "troughs"?
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 12 August 2012 04: 01
            We can recall Ushuinikov who, even a couple of centuries before the Cossacks, successfully completed sea raids. And the number of their coordinated army was very huge.
            And you can also mention the Battle of Artemisia (480 BC), even then there were states and naval commanders and naval battles. But what does this have to do with the Russian Navy? I mean, the Cossacks were a very interesting military formation, with all the signs of a state and interests on the coast of large rivers and seas. They joined the Russian Kingdom during the time of Ivan the Terrible, with the rights of allies rather than subordinates. The fact that language, culture, and religion are alike is not a reason to say that there was one state at that historical moment. Although he gave them Don, their relationship is more reminiscent of the modern CSTO. For a long time the Cossacks were "themselves with a mustache", and therefore called themselves free (willing) people. But the Cossacks had already sworn to Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, but by that time they had a rich, centuries-old history.
            In those years, the Russian Kingdom, although it had a permanent professional army, but due to geography, there was no need to build a Navy, in the manner of the British or Dr. Greek or Cossack. That is to say - the Navy - the Navy (not river, not lake, not commercial). Just at that time, Russia did not yet have the need to conquer the seas, we were on the continent and were engaged in internal disassembly in those years. The fleet carried out the function of transporting troops along the "autobahns" - rivers. In fact, the landing party, delivered to the address and fight in the field. Developed and reformed other types of troops - infantry, artillery and cavalry. (Regiments of the "Foreign system", Code of service, and similar documents testifying to a systematic approach to the issue) In this sense, it was under Peter, that the Navy also appeared as a Rod of the Armed Forces. The tasks of the State have expanded and such an instrument has become necessary.
  3. Yuri11076
    Yuri11076 11 August 2012 08: 55
    It is impossible for Russia without a fleet, they will devour it ...
  4. Stas57
    Stas57 11 August 2012 09: 15
    Historical question: do we need a fleet?

    an idiotic question, the country is washed by 3 oceans and a bunch of seas, or rather, what Russia needs a fleet today
    1. Busido
      Busido 11 August 2012 10: 07
      good Really kind of like- "you uvu me ... uk ... reap ?!" It's the same as asking residents of the upper floors of a 24-storey building: "Do you need an elevator?"
  5. itr
    itr 11 August 2012 09: 18
    Stas, are you right !!
  6. gorkoxnumx
    gorkoxnumx 11 August 2012 10: 24
    In the light of global events, the answer is obvious. If Russia wants words from the high tribunes to reach our "friends", then it is necessary to build a fleet capable of influencing the balance of forces in a particular region, and aircraft carriers are the flagships of such a fleet, and it is not necessary to let them into battle if their existence is sufficient. I do not think that the Americans will want a confrontation with a strange one that could deliver 10-12 air divisions to its "democratic" shores !!!
  7. tan0472
    tan0472 11 August 2012 10: 26
    If you are a Russian and you don’t need a fleet
    That you are either a liberalist, or not a smart press.
  8. gorkoxnumx
    gorkoxnumx 11 August 2012 10: 30
    In the light of global events, the answer is obvious. If Russia wants words from the high rostrum to reach our "friends", then it is necessary to build a fleet capable of influencing the balance of forces in a particular region, and the flagships of such a fleet are aircraft carriers, and it is not necessary to let them into battle, the fact of their existence is sufficient. I don't think that the Americans will want a confrontation with a strange one that could deliver 10-12 air divisions to its "democratic" shores !!!
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 11 August 2012 11: 21
      So it is so, but this is not a quick and very costly business. In the foreseeable future, the Russian Federation and the United States, if they fight, certainly not with aircraft carriers ... AUG (especially when you have more than 10 of them) is a means of promoting their interests in countries where there are no weapons of mass destruction. Do we need the same amount? It seems to me that no. But there is still a need to have several AUGs. It is necessary to somehow fend off the impulses of the "democratizers" and cover the deployment of surface forces, and submarine (strategic) forces, in part, too. Accordingly, we need several AUG. But for this, in addition to aircraft carriers, it is necessary to deal with the construction of escort ships (surface and submarine), the aviation component, including AWACS aircraft, bases around the world, etc. And then make all this work in the system.
      1. Generalissimus
        Generalissimus 11 August 2012 19: 58
        The devil knows whether or not we need to build an AUG.
        Back in the Soviet Union, as you know, many copies were broken on this subject. So, after all, the Union had more ambitious tasks, and there were more opportunities.

        These toys are very expensive. Isn't it more efficient to develop something else? The same hypersonic aircraft program.
        As far as I know, at the beginning of the 90's, the United States recorded a flight over the territory of Russia with hypersonic sounds from western Russia to the Far East. Since then silence. But something flew by. =)
        My yard neighbor, with whom we walked with children in winter, turned out to be one of the developers of laser weapons. Grandfather already, years after 60 for sure. It's a pity. Hopefully not representative of the last of the Magikans. We agreed on mutual acquaintances, then it turned out what he was doing. He told very interesting things. Although the program is half-dead, the tests are successful. The story amused how they shot the target, they didn’t calculate something there, and the target was struck with such power that they themselves were afraid. He says state analogues are a long gone stage.
        So do we need AUG then? Maybe it’s more useful to fight for the implementation of at least the programs I mentioned? AUG against them is meaningless.
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 13 August 2012 10: 29
          The question of the necessity of AUG is a long-standing one. And in the USSR many copies were broken on this subject. But in the end, they came to the conclusion that they were still needed. They just didn’t have time to bring their plans to the end - it came 1991 g ....
          Why did the USSR not initially build aircraft carriers? There are many reasons. Before the Great Patriotic War there was no sense - the coming war for the USSR was predominantly continental. Immediately after the war, there was no time for that. It was urgently necessary to restore the country and ensure its survival (development of nuclear weapons and its carriers). All this had to be done at a forced pace, literally "yesterday". The fleet was in second positions until they saw that enemy ICBMs could be placed on submarines, and the enemy's AUG prevented our surface fleet from fighting them, and in general greatly limited its actions. So, we got a situation when it was necessary to take immediate measures. But which ones? The first approach is to build the same amount of AUG, or even more, than the enemy's. But there is neither experience nor capacity to catch up in this way, it took 15-20 years, if not more. And there was no time for that. Therefore, submarines with anti-ship missiles became a logical asymmetric response that the USSR could give within an acceptable time frame.
          Accordingly, to combat enemy aircraft carriers that are numerically superior, the submarine fleet was better suited - greater stealth, speed of creation and lower cost.
          But there is a minus, "hunting submarines" - a powerful weapon, but specialized. Effectively covering the surface fleet and working on land is not for them, unlike aircraft carriers. Moreover, the Cold War gave rise to many conflicts in the countries of the Third World - there it was necessary to be visibly present and adequately react. The USSR has come a long way from the creation of helicopter carriers to aircraft-carrying cruisers. As a result, an aircraft carrier was to be obtained, adequate to the American one. But they didn't have time ...
          Thus, the aircraft carrier (AUG) is a multifunctional weapon that helps "diplomacy": it can cover the surface fleet and work on land.
          Can this be replaced with hypersonic missiles and airplanes? Probably not. Hypersound is not a panacea, especially since it is expensive. The Americans also thought that "Tomahawks" could solve everything. No, even for them it is expensive, and hypersound will cost more. And the good old "carpet bombardier" cannot be produced with such a weapon. and sometimes it is necessary.
          Laser weapons are not quite the right topic at all. Laser - possibly a weapon for air defense or missile defense. To "burn out" them the territory of other states is still a fantasy. Yes, and it will have to be placed in space, and the planet's atmosphere greatly interferes with such a "hyperboloid" ... 10 AUG may be cheaper.
          So it turns out that one weapon cannot replace another, rather complement and increase the effectiveness of the aircraft as a whole.
          If the Russian Federation needs a sufficiently powerful ocean fleet, it is difficult to do without aircraft carriers. So the question is how, when and how much to build
  9. Temnik
    Temnik 11 August 2012 10: 45
    Stupid question!
  10. prispek
    prispek 11 August 2012 11: 50
    Greetings to all.
    Of course, a fleet is needed. The question is what?
    Quote: gorko83
    it is necessary to build a fleet capable of influencing the balance of forces in a particular region, and the flagships of such a fleet are aircraft carriers, and it is not necessary to let them into battle, the fact of their existence is sufficient. I don't think that the Americans will want a confrontation with a strange one that could deliver 10-12 air divisions to its "democratic" shores !!!

    I do not agree. We are a continental empire and the main emphasis, as I think, should be done on the ground forces of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Air Force.
    An attempt to create a fleet capable of transferring 10 air divisions is guaranteed ruin without a guarantee of success. We are not America and not Great Britain, and our fleet must, first of all, ensure the actions of ground forces. By the way, it was for this that it was created by Peter I.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 August 2012 15: 02
      We are a continental empire - it is a fact.
      However, the fleet created by Peter was intended to gain superiority in the economically important regions of the growing Empire, with the goal of safe trade with Europe, on water. That's why he built the fleet. Moreover, curiously, we know him as the founder of the Navy, but in fact his fleet is a means to establish merchant shipping.
    2. Alf
      Alf 11 August 2012 22: 24
      Ie, in your opinion, the fleet should only consist of ships that support the actions of ground forces? I dare to remind you that the best way to protect your troops from the enemy fleet is to destroy the enemy fleet, and for this you need large attack ships of the "Aircraft Carrier", "Missile Cruiser" and "BR and KR carrier submarine". I think there is no need to remind what a commotion the allies began when they learned about the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Tirpitz sailing into the sea. Because the allies knew about their true power. In addition, our ships have always been built not as specialized, but universal, which means that an aircraft carrier must carry not only aircraft, but also anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles.
  11. Per se.
    Per se. 11 August 2012 12: 13
    Yes, the fleet is needed! I doubt that there will be a person who has decided to prove the opposite, but it is more relevant to ask whether Russia needs aircraft carriers, and there will be many "theoreticians" who will actually begin to prove that Russia does not need a fleet ... Apparently, the word "fleet" and " full-fledged fleet "for some different concepts. A cut down, defective fleet cannot be strong, and there is no need to think about money here, weapons are generally expensive, especially good ones. Ask, does Russia need a strong, full-fledged fleet? Personally, I think - yes! Each class of warships is a single organism of the fleet, and this organism can be larger or smaller (in terms of the greatness of the country), but it should not be disabled, without a "liver" or a "spleen." The question of balance, this is another, here it is necessary think about whether we need the same number of destroyers as the United States or the same number of aircraft carriers, what is the priority in terms of the country's military doctrine and geography.
  12. Konsdneprovsky
    Konsdneprovsky 11 August 2012 14: 51
    Doubts about the need for a powerful fleet of Russia arise only among traitors and morons!
  13. Sokerin
    Sokerin 11 August 2012 14: 54
    Quote: Sakhalininets
    and you need to develop it wisely. Ship construction should be combined with

    During the Second World War, the role of naval aviation as the main force in military operations at sea was clearly defined. It accounted for over 50% of the tonnage of transport ships and more than 70% of warships and auxiliary ships lost by fascist Germany from the impact of our fleet as a whole (Tactics of Naval Aviation, Leningrad, 1990, p. 5).
    Percentage of sunk ships and auxiliary vessels of Germany and its allies from the impact of the Soviet Navy:

    • aviation - 66%
    • submarines - 5%
    • surface ships - 9%
    • coastal artillery - 3%
    • mines - 17%

    As we see, the share of submarines, surface ships and coastal artillery is 17%, i.e. exactly the same as on mines. Given that most of the mines were fired by aviation, its role in the struggle at sea will be even more impressive.

    (The history of naval art, Leningrad, 1987, A.N. Zamchalov, pp. 431-432).
    1. DIMS
      DIMS 11 August 2012 14: 58
      Since then, naval air defense has stepped far forward.
      1. Sokerin
        Sokerin 11 August 2012 15: 53
        Quote: DIMS
        stepped forward far.

        Yep Heard on the same site ......

        “Adopted in 2009, Yaroslav the Wise is the pride of 188 members of his crew. This ship carries a maximum speed of 30 knots on board Ballistic missiles Dagger and equipped with anti-air batteries "Dagger," which are also capable of hitting submarines and surface ships. "
        1. Smirnov Vadim
          Smirnov Vadim 11 August 2012 17: 57
          Quote: Sokerin
          Yep Heard on the same site ......

          This is not our site, it is a redirect from
      2. Alf
        Alf 11 August 2012 22: 26
        Since then, ship aviation (and its capabilities) have also gone a long way.
  14. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 11 August 2012 15: 35
    But if you think about it with brains, then a particularly strong fleet of Russia is not needed, especially today! Always needed a coastal fleet to support the land army, and from the attempts to build an ocean fleet nothing good came out throughout history!
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 11 August 2012 17: 39
      Have minus? Has it become easier?
      What to do with geography? It so happened that the fleet in Russia should play a supporting role, help the army solve its tasks ...
      1. Drednout
        Drednout 11 August 2012 20: 07
        Quote: Brother Sarich
        the fleet in Russia should play a supporting role, help the army solve its tasks ...

        Brother, it already depends on the concept. Either our fleet is the "guardian of the coast" then we need boats and IACs with TFRs and diesel submarines, or - "ownership of the sea", then we need aircraft carriers, BODs and frigates with nuclear submarines.
        The difference in price, but also the difference in performance! I agree to pay taxes 5% more if I’m sure that, if desired, our fleet can provide me with a relaxing holiday even in Cuba, even in Egypt!
      2. CARBON
        CARBON 11 August 2012 23: 04
        At the present stage, a coastal fleet is needed, supported by impressive aircraft and serious submarine forces.
        The main task is to ensure the most secure deployment of SSBNs. The second is the defense of the flanks of ground forces in the event of war. Protection of state territorial waters and natural resources. The most pleasant thing is to go on a visit to the neighbors, while showing that we have everything with the Navy.
        Therefore, we need:
        1. SSBN-as the basis of strategic nuclear forces.
        2. Multipurpose submarines.
        3. Diesel-electric (or non-nuclear non-volatile) submarines.
        4. Frigates and corvettes.
        5. Support vessels and "mosquito" fleet for operations in coastal areas and protection of the maritime border.
        All this is being built now, the point is different at what speed.
        And if in Cuba or Egypt they will at least slice a simple citizen in front of a television camera, then be sure that Ocean, Rocket, and Nuclear will not help you out, we have a different mentality and training)
  15. rexby63
    rexby63 11 August 2012 15: 39
    why, in the presence of such a huge combat experience and an extensive list of victories, is the need for a fleet still doubtful for anyone?

    As the father of a military sailor I will answer: Kozlov dofiga. And the question that served as the title of the article is not historical, but rhetorical
  16. ad3wsafdf
    ad3wsafdf 12 August 2012 00: 44
    The authorities of our country have done a lot, but this is already too much.
    I generally accidentally found him
    Here is information about each of us, for example: relatives, friends, correspondence from social networks.
    And most importantly, it is accessible to everyone, I was really scared at first - you never know what moron there will climb
    Well, the truth is that you can delete all
  17. Alex63
    Alex63 12 August 2012 05: 08
    The question is at least a provocative one. The Russian fleet has always been the pride of our state and Russian sailors in different countries were greeted with honor, orchestras and flowers, unlike sailors from England, America, France or other maritime states. Asking whether we need a Russian fleet or not is the same as asking whether we need an army, aviation and a navy in general. These three components of our security have already been reformed by Yeltsin's "military experts" and continue to be reformed by Putin's wreckers. Our army, aviation and navy have already suffered from the reforms of the post-perestroika Russian government, is it really going to continue? The fleet must be developed, money must be invested in it. Our Russian fleet must be taken out to the ocean so that America does not consider itself the master of the oceans. It is necessary to build Russian aircraft carriers, create ports and infrastructure for them in the key sea cities of our country. I believe that the one who is against this is the enemy of our state.
  18. Kyrgyz
    Kyrgyz 12 August 2012 09: 24
    Yes there is no one doubts the need for the fleet, there are discussions regarding its composition
  19. alex20081308
    alex20081308 12 August 2012 11: 35
    A very interesting figure of 500 destroyed warships of the Germans. I wonder where they got so many of them. In general, in the Second World War, the fleet's efficiency was very low. This is by the way, without affecting the essence of the issue. It’s necessary to be careful with the numbers
  20. 39GB
    39GB 12 August 2012 14: 05
    A fleet is needed, large and different. In the sense of performing various tasks.

    Quote: alex20081308

    A very interesting figure of 500 destroyed warships of the Germans. I wonder where they got so many of them.

    But really, where so much? And why 500, not 499? They like numbers that are rounder and more impressive
  21. mind1954
    mind1954 12 August 2012 19: 46
    At first, it seems to me, it is necessary to solve the question: Who are we?
    State or "banana republic" ?! Colonies and native armies
    the navy is not laid, for this there are colonialists!
  22. Alejandro
    Alejandro 12 August 2012 22: 39
    I completely agree. Russia needs a powerful fleet, but it should be developed in stages. First, provide reliable protection of the coastal zone - saturating the fleets with frigates, corvettes and guard patrols, and then, having prepared the infrastructure, build destroyers and aircraft carriers. And still striking is the desire of our leadership to build ships of the same class on various projects. I believe that we need one project for each class of ships, but making them in large series and with the possibility of changing weapons is both cheaper and easier to maintain.
  23. rygfdcgbxv
    rygfdcgbxv 13 August 2012 04: 16
    porn for all occasions, watch download, relax
  24. Simon
    Simon 13 August 2012 12: 25
    Definitely, the Russian fleet is needed. In the modern world, only that state that is strong by the fleet and army is respected. With a strong fleet and army, the state will have more allies. No bastard will tell us how to live and how to conduct our policies. In addition, if the state does not have a fleet, the state may lose all coastal shipping areas, which can lead to economic collapse and, therefore, to the collapse of the state. yes
  25. managa3
    managa3 14 August 2012 14: 23
    most of the territories are washed by oceans)) the answer is obvious
  26. vitamin ky
    vitamin ky 19 August 2012 06: 40
    remember the Jack Sparrow quote about BLACK PEARL - (C) - A ship is not just a mast - sails and stuff - SHIP - this is a NOTICE - FREEDOM.
    What else to add? -Flot = dream + freedom
  27. Seasoned22
    Seasoned22 7 January 2016 13: 51
    Pretty interesting article