Amateur: "The concept of the Russian Navy"

I must say right away that this article is my first. It represents a "civilian" view of the concept of building the Navy. However, this is also its main advantage. Since a "military" person can not always see the benefits of "civilian thinking". And they can also be. Perhaps knowledgeable people will be able to learn or use some rational ideas. Before commenting, please read to the end.

Source: kremlin.ru

Introductory

When creating my concept, I was guided by the following introductory notes, which I consider objective without any jingoistic patriotism and fantastic assumptions.

1. The Russian economy is unable at the present time and in the foreseeable future to ensure the maintenance of powerful naval forces in all strategic directions comparable to the US Navy and even more so to NATO as a bloc.

2. The length of Russia's maritime borders does not make it possible to repel the naval threat equally effectively in all strategic directions simultaneously.

3. The general concept of naval fleet remains uncertain. Many different ships are being created that solve the same problems. However, they are made by different contractors, have different weapons, appearance and unequal capabilities. That is why ꟷ is such a “zoo” that has not yet been brought to a common denominator.

Perfect fleet

Which navy for today's Russia do I consider ideal and most effective?

1. The fleet must have a unified nomenclature of ship models, weapons and service regulations. (Now we have and continue to create a "zoo": frigates, corvettes, cruisers of 2-3 different models at the same time, different capabilities, appearance and tasks, which increases the cost of production, since the series is small and makes maintenance unprofitable and complicates management). This situation makes naval construction economically ineffective and causes great damage to the fleet.

2. The fleet should abandon the division into regions: Black Sea, Baltic, Northern, Caspian, Pacific. Let me explain. The principle of creating a fleet should be the following:

"You can't be strong everywhere, but you have to be very strong somewhere."

That is, all of the above fleets are reduced as much as possible to the levels of combat training formations designed for training personnel and patrolling the border. Except for the Caspian Sea because of its isolation, but there is generally no need for a large fleet. The released units form one "strike" fleet and one "strategic" fleet.

Strike fleet

As a result, the "strike" fleet turns out to be powerful and compact (it can be created now). And for this you do not need to have a very large number of ships.

The most combat-ready and most modern ships (in the amount of 50-70) can be concentrated in a single unit. Such a fleet will be able to solve any problem anywhere in the world and will be a serious argument wherever it appears.

The fleet will operate on the principle of periodic movement from one theater to another. This will simultaneously be carried out in the format of military exercises, scenarios can always be thought of. One definite period "strike fleet" ꟷ in the Atlantic, another ꟷ in the Pacific, the third ꟷ in the Mediterranean. And so in a circle ꟷ constantly.

Pros. I see the advantages of this approach in the fact that a strong fleet can be created now. It is economically beneficial and affordable for the country's economy. Will increase the prestige and capabilities of the fleet in the world. It will allow sailors to study all theaters of military operations and constantly have a high level of training. It will provide a constant level of "coherence" and interaction of the crews, since they will constantly be part of a single powerful unit, analyze mistakes, experience and successful actions.

Минусы. The disadvantages of this approach are that we will expose those areas where the "strike" fleet will be absent at this time. However, is this a disadvantage? If we proceed from the premise that it is impossible to create an efficient fleet in all directions at the same time? I don't think so. This is an acceptable risk in our circumstances. The defense of other areas at this time, I think, should be addressed with the help of coastal defense and the Air Force.

Also, the conditional disadvantages include the increased wear and tear of ships, since the transitions with our borders from one region to another will be over great distances. However, can this be considered a disadvantage? The fleet moves, trains, constantly studies new theaters of military operations. That is, he works, but naturally you have to pay for the work.

Another disadvantage is that different ships are needed for different seas ("warm" / "cold"). But if it can somehow be unified, then it will no longer be a minus. If not, ꟷ you need to understand how risky it is for the resource of ships. (I can't comment here already). The risk just needs to be properly assessed by specialists.

Strategic fleet

Second permanent fleet ꟷ "Strategic".

This fleet will include strategic missile carriers and the necessary list of other naval vessels, the task of which will be only one thing: to cover the deployment of strategic submarines and to ensure the possibility of a nuclear retaliatory strike by them.

That is, this is a fleet that will, roughly speaking, be assigned to Russia's nuclear triad.

Pros. The advantages are the same.

Минусы. And the disadvantages are already fewer. Since having strategic missile carriers in the entire world ocean at the same time probably does not make much sense. It is enough to hide them either in the Atlantic or in the Pacific Ocean. And go find them all there at the same time.

Air Force, Air Defense and Ground Forces

3. The third component of the "ideal fleet". At the moment when the "Strike" or "Strategic" fleet is in a particular region, the Air Force, as well as the air defense and ground forces of the corresponding region of our country, join its work. Work out the interaction. And they also conduct exercises (to repel the landing of a potential enemy, or others).

The rest of the time, the Air Force, Air Defense and Ground Forces solve their tasks as part of their current training.

Hack and predictor Aviator

This approach makes it possible to create a strong and permanently high combat capability of the naval formation already now. And also to maintain it at the proper material level without a significant increase in the military budget and the cost of naval construction.

Discussion invitation

Of course, there are disadvantages to my concept. Perhaps there is a lot I have left out. Please join the discussion in the comments. Especially those with experience of service or command in the Navy. It will be interesting to hear a competent opinion.

Comments

[for]

Minuses. The disadvantages of this approach are that we will expose those areas where the "strike" fleet will be absent at this time.

With such MINUS no pluses are needed.

[Ross xnumx]

Minuses. The disadvantages of this approach are that we will expose those areas where the "strike" fleet will be absent at this time.

To protect the borders of the Russian Federation, coastal complexes, strategic aviation (the same Su with "Daggers") and the RIAC are sufficient. The designation of the strike fleet as a "long arm" is justified. Only coastal structures in the form of bases should take place.

Quote: for

With such MINUS no pluses are needed.

It is better to try to "cross out" the MINUS than to chew on the "donut hole" forever.

[for]

Quote: ROSS 42

Better to try to "cross out" the MINUS

Maybe we will cross out the minus in some other way than REFORM of the fleets (reduction). Breaking is not building, as the experience in healthcare has shown.

forever gnaw "donut hole

No matter how bad things are, we are far from a bagel, but not whitewash, but a pie with rice with meat.

[bar]

No matter how bad things are, we are far from a bagel, but not whitewash, but a pie with rice with meat.

With such a naval leadership, it's more of a stale sauerkraut pie

[for]

With such a naval leadership

There and higher there are hands - drivers.

[bar]

Those who are "higher" may understand little in naval affairs (it is impossible to be an expert in everything), and make decisions based on the reports of "specialists" in the field.

[hagen]

Quote: for

With such a MINUS, no pluses are needed.

There is one more disadvantage - during the transition from one theater of operations to another, there will be no fleet in either one or the other. Those. it will not be anywhere at all. And the most important thing is that the likely enemy will also know about it. In short, the idea is "so-so".

[Grits]

Quote: Hagen

There is one more disadvantage - during the transition from one theater of operations to another, there will be no fleet in either one or the other. Those. it will not be anywhere at all. And the most important thing is that the likely enemy will also know about it. In short, the idea is "so-so".

We also remember the transition of the squadron to the Pacific Ocean and what happened after that.

[jonht]

The main disadvantage of the approach is that there is no possibility of a quick transfer of such a compound, for example, from the Northern Fleet to the Pacific Fleet. Here you can also minus the fact that knowing where the fleet is concentrated, they will prepare a strike where it is not.
Although I also believe that it is high time for us to move from 4 fleets and a flotilla to 3 fleets (SF, TF, Mediterranean Fleet, or now Black Sea). And in the Baltic it will be enough to keep a flotilla, as well as in Kaspmm.
And in my opinion, the Navy needs its own air force. At least two formations, one in the east, the other in the west, but they must have all the necessary aircraft nomenclature and the required weapons.

[Orel]

Quote: jonht

The main disadvantage of the approach is that there is no possibility of quickly transferring such a compound, for example, from the Northern Fleet to the Pacific Fleet.

I agree that operational relocation is a problem, I proceeded from what we have, it is clear that we always want more and more powerful, ideally two "strike fleets" - the Pacific and Atlantic, but unfortunately, I think we cannot afford it financially

[soul]

Quote: Orel

we cannot afford it financially

Added to this is the fact that every ship manufacturer is trying to take over the state order. At the same time, some may offer the Navy either outdated, or not quite what it needs
With the debut of you

[Revolver]

Quote: Orel

quick movement is a problem

I remember once they assembled such a shock fist and sent it from the Atlantic Theater to the Pacific Theater, crossing the Indian one along the way. We got there with considerable adventures. And it ended with Tsushima.

[Doctor]

I remember once they assembled such a shock fist and sent it from the Atlantic Theater to the Pacific Theater, crossing the Indian one along the way. We got there with considerable adventures. And it ended with Tsushima.

They also built a superflot.
There was no one to show the map to Nicholas, you look and would have realized that instead of battleships you need to drive a two-track track to Vladik.
So it's closer.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Arzt

There was no one to show the map to Nicholas, you look and would have realized that instead of battleships you need to drive a two-track track to Vladik.

During the Russian-Japanese period, there was no single-track (around Lake Baikal). It was necessary to play for time and concede in some way to the Japanese until the completion of the construction of Trassib.

[Grits]

Quote: Captain Pushkin

It was necessary to drag out for time and concede in some way to the Japanese until the completion of the construction of Trassib.

Ambition, arrogance and confidence did not give rest. I would not repeat the mistakes with the hap.

[3danimal]

however, unfortunately, I think we cannot afford it financially

So, can you first increase the economy and, accordingly, raise the budget by 2-3 times?
In the mid-90s, in absolutely terrible conditions, no one attacked us. On the contrary, everyone disarmed, to celebrate. The defense spending of countries is an example.

[bar]

And in my opinion the navy needs its own air force

Put the Air Force under command of our naval commanders? In my opinion, so-so idea ...

[Sergey Sfiedu]

Not to give the Air Force to the Navy, but to have its own aviation in the Navy. The experience of World War II shows that without its own air force, the fleet as a combat structure is doomed. The quality of the bosses is another story.

[bar]

The post-war experience of the USSR naval aviation shows that it does not live under naval leadership. And yes, the quality of the bosses is the main issue.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

All the more sad for the country. Without naval aviation, there is no fleet. The fact that we are building a fleet without naval aviation is simply a waste of people's money. I read the career of some American admiral - he managed to fly as a naval pilot, and commanded a surface ship, and served on the shore. Surely from such a breadth of service, he did not develop narrow thinking.

[Antokha]

I read the career of some American admiral - he managed to fly as a naval pilot, and commanded a surface ship, and served on the shore. Surely from such a breadth of service, he did not develop narrow thinking.

And he learned to love men, now he teaches young gays. Joke.
I know some Americans. And the mind is, and diligence, and education, and life experience, and even a heart, but how about Russia it comes, how it wedges.

[Ross xnumx]

And I found the right thought:

"You can't be strong everywhere, but you have to be very strong somewhere."

You can add - in something ...
And at present in Russia there is exactly:

"Concept of the Russian Navy"

If earlier it was supported by the presence of allies, bases and ports, which the USSR Navy could enter, today even Poland, which at one time “riveted” the BDK for the USSR Navy, is with us “at knives”.
And there is no breakthrough in this position, just as there are no marshals and admirals in the country ...

[Orel]

Quote: ROSS 42

If earlier it was supported by the presence of allies, bases and ports, which the USSR Navy could enter, today even Poland, which at one time “riveted” the BDK for the USSR Navy, is with us “at knives”.

I agree that there is no concept, a clear drawing and what the Navy wants to create in the end. The USSR had an objective naval doctrine. There was a defensive fleet, which was designed to track down AUG and destroy them, to carry out massive strikes of the fleet against ground targets or to land large-scale assault forces, we did not plan and this concept worked, there were corresponding ships and air regiments, and now everything is mixed. What do we want to create? It is unclear, hence it is not clear whether it is effective to acquire these ships, and not just those, say.

[Grits]

Quote: Orel

I agree that there is no concept, a clear drawing and what the Navy wants to create in the end.

With the initiative of you.
I fundamentally disagree with the reorganization of the fleets. Enough of all sorts of restructuring, reorganization, optimizations, renovations and other masturbations. But regarding the creation of common types of ships of several projects - I completely agree. US experience suggests how to build ships correctly.

[Niel-le-Calais]

Quote: ROSS 42

If earlier it was supported by the presence of allies, bases and ports, which the USSR Navy could enter, today even Poland, which at one time “riveted” the BDK for the USSR Navy, is with us “at knives”.

a long time ago, to counterbalance competitors at sea, they were looking for sea allies. Well, or under the base.
But this requires very large funds / reputation of an ally / willingness to abide by the agreement.

[Jacket in stock]

Those. the author proposes to collect in a bunch of all combat-ready ships and send them to hell?
For the transition from one of our sea to another implies a departure from the Bethegs for tens of thousands of kilometers.
Well, we would have had "jump bases", like the USSR. And so, what will the ships do away from supply bases, from aviation, ...
And most importantly, why?
Whom and what are we going to hit there?

[Orel]

Quote: Jacket in stock

Those. the author proposes to collect in a bunch of all combat-ready ships and send them to hell?

This is very simplistic, the closest military comparison is to "put together a fist" and maintain this fist at the level of the most modern naval technology, financially we can afford it, but everywhere it will be very wasteful

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Jacket in stock

Whom and what are we going to hit there?

This is yes. I would like to see the scenario of using our naval shock fist, for example, equal in composition to the American Pacific, in the Far East, in a big war with the United States + allies.
What is proposed to be done, how, where and whom are we planning to "smash"?
Immediately landing in San Francisco or will we take Hawaii for a start?
Even imagination is lacking in the use of surface ships by the Northern Fleet in a big war.
On the Baltic and Black Sea, in my opinion, comments are not required at all.

[Jacket in stock]

And about "we can already now" greatly amused.
Do we have 50-70 combat-ready ships in the ocean zone?

[Orel]

Quote: Jacket in stock

Do we have 50-70 combat-ready ships in the ocean zone?

The ships were not only surface ships, but I think you can try to scrape together if you take open sources, it's another matter that this is not a defining figure, it is conditional, the point is in the "approach", "concept" - a single strong unit that we can afford let it be financially, and what the numerical strength of it will be decided by specialists, based on all the possibilities, where, unfortunately, finances are decisive, everyone needs money not only we have a fleet.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Orel

here is not a defining figure, it is conditional, the point is in the "approach", "concept" - a single strong unit that we can afford financially,

Dear, Eagle, with your initiative! You are definitely a brave person, but unfortunately ... an amateur. And this is the weakness of your position. (For example, your reasoning does not take into account the submarine forces of the fleet, the enemy and his structure of forces, and much more) I will explain my thesis.
1. Geography. Our country has 2 strategic sea directions: northern and eastern, from where we are potentially threatened by the enemy. These areas need to be covered by military structures - fleets. The Black Sea, Baltic and Caspian are also important, but not critical from the point of view of the country's defense. Although this is very conditional. Therefore, in addition to the two strategic formations of the Navy, at least we need to have three more operational naval formations. The total is five: two strategic and 3 operational.
2. Why do we need them. This is the main structural issue of the construction of the FLEET.
Its essence: Goal (protection of the country from sea directions) - problem (to achieve this goal) - force (for solving problems) - facilities (which the forces will have) - ways (their application for solving problems to achieve the set goals).
3. Who enemy, where and how does he threaten us. The enemy is NATO (the core of the alliance is the United States and its fleet), main threat - SSBNs and carriers of nuclear weapons (NK, aviation, SSGN) in the Atlantic (Mediterranean is also a sea of ​​AO) and TO.
4. What force are needed to stop the threat. Against SSBN - PLB forces (PLA, AV PLO, PLK, GISU and k-li GA "patrol"), against naval base and PB SSBN - forces to strike at bases and arsenals of SLBMs. Against nuclear weapons carriers - missile NK, PLA, AV-missile-carrying and PLO against SSGN and attack PLA.
5. Organizationally, the enemy has Atlantic and Pacific (2, 6, 7) fleets and, it seems, is not going to move them anywhere. Therefore, against his forces, one must have constant forces in readiness to strike at the enemy.
And where do you propose to send "strike fists" on the cruise?
6. Forces OBD and BS. Their striking power is very high. Moreover, there is a well-founded opinion that the detachment of the forces of the battalion base and the base station can decide the outcome of the base station in the theater, or defeat the strategic forces of the enemy, even without deploying the main groupings. True, the forces of the DB and the BS are "built up" for this in a certain way. But this is from a different opera.
Therefore, the current system and structure of the Russian Navy adequately responds to threats and makes it possible to achieve the goals set for the fleet.
The forces are still not enough, but work is underway in this direction.
And the question of the need to revive the naval aviation on a new technical base, both coastal and ship-based, was absolutely rightly raised.
IMHO.

[Orel]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

The forces are still not enough, but work is underway in this direction.
And the question of the need to revive the naval aviation on a new technical base, both coastal and ship-based, was absolutely rightly raised.

Thanks for the comment, when arguments lead this is already a serious conversation. The main thing here is financially can we afford all this? This is the most serious problem, you need to find a balance

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

The author honestly writes that he is an amateur, and therefore does not want to swear. And I just want to point out one cardinal logical error that destroys harmonious mindsets. The fleet is not created to "be strong in one direction". The fleet is created in order to solve the tasks facing it. And the same task of ensuring the combat stability of SSBNs requires the presence of nuclear submarines, diesel-electric submarines, and corvettes with frigates, and even our only TAVKR
And - I would strongly recommend studying the numerical strength. With the most optimistic layouts, the Shock Fleet will include not 50-70 ships, but 1 TAVKR, 1 ATARKR, 3 RCCs and 5 Project 949A SSGNs, well, maybe one Project 956 destroyer if the chassis allows it, but it's unlikely. BOD, frigates, torpedo submarines are needed on the ground.

[Orel]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

With the most optimistic layouts, the Shock Fleet will include not 50-70 ships, but 1 TAVKR, 1 ATARKR, 3 RCCs and 5 Project 949A SSGNs, well, maybe one Project 956 destroyer if the chassis allows it, but it's unlikely.

Sadly, I somehow thought everything was better from open sources, but the figure is not the main thing, the point is in the concept, is it permissible to create one connection, but strong, if a lot of money is not foreseen?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Orel

Sadly, I somehow thought everything was better on open sources

Even Wikipedia says so. You will remove from the general list of ships those that are under repair or waiting for it - the result, to put it mildly, is disappointing.

Quote: Orel

the point is in the concept, is it permissible to create one connection, but strong, if a lot of money is not foreseen?

:))) I'm afraid you didn't understand. Everything is allowed. Bring the fleet into one theater, spread it across the world's oceans, and so on. and so on. The fleet is a vehicle. There are tasks that this fleet must solve, and here they are - primary. First, the tasks are determined, and the structure and deployment of the forces of the fleet are just ways of solving these tasks.
Accordingly, first you should set tasks for the fleet, and then, from tasks, come up with its structure.
Name the tasks of the fleet, which, in your opinion, it should solve - then you can understand how adequate your proposed structure will be to them.
If you ask me, the main task of the Navy is to create "bastions", or, as it is now fashionable to say, A2 / AD zones, which would allow us to identify, accompany, and, in the event of a war, destroy submarine surface and air enemy forces in our coastal sea ​​to create the prerequisites for the successful deployment of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces - SSBNs. To do this, each fleet (Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet) must have a full range of assets - both submarines and diesel-electric submarines, and frigates with corvettes, and RRC, and carrier-based aviation, etc. etc.

[Orel]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Name the tasks of the fleet, which, in your opinion, it should solve - then you can understand how adequate your proposed structure will be to them.

I think that the tasks are already by analogy with the United States, otherwise why have sea-based "Caliber" and build UDC for paratroopers? Therefore, this is the landing of troops, and battles "ship - ship" and the delivery of strikes from the sea on ground targets. In general, the tasks are far from defensive in nature already. In general, I think that the concept of the USSR on defense was closer to us, but as you can see, we began to place sea-based "Calibers", and this is already an application for other tasks, I am starting from this already

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Orel

tasks already by analogy with the USA, otherwise why have sea-based "Calibers" and build UDC for paratroopers?

Sea-based calibers milking what was impossible on earth. For Buyans are absolutely nothing like ships. These are floating launchers and nothing more. Karakurt is a little better, but still these are small boats absolutely attached to the beteg. Going somewhere to hit someone is definitely not their ability. The most likely scenario is the launch of Calibers from the quay wall.
Comparing with the United States is not even funny at all, they have, in principle, all possible theaters of operations somewhere far over the sea. Therefore, almost the entire fleet is focused precisely on actions on the other side of the Earth. And for this fleet, in addition to the ships themselves, there is more than a sufficient number of bases in any region.

[Orel]

Quote: Jacket in stock

The most likely scenario is the launch of Calibers from the quay wall.

Quite "gloom" then. Why then put "Caliber" on the ship? This is some kind of nonsense then. If it is possible then to launch from the pier, then it is easier and cheaper to do it from the shore than to build a ship for it. It is completely incomprehensible then what kind of fleet they want to create and for what, only a little, but everything is not enough at the same time

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Orel

Quite "gloom" then. Why then put "Caliber" on the ship? This is some kind of nonsense then. If it is possible then to launch from the pier, then it is easier and cheaper to do it from the shore,

And you, it seems, have not heard about the treaty banning intermediate-range missiles (INF Treaty)?
All these Buyans and Karakurt come from there. True, while they were being built, the contract died, and with it the meaning of existence. Although Karakurt can work as a patrolman, the rest of the weapons allow, but such a sooooo expensive patrolman. And there is nothing anti-submarine at all. Even the patrolman is so-so.

[Orel]

Quote: Jacket in stock

And you, it seems, have not heard about the treaty banning intermediate-range missiles (INF Treaty)?

I heard, but they don't believe in him somehow. Our people are sure that they have been violating it in Romania for a long time with missile defense systems, and there are already talks about withdrawing from the treaty. Even if you believe that the treaty will not only be preserved, but will be observed, the air-based missiles will be more profitable and cheaper than a ship. If, of course, this weapon is used from the quay wall.

[Orel]

Quote: Jacket in stock

Comparing with the United States is not even funny at all, they have, in principle, all possible theaters of operations somewhere far over the sea. Therefore, almost the entire fleet is focused precisely on actions on the other side of the Earth. And for this fleet, in addition to the ships themselves, there is more than a sufficient number of bases in any region.

There is a feeling that this is exactly what they want in our top political leadership. Supply point in Africa - recent news, "Caliber" sea-based, UDC of serious displacement for helicopters and several thousand paratroopers. All this, in my opinion, indirectly indicates that we want exactly as the USA

[Doctor]

There is a feeling that this is exactly what they want in our top political leadership. Supply point in Africa - recent news, "Caliber" sea-based, UDC of serious displacement for helicopters and several thousand paratroopers. All this, in my opinion, indirectly indicates that we want exactly as the USA

In our leadership they want everything at once.

Therefore, the best option would be to order from Hyundai a 500-meter Knock Nevis-type supertanker with a take-off deck, they have 3 nuclear cruisers 1144 and 2 Sharks at Sevmash.

To stuff all this with airplanes and calibers, call it AUG, put it in Avacha Bay and make Solovyov rattle all day long, which is all big and unparalleled here.

Then they will just calm down.

[Orel]

Quote: Arzt

and make Solovyov rattle all day long, that we have everything big and unparalleled

Yes, "propaganda" will be wildly delighted then. In general, they touched on a sore subject, they are now discussing little useful on TV, as if there are no pressing problems in society, the same health care has gotten into an interesting position because of this epidemic, but beautiful reports are coming up, and below the doctors are at their limit, and officials : "Everything's under control"

[Fat]

Quote: Orel

Quote: Jacket in stock

Comparing with the United States is not even funny at all, they have, in principle, all possible theaters of operations somewhere far over the sea. Therefore, almost the entire fleet is focused precisely on actions on the other side of the Earth. And for this fleet, in addition to the ships themselves, there is more than a sufficient number of bases in any region.

There is a feeling that this is exactly what they want in our top political leadership. Supply point in Africa - recent news, "Caliber" sea-based, UDC of serious displacement for helicopters and several thousand paratroopers. All this, in my opinion, indirectly indicates that we want exactly as the USA

Do not flatter yourself. Russia does not need what the United States needs. We do not need to look for resources, they are, we need to protect and defend them. And the States can provide post-nuclear Raiders, but we cannot yet.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Orel

I believe that the tasks, by analogy with the USA, are already

Sorry, but this is not possible. The tasks of the US Navy are not close to us. Their tasks of the general forces are as follows:
1) tracking in peacetime and destruction of enemy SSBNs by MAPL and anti-submarine aviation. Our existing nuclear submarine fleet cannot solve this problem due to the small number and unimportant performance characteristics of the bulk of the ships, the ASW aviation is outdated, small in number, and there is nowhere to base it so that it can reach the SSBN patrol areas. We would cover our SSBNs by detecting and destroying enemy nuclear submarines-hunters
2) Establishment of zonal air and naval dominance in individual areas adjacent directly to enemy territory. This is inaccessible to us, we simply do not have strike aircraft carriers, not to mention the fact that our fleet is not at all on a par with the United States and we simply have nothing to go to their shores. To be honest, we won't be able to defend ourselves with our own people.
3) Attacking enemy territory by carrier-based aircraft and cruise missiles. This is also inaccessible to us - to put it simply, we do not have strike-based carrier-based aircraft, and the submarines with Caliber that we could send to the shores of the United States are too few to achieve a sane result. Unless with a nuclear warhead at Armageddon - there, yes, sending several ships will be justified.

Quote: Orel

In general, I think that the concept of the USSR in defense was closer to us, but as you can see we began to place sea-based "Calibers", and this is already an application for other tasks

Very conditional. The ships carry the UKSK in which you can put Caliber for striking the shore. But in the case of Armageddon, the same frigates with corvettes will be clogged rather by anti-ship missiles and PLUR. On the coast, our fleet to work against a weak enemy

[Orel]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Sorry, but this is not possible. The tasks of the US Navy are beyond our reach.

I do not argue, this is what I have in the original conditions. Another thing is that based on what ships are ordered and what weapons are deployed, that they want to have serious offensive capabilities from the sea, plus the caliber of the same UDC for helicopters and several thousand marines. This is clearly not a defensive nomenclature, especially if you need to carefully choose which ships to order, because there is not much money, and this is what they are building. It suggests that they still want at least some laurels and opportunities of a potential adversary, is it another matter whether it is expedient? There are big questions here

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Orel

Another thing is that based on what ships are ordered and what weapons are deployed, that they want to have serious offensive capabilities from the sea, plus the caliber of the same UDC for helicopters and several thousand marines

Surface ships are not equipped with Calibers, but with UKSK, which are capable of carrying missiles for various purposes. The same calibers exist not only in the shock version, but also in the form of anti-ship missiles and PLUR.
The construction of the UDC is justified ... but nothing, to be honest. The Navy says bluntly that it does not have the forces capable of supporting amphibious operations. Accordingly, such operations are possible only against third world countries that do not have any significant navies and naval aviation.

[Orel]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The construction of the UDC is justified ... but nothing, to be honest.

Is everything really done like this ??? Indiscriminate Russian wastefulness. And so there is not much money, but we will still lobby and buy, even if it is not particularly clear whether it is worth (

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Orel

Is everything really done like this ??? Indiscriminate Russian wastefulness.

Not really. First, the fleet still needs large ships, at least some, so that the skill of their operation is not lost, and we will not build anything else large now. Secondly, this is some kind of carrier-based aircraft (helicopters) which skills do not need to be lost either. Third, orders have been placed at the Black Sea plant, which will allow production to be revived there.
Simply put, the construction of the UDC solves a number of urgent tasks, and they will be useful in conflicts like the Syrian one, but from the point of view of the Big Fleet, they are completely unnecessary now.
extravagance is Poseidon with its carrier, corvette 20386 and many other programs

[Orel]

Thank you for your informed opinion, it's nice to talk with a competent person

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

You're welcome! You did not try to pass off your opinion as the only correct one and directly invited to the discussion. So I joined with pleasure and - glad to meet you! Join our slender ranks of Moremans, and the level of knowledge is profitable

[Orel]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Join our slender ranks of Moremans, and the level of knowledge is profitable

Live and learn, you can't argue;)

[Doctor]

Thank you for your informed opinion, it's nice to talk with a competent person

Cool opinion.

UDCs are needed to operate them, not to lose the skills of any carrier-based aircraft (what kind of special skills do helicopter pilots have ...) and to revive the plant.

But in general they are completely unnecessary.

Can you still be a tanker? He also carries oil.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

extravagance is Poseidon with his bearer,

Andrey, well, Orel is forgivable, he is a boot (if he ever served). But you, the naval, do not understand that the Canyon is more of a political prodigy, without belittling its practical capabilities. This is the piece that can be put on the negotiating table on the START problem.
And the second thing. And how, besides "bad-boom", will you stop the deployment of aircraft carrier forces to the Atlantic? (It will be difficult to intercept them at the Pacific Fleet - the geography is too wide!)
Therefore, one should not think that all the dumkopfs are sitting at the top. Probably they also think how to ensure the country's security with a minimum of forces.

[WayKheThuo]

There are tasks that this fleet must solve, and here they are - primary. First, the tasks are determined, and the structure and deployment of the forces of the fleet are just ways to solve these tasks

How I like the correct, efficient approach!
Truly - you cannot put the cart in front of the horse.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: WayKhe Thuo

How I like the correct, efficient approach!

Alas, this approach is as correct as it is often neglected ...

[common man]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

What are the tasks of the fleet, which, in your opinion, it should solve

In the opinion of another amateur, I consider the main tasks of the fleet: to make the Sea of ​​Okhotsk internal, i.e. completely control it and a certain area around the Kuril Islands and straits. And full control of the NSR. This is a defensive task. Creation of bastions there and defense of the coast.
And already the next offensive, the Mediterranean Fleet and the Pacific Ocean.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

H'm. What about international laws? The adversaries have every right to sail in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and around the Kuriles. Can you control and destroy them? Well, if you hit first. But we are a peaceful country, and we will not be the first to attack. What if they hit first?

[ZEMCH]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

H'm. What about international laws? The adversaries have every right to sail in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and around the Kuriles. Can you control and destroy them? Well, if you hit first. But we are a peaceful country, and we will not be the first to attack. What if they hit first?

In the center of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk there is an elongated enclave of considerable size. Previously, all of it was considered the "open sea". On its territory, vessels of any states could freely move and fish. In November 2013, Russia managed to prove its rights to 52 thousand square kilometers of water area in the center of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. The center of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk ceased to be part of the World Ocean and became completely Russian. After approval at the UN session, the process of legal assignment of the enclave to the Russian continental shelf can be considered fully completed.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: ZEMCH

The center of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk ceased to be part of the World Ocean and became completely Russian.

Nonsense. You are confusing the concept of "exclusive economic zone" and territorial waters. To make a claim to an American aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, you will have to prove that he caught a crab there.

[ZEMCH]

Quote: Cherry Nine

To make a claim to an American aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, you will have to prove that he caught a crab there.

The aircraft carrier will not be sent there, it makes no sense, the nuclear submarine is quite possible.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: ZEMCH

here the submarine is quite possible.

So the submarine was catching a crab.

Quote: ZEMCH

The aircraft carrier won't be sent there, it makes no sense

Yes? And before, it happened, they sent, and not one.

[ZEMCH]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Yes? And before, it happened, they sent, and not one.

In Okhotskoe, usually in Japanese, Okhotskoe freezes in the north in winter, from October to May, and in the center the minus is also decent, in the summer there is a very strong wind from the mainland, the width of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is 1407 km, you can't go unnoticed. It's easier to attack from the Ocean without going into Okhotskoye.

[Sergej1972]

Not nonsense. Part of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk has indeed become part of the inland sea. On VO there was an article on this issue.

[common man]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

The adversaries have every right to swim in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and around the Kuriles.

I didn't say to forbid swimming. I said to have the forces and means to fully control the sailing there of submarines and NKs, and guaranteed destruction of them in the event of a mess.
PS If they know that they are guaranteed to be destroyed there, then they will be careful not to swim there with "bad intentions".

[SVD68]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

H'm. What about international laws? The adversaries have every right to sail in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and around the Kuriles. Can you control and destroy them? Well, if you hit first. But we are a peaceful country, and we will not be the first to attack. What if they hit first?

This is the basis on which they can pass the Kuril Straits?

[Cherry Nine]

What does "based on what" mean? These are international waters, any Bussol Strait is not blocked by water. But even where the strait is blocked by thermal waters - Gibraltar, the Danish Straits - free passage of ships, including military ones, is guaranteed, unless the strait leads to inland waters. No, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is not internal waters of the Russian Federation and never will be.

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Orel

if a lot of money is not expected?

And this should be asked from Siluanov and Nabiullina ... And will the IMF and the FRS give the go-ahead ...

[Cyril G ...]

De facto add 1155 pr. To the ocean - they are still used in this capacity.
However, at one time I thought about another version of the ocean connection.
And it should be based exactly where several conditions coincide - the best industrial / repair opportunities, free access to the ocean, etc.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Cyril G ...

De facto add to ocean 1155 pr

I think - no way. In our reality, they should drive US MPSS in coastal areas.

[Cyril G ...]

In reality, you yourself know how things are going.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Cyril G ...

free access to the ocean

Where is it? On Russian territory? In Kamchatka?

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The author honestly writes that he is an amateur,

Based on our naval affairs, it could be anyone. Up to admirals.

[Igor Tikhomirov]

Cheek puffing up again. No comments.
Previously, a more or less decent site turns into a network garbage can.

[Lavrenty1937]

FIRST. The possibility of a quick transfer of naval forces from one theater of operations to another (today they are at the TF, tomorrow at the Northern Fleet, the day after tomorrow at the Black Sea Fleet) can only be solved by creating a naval missile-carrying aviation (MRA), which should be the main strike force of the Navy (options - assault based on Su-34 or Su-30SM). SECOND. The main efforts of the Navy should be focused on the directions from which the probable enemy will conduct air-land-sea operations against the Russian Federation (following the example of Yugoslavia, Iraq) - these are the Northeast Atlantic (North, Norwegian, Barents Seas) and and the northwestern part of the Pacific Ocean. At least two groups should be created in each of these directions: a) to protect and defend our SSBNs, b) anti-aircraft forces. The latter should include MRA (SHA), nuclear submarines (air-independent submarines, DPLs) and forces ensuring their stability (protection) - AB, anti-submarine helicopter carriers, etc. Thus, the Navy should build for itself, first of all, MRA (SHA) , Nuclear submarines to combat enemy AUG, and strength. ensuring their stability.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Lavrenty1937

Thus, the Navy should build for itself, first of all, MRA (SHA)

The admirals scored on naval aviation on principle. This is superimposed on the fundamental isolation of the MA from the Navy.
In our navy, they don’t want to remember what the effectiveness of the naval forces was during the Second World War. Yes, and at the departments of naval history in the higher educational institutions, not a word was said about this, it is unlikely that something has changed since the 90s.
Just in case, I will remind you of the effectiveness during the Second World War:
- in the first place is naval aviation with about 350-400 sunk and disabled targets. (With aviation, the matter is generally at the seams, no one is interested in understanding, there is no general list of losses, except for the successes of the MTA. So, it is estimated, perhaps more)
- in second place are submariners, at least 180 sunk and disabled targets.
- in third place are torpedo boats and others, 22 targets sunk by torpedoes, and several more boats and ships are boarded or rammed.
- in fourth place are coastal artillerymen, with about 9-12 targets sunk or disabled.
- in the fifth prize-winning place, bingo, surface ships from the TFR to the battleship, inclusive with several (several is 3-4, no more) tugs, seiners and ferries sunk by artillery

As everyone understands, the fleet spends money exactly the opposite

[Doccor18]

... in the fifth prize-winning place, bingo, surface ships from the TFR to the battleship, inclusive with several (several is 3-4, no more) tugs, seiners and ferries sunk by artillery

As everyone understands, the fleet spends money exactly the opposite

That is why not a single normal aircraft carrier has been created in 75 years.
And to this day, with the armament of fighters with a sufficient number of anti-ship missiles, there is some kind of ambush ...

[Doctor]

Just in case, I will remind you of the effectiveness during the Second World War:

Are these statistics for all fleets or just ours?

[Cyril G ...]

Especially for the Soviet fleet. She is approximate enough, but this is the real state of affairs ...

I wonder why they put a minus for this post of mine on statistics ?! Hey, incognito, tell me about your L-logic ...

[Doctor]

Especially for the Soviet fleet. She is approximate enough, but this is the real state of affairs ...

If taken globally for all fleets, the ratio will probably be the same.

But generally surprising.
During the Gulf War, the main allies came from ground airfields, 6 ABs made 15% of the sorties and dropped about 10 bombs, and the conventional air force 000.
In Syria, aviation has solved 70% of the tasks.
In Karabakh, UAVs started shooting at a shooting range.

But still there is a boom in building steamers ...

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Arzt

If taken globally for all fleets, the ratio will probably be the same.

There will of course be differences. But the trend is about and will continue to be.

Here's what I wrote last week about this:

And our top management is not interested in the fleet, and our admirals, if I may say so, do not seek to convince him otherwise. The fleet is considered as a kind of indispensable accessory for serious people, like the tough kid in the 90s had a TT and a crimson jacket. And if the leadership, then most adequately, was able to demand what kind of Air Force, Special Operations Forces, Strategic Missile Forces and Ground Forces of Russia they want to see (Ne need to blunt comrade Tupolev. And there is even a certain logic here too - proceeding from an awareness of the real state of affairs.
Everything is aggravated by the fact that nowadays admirals who were sitting in drops in the 90s and zero on half-dead, or often de-energized ships and were doing the devil knows what, but not nearly real combat work, are now in charge of their own land thinking.
We must not also forget how the efforts of the brainless new Russian admiralty deliberately in fact ruined the naval aviation, as the fleet at one point lost its main striking power MRA.

[Doctor]

Here's what I wrote last week about this:
And our top management is not interested in the fleet, and our admirals, if I may say so, do not seek to convince him otherwise. The fleet is considered as a kind of indispensable accessory for serious people, like the tough kid in the 90s had a TT and a crimson jacket. And if the leadership, then most adequately, was able to demand what kind of Air Force, Special Operations Forces, Strategic Missile Forces and Ground Forces of Russia they want to see (Ne need to blunt comrade Tupolev. And there is even a certain logic here too - proceeding from an awareness of the real state of affairs.
Everything is aggravated by the fact that nowadays admirals who were sitting in drops in the 90s and zero on half-dead, or often de-energized ships and were doing the devil knows what, but not nearly real combat work, are now in charge of their own land thinking.
We must not also forget how the efforts of the brainless new Russian admiralty deliberately in fact ruined the naval aviation, as the fleet at one point lost its main striking power MRA.

Everything is correct. Show off.
In the land too. Spetsnaz got divorced like uncut dogs.
As for the matter, you have to recruit young alcoholics from the villages, quickly train in the spirit of the 1941 militia and send them to war in the form of gangs called PMCs.

[Niel-le-Calais]

Quote: Cyril G ...

As everyone understands, the fleet spends money exactly the opposite

price - efficiency
that in the first it is not always clear (increase in the cost of projects)
and the second is generally found out empirically in the war. That is, when everything is already ... little change. Only take into account the experience. But only this moment. And there is no future yet.
Can be built based on experience (past wars)
you can risk
you can not risk it (do like someone)

[Cyril G ...]

The restoration of the fleet in zero had to begin with naval aviation, non-submarine submarines and mosquito forces - firstly, the RCA with the Uranus SCRC, completing both the anti-ship missile and the SLAM-type missile defense system, significantly cheaper for work on the ground, and the second IPC (small corvette) for anti-submarine deployment SIS in BMZ, including before all NSNF, and modernization of sweeping forces with modern mine detection systems.
What we have done in reality, I believe in the course.
“Every time we first of all need minesweepers, and we have a mine problem all the time and a mouthful of cucumbers,” not in vain, for example, in the Tallinn crossing, 2/3 of the lost ships and ships were lost to mines. And we are building "LINCORE" again, and the whole twentieth century this dance on a rake !!! And the 21st century began with the same !!!

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Lavrenty1937

The navy must build for itself, first of all, MRA (SHA), nuclear submarines to fight the enemy's AUG, and forces. ensuring their stability.

Gennady
This is undoubtedly an important task, but not the main one.
THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE NAVY is to disrupt the application of the enemy's SSBN RYAU across the country. And now the Virginias are also fit into this task with their CRBDs.
Therefore, the priorities are set as follows: SSBN, SSGN / MPLA, AVU, NK with RO (KRBD).

[K298rtm]

[THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE NAVY - to disrupt the application of the RYAU SSBN enemy on the territory of the country. And now the Virginias also fit into this task with their CRBD]
Judging by the forces and means that our Navy has (and will have in the next 10 years), they are not going to solve the designated main task (from the word at all). But this is my purely personal (sofa-pensioner) opinion.

[Lavrenty1937]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The construction of the UDC is justified ... but nothing, to be honest. The Navy says bluntly that it does not have the forces capable of supporting amphibious operations. Accordingly, such operations are possible only against third world countries that do not have any significant navies and naval aviation.

And second, there is no place for UDCs (they are not used at all) in the implementation of the main task of the Navy - to prevent the domination of a potential enemy in the areas of the main efforts of the Fleet (in the zones of action of the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet). If a pair of UDCs is built in Kerch, then it is advisable to base anti-submarine and AWACS helicopters on them and use them to ensure the stability of SSBNs and anti-aircraft forces.

[Doccor18]

The Russian economy is incapable of ... maintaining powerful naval forces in all strategic areas, comparable to the US Navy and even more so NATO as a bloc.

The Russian economy is capable of creating 3 full-fledged squadrons in all directions (North Atlantic, Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea.) Each squadron may include (as an option) 1 TARK pr. 1144M, 4 frigates, 2 MAPLs, 2 BDK (or 1 UDC ).
The Russian economy is quite capable of handling the construction of 10 SSBNs and 20 MPSS.
The Russian economy is quite capable of handling 3-4 dozen small PLO corvettes and 10-15 anti-mine ships with a displacement of no more than 1500 tons.
Also, it will not become an unbearable burden - the transfer of 3-4 SU-30 regiments with the ability to carry anti-ship missiles.
All this could be had now.
And more is not needed yet.
There is no point in competing with the United States and NATO in the number of pennants.
We compensate for the scarcity of coastal anti-ship missile complexes and powerful air defense areas based on the S-400, Tor, Pantsir and soon the S-350.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Doccor18

And more is not needed yet.

Our naval luminaries quite reasonably designated the quantitative composition of the country's Navy for the 50s of the twentieth century! century.

I think we can agree with them.
AHA.

[Cyril G ...]

The destroyer and frigate tend to merge into one class of ocean-class multipurpose warship.
See the announced project 22350M

[Doccor18]

Quote: Cyril G ...

The destroyer and frigate tend to merge into one class of ocean-class multipurpose warship.
See the announced project 22350M

I don't understand the point of building frigates at all. All the same, you have to put all the best equipment that the country has on it. So isn't it easier to enlarge the case by 1,5 times and put everything the same. The cost will increase slightly, but there will be excellent seakeeping and an excellent modernization perspective for the future. Only the problem with a normal power plant to solve. If we are to build 22350, then they should be the size of 1155.1.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Doccor18

Isn't it easier to enlarge the body 1,5 times and put everything the same.

It would be more reasonable if we make a frigate with a capacity of 8000 tons, with components from April 22350. Moreover, the difference there will be purely due to the increase in the number of UVP cells and the increase in ammunition, the expansion of the hangar to receive the second turntable. Everything. The only problem will be the need for new gearboxes and the introduction of an economical gas turbine engine

[Cyril G ...]

SSBN, depending on which KOH. If we assume that 2 ships at sea at the same time are enough for us in service, with KOH-0.25, 8 ships will be enough. If we strive to have 4 ships at sea at the same time, everything will rest against the need for a very precise operation of the shipyard and the promptness of repairs, and then, having reached KOH = 0.33, we, with 12 ships, will simultaneously have 4 ships at sea.

[Doctor]

My amateurish (also) version.

Since in the event of a serious war, there will be no sense from the fleet, as always, not to build the fleet at all.

Send all funds to sensible things, in particular aviation.

According to the results of PRG 2020, 5 trillion rubles were allocated for the fleet. for the rest 2,6. The ratio is 1 to 2.

At PRG 2030, it is planned to 20 trillion. to the fleet 14.
A good plane costs 2 yards.
Good BALA (Reaper type) 200 lamas.
1000 Su-35 - 2 tr.
1000 Su-34 - 2 tr.
500 Tu-23 - 2 tr.
10 UAVs - 000 tr.
Total 8.
Remains 6.
5 bureaucrats for cutting, 1 for me for an idea.

[Doccor18]

1 for me for an idea. 

So that the Ohio PLA could launch a couple of hundred axes straight from the Murmansk raid ...
And who will stop her? Maybe 500 Tu-22?

[Doctor]

So that the Ohio PLA could launch a couple of hundred axes straight from the Murmansk raid ...
And who will stop her? Maybe 500 Tu-22? no

And how will frigates, etc., help you from a NATO air division strike from Boryspil? (she will be there soon).

I don’t remember anything, during the thousand-year history of Russia, someone captured from the sea? ...

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Arzt

I don’t remember anything, during the thousand-year history of Russia, someone captured from the sea? ...

This is what it should be about

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Arzt

Someone seized Russia from the sea? ...

And how did the British, Americans, Japanese appear in the same Murmansk? in Vladivostok ?

[Doctor]

And how did the British, Americans, Japanese appear in the same Murmansk? in Vladivostok ?

They also landed in the Crimea. And then what?
We see it from our side, supposedly landed, now they will go to Moscow!

But unfold the map and appreciate the reverse logistics.

Imagine - you landed in Portland, on the West Coast of the United States, you need to get to Washington, your barges are bringing ammunition and food from Vladik.

The Americans announced mobilization ...

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Arzt

They also landed in the Crimea. And then what?

Well, Napoleon and Moscow took, you can also ask "and then what."
And in fact, yes, no one has captured us for a long time either from the sea or from land. But this does not mean at all that the foreign fleet cannot inflict serious damage on us.
For example, from the same Odessa to Moscow, American "tomogavki" are quite capable of flying. And from Tallinn or Riga, even "harpoons" can drown our entire Baltic fleet right on the roadstead of Krondstadt.

[Doctor]

Well, Napoleon and Moscow took, you can also ask "and then what."

This is what we are talking about. Polovtsi, Pechenegs, Mongols, Poles, Swedes, French, Germans - all on foot, or on horses, or on tanks.
This is the main theater and it requires strength and resources.

[Doctor]

For example, from the same Odessa to Moscow, American "tomogavki" are quite capable of flying. And from Tallinn or Riga, even "harpoons" can drown our entire Baltic fleet right on the roadstead of Krondstadt.

So from Kharkov and the same Riga by land is even closer.

And aviation, unlike the fleet, is universal.
It will work equally well for Burke in the Baltic and Abrams near Poltava.

[Niel-le-Calais]

Quote: Arzt

Imagine - you landed in Portland, on the West Coast of the United States, you need to get to Washington, your barges are bringing ammunition and food from Vladik.

3782 km (41 hours of continuous drive on I-84 E and I-80 E)
that is, we land in a city of half a million, 3 in logistics, near the devil from Washington (and what will he give us, even if we get there) *** ???
Is this a challenge? Suicide squad (no more landing) .. it's easier to take a flight. Directly. In civilian.

[Doctor]

3782 km (41 hours of continuous drive on I-84 E and I-80 E)
that is, we land in a city of half a million, 3 in logistics, near the devil from Washington (and what will he give us, even if we get there) *** ???
Is this a challenge? Suicide squad (no more landing) .. it's easier to take a flight. Directly. In civilian.

You see, you understand the whole absurdity of the situation.
And the local strategists calmly fear the capture of half a million Vladivostok, followed by a raid on Moscow!

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Arzt

over the thousand-year history of Russia, someone from the sea captured?

Crimean War 1853-56

[Doctor]

Crimean War 1853-56

Good example. I already wrote above:

They also landed in the Crimea. And then what?

Now imagine that Russia at that time did not have a Black Sea Fleet.

The money spent on 14 battleships, 13 frigates and 52 others was invested in strengthening Sevastopol and strengthening the land army of Crimea.

In the Battle of Alma, Menshikov had not 30 soldiers, but 000 and not 50 guns, but 000.
Near Balaklava at Liprandi, not 16, but 000.
In Inkerman, our soldiers do not have a smoothbore, but a choke.
Near Evpatoria, Khrulev had not 19, but 000, and 40 guns.
At the Black River, the Gorrchakov command not 60, but 000.
Sevastopol was fortified from land, Malakhov Kurgan was turned into an impregnable citadel 5 years before the war, and was not convulsively fortified during.

Etc. etc.

All this could be done if the money allocated for unnecessary ships went to the right cause.
Especially when you consider that these ships never entered the general battle, but were "heroically" sunk.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Arzt

if the money allocated for unnecessary ships went to the right cause.

There, a railway was also needed, otherwise the supply of the Anglo-French turned out to be better than the Russian army.
The adversaries took this into account and attacked on a distant outskirts, hardly accessible to our quartermasters.

[Doctor]

There, a railway was also needed, otherwise the supply of the Anglo-French turned out to be better than the Russian army.
The adversaries took this into account and attacked on a distant outskirts, hardly accessible to our quartermasters.

Of course, this is where you start.
But the lessons were not learned, in the Russian-Japanese, too, without a road, in the WWI they frantically chopped to Murman ...
Right now, a bridge to the Crimea has been built, as if we will carry cargo during the war.

[ZEMCH]

Quote: Captain Pushkin

Crimean War 1853-56

Everyone knows about Crimea, but they forget about the heroic defense of Petropavlovsk!
The Anglo-French squadron tried to capture Petropavlovsk, but was repulsed, Admiral Price, who was in charge of the squadron, shot himself, because could not bear the shame of defeat!

[K298rtm]

1. No one will capture, but it is quite possible to strike the KRKR from the sea.
2. After take-off in Boryspil, the carriers will be instantly detected, and where the carriers are, we will only find out after the detection of the CDRs themselves. This is the difference.

[Doctor]

And who will stop her? Maybe 500 Tu-22? no

Okay, let's reduce the appetites of bureaucrats, build 500 anti-submarine aircraft.
100 per fleet and 100 in reserve.

Although they already have no problems with transferring between theaters. (Like the rest).

[Doccor18]

There should be harmony and measure in everything.
S-400 and SU-35 will protect us from NATO aviation. There should be enough of them. How much exactly is up to the General Staff.
Ohio to the launch site, and our MAPLs (885 or something else) and PLO corvettes should not allow Virginia to Gadzhievo.
And Burke and Fords are forced to keep at a respectful distance from the coast using coastal anti-ship missile launchers and frigates 22350.
Aviation alone, even if it is numerous, is not capable of solving all problems.

[WapentakeLokki]

and what kind of anti-submarine warfare ??? maybe we have `` Poseidons '' or the old Be-12 and Il (well, God forbid, I don’t remember what he is there, but obviously from the times of the USSR) ???

[Doctor]

and what kind of anti-submarine warfare ??? maybe we have `` Poseidons '' or the old Be-12 and Il (well, God forbid, I don’t remember what he is there, but obviously from the times of the USSR) ???

We have an excellent basic aircraft, suitable in terms of parameters, the production of which has been worked out and the training of pilots too.
IL-76.
Issue price of 2 yards rubles.
Six regiments of 40 aircraft:
1 SF
1 KBF
1 Black Sea Fleet
2 Pacific Fleet
1 reserve
250 aircraft - half a trillion
250 IL-76 AWACS (A100 Premier). - another floor

We reduce the appetites of bureaucrats by another trillion and close the topic with enemy nuclear submarines and target designation for Calibers with special warheads 1,5 thousand versts from our shores.

[WapentakeLokki]

... in principle, I agree .. the question remains HOW ??? .. how will this very appetite be reduced ??? .. no, there is Ilyich's method (which Ulyanov) .. when cash began to disappear in the young republic Ilyich uttered a wise phrase ... like you just need to shoot a dozen cashiers and everything is great .. but then it was 1918 but how to be now ?? your option

[Doctor]

... in principle, I agree .. the question remains HOW ??? .. how will this very appetite be reduced ??? .. no, there is Ilyich's method (which Ulyanov) .. when cash began to disappear in the young republic Ilyich uttered a wise phrase ... like you just need to shoot a dozen cashiers and everything is great .. but then it was 1918 but how to be now ?? your option

Since the time of Ilyich nothing new has been invented with bureaucrats - accounting and control.
But it's not even about them.

The very concept of building a fleet is formed in the heads of the country's leadership by naval specialists. Relying on specialists is generally correct and natural.
But these specialists still live according to the notes of Admiral Gorshkov.
It says that the fleet should be large and varied. The management is trying to build one, but there is no money.
As a result, we have what we have.

The worst thing is that at the same time 2/3 of the budget is spent on the fleet. And they will have to fight again on land and in the air.

[WapentakeLokki]

.... yeah, that in WW I, that in WWII, the fleet did not pay for itself (from the word in general) .. and investments in the fleet of the times of the aforementioned admiral, including, led to the collapse of the USSR (overstrained) ... and the fleet is currently needed .. or not needed .. and so not numerous bucks should be spent on something else but ... one example; the Cuban missile crisis and the USSR does not have a fleet and nothing to cover the caravans to Cuba (cr Stalingrad were cut and AV did not start build) and as a result, diesel people are thrown on a campaign (and count to the slaughter) ... yeah against PLO US NAVY groups ... and it turned out what happened .. so the question of the fleet is controversial .. is not needed and if you need what? ??

[Doctor]

... yeah, that in WW I, that in WWII the fleet did not pay for itself (from the word in general) .. and investments in the fleet during the times of the aforementioned admiral, including, led to the collapse of the USSR (overstrained) ...

Take it earlier, it has not paid for itself since the time of Peter.

And compare with the fleets of Spain and Portugal, for example, which actually formed the whole Spanish-Portuguese continent. At the same time, not being poorly enriched.

Then the British and French took up the baton, repeating the focus in their colonies and continents (Australia).

In the 20th century, the need for resources forced the Japanese, but the United States succeeded. They were the first to realize that the coal civilization was replaced by the oil civilization, and after the meeting between Roosevelt and Ibn Saud, it became clear why the United States needed a fleet in the 20th century.

BUT, in all these cases, the initial driving force was the financial interests of private companies and merchants, and the Navy pulled itself up later to protect and control trade routes.
So it made sense.

[Doctor]

The Cuban Missile Crisis and the USSR has no fleet and nothing to cover the caravans to Cuba (the Stalingrad region was cut and AB did not start building) and as a result diesel men were thrown on the campaign (count to the slaughter) ... yeah against the PLO of US NAVY groups ... and it turned out what happened .. so the question of the fleet is controversial .. is not needed and if you need which one ???

This is already a matter of strategy and calculation.
If you were going to Cuba, you had to realize that you need a fleet.

And then, like the defenders of Hitler - the frost is to blame.
In Russia, it has been cold in winter for many millennia, so who is to blame - Santa Claus or the fascist logisticians and fuel and lubricants who did not stock up on time coats and winter oil?

[Doctor]

so that the issue of the fleet is controversial .. is not needed and if you need what ??

The naval experts have written above what.

They all build around SSBNs.

But here, like that saying:

Money appeared - women appeared;
Women appeared - money disappeared;
Money disappeared - women disappeared;
Women disappeared - money appeared.

Eliminate women from that equation and you'll be a rich man!

Remove the SSBNs on land and breathe easier.

[WapentakeLokki]

.. bravo you put Aloizych and Nikita on the same board !!! ..in principle, your truth .. both amateurs but .. with ambitions ... and, by the way, both believed in the Miracle Weapon ... for Nikita it was a Rocket Weapon .. which means the fleet is not needed (yeah, a violinist is not needed) .. well, and think in advance ... well, you can recall a lot of long-term and thought-out paradigms in the Land of Soviets ???

[Doctor]

Well, you can recall a lot of long-term and well-thought-out paradigms in the Land of the Soviets ???

A lot of. In almost every field.
Because there was a clear goal - building communism on the planet.
All private paradigms were built taking into account the main goal, forces and means were thrown to achieve this goal, the interests of the people were secondary.

[WapentakeLokki]

... yeah, the PERFECT society can be built, but how to build (educate, clone) the PERFECT brow of the BUILDER OF COMMUNISM !!!

[Doctor]

... yeah, the PERFECT society can be built, but how to build (educate, clone) the PERFECT brow of the BUILDER OF COMMUNISM !!!

This is already a matter of targeting.
But the fact that they were moving towards it steadily, progressively and thought out - no doubt.

[Doctor]

both believed in the Miracle Weapon ... for Nikita it was a Rocket Weapon

Nikita, by the way, was right, now we are fighting with missiles.
And Aloizych was not very wrong, he just did not have time.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: WapentakeLokki

and if you need what ???

The key question is what.
And what should be included in it. For me personally, the question of NSNF is doubtful for Russia.

[Doccor18]

... all of the above fleets are reduced as much as possible to the levels of combat training formations ...

It's called killing the fleet ...

..The liberated units form one "strike" fleet ...

And where will he be based?
In the north? How long will it take for this "firefighter fleet" to reach the Sea of ​​Japan? When this "fist" arrives, the war will be over ...
The transience of modern conflicts is known to everyone. Almost all tasks can be solved in 7-14.
That is why the squadron must be in every strategic direction.

[bar]

The fleet will operate on the principle of periodic movement from one theater to another.

the problem is that these "theaters" are located at different ends of the ball, and "periodic movement" is not only a very haemorrhoid operation, but also will consume the resources of the ships.

[faiver]

Wait, the concept is unfortunate

[Orel]

A negative result is also a result, in any case, opinion and discussion helps to form optimal views, so thanks for joining

[Ryaruav]

but the author did not think about the families of the crews of the ships of the shock compound

[Orel]

Quote: Ryaruav

but the author did not think about the families of the crews of the ships of the shock compound

I really missed this, this is serious, if rotation is impossible, then it will be an insoluble problem. I agree, the human factor changes everything then

[common man]

Quote: Orel

I really missed this, this is serious, if rotation is impossible, then it will be an insoluble problem. I agree, the human factor changes everything then

And they also missed the fact that at each theater it will be necessary to build full-fledged bases for the WHOLE fleet. Those. all in two or three sets. Money will be needed immeasurably.

[Vladimir1155]

In general, the concept is interesting for its approach of breaking traditions when a ship is assigned to a particular fleet according to the principle of all sisters by earrings and is listed there until the end of the century, regardless of its need in this direction. The fleets turned into economic administrations headed by a supply manager = an admiral who snatched a piece of allowance for himself and did not give it to others. A sad example of Tsushima when the Black Sea Fleet simply cleverly refused to participate in a long campaign. The weakness of the position of the respected Oleg in the general approach to ships ... they are very different. There should be two strategic strike fleets, the Northern and Kamchatka, because the main most important force of the fleet is the nuclear submarine and the rest of the fleet is only annex to it, all ships of the second rank and the first should be in these two points, they will be enough under the protection of coastal air bases and air defense if you pick them up from the seas. And periodically transferring ships from one water area to another and back is simply technically difficult and useless, the ships need a base, and the personnel need apartments. The rest of the fleets can and should be safely reduced to several ships of the third rank, in the Black Sea Fleet and in the Sea of ​​Japan there may also be non-nuclear submarines. Ships of the third rank, by the way, are easily navigated by inland waterways. The most important direction in the restructuring of the fleet should be the development of coastal aviation PLO, PMO. A separate issue is the uselessness of an existing aircraft carrier left without a dock, without combat escort, but drawing huge financial resources from the Navy, and in fact it would be useful to India or China,

[Orel]

Thank you for your opinion, when they answer competently, it always brings you closer to the truth;)

[Vladimir1155]

thank you and dear Oleg

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Arzt

And aviation, unlike the fleet, is universal.

And for aviation, an inter-theater maneuver is quite acceptable, including with a weapon on a suspension ...

[WayKheThuo]

Author, with the initiative you.
I liked the article: it is concise, to the point, without unnecessary lyrical digressions - norms.
As for the essence - I, being a purely civilian person myself, not counting the urgent in the Soviet Army, am still very wary of the concept of a strike group moving from ocean to ocean. And the point here is not that some part of the water area will necessarily be exposed, but rather a simple question: "Why?"
If we look at the history of the wars of my country, we will see that the fleet almost always solved auxiliary tasks, especially the Great Patriotic War, and the First World War as well. The contribution of the fleet to the Victory is incommensurate with the contribution of Vasily Tyorkin and the reason is simple - we are a pronounced continental power that does not have normal access to the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean.
Somewhere in the depths of VO, you can find an excellent article that tells how easily and naturally our opponents, in the event of a real mess, block our operational and tactical space.
Therefore, IMHO, it is probably worth starting with "simple" questions: "What do we need the fleet for?", "What tasks should it solve?", "What means should it have to solve these tasks?", "What communications should it rely on? fleet?".
Author, try to outline your vision of such issues in your next article - it may turn out to be interesting.
I think so.

[Orel]

Quote: WayKhe Thuo

Author, try to outline your vision of such issues in your next article - it may turn out to be interesting.
I think so

Thank you for your opinion, I agree that the fleet was solving auxiliary tasks, I am worried about this question due to the fact that, based on the composition of the fleet, its weapons, those ships that are being built, it is not very clear what kind of fleet it will be? Little by little, everything is not enough, hence the doubts about the effectiveness, what will happen in the end? It's hard to figure it out. There is only one understanding, strategic submarines, a nuclear retaliatory strike, there are no questions, but with the rest of the concept of the fleet there are only questions. The same UDCs were discussing here, an expensive pleasure, but in fact it is to the fleet like a suitcase without a handle

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Orel

The same UDCs were discussing here, an expensive pleasure, but in fact it is to the fleet like a suitcase without a handle

you have a fresh look that is not blurry and therefore you see what has long been obvious to all thinking people ... but it is not obvious to those who made just a feeder out of the ship, super cut during construction, then cut for 40 years for the maintenance of a senseless surface ship

[SVD68]

Author, you need to read (or re-read) a series of very competent articles by Alexander Timokhin about the purpose of the fleet.
Short:
1. The purpose of the fleet is domination at sea. Which means safe (with a high probability) use of the sea as routes for the movement of their ships and a ban (with a high degree of threat of destruction) for enemy ships and ships.
2. If domination at sea is unattainable, the fleet must ensure that domination at sea is not achieved by the enemy.
3. Areas where dominance of the sea is vital for us - the Baltic, the Black Sea, the White Sea, part of the Barents Sea, the Northern Sea Route, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
Areas where our dominance at sea is desirable and it is imperative not to allow the enemy to establish dominance at sea - the Barents Sea, the Pacific Ocean near Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands and the Sea of ​​Japan.
It is from these provisions that naval development should be carried out at this stage.

[Orel]

Thanks for the advice, I will use it to broaden my horizons.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: SVD68

articles by Alexander Timokhin on the purpose of the fleet.

Colleague Timokhin is an ardent admirer of A. Mahan's theory. But it is good for peacetime and war without the use of nuclear weapons. Nowadays one SSBN can destroy half of America, and then what to do with your dominance at sea?
So, not a fact! For example, China made it easier: One way - one belt! And rule the sea until blue in the face, while goods go by land to Europe! And the naval blockade, which brought Japan to the attack on Pir Harbor, China with two branches of our "Power of Siberia", put out of brackets ...
Therefore, "everything needs to be questioned," as old Marx used to say.

[SVD68]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

But it is good for peacetime and war without the use of nuclear weapons. Nowadays one SSBN can destroy half of America, and then what to do with your dominance at sea?

The question is, what to do after an attack on the United States by SLBMs with SSBNs?

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

For example, China made it easier: One way - one belt! And rule the sea until blue in the face, while the goods go to Europe by land!

In the sense of? China isn't building a powerful ocean-going fleet?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: SVD68

what to do after an attack on the United States by SLBMs with SSBNs?

Who? The remnants of humanity? Probably prepare for atomic winter. Well, to collect firewood there, get the mammoth skin, sharpen a stone ax, etc.

Quote: SVD68

In the sense of? China isn't building a powerful ocean-going fleet?

China is building a fleet. But he is also preparing alternative solutions. And he needs a fleet so that the Yankees do not particularly dismiss their raking hands around the world ...

[timokhin-aa]

Colleague Timokhin is an ardent admirer of A. Mahan's theory.

Not certainly in that way. I once wrote about what we must take from Mahan - if a naval force is being built, then they must be able to destroy their own kind, or they are not needed at all.
And so Mahan didn’t have a coherent and complete theory in essence.

Nowadays one SSBN can destroy half of America, and then what to do with your dominance at sea?

Start a war by destroying SSBNs, no?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Start a war by destroying SSBNs, no?

It is logical. But first you need to track them all, incl. and in the "bastions" (ZRBD), in the bases, on the DB near the pier, as well as under the pack ice of the AO. We should not forget about the presence of 09851/2, which will soon appear in circulation.
So, the problem of the underwater component of strategic nuclear forces for the Yankees is still acute.

[timokhin-aa]

Yes, there is a problem, but they are working intensively on it, they are not giving up.

And we are kosyachim, that with anti-torpedoes, that with torpedoes, that with the provision of military services.
And we are not improving.

and the availability of 09851/2, which will soon be in circulation.

It is absolutely senseless thing, this money would be used for anti-submarine aviation, there would be more sense.
Just think - these expenses would be enough for us for a series of our "Poseidons", just not uber torpedoes, but those that are P-8. Or their Kawasaki P-1.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Absolutely meaningless thing

Rather political. It is Poseidon and the Perimeter that the Pentagon is very concerned about. They call them unacceptable, immoral, contrary to the law. They do not say this about PLO aviation.

[sleeve]

Everything is intuitively correct. Approximately corresponds to the current (unspoken,) doctrine. Strike fleets were replaced by "operational formations". Strategic forces are present. They did not mention the "absolute operational zones" where the deployment of "strategists" is covered by the coastal, aviation, naval and anti-aircraft components (the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, zones in the Barents and Kara Seas).

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: SVD68

1. The purpose of the fleet is domination at sea. Which means safe (with a high probability) use of the sea as routes for the movement of their ships and a ban (with a high degree of threat of destruction) for enemy ships and ships.
2. If domination at sea is unattainable, the fleet must ensure that domination at sea is not achieved by the enemy.
3. Areas where dominance of the sea is vital for us - the Baltic, the Black Sea, the White Sea, part of the Barents Sea, the Northern Sea Route, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
Areas where our dominance at sea is desirable and it is imperative not to allow the enemy to establish dominance at sea - the Barents Sea, the Pacific Ocean near Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands and the Sea of ​​Japan.

In practice, none of this can be done with us. Due to the complete drain of the naval aviation command. And without strong naval aviation, all this is nonsense. There should be a minimum of air divisions in the fleets, two in the Pacific Fleet, and an air division of central subordination to transfer the deployment in a dangerous area

[SVD68]

Kirill, about aviation, I completely agree with you. But the command of the Navy is not God-given. If the command cannot (does not want), then the first point should be a change of command.

[Cherry Nine]

We arrived, here is Yandex-Zen. The school math circle solves Fermat's theorem.

[Orel]

Quote: Cherry Nine

We arrived, here is Yandex-Zen.

The people pay taxes, with this money they order the construction of ships, it is not surprising that taxpayers, who are mostly civilians, want to understand whether the money is being spent effectively and what kind of fleet they want to create, while it is not very clear, there is a feeling that even the the command does not really understand what in the end and why we want to get

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Orel

The people pay taxes, with this money they order the construction of ships,

Nonsense. The people do not pay taxes. You are confusing taxes and rent, the latter does not impose any obligations on the master. If he wants, he will build ships, if he wants, he will let them down on the ballerinas.

Talk about people's money you will inevitably have to start by discussing the budget in parliament. Then it suddenly turns out that Russia has a fake parliament and a fake budget. And against the backdrop of this problem, it will be somewhat unbearable for ships.

[Orel]

Quote: Cherry Nine

You are confusing taxes and rent, the latter does not impose any obligations on the master.

We need to change this. There should be taxes and control over their use.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Then it suddenly turns out that Russia has a fake parliament and a fake budget.

The State Duma is of course "cardboard", we have no opinion.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Orel

We need to change this. There should be taxes and control over their use.

)))
This "needs to be changed" of yours will take your whole life, and quite possibly not long.

But we got distracted. Your ideas about the Navy are fantastic, poorly developed, and for the defense capability of the Russian Federation, if you think in these categories, are certainly harmful. If only because a naval program of such a scale will take resources of all types - primarily the resources of management and public attention - in a deliberately senseless, even harmful direction. Harmful, because it forces you to focus on opponents that are too tough for any Russian Navy, and tasks that have nothing to do with real defense capability.

[Orel]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Your ideas about the Navy are fantastic, poorly developed, and for the defense capability of the Russian Federation, if you think in these categories, are certainly harmful.

What are the alternatives then? Leave it as it is?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Orel

What are the alternatives then?

If the horse is dead, get off it.

[Orel]

Quote: Cherry Nine

If the horse is dead, get off it.

Do you think there are no more options for restoring the fleet, at least in some understandable form? The fleet is, of course, weakened, and it is an expensive pleasure to maintain it, so I think that at least not in all directions, but in a single fist, something can be created

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Orel

Do you think there are no more options for restoring the fleet, at least in some understandable form?

Fleet? No.

Quote: Orel

though not in all directions, but in a single fist you can create something

You can't do anything. World Cup and BM are just a trap, in modern conditions they shoot from corner to corner. The North is NATO, then the USA, Japan and China. The very idea that any of these forces is a potential enemy, especially at sea, buries alive any attempts at adequate military development. There are no tasks that the NK of the Russian Navy could solve at sea, with the exception of the coast guard and, hypothetically, the protection of the "bastions" of the SSBN. In the latter case, it is necessary to discuss the expediency of the existence of the underwater component of the nuclear triad, this is far from an indisputable idea.

Your visit is about

As a result, the "strike" fleet turns out to be powerful, compact (you can create it now). And for this you do not need to have a very large number of ships.

The most combat-ready and most modern ships (in the amount of 50ꟷ70) can be concentrated in a single unit. Such a fleet will be able to solve any problem anywhere in the world and will be a serious argument wherever it appears.

just ridiculous. There are no 50-70 ships in the ocean zone and never will be. Moreover, combat-ready. The opportunity to form at least one AUG, apart from the United States, is now available to Britain, France, Italy, China in the near future, Japan, and in the distant future, India. Not Russia.

[Orel]

Quote: Cherry Nine

just ridiculous.

Yes, just not funny at all (

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Cherry Nine

The opportunity to form at least one AUG, apart from the United States, is now available to Britain, France, Italy, China in the near future, Japan, and in the distant future, India. Not Russia.

If you think about everything that we need for the formation of the AUG, we have it in our heads.
On the other hand, is it necessary to spend money on this? There is no definite answer to this question.

[Fat]

Impossible! Drop illusions. In addition, the strike fleet of Russia is not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Defending the frontiers is possible. We have three main areas. Baltic-North Atlantic, Northern Fleet. Pacific coast, Black-Mediterranean sea. Thousands of miles from corner to corner. We have the main communications, vital, in the north and south. Our East is also important, very important.

[Orel]

Quote: Thick

We have three main areas. Baltic-North Atlantic, Northern Fleet. Pacific coast, Black-Mediterranean sea. Thousands of miles from corner to corner.

Many directions, to close everything at the same time and at the same time reliably, this is not an easy task, all the more it is not easy, if not possible at all, to financially provide all directions at the proper level

[Fat]

Much easier than the shock, who knows where the super-bum fleet of kamikaze strikers.
Do we have slightly different means for an ultimatum answer? No?

[Fat]

Quote: Orel

Quote: Thick

We have three main areas. Baltic-North Atlantic, Northern Fleet. Pacific coast, Black-Mediterranean sea. Thousands of miles from corner to corner.

Many directions, to close everything at the same time and at the same time reliably, this is not an easy task, all the more it is not easy, if not possible at all, to financially provide all directions at the proper level

Russia has a coastline of 6,5 thousand kilometers in total. This includes our north and the United States has more than 19 thousand kilometers ... So let them grow their AUG to the extent of their fear .... In fact, to a total war with China, for example. Not fucking ready for their entire superfleet.

[Rostovchanin]

What nonsense ??? The coastline of Russia is almost 38000, in third place after Canada and Indonesia, the USA is in 8th place ...

[Fat]

Quote: Rostovchanin

What nonsense ??? The coastline of Russia is almost 38000, in third place after Canada and Indonesia, the USA is in 8th place ...

Normal delirium! The maritime state border of the Russian Federation is not equal to the coastline of the Federation ...
Cozy drin-drin! Kapish?

[Rostovchanin]

Yeah, I moved to the sea border ... well, well ... the word is not a sparrow ... and now about the US mortuary at 19000, but what about the man responsible for the word? Highlight the words about Morgranitsa in that tweet, when you spoke clearly about the coastline

[Fat]

I admit. Wrong. About 38 thousand kilometers of sea borders. Of these, the Arctic - 22 600 km ...

[WapentakeLokki]

and that cartoons are no longer impressive ??? and how a simple hard worker will understand this or that he orders admirals from the military industrial complex (well, generals) ??? until 22.06.1941/22/72 the people were SURE that `` invincible and legendary. from the taiga to the British seas '' and then the whole WWII was HEROICALLY riveted not at all what was conceived until the XNUMXnd ... and an example of the last war (yes, Karabakh-Artsakh ) when the ares were betting on the T-XNUMX and the Azerbaijanis on the drones ... and the cost of the error is in the courses ... so who is the expert (whom you can trust) who can answer and how is it there in the navy ... ..... everything is much or `` Potemkin villages '' ................... but the price, if anything, will have to pay more abruptly than the builders of Russian roads (if anyone did not catch up - I meant arr)

[Iskazi]

there is a certain meaning to the author's approach ..., a mobile fleet, there is something to think about, from the point of view of production and progress ..., the relatively rapid deterioration of ships as a result of operation - good, production load, progress in weapons, and the quality of sailors ... , definitely generals are always preparing for the last war, the author's ideas have a place to be .... In essence, the author proposes the industrialization of the armed forces, using the example of the fleet. Moreover, on the basis of the Planned Economy, and more than appropriate ..., a real market approach.

[Fat]

Quote: Iskazi

there is a certain meaning to the author's approach ..., a mobile fleet, there is something to think about, from the point of view of production and progress ..., the relatively rapid deterioration of ships as a result of operation - good, production load, progress in weapons, and the quality of sailors ... , definitely generals are always preparing for the last war, the author's ideas have a place to be .... In essence, the author proposes the industrialization of the armed forces, using the example of the fleet. Moreover, on the basis of the Planned Economy, and more than appropriate ..., a real market approach.

I hope the time will come and there will be such a fleet, but not now, not now.

[Iskazi]

yes you are right ..., the modern Russian state is not capable of such a thing ... by its nature, but someday ...

[Fat]

Forgive me for the minus, but Our State has now clearly defined the borders beyond which the State of the Russian Federation does not go without external coercion.

[Iskazi]

Sorry ....

[123456789]

Quote: Orel

concept, a clear drawing and what the Navy wants to ultimately create - no. The USSR had an objective naval doctrine.

The Doctrine recognizes the main content of the national maritime policy:
protection of the territory of the Russian Federation from aggression from ocean and sea areas, protection of the state border of the Russian Federation at sea;
The document declared the main threat to Russia's national security at sea to be "the desire of a number of states, primarily the United States of America and their allies, to dominate the World Ocean, including the Arctic, as well as to achieve overwhelming superiority of their naval forces." Other threats include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the increase in the number of states with powerful navies, pressure on Russia to weaken our control over the Northern Sea Route, territorial claims against Russia, as well as terrorism and poaching [9].

[Fat]

Quote: 123456789

Quote: Orel

concept, a clear drawing and what the Navy wants to ultimately create - no. The USSR had an objective naval doctrine.

The Doctrine recognizes the main content of the national maritime policy:
protection of the territory of the Russian Federation from aggression from ocean and sea areas, protection of the state border of the Russian Federation at sea;
The document declared the main threat to Russia's national security at sea to be "the desire of a number of states, primarily the United States of America and their allies, to dominate the World Ocean, including the Arctic, as well as to achieve overwhelming superiority of their naval forces." Other threats include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the increase in the number of states with powerful navies, pressure on Russia to weaken our control over the Northern Sea Route, territorial claims against Russia, as well as terrorism and poaching [9].

Yes. Oh!
That's right! Not a mustache ship us enemies at sea, piracy! Without flags, they should be solved at once ...

[DrVintorez]

Quote: ROSS 42

Minuses. The disadvantages of this approach are that we will expose those areas where the "strike" fleet will be absent at this time.

To protect the borders of the Russian Federation, coastal complexes, strategic aviation (the same Su with "Daggers") and the RIAC are sufficient. The designation of the strike fleet as a "long arm" is justified. Only coastal structures in the form of bases should take place.

Quote: for

With such MINUS no pluses are needed.

It is better to try to "cross out" the MINUS than to chew on the "donut hole" forever.

and that "daggers" are in service? By the way, what kind of drying there are "daggers", well, at least theoretically. Riac, how are you? what is flying there?

[DrVintorez]

VO has become a kind of collection of urapatriotism. any criticism, moreover, adequate is fiercely minus. a series of articles about mine and torpedo weapons just turned into a bunch of hellish comments. rotting! and there are many such examples.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Cherry Nine

now available in Britain, France, Italy,

None of them ALSO, today, cannot form an adequate AUG. So create an appearance ...

World Cup and BM are just a trap, in modern conditions they shoot from corner to corner.

It is obvious. BUT it turns out not for everyone.

The North is NATO, then the USA, Japan and China. The very idea that any of these forces is a potential enemy, especially at sea, buries alive any attempts at adequate military development.

But this is uniform nonsense

There are no tasks that the NK of the Russian Navy could solve at sea, with the exception of the coast guard and, hypothetically, the protection of the "bastions" of the SSBN.

But here I agree ...

In the latter case, it is necessary to discuss the expediency of the existence of the underwater component of the nuclear triad, this is far from an indisputable idea.

The idea of ​​an untracked SSBN somehow doesn't inspire me. It is much easier and more reasonable to ensure the combat stability of the Strategic Missile Forces, because it is theoretically possible to turn off the Strategic Missile Forces from the game, and then with a small probability, but it is quite possible to remove the NSNF from the game with a dozen torpedoes and a hundred Tomogavks in conventional equipment at the Vilyuchinsk and Z. Lice bases. As a result, the defeat is obvious, while there seems to be no point in using the Strategic Missile Forces, and we must ask for peace.
I remain in my opinion - it is unlikely to ensure the survival of the NSNF

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cyril G ...

it is quite possible to remove the NSNF from the game with a dozen torpedoes and a hundred Tomahawks in conventional equipment at the bases of Vilyuchinsk and Z. Litse

It is quite possible.

Quote: Cyril G ...

So create an appearance ...

The visibility of AUG with destroyers URO (Italian and French Horizons formally frigates) and AWACS (for the French - Hokkai, for the Italians and the British - penguins that can work as AWACS, for the Chinese while coastal aircraft, but strenuously saw their Hokkai) is not so and few.

Quote: Cyril G ...

But this is uniform nonsense

Phenomenal stupidity is when 2% of the world economy appoint 80% of it as their enemies. In such situations, you usually have to ask for food, quickly enough.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Phenomenal stupidity is when 2% of the world economy appoint 80% of it as their enemies. In such situations, you usually have to ask for food, quickly enough.

It seems so to you. And by the way, there is no close to 80 percent of the economy in opponents.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cyril G ...

And by the way, there are almost 80 percent of the economy in the opponents.

If you are at war with the USA + NATO + Japan + China - it will be the same.

Quote: Cyril G ...

If you think about everything that we need for the formation of the AUG, we have it in our heads.

If you think about it, the Russian Federation has an aircraft carrier in the order of a mirage, there is no sea AWACS as such, I have never heard of the joint work of Kuzi and the A-50, ships of the ocean zone with URO 2,5 pieces and these are frigates (22350 and Shaposhnikov). Everything. And to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, which issues 20380 for "well, almost a destroyer", is a separate conversation.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Cherry Nine

+ China

What kind of Budun is this interesting to me?

Quote: Cherry Nine

20380 for "well, almost a destroyer", a separate conversation.

It never happened

then the Russian Federation has an aircraft carrier in the order of a mirage,

The question is purely in real need. Such ships must either be at least 6-7, or it makes no sense to have such ships at all. Based on this, only the USA have full-fledged AUG, as I said, the rest have visibility

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cyril G ...

What kind of Budun is this interesting to me?

Are you one of those patriots who have no problems with China? Neither with borders, nor with "zones of influence" in the former. SSR?

Quote: Cyril G ...

It never happened

Has the RF Ministry of Defense ever issued 20380 as an ocean zone warship? Well, then it seemed.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Has the RF Ministry of Defense ever issued 20380 as an ocean zone warship? Well, then it seemed.

There was no such thing. From the word in general.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cyril G ...

There was no such thing. From the word in general.

As you say.

[3danimal]

What kind of Budun is this interesting to me?

One can recall the significant role of China in supplying the Afghan mujahideen (the same Chinese Kalashnikovs and much more). About this they did not really spread during the Soviet era, and even now they keep quiet about the central media (we are like “brothers” again).
And the aforementioned "aid" was much greater than the American one, as well as the number of those killed by its "type-brothers".
In addition, it was with China (and by no means the United States) that territorial disputes took place in the second half of the 2th century with hundreds and thousands of deaths on both sides.

[timokhin-aa]

Phenomenal stupidity is when 2% of the world economy appoint 80% of it as their enemies.

You have mixed up the horse with the cart.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: timokhin-aa

You confused a horse with a cart

Seriously?

[timokhin-aa]

Yes, more than.
However, this is a matter of personal preference, in real life, too, someone, when threatened, grabs the knife, and someone falls to the ground and covers his head with his hands - to each his own.
The main thing is not to try to retrain those who think it is more correct to grab the knife, not to try to convince them that it is right to fall and pray to just kick and not kill.
It's useless.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: timokhin-aa

It's useless

Explain that you shouldn't go to a firefight with a knife? Yes, here if a person does not understand himself, it will not work to explain.

[3danimal]

Who's going to kick? All Soviet times, it was suggested that in the West the terrible capitalists wanted to strangle the Soviet state (the most advanced, of course, and we do not advise you to argue).
The USSR is disintegrating, the collapse of the economy, ideology - there are not even attempts to attack, instead of bombs - loans and humanitarian aid. (This is where the pattern break for many )
It's funny that among the siloviki Soviet propaganda degenerated into a kind of national-imperial model.
A certain conditional (obviously, NOT the people inhabiting it) West (they were modestly silent about bad capitalists) hates (and supposedly always hated) Russians (here the freaks like Prokhanov or Dugin are full of fabrications). And he does not want to accept the legitimate desires of the Russians (represented by the “best representatives”) for “collecting lands” and restoring influence on the territory of the former USSR precisely from Russophobic positions. The objections of the peoples inhabiting these territories are considered exclusively from the position of "puppeteering", they, in principle, are not considered as subjects of politics.
IMHO, this is something that echoes the propaganda of the National Socialists for their own population. And the past of the same Rogozin is very consistent here.
Under the guise of the above-mentioned confrontation, violations and failures in governing the country in the interests of the majority of the population are written off, to whom the attitude is rather like subjects, but not citizens.

[aristok]

The best fleet for Russia is air.

It is necessary to invest in aviation (including necessarily in the civilian) and in astronautics.

[AAK]

Manilovism and nonsense ... You just have to think a little with your head:
- they collected 30-40 ships in the "shock fleet", for example, from the Baltic, from the North and from the Black Sea, and sent them, say, to the Pacific Fleet, "... study theater" and scare the Japanese with "anti-Tsushima" .. .At least a couple of months - this is just to "get together and walk", preliminary - first issue an order on the formation of such a structure, appoint large and small commanders (and in the same places - change the organizational structure), create headquarters, rear service, determine the number-types of assigned combat ships, prepare tankers, tugs, rescuers (and there are few of them), take care of planning, reconnaissance, determine routes, intermediate basing points, refueling, minor repairs (which, in general, do not exist), then together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to resolve the issue with the countries, past which those ships will go, so that we are not bombarded with notes of protest, to determine the gathering places and the composition of the orders (we will not drive the ships one by one, we will go broke with one escort). And then the merriment will begin - you need to first throw the MTO stocks to the points of preliminary collection in order to refuel before the road, and also, for about a year and a half to work on "studying the theater" (you cannot study TMD from scratch in less time) - transfer fuel oil, missiles, torpedoes, shells, flour, cereals, canned food, underpants by carriages to Vladivostok, and from there something to Petropavlovsk ... Is there a sufficient and prepared infrastructure for basing and repairing ships and accommodating personnel? And how will the officer-midshipman's wives from Baltiysk, Sevastopol and Severomorsk react to the fact that their husbands are absent for a year and a half (maximum - for a month on vacation ...) to "study the theater"? There will already be a revolt clearer than Potemkin's (both on the part of contract midshipmen and their halves ...), or will we "import a special contingent" for example from North Korea to meet the increased needs? Further, you can enumerate something like that for moving and returning .. In general, apart from the collapse of the remnants of the fleet, nothing like this "shock work" will bring ... In a word, in the spirit of the old-regime officers - let the "shpak" deal with army affairs, here is the army / navy kirdyk .. ...

[Orel]

Thank you for your opinion, we are all not indifferent to what we are discussing, unfortunately, in our conditions, a minimum of money must be somehow adapted to ensure security on such a huge sea border, like ours, here Trishkin-Kavtan is still working out, they have closed elsewhere there is a gap, but if there are not indifferent people, then sooner or later the problem can be solved

[Fat]

.... Kapets! From Provideniya Bay to the Kara Gate 5600 km. Borders. So far there is no one to look up to in the North. The deed is done.

Quote: Orel

Thank you for your opinion, we are all not indifferent to what we are discussing, unfortunately, in our conditions, a minimum of money must be somehow adapted to ensure security on such a huge sea border, like ours, here Trishkin-Kavtan is still working out, they have closed elsewhere there is a gap, but if there are not indifferent people, then sooner or later the problem can be solved

Yes, not a huge sea border for Russia!
Big, but defending itself .. And, for now, not at all by the oceanic fleet. Give us all, Almighty, peace and patience. ..

[Aag]

I agree with your opinion.
In addition to "patience" ... We risk becoming "terpily" in all directions ...

[common man]

Quote: AAK

At least a couple of months - this is just to "get together and get there", preliminary - first issue an order on the formation of such a structure, appoint large and small commanders (and in the same places - change the organizational structure), create headquarters, rear service, determine the number -types of allocated combat ships, prepare tankers, tugs, rescuers (and there are few of them), take care of planning, reconnaissance, determine routes, intermediate basing points;

etc.
Fuck. Actually, this must be done in advance, in peacetime. For this, it seems like there are "mobilization plans", where all this should be written.
And in your opinion, excuse me, as out of great need I wanted to, so I began to think, from what to build a toilet?

[Aag]

Quote: AAK

Manilovism and nonsense ... You just have to think a little with your head:
- they collected 30-40 ships in the "shock fleet", for example, from the Baltic, from the North and from the Black Sea, and sent them, say, to the Pacific Fleet, "... study theater" and scare the Japanese with "anti-Tsushima" .. .At least a couple of months - this is just to "get together and walk", preliminary - first issue an order on the formation of such a structure, appoint large and small commanders (and in the same places - change the organizational structure), create headquarters, rear service, determine the number-types of assigned combat ships, prepare tankers, tugs, rescuers (and there are few of them), take care of planning, reconnaissance, determine routes, intermediate basing points, refueling, minor repairs (which, in general, do not exist), then together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to resolve the issue with the countries, past which those ships will go, so that we are not bombarded with notes of protest, to determine the gathering places and the composition of the orders (we will not drive the ships one by one, we will go broke with one escort). And then the merriment will begin - you need to first throw the MTO stocks to the points of preliminary collection in order to refuel before the road, and also, for about a year and a half to work on "studying the theater" (you cannot study TMD from scratch in less time) - transfer fuel oil, missiles, torpedoes, shells, flour, cereals, canned food, underpants by carriages to Vladivostok, and from there something to Petropavlovsk ... Is there a sufficient and prepared infrastructure for basing and repairing ships and accommodating personnel? And how will the officer-midshipman's wives from Baltiysk, Sevastopol and Severomorsk react to the fact that their husbands are absent for a year and a half (maximum - for a month on vacation ...) to "study the theater"? There will already be a revolt clearer than Potemkin's (both on the part of contract midshipmen and their halves ...), or will we "import a special contingent" for example from North Korea to meet the increased needs? Further, you can enumerate something like that for moving and returning .. In general, apart from the collapse of the remnants of the fleet, nothing like this "shock work" will bring ... In a word, in the spirit of the old-regime officers - let the "shpak" deal with army affairs, here is the army / navy kirdyk .. ...

Minus for you, apparently, was hanged by those who believe that the events that you have listed are nonsense and trifles ... The list, of course, is far from complete, but I would like to hear the opinion of your opponents at least on the tasks voiced.

[Selevc]

When creating my concept, I was guided by the following introductory notes, which I consider objective without any jingoistic patriotism and fantastic assumptions.

I would add two more introductory ones -

1) in the event of any conflict, each of the Russian fleets will have to act independently of the others. Therefore, each of the fleets should be as autonomous and self-sufficient as possible - and based on this axiom, the tasks should be adequate and feasible !!!

2) Each of the fleets must adequately respond to the realities of modern warfare - that is, be ready at any time to repel a missile strike from which hostilities or a UAV strike are likely to begin.

[malyvalv]

The composition of the fleet must first of all correspond to the tasks being solved. And this is the protection of the coast, the withdrawal of nuclear submarines to strike positions, the suppression of communications in the Atlantic between the United States and Europe and the guarantee of their own shipping in the world's oceans in relatively peacetime.
Therefore, a powerful fleet capable of competing with a pair of AUG should be in the North. He has the most difficult task.

[iouris]

The conditions for the development of the fleet are very bad. The shipbuilding capacity is in Ukraine, there is practically no access to the ocean, there are big problems in engine building, even Turkey, Sweden, South Korea, Japan ... have a qualitative and even quantitative superiority over the respective fleets.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Probably prepare for atomic winter. Well, there you can collect firewood, get mammoth skin, sharpen a stone ax, etc.

Tonnage is not enough.

[Rome]

I am also a dilettante, but still I will express my opinion: the author is probably fond of strategic games and in games the approach indicated in the article works quite well! You gather strength into a fist and extinguish everyone until you bump into a bigger fist but in real life this approach does not work, because in addition to units, you also need an infrastructure that allows this fist to provide everything you need! To have an inflated infrastructure everywhere, to be able to take the entire strike fleet if it is necessary to redeploy, it also costs a lot of money! And I think we won't pull it either! in addition, do not try, we are a priori the weakest side against any of our opponents, and therefore, having gathered all our forces in one place, we give the opportunity to end us in one battle! since a fist will be assembled against our fist many times more