Military Review

The reality of missile salvos: a little about military superiority

351
The reality of missile salvos: a little about military superiority
Colt made men equal, and missiles made fleets equal. The photo shows the launch of anti-ship missiles from the Project 58 missile cruiser "Admiral Golovko". Photo from A. Andreev's archive


Every time you try to justify the need to prepare for war "in a real way" (© V. I. Lenin), an immediate raid of hidden enemies of the people begins, claiming that

"Anyway, we cannot compare with NATO, we cannot win such an arms race, and therefore ..."

Further, depending on the personal preferences of the enemy of the people, options are offered in the form of general nuclear suicide, unconditional surrender, refusal to conduct combat training until the moment of building socialism. And so on until

"Do nothing at all, because that's how I see it."

Alas, this contingent often manages to confuse normal people. Often, the enemies of the people resort to demagogic methods such as:

“Do you agree to nuclear suicide? So this means Katz is offering to surrender, or what? "

Which confuses normal people even more. Therefore, it is worth dealing with this issue in order not to let the enemies of the people confuse people further.

A little about superiority in numbers and its significance


Immediately from the doorway, we will send these figures to the knockdown - superiority in numbers does not mean superiority in efficiency... In 1941, the Red Army had much more tanks and aircraft, rather than in the Wehrmacht and the Allied troops. The result is known, the enemy had to be driven from near Moscow, from the banks of the Volga and from the Caucasus Mountains.

Numerical advantage does not always mean superiority in real military capabilities.

Let's fix the first conclusion - we do not need numerical superiority over the enemy, but the ability to break it. It's NOT THE SAME!

We will analyze the argument that without a comparable or superior number such an opportunity cannot be obtained. For now, let's just fix the difference in goal-setting - the question of overtaking the US and NATO in strength is NOT WORTH. The question is quite different. And this is especially true for the Navy.

The last big war in which it was possible to resolve the issue of victory at the expense of victory at sea was the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. In it, by the way, in general, the numerical superiority was ours, which is worth remembering, but our people, obsessed with land and continentalism, do not want to remember this. Therefore, we will not return to this war anymore, noting only that proper preparation would have ensured victory for Russia, but instead of it there was a hurray-patriotism - the same as today, without serious differences.


In the Russo-Japanese War, the initial superiority in numbers was with the Russian imperial fleet... But the Japanese did not whine that they lacked strength, but simply did everything they could.

Numerical superiority turns out to be decisive if the qualitative parameters of troops and forces are more or less equal, as well as in the absence of random unpredictable factors and the ability of the sides to destroy all enemy forces with one blow due to fire superiority.

But it must be admitted that there is a solid foundation under this opinion (that superiority in numbers is decisive). Russia fought its most important wars on earth. And on land, the importance of numerical superiority is undeniable. And it is not always possible to block this resource with military art.

At sea, numerical superiority also played a role. But adjusted for examples of the type of Russian-Japanese. War at sea is incomparably more complex than war on land. The outcome of battles in it depends on a much larger number of factors than on the ground. And therefore there, as they say, there are options (although they happen on land the same way).

But, nevertheless, for a long time, all other things being equal (comparable technology and level of training), it was the number of pennants that determined the total power of the fleets and the balance of forces between them.

Now, however, this is not the case. To understand why, let's look at a few basic mathematical models used in the past in military planning.

Chase-Osipov-Lanchester equations


First, about those times when the quantity was almost everything.

In 1902, U.S. Navy Lieutenant Chase, who served at the Naval War College in Newport, developed his quadratic law to describe how much strength would remain with the strongest side in a battle after the weakest side was completely destroyed. Chase immediately pulled out his calculations for the naval forces, measuring everything in ships and gunfire. This is what the very first analytical expression looked like, which made it possible to somehow mathematically evaluate the combat strength of the naval forces.


m: Number of ships on the M side
n: Number of ships on side N
a1: Vitality side M, hits (shots) / ship
a2: Vitality side N, hits (shots) / ship
b1: combat strength side M shots / ship
b2: combat strength side N shots / ship

For calculations, all hits and shots are counted as a shot / ship unit.

The beginning of the twentieth century was a time of faith in the limitless possibilities of the human mind. That science has almost explained the universe. And, consequently, the processes taking place in the world can be described mathematically - everything.

Such immeasurable categories as martial arts, military cunning, and even simple luck in those years were considered something of secondary importance. Something that can play a role somewhere, but most likely will not. There were, of course, exceptions. But mostly these things were not taken into account. Everything was decided by the numbers.

Later, during the First World War, the quadratic laws of war of attrition were independently discovered by the Russian general Mikhail Pavlovich Osipov (1915) and the English mathematician and engineer Frederick Lanchester (1916), now for the battles of ground armies. The scale of the meat grinder in Europe by that time completely allowed to ignore everything that could not be measured by numbers. And suddenly it turned out that if we consider the battle in isolation and simplified (two detachments or formations of a known force are fighting without reinforcements until the weaker side is completely destroyed), then its outcome is fully modeled by the ratios:


where
A - the strength of one of the parties (for example, the number of fighters)
B - the strength of the second side
α - coefficient of combat strength of each unit A (for example, one shooter)
β - the same for B
In expanded form, you can see here, with solutions for different tasks.

In the future, these equations were continuously improved - added the ability to assess the impact of suitable reinforcements, surprise attack, and much more. The theory of probability lay on top of all this, which helped to take into account the fact that, for example, shells sometimes do not explode. Those interested will find a lot of information on the Internet and will be able to calculate various scenarios for different events. We will limit ourselves to stating a few facts.

First. In all cases, it was about processes lasting in time. So, the equation (as seen from the link) can be used to calculate the state of the fighting groups at any time between the beginning of the battle and its end (the complete death of the weakest of them). What if the process turns out to be instantaneous? Nobody asked such a question in those days, and this could not have happened.

Second. In calculations, the number of forces is of paramount importance. Everything repels from her. Modernity has made significant adjustments, as modern algorithms require taking into account the firepower of combat systems participating in battles. And since different groups are fighting, in which there may be, for example, tanks, multiple launch rocket systems and helicopters, it is also necessary to take into account the potential of the systems weapons, reduce the estimates of the firepower of any of them to a certain reference value (for example, measure the firepower of a tank battalion in salvoes of helicopter squadrons), etc. For more information on how such data is calculated for modern combat - here (pdf, keep in mind that any event is probabilistic, all these simulations are indicative and incomplete, including "for regime reasons").

The third. In all cases, we are talking about simulating an attrition battle. That is, the strongest side spends its strength during the battle, and the weakest one too. And so on until complete death.

For naval combat, all this also worked, as long as the battle was a "combat competition of the parties", an integral part of which was the prolonged and systematic use of weapons by the forces of the parties against each other.

Of course, it was necessary to bring the power of battleships and destroyers to a single value, to come up with coefficients for successful ambushes of submarines and unexpected hits on minefields, but for the time being, all this was solved. The picture was spoiled by aircraft carriers and, in part, by submarines, which fought with one-time and powerful strikes. But even in the Pacific, the American deck aviation destroyed only 25% of all warships in Japan, the rest was done by other forces.

On the other hand, if we consider not the battle between aircraft carriers, but the battle of their aircraft with each other or with ships, then with correctly calculated coefficients of combat strength, everything "works out": the battle is normally modeled, and calculations with a large scale and number of battles will be more or less reflect reality.

In general, while the battle was a battle with a long-term fire effect of the sides on each other and a low probability of complete destruction of a howling unit from the first shot, quadratic laws worked, and the number of forces themselves (people, ships, aircraft, tanks, guns) wore a decisive character, subject to a comparable quality level. There was no reception against scrap in that era. Large battalions and squadrons dominated, especially when those who fought in their composition were also better prepared and trained (for example, the US Navy was distinguished not only by material and technical superiority over the Japanese, but also by better fighting personnel).

People who sincerely worry that we cannot compare in numbers with the United States and NATO (we do not consider enemies of the people) simply think in terms of that era. They forget about one small nuance.

After World War II, guided missiles appeared. And with them a completely different era came.

The world of the salvo model


Let's imagine that we have one missile cruiser (for example, the Ticonderoga or the upgraded Admiral Nakhimov) with forty anti-ship cruise missiles. For example, with anti-ship Tomahawks or Onyxes.

And against the cruiser - four frigates, each with eight anti-ship missiles, no matter what. In total, the group has 32 missiles.

The question arises - how to "sew" it into the equation, even according to "Chase", even according to "Lanchester" (no difference)? What to take for the strength of the forces?

Ships? But then it turns out that the cruiser is guaranteed to lose the battle: he alone forgives four enemy ships. Or missiles? Then it will turn out the other way around? But how to take into account the fact that missiles can be shot down?

And most importantly, how to take into account who hit first? What if the cruiser outpaces the frigates with a strike? How then to be with the unfavorable numbers?

In the battle of tens or hundreds of rocket ships, which drags on for days, the quadratic law is probably applicable. But who has such fleets? And where can a situation of a long and protracted battle arise between them? In reality, we would be talking about units of ships fighting in strike groups. Maximum - about one and a half dozen. And again, the specifics of missile combat would work here as well.

The specifics listed above required a more adequate model than the Chase-Osipov-Lanchester model. And such a model was found.

Today it is called the "salvo model". And the equalities describing it are salvo equations. For a long time, this model, created by the American Rear Admiral Bradley Fiske in the 10s of the last century, was in the shadow of the Lanchester laws. Why?

It's simple. The logic of Fiske's salvo model was based on the following - sides A and B, entering the battle, have some initial strength. The battle itself looks like an exchange of volleys, and the stronger side has a stronger volley (for the artillery era, this was very logical). Moreover, each volley leads to the fact that the strength of the side that received this volley loses some of its power. In the end, the weaker side in an artillery battle dies, and the strongest has some part of the forces left - the residual.

Why didn't this model become dominant for a long time?

First, volleys are a conventional thing. Just watching battleship fire on a target in a ship destruction exercise (SINKEX) in 1989. Where are the exact boundaries of the volley?


Secondly, for calculations "according to Fiska" it was required to withdraw some given combat force and use it in the calculations. Aren't they coefficients in Lanchester's equations?

And thirdly (and this is the most important thing), taking into account how many conventional volleys were needed to completely destroy the enemy, the process became stretched out in time. The order of numbers describing the number of volleys turned out to be quite large. And in the end, calculations of battles between artillery ships and their detachments according to the Fiske model led to almost the same results as according to the Lanchester model.

The difference was always, but always minimal. In fact, it was about getting the same result in a different way: with the number of conventional volleys instead of time.

But the arrival of missiles in the fleets changed everything.


The missile era has changed the nature of naval combat beyond recognition. In the photo - Chinese ships on exercises. Photo: China daily

First, the salvo model operates with the number of salvos, not time. For the artillery era, it was the same thing. That is, in principle, it was even possible to deduce the dependence of volleys on time. In the missile era, a missile salvo can be viewed as a one-step action - target designation is formed, targets are distributed, a missile salvo is formed, launch. After that, after a short time, the blow is applied to all enemy ships over which it was distributed. That is, a discrete process (such as a single missile strike on a detected target, after which it is destroyed and the battle ends), the salvo model describes quite adequately, in contrast to the Lanchester equations.

Secondly, the salvo model made the difference between the strength (number) of the salvo and the number of units fighting the battle. This was her fundamental difference.

Thirdly, the fact that the force of the volley was set made it possible to take it into account not as a certain definite value, but as the difference between the initial force of the volley and that “part” of it, which the enemy can repulse, reflect. In reality, this is part of the missiles in a salvo that the enemy can shoot down.

As a result, the salvo model suddenly turned out to be incomparably more suitable for missile battles than any other. The question was who fully adapts it to the new realities.

This work was completed by the captain of the US Navy Wayne Huges, who is now considered in the US the creator of missile battle tactics in its final "for now" edition.

What do the salvo equations of missile combat look like?

Something like this.


where

∆ A - change in forces A after an enemy volley
∆ B - the same for B
α - offensive firepower A (anti-ship missiles in a salvo)
β - the same for B
y - defensive power A - the number of missiles capable of hitting anti-ship missiles
z - the same for B
u - damage A, hits / ship, for B the same parameter as vare defined as
u = 1 / w, v = 1 / x, where
w - survivability, the number of missiles, the passage of which leads to the death of any ship A
x - the same for any ship B

In reality, of course, the salvo model in this capacity is not entirely applicable. It lacks something important - the probability of hitting a target or repelling a strike. Meanwhile, all events in the war are of a probabilistic nature.

A trivial example. A missile going to an enemy ship can fail and fall into the water. Or an anti-aircraft missile launched towards an anti-ship missile can (due to a random factor) miss.

In fact, salvo models, adjusted for the probabilities of events and possible reinforcements for the fighting sides, as well as many other factors, exist. We will not contact them. Because it is important for us to understand the principle of WHAT really gives superiority in war at sea.

Let's fantasize about how the battle of small ship strike groups looks in a salvo model.

Reality model


So, we have a clash of forces "Red" and "Blue". The "Reds" are poor, they have no money, the population is five times less than that of the "blue" (if we count with allies), they cannot count on a numerical superiority, and, accordingly, they do not have it. The strength of the "blue" forces will be defined as "A", the "red" as "B".

Suppose the Blues have five ships in a battle group. A = 5. Let's say each ship has 50 anti-aircraft missiles and 20 anti-ship missiles (the rest of the blue cells are occupied by other weapons).

In an extremely simplified form, we will assume that either side has 2 missiles to defeat one anti-ship missile system.

Next, we solve the first equation, and we will immediately look for the answer to the question - WHAT SHOULD THE RED SHOULD BE IN ORDER TO BEAT THE BLUE WITHOUT LOSS?

Why not, after all?

Then we have ∆ A = -5, that is, equal in magnitude to the original composition of the "blue" ships (100% loss), u will be taken as 0,5 (enough for 2 missiles to break through the air defense fire, one of which will be destroyed by the air defense systems the near zone, the second will finish off the ship, u = 1/2), we will determine the ratio β * B, respectively, it remains to determine y.

We believe that the "red" missiles are moving towards the target at a height of 5 meters, with a speed of 660 m / s. The height of the blue radar antennas will be 20 meters, then the line of sight for the blue ship will be 27650 meters. And within this radius, the "blue" will detect a salvo going on them 41 seconds before this salvo hits the designated targets (approximately).

We take 1 second for the automatic triggering of the ship's air defense (AEGIS has such a mode, and it works exactly in such a time), 40 seconds remain. We believe that all missiles have radar homing, the horizontal component of the flight speed is 1100 m / s, they do not need target illumination, the channeling of the complex does not matter, the target firing algorithm is 1 missile defense system per anti-ship missile system (we will take an unrealistic assumption in favor of the "blue" missiles knocks down 1 anti-ship missile in any case), the fire performance of a single ship is 1 missile defense system in 1 seconds. So it's even cooler than Arleigh Burke.


Breaking through such defenses is very difficult. We need a lot of rockets.

How many missiles under such favorable conditions will one blue ship be able to repulse? Answer - 13. The first anti-ship missile system will (?) Be struck at the 16th second after the launch of the first missile defense system, the last at the 40th. Respectively, y accept as 13.


The defender loses the first second by triggering the air defense system in the auth. mode, during this time the anti-ship missile will fly 660 m / s, then a missile defense system will come out to meet it. With the horizontal component of the SAM speed of 1100 m / s, they will meet at the 16th second.

Now let's just transform the first equation to determine the desired product β * B.

The final equality is as follows:
∆ A = - (β * By * A) * u
-5 = - (β * B-13 * 5) * 0.5
-10 = -β * B + 65
or the desired β * B = 75, where β is a missile salvo of one ship of the "red", and B is the number of such ships in the attacking group.

Well, then, as fantasy falls. For example, three frigates of project 22350 with the number of UKSK cells increased to 24 - this is up to 72 anti-ship missiles in a salvo, the maximum possible β * B = 72. Taking into account the fact that the ships must also have a PLUR, it turns out that four ships of the class " frigate "in our conditional problem with a margin would be enough to destroy five ships, similar to the American destroyer, without loss.

20 anti-ship missiles on each ship simply sank to the bottom without leaving the launchers.

Now is it clear how it works?

Outnumbering doesn't matter. Exactly one thing matters - the ability to strike first, with a salvo sufficient to destroy the enemy.

Let's clarify this - this is a model. And really it is necessary to add, firstly, the probability of an anti-aircraft missile hitting an anti-aircraft missile, the probability of an anti-aircraft missile arriving at the target, and a lot of other probabilities - each event in the process will have its own probability of an offensive. So, for example, in the example above, one missile defense system was guaranteed to shoot down one anti-ship missile, which cannot be used in real calculations.

The second point - the “red” caught the “blue” by surprise, and worked on them first and suddenly, as a result of which they were able to do without losses.

Later, Hughes in his equations introduced scouting effectiveness - "intelligence coefficient", which takes into account whether the "Reds" were able to detect and classify the order of "Blues" secretly for the latter, and deliver a sudden blow. Or there was an exchange of volleys until the complete destruction of one of the parties.

This is how it started to look.


where for one of the sides (A)

A - number of ships of side A
B - the number of ships of side B
a1 - defensive capabilities (number of missiles) A, for each ship
a2 - sustained damage, anti-ship missiles per ship
β - offensive capabilities B, anti-ship missiles
Sigma - intelligence factor

In principle, this is the same salvo equation, just with different designations of quantities and a "sigma", which was not in the above equation. If the reconnaissance of the attacking side B managed to identify the battle formation A and form the correct command control for the volley, then the "sigma" is equal to 1, if not - then zero.

For B, everything will be the same.

In general, let us repeat, salvo models, taking into account the probabilities of the occurrence of events, ensuring / not ensuring surprise, the effectiveness of reconnaissance, etc. - exists.

There are also calculations of the minimum forces that have a chance of winning against an enemy superior in strength, as well as the maximum number of forces, the build-up of which no longer leads to an increase in combat effectiveness, and much more.

What is important to us is the conclusion that was made above - the race for parity in pennants is not needed. Those who deny the need for sane military construction, arguing that we cannot catch up with NATO, either do not understand the essence of the issue under discussion, or are lying. There are no other options.

But what if we accept the loss of some of the ships in the attacking group? Then it will be possible to get by with less forces, we just have to come to terms with the fact that we will suffer losses (in a real war they will be in any case).

And if the enemy, who is outnumbered, will outplay us with the first salvo? Then the situation turns upside down, and we suddenly find out that there is no reception against the scrap? Not at all.

If anyone is interested, the volley equations make it easy to "play" with volleys - the first volley is delivered by A. V has so many forces left. These forces inflict retaliatory, etc. You can take the number of aircraft in the attack for B, recalculate for the attacked side y (the detection range of targets launched from aircraft according to their radar data will be several times higher, y will also be higher), take the number of missiles on one aircraft for β (for example, 2) etc. Where fantasy leads

What is important to the weaker side? Besides the fact that her ships could send a volley of the required strength to the target? Suddenness.

Fight for the first salvo


Article “Sea warfare for beginners. Interaction between surface ships and strike aircraft "was given one of the possible options for the start of the conflict. When our surface ships, tracking enemy ocean groupings, perform a successful first salvo, significantly reducing the numerical superiority of the enemy and creating favorable conditions for the start of systematic actions of our base strike aircraft against the enemy. It is the provision of the ability to execute such a volley that is the basis of sea power, and not an abstract "race of pennants" with the United States, NATO and anyone else.

It is worth repeating once again what he wrote in 1986 by the Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy V.N. Chernavin:

“Such a specific feature as the growing role of the fight for the first salvo is becoming extremely important in modern naval combat. Preempting the enemy in striking a blow in battle is the main method of preventing his surprise attack, reducing his losses and inflicting the greatest damage on the enemy. "

Now you can see what it looks like mathematically.

The question arises - how to really ensure the advance of the enemy in a volley? The answer is intelligence is needed. For a country with limited resources, what can be said about Russia, the following rule should be taken as an axiom:

The striking power of the ships should be minimally sufficient to weaken the enemy's forward forces with the first salvo with minimal losses and create conditions for aviation operations. The power of aviation must be sufficient to inflict damage on enemy forces deployed at sea, excluding their achievement of victory over the Russian Navy (complete destruction is not necessary). And all the remaining resources should be directed to intelligence forces capable of operating in wartime conditions.

So, for example, this logic requires considering an aircraft carrier, first of all, as a means of reconnaissance, and only then as a struggle for air supremacy or providing air defense of ship formations. Naturally, this is true for a "big war" with superior enemy navies. In other situations, the logic will be different.

It is worth approaching the creation of ships with guided missile weapons not with the criterion of ensuring maximum striking power (the number of missiles), but from the standpoint of combining the minimum sufficient striking power, with the maximum possible number of reconnaissance means for a given displacement.

Let's give an example - Japanese destroyer-helicopter carriers of the Haruna and Shirane types with a displacement comparable to our destroyers of Project 956 (code Sarych), carried three helicopters.




Above "Shiran", below "Kurama". It can be seen what hangars can fit into a medium-sized URO ship.

In modern conditions, this can be a combination of a pair of universal marine helicopters (capable of fighting submarines, striking surface ships with guided missiles, carrying out reconnaissance using their radar and transmitting the received data to the ship) and a pair of small UAV helicopters, used purely for reconnaissance and occupying as much space as one normal helicopter.


The use of naval helicopters with missile weapons in war at sea has long been mainstream in the West. We must come to this too.

The second important condition is the speed of deployment of forces. In all its components: from the speed of decision-making to the speed of ships (both in economic motion and at maximum speed). Speed ​​allows you to break apart scattered enemy groupings one by one, ensuring superiority in battle, including numerical, but not having a numerical advantage in general.

Some countries are well aware of this. Thus, the Japanese provide high speed for their warships. Their new frigates will apparently have about 34 knots of maximum speed, while the rest of the ships will have thirty or more.

Unfortunately, the global trends that speed is no longer important find supporters in our country as well - our warships today are much slower than those that went into operation thirty or forty years ago. This significantly reduces our ability to preempt the enemy in deployment, and, consequently, to fight for the first salvo.
This needs to be corrected.

Conclusion


Not having the technical ability to use resources comparable to the enemy for the development of sea power and technologies similar to his, you need to invest in the organization, equipment and training that allows you to win that very first salvo even in adverse conditions when the enemy is trying in every possible way to break contact, and in the future, in the course of hostilities, ensure the possibility of systematic infliction of heavy losses on the enemy (for example, by aviation).

No need to fantasize about nuclear suicide. Do not think that since the enemy is more numerous, you can only capitulate. In the end, in 1904, Japan faced a more numerous enemy, but not as ready for war, with forces divided between different theaters of operations. The result is known.

You just need to rationally approach the expected appearance of military operations in the near future, to determine the parameters of forces and means that will be used in these military operations.

And then just methodically and steadily train, prepare for military operations, not missing any trifles, carefully considering each step and rationally spending our modest resources.

You don't need anything beyond that. Including - it is not necessary to defeat even a more numerous enemy. And this can even be mathematically justified.

And the race for quantity is absolutely superfluous. Not only economically unaffordable, but also completely meaningless. Combat power can and should be obtained without it.

And this must be done.
Author:
Photos used:
China dail
351 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 15: 08
    +16
    As an enemy of the people, I want to note that there is no point in talking about the army and navy without tasks for them.

    Any clash with NATO forces must have a purpose. A list of goals in the studio, please.

    ZY The rest of the research is curious, but without specifying the goals of any collision, it is meaningless. You can destroy the entire NATO fleet and not achieve anything, or you can solve many problems without firing a single shot.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 15: 15
      +4
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Any clash with NATO forces must have a purpose. A list of goals in the studio, please.
      Is the integrity and sovereignty of the country okay to start with?
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 15: 18
        +27
        No, this goal is abstract. In 91, both integrity and sovereignty were accomplished without firing a shot with the strongest army in the world. And some kind of Switzerland is intact and sovereign for centuries without a single atomic bomb.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 15: 34
          -4
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          And some kind of Switzerland is intact and sovereign for centuries without a single atomic bomb.
          Yes, you are a connoisseur of the Armed Forces and defense doctrine of Switzerland and their defense spending at the same time.
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 15: 49
            +2
            Yes, you are a connoisseur of the Armed Forces and defense doctrine of Switzerland and their defense spending at the same time.

            It's enough for me to know that their military spending is less than 1% of GDP. How many are there? 5?
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 15: 58
              +8
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              It's enough for me to know that their military spending is less than 1% of GDP
              So they do not have a fleet, for example, in the absence of the longest coastline in the world, and their top US officials are not officially called enemies. Well, the expenses for rock shelters and tunnel systems are recorded in their GO, as far as I know.
              1. Sancho_SP
                Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 16: 03
                +4
                So you started about expenses :)
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 16: 14
                  -2
                  Quote: Sancho_SP
                  So you started about expenses :)

                  So, in your opinion, the A-bomb is issued for free? ))
                  1. Sancho_SP
                    Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 16: 44
                    +2
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    Quote: Sancho_SP
                    So you started about expenses :)

                    So, in your opinion, the A-bomb is issued for free? ))


                    Answering a question with a question?))

                    There are already bombs, we still spend money on them and there won't be less of them. The question "AUG INSTEAD of atomic weapons" is not even raised.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 21 December 2020 09: 29
              +6
              It always seems to the amateur that his knowledge is sufficient. I'm just afraid that Switzerland's military budget has nothing to do with its security (as the Allied raids, albeit erroneous, imaginary) have shown, much more important is that this country is a neutral platform where many people keep their finances and an attempt to get into it will be accepted. as a challenge and robbery by so many. But you believe further that Switzerland has some kind of effective army.
              1. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 22 December 2020 13: 07
                -3
                Quote: EvilLion
                It always seems to the amateur that his knowledge is sufficient. I'm just afraid that Switzerland's military budget has nothing to do with its security (as the Allied raids, albeit erroneous, imaginary) have shown, much more important is that this country is a neutral platform where many people keep their finances and an attempt to get into it will be accepted. as a challenge and robbery by so many. But you believe further that Switzerland has some kind of effective army.

                And no one claims that Switzerland has an effective army. Now many countries have armies of + -100 thousand and 5 ships and planes each. But they are in the NATO bloc and, if necessary, unite. We simply cannot physically contain the same number of troops, and also China is close by with an unlimited human resource. The only correct postulate from the article is that now it is not the muscles that decide, but the economy. Over time, we will be completely turned into a rogue country, all supplies of high-tech products will be cut off, space launches on our rockets and other delights will be banned.
                1. meandr51
                  meandr51 24 December 2020 12: 40
                  +4
                  "Now it's not the muscles that decide, but the economy" - why then the most powerful economy in the world (the USA) is completely disproportionate to its defense needs of the Armed Forces?
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 2 January 2021 10: 14
                  -1
                  Exit - we need a discharge.
                  Go for better relations, forget about defeat in the Cold War and the desire to get even.
                  Pay compensation to the victims of the Malaysian Boeing, condemn and close a couple of switchmen for a n-th number of years (including Strelkov-Girkin - let him slurp what he brewed).
                  Send criminal elements and other "volunteers" from the LPNR for "processing" in Syria.
                  In Crimea .. at least to portray an imitation of some kind of negotiations (as with the Kuriles).
                  And all, most (if not all) of the sanctions are not.
                  And ours are beginning to "bite the bit", in a bad sense ...
                  Another would be to make the economy attractive for investment .. But with the current "siloviki" in power, this is impossible.
                  PS The story of the Magnitsky case would be simply impossible, for example, in China. There they would have expressed gratitude to him, and the relatives of the thieves paid for the bullets to be shot. Another approach to investment guarantees.
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 2 January 2021 17: 01
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Exit - we need a discharge.
                    The 90s showed that this is not an option at all. They think that our concessions are a matter of course and want more. Spraying the best people of the country is the height of idiocy, will you go to fight instead of them? I strongly doubt it. I don't think Ukraine will pay the victims of the Malaysian Boeing. In those parts of the economy in which it is profitable to invest, investments are coming.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 3 January 2021 02: 45
                      +1
                      They think that our concessions are a matter of course and want more

                      Can I be more specific?
                      As far as I remember, we also received a lot in exchange: partial cancellation of debts, new loans, a free flow of electronics and technology.
                      Spray the best people in the country

                      Is this Girkin the best man in the country ?? (I thought that the Rotenbergs smile )
                      You can add the ever-memorable RNU to the same list with this move ..
                      will you go to fight instead of them?

                      To fight with whom? Don't we have an army and active officers?
                      In those parts of the economy in which it is profitable to invest, investments are coming.

                      From whom?? Most of them are self-financing through offshore (who benefits from this?).
                      There are examples of criminal seizure of investors' property. Which is impossible in China. Therefore, investments there flow like a river.
                      1. bk0010
                        bk0010 3 January 2021 15: 09
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Can I be more specific?
                        As far as I remember, we also received a lot in exchange: partial cancellation of debts, new loans, a free flow of electronics and technology.
                        This is when they wrote off our debts? We write off this to all Africans, but they shake everything off of us. "Free flow of electronics" - is that our market is open to them? Nice preference, nothing to say. But it’s especially interesting about technologies: which ones did we get? The only thing that comes to mind is screwdriver assembly factories to bypass customs duties.
            3. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 24 December 2020 17: 28
              0
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              It's enough for me to know that their military spending is less than 1% of GDP

              But it is the most armed country in the world.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 2 January 2021 10: 15
                +1
                Note, with the lowest murder rate.
                1. Ingvar 72
                  Ingvar 72 2 January 2021 12: 26
                  +1
                  Yes, and this is another argument in favor of allowing weapons. hi
        2. New Year day
          New Year day 19 December 2020 15: 35
          +11
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          In 91, both integrity and sovereignty were accomplished without firing a shot with the strongest army in the world. And some kind of Switzerland is intact and sovereign for centuries without a single atomic bomb.

          Very interesting thought hi
          1. VasYok
            VasYok 20 December 2020 15: 35
            0
            Nothing new. Completed stage.
            1. BastaKarapuzik And
              BastaKarapuzik And 25 December 2020 15: 39
              0
              The video is almost a year old. Many of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which it refers to, have already been amended by amendments, in particular, on the priority of international law. It is curious what a howl was raised against these amendments, in fact, quite correct, about which many spoke - good, but not enough. Is this all from one single point? Well, it’s impossible, a dozen fundamentally correct amendments, to reject only because of one point (which is also adopted by the majority, by voting). He correctly says that the constitution was adopted in a hurry and under dictation. So now, leave her like this forever and ever? On the contrary, it is URGENT to make amendments. And we see what kind of resistance there was from the minority, and it would be fine only from the liberals.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 2 January 2021 10: 50
                0
                About the amendments: I think the most important thing was the introduction of school lunches there and the possibility of the president to be elected further without restrictions smile
              2. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 3 January 2021 02: 56
                0
                Quote: BastaKarapuzikI
                On the contrary, it is URGENT to make amendments. And we see what resistance was from the minority, and it would be fine only from the liberals.

                I didn't go to vote at all. As soon as I found out that the temperature was being measured there and the masks were being issued, I sent them to hell. (the plant is).
        3. knn54
          knn54 19 December 2020 17: 04
          +7
          Alexander.
          Let's start with Switzerland-WHO will shoot at "safes"?
          The author began with the Second World War. And the quantitative advantage turned out to be powerless over the factor of surprise and combat training.
          And moral, a week before the start of the war, the newspaper Pravda denied the very possibility of war. Until recently, they thought it was a provocation.
          PS Somehow I remembered a caricature of a popular author in the 70s (in my opinion Sergey Tyulenev) - before boarding, the pirate captain was solving an integral equation for the crew.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 2 January 2021 10: 51
            0
            Let me remind you: more than half of the generals were killed in 1937. And yesterday's majors with general's shoulder straps turned out to be of little use.
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 2 January 2021 17: 04
              +1
              Quote: 3danimal
              Let me remind you: more than half of the generals were killed in 1937.
              How many generals were killed in France? Why were generals with generals' shoulder straps unsuitable there? And why at 44 German generals with generals' shoulder straps were of little use when the Soviet blitzkrieg began?
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 3 January 2021 02: 48
                -1
                Soviet "blitzkrieg" against the already exhausted War Machine, which lost part (and soon all) of its allies and aid, received regular bombing of enterprises and was waging a war on 2 fronts.
                Also calculate how much steel was spent on "submarine warfare" and how many tanks from this amount could be made.
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 3 January 2021 15: 20
                  +1
                  That is, there are no objections to the French generals. Good. Now about the Germans. If you look at the statistics, you will see that the Wehrmacht gained the greatest power just in 1944: In June 1941, the number of the Wehrmacht was 7,2 million, in June 1944 - 9,42 million people, tanks in June 1941 - 3332 units (T-3 and T-4), January 1944 - 9149 units (modernized T-4, Panthers, Tigers) and so on throughout the land.
                  On the issue of bombing: the production of military aircraft in Germany tripled in 1943 compared with 1939, and in 1944 - almost 5 times. The production of tanks in 1944 increased in comparison with 1939 by 10 times.
                  Who would make tanks out of this steel? All factories were already working, they were not idle.
        4. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 19 December 2020 17: 21
          -2
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          And some kind of Switzerland is intact and sovereign for centuries without a single atomic bomb.

          And what are you fucking with here? You have coffee with cream and croissants in San Moritz and your skis are frozen in the snow. hi
          Russia will never be Switzerland and Germany will never be. fool And her army will be Russian, not Swiss. We have a military budget of $ 445 / person, and in Switzerland $ 615 / person. , although no one threatens them. They are so open and peaceful.
          1. VasYok
            VasYok 20 December 2020 15: 40
            -1
            Russia will never be Switzerland and Germany will never be. fool

            It is clear that it will not. When we pour ALL our money to a potential enemy.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 2 January 2021 10: 54
              0
              I will note that the "best people of the country" are merging, and voluntarily. And if you start to actively raise this issue, under the new laws you will be able to go to jail. request
              1. VasYok
                VasYok 14 January 2021 13: 49
                -1
                Obviously, some Russians prefer the ostrich pose. But there is a limit to everything.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 14 January 2021 15: 20
                  +1
                  Something similar was told by Kvachkov until it was closed for 10 years.
                  All TV channels are synchronously drowning for the power, and on the other hand, the repressive apparatus is strengthening.
                  So nothing of the preamble you presented will happen.
                  IMHO, there will be a chance for changes after the natural (due to old age) loss of a number of government officials.
                  1. VasYok
                    VasYok 16 January 2021 21: 37
                    0
                    there will be a chance for changes after the natural (due to old age) loss of a number of government officials.

                    You see what's the matter, PI..OSOVSKAYA COLONY is a self-healing system. EBN left, Putin came. Nothing changed. The supremacy of international law over Russian law remained enshrined in clause 15.4 of the Russian Federation of the Russian Federation in the new edition.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 17 January 2021 16: 28
                      +1
                      Take an interest, the rule of international law is enshrined in the constitutions of the USA, Germany, Britain and many more developed countries.
                      It turns out that they are also colonies? Just who? World imperialism? request
                      1. VasYok
                        VasYok 20 January 2021 08: 47
                        0
                        Take an interest, the rule of international law is enshrined in the constitutions of the USA, Germany, Britain and many more developed countries.
                        It turns out that they are also colonies?

                        Take an interest, is the rule of international law enshrined in the constitutions of the USA, Britain and many more developed countries?
                        This provision is enshrined in the constitutions of Germany and Austria as losers in WW2. yes
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 21 January 2021 21: 42
                        +1
                        To clarify: in the United States, it has equal weight with federal laws. And in practice, legislators try NOT to conflict.
                        In Europe, out of 43 countries, 17 have a clearly defined rule on the priority of international law. The Netherlands in particular. (Did they lose the war too?)
                        But the problem is not in "pi .. their colony" but in the entire history of the last 100 years, IMHO.
                        EBN at least left, but the president for life - no.
                      3. VasYok
                        VasYok 28 January 2021 18: 57
                        0
                        And why do we need Article 15.4 of the CRF? In the USSR, they somehow managed without it. And not bad.
                      4. 3danimal
                        3danimal 29 January 2021 00: 08
                        0
                        In the USSR, many things were different. Criminal article for commercial activities, for example request
                        On the other hand: how to conclude international treaties if one of the parties can easily refuse to comply (citing the absence of a constitutional norm)?
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 22 December 2020 20: 04
      -1
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      We have a military budget of $ 445 / person, and in Switzerland $ 615 / person. , although no one threatens them

      You just take and divide the number of missiles, tanks, infantry. Therefore, they have more per person, that the army is less
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 24 December 2020 13: 34
        0
        Switzerland has more military budget than Russia, not for a soldier, but for a civilian.
      2. Lesnik982
        Lesnik982 27 December 2020 00: 02
        0
        Enough already procrastinating on Switzerland, an absolutely wrong example. If we were to have their paradigm and traditions of performing military service, our liberals would howl and in a second they fled the country. The whole country up to gray hair under a gun, or rather, a gun under the bed. When Hitler did not touch Switzerland, he was wary of more than just its status as a money bag. ...
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 2 January 2021 10: 52
      0
      You arrange demagoguery. An example was only coming.
  2. sevryuk
    sevryuk 19 December 2020 19: 50
    +1
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    And some kind of Switzerland is intact and sovereign for centuries without a single atomic bomb.

    Is anyone going to attack her?
    1. Kart
      Kart 21 December 2020 08: 59
      +2
      This is their song from the liberals of the 90s. Then they sang in chorus that we have all the problems because we are so senselessly big.
      What is urgently needed will fall apart into several small countries - and then we will live.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 2 January 2021 10: 58
        0
        Wrong. The idea was - who wants to be on his own - free. The Baltic states were "annexed" in an ultimatum quite recently, they did not forget about their former independence and were the first to detach. (Etc)
        It turned out that without the threat of the use of force, the Union is not so indestructible ...
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 27 January 2021 20: 35
        0
        Could follow the path of Yugoslavia, adjusted for the size and presence of nuclear weapons
  3. max702
    max702 29 December 2020 22: 51
    +1
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    And some kind of Switzerland is intact and sovereign for centuries without a single atomic bomb.

    About the sovereignty of Switzerland, you very much bent and hence the lack of understanding of the complex problem .. Namely Switzerland has long been built into one country by a corporation called the "Western Capitalist World" headed by the Jewish banking oligarchy and the Anglo-Saxon countries performers .. Therefore, to consider the country of capital separately from the corporation is a big mistake leading fundamentally to the wrong prediction of events .. Switzerland is a financial hub and as a result of this for many centuries it has been using it by raising qualified personnel and now it is the very high-tech manufacturer in machine tools and instrument making .. It is there that equipment for the production of processors and other top things is made in electronics and precision mechanics .. For this, look at the process in today's world much more broadly .. In this world we are destined for the role of a supplier of resources and nothing more, so we should not be surprised at everything that happens in the country ..
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 2 January 2021 11: 00
      -1
      Begins ... About a conspiracy, which is more than 2000 years old will start to speak laughing
      It is interesting: from what sources did you get the conspiracy truth?
      1. max702
        max702 3 January 2021 09: 03
        0
        One pig says to another -People feed us in order to then slaughter for meat! The other answers her - I don't believe in conspiracy theory!
        Live on in the world of pink ponies ..
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 3 January 2021 10: 52
          -1
          Demagogy. negative
          So you can justify any nonsense, for example, about a flat Earth (and a world conspiracy to silence this fact). People who are not friendly with logic can be affected by good
          1. max702
            max702 3 January 2021 11: 37
            0
            So you look at the facts and turn on the logic, it's not difficult! Or do you doubt that the entire Western bourgeois world is one state with a single government? Well then, look at the distribution of labor by industry in the constituent entities of the state, someone is producing oil gas, someone is machine-tool building, someone is finance, insurance, someone is building ships, but there are disagreements since equality in this society is not observed and someone it is possible more, but someone less BUT in a common canvas unity as never before .. They barked at France and the Mistrals were not sold to us, they barked at Germany and now the diesel engine of the Navy and bulbs in Mulino were not sold to us and so on in all directions .. Amazing consensus is it true? But such a picture is not only with us, remember, for example, about South Africa in the 70s, when they wanted to get rid of the British protectorate, they immediately found apartheid and so on .. And where is South Africa now? The world is global, markets are divided and it is for them that the war is going on, as indeed it has always been from time immemorial ..
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 3 January 2021 12: 40
              -1
              western bourgeois world

              Say also that our socialist fatherland is opposed to the imperialists smile
              Well then, look at the distribution of labor by industry in the constituent entities of the state

              Too general. Someone does not know how to produce anything at a good level, to invent, crying from a camel yesterday, but has huge reserves of oil (random luck) and wants to live beautifully. Voila - he sells hydrocarbons.
              And someone for centuries has developed crafts, workshop production, manufactories, after machine production - and we get German diesel engines (even the German surname in the title smile ).
              The British and the United States succeeded in GTE (they were among the first and were strongly ahead), Rolls Royce and GE hold the first positions (talking about ships), they and PW - the top lines in aviation (including civil). Etc.
              Have you ever wondered how the evolution of production took place?
              Simple logic and lack of laziness to study the history of this topic.
              They barked at France and the Mistrals were not sold to us, they barked at Germany and now the diesel engine of the Navy and bulbs in Mulino were not sold to us, and so on in all directions ..

              Nobody barked at France: the European Parliament made a decision and the French government forced the PRIVATE shipyard to cancel the contract.
              Germany itself was at the forefront of the European Parliament and was imposed on sanctions.
              Siemens made a scandal after learning about the placement of the turbines it sold in Crimea, because it was afraid of losses due to falling under US sanctions. This is when you sold to an unwanted party for 1 million, and lost contracts from the richest country for 100. The company's management did not make such sacrifices, because the shareholders would crucify them. It's simple ..
              And most importantly: why were the sanctions imposed in 2014, but nothing of the kind was even on the horizon in 2004, or in 2010 ??
              1. max702
                max702 3 January 2021 13: 16
                0
                Neighing .. The European Parliament made a decision ... And then about the Washington Regional Committee .. I'm talking about the fact that the global policy of the Western world is in a single vein, and after 2014 they paid more attention to this issue, when was the Magnitsky law adopted? And the Jackson Vanik amendment? Or in your opinion "This is different!" Of course, because the hucksters are trying to get profit in spite of the cries of the bosses (the location of Siemens turbine production on Electrosila) is just an attempt to gesheft on trifles, but all the same .. And about the distribution of labor in this global state, I told you you just don't see this, and then that we are only allowed to trade in raw materials, he also wrote, but you didn’t notice it .. That's what it is about! Facts are logic before our eyes but we do not see this .. Apparently because then it will be more difficult to blame lazy and stupid Russia ..
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 3 January 2021 14: 16
                  -1
                  when the Magnitsky law was adopted

                  What do you have against Magnitsky? It was generally a wild story. In China, the perpetrators would go to fertilize the soil, and thanks to the lawyer.
                  Jackson Benik's amendment, EMNIP, was adopted in connection with the ban on Jews from leaving the USSR for Israel. And how are you who conspiracy the link?
                  I told you about the distribution of labor in this global state

                  We did, but did not give convincing arguments. Neither did mine comment on the development of industries and the specialization of different companies in different countries.
                  The facts are logic before our eyes but we do not see it

                  There are no facts, no logic either, only appeals to believe request
                2. max702
                  max702 3 January 2021 21: 27
                  0
                  The Magnitsky Act (also the Magnitsky Act, English Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012) is a US law initiated by William Browder that repeals the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and introduces personal sanctions in the United States. against persons responsible for violations of human rights and the rule of law in Russia. Named after Sergei Magnitsky, who died in prison. Initially, it was directed primarily against persons suspected of involvement in the death of Sergei Magnitsky.

                  The sanctions mean visa restrictions on entry into the United States and the blocking of financial assets in US banks

                  Does that tell you anything about him? Good..
                  And Jackson Broom's amendment is also nothing? Well then, the Skripals apparently do not bother you like Navalny's cowards?
                  Excuse me, after that, the conversation with you loses any meaning and you need to ask yourself a question of faith .. There is a good saying about a book and a fig, like the dew of God ... Success in rituals on Saint Valinor with shining hail on the hill ..
                3. 3danimal
                  3danimal 6 January 2021 01: 31
                  -2
                  The creaks are not at all embarrassing. More precisely, the elder - many special services in the world deal with defectors from their ranks. But the injured daughter, an Englishwoman, a policeman is very bad.
                  responsible for violations of human rights and the rule of law in Russia. Named after Sergei Magnitsky, who died in prison. Initially, it was directed primarily against persons suspected of involvement in the death of Sergei Magnitsky.

                  If for some reason criminals are not punished in our country (from cover, having a lot of money), let them at least suffer from the inability to spend it in the West so dearly loved by them.
                  Because of these, we cannot develop like China (quickly), due to the inflow of technology and investment.
  • New Year day
    New Year day 19 December 2020 15: 46
    +7
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Is the integrity and sovereignty of the country okay to start with?

    These are the fundamental principles of defending the Fatherland, but ....
    Our history is rich in examples when this was violated without war and by our leadership. The question of the meaning of war as it is at the moment: is it necessary to resort to a clash if the desired task can be performed in other ways.
    After all, it is much easier to forget about such a country and not fight - North Korea is an example.
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 24 December 2020 13: 47
      0
      The States will not forget something about the DPRK: Trump brought as many as 3 aircraft carriers to it and "forgot" only when he was promised to demolish Guam and Japan with nuclear missiles.
      The fact that the collapse of the country is possible by an internal enemy or a fool does not mean that there is no external enemy or. All threats must be eliminated. I am not opposed to persuading an external enemy with alternative methods, for example, inflating his internal conflict or "interfering in elections."
      As far as I understand, you propose first to cancel the army, give up the Crimea and Donbass, and then see how everything will flourish around. Well, as it blossomed in the 90s ...
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 2 January 2021 11: 09
        -1
        You don’t understand .. Inflating internal conflicts? Electoral interference?
        But what will be the answer? What to do in case of an embargo on the purchase of hydrocarbons?
        Suggest some more hostile actions to be taken?
        Disconnection from the international payment system will follow .. (Please note that even Chinese banks eschew sanctioned structures - they are able to count profits and losses.)
        This escalation is futile. As a result, the vast majority of citizens will live much worse, to curb the dissatisfied, they will siphon significant funds from the depleted budget for the suppression forces, which will make everyone even worse.
        But I am sure that the best people in the country will keep their standard of living at the same level. And we will be patient.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 2 January 2021 17: 08
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          What to do in case of an embargo on the purchase of hydrocarbons?
          Start to develop, as in 1998 (the then oil prices were not too different in their impact from the embargo).
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 3 January 2021 02: 50
            -1
            But then there was no isolation in terms of technology and technology, there were some investments. And nobody talked about disabling SWIFT.
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 3 January 2021 15: 22
              0
              There was no isolation, no technology. But no, I remembered - there was something useful in the oil sector, but I don't remember what. Disabling SWIFT is dangerous only by surprise, now that they are ready for it, let them at least disconnect.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 6 January 2021 01: 40
                -1
                After the sanctions, Gazprom abandoned the development of offshore fields. There is no technology.
                SWIFT .. Tell us how you will pay for a purchase made in an Italian store? German (everyone's favorite ComputerUnivervse)? Etc. And not only for individuals, but also for a huge number of government and business structures. Will you bring it with a cache?
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 6 January 2021 15: 59
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  After the sanctions, Gazprom abandoned the development of offshore fields.
                  No dough. While oil prices (which determine gas prices) were at $ 100 per barrel, it made sense to dig the bottom in the north, with a price of $ 50 - it makes no sense, there will be some losses. Moreover, with the existing demand.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Can you tell us how you will pay for a purchase made in an Italian store?
                  This issue was resolved a couple of months later after the first threat of shutdown. Organized alternative lines of communication with the main banks. SWIFT is an old network - uses its own channels and transmits information unencrypted. In the age of the Internet, implementing an alternative is not a question at all.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 7 January 2021 07: 52
                    -1
                    This issue was resolved a couple of months later after the first threat of shutdown. Organized alternative lines of communication with the main banks.

                    Reasons for trusting such "alternatives"? Can you still offer dogecoins to transfer funds?
                    We will have to create an analogue of "foreign trade" and sell hydrocarbons through it. And buy the necessary goods and equipment. YET there is no embargo. (A highly undesirable scenario).
                    And ordinary citizens will still lose the opportunity to shop.
                  2. bk0010
                    bk0010 7 January 2021 14: 21
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Reasons for trusting such "alternatives"?
                    The same as for SWIFT.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Can you still offer dogecoins to transfer funds?
                    Why not? Bitcoin was promoted in order to withdraw the loot from China after the tightening of local legislation.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    And ordinary citizens will still lose the opportunity to shop.
                    They won't notice anything at all. Those who will pay with our cards over the hill will have problems.
                  3. 3danimal
                    3danimal 7 January 2021 16: 13
                    -1
                    The same as for SWIFT.

                    Really? What about history, reputation?
                    Why not? Bitcoin was promoted for that

                    I specifically pointed out the so-called "shieldcoin" as an example. On the issue of trust and reputation ..
                    They won't notice anything at all.

                    If the "altos" you hope too much work, one, and just as fast, two.
                    Those who will pay with our cards over the hill will have problems.

                    Those. from Russian citizens. Let's say, in my Tai or yours in Turkey.
                  4. bk0010
                    bk0010 7 January 2021 19: 05
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Really? What about history, reputation?
                    Well, at the same time, they will accumulate a history of reputation. In the beginning, they will rely on the history and reputation of correspondent banks.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    I specifically pointed out the so-called "shieldcoin" as an example. On the issue of trust and reputation ..
                    So what? You don't seem to understand that serious people work with themselves through bitcoin. For example, they bought bitcoins for their Chinese branch from their European branch for 20 thousand dollars. Or less serious, here, in the Chinese market: people come to them, pay money for the goods, they buy a share of bitcoin for rubles, drive it to China, sell it for yuan, buy goods for them, send it. How does reputation affect here? The work is going on inside one office.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    If the "altos" you hope too much work, one, and just as fast, two.
                    Where do you see the problem? Let me remind you that we have already rehearsed disabling SWIFT. As a result, they even wanted to turn off themselves so that payments to the states would not shine, but they were afraid.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Those. from Russian citizens. Let's say, in my Tai or yours in Turkey.
                    Take some cash. If the trip is not a surprise, then it is not a problem.
                  5. 3danimal
                    3danimal 8 January 2021 04: 51
                    -1
                    Well, at the same time, they will accumulate a history of reputation. In the beginning, they will rely on the history and reputation of correspondent banks.

                    You do not understand. Why should a bank, say, in Austria, add / write off numbers on its account? Based on an unknown system? How reliable is it? What about risks and fees?
                    For example, they bought bitcoins for their Chinese branch from their European branch for 20 thousand dollars.

                    Too much volatility.
                    Let me remind you that we have already rehearsed disabling SWIFT. As a result, they even wanted to turn off themselves so that payments to the states would not shine, but they were afraid.

                    Afraid of what?
                    Source of information and proofs?
                    Take some cash. If the trip is not a surprise, then it is not a problem.

                    As far as I know, you cannot take a lot of cash with you.
                  6. bk0010
                    bk0010 8 January 2021 15: 39
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Why should a bank, say, in Austria, add / write off numbers on its account?
                    Based on a contract.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Too much volatility.
                    No volatility at all. They sell bitcoins to themselves. From these sales of the exchange, they see a rate of $ 20000. For some reason, some people think that these numbers are related to their bitcoins, they are looking for someone to sell them to.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Afraid of what? Source of information and proofs?
                    Duc, box. But a quick search immediately brought up a couple of links: h
                    ttps://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5a7b0e2a8309053796b10de1/rossiiskie-banki-gotovy-otkliuchit-swift-5a85a6c61aa80c7f4660fbf4
                    or
                    https://bankstoday.net/last-articles/rossiyu-uzhe-6-let-grozyat-otklyuchit-ot-swift-naskolko-eto-realistichno-i-chem-grozit-strane#__SWIFT

                    Quote: 3danimal
                    As far as I know, you cannot take a lot of cash with you.
                    A colleague drove $ 9000, no problem.
                  7. 3danimal
                    3danimal 8 January 2021 17: 38
                    -1
                    But a quick search immediately brought a couple of links

                    Have you read this article?
                    In any case, the cost of banking operations will rise significantly and their volume will sharply decrease. And that means an economic downturn.

                    Undoubtedly, if Russia is disconnected from SWIFT, not only global financial structures will suffer, but also the population - incomes will decrease and purchasing power will fall as a result of the worsening economic situation in the country.

                    And say that a couple of trifles.
                    Where is my 2012 ??
                  8. bk0010
                    bk0010 8 January 2021 17: 46
                    0
                    This is a permanent process for us after 2008. What's the difference from what it will be?
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Where is my 2012 ??
                    And what is not 2005?
                  9. 3danimal
                    3danimal 8 January 2021 21: 09
                    -1
                    This is a permanent process for us after 2008.

                    It could be even worse.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 6 January 2021 01: 35
    -1
    Donbass give

    How I like it when people “burn the office”: is that how we “took” Donbass after all? And I already began to believe the country's leadership that the Russian Federation is not a party to the conflict smile
  • Egor53
    Egor53 20 December 2020 14: 37
    +6
    NATO countries have long had neither integrity nor sovereignty.
    You need to be a very naive person to believe that this French population wanted to send 9 million idle migrants to them, and feed them, reducing their own living standards by 10-15%.
    Or that the very population of Great Britain wanted the size of its fishing fleet to be reduced by 5 times, and the Spaniards caught fish in their territorial waters.
  • Svarog
    Svarog 19 December 2020 15: 24
    +4
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    You can destroy the entire NATO fleet and not achieve anything, or you can solve many problems without firing a single shot.

    We are talking about a possible real collision .. and if this happens, how can you achieve a solution to this problem without firing a shot? Very interesting .. Suppose that intelligence reports that a massive attack on the territory of the Russian Federation is being prepared .. how will you solve the problem .. there has not been a shot yet ..
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 15: 32
      +4
      And intelligence can also report on the invasion of the Martians or the awakening of Cthulhu. There is a concept of probability, which is made up of reasons and prerequisites.

      What are the reasons for the massive strike on the territory of the Russian Federation? Well, not out of pure fierce hatred. This means resources. So, for what resources on the territory of the Russian Federation or colonies (real and potential) is someone ready to risk a massive strike on the territory of the Russian Federation?
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 24 December 2020 14: 04
        +2
        First of all, nobody has canceled or will cancel the purely fierce hatred of Russians. It is enough to watch any Hollywood blockbuster where Russians appear. Or read the comments of American or Swedish citizens about any political event related to Russia. Since this hatred lasts for centuries, it means that there are deep reasons for it, which are irreparable. And it doesn't even matter who is to blame. Enmity is eternal and inevitable. Any attempts to "live together" will ultimately lead to the disintegration and weakening of Russia.
        Secondly, nobody canceled geopolitical interests. "Whoever owns Eurasia owns the world." This is Reagan's advisor Brzezinski said. Well, and resources that you can borrow for free.
        And who are now going to feed the "semi-Asian barbarians" and their "unnecessary army".
        At the moment, aggression against the Russian Federation is unlikely, but this is why the United States is feeding the internal enemy in order to reduce its defenses and secure its aggression.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 2 January 2021 11: 17
          -1
          Resources are free to borrow .. Tell that to the British-Dutch and Chinese oil companies in Iraq. And paying an rent of 50% of the cost of a barrel.
          Everyone is quite satisfied with these resources to buy. Money is not earned that way now. The largest capitalization is NOT for resource companies. And in the top ten richest countries there is not a single one whose main source of income is the sale of resources.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 6 January 2021 01: 42
          -1
          a purely fierce hatred of Russians has not been canceled or will not be canceled. It is enough to watch any Hollywood blockbuster where Russians appear

          OK. Take Hunter-Killer, pretty fresh. Even Russian actors starred. Where is the hatred and how did it manifest itself for you?
    2. apro
      apro 19 December 2020 15: 36
      0
      Quote: Svarog
      We are talking about a possible real collision.

      In reality, what kind of a combined, airborne, land-based and naval component, or purely naval, for what purpose is a strategic landing on the coast? Just a strike on coastal targets, limited or massive.
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 19 December 2020 15: 38
        0
        Quote: apro
        Quote: Svarog
        We are talking about a possible real collision.

        In reality, what kind of a combined, airborne, land-based and naval component, or purely naval, for what purpose is a strategic landing on the coast? Just a strike on coastal targets, limited or massive.

        I think that no one will risk and attack one or several targets .. if there is a strike, it will be carefully planned and naturally massive ..
        1. apro
          apro 19 December 2020 15: 49
          +2
          And big numbers come in. And the ability to build up reserves. And with this, the Russian Federation has no way. And I think there is no way to stop it without yaba. Too big an advantage. To optimally build up yaba delivery vehicles. To improve its combat stability.
        2. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 15: 51
          +2
          Quote: Svarog
          Quote: apro
          Quote: Svarog
          We are talking about a possible real collision.

          In reality, what kind of a combined, airborne, land-based and naval component, or purely naval, for what purpose is a strategic landing on the coast? Just a strike on coastal targets, limited or massive.

          I think that no one will risk and attack one or several targets .. if there is a strike, it will be carefully planned and naturally massive ..


          Well, the answer to such a blow would be all available atomic bombs. Well, I will repeat the question, who will take the risk? And most importantly - why?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 16: 01
            +4
            Quote: Sancho_SP
            Well, I will repeat the question, who will take the risk? And most importantly - why?
            This is so that no one would risk it and we need the sun. And there would be no sun, and there is no need to risk, come and take it.
            1. Sancho_SP
              Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 16: 06
              -4
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              Well, I will repeat the question, who will take the risk? And most importantly - why?
              This is so that no one would risk it and we need the sun. And there would be no sun, and there is no need to risk, come and take it.


              And exactly if there are 1500 warheads on carriers, 10 more kilotanks or landing craft are needed?
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 16: 11
                +11
                Quote: Sancho_SP
                And exactly if there are 1500 warheads on carriers, 10 more kilotanks or landing craft are needed?
                A question from the category: And exactly if there is central heating, the windows should be glazed?
                1. Sancho_SP
                  Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 16: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Quote: Sancho_SP
                  And exactly if there are 1500 warheads on carriers, 10 more kilotanks or landing craft are needed?
                  A question from the category: And exactly if there is central heating, the windows should be glazed?


                  Answering in the same style: if there is a megawatt boiler for an apartment of 60 m2, you don't have to glaze :)
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 17: 01
                    +6
                    Quote: Sancho_SP
                    if there is a megawatt boiler for an apartment of 60 m2 - you don't need to glaze
                    A strong argument, only in this case the toenails from the heat will curl up like a tube, and the ears will still freeze.
                    1. Sancho_SP
                      Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 17: 41
                      +4
                      And you put heat curtains in the window openings, or a more powerful inflow with a heater from the same boiler ..;)

                      Once again, the goal of tank armies and oceanic strike fleets is to attack someone. Who are we attacking?

                      ZY I'm not saying at all that there is no one to attack. I am in favor of openly calling a spade a spade.
                    2. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 18: 35
                      +1
                      Quote: Sancho_SP
                      And you put heat curtains in the window openings, or a more powerful inflow with a heater from the same boiler ..;)
                      Wonderful, but you can go broke on heating, and
                      less than one percent of GDP
                      can not do.
                      Quote: Sancho_SP
                      Once again, the goal of the tank armies and the oceanic strike fleet is to attack someone

                      Those. Are tanks and navy not applicable in defense at all? Are you delusional or what? Well, and the numbers of the tank armies and the shock oceanic fleets of modern Russia, please announce.
                    3. Sancho_SP
                      Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 20: 33
                      -1
                      Well, there are ALREADY bombs on which you can go broke. We pay for them anyway, without options. And in the presence of these bombs, it is also not rational to spend on preparing for a hypothetical nuclear-free conflict with the same enemy that we will bomb.

                      Now, if you cite a scenario in which, for example, a coup with a civil war happened in the United States and NATO ceased to exist ...
              2. Maikcg
                Maikcg 20 December 2020 18: 05
                0
                This is analogous to California bullets.
          2. bk0010
            bk0010 19 December 2020 20: 09
            +2
            Quote: Sancho_SP
            And exactly if there are 1500 warheads on carriers, 10 more kilotanks or landing craft are needed?
            Exactly. They solve different problems. And by the way, 1500 is really not enough, the required minimum of a little over 6 thousand, 35000-40000 - as if all partners will have enough, no more.
            1. Sancho_SP
              Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 20: 35
              -1
              Quote: bk0010
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              And exactly if there are 1500 warheads on carriers, 10 more kilotanks or landing craft are needed?
              Exactly. They solve different problems. And by the way, 1500 is really not enough, the required minimum of a little over 6 thousand, 35000-40000 - as if all partners will have enough, no more.


              Well, please tell us why :)

              Well, at least write one scenario for an example! Well, let, I don’t know, samurai-revisionists came to power in Japan, ritually slaughtered all the Americans and flooded to recapture the Kuril Islands ... Then you can already discuss how much, what and where you need it.
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 20 December 2020 13: 27
                +1
                Quote: Sancho_SP
                Well, please tell us why :)
                Why what? Why at least 6000 warheads? Each target requires 2 warheads from different carriers. The targets are located in all NATO countries. These are big cities, and bases, and energy facilities, ports, airfields, military-industrial complex plants and just key industries, administrative centers and much more. All this will have to be destroyed in order to neutralize NATO's industrial superiority and mobilization potential in the outbreak of the war. The states have more than 13000 airfields on their own territory. Most, of course, are not higher than class 3, but there are many suitable for the military. Over 700 military bases outside state lines. Minutemen at least 400 mines. In short, there are many targets, but very few warheads. 40000 warheads are required in case we miss the first strike and no preemptive or retaliatory strike succeeded. Then we will be able to strike back a serious blow, even if 95% of our potential is knocked out (5% will be more than we have now).
                10000 tanks and others are required to seize ports and airfields in Europe in order to prevent the landing and deployment of the American expeditionary force (airfields are required to increase the range of our aviation's impact on enemy convoys). You don't think an exchange of nuclear strikes will mean the end of the war, do you?
                1. Essex62
                  Essex62 21 December 2020 09: 14
                  0
                  Precisely that the end of the war. All the NATO goals you listed do not make any sense. The problem is as simple as 2 × 2. Undercover intelligence before the start, the location of the puppeteers in real time and the presence of surviving carriers of nuclear weapons for retaliation. The first, and the crushing blow is still behind them. It is not possible to prevent it, the counter-counter is unlikely, the flight time, when their carriers are literally "behind the Kremlin wall," does not help, the timing of the beginning is always behind the enemies.
                  I completely agree with the creation of a reserve of carriers and charges. So that at least something was left to dig in the bunkers, I decided from the other side. This is the end of the war for us. Even the shadow of Vanga's grandmother does not know what will happen next.
                2. bk0010
                  bk0010 22 December 2020 00: 13
                  0
                  We burned the puppeteers, do you think this will end the war that has begun? No. After the nuclear armageddon, the brutality will begin, no one will leave offended, enough for everyone.
                3. Essex62
                  Essex62 22 December 2020 07: 15
                  0
                  This is the last action of "us", those who survive through the bunkers ("with" us ", they will not be capable of active actions. There will be no one, the US will no longer be. They have an advantage in surprise, but they riveted missiles and carriers on four Russia Do you really think that the first wave will be with a conventional warhead? They will beat for sure to try to prevent a response.
            2. Sancho_SP
              Sancho_SP 21 December 2020 12: 25
              +1
              What a man-eater you are. One (1, one) warhead that reached New York already makes such a war obviously unprofitable for almost anyone.
            3. bk0010
              bk0010 22 December 2020 00: 16
              -1
              In such matters, benefit does not matter. Before the First World War, it was also believed that a major war was impossible, since it was unprofitable. And then, in three days, the cost of the dreadnought, which in peacetime was considered prohibitive and unaffordable, was fired with shells alone.
        3. bayard
          bayard 21 December 2020 11: 09
          0
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          In Japan, revisionist samurai came to power, ritually slaughtered all the Americans and flooded to recapture the Kuril Islands ...

          Yes, even with the Americans, they can overcome, moreover, under their strict guidance and even on their initiative. Moreover, such a plot is much more realistic than you now think.
          Maybe a wave will go from Ukraine, they were deprived of their mind, will, and sovereignty for this.
          And then there is China, which is not our friend or ally at all, just a temporary companion, while the United States is still strong and we can do something. And if it happened in the United States, for example, a civil war, or an economic collapse and political collapse, and hello to the new-old enemy-neighbor.
          Therefore, you need to keep the gunpowder dry, and have the means to contain / defeat all partners ...
          But this requires a new Soviet Union and a completely different elite.
          But it will not work to agree.
          It didn't work out anymore.
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 21 December 2020 12: 27
            0
            Soooo. And what is more economically profitable in this scenario: to break the budget during the construction of a pair of AUG and fight "honestly", or have the Yai throw a couple of small warheads in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (to refresh their hysterical memory)?
          2. bayard
            bayard 21 December 2020 12: 35
            +1
            Quote: Sancho_SP
            or have the Yai throw a couple of small warheads in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (to refresh their hysterical memory)?

            This, too, will not go unrequited.
            You need to have a Yaytsa, and strength, and means.
            According to the principle of reasonable sufficiency.
            And these funds must be nuclear and on reliable carriers. And this is aviation, cruise and ballistic missiles.
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 2 January 2021 11: 23
          0
          Let me reassure you: there will never be a new USSR. The siloviki in power will never let go of the property and money taken. And ordinary citizens - apartments, cars, small bakeries and car repair shops.
        5. bayard
          bayard 2 January 2021 11: 36
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          ... The siloviki in power will never let go of the property and money taken.

          It was not the siloviks who took the property from the beginning ... The siloviks only diluted the new class of "masters" with themselves.
          And the point is not at all in "public property" and "free apartments (Stalin, by the way, stimulated the construction of private households and estates with the issuance of state loans - interest-free), but in a powerful state in which there is a public consensus on the law of Justice.
          If you are a "silovik" grabbed property - factories, assets, etc., be so kind as to pay taxes and the agreed social burden, do not take your profits offshore, but invest in the development of your country, do not rob the budget and pension funds. And for crimes - go to hard labor or to be shot.
          And as for "private bakeries", shops, hairdressers, etc., before Khrushchev, they were mostly private (under a patent or cooperatives) and brought to the treasury up to 17% of income.
          We are talking about a State that cares about the People, their health, welfare, security and population growth.
          The same cannot be said about the present state.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 2 January 2021 11: 20
    0
    So the "partners" will also start producing more. And here there is an interesting point: the production and maintenance of such an arsenal requires huge funds. And whoever is richer is better.
  • apro
    apro 19 December 2020 16: 07
    -1
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    need the sun

    It is clear what is needed. But how balanced. Yes, you can build missile platforms. But how to provide air defense and anti-mine protection? Target designation? Deployment cover? And is it possible for the economy to implement all the wants?
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 25
      +5
      There is a minimum.
      1. apro
        apro 19 December 2020 16: 31
        -3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        There is a minimum.

        As far as I understand, according to your strategy, this is not enough?
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 December 2020 17: 17
          +7
          This is the minimum required. It must be provided. The rest is as far as the economy allows.
          1. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 20 December 2020 09: 19
            +1
            Regularities, formulas, debit-credit, generalizations ... But the friends of the people did not receive an answer to the sacred question - how, at least in the near future, the author sees as necessary and sufficient precisely the quantitative composition of the ships of the Russian Navy?
          2. bayard
            bayard 21 December 2020 11: 21
            +1
            If in terms of surface forces, then in the Pacific Fleet, in addition to the ordered 12 corvettes, 6 frigates (22350) and 6 destroyers (22350M) are needed, the same number for the Northern Fleet, preferably the same number for the Black Sea Fleet, but in destroyers it is possible to cut sturgeon down to 3-4 pieces.
            Number of corvettes 6 - 12 pcs. to the Northern Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet.
            There are enough corvettes and IRAs in the Baltic, but 2-3 frigates are also possible for solidity.
            It's too early to talk about aircraft carriers, but in 4-5 years you can remember the question - the industry will be ready, but will there be will and finances ...
            Landing ships are a separate issue, but they are already under construction, which means they will be.
            And at least 5 MRA regiments.
            On the Su-34 in a reinforced version.
            Special attention is needed for naval reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation - on new platforms (Tu-214 or MS-21 with an aluminum wing).
          3. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 21 December 2020 12: 34
            0
            In the Baltic, solidity is already excessive. If he treats the ships like a human being, then a third will be on scheduled repair and modernization, at least three frigates will go to escort one new UDC. In the remainder, there is one CBG per regional fleet, is it not enough?
          4. bayard
            bayard 21 December 2020 13: 04
            +2
            This is the optimum for today's budget.
            And how many frigates do you dispatch to the UDC escort?
            Chinese won - one by one in an escort, and they go far. The main forces of the fleet must be in the aviation - the naval missile carrier. It is a much more mobile and operational tool of war at sea, and with our length of coastal waters, only aviation can be kept under control.
            In addition, we have a clear advantage in the strike assets of the fleet - in the quality of our anti-ship missiles. "Onyxes" and promising "Zircons" make it possible to control a huge water area with several frigates. The only question is intelligence and target designation, and this requires aviation and a fleet of reconnaissance drones.
            And what can be considered an IBM in modern conditions?
            A pair of a frigate and a destroyer (24 + 48 CR) can be considered as such?
            But such a volley is enough for the AUG.
            Advantage in the quality of strike missile weapons, gives our fleet the ability to manage in its needs a multiple of the number of surface ships.
            So one destroyer 22350M or one SSGN of the Yasen-M type is capable of single-handedly sinking the enemy's entire AUG if this salvo is fired by the Zircons (and even the Onyxes). Of course, with reliable target designation.
            So calculate whether 6 frigates 22350 and 6 destroyers 22350M are enough for the needs of the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet. Taking into account that in the near zone there will be 12 more corvettes of new construction. But there are also nuclear submarines, and submarines, and aviation with coastal complexes.
            This is the optimum that is enough.
          5. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 21 December 2020 16: 57
            +1
            If in order, then
            How did the 22350M project get into the optimum of today's budget?
            An escort for UDC from Sevastopol to Tartus can also consist of one frigate, but if it is further, then there is nothing of that.
            The composition of the KUG is determined by the task - at least to drive away the alien AUG away from our shores. At the moment, from the surface ships it is "Peter" with "Ustinov", a couple of "Udal" and both "Gorshkov", so far our only KUG.
            And we have no advantage in the strike assets of the fleet. Even if our individual anti-ship missile system is somewhat superior to the American one, then given the law of the transition from quantity to quality, the advantage is not on our side. Not taking into account the notorious problem of target designation, we are losing even in the range of impact - the F-18 with two PTBs and two "Harpoons" has a combat radius of 1100 km + missile range.
            Therefore, while we have a coastal fleet, which is completely satisfactory for the Americans.
          6. bayard
            bayard 21 December 2020 17: 28
            +1
            The conversation was not about "now", but about the near / medium term.
            And who would argue about today.
            In 5 years, you will see that the Gorshkovs' series will be completed, the BOD will be modernized, the Nakhimov will be commissioned, maybe even the Petra will be repaired without modernization, 22350M will be laid ...
            Then we'll live.
          7. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 22 December 2020 01: 25
            0
            Permanent movement towards a brighter future.
          8. bayard
            bayard 22 December 2020 01: 31
            +1
            In the present pitch darkness, the bright future is not visible. That if all the stars converge, then maybe the way I wrote.
            But plans in modern Russia do not come true often, and if a miracle happens, it is not at the right time. And with the transfer to the right.
          9. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 22 December 2020 02: 14
            0
            A miracle in Russia is inevitable, the main thing is that there are fewer weirdos.
    2. max702
      max702 29 December 2020 23: 13
      0
      That is, again, we are fighting exclusively with the fleet? Should we not offer other types of weapons? That is, if you have an invasion of cockroaches, then you hit with a slipper only those who climb into your plate, but the nest (you know that it is behind the closet) should not be touched with the same dichlorvos? Is it so?
    3. Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A 30 December 2020 02: 59
      0
      Pancake pancakes, would you specify about the proposal for the fleet.
      As for the brutal insects, dichlorvos is not our method. Experienced cockroach hunters advise you to first figure out the leader and only then hit him in the eye with a slipper so as not to damage the skin. Something like this.
    4. max702
      max702 30 December 2020 06: 38
      0
      In the fleet, everything is simple, the large unit itself is a frigate, the basis of a corvette, an emphasis on nuclear submarines, and multi-purpose SSBNs should be forgotten like a nightmare, then minesweepers and other necessary trifles, and first of all troop transports to supply ground groupings ... there have been no battles between serious powers for 75 years and there will not be, bulk at best, because this is not a DB, but an accident at sea and ocean .. There are no tasks for our Navy in the coming decades! And technical progress will completely remove the role of the fleet over the years as a military component.
    5. Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A 30 December 2020 08: 29
      0
      And what can corvettes with a flagship frigate be able to do? Is that diving near the coast, so this task is better for aviation. Without integration into the world economy, the protection of which must be ensured by the ocean fleet, there will be no technical progress, and in a quarter of a century at most, the country will safely collapse.
    6. max702
      max702 30 December 2020 11: 52
      0
      And who in the fleet can what? Like AUG will decide everything? Yeah .. Who will let you into the world economy? They themselves are not enough .. In their opinion, we have to stock up on raw materials and no more (although it can feed 20 million according to Thatcher) and no other niches in the world economy are provided for us .. The task of our fleet is to dash off the coast and escort what maximum then the ship (ships) is somewhere and the task of the escort is not to allow the pirates to seize the caravan and inform the headquarters in case of a run over someone more abruptly .. After that, a call will come to the foe and the whole conflict will be settled, because no one will argue with the Strategic Missile Forces. it is fully confirmed by the world at sea and ocean for 75 years already .. nuclear submarines and frigates may well snap at themselves, especially in the light of the latest developments in anti-ship missiles .. As for aviation, I agree it is much more important and necessary than the fleet, but without ships it is no longer possible, therefore frigates corvettes and nuclear submarines for long hikes ..
    7. Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A 30 December 2020 23: 35
      0
      So, you really decide - if frigates are still needed to cover the nuclear submarine, who will cover the frigates themselves, because the carrier-based aircraft flips them over and over again. And in this case, the matter will not reach the Strategic Missile Forces, since this is not a retaliatory nuclear strike and there is no threat of the existence of the state.
      Yes, no one will let you into the world economy for good, this is the law of the jungle, for this you need big teeth.
    8. max702
      max702 3 January 2021 09: 00
      0
      The surface fleet is not needed to cover multipurpose nuclear submarines, but to cover SSBNs, these, due to the assigned tasks, are very vulnerable and are the number one target, and multipurpose nuclear submarines do not attract such attention, and it is easier for them to escape from tracking, and structurally they are better adapted to this , therefore multipurpose nuclear submarines have the right to life, when it comes to the Strategic Missile Forces, we cannot know, but somehow another nuclear power has been afraid to sink ships of a nuclear power for years75 and this is a fact .. There was a muddy story with the Kursk, but judging by the events that happened after that this story was flooded with money, which gave impetus to the revival of Russia in the 00s .. As for the threat of the existence of the state, it is a difficult question, analysts will easily calculate this or that event and what it will lead to, so it is very likely that if our ship is destroyed, something somewhere and will arrive thereby sobering up the "partners" .. Now, about the slips, the work is going on new anti-ship missiles, Rofar and the restoration of the satellite constellation just and the EU take steps in this direction. in the presence of reconnaissance, target designation, and means of destruction, the fleet, as it were, is not capable of opposing anything to this decision .. Unlike us, the "partners" need to solve not the question of survival, but the question of further enrichment in order to prevent a drop in the standard of living, they are just there is something to lose, so the whole world in dust is categorically not satisfied with them .. Not that goal at all, Therefore, the use of TNW by us will be perceived adequately, because they understand themselves have run into not leaving US any other way out, after that all escalations will sharply decline because we proved that the powder is dry and, most importantly, the determination to act to the end! After that, the rates will decrease and a new round of games for dominance will begin, but with different methods in order to exclude the general Arctic fox.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 2 January 2021 11: 43
    0
    A couple of frigate and destroyer

    Forget about the destroyer. Only in the form of layouts for gluing, firms Zvezda or Italery request (in the next 10-20 years)
    Of course, with reliable target designation.

    Thanks for remembering hi
    Do you propose to go from third to first place in terms of the number of satellite constellations?
    MRA is much more powerful and flexible.
  • bayard
    bayard 2 January 2021 12: 17
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Forget about the destroyer. Only as layouts

    We are not talking about the ever-memorable "Leader" (God forbid building such a thing), but about pr. 22350M with a power plant on a GTU M-90FR and M-70FRU, with 48 CDs in the UKSK. It was this type that I called the destroyer. And those are planned for construction from 12 to 18 pieces.
    I understand that there are still two years before the bookmarks - when the power plant will appear, but no special problems with its construction after running in all systems on frigates 22350 are expected. The only question is in the GEM. Or rather, in the gearbox to it. Now work on it is delayed by the fine-tuning and launch of the power plant for the 22350 series (the first domestic).
    Quote: 3danimal
    Of course, with reliable target designation.

    Thanks for remembering

    I always remembered and wrote about this.
    Even in the above correspondence.
    Quote: 3danimal
    Do you propose to go from third to first place in terms of the number of satellite constellations?

    The main thing is the quality of these satellites. And the number should be sufficient to complete the tasks ahead.
    Quote: 3danimal
    MRA is much more powerful and flexible.

    And I also wrote about this above - about the need to deploy five MRA regiments on reinforced Su-34:
    - two for the Pacific Fleet,
    - one for the Northern Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet,
    - one in reserve.
    - for the Baltic MRA - redundant, enough Su-30 with X-31 and X-35 on pylons.
    This is the minimum required by the MPA, but it still needs to be achieved.
    On the Tu-22M3 \ M3M, you can count on no more than a squadron for the fleet - they are few and they will not live long.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 2 January 2021 15: 41
    0
    a about Project 22350M with a power plant on a gas turbine unit M-90FR and M-70FRU, with 48 KR in UKSK

    So this is a frigate, as they call it. Rocked smile
    Here the question is immediately: isn't there too much stuffed into the hull with a displacement of 7-8 thousand tons? IMHO, cut by 30-40 percent and it will be just right good
    And those are planned for construction from 12 to 18 pieces.

    I understand that there are still two years before the bookmarks - when the power plant will appear, but no special problems with its construction after running in all systems on frigates 22350 are expected. The only question is in the GEM. Or rather, in the gearbox to it.


    On paper, the naval and factory have a lot simple and fast ..
    Here's the question: frigates 22350, 4000 tons each, took from 6 to 8 years from laying to launch. Before the transfer to the customer - generally 11 and 12 years.
    Suppose that the 18th "frigate destroyer" (even being built in parallel at 2 factories) in a hull of 8 thousand tons will be transferred to the fleet in the 22nd century? (The Chinese will tell jokes about our shipbuilders as about Estonians).
    The main thing is the quality of these satellites. And the number should be sufficient to complete the tasks ahead.

    Justification. Is the quality so revolutionary that 4 satellites will cover all boundaries? IMHO, such thoughts from getting used to the situation of lack of finance and production resources. So I want to believe in super-quality.
    A separate topic about the element base, what level it is (in terms of endurance in terms of being in work) and where to get it.
  • bayard
    bayard 2 January 2021 18: 07
    0
    Quote: 3danimal

    So this is a frigate, as they call it. Rocked
    Here the question is immediately: isn't there too much stuffed into the hull with a displacement of 7-8 thousand tons? IMHO, cut by 30-40 percent and it will be just right

    If it is reduced by 30 - 40%, it will be the same 22350.
    Quote: 3danimal
    Here's the question: frigates 22350, 4000 tons each,

    5300 tons of full VI. 22350M, this is practically the same ship in terms of avionics and armament, but with increased VI and expanded ammunition. And of course with a new power plant. The afterburner remains the same, but instead of economic diesel engines there will be M-70FRU with 11 hp. moreover, their torque can be added to one gearbox. So the maximum speed will grow.
    And about "also a frigate", so you can call a pot. The first "Berks" VI were no more, and no more strike weapons were carried. So everything is fair.
    Quote: 3danimal
    from laying to launching, it took from 6 to 8 years. Before the transfer to the customer - generally 11 and 12 years.

    So it was not ready - neither the weapons, nor the air defense system. A crude ship with a high coefficient of novelty. How was it to be adopted without an air defense system?
    And after the coup in the already non-brotherly, but neighboring state, when all the new ships were left without engines?
    To date, all the systems of the ship have been worked out, tested, checked, and brought into production. That's just a completely domestic power plant needs to be installed and checked on the fly.
    And - into the series.
    GEM.
    To equip all ships laid down to this day.
    And the main difficulty in the new power plant is the gearbox.
    There are turbines.
    They will complete the fine-tuning of the power plant for 22350 and begin testing the power plant for 22350M. And they can drive the corps quickly - everything is worked out. For frigates 11356, it took 3,5 years from bookmark to delivery - those that were built for the Black Sea Fleet. It will take 4 - 5 years for these. Only in St. Petersburg, 2 buildings per year can be laid. It is possible to connect Kaliningrad to the program (11356 was built there), over time both the Amur plant and the Kerch "Zaliv" (on which the Burevestniki were also built in due time.
    The main thing is GEM.
    There will be power plants, there will be ships.
    And there are already enough shipyards for this.
    Satellites also already exist, the issue with the launch vehicle, the element base has also been sorted out - a mutually beneficial exchange with China. We give them an early warning system and rocket engines, they give us the element base of the military-space class.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 3 January 2021 03: 40
    0
    If it is reduced by 30 - 40%, it will be the same 22350.

    No, -30-40% is 32 UKSK cells instead of 48. At 22350 - 16 in general, etc. I think that in the end it will be so (in the announcements they got too excited about the promises to "stuff").
    Let me remind you that Berks have a TOTAL 92-96 cells, both for shock (anti-ship missiles / KR), and for PLUR and air defense, with a sick displacement.
    (Although there is an example with Israelis Saar-6 corvettes, they are armed "to the teeth" with 1.7-1,9 thousand tons of displacement). But, these are ships of the near sea zone, on long voyages it will greatly interfere, IMHO.
    they give us the element base of the "military space" class.

    It would be nice, we'll see. And then there were precedents with a civilian element base sintered in space.
    BUT, much depends on the budget. (Both ships and satellites). And I haven’t come across any reasonable explanation of where it will “noticeably replenish” from, only hopes for a miracle (oil at 200 each).
  • bayard
    bayard 3 January 2021 11: 59
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    At 22350 - generally 16

    This is only for the first 4, for the next 24 CRs in UKSK. So 48 CR for 22350M is just a doubling of the shock ammo. And doubling the BC SAM. At the same time, all other ship systems (avionics, air defense, general ship systems) will remain the same. At the same time, the increased VI up to 7 - 8 thousand tons also allows the helicopter hangar to be expanded for two helicopters. And all at the same time perfectly companions, improving seaworthiness, habitability, autonomy and increasing combat capabilities in comparison with 22350.1 twice. And the price tag will increase by only 25%.
    Why
    But because only one air defense missile system (RLK) stands as a third of the entire frigate, but it has remained unchanged. Like all other elements of avionics.
    Quote: 3danimal
    only hopes for a miracle (oil 200 each).

    Now there are more hopes for "off-budget investments in the economy in the amount of 39 trillion rubles in 3 years ...
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 3 January 2021 13: 03
    0
    This is only for the first 4, for the next 24 CRs in UKSK

    So far, only 2 have been transferred to the fleet, the third has been launched on all 16 UKSK cells.
    Wait and see.
    improving seaworthiness, habitability, autonomy

    The bigger case is undoubtedly better this way. Moreover, he himself costs only 10% of the ship. Doubling the ammunition will eventually increase the cost by more than 25%, I assure you. I would argue that not less than 40%. (Just seen promises and reality many times smile )
    Now there are more hopes for "off-budget investments in the economy in the amount of 39 trillion rubles in 3 years ...

    I will say more, there was information about $ 1 trillion of funds withdrawn. And all in the 00s and 10s.
    Immediately a question: how was this possible ??
    And what has changed so dramatically now?
  • bayard
    bayard 3 January 2021 14: 40
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    The bigger case is undoubtedly better this way. Moreover, he himself costs only 10% of the ship.

    15%.
    Quote: 3danimal
    Doubling the ammunition will eventually increase the cost by more than 25%, I assure you. I would argue that at least 40%. (Just seen promises and reality many times)

    The cost of the frigate 22350 - 500 - 550 million dollars. (Inflation, devaluation, so the figure floats a little), moreover, it was the cost of the head "Gorshkov", it is clear that the serial one will cost a little cheaper when the production process is debugged, as it is clear that its version 22350.1 with 24 KR in UKSC will definitely not exceed the above amount.
    But the cost of 22350M was estimated by manufacturers and the military department at "about 650 million dollars." (I also met an estimate of 600 - 650 million dollars). So you can of course argue and have your own opinion, but you can also turn on the usual logic.
    The ship's VI and dimension were simply increased, while keeping all the systems of weapons, equipment, communications, encryption, electronic warfare, BIUS, and air defense unchanged. The propulsion system has not changed much either, but certainly for the better. Instead of a cruising diesel engine, a M-70FRU gas turbine with a capacity of 11 hp was installed. The GTU itself may be slightly more expensive than a diesel engine, but the gearbox is much easier. It's one thing to marry a high-speed turbine and a low-speed diesel engine on one gearbox ... and quite another - two high-speed turbines, they can even be added for more power at maximum speed. So the power plant will definitely not rise in price much.
    There are rockets left.
    And UKSC to them.
    24 additional CD.
    And twice the size of the previous missiles.
    So they will give the main increase in value.
    But these are ONLY rockets.
    For BIUS, radar, crew posts and everything else for these weapons systems on the ship are already from pr. 22350.
    Therefore, I will allow a breakdown of 25-30%, taking into account that the hangar will be expanded for 2 helicopters.
    And that’s it. request bully
    Quote: 3danimal
    I will say more, there was information about $ 1 trillion of funds withdrawn. And all in the 00s and 10s.
    Immediately a question: how was this possible ??

    You have heard a very modest figure.
    I've heard an estimated figure of 2,5 - 3 trillion.
    and the figure was not final.
    yes
    Quote: 3danimal
    And what has changed so dramatically now?

    If anything has changed, it is only that those who have taken their capital offshore ... these wonderful people ... today are very ... VERY unsure of their safety today in the strongholds of democracies and freedoms ... they have been looking for a safe place for a long time. .. and did not find anything more reliable "safe harbor" in the "native offshore", which they organized for themselves in Kaliningrad.
    I have already described everything else.
    If this is the case, then the rules of the game in the financial markets of Russia must radically change. Now all these wonderful gentlemen are interested that not a penny from the country flew past the cashier, because it may turn out to be stolen from him profit ...
    Surprisingly, soon we may have (oh horror) national and nationally oriented capital ... and the elite that personifies it. ...
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 2 January 2021 11: 38
    0
    6 destroyers (22350M)

    Wangyu: in the next 10 years we will definitely not see a single destroyer. And maybe 20.
    It's too early to talk about aircraft carriers, but in 4 - 5 years you can remember the question - the industry will be ready

    Is the industry ready? Will we have an analogue of Newport-News Shipbuilding?
    will and finances

    If there is a will, it is possible to make the income tax at 50% by introducing a “non-progressive” scale (so that the oligarchs pay as before). Raising the budget of the security forces even more, to ostracize the dissatisfied. And there will be more money.
    (Continue to cut the budgets of medicine and education. Extend the freeze of pension savings indefinitely.)
    Where is the infrastructure for this kind of ships?
  • bayard
    bayard 2 January 2021 12: 34
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    6 destroyers (22350M)

    Wangyu: in the next 10 years we will definitely not see a single destroyer. And maybe 20.

    And I will not wang - there will be a goal and desire, they will build.
    The question there is the presence of a power plant - on two gas turbines M-70FRU and M-90FR, capable of adding their torque on a single gearbox. The problem is now in the gearbox. And work with it is complicated by the fine-tuning of the power plant for the 22350 - a diesel-gas turbine pair, which in domestic performance is not yet installed on a single ship.
    They will bring it to mind, launch it into a series, then they will work for 22350. Perhaps they plan to install the same power plant on the new UDC that was laid in Kerch. But this is only a guess so far - the power is suitable, in the picture there are gas ducts for gas turbines.
    Quote: 3danimal
    It's too early to talk about aircraft carriers, but in 4 - 5 years you can remember the question - the industry will be ready

    Is the industry ready? Will we have an analogue of Newport-News Shipbuilding?

    One has appeared, but so far only comes to life, the second is being completed and in 4 - 5 years it will be able to take on the project.
    This is me about the "Zaliv" and "Bolshoy Kamen" - in terms of infrastructure and logistics, they are quite suitable, although they will require additional equipment.
    And we will not need atomic monsters of 100 thousand tons of VI, 45 - 000 tons of gas turbine AB with catapults will be quite sufficient. But these will need 50 pieces. - 000 pcs. to the fleet.
    Quote: 3danimal
    (Continue to cut the budgets of medicine and education. Extend the freeze of pension savings for an indefinite period.

    Not at all, there is enough funds from the "Bridge to Sakhalin" project for the construction of 6 AUG with AV VI 45-50 thousand tons, an escort and an air wing. And if you build at the same time at 2 shipyards (in "Zaliv" and "B.Kamna"), then you can meet with the delivery of the entire series of years in 15 - 17.
    And you can not build anything and plunder the budget.
    Some are even more interesting.
    I say - a matter of taste, desire, goal-setting and will.
    You can build.
    Simply stealing is easier and more pleasant.
    The choice is yours.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 2 January 2021 15: 59
    0
    And we will not need atomic monsters of 100 thousand tons of VI, 45 - 000 tons of gas turbine AB with catapults will be quite sufficient. But these will need 50 pieces. - 000 pcs. to the fleet.

    Again, the question about the timing: as I said above, our shipbuilders do not set records in terms of speed (and quality). I suppose a plan before the 22nd century? request
    UDC is being built in the Gulf, there is no experience in building AV and the question of the availability of equipment for this.
    On Bolshoy Kamen, they plan to build tankers, etc., which is not AB at all. In addition, the problem of enterprise connectivity will inevitably arise: our network of roads and railways is somewhat inferior to the United States and China, and therefore, the time and cost will increase.
    Next: the question of infrastructure. The Greater USSR ordered the PD-50 from the Norwegians. Now, I suppose, I'll have to negotiate with the Chinese recourse And where to place berths for AB? Otherwise, they will quickly develop a resource.
  • bayard
    bayard 2 January 2021 21: 25
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    UDC is being built in the Gulf, no experience in building AB

    In Severodvinsk, "Vikramaditya" was redrawn for the Indians, they gained some experience. The experience of building two UDCs in Zaliv will also give experience in building large flat-deck ships, in Bolshoy Kamen they build large ships - supertankers, transports, icebreakers, the infrastructure allows you to try. But you need to take it only when the experience has already been accumulated (building large ships) and go from simple to complex: UDC, gas turbine AV medium VI, and if it really tramples on (bad money will go to the budget, the need will appear the most acute, allow to undertake this), then in the distant future we can talk about more (about heavy atomic AB).
    Quote: 3danimal
    our network of roads and railways is slightly inferior to the United States and China, and therefore, the time and cost will increase.

    if you build in the "Zaliv", this is the European part - the railway transport is very developed, something can be delivered by sea and by rivers. There, the logistics will be fine.
    As for Bolshoy Kamen, a superyard is now being completed for the mass construction of the largest ships of our time, and in the future it is planned to have a cluster with its own metallurgy, rental, manufacture of machines and units, and a transport network nearby. So everything that is needed for military shipbuilding will be there (and partly already is) by definition. If the capacities allow and the desire is there, you can build.
    Quote: 3danimal
    The Greater USSR ordered the PD-50 from the Norwegians. Now, I suppose, I'll have to negotiate with the Chinese

    This is a specific structure, so it is easier to order from an experienced shipyard. So the Chinese are the Chinese. You can ask the Koreans too. Europe is excluded.
    Quote: 3danimal
    And where to place berths for AB? Otherwise, they will quickly develop a resource.

    The basic infrastructure should be laid simultaneously with the ships themselves, then it will be ready by the time they enter service. There are convenient bays in the Far East, the rest is a matter of technology and finance.
    And you will need not only piers for ships with a large draft, but also a power plant to power the ships in the base, a boiler room, to supply steam for heating, repair shops, warehouses for everything you need, barracks for spare and resting crews, social infrastructure, defense of the base by forces BMZ ships, patrol and submarine aviation, reliable air defense cover, spare airfields for carrier-based aircraft and base fighters ...
    This is a whole epic.
    It is not enough to build ships, you need to create a whole "ecosystem" for them - an environment for habitation, basing, maintenance, repair.
    And all this requires WILL and long-term planning for the development of the Fleet - for decades to come.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 3 January 2021 02: 58
    0
    and if the suit completely tramples (bad money will go to the budget

    We have already gone through this: if there is oil at 200 each, we will build aircraft carriers. Will not be..
    and in the future it is planned to have a cluster with its own metallurgy, rental, manufacture of machines and units, a transport network

    You can plan a lot, but in the conditions of restrictions on finance and technology .. The dates can be very delayed. And you still need to saw off something for the "builders".
    The basic infrastructure should be laid simultaneously with the ships themselves, then it will be ready by the time they enter service. There are convenient bays in the Far East, the rest is a matter of technology and finance.

    Everything is correct, but the same Union (it seems to be more economically feasible) never built it. Now, if there were no restrictions request But this requires relaxation.
    This is a whole epic.
    It is not enough to build ships, you need to create a whole "ecosystem" for them - an environment for habitation, basing, maintenance, repair.
    And all this requires WILL and long-term planning for the development of the Fleet - for decades to come.

    As I said, the project is up to the 22nd century. Which will take a huge amount of manpower and resources, worsen / severely limit the growth of the standard of living of citizens (except for a select few). In adverse conditions. And these funds will need to be withdrawn from economic development, infrastructure repairs, etc.
  • bayard
    bayard 3 January 2021 11: 39
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    We have already gone through this: if there is oil at 200 each, we will build aircraft carriers. Will not be..

    Interesting information took place on New Year's Eve - as if out of nowhere appeared extra-budgetary investment resources in the amount of ... 39 trillion rubles (this is about 550 billion dollars), which they plan to invest in the next 3 (!) Years. Allegedly, this is the money of the oligarchs, rescued from offshores from arrest and confiscation (it is restless now in the West). They drove them supposedly into the "Russian offshore zone" to Kaliningrad and will now invest in Russia for national projects.
    If this turns out to be true, then without oil "$ 200 each." we'll get by.
    And there is where to invest - the same Far Eastern shipbuilding cluster around Bolshoy Kamen, there is a lot to build - metallurgy, mechanical engineering, chemistry, instrument making, housing construction, logistics, social environment. And after all, everything is backed by huge orders from state corporations for the construction of supertankers, gas carriers, ice-class container ships, bulk carriers, integrated supply vessels for northern enterprises, icebreakers, etc. The capacity of the shipyard in Bolshoy Kamen is not enough for these requests, so it will have to be expanded, plus another the shipyard on the Kola Peninsula ... And there, too, you need to invest a lot, but everything is also provided there with orders. You can invest in aircraft construction, mechanical engineering and machine-tool construction, gas liquefaction capacities and oil production on the Arctic Ocean shelf ...
    And if such investments come, increase naturally by revenues to the budget, increase the amount of money in the economy (like blood in the body), and the financial system of the Russian Federation is 50% under-monetized (money in circulation is half as much as necessary and justified), there will be credit funds in the banking sector - for lending to the economy, industry and small / medium-sized businesses, since now it is in trouble ...
    So, if this turns out to be true, everything may soon change dramatically, which is why new opportunities and NEEDS will appear in the field of military development. For all these investments will need to be protected.
    Weapons.
    By the fleet.
    And Aviation.
    Including the missile carrier.
    And there you look, and the turn will reach the aircraft carriers.
    And what else to cover such vast water areas?
    Quote: 3danimal
    As I said, the project is up to the 22nd century.

    similar projects (construction of an ocean-going fleet) are always planned for several decades ahead - for 30 - 50 years, as a rule.
    Quote: 3danimal
    These funds will need to be withdrawn from the development of the economy, repair of infrastructure, etc.

    In this case, just the opposite.
    Money from the development of the economy will increase defense spending, which will all be invested (spent) inside the country, will pour life-giving blood into the economy and give the very same synergy - create new jobs, develop science, machine tool industry, provide breakthroughs in technology (as a rule, they are achieved during the implementation of military programs) and, as a result, will improve the living environment of citizens.
    But this is if you do everything wisely and if these hypothetical investments turn out to be true.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 3 January 2021 12: 54
    0
    will create new jobs, develop science, machine tool industry, provide breakthroughs in technology

    You speak just like our president smile Millions of high-tech jobs (by 2020), breakthroughs. smile
    The general idea is that as much as 2 annual budgets from above will fall, and THIS time we will definitely spend everything absolutely efficiently, we will not steal anything and protect it better than anyone else .. Can't you see? (What prevented you from consistently developing?)
    because the financial system of the Russian Federation is 50% under-monetized

    This is very much like Khazina. Bad Nabiullina spoils everything, does not give much money to print smile Not so simple.
    And money alone is not enough. Now in the world no one can produce the entire range of quality goods and machines. Only cooperation, attraction of technologies, capacities. And our leaders led everything to progressive isolation (which was not even heard of back in 2010).
    So everything will be difficult, expensive, and long.
    I would like to remind you separately about the difficult fate of Serdyukov and other colleagues. For me, this is a clear signal that nothing will change. (And for you?)
  • bayard
    bayard 3 January 2021 13: 54
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    This very much resembles Khazina

    Is it bad that Mikhail's opinion is so correlated with mine?
    I adhered to this opinion at the dawn of the 90s and even made several programs based on my own theory of money.
    But no one then wanted to use them, although one program was nevertheless implemented, recognized as a genius, and it saved one of the leading sectors of the Russian economy from collapse.
    Quote: 3danimal
    And money alone is not enough.

    But without them it is impossible to talk about any development programs.
    Quote: 3danimal
    Now in the world no one can produce the entire range of quality goods and machines.

    This was the case even during the Soviet era, for this there is international trade and trade in technologies.
    Quote: 3danimal
    Only cooperation, attraction of technologies, capacities.

    Better still, following the example of the first five-year plans, to develop through external supplies of technologies and equipment, our own production base for everything critically needed.
    An example of close cooperation with Ukrainian enterprises until 2014 is the clearest example of what happens if you blindly trust and rely on a "partner".
    Quote: 3danimal
    And our leaders led everything to progressive isolation (which was not even heard of back in 2010).

    The question is not what they led to (the alternative was ONLY complete and unconditional surrender), but that knowing where everything was going (if they did not guess, then this is a clinic), they did not take vigorous measures to create their own industries.
    And that's just not necessary about the "hand of the market" and self-regulation of processes. All these processes are controllable, and if you do not control them, then they are definitely controlled by someone in addition to, and possibly to the detriment of you.
    Quote: 3danimal
    So everything will be difficult, expensive, and long.

    It turns out that way, because the management base, like managers, is worthless. Often these are just locum tenens, not professionals.
    It is better not to discuss the moral and ethical side of their work - it will not work without a mat, and the site administration is strict and vigilant.
    Quote: 3danimal
    I would like to remind you separately about the difficult fate of Serdyukov and other colleagues. For me, this is a clear signal that nothing will change. (And for you?)

    Well, what did you want from the "golden son-in-law"? bully
    He is in the "nomenklatura", as they would say in the late USSR - untouchable and not subject to jurisdiction. request
    The fact that they do not want to change anything is not even discussed - they have built themselves a "paradise" and will fight for it. The peculiarity of the moment is that it looks like our nouveau riches can no longer preserve their honestly appropriated capital anywhere but in Russia ...
    Hooligans are robbing !!!
    And all that is overwhelmingly acquired may just end up in other hands.
    So they created an offshore company for themselves already in Russia.
    So as not to pay taxes as before, but so that the state protects their goods.
    And money, oddly enough, should work. repeat Bank deposits do not just increase with interest - they are used in credit investments of the bank.
    And this money "saved from robbery" must be somehow attached so that the interest would drip. And that means investing. And investing today is safe only within the state ...
    Opachki ... belay
    And not otherwise, as in national projects, long-term programs and in large volumes (a lot of money came).
    And what is interesting, these investments will no longer be possible, according to the old habit of "stealing and sharing" (as was the case at one time with pension contributions of citizens, or during the "construction" of the Vostochny cosmodrome), these investments should be made PROFITABLY, and bring PROFIT to their owners at least in the form of bank interest.
    And they will watch their money carefully.
    And to punish crooks and thieves, who will stick to their hands.
    ... Here is such an unexpected collision ...
    just if you no longer withdraw money from the country, but "enter", then both the country and the control over investments should be completely different.
    But what will come of all this ... we will see already in 2021.
    Happy New Year .

    And yes, in my own expectations I am very ... careful.
    Anything can happen.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 16: 27
    +1
    I am for a balanced, whatever that means, the Armed Forces. )))
    1. Aag
      Aag 19 December 2020 19: 17
      +1
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      I am for a balanced, whatever that means, the Armed Forces. )))

      Perhaps this is subtle sarcasm ...)))
      For the question is precisely what does BALANCED mean, and for what tasks, not in general terms, is the country's defense ...
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 3 January 2021 03: 29
        0
        Judging by some comments - for waging a world war request
  • meandr51
    meandr51 24 December 2020 14: 08
    0
    The question "why?" covered in other forums and topics. Here he only distracts from the topic. Actually, this is what it is asked for. But there were precedents. This is quite enough.
    In politics, it is not intentions but opportunities that are considered.
  • Eroma
    Eroma 19 December 2020 16: 44
    -8
    Really the enemy! am the army is preparing, first of all, to defend the homeland, from possible aggression from NATO. And also the army should be able to protect the interests of the country in different regions of the world (for example, grind thugs from all over the planet in Syria into dust).
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 19 December 2020 17: 00
    0
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    but you can solve many problems without firing a single shot.

    Did you want to say "the enemy's fleet"? hi
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 19 December 2020 22: 07
    +1
    Any clash with NATO forces must have a purpose. A list of goals in the studio, please.


    Easy:
    Challenging the right to extract minerals in the Arctic plume.
    Establishing control over the NSR in order to block the supply of energy resources from the northern fields to the PRC.
    Challenging Russia's monopoly right to control shipping from the NSR.

    Etc.
    Wars have not been fought over territory for a long time, they are fought for control over markets and resources.
    1. your1970
      your1970 20 December 2020 09: 21
      -3
      Quote: Lex_is
      .
      Challenging Russia's monopoly right to control shipping from the NSR.

      It is decided elementary - the Russian Federation announces officially that it will heat any CIVIL ships that tried to pass the NSR without the consent of the Russian Federation - without additional warning ...
      1. Lex_is
        Lex_is 20 December 2020 10: 37
        0
        It's only in your fantasies that everything is so elementary, in real life everything is somewhat more complicated.

        You can declare anything you want, but in order to actually do something, you need a fleet that is adequate in size and composition, combat-ready with trained crews.
        1. your1970
          your1970 20 December 2020 12: 47
          +1
          In order to maintain a combat-ready fleet adequate in size to the enemy, even the USSR did not have enough resources ...
          I repeat - such an announcement (possibly confirmed by the sinking of those who do not understand) will make such attempts to pass the NSR meaningless for civilian courts ...
          We have too few resources, including human resources, to maintain the necessary fleet for our size ... Alas ...
          1. timokhin-aa
            20 December 2020 13: 31
            +2
            In order to maintain a combat-ready fleet adequate in size to the enemy, even the USSR did not have enough resources ...


            Re-read the article again please, it is just about that.
  • bayard
    bayard 21 December 2020 10: 49
    +1
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Any clash with NATO forces must have a purpose. A list of goals in the studio, please.

    If we talk about the tasks of the Fleet in the short / medium term - the defeat of the forces of the enemy fleets (the USA and NATO in Europe, the USA and Japan in the Pacific theater of operations) in the coastal zone and, if possible, on the distant approaches.
    For this, superiority in the forces of the fleet is not at all necessary, it is enough to have a sufficient number of forces in the main directions, means of destruction (anti-ship missiles) on different carriers (coastal complexes, MRA, surface and submarine ships) and reconnaissance means (satellite grouping, naval reconnaissance aircraft, reconnaissance ships of direct tracking).
    It is possible to build all this in the medium term (including surface ships and submarines), and MRA, with due will and diligence, even in the short term, if it is built on the modernized Su-34 (and the repaired and modernized Tu-22M3 \ M3M).
    But this needs to be done.
    First of all, naval strike (missile) and reconnaissance aircraft, as the most operational and effective instrument of war at sea.
  • Dimax-nemo
    Dimax-nemo 21 December 2020 21: 23
    0
    Military experts are well aware of why the Americans are actually creating missile defense systems, practicing non-nuclear high-precision weapons and low-yield nuclear weapons. So there is no purpose here. Russia, in their opinion, is a completely superfluous variable in the already complex system of equations of world politics.
  • Alex Rossky
    Alex Rossky 1 January 2021 23: 25
    0
    I agree with Vladimir's answer dated December 19, 15:15.
    The main goal of the Army and the Navy is to preserve the integrity and sovereignty of the country, in which neither are they. or do you have something for these goals?
    And what you wrote further, IMHO, is just demagoguery.
  • 501Legion
    501Legion 19 December 2020 15: 10
    +7
    Good article . Thank you
    1. Pravodel
      Pravodel 19 December 2020 15: 34
      +5
      Good article

      Exactly good article. But only some historical comparisons do not leave in any way: Admiral F. Ushakov defeated the Turkish fleet, which significantly surpassed it in the number of pennants and the total number of guns, providing a high density of fire, at Fedonisi, Kerch, Tendra, Kariakria, took the fortress of Corfu, which was generally considered unapproachable, or A.V.Suvorov took Izmail, whose garrison outnumbered the Russian troops, and given Ismail's strategic location, the superiority of the Turkish army in the theater of operations was obvious.
      1. d4rkmesa
        d4rkmesa 19 December 2020 15: 58
        +2
        Ushakov owned the initiative and hit first, it turned out to be decisive. The TS has also written about this.
    2. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 26
      +15
      Please, I'm glad that I didn't try in vain, three evenings are gone, although everything seems to be simple ...
  • rocket757
    rocket757 19 December 2020 15: 16
    +5
    Any strategy is a continuation of politics, in general.
    You can put forward any theories, make any plans ... but in reality, politicians will intervene, then accountants and others, especially responsible ones, and the whole strategy will be changed beyond recognition!
    This is our reality!
  • Svarog
    Svarog 19 December 2020 15: 20
    +4
    Excellent article and correct conclusion.
    The power of aviation must be sufficient to inflict damage on enemy forces deployed at sea, excluding their achievement of victory over the Russian Navy (complete destruction is not necessary). And all the remaining resources should be directed to intelligence forces capable of operating in wartime conditions.

    I am also sure ... that intelligence is by far the most important factor in conditions where a warhead can be delivered to the enemy in a matter of minutes ..
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 15: 29
    -5
    The second important condition is the speed of deployment of forces. In all its components: from the speed of decision-making to the speed of the ships (both in economic progress and at maximum speed).
    Come on, I remember the author fiercely argued the uselessness and even harmfulness of heavy combat ekranoplanes, and so the "Lun", with comparable to MRK ranges, shock capabilities, and even autonomy with, attention, seaworthiness had a TEN-TIME superiority in speed!
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 19 December 2020 15: 54
      +4
      ... attention, seaworthiness possessed TEN-TIME superiority in speed!

      You see, dear he is too. Very difficult to manage. And 300-500 km per hour is very decent, but for a rocket or an airplane it is nothing. Expensive, one-piece copy could very easily be destroyed by the enemy or an insufficiently experienced pilot.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 16: 06
        -4
        Where did you get information about some prohibitive high cost? "Luni" and "Eaglet" were built at the SHIPBUILDING plants.
        Quote: Doccor18
        And 300-500 km per hour is very decent, but for a rocket or an airplane it's nothing.
        Here, the author of the article has 5-6 knots of superiority in speed as the second most important factor, and here a tenfold superiority over the MRK, which is also never cheap, is. Well, and a very difficult control, why would?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 19 December 2020 16: 29
          +7
          Where did you get information about some prohibitive high cost? "Luni" and "Eaglet" were built at the SHIPBUILDING plants.

          In 1984, the Ministry of Defense closed the subject of ekranoplanes as a priority. There are many official reasons ... But the main one is that this giant "bird" (length 73, wingspan 45, mvm - 380 tons) cannot solve the combat missions that were originally set for it. On 8 gas turbine engines and the effect of the screen, the combat radius is 1000 km. - frankly nothing, at this size. And this "monster" cannot be called cheap and simple ...
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 16: 58
            -1
            Quote: Doccor18
            But the main one is that this giant "bird" (length 73, wingspan 45, mvm - 380 tons) can not solve the combat missions that were originally assigned to it. On 8 gas turbine engines and the effect of the screen, the combat radius is 1000 km. - frankly nothing, with such dimensions
            The late Soviet admirals did not bother with ekranoplanes, as they did with Energia and Buran in 1990. the most plausible reason. Well, 8 GTD is for separation / lifting. And "Lun" 1985, and for example MRK "Karakurt" 2010.
            Here's the TTX MRK Karakurt
            Displacement 800 t (standard) [2]
            870 t (full)
            Length 67,0 m [2]
            Width 11,0 m [2]
            Precipitation 4,0 m
            Speed ​​30 knots (full) [2]
            Cruising range 2500 miles [2]
            The autonomy of swimming 15 day
            Crew 39 people

            So 6 missiles against 8, 400 tons against 800 tons, 4600 km against 2000 km, 10 people. against 39 and 2 hours a jerk for 1000 km and almost a day of full speed for the same range. 1985 versus 2010
            Well, the cost of Karakurt is about 2 billion rubles, and the cost, for example, of the Il-76MD-90A is estimated at 1,5 billion for the same period.
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette 19 December 2020 17: 18
              +2
              Ekranoplanes are the "wunderwaffe" of the Soviet Navy. So are the hydrofoil missile boats.
              1. timokhin-aa
                19 December 2020 22: 00
                +1
                So are the hydrofoil missile boats.


                This is not entirely true.
            2. timokhin-aa
              19 December 2020 22: 04
              +1
              What about the ekranoplan with autonomy?
          2. The Siberian barber
            The Siberian barber 19 December 2020 23: 18
            +1
            I believe that the main reason was the contradictions between shipbuilders and aviation: there was no understanding of where to define this miracle))
            Well, essno industrialists kicked away from him))
        2. Local from the Volga
          Local from the Volga 19 December 2020 23: 16
          -2
          With the fact that there is no longer the strength to chew this nonsense!
    2. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 17
      +12
      You have already been chewed for an ekranoplan. I can't spend as much time repeating.

      Just solve such a problem for yourself, we have a growing risk of a military conflict, we need to "hang" on the tail of the AUG and ensure continuous transmission of data on its position, course and speed to the coast, so that when communication from the coast is interrupted, aviation will be immediately launched to strike.

      A surface ship can solve this problem, but your ekranoplan?

      I am taking my leave for the sim.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 16: 21
        -9
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You have already been chewed for an ekranoplan

        The argumentation was very weak, sorry.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        A surface ship can solve this problem, but your ekranoplan?
        No, it cannot, but it can solve this problem:
        The second important condition is the speed of deployment of forces
        ... Head and shoulders in this regard, superior to RTOs.
        Good luck, thanks for the article.
        1. 2 Level Advisor
          2 Level Advisor 19 December 2020 19: 59
          +1
          And how will it be better (for about the same money, but in fact more expensive, because you need to build from scratch), for example, a pair of Tu-95s that fired 16 cruise missiles at AUG and left intact to the base for reloading? its stealth is normal for the 70s and 80s is no longer relevant.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 21: 39
            -4
            Why are you comparing an ekranoplan with a heavy bomber? It should be compared with RTOs.
            1. timokhin-aa
              19 December 2020 21: 58
              +5
              It will be compared with RTOs when it can be on full alert in a given area for a week without returning to base, and survive after being hit by enemy missiles and shells (optional).

              I already "set a task" for you, for MRK - tracking the enemy ship group with weapons, for example, 4 days.
              Tell us how the ekranoplan will do it.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 20 December 2020 05: 59
                0
                Lunya's autonomy is 5 days at sea.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I already "set a task" for you, for MRK - tracking the enemy ship group with weapons, for example, 4 days.
                So this was a task for RTOs? And how let me ask you, the RTO will "follow the weapon" and at least a single destroyer in waves of more than 4 points? Yes, just like the ekranoplan, nothing! Without target designation, the MRK, like the ekranoplane, is blind and defenseless, but the ekranoplane for TWO hours of cruising will take a position at a distance of 600 km from the basing point (support vessel), it will blab there for 4-5 days, for a half hour it will reach 300 km of the missile launch line and after shooting, according to external target designation by itself, in TWO-THREE hours it will return to recharge and refuel.
                And correct me, but not a word about RTOs in the article. But there are words
                Unfortunately, the global trends that speed is no longer important find supporters in our country - our warships today are significantly slower than those

                The ekranoplan, like the RTOs, is a niche weapon and is not fundamentally inferior to RTOs in many ways, fundamentally surpasses it in speed.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  20 December 2020 08: 56
                  0
                  So this was a task for RTOs? And how let me ask you, the RTO will "follow the weapon" and at least a single destroyer in waves of more than 4 points? Yes, just like the ekranoplan, no way!


                  And with two points? With one? In the same Baltic, storms are not so frequent, in general the sea is always calm.
                  In addition, the ekranoplan never and in any way.

                  but the ekranoplan for TWO hours of cruising will take a position at a distance of 600 km from the basing point (support vessel) will blab there for 4-5 days


                  He will not blabber on the water for 5 days, do not invent.

                  in an hour and a half, the missile launch line will reach 300 km and, having fired, by external target designation by itself, in TWO-THREE hours it will return to reload and refuel


                  This is done by planes and much better, if only because of the ability to overload the enemy with "star" raid and due to the large mass of the salvo.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 20 December 2020 10: 37
                    +1
                    Alexander, I am surprised at you.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    In the same Baltic, storms are not so frequent, in general the sea is always calm.
                    4 points are moderate excitement, not even close to a storm.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    He will not blabber on the water for 5 days, do not invent

                    Why such confidence? On "Lun" they said they would go out on the screen at three meters of excitement, which is 6 points, and the weapon's score is not lower! So why should he not drift in the sea within the limits of autonomy in case of moderate seas? And according to the configuration "Lun" it is a trimaran, moreover, very rigid. Do you understand what I mean?
                    And in general, why do you determine the "watch with weapons" by the RTOs, and the star raid and the mass of the salvo are given to the aircraft, and why not the other way around? How will the attack aircraft with the BC follow the NK and how the MRK will carry out the star raid? Here, the ekranoplan, even with an interference fit, will be able to follow for a long time, figure it out for yourself, and a stellar raid at a speed of 500 km is not a question at all for the EP unit.
                    I am not against NK and even RTOs, but even your article directly suggests the development of combat ekranoplanes as an asymmetric response to the numerical superiority of "partners"
                    1. your1970
                      your1970 20 December 2020 12: 26
                      0
                      The answer is that nowhere in the world began to build such a super duper weapon - ekranoplanes ... Although there are enough countries with a developed aviation and ship industry ...
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      20 December 2020 13: 08
                      0
                      And in general, why do you determine the "watch with weapons" by the MRC, and the star raid and the mass of the salvo are given to the planes, and why not the other way around?


                      That is why pancakes are fried in a frying pan, and nails are hammered with a hammer, and not vice versa. Each instrument has its own purpose.
                      1. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 20 December 2020 14: 09
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Each instrument has its own purpose.
                        The ekranoplan is an excellent niche tool, taking into account the weather and target designation, of course, much more tenacious than the MRK, due to the aviation speed of retreat from the launch line.
            2. 2 Level Advisor
              2 Level Advisor 20 December 2020 09: 17
              0
              From the point of view of striking - the ekranoplan was an excellent thing before, and if it had been developed for 30 years, it might still be an excellent weapon, maybe of the "stealth" type - but it was not developed .. And I just gave an example of a weapon, and an existing one , which will perform the same task with greater efficiency, which raises a logical question - why do we need an ekranoplan now, for what? About RTOs in the ocean during waves, too, is not particularly useful, of course I agree in this .. Previously, there were no such radars, such missiles, satellites, etc. as it is - the time for ekranoplanes is gone ..
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 3 January 2021 14: 41
        0
        so that when communication from the coast is interrupted, the aviation was IMMEDIATELY raised to strike.

        And what will this aircraft do when AB is in the Atlantic, say? Or even in the Pacific Ocean?
        AV will begin to raise aircraft immediately after the sinking of the unfortunate MRK, because this means the beginning of the war.
        Immediately changing the course and adding speed. Sending a Tu-22M3 to wade through the Hornets with an AIM-120 is suicide. And most importantly, how outdated will the intelligence data be when the remnants of the MRA group arrive? (You yourself wrote about this)
        And the fighter cover has a shorter range. Skipper AB will never drive too close to the shore.
        Or was this just a general example?
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 January 2021 15: 35
          0
          And what will this aircraft do when AB is in the Atlantic, say? Or even in the Pacific Ocean?


          It depends on what you mean by this, the Norwegian Sea is also the Atlantic, and in the Pacific Ocean a resident of Kamchatka can wash his boots in the surf.

          Or was this just a general example?


          Well, in general, yes.
    3. bk0010
      bk0010 19 December 2020 20: 11
      +2
      Aviation makes ekranoplanes unnecessary.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 19 December 2020 21: 40
        -1
        Aviation made all ships unnecessary, if you think so.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 20 December 2020 13: 31
          0
          Aircraft and ships have different tasks. An ekranoplan is expensive, but it cannot do anything extra, in comparison with ships and aircraft (with the landing of an assault force, an interesting option, but they said that there are big problems there too). Plus, ekranoplanes have serious restrictions on sea waves.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 20 December 2020 14: 01
            0
            Quote: bk0010
            An ekranoplan is expensive, but it cannot do anything extra, in comparison with ships and aircraft
            The ekranoplan "Lun" was built at the shipyard, for a minute. "Lun" had an autonomy of 5 days, taking into account the weather by itself, not a single aircraft of such autonomy hanging on a wave has no sea in an arbitrary region, and not a single ship has an aviation speed of reaching the launch line or patrolling.
            Quote: bk0010
            Plus, ekranoplanes have serious restrictions on sea waves.
            Lunya has no more than RTOs.
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 20 December 2020 14: 08
              0
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              The ekranoplan "Lun" was built at the shipyard, for a minute.
              Do you think this is a plus?
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Lunya has no more than RTOs.
              3 points, in fact, that's why it was tested in the Caspian. But let it be no worse. So what? Compared to the Tu-22M, Lun is slow and blind (it flies very low). Compared to RTOs, no autonomy. If the enemy did not have an air defense system, then the ekranoplan would make sense: he is not afraid of anti-ship weapons (except for artillery), and it is difficult to shoot down such a colossus with air defense guns. But there is an air defense missile system, so the ekranoplan is not needed.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 20 December 2020 14: 26
                +1
                Quote: bk0010
                Do you think this is a plus?

                Taking into account the load of aircraft factories, it is undoubted.
                Quote: bk0010
                3 points, actually

                Three meters of a wave in general when you exit the screen, and this is 6 points (and not for you)))
                Quote: bk0010
                So what? Compared to the Tu-22M, Lun is slow and blind
                So what? The author of the article about reconnaissance and external target designation writes that in your opinion, these EDS options are not available or what?
                Quote: bk0010
                Compared to RTOs, no autonomy
                But it is huge in comparison with the same Tu-22 and more, elementary, 600 km of the EP in two hours will pass to the conditional district and for 4 days it can hang out there, and the RTO needs almost a day for this.
                Quote: bk0010
                If the enemy did not have an air defense system, then the ekranoplan would make sense
                The author of the article would not allow himself such stupidity, his hand is straight! The EP will not bomb the enemy, but missiles will be launched from over the horizon, like the Tu-22 (you might think the air defense systems are not scary to him), like the MRK, only the MRK cannot be dumped in horror at a speed of 500 km after launch.
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 20 December 2020 17: 20
                  0
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Taking into account the load of aircraft factories, it is undoubted.
                  Shipyards are also not idle, we have few left after the collapse.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Three meters of a wave in general when you exit the screen, and this is 6 points (and not for you)))
                  What's not for me? You don't seem to understand: the lower the altitude and speed, the higher the screen effect. The ekranoplan itself is heavy, since it was built according to ship-based, not aviation standards. And for takeoff, he needs a bunch of engines, which then stand idle, actually overweight. If the ekranoplan is flying high because of the waves, then it will not fly far - the fuel will run out. And if it flies too low, the high wave will break it, 500 km / h is no joke.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  So what? The author of the article about reconnaissance and external target designation writes that in your opinion, these EDS options are not available or what?
                  And the plane itself can conduct reconnaissance and develop target designation. And we do not have link-16, so there is no one to shoot the ekranoplan missiles at enemy ships, except for the ekranoplan itself.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  But it is huge in comparison with the same Tu-22 and more, elementary, 600 km of the EP in two hours will pass to the conditional district and for 4 days it can hang out there, and the RTO needs almost a day for this.
                  4 days to move around the area or just sit in one place?
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  The author of the article would not allow himself such stupidity, his hand is straight! The EP will not bomb the enemy, but missiles will be launched from over the horizon, like the Tu-22 (you might think the air defense systems are not scary to him), like the MRK, only the MRK cannot be dumped in horror at a speed of 500 km after launch.
                  And you estimate the radio horizon of the ekranoplan (he also needs to direct his Mosquitoes) - 30-40 km. And yet - the plane can move in 3 planes: took off, aimed, launched missiles and abruptly down, retreat, the plane can maneuver, there are many planes, they can cover each other with missiles and jamming, defending themselves from carrier-based aircraft and enemy air defense systems. The ekranoplan has only a 23-mm cannon for survival - that's all.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 20 December 2020 17: 56
                    +2
                    Quote: bk0010
                    The ekranoplan itself is heavy, as it was built according to ship, not aviation standards.
                    Well, why then compare the ekranoplan with an airplane? Why not with RTOs?
                    Quote: bk0010
                    If the ekranoplan flies high because of the waves, then it will not fly far - the fuel will run out.
                    Some kind of kindergarten, "Lunya" has a regular mode on the screen of 1-5 meters, in principle, it cannot fly higher, this is not an ekranolit. Well, due to meteorological conditions, large ships try not to get into a hurricane.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    And we do not have link-16, so there is no one to shoot the ekranoplan missiles at enemy ships, except for the ekranoplan itself

                    And the question is, what about the RTOs? After all, no one will give him target designation, according to your logic, he is generally a suicide bomber.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    4 days to move around the area or just sit in one place
                    It is called a drift, and in the shadow of the island there is an ambush in general, and yes, in anticipation of intelligence, why not? Maybe the plane is moving somewhere just like that? Stands at the airfield, and not the fact that with suspended anti-ship missiles.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    And you estimate the radio horizon of the ekranoplan (he also needs to direct his Mosquitoes) - 30-40 km
                    RTOs have the same radio horizon.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    And one more thing - the plane can move in 3 planes: took off, aimed, launched missiles and sharply down
                    Can RTOs do this?
                    Quote: bk0010
                    they can cover each other with missiles and interference
                    What rockets? Are you delusional? Self-defense missiles on Tu-22? What prevents you from placing self-defense missiles on a 350-ton rocket, what prevents you from putting generators of active jammers and breaking through various traps on a 350-ton rocket? How can a bomber cover another bomber from an air defense system ?! What prevents EP from acting in pairs, fours and covering each other?
                    Once again, the EP is not an airplane, the EP is a high-speed strike MRK, with an increased, compared to the usual, far from cheap and also piece MRK, survival rate after missile launch, due to a high-speed retreat. The EP has low, but not zero, patrolling capabilities, but an excellent ability to ambush against. In its purest form, an asymmetric response to the numerical superiority of the enemy.
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 20 December 2020 20: 46
                      0
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Well, why then compare the ekranoplan with an airplane? Why not with RTOs?
                      By the tasks being solved.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Some kind of kindergarten, "Lunya" has a normal mode on the screen of 1-5 meters, in principle, it cannot fly higher, this is not an ekranolet
                      Two-meter waves are not a hurricane. The percentage of days with such excitement in different water areas is different, but everywhere (except for lakes such as the Caspian Sea) it is not small, not a week a year.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      And the question is, what about the RTOs? After all, no one will give him target designation, according to your logic, he is generally a suicide bomber.
                      RTOs have no missions to deal with aircraft carriers. Buyan cannot shoot missiles at ships at all, he can at least deliver CU on purpose. Karakurt theoretically can direct the Caliber-NK with his Mineral (reflect the landing, for example), but I don't know what happened to the external control center. RTOs were made to bypass the INF Treaty, there is no agreement, they will not do more.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      It is called a drift, and in the shadow of the island there is an ambush in general, and yes, in anticipation of intelligence, why not?
                      Yes, it's dumb somehow to dash around in open water in something aircraft-like for several days. Well, let him sit in ambush.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      RTOs have the same radio horizon.
                      Yes. So what?
                      Can RTOs do this?
                      The plane can.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      What prevents you from placing self-defense missiles on a 350-ton rocket, what prevents you from putting generators of active jammers and breaking through various traps on a 350-ton rocket?
                      Well, they didn't, it means that something is interfering.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      How can a bomber cover another bomber from an air defense system ?!
                      Jamming groups.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      What prevents EP from acting in pairs, fours and covering each other?
                      He is alone. Okay, we did a few. What can they do? Only attack ships, almost point-blank. The ekranoplans are very expensive, there will definitely not be many of them. Try to formulate what tasks the ekranoplan can solve and what a more flexible and cheap aviation cannot. If you don’t find it, you will understand the reason why they don’t communicate with ekranoplanes. The ekranoplan organically combines the disadvantages of an aircraft and a ship, and until there is a unique application for it, as long as you can do without them, they will not be built.
                      1. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 21 December 2020 04: 26
                        0
                        Quote: bk0010
                        By the tasks being solved.
                        Well, what are the tasks of the RTO and the shock EP in your opinion, do not hesitate, open up.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Two-meter waves are not a hurricane
                        This is five points (and again not for you) excitement, did you know anything about the magnitude and seaworthiness of the "Lunya" before you start babbling? Five points of excitement is the limit for an NK-class corvette weapon in general.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        RTOs have no missions to deal with aircraft carriers. Buyan can't shoot missiles at ships at all
                        "This is some kind of shame" © RTOs have the main armament of the anti-ship missiles, the CD was stuck to circumvent the treaty. ASM anti-ship missile AB is a ship, and what task they put before MRK or EP, they will solve this.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        but what about the external control center, I don't know
                        Diagnosis.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        RTOs were made to bypass the INF Treaty, there is no agreement, they will not do more.
                        Diagnosis.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Yes, it's dumb somehow to dash around in open water in something aircraft-like for several days. Well, let him sit in ambush.
                        The "Lun" type EP, if we consider it as a ship, which it is, has a "balance trimaran" configuration, moreover, it is overpowering, although this is unlikely to tell you something. I will just give its width: 44 m. Compare it with any surface ship, if you know what I mean.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Can RTOs do this?
                        The plane can.
                        RTOs can be cut on needles, about this?
                        Quote: bk0010
                        What prevents you from placing self-defense missiles on a 350-ton rocket, what prevents you from putting generators of active jammers and breaking through various traps on a 350-ton rocket?
                        Well, they didn't, it means that something is interfering.
                        Are you sure about this?
                        Quote: bk0010
                        He is alone
                        Even the author of the article does not reproach EP with this, he is against EP in principle.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        What can they do? Only attack ships, almost point blank
                        How true is it in relation to RTOs.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        WIGs are very expensive, there will definitely not be many of them
                        Why such confidence about the prohibitive high cost, EP is not an airplane, you yourself wrote that:
                        Quote: bk0010
                        The ekranoplan itself is heavy, as it was built according to ship, not aviation standards.

                        Quote: bk0010
                        Try to formulate what tasks an ekranoplan can solve and what a more flexible and cheap aviation cannot
                        The EP can hang out for days in any bay or even in the open sea; it does not need expensive infrastructure, no matter what the author of the article writes there. (except for repairs, of course) A heavy shock EP even a flag can show as a stationary.
                        Excuse me, you know very little about RTOs and EPs, even against my background.
                      2. bk0010
                        bk0010 22 December 2020 00: 08
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Well, what are the tasks of the RTO and the shock EP in your opinion, do not hesitate, open up.
                        The tasks of the MRC were to ensure the possibility of launching Calibers (conventional, not anti-ship) and the ability to move along inland waterways. In connection with problems in the construction of larger ships, we made a new project, which, if necessary, can shoot an anti-ship Caliber at another ship and hit. Proofs google according to the words "project 21631" and "project 22800". Lun was made as an anti-ship agent.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        have you learned at least something about the magnitude and seaworthiness of the "Lunya"
                        It seems not a secret, it is in Wikipedia, 5-6 points. In the same place, the flight height on the screen is from 1 to 5 m. What are you indignant with? Are you claiming that the 2m wave is a hurricane? Or what is excitement a rarity in the Atlantic or the Pacific? Where does so much expression come from?
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        "This is some kind of shame" © MRK main armament of anti-ship missiles
                        You have incorrect information. Most likely you confused them with missile boats. They were anti-ship.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Diagnosis.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Diagnosis.
                        Get treatment, do not delay.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The "Lun" type ES, if we consider it as a ship, which it is, has a "balance trimaran" configuration
                        Cool, but there was some story with the tail falling off. So the "balance trimaran" is a "balance trimaran", but outside its bay it is somehow restless.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        RTOs can be cut on needles, about this?
                        RTO covers the coast.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Are you sure about this?
                        Yes.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Even the author of the article does not reproach EP with this, he is against EP in principle.
                        I am not against EP in principle, I say that EP is not needed. Find an actual task for them that no one else will complete, and I will be for ...
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Why such confidence about the prohibitive high cost, EP is not an airplane, you yourself wrote that:
                        It flies with a "ship" fuselage. Just count the number of aircraft engines on it. And each of them requires maintenance.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The EP can hang out for days in any bay or even in the open sea, it does not need expensive infrastructure, no matter what the author of the article writes there. (except for repairs, of course) A heavy shock EP even a flag can demonstrate as a stationary
                        All this can be done by ordinary ships. Expensive infrastructure is needed, savings only on the runway, but the same savings can be obtained from a seaplane. Look for more benefits from EP.
                      3. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 22 December 2020 08: 36
                        0
                        Quote: bk0010
                        The tasks of the MRK were to ensure the possibility of launching Calibers (conventional, not anti-ship) and the ability to move along inland waterways
                        This stupidity of yours is enough to form an opinion about you. You don’t know and don’t understand the simplest things.
                        Small missile ship (abbreviated as MRK) is a subclass of missile ships in the Soviet naval classification. Occupies an intermediate position between a missile boat and a large missile ship

                        The first large series of Soviet small missile ships were the small missile ships of the project 1234 (17 units in the basic version and 10 in the export version), followed in 1978-1992 by a series of 19 MRKs of the project 1234.1 with enhanced artillery weapons and one project ship 1234.7 with enhanced anti-ship missile weapons. In the 1980s, new projects of ships of this class were also developed - the MRK hovercraft project 1239 and MRK project 1240.

                        In the post-Soviet period, the history of the class of small missile ships continues with projects 21631 and 22800

                        The ship 21631 is equipped with a vertical launch unit (UVP) 3S14 for 8 cruise missiles "Onyx", in the future 3M22 "Zircon", as well as "Caliber"

                        The basis of the 22800 strike missile armament is the Kalibr-NK family of missiles (KRBD and anti-ship missiles). Eight cells of the universal shipborne firing complex (UKSK) 3S14, UKSK 3S14 are also capable of launching Onyx missiles, and in the future, Zircon
                      4. bk0010
                        bk0010 22 December 2020 20: 52
                        0
                        This stupidity of yours is enough to form an opinion about you. You don’t know and don’t understand the simplest things.
                        Have you started to be rude? Go to the tree stump. Ask any sailor if Brawler can fire rockets at ships.
                      5. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 23 December 2020 04: 13
                        0
                        Quote: bk0010
                        can Buyan launch missiles at ships.

                        Well, indeed, the only RTO, in your opinion, is Buyan. So Buyan is the IAC, and the MRK is Buyan-M, among other things, ask any sailor.
                  2. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 22 December 2020 10: 08
                    0
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Find an actual task for them that no one else will complete, and I will be for ...
                    Well, you seem to be poorly able to master what you have read, because:
                    only RTOs will not be able to dump in horror at a speed of 500 km after launch.
                    I chew, the EP is an order of magnitude (in principle) superior to the MRK in speed, not fundamentally (and certainly not fatally) inferior to the MRK in a number of not the most important parameters.

                    Quote: bk0010
                    The tasks of the MRK were to ensure the possibility of launching Calibers (conventional, not anti-ship) and the ability to move along inland waterways

                    Quote: bk0010
                    RTO covers the coast.
                    Do you see a logical contradiction?

                    Quote: bk0010
                    Cool, but there was some story with the tail falling off

                    Was, so be puzzled and evaluate the survivability of the EP after the accident, which is certainly fatal for a seaplane, and extremely unpleasant for MRK. Although unlikely to appreciate.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    It flies with a "ship" fuselage. Just count the number of aircraft engines on it. And each of them requires maintenance.
                    Do not you imagine that the power mouth. RTOs cost a penny and do not need maintenance? Well, there should be a price for fundamental superiority.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Expensive infrastructure is needed
                    Give an example of "expensive infrastructure" for EDS!
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette 19 December 2020 15: 32
    +1
    Interestingly, did anyone compare this type of preliminary calculations with what later happened in the reality of the Anglo-Argentine conflict in the Falklands? I do not think that all these formulas have been confirmed in the course of real hostilities.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 15: 59
      +1
      Why compare there? There could be no other outcome, the only question is losses.

      Can one ask, would the UK have paid such a price, knowing it in advance?
    2. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 22
      +4
      What's the problem? Model it yourself.
      According to the salvo model.
      A is the number of aircraft that the argas could attract to the strike, alpha - 1, since one aircraft can attack only one ship,
      B - the number of URO ships for the Britons, beta - (their missiles / 0,3 + the average number of combat patrols from the "Harriers"), the number of strikes that disable the ship - 1, sigma for args - 1

      And forward. The result will be correct, but the statistics will not. you need probabilities. But in the end, the victory of the Britons doesn't matter.

      I will even say more - without the "Harriers" they would have won too. It would just be necessary to land in the wrong place.
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette 19 December 2020 17: 16
        0
        And what to do with the unexploded bombs and undetected planes, missiles that did not work?
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 December 2020 17: 22
          +4
          Calculate the coefficients that would take this into account. Do not forget not working radar and air defense systems of the Britons too.
          1. Aag
            Aag 19 December 2020 19: 41
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Calculate the coefficients that would take this into account. Do not forget not working radar and air defense systems of the Britons too.

            The problem is that such coefficients are calculated very, very approximately. In fact, on the basis of an accomplished event, based on the AVAILABLE statistics, it is somewhat more accurate ... And, as a rule, later unaccounted for coefficients that influenced the accuracy of the calculation emerge.
            ... Oh, how fashionable it was to predict the economy with mathematical models!)))
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette 19 December 2020 20: 25
              +4
              Yeah. Then it was necessary to provide the Sunflower Oil Coefficient in the galley of the destroyer Sheffield.
  • Kuz
    Kuz 19 December 2020 15: 33
    +17
    It turns out that our answer should be asymmetric. But as always.
    Thanks for the article - interesting.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 19 December 2020 15: 42
    +5
    Thanks to the author for the article. hi
    What is important to us is the conclusion that was made above - the race for parity in pennants is not needed. Those who deny the need for sane military construction, arguing that we cannot catch up with NATO, either do not understand the essence of the issue under discussion, or are lying. There are no other options.

    The conclusion is ingenious and simple. And how many figures for this conclusion the author gave winked
    Let's give an example - Japanese destroyer-helicopter carriers of the Haruna and Shirane types with a displacement comparable to our destroyers of Project 956 (code Sarych), carried three helicopters.

    Forgive me Dear author, but Haruna's standard displacement was 1300 tons less than the 956 project. I think the Japanese would have registered 5 helicopters on the Modern ...
    Unfortunately, the global trends that speed is no longer important find supporters in our country as well - our warships today are much slower than those that went into operation thirty or forty years ago.

    Come on, the maximum speed would be "cut", here it is a global trend, so the cruising speed "dries up" ... A maximum of 14 knots is such a sluggish result ...
    You just need to rationally approach the expected appearance of military operations in the near future ... And then just methodically and steadily train, prepare for military operations, without missing out on any trifles ..

    I absolutely agree.
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 25
      +3
      Forgive me Dear author, but Haruna's standard displacement was 1300 tons less than the 956 project.


      So I wrote "comparable", not "close" or "the same."

      Max speed is also very important.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 19 December 2020 15: 43
    0
    This is another description of a spherical horse in a vacuum. Let's just imagine that the enemy discovers our forces on the way, which is quite realistic with his capabilities, and then stupidly drowns us from the air. And no one of our salvo from anti-ship missiles ... How do you like that, Alexander Timokhin?
    Well, in general, the article contains continuous distortions. Why was the Russian fleet suddenly stronger than the Japanese? This counting ships in the Baltic and the Black Sea? Duc Japanese and defeated our fleet in parts, having a noticeable superiority in each specific battle. And so on, too lazy to just disassemble everything.
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 23
      +7
      and then stupidly drowns us from the air. And no one of our salvo from anti-ship missiles ... How do you like that, Alexander Timokhin?


      So this is the victory of the enemy in the fight for the first salvo. Won. A counterexample to the example from the article with the Cranes and their first salvo at blue.
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 19 December 2020 16: 33
        +4
        What you are proposing is Yamato's last trip in a new way. But only the Americans did not enter the firefight, but simply drowned the battleship with aircraft with negligible losses.
        Do you think that the Soviet admirals did not puzzle over this problem? And how!
        But the only thing they came up with was the continuous tracking of the AUG during the threatened period by the forces of the cruisers. Who set the task of the kamikaze - to have time to disable the aircraft carrier before they themselves are drowned.
        But for this we must be the first to start a war, and quite suddenly for the enemy! Those. like this, for no reason, no reason, open fire on an unsuspecting enemy. What is the likelihood of this happening?
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 December 2020 17: 20
          -2
          But the only thing they came up with was the continuous tracking of the AUG during the threatened period by the forces of the cruisers. Who set the task of the kamikaze - to have time to disable the aircraft carrier before they themselves are drowned.


          You're oversimplifying those times too much.

          But for this we must be the first to start a war, and quite suddenly for the enemy! Those. like this, for no reason, no reason, open fire on an unsuspecting enemy. What is the likelihood of this happening?


          The enemy is informed that when he tries to lift more from the decks than a regular patrol, he catches a volley.
          Before that, you can dump Orion somewhere, and not take responsibility upon yourself, so that they guess, but cannot prove it. To demonstrate the seriousness of intentions.
          1. Sahalinets
            Sahalinets 19 December 2020 22: 37
            +2
            The enemy is informed that when he tries to lift more from the decks than a regular patrol, he catches a volley.

            And the enemy immediately sinks our ships nearby. They definitely have eggs! So, what is next?
            All your suggestions boil down to one thing - to repeat the old concept of surprise attack. And all your formulas are about nothing. But even if it somehow plays, then only once. On which our fleet will basically end ...
        2. Silhouette
          Silhouette 19 December 2020 17: 23
          -6
          Cruisers were not used for tracking the AUG. Used BOD and TFR, which did not have shock weapons. How do you like this "tactics"? And this was not from the great intelligence of our admirals, but from poverty.
          1. Sahalinets
            Sahalinets 19 December 2020 22: 34
            +4
            How they were used! This made it possible to keep the 68 bis in the ranks. Moreover, the sailors began to regret the unbuilt TKR pr. 82. That would be ideal ships for this task!
            1. timokhin-aa
              20 December 2020 08: 52
              0
              By the way, this is a question - would the 68bis provide coverage of the tracked target or not.
              They were rather used because of the combination of speed and range + armor gave a good chance of being able to report the beginning of hostilities even when the enemy tried to suddenly destroy the cruiser.
              But they would hardly have succeeded in reaping an artillery salvo so sharply and crippling the aircraft carrier.
              For this, guided or homing projectiles are needed, but they were not then in principle.
              1. pmkemcity
                pmkemcity 20 December 2020 15: 57
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                For this, guided or homing projectiles are needed, but they were not then in principle.

                For your self-development - a projectile into the barrel and deploy the turret into the side of the aircraft carrier. And so they walked, so close that it happened that they took a parasha from the galley tank. The cruisers were the only ships in our fleet that could follow the Americans for a long time (in terms of seaworthiness) and at high speed.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  20 December 2020 23: 03
                  0
                  Yes, I am a little aware of how this was done, up to estimates of the probability of covering an aircraft carrier from the first salvo.
                  For your self-development.
                  1. pmkemcity
                    pmkemcity 21 December 2020 06: 15
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Yes, I am a little aware of how this was done, up to estimates of the probability of covering an aircraft carrier from the first salvo.

                    The main thing was not to let the planes rise during the threatened period. "Freedom of navigation" has not been canceled by anyone, and dangerous maneuvering along the course of an aircraft carrier could only be prohibited by other dangerous maneuvers. And a couple of volleys - this is 20-30 weighty shells on aircraft manufactured for take-off, this is just a nice appendage.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      21 December 2020 20: 51
                      0
                      Well, yes, I got into the wake of the aircraft carrier and that's it, but it was extreme, not very frequent.

                      Regarding your previous thesis, it was the case that you were examining the chances of success of such an attack with one KBCh-2, by the way, it was registered here, but got banned.

                      Well, in his words - the probability of disrupting takeoff and landing operations from an aircraft carrier with a first salvo from a realistic distance is 0,3-0,4, this is precisely for 68 bis (although the person served on another ship).
                      1. pmkemcity
                        pmkemcity 22 December 2020 06: 41
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Well, yes, I got into the wake of the aircraft carrier and that's it, but it was extreme, not very frequent.

                        How did you decide that you walked in the wake? We walked ahead of the course. Takeoff then, as indeed now, is possible only on certain courses upwind and at a solid speed. Under these conditions, the aircraft carrier is constrained in maneuvering.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Well, in his words - the probability of disrupting takeoff and landing operations from an aircraft carrier with a first salvo from a realistic distance is 0,3-0,4, this is precisely for 68 bis (although the person served on another ship).

                        From a distance of a couple of cables, the probability of hitting is 100%, not to mention a point-blank shot. There are not so many key goals - the island, aircraft on the deck, lifts and hangars ... Even "weaving" in this case, becomes quite an effective tool. My dad met the Cuban missile crisis on the Sverdlov, where he was in charge of 37-mm machine guns. As I understand it, they were not assigned "special" tasks, except for the air defense watch, but up to two kilometers and they could drill holes is not sickly. Unfortunately, I can no longer ask in detail.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        22 December 2020 09: 48
                        0
                        How did you decide that you walked in the wake?


                        Participants' certificates, photo.
                        In your version, the aircraft carrier can easily maneuver the tracking ship.

                        From a distance of a couple of cables


                        It was necessary to hold onto a pair of cable cables even during the threatened period.

                        Well, your father, apparently, served before the agreement on the prevention of incidents at sea and in the air, after which everything became not so tough, in particular, it was formally forbidden to turn the towers.
                      3. pmkemcity
                        pmkemcity 22 December 2020 10: 56
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        In your version, the aircraft carrier can easily maneuver the tracking ship.

                        Why did it happen??? The agreement is valid 1972. But for example, the Americans and Japanese in the 80s observed it, but the Australians did not, which I have witnessed more than once. Maybe they were not its participants ... The Chinese in general did not give a damn about the rules.
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        22 December 2020 13: 52
                        0
                        Maneuver like hello, the main thing is to move other ships in the order, and fix the technique.

                        Well, okay, this is a matter of new topics.

                        Regarding the agreement, only we and the Americans signed it, and only we and the Americans observed it.
  • From Tomsk
    From Tomsk 19 December 2020 15: 50
    0
    Just about, "the ability to fire a volley." How many ships of the Russian Navy are capable of providing tactical (zonal) air defense of the squadron? Units.
    1. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 19 December 2020 16: 05
      -1
      Those. "Calm" and "Redoubt", in your opinion, are not capable of providing zonal air defense?
    2. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 24
      +4
      Here the question is in anticipation - it is necessary to outplay the enemy BEFORE his attack, that is, all this is "not about air defense"
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 19 December 2020 16: 18
    +6
    The article is sensible.
    Reconnaissance, maximum force deployment rate,
    fastest first missile salvo at ships
    enemy, can only provide strike aircraft.
    To my great regret, the RF Armed Forces have such aviation
    no, the pitiful 30 Tu-22m3 will not solve these problems, and the VKS
    they will not be surrendered to the Navy, knowing that most of these aircraft
    will not return to base.
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 31
      +6
      The fastest salvo is still carried out from the position of tracking with weapons by the NK.
      But aviation is the most powerful salvo. Well, or if the contact is lost and NK was not the first to strike, then yes, we immediately "go from the planes".
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 19 December 2020 16: 48
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The fastest salvo is still carried out from the position of tracking with weapons by the NK.

        The question is interesting ...
        Does someone allow the enemy KUG to range
        volley in the threatened period?
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 December 2020 16: 50
          +4
          Allowed the same. In the same Mediterranean in 1973. Neither they nor we do not start without an order.
          So there may well be options.
          The truth may not be.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 19 December 2020 17: 11
            +8
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            So there may well be options.

            It's all nonsense ...
            They are not afraid of us, knowing perfectly well our capabilities.
            And we have no capabilities other than nuclear.
            We have no ships capable of inflicting serious
            missile strike on enemy naval groupings,
            we do not have naval strike aircraft ... we are building NK
            type "corvette" on the principle "so there will be no war", and
            in this field, we see no concern for the construction of the Navy,
            but the struggle of lobbyists for a piece of the budget pie.
            1. timokhin-aa
              19 December 2020 17: 23
              +10
              Well, these are our sad realities of today.
              Not the fact that they are forever.
              Although it may be for a long time.
              But Russia has seen all sorts of things and current problems are not a reason to refuse to think for the future.
            2. ancient
              ancient 19 December 2020 19: 48
              +2
              Quote: Bez 310
              They are not afraid of us, knowing perfectly well our capabilities.
              And we have no capabilities other than nuclear.
              We have no ships capable of inflicting serious
              missile strike on enemy naval groupings,
              we do not have naval strike aircraft ... we are building NK
              type "corvette" on the principle "so there will be no war", and
              in this field, we see no concern for the construction of the Navy,
              but the struggle of lobbyists for a piece of the budget pie.

              They will "roll" you ... for such "seditious", but real ... "thoughts" bully
          2. ancient
            ancient 19 December 2020 19: 46
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            So there may well be options.

            Very little hope ... very ...
      2. ancient
        ancient 19 December 2020 19: 43
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But aviation is the most powerful salvo.

        Dear Alexander, these are all theoretical "calculations" 9 but supported by calculations and practice) of ALL TYPES of the USSR Armed Forces.
        In the present time, that from the Air Force (which became Rod) and from the Navy .. "pale shadows" remained ...
        Surrender, like Katz, of course I am not suggesting, but ... it is definitely sad to end ... soldier
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 December 2020 21: 54
          +1
          I understand that theoretically one thing, but in real life it is clear what.
          But the article is not about that.
          Regarding the speed of the strike, from the position of tracking with the weapon, it is applied in the time necessary to transmit orders to combat posts + preparation of missiles from launch, that is, tens of seconds. Airplanes have watches.
          Now, if no one is watching the enemy's weapon and is not at launch distance, then aviation.
          1. ancient
            ancient 21 December 2020 12: 13
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Airplanes have watches.

            Undeniable ... all the more so as to carry out a simultaneous strike, and even different types of aircraft and missiles ... but also from different directions ... this is fantastic wassat
    2. ancient
      ancient 19 December 2020 19: 39
      +2
      Quote: Bez 310
      The article is sensible.

      I would say even very sensible ... to the author a complete RESPECT drinks
      Quote: Bez 310
      fastest first missile salvo at ships
      enemy, can only provide strike aircraft.

      And here is a colleague ... let me disagree with you soldier
      How it was done at the stage of the exercises on the deployment of forces and their control and how it was all planned and worked out in those .. "ancient times" wink
      SO -. Always the first and main, it can even be described as the most important role was assigned to ... - THE USSR SUBMARINE FLEET, since it was on their shoulders that the main task lay down - to find and destroy soldier
      Since it was already a threatened period, it was planned to withdraw 5-6 SSGNs into the ocean zone, in readiness to strike.
      Quote: Bez 310
      in the RF Armed Forces of such aviation
      no, the pitiful 30 Tu-22m3 will not solve these problems, and the VKS
      they will not be surrendered to the Navy, knowing that most of these aircraft
      will not return to base.

      Here I agree completely and ..... without discussion, unfortunately. soldier
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 19 December 2020 21: 51
        0
        Quote: ancient
        the first and main, one can even characterize as the most important role was assigned to ... - THE USSR SUBMARINE FLEET, since it was on their shoulders that the main task lay down - to find and destroy

        RUG Pacific Fleet when attacking AUG - MRA division in cooperation with submarine.
        But none of this is anymore ...
        1. ancient
          ancient 21 December 2020 12: 07
          0
          Quote: Bez 310
          RUG Pacific Fleet when striking AUG - MRA division in cooperation with submarine

          We know .... "swam" ..... 143 MRAD and "support forces" Tu-95RTs, Tu-16RM, Il-38.
          There were ... "several options" bully , but .. in practice it turned out .... "not very" .. due to numerous "reasons" and "technical data". wink
          Do you not know that performing a practical start-up in real conditions DB "098" or "107" is ...... as the advertisement says ... it is fantastic wassat
          Quote: Bez 310
          But none of this is anymore ...

          Already wrote in the rest I completely agree. hi
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 21 December 2020 13: 36
            -1
            Quote: ancient
            perform a practical start-up in real conditions of the database ... as it says in the advertisement ... it's fantastic

            Yeah...
      2. Aag
        Aag 19 December 2020 23: 22
        -3
        Quote: Bez 310
        The article is sensible.

        "... I would say even very sensible .... the author is a complete RESPECT drinks ..."
        I do not mind.
        But ... There is an addition ... Sorry, of course, for offtop (I think it is permissible in the weekend program))): while reading the article, I got ... the feeling that I was sitting at a lecture on tactics
        types of troops, and suddenly a maniac professor from the Department of Matanalysis rushes into the audience ... And extremely emotionally begins to convince that only mathematics will save the world. (IMHO: in Alexander's article conceptual, strategic, tactical, operational calculations are buried by mathematical formulas.) , a similar case took place in practice: my respected physics teacher justified to the freshmen the possibility of using nuclear warheads for PM (Makarov pistol) - the goal was achieved, interest in physics increased ...
        Returning to the article ... I did not fall asleep, but blinked for a long time .... And this is what I dreamed: "Uncle Sam is going to war. Without hiding. (In response to the comments, Alexander had, close to the text," ... not to allow secret preparation for the strike ... ") Continue: Thoroughly and methodically, submarines leave the bases, AUGs move to the borders of the Russian Federation from all directions (the number allows), there is a fuss around strategic bombers, the redeployment of forces and equipment to NATO bases close to the Russian Federation .. ...
        Our actions ?! About the expression of concern in the UN Security Council, perhaps, is not worth it .... Calls are not answered (subscriber, not subscriber). Then, suddenly, the satellites began to disappear ...
        The question arises, at what stage should a "nuclear suitcase" be needed. In fact, we have no other, military, antidotes. Perhaps there is still diplomacy, politics, personal agreements (well, what else can we hope for?). Only I'm afraid that in this field we look like a "woman with reduced social responsibility", - and the bobble must be cut down, and not to pick up anything superfluous, not to get pregnant, and to remain a virgin, if possible, at least in the eyes of others ... It is in such a difficult situation that our leadership is seen. Sorry, please ...
        And then I wake up in a cold sweat ... And the visions (like V.S. Vysotsky's) remained ... (((
  • Takashi
    Takashi 19 December 2020 16: 21
    +2
    Preempting the enemy in striking a blow in battle is the main method of preventing his surprise attack, reducing one's losses and inflicting the greatest damage on the enemy.
    my eyes caught on these lines. There was a slight déjà vu effect. Where have I already met this? ... And this is the instruction of the Red Army before the beginning of the Second World War.
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 33
      +3
      Attack effectively first. (c) capt. Wayne Huges (ret.)
      In the same year it was said moreover.
  • Arnaut
    Arnaut 19 December 2020 16: 24
    -1
    "Where is the schoolboy to fight the best punks?" (FROM)
    If a nerd filled with life is given fearlessness,
    If a dystrophic nerd is given the body of a CCM,
    If a nerd is given brass knuckles and a knife,
    Then he can easily catch all the hooligans in his area one by one.
  • mark1
    mark1 19 December 2020 16: 26
    +1
    A little bit according to my opinion, according to ours, according to the enemy
    1. [quote] [Exactly one thing matters - the ability to strike first. / Quote]
    has - but our faith (doctrine) does not really allow us And anyway - what are you suggesting to us, arsonist!
    2. [quote] with a salvo sufficient to destroy the enemy. [/ Quote]
    salvo sufficient to destroy the United States should be of what force and delivered by what weapon? If nuclear, then we have exactly the charges for the first strike and we need all of them to reach their target, otherwise a response will arrive, if the usual I do not even know how this can be achieved at all
    3. [quote] You just need to rationally approach the expected appearance of military operations in the near future, to determine the parameters of forces and means that will be used in these hostilities. [/ Quote]
    Well, how can you argue !? - Need to!
    4. [quote] You don't need anything beyond that. [/ quote] On top of what?
    5. And if the first blow is struck at us and 80-90% of the available forces are destroyed, what do you propose to do, Mr. Katz?
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 16: 43
      +4
      has - but our faith (doctrine) does not really allow us And anyway - what are you suggesting to us, arsonist!


      You don't mean to say that this is an unsolvable problem, do you?

      salvo sufficient to destroy the United States should be of what force and inflicted by what weapon?


      Do we really need to destroy the United States? Military actions should either break the will of the enemy to resist or deprive him of the opportunity to conduct military operations even if there is a desire.

      5. - well, who will be to blame for us? It is necessary to prepare for war really, and not to ride in a patriotic frenzy.
      1. mark1
        mark1 19 December 2020 16: 59
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa

        You don't mean to say that this is an unsolvable problem, do you?

        Ah, you are a cynic! Although...
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Do we really need to destroy the United States?

        What are your options for a war with America?
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        ... - well, who will blame us?

        Normalek! You advise here, you promote programs, and if it does not work out, then you yourself are to blame! All the same, you are a cynic, Mr. Timokhin-ah.
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 December 2020 17: 15
          +4
          What are your options for a war with America?


          Yes, there are all sorts, different, but what?

          You advise here, you promote programs, and if it does not work out, then you yourself are to blame!


          DO NOT try to blurt out the topic. It is necessary to prevent the hidden deployment of enemy forces for the war, not to allow him to provide surprise.
          Generally speaking, this is what the Americans and I did throughout the Cold War.
          When, in the late 80s, the prospect of these cat and mouse could not be sustained loomed before the USSR, the Soviet Navy merged sharply.
          Now the situation of amers is complicated by the fact that there is China, and they cannot simply take and throw all their forces at us like in the Cold War.
          And they also cannot stop trying to pin their opponents to the nail, for ideological reasons.
          1. mark1
            mark1 19 December 2020 17: 30
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            It is necessary to prevent the hidden deployment of enemy forces for the war, not to allow him to ensure surprise.
            Generally speaking, this is what the Americans and I did throughout the Cold War.

            Yes, yes - it's called an arms race. Oh, and an expensive piece, I will note to you! It goes against the idea of ​​your own article - a quick and inexpensive victory.
            Even Adolf Aloizovich with all his Teutonic General Staff did not plan the price of a blitzkrieg that was too expensive.
            1. timokhin-aa
              19 December 2020 17: 34
              +1
              Yes, yes - it's called an arms race. Oh, and an expensive piece, I will note to you!

              No.
              It's not called that.
              By the way, the salvo model mathematically substantiates the LIMIT of the arms race, beyond which the build-up of forces is meaningless.
              Play around, there is also simple arithmetic, not even the differential equation.
              You just drive into the conditions that the side with the largest number of shots misses the first salvo, but in the end delta B should be equal to B in absolute value, and that's it.
              The arms race is pointless.
              1. Silhouette
                Silhouette 19 December 2020 20: 34
                +1
                Your reasoning reminds me of Klado's reasoning and calculations before Tsushima. Him
                there with mathematics was also convincing.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  19 December 2020 21: 51
                  +1
                  This is not my reasoning, this mat. Apparatus is still the basic one in military planning, and not only in Russia.
                  As for Tsushima, the shell factor worked there, for example.
                  Now we will have the same story with torpedoes, we can safely set the strike force of a submarine equal only to the number of PLUR on board, and under the ice - zero.
                  But this is not a question for mathematics.
            2. lopvlad
              lopvlad 19 December 2020 18: 02
              +1
              Quote: mark1
              Oh, and an expensive piece, I will note to you!


              land reclamation (drainage of swamps) in Belarus alone cost more than the USSR than the arms race, but for some reason many continue to argue that it was precisely from the arms race that we overstrained. Not from Misha Gorbachev, who received the USSR with an economy that grew by 5% a year, but left a beggar with an outstretched hand namely from the arms race.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 23 December 2020 19: 51
                0
                Quote: lopvlad
                melioration (drainage of marshes) of Belarus alone cost more than the USSR than the arms race


                Where does this data come from and where are the numbers?
      2. ancient
        ancient 19 December 2020 19: 52
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You don't mean to say that this is an unsolvable problem, do you?

        At the moment, (under the current leadership bully ) No Unfortunately.
        How many real reasons were there from the 404? ... Just the sea to recognize them as a terrorist state and ...... what do we have in the end? wassat
        So .. the whole .. "strategy and tactics" is over ... crying
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 December 2020 21: 47
          +1
          Wait ten years.
          1. ancient
            ancient 21 December 2020 12: 16
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Wait ten years.

            Thanks for the wish drinks , but ... and if suddenly ... someday, you want to surrender ... you will not be allowed anywhere ... your years ... your wealth crying ".
            I won't live that long wassat
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 19 December 2020 17: 17
    0
    As an amateur I will add that if you add coordinated actions of your aviation with anti-ship missiles to your ships, then the probability of victory will seriously increase.
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 17: 35
      +1
      https://topwar.ru/177552-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vzaimodejstvie-nadvodnyh-korablej-i-udarnoj-aviacii.html
    2. ancient
      ancient 19 December 2020 19: 55
      +1
      Quote: Ros 56
      then if we add to our ships coordinated actions of our aviation with anti-ship missiles,

      There is only one thing left ... to get hold of these ... "powerful ships" and ... the necessary aviation outfit "with the necessary anti-ship missiles" and then ... you can, once again lol ... "AmeriGu .. to fight" wassat
    3. Aag
      Aag 19 December 2020 20: 11
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      As an amateur I will add that if you add coordinated actions of your aviation with anti-ship missiles to your ships, then the probability of victory will seriously increase.

      The train of thought is correct. Only ...
      The if keyword ...
      If you read the comments, the experts say there (there is confirmation in open sources) that we do not have aviation with anti-ship missiles in the required (even close) quantity and quality.
      The author of the article provided you with a link about interaction.
    4. ancient
      ancient 21 December 2020 12: 19
      -1
      Quote: Ros 56
      Like a dilettante

      In the "ancient" time, the simultaneous use of two UGaviatsii (with different types of materiel and naturally different types of missiles) was already planned .. do you know what happened? wassat ... right ... "she is" the most ".. since no one has canceled electromagnetic compatibility yet
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 December 2020 20: 43
        +2
        For this reason, Tu-22M and Tu-16 were taken to attack from different courses. If I dig, I’ll probably even find a schematic, a "puck" from the PLA 670 of the project, and from two different directions on the shelf of the 22nd and 16th.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 17: 35
    0
    Quote: knn54
    Alexander.
    Let's start with Switzerland-WHO will shoot at "safes"?
    The author began with the Second World War. And the quantitative advantage turned out to be powerless over the factor of surprise and combat training.
    And moral, a week before the start of the war, the newspaper Pravda denied the very possibility of war. Until recently, they thought it was a provocation.
    PS Somehow I remembered a caricature of a popular author in the 70s (in my opinion Sergey Tyulenev) - before boarding, the pirate captain was solving an integral equation for the crew.


    Yes, until the middle of the twentieth century, they were not safe. Hitler didn’t go there just because it was not expedient. As well as openly attacking the country with the world's largest arsenal of atomic bombs, too, um ... inappropriate)
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad 19 December 2020 17: 51
    +2
    In it, by the way, in general, the numerical superiority was behind us, which is worth remembering


    when was it the population of the Far East or the number of reserves stationed there with supplies and ammunition was more than the Japanese?
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 21: 46
      +1
      And you look in general. Not in theater.
      1. lopvlad
        lopvlad 20 December 2020 02: 21
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Not in theater.


        even now, for a prompt response in the Ukrainian direction, the Russian army has deployed additional units in the Rostov region.
        And when you need many months in order to transfer military reserves and your enemy a few weeks for the same thing, then you are doomed.
        1. timokhin-aa
          20 December 2020 08: 49
          0
          And when you need many months in order to transfer military reserves and your enemy a few weeks for the same thing, then you are doomed.


          Meanwhile, there were plans to prevent the defeat of the fleet in parts.
          This is just the argument for my main thesis - you need to prepare for war without sparing your efforts and time. And not to walk with your head held high, having a bunch of unresolved problems.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 19 December 2020 18: 10
    0
    - I am amused today operating with the formulas of 1904-1916! This is class! laughing lol
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 21: 45
      +1
      Well, how would they still be used, what we have, what is in the USA They are just heavily modified.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 19 December 2020 18: 12
    +1
    Quote: Ros 56
    As an amateur I will add that if you add coordinated actions of your aviation with anti-ship missiles to your ships, then the probability of victory will seriously increase.

    - First you need to "train on cats": try to defeat the Turkish Navy and Turkish Air Force ...
  • Outsider
    Outsider 19 December 2020 18: 18
    +4
    Quote: mark1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Do we really need to destroy the United States?

    What are your options for a war with America?

    - Zero, eccentric. China automatically becomes the winner in the war between the United States and Russia.... Whoever has not yet understood this is a complete ram ...
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 19 December 2020 18: 30
    +3
    And I liked the article! Not a professional in this matter. But it was interesting.
    In addition, my heart always told me that it was not worth chasing the number of ships with the enemy. All one thing, we will not catch up. Although, it is better to build many and different !.
    And here the author (God bless him) - with the formulas / all calculation scientifically substantiated my suspicions.
    Give you a kiss. My dear man yes
    1. Aag
      Aag 19 December 2020 20: 35
      +1
      Quote: Benzorez
      And I liked the article! Not a professional in this matter. But it was interesting.
      In addition, my heart always told me that it was not worth chasing the number of ships with the enemy. All one thing, we will not catch up. Although, it is better to build many and different !.
      And here the author (God bless him) - with the formulas / all calculation scientifically substantiated my suspicions.
      Give you a kiss. My dear man yes

      Touching ...)))
      "... my heart always told me that I shouldn't chase the number of ships with the enemy ..."
      The heart is a bad guide in such matters.
      "... Give you a kiss ..."
      Doubtful proposal in a pandemic.)))
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 20 December 2020 13: 18
        +1
        "Touching ...)))
        "... my heart always told me that I shouldn't chase the number of ships with the enemy ..."
        The heart is a bad guide in such matters.
        "... Give you a kiss ..."
        Doubtful proposal in a pandemic.)) "
        And what to do? .. The time is right now ...
        The thing is that the more you order me ships to build (preferably in series), the more I kiss you! And the sooner I will buy myself new tires for my bicycle.
        But the trouble is that the customer has no money to complete the 70-80% ready-made.
        Based on this situation, it is hardly necessary to swing "at William our Shakespeare" ...
        Much smaller vessels have been standing for years, for example, in our workshops.
        We, the second "Komet", have no place to pull out of the slipway.
        Such is the real reality however. And touchingness bother hi
        1. Aag
          Aag 20 December 2020 15: 27
          0
          Quote: Benzorez
          "Touching ...)))
          "... my heart always told me that I shouldn't chase the number of ships with the enemy ..."
          The heart is a bad guide in such matters.
          "... Give you a kiss ..."
          Doubtful proposal in a pandemic.)) "
          And what to do? .. The time is right now ...
          The thing is that the more you order me ships to build (preferably in series), the more I kiss you! And the sooner I will buy myself new tires for my bicycle.
          But the trouble is that the customer has no money to complete the 70-80% ready-made.
          Based on this situation, it is hardly necessary to swing "at William our Shakespeare" ...
          Much smaller vessels have been standing for years, for example, in our workshops.
          We, the second "Komet", have no place to pull out of the slipway.
          Such is the real reality however. And touchingness bother hi

          Hmmm ... It's not easy to guess about such subtle relationships as the concept of building the Navy and the coefficient of adhesion to the road surface of a single bicycle.)))
          Your sorrows are clear. Unfortunately, I am not your assistant with a series of steamships. In the garage itself, the building of "Sarepta" is waiting for a year of repair))) hi
          1. Petrol cutter
            Petrol cutter 20 December 2020 16: 58
            0
            There are no orders for the construction of steamships - the plant / shipyard dies.
            And there are no orders.
            The staff scatters in different directions, the enterprise is closed.
            This is what I am now seeing in my NW.
            And how well it all started! ...
  • hohol95
    hohol95 19 December 2020 18: 50
    +2
    The last big war in which it was possible to resolve the issue of victory at the expense of victory at sea was the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. In it, by the way, in general, the numerical superiority was ours, which is worth remembering, but our people, obsessed with land and continentalism, do not want to remember about this.

    Dear Author!
    Do you consider the numerical superiority of the Republic of Ingushetia in general by the number of inhabitants of the country and the number of warships in all fleets of the Republic of Ingushetia?
    Or only in the region where the fighting was going on?
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 December 2020 21: 44
      +1
      This is ironic, right? Of course, in general.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 19 December 2020 23: 40
        0
        Then why aren't you considering the possibility of concentrating and delivering ground forces and warships of the RI and YI fleet?
        Nobody canceled logistics and road condition monitoring!
        Yes, and ammunition depots need to be replenished - during hostilities!
        Here the Argentines were not allowed to "stock up" on a larger scale with Exocets ...
        And they themselves did not calculate the possibilities of British pressure on the French.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 19 December 2020 20: 39
    -1
    Quote: AAG
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    I am for a balanced, whatever that means, the Armed Forces. )))

    Perhaps this is subtle sarcasm ...)))
    For the question is precisely what does BALANCED mean, and for what tasks, not in general terms, is the country's defense ...


    And it is also desirable to expand the concept of "defense". Can the result defense be taken Berlin, for example?
  • dgonni
    dgonni 19 December 2020 21: 50
    -1
    Great article, great. There is only one BUT! No two! The lack of the necessary number of pennants to create this most stable strike group of our ships. And the second is, in fact, the absence of the very intelligence information in real time to ensure target designation. And as the author himself understands now is not the time of the Union to allocate an outfit for direct tracking and escorting.
    And so yes! It is quite possible to shoot first and sink the destroyers or cruisers from the heels.
    Then what?
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 19 December 2020 22: 14
    0
    Alexander, thanks for the most interesting article!
    You just need to rationally approach the expected appearance of military operations in the near future, to determine the parameters of forces and means that will be used in these military operations.

    - gold words.
  • iouris
    iouris 19 December 2020 22: 34
    +2
    "A little about combat readiness ...", "A little about military superiority ...", "Briefly about the most important thing ...", etc.
    But what about the "principle of the main link", the Pareto principle "and so on.
    “... Whoever tackles particular issues without first solving general ones will inevitably" stumble upon "these general issues at every step. And to stumble blindly on them in every particular case means to doom your policy to the worst vacillation and lack of principle. " (V.I. Lenin)
    So what's our main question? (Not "Who's to blame?")
  • Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 19 December 2020 23: 46
    0
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    You can destroy the entire NATO fleet and achieve nothing

    You cannot destroy the entire NATO fleet and achieve nothing. The destruction of the NATO fleet as a global naval bloc would spell its end.
    1. iouris
      iouris 20 December 2020 00: 25
      +3
      Quote: Bogatyrev
      The destruction of the NATO fleet as a global naval bloc would spell its end.

      - Let's destroy the NATO fleet!
      - Hooray !!
      - But this is impossible.
      - Right!!!
  • Redsun
    Redsun 20 December 2020 04: 11
    +2
    How pleasant it is to read articles by an author who really understands what a missile salvo and its reflection are. And then in one notorious VK public, one administrator named Andrei in all seriousness argued that in order to break through the air defense of the AUG, it was necessary to fire a volley with a larger number of anti-ship missiles than the enemy has missiles. Who knows will understand)
  • Konnick
    Konnick 20 December 2020 05: 15
    -3
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    As for Tsushima, the shell factor worked there, for example.

    Well, this justifying factor arose in the naval environment, "grenades of the wrong system." The main and main factor was the low level of combat training of officers and sailors. I am not a fan of summing up the theory of probability as the practice of chance. The speed of response of the system in which the human factor is involved depends on the readiness and training of that very person. When the human factor is eliminated, then the formulas will objectively describe future events, but again many other reasons may appear, for example, at the time of the event, a weather cataclysm will occur, remember the Great Armada. These formulas are just science for science's sake. Soviet scientists developed the theory of the angle of lugs of steel tractor wheels just at the time when technologically advanced countries switched to rubber. In Soviet times, I was taught the theory of probability by a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the level is very decent, so he received his titles for the theory of an elastic wheel, but the elasticity of the wheels did not increase from the disclosure of the theory, a pure constant of facts. All these formulas negate the technical capabilities of the system for defense and attack, therefore the arms race will take place to improve the characteristics of the weapons of attack and defense ... the continuous competition of sword and shield.
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 December 2020 08: 47
      +2
      This is so, but the formulas fully denote the boundary conditions, and the answer to the question "is it worth trying?" they give quite.
  • Konnick
    Konnick 20 December 2020 05: 27
    -1
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Can Berlin be taken as a result of defense, for example?

    Can I answer? I'll be brief. Maybe in theory. Theories of mobile defense.
  • Flakk88
    Flakk88 20 December 2020 07: 03
    0
    It is a pity that Alexander turned his LJ blog into an advertising poster for articles on other resources, and the channel in TG actually duplicates the blog, since there are almost no exclusive materials. It is a pity only because the author's struggle with the darkness and impoverishment of the masses spoils the presentation and quality of the material. I like your articles, but the attempt to produce an ideal series of educational programs will continue to constrain the author's potential. Those who are interested are waiting for new articles, and negative feedback and misunderstandings come from fans of the Pak, Armat and other atomic Emines.
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 December 2020 09: 05
      +1
      It is a pity that Alexander turned his LJ blog into an advertising poster for articles on other resources, and the channel in TG actually duplicates the blog, since there are almost no exclusive materials.


      If you only knew how many times I just threw this zhezhechku, for 6 months, yes for 7. To tell the truth, she bothered me.

      Regarding the channel - yes, there is a problem, but this is for a very commonplace, albeit unexpected reason for me - I scooped out a lot of content from the Runet at first.
      Now there is a situation - good and competent articles are hanging on sites that I have already advertised on the channel.
      I don’t know if it would be good to go around in circles, and constantly carry there what the readers could find themselves, following the link from the channel.
      Today, by the way, I'll post something.

      It is a pity only because the author's struggle with the darkness and impoverishment of the masses spoils the presentation and quality of the material. I like your articles, but the attempt to produce an ideal series of educational programs will continue to constrain the author's potential.


      An educational program is necessary in any case. If people are literate, it will be impossible for them to "go over their ears." And this is very important.
      I monitor the situation with how the people perceive some questions, and, for example, on many other resources I see that people, commenting on various rocket news in the comments, began to ask the question "what do we have with the Central Control Center for all this?"
      And earlier they asked much less often.
      This is not only my merit, of course, I am not the only one to beat this bell, but partly mine too.
      And I cannot refuse this.
      I understand that someone does not want to read things that are banal for him.
      There will also be exclusive materials, do not hesitate.
      But I will not give up such illiteracy either.
  • kig
    kig 20 December 2020 07: 08
    +1
    Let's get even more formulas! And that is somehow unconvincing.
  • Konnick
    Konnick 20 December 2020 09: 06
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    This is so, but the formulas fully denote the boundary conditions, and the answer to the question "is it worth trying?" they give quite.

    The enlargement of ships in the 19th and 20th centuries was due to the desire to increase the accuracy of shooting, it just shakes less, hence the dreadnoughts appeared, and it is easier to control fire, which, by the way, Rozhdestvensky and the wardroom did not cope with.
    Soviet admirals, such as Oktyabrsky, were unhappy with the G-5 torpedo boats, using them not for their intended purpose. And these kids, at a speed of up to 100 km / h, could fill up the battleship, for which they were intended.
    The modern fleet is armed with missiles, which, in principle, do not care about their initial position in space, less dependence on rolling. The question is, how have the formulas changed? Those. one large against four small., and remained. And this is the main root cause, hitting accuracy.
    Suddenly, mini-systems such as S400, 500 will appear, which can be installed, for example, on a submarine. How will these formulas react to the confrontation between "Admiral Kuznetsov" and 4 submarines?
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 December 2020 13: 28
      +2
      The enlargement of ships went not only because of this, look here, for example - https://vova-modelist.livejournal.com/372246.html

      Soviet admirals, such as Oktyabrsky, were unhappy with the G-5 torpedo boats, using them not for their intended purpose.


      These were frankly miserable boats at the level of British boats of the early 20s.

      And these kids, at a speed of up to 100 km / h, could fill up the battleship, for which they were intended.


      During World War II, torpedo boats turned out to be a completely disastrous non-direction, only the Germans in the English Channel succeeded in using them effectively, and that is because the Britons had no choice but to climb into a dangerous area, where the snellboats could get them.
      All other fleets and situations had epic fail.
      Do you think it was just like that?

      The question is, how have the formulas changed? Those. one large against four small., and remained. And this is the main root cause, hitting accuracy.


      No way. But with boats there is a purely technical nuance - they are low and low-altitude anti-ship missiles, reaching the target from a level flight, can miss such a target. Examples in bulk, this is our 2008, and the American battles with the Iranians in 1988.
      Therefore, it is necessary to enter the probability of defeat.

      How will these formulas react to the confrontation between "Admiral Kuznetsov" and 4 submarines?


      Put Kuznetsov zeros in shock capabilities and defensive against torpedoes, and set survivability in 4 torpedoes, and everything converges.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 December 2020 10: 57
    0
    Russia needs one ocean-going squadron of modern ships:
    a couple of destroyers, a helicopter carrier, several frigates, several attack submarines.
    For:
    1) demonstration of the flag,
    2) participation in remote local conflicts.
    -----
    Other naval tasks are not feasible at present
    for economic reasons.
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 December 2020 12: 56
      +1
      Well, why would it suddenly?
  • Slippery
    Slippery 20 December 2020 11: 06
    +3
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Unfortunately, the global trends that speed is no longer important find supporters in our country as well - our warships today are much slower than those that went into operation thirty or forty years ago. This significantly reduces our ability to preempt the enemy in deployment, and, consequently, to fight for the first salvo.
    This needs to be corrected.

    Alexander (sorry for the familiarity), do you want to write an article about these trends? It is interesting to hear the opinion of the "naval", can anyone in the commentary of your so beloved "dictatorships of production workers" pull themselves up. ))) Quite an interesting topic.
    To the throaty patriots, again, the occasion will be noted))).
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 December 2020 12: 55
      +2
      (sorry for the familiarity)


      Yes, I kind of don't mind, it's not for nothing that my parents called me that laughing

      no desire to write an article about these trends?


      There is a desire, yet there is no understanding of what to compose the material.
  • Basarev
    Basarev 20 December 2020 11: 13
    -2
    Why all this highly wise mathematics, when we can serially build only RTOs? Corvettes-frigates are built for a terribly long time and in a very small, not decisive number, destroyers are generally piece. And with RTOs against AUG, you can't stand it. That is, the ocean is lost, and with it the possibility of victory. Only by sticking the flag into the ruins of Washington, one can confidently speak of victory. But this is unrealistic.
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 December 2020 12: 53
      +3
      can we build only RTOs?


      This is not true

      orvet-frigates are being built for a very long time and in a very small, not decisive amount


      Two simple actions - to stop delays in payments for ships under construction and to stop putting systems on ships under construction that do not have a serial letter and have not confirmed their performance characteristics on tests, and even with our current capabilities, without any modernization of shipbuilding we will have a couple of new corvettes annually until the full saturation of the Navy's combat strength with the required number of such ships.

      And with RTOs against AUG you can't stand


      And with two regiments of Su-34, modernized in the naval version - also not to survive?

      No need to simplify.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 20 December 2020 14: 05
        -1
        The truth is that only other AUG can cope with AUG with a quality that is not worse. But for this you need to have catapults and AWACS deck aircraft. We don't even have such in the plan.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 01: 04
          -1
          Yes? and only a knife can handle a knife, and only a pistol can handle a pistol? ... tongue
  • certero
    certero 20 December 2020 12: 39
    +1
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    What are the reasons for a massive strike on the territory of the Russian Federation

    Russia is the only country in the world that can destroy the United States at any time. This is precisely the reason for America's constant hatred of Russia. Not ideology or some other incomprehensible things, but only this. Therefore, the reason for the massive strike is inherent in the American doctrine of a disarming salvo
    1. strelokmira
      strelokmira 20 December 2020 14: 22
      +1
      Oh again, a loud URYA in a madhouse, although there is nothing new ...
  • Egor53
    Egor53 20 December 2020 14: 19
    -1
    Interesting article. Only it does not count people.
    If the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation gave an order, then the ENTIRE fleet of the Russian Federation carries out this order. And for failure to comply with this order, a tribunal is laid.
    In NATO, the situation is completely different.
    Suppose a NATO commander-in-chief gave an order. And the commander of the French troops says that he needs to contact the Elysee Palace and clarify what to do. But there is no connection with the Elysee Palace, and instead of Macron, he talked with Vovan and Lexus. And the French ships are moving away from the places of possible collisions. And they are waiting for communication and decisions of their own government. And give them a fuck about NATO and the United States - you can't bring their sailors to the tribunal.
    And the Dutch sailors generally decided at a trade union meeting that they did not want to fight - they would rather smoke marijuana.
    The Greeks declared that the Russians were brothers in their faith.
    And the Turks remembered that they have not been accepted in the EU for 20 years, and until they are accepted, they will not fight.
    A herd of rams cannot overwhelm one lion.
    This is not my hatred patriotism at all, but just a good knowledge of the West.
  • Slippery
    Slippery 20 December 2020 15: 12
    +2
    Quote: Egor53
    And the Dutch sailors generally decided at a trade union meeting that they did not want to fight - they would rather smoke marijuana.

    Look at the volume in dollars and the structure of exports of the Netherlands. Good Westerner laughing Or you were treated to a joint in Rotter or Amst and you became an expert? wassat
  • Slippery
    Slippery 20 December 2020 15: 39
    +2
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    There is a desire, yet there is no understanding of what to compose the material.

    That is why I respect you and Klimov and read with pleasure, so for normal honest rhetoric, you don’t start to “smear”, if you are unsure or don’t know, then you answer honestly. I'll wait.
    I myself seem to have thoughts spinning but it's not clear. "A fast rocket cannot be run away from it" - I think it is complete nonsense, "it is more convenient for hydroacoustics to work" - when it is necessary to dump into the sunset over the horizon, then the whole team will shout in chorus "maslopupy" Vasya PRESS !!! Again, the hydroacoustics need to work the course and you can reset it. Economy is not an excuse. It is clear that the ships are becoming "heavier" and "richer", the comfort of the crew is better - this is also weight, but technology is growing, the same Marilyn Cole took on board like two fingers. I take this to the binding of all fleets and not just ours.
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 December 2020 23: 13
      +2
      That is why I respect you and Klimov and read with pleasure, so for normal honest rhetoric, you don’t start to “smear”, if you are unsure or don’t know, then you answer honestly. I'll wait.


      Purely tactically - anticipation in a maneuver, in reaching an advantageous point of a volley at the enemy, tracking, tracking with weapons, breaking contact, incl. in battle, getting out of the air strike is max. speed.

      Advancement in deployment, in the transition to the designated area, in the change of the search area (PLO), in the inter-theater maneuver of forces - the speed of the economy move.

      A simple example is the protection of a container ship mobilized for military transport, speed is 23 knots, excitement is 4 points, there is nothing to do here on some "patrolman"; blow from the air - here it will be necessary to "fry" all the money, every second.

      Just knowing or understanding something is one thing, but you need to write an interesting article. Readable.
      But in the plans "The meaning of speed" is, for the future.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 20 December 2020 18: 21
    +1
    confused, I thought that uv Andrey wrote it, but it turned out uv Alexander Timokhin ... in fact, the task is formulated fundamentally incorrectly, there is no goal to win at sea in a particular battle, there is a goal to win the war. The task is formulated too general, just to the point of emptiness, the factor of the water area (where it will be) is not taken into account, the factor of the participation of the Navy not as a sphere-horse in a vacuum, but as part of the entire defense of the country, taking into account ICBMs, Aerospace Forces, SA. and if we take them into account, then all the tasks of the fleet are narrowed down to: 1 ensuring the safe exit of the return of nuclear submarines from the bases, and coastal defense of ports, which is the same in essence, and basically the nuclear submarines themselves, coastal assets and coastal aviation, ASW corvettes, minesweepers, are needed, frigates PLO. 2 support for the action of ground forces near the same shores. And all these Timokhin's formulas are smoothly applied to the calculations of ICBMs, and not to the means of self-defense of the coastal fleet. For a long time, no one walks like grenadiers to exchange bayonet artillery and rocket strikes in an open field, or in the ocean, only uv Alexander Timokhin still remembers these military techniques of the century before last ..... so the formulas of pink ponies are obtained, which do not agree with reality, programmers call such a formula a dummy, because the parameters not taken into account by it are so numerous and important that they simply nullify its usefulness, and those taken into account are so superficial and formal and do not reflect reality that it is meaningless
  • TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 20 December 2020 21: 09
    0
    Something the author bent - I have not seen or heard something at all among my acquaintances who criticize the government and officials - that it is necessary to surrender to the United States or NATO or to commit nuclear suicide. Author, are you all right? Where did you find such people?
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 December 2020 23: 14
      0
      I have half of the comments for every second article - nuclear suicide, and ten percent that we are doomed, there is nothing to catch.
      1. TatarinSSSR
        TatarinSSSR 20 December 2020 23: 27
        +3
        Comments - anyone can write them, even one person from different accounts with a change in VPN. I'm talking about real people - among my circle of acquaintances, many are dissatisfied with the government and officials in general, there is no alarmism and all-countryness.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 00: 54
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I have half of the comments for every second article - nuclear suicide, and ten percent that we are doomed, there is nothing to catch.

        dear Alexander, please give examples! you indiscriminately offended humiliated and insulted 40 percent of the forum participants? ......
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 21 December 2020 07: 33
    -1
    I used to just laugh at the author, but after:

    the raid of the hidden enemies of the people immediately begins

    I realized that the jokes were over. Author, stop already smoking weed or whatever you refuel there. Without a laugh, it's not long before the clinic is left.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2020 09: 12
      +3
      People with a level of intelligence "from average and above" quite discerned irony in what they read.

      And the opinion of those who do not hold out, I do not care.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 21 December 2020 09: 25
    0
    superiority in numbers does not mean superiority in efficiency. In 1941, the Red Army had much more tanks and aircraft than the Wehrmacht and the Allied troops.


    There were 2.8 million people in the Red Army in the western districts against 4 million of the invading army. It is easy to calculate that 10 thousand light tanks, even if you exchange 1 tank for 20 enemy infantrymen, will not make parity. The Germans had superiority in artillery and transport. In the directions of the main attacks, the superiority of the Germans in force reached 3.6 times. So from the very beginning the author draws a conclusion completely opposite to reality. All WWII is a build-up of forces faster than the enemy can do, after which quantity turns into quality.

    In it, by the way, in general, the numerical superiority was ours, which is worth remembering, but our people, obsessed with land and continentalism, do not want to remember this.


    Well, if having more strength to allow them to be defeated in parts and in general to act extremely passively, for which General Kuropatkin did not have anything, and he was similarly cowardly in WWI, then, of course, all that remains is to send a squadron. She will definitely win.

    Outnumbering doesn't matter. Exactly one thing matters - the ability to strike first, with a salvo sufficient to destroy the enemy.


    Yes, just a mega-discovery. And the Japanese at Pearl Harbor were not aware of? One problem, having destroyed one base and a bunch of old troughs, they did not destroy the entire American fleet, since it was technically impossible. Then they won for six months in Asia, and then sailed to Midway and there EMNIP the last of the American squadrons from going to the target in the aircraft carriers still got. And as a result of a secondary operation, the Japanese fleet lost 4 aircraft carriers with the ability to transfer aircraft carrier forces within the defensive perimeter. After that, they never again succeeded in collecting such a density of aircraft carriers.

    A nuclear war against Russia has not yet begun because there is no way to destroy its nuclear forces. You can hunt down a submarine, send saboteurs to the launchers, and someone will reach, and can destroy the launcher, you can dash around the known positions of silo-based missiles, but you will hardly be able to destroy at least half of the deployed warheads.

    Most importantly, what does the war at sea decide for Russia at all?
    1. Alexander Lysenko
      Alexander Lysenko 21 December 2020 15: 36
      -1
      And 4 million army men took a step across the state border at the same time? And everything is straight with machine guns? Awesome.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 21 December 2020 16: 37
        -1
        Much more at the same time, than 2.8 million distributed over 3 echelons could enter into battle with them. We teach materiel, and we do not disgrace ourselves.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 December 2020 20: 45
          +1
          The fact that the Red Army has allowed itself to be broken up into parts is proof of my point of view - not only the number decides, and sometimes not so much.
          The same amers' forces are spread all over the planet, for example.
    2. Pavel Fedorov
      Pavel Fedorov 31 December 2020 09: 07
      0
      Comrade, why destroy Russia with a nuclear strike ????
      If the Kremlin has a bunch of Jews and all the country's resources go to the west.
      Well, why ?
  • viktor_47
    viktor_47 21 December 2020 20: 00
    0
    The Achilles' heel of the RF Armed Forces is that they will wait until the very last for an order from "the very top" to repel aggression, when there is no one to "repel". This is what the troops of the United States and other NATO countries are counting on.
  • Dimax-nemo
    Dimax-nemo 21 December 2020 21: 28
    0
    Dropping something from above is always easier than throwing it up. That is why in a confrontation with aviation, ships without fighters will always lose. The best anti-aircraft gun is a cannon on a fighter plane. The best anti-aircraft missile is a rocket on a fighter. Now, for some time, thanks to hypersonic missiles, carriers of such weapons seem to have gotten a head start over aviation. But it won't be long. First, the carriers themselves have not become less vulnerable to "traditional weapons". Secondly, aircraft are already being armed with hypersonic missiles. Therefore, the "mathematics" of naval combat, based only on the logic of one weapon, no longer works. Year that way since 1, at least, does not work.
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 December 2020 13: 56
      +1
      It does not work if we are talking about a situation where the start of airborne operations already takes place, and a detachment of surface ships is overtaken by an aviation strike group.

      But this is just one of the options.
  • Zounds
    Zounds 21 December 2020 21: 47
    0
    Please explain about the model problem. Did I understand correctly that we lay 2 seconds on launching missiles and at the same time we believe that all launched anti-ship missiles arrive at the targets simultaneously? That is, the ship can fire a salvo of all anti-ship missiles at the same time? Or are anti-ship missiles going along different trajectories so as to reach targets simultaneously?
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 December 2020 13: 55
      +1
      Please explain about the model problem. Did I understand correctly that we lay 2 seconds to launch the missile defense system


      Yes, this is the ultimate firing performance of the Mk.41, observed in the course of real firing of missiles.

      and at the same time we believe that all launched anti-ship missiles arrive at the targets simultaneously?


      Almost simultaneously, with the so-called. "small-scale salvo", for the model can be taken as the simultaneous arrival of the front of missiles.

      That is, the ship can fire a salvo of all anti-ship missiles at the same time?


      No.

      Or are anti-ship missiles going along different trajectories so as to reach targets simultaneously?


      Something like that, yes.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 22 December 2020 16: 21
    0
    Japan won the 1904 war politically, not through a war of attrition.
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 22 December 2020 19: 57
    -1
    It turns out that you need to have the strength to repel or attack the standard AUG order. This is an operational connection that has the strike capabilities of some fleets. Plus an operational reserve to increase damage or avoid the complete defeat of the naval group. And as a rule, a group that has more pennants and is capable of performing a complex of tasks of the Navy (air defense, anti-aircraft defense, etc.) will survive. And one in the field is not a warrior, a fact. Mathematics is an interesting matter, but if there is no fleet and abitions, it should not be either.
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 23 December 2020 14: 09
    -1
    the author cheated a useless article. he was a lot clever, references to history, formulas and tsiferki, and in the end he advocates taking and attacking first those who do not even think to attack the Russian Federation. "It is not numerical superiority that matters. Exactly one thing matters - the ability to strike first, with a salvo sufficient to destroy the enemy" (do you think that the Europeans so want to deal with the issues of sewage systems or conduct gas to Russian villages? The Russian Federation itself sells at the prices of the London Mercantile Exchange, the resulting currency is invested back in American securities by billions, it buys a bunch of everything in the West for this currency, from fertilizers and computers to luxury goods, officials and moneybags transfer the currency to accounts in Western banks, buy real estate there, families and mistresses are being transported there, why should the West fight at all in such matters?)
    This is the first, and the second is that the Russian Navy has neither quantitative nor qualitative, not only superiority, but some kind of parity in comparison with the NATO and US navies. not rackets should be sculpted and bombed Voronezh, but to compete in the quality of life of its citizens.