Military Review

Does Russia need a strong fleet?

471
Historically, of all combat arms in VO, the fleet receives the greatest information support, thanks to the efforts of authors such as Alexander Timokhin and Maxim Klimov.


The very fact that problems fleet discussed is definitely positive.


However, the country's defense capability implies a complex system of interaction between various branches of the armed forces.
The lack of balance in the presentation of information contributes to the fact that the real role of certain types of weapons is distorted, and wrong priorities can critically affect the defense capability of our country or the understanding by citizens of the primary goals and objectives of our time. Which, in general, is not a good indicator either.

Therefore, in this article, we would like to somewhat compensate for the emerging "trim" towards the fleet and critically assess its real position in the overall defense system of our country.

Naturally, as objectively and respectfully as possible.

In the process, you will have to periodically refer to the articles of these authors, and criticize certain theses regarding the fleet. But this is normal, it really is a search for truth between two opinions.

Geographical features of Russia


Whenever it comes to Russia's ability to have a strong fleet, all ambitious plans inexorably stumble upon a harsh fact - the funds that Russia invests in its fleet should ultimately be divided into 5 parts (based on the number of four fleets and one flotilla).

To simplify the calculation, this leads to the fact that having three times the total budget than, say, Turkey, our fleet is 1,6 times weaker locally. If in numbers, then against 6 of our submarines there will be 13 Turkish, and against 1 missile cruiser, 5 frigates and 3 corvettes there will be 16 Turkish URO frigates and 10 corvettes with missile weapons. In general, it is worth separately calculating the total capabilities of the Black Sea fleets of Russia and Turkey.


This calculation is a convention designed to demonstrate the principle itself. And he in no way takes into account a number of factors (which also play against us), for example, such as the presence in our fleet of an additional and very impressive item of expenses for the maintenance and support of the work of nuclear strategists.

This state of affairs is, to put it mildly, depressing and makes you think - Is it worth spending money on the fleet at all, if these investments represent a movement "against the tide"?

This feature of the geography of Russia is well known to people associated with the navy, but its discussion is often ignored due to the fact that casts doubt on the effectiveness of spending money on the fleet, as well as the place of the fleet in the general structure of the RF Armed Forcesand, as a consequence, the importance of all the discussed problems of the fleet for the country's defense as a whole.

So, for example, Alexander Timokhin in a number of his publications (Building a fleet. Consequences of "inconvenient" geography) tried to soften the severity of this issue and find a solution to the voiced problem, which became ... investing money in Aviation... We agree with this opinion, moreover, we support it in every possible way.

However, it turns out that in the end it was still not possible to find a solution to the problem through the development of shipbuilding itself. But Alexander's topic is very interesting and contains many aspects that are important for the disclosure of the current topic. There will be several quotes from it below.

Separation of naval forces


The division of Russia's naval theater of operations has always been its strength and weakness at the same time. Force because in the pre-atomic era, no enemy could count on being able to defeat the entire fleet at once.


Well, firstly, it is obvious that there is no strength in surviving without showing up for a battle and cannot be. With rare exceptions, which only confirm the rule.

Secondly, war (again with rare exceptions) is a continuation of politics. One country inflicts a military defeat on another country, which makes it possible to present certain requirements and it is not always a question of a complete defeat of the army.

Take the regional state of Japan or Turkey, for example. The sphere of interests of Japan is the Kuriles, they do not care about the Russian Black Sea Fleet anyway. The Turks, on the other hand, are interested in hydrocarbon deposits near Cyprus, but they do not care much about what is happening in the east of Russia. Therefore, the question of the complete destruction of the enemy's fleet for regional states is not on the agenda from the outset.

We are not alone ...


It is curious to note that we are not alone. Another country whose fleet is divided by land and cannot quickly get together is ... the USA!

It is not customary to talk about this, for some strange reason, but our main opponent has exactly the same vulnerability - his Navy is divided between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic. Approximately equally. And, importantly, the main strike force of the US Navy, aircraft carriers, cannot cross the Panama Canal. Only bypassing South America and nothing else


There is also an attempt to remove the acuteness of the issue through an analogy - the United States has the same thing, but this does not prevent them from being "kings of the seas." So we can too.

Unfortunately not. For starters, we don't have 10 aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers and 78 destroyers. Now let's go in order.

First, the $ 700 billion budget is not at all the same as the $ 70 billion budget.

Secondly, dividing the fleet into 5 parts is not at all the same as dividing it by 2.

Thirdly, the inability to transfer ships concerns only aircraft carriers, other ships, such as the destroyers "Arlie Burke" (although they are inferior to the aircraft carrier, but nevertheless they are also a force to be reckoned with), are perfectly transferred through the Panama Canal.

Fourth, the constant planned number of US aircraft carriers, equal to 10 units, makes it possible to divide them by 2 in a ratio of 4-6, which also softens the urgency of this issue for the United States. And it allows you to maneuver force to please the moment.

Fifth, the United States is also different from us in that their fleets are not locked in isolated waters like ours.
There is one more, sixth difference, which is perhaps more important than all the others, and which we will talk about a little later.

Soviet experience


And here the Soviet experience from the "Gorshkov era" comes to our aid, namely the concept of OPESK - operational squadrons. OPESK were groupings of warships and floating rear ships deployed in advance in the distant sea and ocean zones, ready to engage in hostilities at any time.


Another experience from the past ... And where are the TE ships? And what do we have in return for THAT Soviet fleet?
In essence, the idea is clear and not new - if, say, Turkey closes the strait for us (let's say there will be a coup in Turkey, which has already been attempted and will come to power ... but who knows who will come?), Then we need to place the fleet in the water area in advance Mediterranean Sea.

Such a plan is good, but it implies one piquant moment - it is essentially nothing more than an even greater dispersion of the available forces. That is, "the nose was pulled out, the tail got stuck." We tried to solve the problem of isolation - exacerbated the problem of disunity of forces.

Issues of combat stability in modern wars with the use of missile weapons


Another issue that is often forgotten by people who are fond of studying the doctrines of the times of the USSR is a huge leap in the development of ASP and missile weapons, which fundamentally changed the approach to combat stability. For some reason, this moment is deliberately ignored today.

Modern cruise missiles make it possible to strike targets not only from a long distance, which ensures the safety of carriers, but also to a great depth of troop formation, including the strategic one.
An example is the Russian X-101 missile, which has a range of about 5 km.


This means that in certain scenarios the enemy does not need to defeat the entire army, it is enough to suppress the air defense in one direction, after which many targets, expensive in all respects, become available for destruction - command posts, decision-making centers, refineries, ammunition depots, railway hubs, transport highways , power plants, factories, shipyards, etc.

For some time, the air defense will resist, but the first victims of strikes will inevitably be objects located on the border - both the naval bases themselves and the airfields located nearby risk being destroyed in the first place.

This simple fact compels a balanced and cautious approach to the issue of placing expensive weapons, substantial stocks of material and technical means, fuel, ammunition, and qualified personnel in the "red zone".

Someone may argue that only one scenario is being considered - a conflict with the United States, but let's take the Black Sea region as an example.

The distance between Crimea and Turkey is only about 300 km.


This means that in the event of hostilities in this region with the use of high-tech weapons, the battle will resemble a Mexican duel, when everyone will shoot at all of all the "guns". And when "the blue smoke will dissipate after the battle," who will remain on his feet is unknown.

Much will depend on who will strike the first blow and how focused it will be, as well as who can better brush off the air defense from enemy missiles.

But it is obvious that in such conditions the fleet, its bases, nearby airfields and planes on them have a very mixed survival rate.

Moreover, the concept of "naval battle" to which A. Timokhin so often appeals is being blurred under these conditions.
First of all, due to the fact that the assignment of the importance and priorities of goals becomes ambiguous.

What is more important to attack? An airfield from which planes will regularly take off? Or a ship? And if the ship has shot back and already has empty mines? How should you assess its threat? Is it worth it to spray, finishing off small ships, or is it better to focus on suppressing air defense and getting the opportunity to destroy infrastructure?

In light of the above, it is worth looking at the Turkish development - the SOM cruise missile, which is planned to arm Turkish Air Force planes.


Shot from the rocket demo. If you turn 90 degrees, the outlines of the peninsula resemble Crimea. Coincidence?


Thus, we have come to the 6th point, which differs us from the United States.

Our fleets are not only disunited and locked up. In the conditions of the use of modern weapons, they themselves and their entire infrastructure is under constant "sight", which dramatically reduces their combat stability and protection against a surprise attack.

Pearl Harbor is much easier today.

And you need to understand that if it comes to a serious fight, the entire Black Sea Fleet has a great chance of being destroyed in a matter of minutes, and up to 2/3 of the ships will be shot at the pier. Rockets.

But Timokhin and Klimov, in their articles, simply ignore this fact, continuing to refer to completely outdated concepts of the 80s of the last century.

Strategic and long-range aviation as a deterrent


While supporting Timokhin's opinion that aviation today plays a disproportionately large role in naval affairs and that the fleet without aviation simply does not seem functional, we want to note that only relying on long-range and strategic aviation can the fleet be fully operational.

Without proper support, it is doomed.

In fact, the United States also faced a similar problem, one of the American military analysts put the question as follows:
However, the problem is not small. America's two most formidable competitors - Russia and China - pose two challenges to operational reach. In the European theater of operations, American and allied bases are vulnerable to attack from Russia because they are too close, while in the Pacific, vast oceans and sparse terrain keep American forces too far away to project power.


Well, really. How can you expect one American base to be able to resist China or Russia?

So the USA needs weaponthat projects its power very quickly and efficiently. And as such a weapon, the United States uses its strategic bombers B-52 and B1 Lancer. They are in no hurry to write them off, on the contrary, they are constantly developing their weapons and methods of maintenance, and the B-52s are pulled with all their might, so that they still serve.

Most revealing is the preparation of the United States to equip its aircraft with fast-reloading drums, which hints at the use of these aircraft for a series of missile strikes with the shortest possible interval.

That is, from a base as close as possible to the enemy's territory.

Recent events in the world also contain vivid examples of the use of these tactics. For example, against China - Guam as an element of deterring China: the United States allocated $ 1 billion for the development of a base on the island. I would also like to note - in the comments to news on Guam, it was discussed how China might attack the base. The United States from Guam can attack all of China - its power plants, its shipyards, its fleet. And China can only attack Guam. An attack on the main US shipyard (for example) is out of the question without the use of strategic forces.

Or the United States acted in much the same way against Iran, carrying out the transfer of B-52s from an air base in Louisiana to the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

And even against Russia. The main popularizers of the naval theme in the military, Maxim Klimov and Alexander Timokhin, often mention that the enemy will attack us where we are weak, hinting at the importance of the fleet (not taking into account its near-zero combat stability - being locked in "puddles" under a constant "sight").

However, it remains unclear how any of the four fleets and one flotilla will be able to do at least something if the United States implements a similar scenario, which is called "in full"? There are so many former republics "friendly" to us near the Caspian Sea, which with great pleasure will let American planes stay in place, which is somewhat depressing.

And very close to the "aircraft carrier and unsinkable" Crimea, today, over the territory of Ukraine, the B-52 and B-1 are flying quite calmly, accompanied by Ukrainian aircraft.


Flight route B-52N over the territory of Ukraine

Even such an "unsinkable" aircraft carrier as the Crimea may turn out to be quite sinkable. The question is not in survivability, but in the number of megatons.

And this once again brings us back to the difference between the American Norfolk (which is "somewhere over the horizon") from our base in Sevastopol, which is 300 km from Turkey. And 150 km from Ukraine.

Is there even a partial panacea? There is. And it is called Tu-160.


Based in the depths of the territory, these aircraft and their infrastructure are protected by all air defense echelons of the country. Tu-160s guarantee that despite how small the forces of our fleet (and not only the fleet) in a given region and how successful for the enemy and sudden for us their hypothetical first strike will not be, Russia will retain the ability to respond within a matter of hours. Hours, not weeks or days. This is especially important in the era of modern missile weapons, and a lot has already been said about the Tu-160's ability to quickly reach the launch line.

The inevitability of such a retaliatory strike, in turn, sharply reduces the likelihood of using the tactics of a surprise strike against us - since if the enemy is not able to prevent a retaliatory strike, all the success from surprise is somewhat leveled.

Thus, relying on the Tu-160 as the main deterrent, we have the opportunity to always keep our main weapon safe, devoid of the disadvantages inherent in the fleet (separation, locking and being at gunpoint).

Its capabilities to support the fleet will also increase manifold in the event that air-launched anti-ship missiles are developed for it, as the United States did with the AGM-158C LRASM.


RCC start c B-2

In the modern world, the ability to quickly concentrate strike potential in one direction, both for defense and attack, is becoming more than just important. Strategically important.

Meanwhile, there are examples of how the role of the fleet in maintaining the country's security can be much greater. And the best example is China.

Everything is beautiful: the budget is quite military, and the distance between the extreme points of its coastline is only 2,5 thousand km. And all three fleets of the PLA of the PRC can easily be concentrated in one area, closely interacting with the entire coastal infrastructure.

The geography of our country makes the use of the Tu-160 as a modern tool for projection of power practically uncontested. Moreover, numerous comparisons of the striking capabilities of the Tu-160 and ships armed with similar missiles give a result that is not in favor of the ships.

Hence our first conclusion: it is necessary to revise the tactics of using the fleet, introducing into it the support of the rapid reaction forces in the person of the Tu-160, armed with anti-ship missiles in addition to strategic weapons.

Concept - push back the boundaries


Another popular concept, actively promoted by the adepts of the fleet, is the concept of "recessed frontiers".

This concept works perfectly in the realities of the United States - when there are 6 km between Norfolk and the coast of Europe. And the strike group with the aircraft carrier put forward 000 km forward really makes it possible to move the line. Planes and missiles approach the enemy, but still remain out of the range of his defense.

But this does not work in the realities of Russia.

The distance between Turkey and Russia is 300 km. And no matter how many aircraft carriers we have (and they still do not exist at all), we will not be able to push aside Turkey, Japan, Ukraine, the Caspian countries.

Here is what he writes about this (Sea warfare for beginners. The interaction of surface ships and strike aircraft) Alexander Timokhin:



It is clear that the only direction where one could at least draw is the notorious 1000 km line. - this is the direction of the Northern Fleet. But here, too, everything is not so luxurious.

The thing is that Norway is a NATO member. And you shouldn't consider it as a peaceful and independent country. During the Cold War, it was in Norway, under the protection of American special forces, that the warehouses of nuclear weapons were located. American. And the distance from its borders to Murmansk and Severomorsk is just over 100 km.


It is not clear how the border is moved from 100 to 1 km. More precisely, it is clear that Norway is not moving away in any way.

This point on the map was not taken by chance.


Quite clearly for readers who did not see the problem in the question "where to build a base for an aircraft carrier?"

Such a distance is ugly in that it allows the use of multiple launch rocket systems. And in fact, if necessary, Severomorsk can be shot with ordinary MLRS.
(What is dangerous MLRS M270 MLRS)

The situation with the Black Sea Fleet at the moment is not much better and there is every reason to believe that it will only get worse.
Ukraine hopes for US assistance in the construction of military facilities in Berdyansk, Mariupol and Skadovsk

The use of old concepts in today's realities is unacceptable




One of the common mistakes in preparing for war is the application of concepts that have dominated in the past, without regard to modern realities.
This is often the fault of the authors traditionally covering naval topics.

In the above screenshot we are talking about "sea battle".
The fact is that at the current level of development of aviation and missile weapons in the context of the geographic characteristics of Russia, the concept of "sea battle" ceases to exist as something independent.

The myth that the fleet will meet the enemy first


This statement is another way to artificially increase the importance of the fleet, which can adversely affect the defense capability of our country.

Another insurmountable factor is that it is the surface forces that will meet the enemy first.

Returning to the B-52 flights over Ukraine, it becomes obvious that in modern conditions, in a number of scenarios, the fleet will not be able to help at all. How can ships prevent the B-52 from flying over Ukraine? No way. And to shoot down first, sorry, it will not work either. Syndrome 22.06. Sit and wait for bombs and missiles to fly. Alas.

Yes, the fleet can solve certain problems. In theory, the Northern and Pacific Fleets can. In practice, we will count. But the Baltic and Black Sea, in the light of the radically changed strategy of using new types of weapons, do not pose a particular threat to the enemy.

And hence the second and final conclusion. In the state in which the Russian navy is now, it is incapable of solving the tasks that the optimists assign to it. We definitely do not have the ability either financially or physically to strengthen the quantitative and qualitative composition of the fleet.

Accordingly, it is inappropriate to pour in huge sums, as Timokhin and Klimov want. Build four fleets, each of which will be able to withstand regional representatives of the same NATO bloc? In modern realities, it will take 60-70 years, if not more.

To build about 50 Tu-160M ​​units at an accelerated pace and equip them with anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles - this task is still within our reach. And it will take 10-15 years.

And the fleet in this form will be able to solve the tasks of protecting the shores of Russia. It is not even worth dreaming about any "distant shores" there. But even their own shores will have to be protected under the reliable umbrella of strategic aviation.

Unfortunately, we have no other alternative. Unless, of course, you believe in the tales about nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear destroyers. We propose to believe that our old Soviet-built ships will still serve for some time, which will allow us to build new frigates, corvettes and strategic bombers.
Author:
471 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Walking
    Walking 9 March 2021 07: 01
    +7
    Judging by the article, the Russian fleet is not needed, there is no benefit from it, it will perish immediately, it is not worth spending money on it. Everything was lost in short.
    1. Pavel73
      Pavel73 9 March 2021 07: 22
      +24
      No, the Russian fleet is needed. But within reasonable limits. That is, one that can inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy's fleet when attempting to attack. And also to perform local tasks in the oceans, without claims to dominance. For example, the protection of merchant ships from pirates. Or search and rescue of astronauts or wrecked in the ocean.
      Any other fleet will ruin Russia, not protect it.

      As for geography, Tsushima showed it. The Japanese smashed our fleet piece by piece.
      1. Civil
        Civil 9 March 2021 07: 42
        0
        No money left. But you are holding onto rank 1 Soviet ships.
        1. bayard
          bayard 10 March 2021 01: 05
          +5
          Quote: Civil
          No money left. But you are holding onto rank 1 Soviet ships.

          These ships will last for 10 years. In case of modernization - by 15.
          And?
          After 10 years, remember that we do need a fleet?
          The article is defeatist, without initiative, the analysis is narrow ... And the seemingly correct message that a rapid increase in the stability of fleets, until new ships are built, can be provided ONLY by basic aviation (fighter, reconnaissance and the revival of the MPA), the author / authors suddenly go to the other extreme - 50 Tu-160.
          Where do they come from?
          How long will it take to build so many of them?
          What will it cost?
          And most importantly - will it be possible to use them (Tu-160) in the interests of the Navy?
          Or will the ground generals and the VKS command send such dreamers to a well-known erotic address?
          After all, there is no certainty that in 10 years a similar number of Tu-160s will be in service. The industry simply cannot cope. And they are needed for completely different purposes.
          And the Tu-22M3 in 10 years will remain at best 20-30 pieces ... on the dying resource.
          And the safety of water areas must be ensured today and the issue must be resolved in the coming years.
          Therefore, it is necessary to revive the MPA on the existing types of aircraft, using the existing means of destruction, that is, to set feasible tasks for the industry with a solution within a reasonable time.
          MRA should be revived on the basis of the Su-34, but in a new modification.
          And to increase the number of fighter regiments in the maritime theater of operations.
          Under the command of the Aerospace Forces (all the same, the fleets are subordinate to the districts, except for the Northern Fleet, which itself became the district).
          With surface ships, the initiative is also akin to Khrushchev's quirks - to cut, refuse, not build, they will still sink ... We already have 10 (ten!) Frigates 22350 in the ranks, building and ordering, with the last 6 pieces. will be carried instead of 16, as much as 32 KR. And all of them will go into operation (the last of them) in 5 years, because the industry has already begun to supply power plants to them - the first serial installation has already been shipped. And if we continue to lay down 2 ships of class 22350 \ 22350M every year, then in the same 10 - 15 years about which the authors sobbed, Russia will already have a fleet that is quite sufficient for its needs. In its surface component.
          and all submarines currently under construction will be commissioned.
          It's like blaming a pregnant woman for being childless.
          Or maybe her five is growing up there?

          And about the aircraft carriers. What does the atomic monsters "Storm", "Manatee" and the not-mentioned destroyer "Leader" have to do with it? If in the areas of combat deployment of SSBNs there is enough AV medium VI on gas turbines? Which in construction is 5-6 times cheaper than atomic, and the life cycle will cost generally an order of magnitude cheaper. Approximately the same as proposed by Nevsky PKB "Varan".
          And this very "Varan" may not be a project at all, but a completely realizable project. And in a series.
          Reconsider Putin's speech at the laying of new UDCs in Kerch, last year, and that if everything works out with these ships, then more serious ships of "a different class" will be laid down, it was said. Just a subtle hint at the future prospects of the aircraft carrier fleet and the place where these ships will be built. And the Kerch "Zaliv" is the best option for these purposes.
          Now about the suffering of the division of the fleets.
          The Caspian flotilla can be immediately ruled out, there ships are no higher in class than corvette, MRK and MDK.
          The Baltic Fleet is a fleet of a limited reservoir, there are several corvettes, diesel-electric submarines, MRKs and missile boats there will be enough. You can add a flagship frigate. The entire Baltic is under fire from coastal anti-ship missiles and aviation.
          THREE fleets remain: Pacific Fleet, Northern Fleet and Black Sea Fleet.
          You can build aircraft carriers on the Black Sea Fleet, but you cannot have in the fleet - the status of the straits. Therefore, its main striking force will be frigates and frigate destroyers (22350M), but the UDC will not interfere at all, because it will operate in the Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic and Indian Ocean, sending its ships to operational squadrons.
          The most powerful and significant SF and Pacific Fleet, they guard the bastions, ensure the safety of SSBNs in the areas of combat deployment. Therefore, it is desirable to have 3 AVs of moderate VI on them. And also 6 frigates and 6 frigate destroyers, and 10 - 12 corvettes.
          Such a composition will be sufficient for the combat stability of the fleets, taking into account the revival of the MRA and the saturation of the theater of operations with coastal anti-ship missile complexes, and reliable cover of coastal areas with fighter aircraft.
          All this can be realized within 15 years.
          Without overexerting your forces and your budget.
          And if by that time Long-Range Aviation becomes generous with at least a dozen Tu-160s for anti-ship missile carriers, then in general it can be considered that "life is a success."
          But the Navy needs NEW PLO aircraft and AWACS aircraft for basic aviation.
          1. Elturisto
            Elturisto 10 March 2021 09: 27
            -2
            There are no "domestic" gas turbines for the fleet. There is a gearbox whose tests are not completed and there are Kolomna diesel engines left over from the USSR, and even a bunch of press releases.
            1. bayard
              bayard 10 March 2021 10: 50
              +1
              Quote: ElTuristo
              There are no "domestic" GTUs for the fleet

              For corvettes?
              And for frigates 22350 there is not only a gearbox and a Kolomna diesel engine, but also an M90FR gas turbine. The first power plant is now being installed, though, as always, through the anus - afloat, but we can see it so familiar.
              1. Elturisto
                Elturisto 10 March 2021 17: 22
                -2
                GTU ZM (Nikolaev).
                1. bayard
                  bayard 10 March 2021 19: 56
                  0
                  Nikolaev is a good city.
                  Helpful.
                  It was necessary to take it in 2014, together with all of Ukraine, Yanukovych asked ...
                  But even now it is not too late - non-brothers in Kiev are doing everything to bring this hour closer ... They are trying very hard.
                  1. isv000
                    isv000 23 May 2021 15: 52
                    0
                    At the mouth of the Bug, in Ochakovo, striped animals settled. We'll have to liquidate ...
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 23 May 2021 15: 57
                      +1
                      Striped and shaved for this base will not fight if the Sumerians run.
                      It's time for Novorossia to go to the Native Harbor.
                      And the base will be useful to us too - for the basing of border boats and MSCs.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 10 March 2021 09: 48
            0
            No aviation to the fleet. Basically. All attack aircraft must be in the Air Force. As for the Tu-160, the UAC works just well and breaks much fewer contracts than shipbuilders.
            1. bayard
              bayard 10 March 2021 11: 03
              +2
              Quote: EvilLion
              No aviation to the fleet. Basically. All attack aircraft must be in the Air Force.

              Quite right, the admirals have already ditched the naval aviation once, therefore, only as part of the Aerospace Forces, but as attached forces for combat interaction. Moreover, now tankers rule all the districts ...
              Quote: EvilLion
              As for the Tu-160, the UAC works just well and breaks much fewer contracts than shipbuilders.

              It is so good that so far not a single center section has been welded. Until . I think they will learn.
              Quote: EvilLion
              UAC works just fine and breaks a lot fewer contracts than shipbuilders

              Right?
              Il-76MD90A?
              IL-112?
              IL-114?
              Il-96-400?
              IL-276?
              A-100?
              Il-78MD90A? ...
              and many, many more ...
              At the very least, it is possible for combat fighters, but there are also questions.
              Quote: EvilLion
              shipbuilders

              You will see that they will recover (having received domestic power plants), but the aircraft manufacturers ... are tough guys.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 10 March 2021 13: 02
                -1
                For shipbuilders, everything goes wrong. IL-112 and other non-serials are not interesting. A-100 is not for aircraft factories at all.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 10 March 2021 13: 46
                  0
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  Everything in shipbuilders breaks down

                  And "Karakurt", which is our everything? belay
                  How many they have stuck ... they are ... they are waiting for the engines. yes
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  IL-112 and other non-serials are not interesting.

                  Yes, everyone is interesting there, An-24 \ 26 is reaching its last resource, and there is no change to be seen.
                  The Il-276 is not interesting, because it is not even in the project. And you need it.
                  The Il-78MD90A, like the A-100, are derivatives of the Il-76MD90A. And "Vega" for the A-100 has an iron excuse - there is no base for the AWACS complex, even on the basis of the Tu-214 they are molded ...
                  The IL-114 is of no interest to anyone, even to the designers themselves - they could not even assemble the fuselage themselves, they dug up an old one, still assembled in Tashkent ...
                  On light and regional too ... as in everything ...
                  "Superjet-100" is a shame and pride of the domestic aviation industry .. everyone refused, except for their own airlines, which were obliged. The "Lego" constructor made of imported spare parts has not yet been imported, otherwise Iran would have bought ...
                  MS-21 ... if it was possible to launch the series, but ... all import suppliers refused to supply. How they are going to launch it into a series, only Ahura-Mazda knows ... but does not say ... maybe on spare parts stored before, but it will not be enough for so long ...
                  Il-96-400 ... two aircraft have been assembled for a year, but they cannot assemble it ... And this is for the Kremlin squadron.
                  In general, the UAC is still that poorhouse ... but I wish her good luck. For it is necessary.

                  And what about the shipbuilders? Ships are not built without engines, and engines (alas) are not their diocese. But where there are engines, the Varshavyanka is baked like pies.
                  And 11356 pr. 3,5 years from bookmark to delivery. Because it's serial. So it will be with 22350 \ 22350M, if the engines are provided.

                  In general, they are all great, but everyone lacks something.
                  Maybe adequate guidance?
                  Or responsibility?
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 10 March 2021 14: 04
                    -1
                    We teach materiel, and then about the "shameful SSJ" is no longer funny.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 10 March 2021 14: 27
                      0
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      about the "shameful SSJ" is no longer funny.

                      Quote: bayard
                      shame and pride of the domestic aviation industry

                      So I haven't forgotten about pride either. could become a pride, but ... 70% of imported components and failed maintenance ... And so the plane is not bad at all ... if only they made everything themselves.
                      Iran won - waiting for the import-substituted version of the Superjet and MS-21.
                  2. Nemchinov Vl
                    Nemchinov Vl 10 March 2021 14: 27
                    +3
                    Quote: bayard
                    And what about the shipbuilders? Ships are not built without engines, and engines (alas) are not their diocese
                    then why is USC needed? !! What prevents them from organizing the serial production of D-500 series diesel engines (8000 - 10000 -12000 hp each), as Kolomna suggested 3,5 years ago ?! What kind of help did the plant receive from the corporation ?! ...
                    Quote: bayard
                    But where there are engines
                    and where it is ?! For thirteen years of its existence, USC was honored to establish mass and serial production of ship-borne gas turbine engines and gearboxes for them ? !! or Rahman, only managed 12-13 times "declare loudly that all import substitution problems are resolved, and the industry is ready to provide shipbuilders "..... ?! And where is the transition about readiness for release ?!... Or it means, the transmission of the first (and the only car kit GEM for 22350, over these 12 years? !!).
                    http://cast.ru/news/sudostroenie-v-teni-bespoleznoy-nadstroyki.html
                    Quote: bayard
                    In general, they are all great, but everyone lacks something.
                    or an excess of superfluous effective managerswho are most enthusiastic, are not engaged in debugging batch production, but by lobbying and trying suck in more and more "over-promising projects" for the Navy, for the sake of obtaining a new and more funding ?! ("Daring-Mercury", "Varan" or "Manatee", or "Storm", ..... well, or .... choose yourself).
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 10 March 2021 15: 52
                      0
                      hi
                      Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                      then why is USC needed? !! What prevents them from organizing the serial production of D-500 series diesel engines (8000 - 10000 -12000 hp each), as Kolomna suggested 3,5 years ago ?! What kind of help did the plant receive from the corporation ?! ...

                      At least under its wing, almost all shipbuilding capacities have returned after the rampant privatization. Engines are engaged in by the UEC, and so successfully that the promised D-500 does not have a ready-made copy to this day. And they are needed. And for the correction of the running characteristics of 20380 \ 20385 projects, and for the large landing craft, and for the 22350th, it would also not hurt to raise the speed of the economic course ...
                      While everyone is waiting.
                      And this is a testament to the "quality" of management as a whole.
                      Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                      Quote: bayard
                      But where there are engines
                      and where it is ?! For thirteen years of its existence, USC has been honored to establish the mass and serial production of ship-borne gas turbine engines and gearboxes for them ?! or Rahman, only managed 12-13 times "to loudly declare that all the problems of import substitution have been resolved, and the industry is ready to provide shipbuilders" .....?! And where is the transition about readiness for release?! ..

                      "Varshavyanka" have no problems with engines, and they are baked like pies. 11356s were built for 3,5 years each - when the engines were.
                      They dreamed of having Ukraine as part of the Eurasian Union and was attracted by various joint projects and cooperation ties. And they were left with the nose - without ship engines.
                      And Rahman and Co. ... this is a galaxy of already new generation of effective managers, whose goal is not the result of work, but the utilized budget. Here the system needs to be changed - the system of responsibility and professional suitability.

                      .
                      Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                      or an excess of superfluous effective managers who, with the greatest enthusiasm, are not engaged in debugging serial production, but in lobbying and trying to get more and more "super promising projects" for the Navy in order to obtain new and more funding ?! ("Daring-Mercury", "Varanus" or "Manatee", or "Storm", ..... well, or .... choose yourself).

                      Comrade Stalin is not on them. No.
                      And comrade Beria. bully
                      But those who came from the very same "office" ...
                  3. gvozdan
                    gvozdan April 2 2021 22: 14
                    0
                    shootings
                    1. bayard
                      bayard April 3 2021 00: 18
                      0
                      And the death penalty would be good to return. but what is more important is the INERVABILITY of punishment.
                      But here everything is different - officials are not responsible for ANYTHING.
                      It is forbidden .
                      This is the consensus.
                      Only those who have violated the rules of the game prescribed in some internal agreements are punished ... Well, or when they have completely lost their shores.
                      And the responsibility of EVERY official is necessary.
                      Under Stalin, the inevitability of punishment (and very harsh) led to the fact that it became mortally dangerous for crooks, lazy people and incompetent upstarts to occupy high posts and positions. Thus, there was a positive selection in the structure of power and in economic positions. Only those who were ready to PULL agreed to the position. And be responsible for the results of their work.
                      But the current government will not agree to this - these are by no means "Stalinist People's Commissars".
                      This is different.
          3. squid
            squid 10 March 2021 14: 01
            0
            Quote: bayard
            MRA should be revived on the basis of the Su-34, but in a new modification.
            And to increase the number of fighter regiments in the maritime theater of operations.


            Why is there a front-line bomber in the MPA? Take, just like normal people, a multi-role fighter under an anti-ship missile carrier - su 35 or 57. Fighter + mra in one bottle.

            Quote: bayard
            What does the atomic monsters "Storm", "Manatee" and the not-mentioned destroyer "Leader" have to do with it?

            This is a correspondence dispute with Timokhin and other local adherents of the "great fleet". Outsiders do not understand)

            Quote: bayard
            in the areas of combat deployment of SSBNs, AV medium VI on gas turbines is quite sufficient

            And why do you need an aircraft carrier to cover missiles in the gulf of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? What does coastal aviation do not deal with?

            Quote: bayard
            the initiative is akin to Khrushchev's quirks - to cut, refuse, not build, they will still sink ... We already have 10 (ten!) frigates in the ranks, build and order

            no one objects to frigates 22350. objections to the "great fleets" of Timokhin and other local dreamers.

            Quote: bayard
            it is desirable to have 3 AVs of moderate VI

            but this is already the "great fleet" begins. or the displacement is very moderate. a maximum of a couple of "monitor lizards" - to the Syria and Libya to swim. they are unnecessary and even harmful for the defense of their coast.
            1. bayard
              bayard 10 March 2021 15: 22
              +2
              Quote: squid
              Why is there a front-line bomber in the MPA? Take, just like normal people, a multi-role fighter under an anti-ship missile carrier - su 35 or 57. Fighter + mra in one bottle.

              And what will be the use of the Su-35 as an anti-ship missile carrier? For such purposes, a second crew member is needed, by definition. And this is the Su-30MS, which are used by the fighter regiments of the Navy ... but there is a tandem arrangement of the crew members ... for these purposes it is not very convenient and rational.
              Yes, and I wrote about the Su-34 not as a front-line bomber, but as a NEW MODIFICATION of the Su-34 for the needs of the MRA. And the former MRA pilots, and the chief designer of the Su-34, and many naval ones, including Klimov, support this idea and, moreover, promote it as much as possible.
              And the modification for the MPA should be equipped with new engines (optimally - with the "Product-30" of the second stage of the Su-57) and air intakes, an enlarged (elongated) fuselage and an increased wing area. This will increase the internal volumes and fuel supply on board, and therefore increase the range and payload. The radius can grow up to 2000 - 2500 km. , and taking into account that an air-launched Zircon anti-ship missile system, or a lightweight version of it, which the new Su-34M \ MRA will be able to take on suspensions from 2 to 3 pieces, can be used as an anti-ship missile, ... it is obvious that in terms of combat capabilities the new aircraft will surpass the Tu-22M3 itself.
              At the same time, it will be able to use conventional airfields, and its construction will not cause special difficulties for the industry.
              To update the avionics, you can use all the developments on the Su-57 - this will speed up, reduce the cost and simplify the process of creating this modification.
              Today we do not have a better base for the MRA aircraft than the Su-34.
              Quote: squid
              This is a correspondence dispute with Timokhin and other local adherents of the "great fleet". Outsiders do not understand)

              I would not call it a dispute. On this issue, we are more like-minded people, although we may differ in details. And we have already discussed this topic more than once in our correspondence, so this post is more like a summary of previous disputes.
              Quote: squid

              And why do you need an aircraft carrier to cover missiles in the gulf of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? What does coastal aviation do not deal with?

              The speed (time) of reaction to the threat. The main enemy of the submarine is the enemy's anti-submarine aviation. Japan alone has about 100 (!!!) first-class PLO aircraft, not to mention other players in the region. A fighter of basic aircraft may simply not be in time, taking off from an airfield. Look at the distances there. And carrier-based aircraft will simply disperse, and in the war period - destroy all PLO aircraft that risked encroaching. And their cover fighters too. In addition, AB with catapults, this is also AWACS deck aircraft, which will be able to control the air and surface situation for hundreds of kilometers around. And to lead the fighters in the air, carrying a continuous watch, taking off in turn from the deck.
              At the same time, AB can be a base for PLO helicopters, and with their help control a vast region, revealing the presence of enemy submarines there.
              And at the same time, the price of such an aircraft will be about $ 1,5-2 billion (PCB estimate) or up to $ 2,5 billion (my estimate), excluding the air wing and basic infrastructure.
              Quote: squid
              no one objects to frigates 22350. objections to the "great fleets" of Timokhin and other local dreamers.

              It is too late to object to these frigates - they are actively under construction, and the laying of the first 22350M is expected from next year. Had the "Ukrainian crisis" not happened, most of the 22350 planned would have already been in the ranks and there would have been no delays with them. And it would not give rise to humor and pessimism.
              Quote: squid

              Quote: bayard
              it is desirable to have 3 AVs of moderate VI

              but this is already the "great fleet" begins. or the displacement is very moderate. a maximum of a couple of "monitor lizards" - to the Syria and Libya to swim. they are unnecessary and even harmful for the defense of their coast.

              It will be a fully combat-ready, balanced and adequate Fleet.
              It is not rational to have less than 3 AB per fleet, because one must always be on duty or on a campaign, the second in the base is ready to go to sea for several days, and the third must undergo scheduled repairs. If AB is smaller, then there will be holes in combat duty and the enemy will always be able to choose a moment that is vulnerable to us when AB is not on duty.
              VI 45 tons is quite adequate for the tasks at hand - to have on board up to 000 fighters, 24 - 2 AWACS aircraft and from 4 to 4 PLO helicopters.
              Taking into account the construction of such ships at two shipyards at the same time, the entire program of their construction will take 15 - 17 years. Taking into account the cost of air wings for all AB, including spare boards, as well as basic infrastructure (berths, piers, workshops, warehouses, barracks, boiler room and power plant), during this period will have to spend 1,5-2 billion dollars. in year . 15 - 17 years old. And it’s not raunchy at all. This is 100 - 150 billion rubles. in year .
              And if we add another 50 billion rubles to these expenses. per year, it is possible to build in the same time a luxurious escort by this AB - 4 - 5 destroyers of the 22350M type.
              Agree, these are VERY small amounts for such a significant task.
              In addition, for supporting the expeditionary forces, such AB will be very useful and will provide them with combat stability in confrontation with any enemy forces - air defense over the area of ​​operations of the Fleet forces.
              For comparison - the cost of AV type "Storm" or "Manatee" will be equal to the cost of 4 - 5 such AV moderate VI on gas turbines. And the life cycle cost is an order of magnitude more expensive.
              And this is the Economy.
              But our industry will be ready to start laying such ships only in 4 - 5 years.
              1. squid
                squid 10 March 2021 16: 04
                -3
                Quote: bayard
                In this matter, we are more like-minded people.


                Alas, I can see it now ...
                Also a "great naval commander". There are as many as 5 aircraft of the 76th generation on the horizon, and there are also 6 aircraft carriers, some kind of separate MRA, 300 km from the coast - an insurmountable distance that certainly an ocean fleet is needed. Yeah.

                I will be brief. We hang missiles on ordinary heavy fighters - the range and load will be enough. And not some specially allocated ones, but ordinary ones from the Air Force. In their free time from the anti-ship missile suspension, they guard the airspace - so that at least some number against "probable partners" was. There can be no question of any separate MPA and even more so separate projects for it (except for anti-submarine aviation). AUG and other NKs, like modern people, are quietly looking for a satellite constellation that is universal for all aircraft. If necessary, more reconnaissance. aviation. We are scattering aviation on the shore over shelters, so that one missile cannot cover it, like your aircraft carrier. A couple of small aircraft carriers, if necessary, are for colonial wars. All.

                Quote: bayard
                Yes, and I wrote about the Su-34 not as a front-line bomber, but as a NEW MODIFICATION of the Su-34 for the needs of the MRA. And the former MRA pilots, and the chief designer of the Su-34, and many naval ones, including Klimov, support this idea and, moreover, promote it as much as possible.


                Oh yes. In this case, Timokhin, and Klimov, and you are saboteurs promoting a decrease in the country's defense for the sake of useless projects.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 10 March 2021 19: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: squid
                  ... There are as many as 5 aircraft of the 76th generation on the horizon, and

                  This is the first contract. On the Su-35, the first contract was generally for 48 units.
                  Quote: squid
                  some kind of separate MRA

                  She has always been separate, and only in this capacity made sense, gained the necessary experience and methods of application. Pilots are not printed on a printer, they are trained and trained for a long time and persistently. A fighter and a conventional bomber will never learn such skills "optional". Proven by experience.
                  Quote: squid
                  300 km from the coast - an insurmountable distance

                  Have you counted the distance from the coast, or from the nearest airfields? And then there with the airfield network as it is not very good. And with communications in general. You can't deploy anywhere.

                  Quote: squid
                  and there - 6 aircraft carriers

                  If less, the sense will be like from "Kuzi". It was from the required number of such ships that the calculations of their rational appearance, displacement and composition of the air wing proceeded. As a result, such an AB will cost as much as the new Arleigh-Burke in the United States.

                  Quote: squid
                  I will be brief. We hang missiles on ordinary heavy fighters - the range and load will be enough.

                  What rockets are you going to use on fighters?
                  X-35?
                  X-31?
                  Or something heavier, more powerful, more subtle?
                  And if they are heavier, then you will have to strengthen the glider and the central pylon. The same Indians had to tinker with their Su-30s.
                  But that's not even the point.
                  Who will the pilots of these "versatile fighters" be? Fighter pilots?
                  Will they have enough skills? After all, this is a completely different specialization. Even just flying over the sea is still a science, let alone a fighter, and a striker ... Nobody succeeded in that. Not only in our country - in the USA too. This is the world experience. And even if not to take MRA pilots, but simply to transfer a fighter into bombers / attack aircraft.
                  On their own plane.
                  All .
                  Everything will be by. A lot of experiments were carried out in the same Primorye in the 90s.
                  They have DIFFERENT SKILLS. And it won't break. This is a specialization sharpening.
                  The planes can be alone (for example, the Su-30SM), but pilots need to be trained separately. Otherwise, the result will be much below average.
                  And we need Assy.
                  And that is why now, forming mixed regiments, squadrons are divided according to specialization. And each has its own training program.
                  Quote: squid
                  There can be no question of any separate MPA, and even more so separate projects for it.

                  Do you think that the resulting enhanced, with greater capabilities, the Su-34 will be superfluous in Long-Range Aviation? This is a ready-made replacement for the Tu-22M3.
                  Quote: squid
                  We are scattering aviation on the shore over shelters, so that one missile cannot cover it, like your aircraft carrier.

                  The aircraft carrier is a very difficult target. He sees very (!) Far at all (!) Heights thanks to the presence of AWACS aircraft and therefore can intercept all types of missile launchers on distant lines with the help of his fighters. At an average distance, it is covered by escort ships with a very good Redoubt and a Poliment radar, and in the near zone it has its own means.
                  But the ground airfield can blink, if AWACS aircraft do not warn, and catch a portion of missiles. Therefore, it is necessary to distribute the planes not so much according to caponiers, but to alternate airfields ... And with them, it is just tight in those parts ... And with roads for their supply ... and such a regiment with the main and alternate airfields will not cost anything no less than such an aircraft carrier. And more likely, given the complexity of logistics for the construction and maintenance thereof.
                  And in the Barents Sea, the distance from the airfields to the bastion is even greater.
                  And the reaction should be instant. For the means of strategic nuclear forces are protected, which must be saved for a second (not a retaliatory counter, but a second) strike. And for this they need to survive.
                  And the enemy has no problems with opening the locations of our submarines, they are found several hundred kilometers away and accurately go to the target - thanks to the radar detection method. And if you do not ensure safety and survival in the first phase of the war (survive the first strike), then it is better to completely abandon the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces.
                  Quote: squid
                  A couple of small aircraft carriers, if necessary, are for colonial wars. All.

                  What wars in the colonies?
                  What small ones?
                  We are talking about an AV medium VI with a specialization in air defense and anti-aircraft defense.
                  After the war, until the 80s, the ground clever did not allow the construction of normal aircraft carriers, imposed "hybrids" with anti-ship missiles and VTOL aircraft, which were only suitable for "tracking weapons" for the enemy's AUG. And when the threat came and they began to create "bastions", it turned out that all TARKRs were not suitable for their protection. And urgently laid the "Kuznetsov" and "Varyag" - air defense aircraft carriers.
                  If you want to save as much as possible on defense and in the Navy in particular, then we have already gone through this. And even to the core of the bourgeois government it dawned on the fact that it was impossible to economize on security. Any bourgeois will confirm this to you.
                  Especially when someone cries out for his good.
                  But do not worry, if it comes to the construction of such ships, then it will begin no earlier than in 4 - 5 years, and will end in 20 - 22 years.
                  It will be a completely different country.
                  They completely forgot about the project of the Eurasian Union, and the other day Iran submitted an urgent (!) Application to this Union and intends to enter no later than the beginning of May ...
                  And if this is just the beginning?
                  In the Donbass, clouds are going gloomy again, and if something starts, then the final solution of the "Ukrainian question" can happen very soon and suddenly ... And this may turn out to be more abruptly than the former Union in the future (together with Iran) ... It is also necessary for the future watch ...
                  Quote: squid
                  In this case, Timokhin, and Klimov, and you are saboteurs promoting a decrease in the country's defense for the sake of useless projects.

                  lol How can you weaken the defenses by strengthening it in every possible way?
                  Or do you think that there will be no war?
                  That we have a "wonderful planet" where pink ponies live and farts like a rainbow?
                  I must disappoint you, you have chosen a very harsh planet for your birth.
                  Where, without the power of truth, one cannot defend.
                  And just not to survive.
                  And therefore: "May the Force be with us." yes bully soldier
                  1. S. Viktorovich
                    S. Viktorovich 10 March 2021 20: 18
                    +1
                    During World War II, traditionally maritime countries (the United States in the first place) learned from experience that aviation at sea can be effective only if it belongs to the fleet.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 10 March 2021 20: 55
                      0
                      This is true, but to this day, former pilots of aircraft carriers are in command of them.
                      And our naval commanders in aviation are like a watermelon in oranges ... (beautiful, juicy ... but different) ... they do not understand the specifics at all. And they did not understand well before. Combat interaction will now have to be developed practically from scratch, which is why at first the MPA should obey the Aerospace Forces, but be attached to the fleets in the combat interaction mode. Otherwise, "rybnadzor" will ruin aviation, as it was before.
                      The pilots have their own orders and rules, their plans for combat training and daily routine ... There they have already made business boots with their formations, shagistika and "equalizing the combs at 35 degrees" ... So no, even better as part of the Aerospace Forces, there even pilots with pilots ... Otherwise, the flyers will scatter from the dope of ship or tank ... as it happened before ...
                      Both "Rybnadzor" (fleet) and "boots" have yet to be taught the correct interaction with aviation.
                      This is specific.
                      Well, they don't understand why, what and how in aviation lol
                      But pilots are on friendly terms with air defense. yes

                      And in the future, if the revival of the Naval Aviation does take place, including the MRA, we can talk about its allocation to the subordination of the Fleet.
                      If the Navy is ready for this.
                      Yes, and HOW to transfer aviation to them, if the fleets themselves are subordinate to the districts ...
                      Game! ....?
                      But here it is - tankers rule everything and everyone! yes
                      ... Here, for the revival of naval aviation, go and find experienced commanders ...
                  2. squid
                    squid 11 March 2021 04: 47
                    -1
                    Quote: bayard
                    This is the first contract. On the Su-35, the first contract was generally for 48 units.

                    Well, as a result, there are already 70 of them in service, after 12 years of production. And with 57s it will be the same - a hundred, maybe two, if you try hard. And you want to stuff most of it onto aircraft carriers (and 4th generation aircraft by the 2040s will not look on deck, and there are no deck-based ones either). Moreover, money in AB and their orders to swallow. "Great naval commander" as it is.

                    Quote: bayard
                    A fighter and a conventional bomber will never learn such skills "optional". Proven by experience.

                    Soviet experience 50 years ago. For some reason, single-seat f-18s and (in the future) f-35s are quite capable of launching anti-ship missiles, and indeed any high-precision weapons. And they don't need separate pilots for air combat. But if you really insist, we can also make a double su-57. Now is not the 70s, so that in the backward (even at that time) Soviet lamp btsvm something to be manually entered. Normal countries have long abandoned specialized strike aircraft (except for niche ones - strategic aviation, attack aircraft), having switched to multifunctional fighters. By the way, you can not only hang rockets on them, but also instrument containers, as needed.

                    Quote: bayard
                    You counted the distance from the coast

                    Oh yes, there will of course still be 3000 km to the airfield. After all, it’s impossible to create a coastal airfield network even in the areas where people are concentrated. And 10 minutes of flight time on cruising supersonic is an eternity. During this time, enemy PLO subsonic airliners of 300000 sq km of water area will comb through, all Boreis will float up belly. We urgently need an aircraft carrier to the center of each bay. And a couple more to the Sea of ​​Azov, otherwise there is also far away, we will not have time.
                    Repeat further after the swindler Timokhin his illiterate delirium.

                    Quote: bayard
                    What rockets are you going to use on fighters

                    Any modern anti-ship missiles - caliber, zircon, uranium, dagger and its derivatives. Any combat load allows. If you need to strengthen the suspension points, then you need to strengthen them, and not fence in nonsense with an armada of individual specialized airplanes.

                    Quote: bayard
                    Do you think it will be superfluous

                    I think that with a budget 11 times less than the American, and even less than the Indian and Saudi, with the largest territory in the world and a bunch of "partners" around, one should spend not on something that "will not be superfluous" but strictly on something that is vital necessary.

                    Quote: bayard
                    The aircraft carrier is a very difficult target

                    This is the American AUG - a difficult target. With destroyers-escort cruisers, Aegis system, an aircraft carrier with a capacity of 100000 tons, a developed air wing. In general, at current prices of billions of commercials, it is 50 per group, excluding R&D. Well, it was difficult 40 years ago. Before the advent of satellite tracking systems and maneuvering hypersonic missiles.

                    Quote: bayard
                    the enemy has no problems with opening the locations of our submarines, they are found several hundred kilometers away and accurately reach the target - thanks to the radar detection method

                    What? .. What method of detecting submarines? Worthy chick of Timokhin's nest. A humanist with formidable terms. Sounds so impressive - "radar method"! Any internet hamster will get scared.

                    Quote: bayard
                    the cost of such a regiment with the main and alternate airfields will be no less than such an aircraft carrier. And sooner and more

                    No, citizen. A land airfield will be much cheaper than any ship, let alone an aircraft carrier, even if it is built on Novaya Zemlya. And the stability and in general all the characteristics are much higher. And the AWACS based on the Il-76 or Tu-214 (and in the long term MS-21) will be more serious than any deck maize. And you can cover with normally deployed dispersed air defense systems and radars. And, most importantly, all this will not fail from one rocket.

                    Quote: bayard
                    What wars in the colonies?
                    What small ones?

                    Those in which Vova in Syria and Libya intermeddle. Well, to demonstrate the flag of Venezuela. That's it, your aircraft carriers are no longer needed for any reason.

                    Quote: bayard
                    If you want to save as much as possible on defense and in the Navy

                    I want not to steal the really necessary types of aircraft for the sake of any useless garbage like "ocean fleets".

                    Quote: bayard
                    In Donbass, the clouds are gloomy again

                    We are urgently building an aircraft carrier!

                    Quote: bayard
                    How can you weaken the defenses by strengthening it in every possible way?

                    Easily. Waste very limited resources instead of something useful on something completely useless.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 11 March 2021 06: 20
                      +1
                      Quote: squid
                      Quote: bayard
                      This is the first contract. On the Su-35, the first contract was generally for 48 units.

                      Well, as a result, there are already 70 of them in service, after 12 years of production.

                      Where does such an interesting figure come from? If both contracts were fully implemented by the end of last year?
                      98 pieces.
                      And more ordered.
                      Why not more?
                      Because at the same time there were purchases of both the Su-30SM (over a hundred) and Su-34 (120 units), as well as upgrading and returning the MiG-31, Su-25 and partly Su-24 to service.
                      Quote: squid
                      And with 57s it will be the same - a hundred, maybe two, if you try hard.

                      Will be . If you try hard. And you don't need more of them. There are no more pilots or regiments for them.
                      Quote: squid
                      and the aircraft of the 4th generation by the 2040s will not look on the deck, and their deck ones, too

                      Oh-li. lol The United States resumed purchases of the F-15, F-18 and even began developing a replacement for the F-16 generation 4+.
                      Like this . request Disappointing in the 5th generation was formed. The 4th generation is in demand again. Albeit with a + sign.
                      And now we have two ++ planes. The deck version of the MiG-35 will be fine.
                      Quote: squid
                      ... Moreover, money in AB and their orders to swallow. "Great naval commander" as it is.

                      No, the officer of the combat command of the air defense formation. In past . So the organization of combat work and combat interaction with allied branches of the armed forces is just my specialization.
                      Quote: squid
                      For some reason, single-seat f-18 and (in the future) f-35 are quite capable of launching anti-ship missiles, and indeed any high-precision weapon. And they don't need separate pilots for air combat.

                      Where did you get such nonsense? laughing They have one strike squadron (24 units) in the air wing, and the second (24 more units) is sharpened exclusively for air combat. This aircraft can be made universal / multifunctional. But the pilot - alas. Therefore, flying the same type, both squadrons have only their own specialization. This is an axiom. Or have you confused VO with the Murzilka magazine?
                      Quote: squid
                      But if you really insist, we can also make a double su-57.

                      Maybe they will, but VERY reluctantly. For the whole glider will have to be redesigned. The Indians from the project screwed up because they asked for a double room, and ours resisted. But now, when the series has gone maybe and will do - already rumors have gone. but not soon.
                      Quote: squid
                      Normal countries have long abandoned specialized strike aircraft

                      these "normal countries" do not have their own production of combat aircraft, and whoever has, then there is no money and design personnel for such a variety. They save.
                      In the USSR, specialization was forced - a huge territory that had to be covered. about half of the fighter aviation was generally part of the Air Defense Forces ... and this, by the way, was a separate branch of the army.
                      Quote: squid
                      Quote: bayard
                      You counted the distance from the coast

                      Oh yes, there will of course still be 3000 km to the airfield.

                      Well, praise to Ahura-Mazda - they looked, measured, calculated. yes
                      But they did not understand ANYTHING.
                      Quote: squid
                      After all, it’s impossible to create a coastal airfield network even in the areas where people are concentrated.

                      Well, you are a specialist - suggest how to do it. smile How to lay 3000 km of ROADS through mountains, hills, taiga and tundra. To bring building materials, equipment and everything necessary for the construction of an air base (an airfield with caponiers, warehouses, workshops, barracks, houses for officers and warrant officers ... and contract soldiers, a school for officers' children, a first-aid post ... at least ... ) and its subsequent supply.
                      Master the cost calculations?
                      After all, there were never any roads there - the places are wild ... And the wives of officers will not go to such a wilderness ... which means that the pilots themselves will not last long in such conditions.
                      Have you ever thought about such nuances?
                      Now there is a topic for thought.
                      Quote: squid
                      And 10 minutes of flight time on cruising supersonic is an eternity.

                      Forgive me, what distance did you take as a basis? And what speed did they mean?
                      Su-35 without afterburner supersonic - 1500 kmph. Well, maybe up to 1700 km / h, if the engines are not a pity. And this is about 30 km per minute. smile And what do we get?
                      300 km.
                      And you are 3000 km from the airfield. counted.
                      You can, of course, from Sakhalin, but there the conditions are still the same ... it will be a little closer. But still 600 - 800 km to fly ... how much will it be?
                      Up to half an hour, if you burn kerosene at supersonic.
                      And 40 minutes, if cruising - 20 km. per minute .
                      And you can't go faster - there won't be enough kerosene. He's also to work in the zone.
                      And, by the way, if you build airfields in the wilderness, on the coast of the Okhotsk Sea, then you need to build them at least two (or better three) per regiment - together with spare airfields - dispersal airfields.
                      Well, how will your thrifty budget cover such expenses?
                      Or are aircraft carriers better? Which will be just cheaper, and take everything with them.
                      It has long been calculated that it would be easier to build aircraft carriers, even those specialized for the Arctic (the Northern Sea Route, for which Varan was given the look) - it would be cheaper than creating a network of stationary airfields with all the necessary infrastructure. And all these calculations have long been compiled and conclusions have been drawn.
                      Quote: squid
                      During this time, enemy PLO subsonic airliners of 300000 sq km of water area will comb through, all Boreis will float up belly.

                      If they fly in in a flock of pieces in 4 - 6, then in a couple of hours, yes - they will comb it. They are not looking for magnetometers. They have a specialized radar for this.
                      And we did such work in the late 80s ... Very effective.
                      Quote: squid
                      Quote: bayard
                      What rockets are you going to use on fighters

                      Any modern anti-ship missiles - caliber, zircon, uranium, dagger and its derivatives. Any combat load allows.

                      "Caliber" and from the shore where it is necessary to fly, he has no aviation versions). Zircon has a starting weight of over 4500 kg. , with a pylon, all 5 tons will be, if not more - you will have to strengthen it well. So it's better to do a specialized one right away - it will live longer / last longer. "Uranus" is to play from a distance of 200 km, and at such a distance the ship's air defense system can get it, and cover fighters.
                      "Dagger" has not fired at mobile targets yet. they say that they teach, but so far only on stationary ones. So for the MRA, only the "Zircon" in the air hypostasis and its lightweight promising version under the strange name "Grahamlin" are suitable.
                      Quote: squid
                      I think that with a budget 11 times less than the American, and even less than the Indian and Saudi, with the largest territory in the world

                      In the United States, two-thirds of this budget goes to the maintenance of overseas bases (from 800 to 1000 units, as it is believed, all over the world), and the purchase prices for weapons are several times higher than ours (400 million dollars in modern prices for the F-22, and 37 million dollars for its analogue we have - Su-57, Su-34 - about 30 million dollars).
                      India buys most of the weapons abroad (this is much more expensive than itself), and even those Su-30MKI that it collects at home will be twice as expensive for it than if it bought ready-made ones from us.
                      So there is no need to cry about the money, our officials steal two AUGs with an escort and an air wing a year. And even more ...
                      Quote: squid
                      This is the American AUG - a difficult target.

                      yes
                      1. squid
                        squid 11 March 2021 08: 12
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        no pilots, no regiments

                        pilot training is expensive, but still much cheaper than an airplane. there are almost no deck pilots now, by the way. what "regiments" you will not have enough in the presence of materiel is unclear.

                        Quote: bayard
                        4th generation in demand again

                        "Partners" are already in full swing designing the 6th. And they will obviously have time with it faster than your hypothetical aircraft carriers would have introduced, even if they start building right now.
                        And there are about the same number of rare and discontinued f-22s in service as we have all the new 4 ++ fighters put together. And the f-35 is planned in the thousands, although they are now bargaining with the manufacturer for the cost of maintenance, picture wringing the handles. We need a cheap plane to bomb the Papuans (and us, after gaining air supremacy and suppressing air defense) - they order 4 ++ as cheap small aircraft. There, they also buy light turboprop attack aircraft, I will tell you a secret.

                        Quote: bayard
                        The deck version of the MiG-35 is quite satisfied

                        Flying junk on the basis of a not very successful 40-year-old aircraft. "Upgraded" by the KTB installation and "updated" electronics, which are also outdated for a long time (even afar, as far as I remember, is absent).
                        To meet with this with 6th generation fighters in the 2040s ... And even on AB, which you can't hide in any way and you can sink with one hit ... It's better on the ground, there you can even disguise as a barn. Or bury it in the sand, as the Iraqis did in their time.

                        Quote: bayard
                        both squadrons only have their own specialization

                        link to the studio. studied the oshs of the American carrier-based aircraft - I did not find anything like it. and even if there is some division according to tasks (with complete domination in the air everywhere and everywhere), this does not mean that all these aircraft will not be able to conduct an air battle if necessary, especially given the fact that "dogfights" are most likely finally in the past.

                        Quote: bayard
                        the whole glider will have to be redesigned. The Indians from the project screwed up because they asked for a double room, and ours resisted

                        The Hindus screwed up because our fifth generation seemed to them not the fifth generation at all. All fighters have two-seat UB versions; they did not have to redesign the "entire glider".
                        Another ravings.

                        Quote: bayard
                        these "normal countries" do not have their own production of combat aircraft, and whoever has, then there is no money and design personnel for such a variety. They save.

                        The US and the EU don't? They do not need "such a variety". Even the great maritime power of the United States does not have specialized naval strike aircraft (in the sense that they work on NK, and not take off from AB) - the same F-18s are enough. And there is more money because they are counted and not scattered.

                        Quote: bayard
                        In the USSR, specialization was forced

                        Specialization was forced not in the USSR, but in the 70s and earlier. Well, the USSR lagged behind the USA for 10 years in aviation. The fighters of that time did not have a combat load, range and instruments for work "on the ground". The current ones have a margin.

                        Quote: bayard
                        measured, counted

                        As you might guess, it was sarcasm.

                        Quote: bayard
                        How to lay 3000 km of ROADS through mountains, hills, taiga and tundra

                        To cover the missile forces in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Elementrano - to be delivered by sea. Berth + 20 km of dirt road in the forest-tundra, is being built by a construction battalion brigade in a month.
                        Well, you still have an airfield, I hope you can guess what follows from this. Although what am I talking about, you are a Timokhin. Therefore, a hint to you - BTA, google what this abbreviation means.

                        Quote: bayard
                        a school for officers 'children, a first-aid post ... at least ...) the places are wild ... the officers' wives will not go to such a wilderness ... which means the pilots themselves will not last long.

                        And as soon as there are airfields beyond the Garden Ring in general.
                        Another finger-sucking in the Timokhin style. And with the union, and now, somehow there are air bases in Chukotka, the Kuriles, on the Severnaya Zemlya and many other places. Convicts must be sent. And even the pampered American homoliberals have managed to build an airbase in northern Greenland.
                        About other aircraft, starting with the border guards, I generally keep quiet.
                        Yes, and in your navy you will have to live without wives for months - the sailors will all scatter.

                        Quote: bayard
                        And what do we get?

                        The patrol area is 300 km from the coast, 50 kilometers, for example, from the water to the airfield. Cruising speed su 57 - 2M. 10 minutes. All this fits into the combat radius with a 5-fold margin.
                        And even if we take the flight time with a margin of, say, an hour or two, no planes (low-speed subsonic airliners the size of a small Boeing without any stealth, found hundreds of kilometers away) will fly nowhere and will not have time to do anything. There is no counting of minutes in anti-submarine aviation, it's even ridiculous to discuss.

                        Quote: bayard
                        It has long been calculated that it would be easier to build aircraft carriers, even specialized for the Arctic (the Northern Sea Route, for which the Varan was given the appearance) - it would be cheaper,

                        Well, here are such "experts" as your Timokhin and "calculated".
                        And even if your AB cost the same or less than several ground airfields (which never will be), the latter are still much preferable because of their incomparable combat stability. AB will be incapacitated with one hit. Security will still cost a lot of money and, in the confrontation with the US Navy, still does not guarantee anything. One "Virginia" could sink the entire Syrian squadron. With our budgets and scale, these are all empty fantasies.

                        Quote: bayard
                        a specialized radar is available.

                        Well, tell us with what radar you will find the submarine on combat patrol at a depth of, say, 200m

                        Quote: bayard
                        a flock of pieces in 4 - 6, then in a couple of hours, yes - they will comb

                        in this case, it is necessary to immediately stop the construction of the submarine and dispose of the entire submarine fleet. it doesn't make any sense. report urgently to your superiors.

                        Quote: bayard
                        "Caliber" and from the shore where it is necessary to fly, he has no aviation versions). Zircon starting weight is over 4500 kg

                        "Mosquito" at one time weighed under 4 tons. And it calmly hung on a Su-33, even taking off from a ship with an incomplete load.
                        About "from the shore" - here I agree. And I already wrote about it. It may be that aviation (except for anti-submarine) instead of the fleet is not particularly needed - coastal anti-ship missiles will be enough. Maybe it is not necessary to lift those missiles into the air, they will fly by themselves.

                        Quote: bayard
                        Combat Command Officer, Air Defense Forces

                        Shame on the entire fleet)
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 11 March 2021 10: 11
                        -1
                        Quote: squid
                        Shame on the entire fleet)

                        Less for rudeness.
                        And incompetence.
                        You are apparently completely inattentive, or do not understand the types of troops.
                        I served in air defense, not in the Navy. But air defense is a branch of the military that interacts with all branches of the military.
                        but for you it is probably not important.
                        Quote: squid
                        pilot training is expensive, but still much cheaper than an airplane.

                        The cost of training a real pilot is commensurate with the cost of a combat aircraft. You should know that. Moreover, a pilot is not a green lieutenant, from whom a pilot has yet to be made.
                        Quote: squid
                        "Partners" are already in full swing designing the 6th.

                        Yes to health.
                        Can you name the signs of the 6th generation?
                        And then until now, like that with the 5th, they have not really figured out.
                        F-35, which generation is this?
                        Quote: squid
                        And the f-35 is planned by the thousands

                        And they want to abandon further purchases. Expensive, complicated, unreliable.
                        Quote: squid
                        There, they also buy turboprop light attack aircraft, I will tell you a secret.

                        This is not a secret at all.
                        Quote: squid
                        Quote: bayard
                        The deck version of the MiG-35 is quite satisfied

                        Flying junk on the basis of a not very successful 40-year-old aircraft. "Upgraded" by the KTB installation and "updated" electronics, which are also outdated for a long time (even afar, as far as I remember, is absent).
                        Meeting this with 6th generation fighters in the 2040s ..

                        as a deck-based air defense fighter, he is quite satisfied. But since the first AB will appear in service not earlier than in 12-15 years, other options may appear.
                        Quote: squid
                        Better on the ground, there you can even disguise as a barn. Or bury it in the sand, as the Iraqis did in their time.

                        A very bad example. Are you going to bury planes in the sand when enemy aircraft raids? wassat
                        Shame on the expert.
                        Quote: squid
                        link to the studio. studied the oshs of the American carrier-based aircraft - I did not find anything like it.

                        They were looking badly.
                        Quote: squid
                        The Hindus screwed up because our fifth generation seemed to them not the fifth generation at all.

                        They found such an excuse to hurt them more painfully that they did not want to satisfy their wishes in fire mode. Now many of them bite their elbows. And there are proposals to bring the perpetrators to justice. Well, that's their business.
                        And the plane turned out to be good. I hope it will show itself.
                        Quote: squid
                        Do the US and the EU have none? They do not need "such a variety".

                        They do not need to have a powerful air defense of their country. Several squadrons of fighters are enough for them. Their protection is the oceans.
                        Quote: squid
                        And there is more money because they are counted and not scattered.

                        They have more money because they print it.
                        And because they are paid by all satellites and "partners". China and Japan have over a trillion in their debt securities alone.
                        Quote: squid
                        The fighters of that time did not have a combat load, range and instruments for work "on the ground". The current ones - have a margin.

                        Airplanes can be made multifunctional, pilots cannot. Skills and instincts are different.
                        Quote: squid
                        To cover the missile forces in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Elementrano - to be delivered by sea. Berth + 20 km of dirt road in the forest-tundra, is being built by a construction battalion brigade in a month.

                        And where did the pier come from?
                        Are we also building, hammering piles?
                        Have you calculated the maritime logistics?
                        Will there be cranes?
                        How to deliver fuel?
                        Buckets? Tanks?
                        Pipeline?
                        Will you have to build a terminal on the shore?
                        You will need a lot of fuel.
                        Quote: squid
                        Berth + 20 km of dirt road in the forest-tundra, is being built by a construction battalion brigade in a month.

                        So simple ? And the airfield itself? Concrete slabs? Capital buildings? Boiler room? Power station ?
                        Do you think if it is so simple, then with a rich Union would not have built there?
                        Although they were built both on Novaya Zemlya and in the Arctic.
                        It's just that it's all difficult, expensive and time-consuming.
                        Come on, the Pacific Fleet, and how will you cover the Northern Sea Route?
                        Also stationary airbases on the southern coast of the Arctic Ocean?
                        But the appearance of "Varan" is designed for this theater of operations. And his contours are appropriate.
                        Quote: squid
                        Security will still cost a lot of money and, in the confrontation with the US Navy, still does not guarantee anything.

                        There will be no guarantees for the US Navy at such a meeting either.
                        After all, AB will only provide fighter cover (including from the CD) and reconnaissance / target designation, and the ships of the order will be beaten by those very "Zircons".
                        And not the fact that with ordinary heads.
                        So when I meet someone like that, I would not advise anyone to swear.
                        Quote: squid
                        And as soon as there are airfields beyond the Garden Ring in general.

                        What do you know about serving in remote garrisons?
                        Have you ever seen it yourself? Maybe stay on vacation?
                        Now the youth is no longer the same - they are not accustomed to hardships and hardships. Especially girls. How many families fell apart due to everyday life?
                        Now it is easier for a young pilot, having served a contract (5 years), to go to retrain on a civil liner - there the salary is several times higher, and human conditions, and young flight attendants, and see the world ... The world has changed. And persuasion cannot be kept here. Conditions are needed.
                        Quote: squid
                        Well, tell us with what radar you will find the submarine on combat patrol at a depth of, say, 200m

                        Sit down - two.
                        As a rule, the depth of a submarine on patrol is 50 - 100 m.
                        What radar does American PLO aircraft have, see for yourself, pay attention to the range, if indicated.
                        In Soviet times, they experimented with the Tu-95 radar, it just caught this "ring effect". They flew in a pair - Tu-142 and Tu-95. Tu-95 detected a ring effect and gave target designation to Tu-142, and he dropped the buoys and fumbled with a magnetometer, confirming the detection.
                        Later, the work was curtailed by order of Gorbachev, just before the collapse of the USSR.
                        And in the United States, this method was developed, improved and implemented on all of its PLO aircraft.
                        Quote: squid
                        The patrol area is 300 km from the coast, 50 kilometers, for example, from the water to the airfield. Cruising speed su 57 - 2M.

                        Are we fantasizing?
                        No one will dispatch such fighters for such purposes.
                        And the speed of the Su-57 is without afterburner, the same as that of the Su-35 - the engines are the same.
                        And as there will be new engines, especially for such tasks, SUCH fighters will not be delivered.
                        Quote: squid
                        One "Virginia" could sink the entire Syrian squadron.

                        And one of our "Pike-B" could put the entire American AUG to the bottom. And more than once.
                        So what ?
                        Cases at services are different.
                        Quote: squid

                        "Mosquito" at one time weighed under 4 tons. And it calmly hung on a Su-33, even taking off from a ship with an incomplete load.

                        He wanted to take off like that.
                        They dreamed about it and talked about it at exhibitions.
                        But why, if our Kuznetsov has much more powerful and long-range missiles in its arsenal?
                  3. bayard
                    bayard 11 March 2021 07: 14
                    0
                    Quote: squid
                    This is the American AUG - a difficult target. With escort destroyers, cruisers, Aegis system, a 100000t aircraft carrier, and a developed air wing.

                    yes Difficult goal. That's just out of 48 planes she has only 24 - fighters (the second half, as you remember, drummers and do not participate in air battles). And what do we have to repel the air raid and attack the CD?
                    And we have a PARITY with our hypothetical "Varan". yes In the presence of AWACS aircraft and the corresponding order.
                    Do you understand?
                    In the AV air defense mode, our cheap and moderate in VI "Varan" is equivalent to "Nimitz".
                    And he does not need shock functions, for this there are escort ships.
                    Is it funny?
                    But American theorists of the fleet have come to that. Moreover, for a long time - about 15 - 20 years ago, and since then they have been proposing to abandon heavy nuclear ones and to build in the future ONLY aircraft carriers of air defense VI in 40 - 45 thousand tons ... And soon they will start building them. smile
                    Quote: squid
                    Quote: bayard
                    the enemy has no problems with opening the locations of our submarines, they are found several hundred kilometers away and accurately reach the target - thanks to the radar detection method

                    What? .. What method of detecting submarines?

                    Radar method - the use of the "ring effect" of detection of submarines on the so-called. "hump" over a submarine going at cruising depth.
                    And just don't argue with a radar specialist. In the USSR, this method was also studied and successfully detected by selecting the appropriate frequency range of the side-looking radar. The Tu-95 radar was just approaching and successfully detecting the "ring effect" around the submarine in progress. Then the buoys were dropped for additional reconnaissance and - voila.
                    Quote: squid
                    Worthy chick of Timokhin's nest.

                    I don't think Alexander is older than me. And Klimov too. I'm still in my sixties.
                    Quote: squid
                    A humanist with formidable terms.

                    No, he is a practitioner with a good humanitarian education. smile
                    Quote: squid
                    It sounds so impressive - "radar method"! Any internet hamster will get scared.

                    but you are not a hamster, are you? lol Won how they fought. bully
                    Quote: squid
                    No, citizen. A land airfield will be much cheaper than any ship, let alone an aircraft carrier, even if it is built on Novaya Zemlya

                    To this I have already answered. I hope it is exhaustive.
                    Quote: squid
                    And the stability and in general all the characteristics are much higher.

                    Yes, it is more convenient to take off / land from the runway.
                    But not cheaper.
                    Quote: squid
                    And the AWACS based on the Il-76 or Tu-214 (and in the long term MS-21) will be more serious than any deck maize.

                    According to the characteristics of the BRLK, it is unlikely, except that the loitering time is slightly less, so it is in the zone of a thousand or two kilometers. not to fly, and the turboprop engines burn fuel several times less than four hefty turbines.
                    Yes and no they are yet - A-100's.
                    And there are only six A-50Ns - for the whole Infinite.
                    Moreover, there are no AWACS aircraft based on Tu-214 and MS-21.
                    After all, a carrier-based AWACS aircraft take off from the deck and work in the AB area at a maximum distance of 200 - 300 km. So the operating time in the zone will probably be longer than that of the basic four-engine monster.
                    Quote: squid
                    And you can cover with normally deployed dispersed air defense systems and radars.

                    Here. yes They also remembered the anti-aircraft missile cover of the air base.
                    Four "Carapaces Enough"? smile This is only for the near zone.
                    And if you cover with at least one S-350 division ... repeat ... Well, what kind of money will such a luxury come out in?
                    Definitely cheaper than AV air defense?
                    And you count.
                    And taking into account that it should be deployed in the wild, with the arrangement of everyday life, a barracks for air defense personnel and houses for officers ... a boiler room ... a power plant yes After all, the places are wild.
                    Quote: squid
                    And, most importantly, all this will not fail from one rocket.

                    That is yes.
                    So after all, she will not arrive alone. yes
                    And if it does, it will certainly be nuclear. angry
                    How do you want? the enemy does not fight otherwise. bully
                    Quote: squid
                    Quote: bayard
                    What wars in the colonies?
                    What small ones?

                    Those in which Vova in Syria and Libya intermeddle. Come on and Venezuela's flag to demonstrate

                    And for these purposes, they will fit. yes and they will fit very well. bully
                    especially if together with UDC and a normal escort.
                    And there will be no irony in the voice of the commentators.
                    For the KUG \ AUG with such AB will be equivalent in terms of combat stability to the US AUG, and in terms of strike capabilities it will have a clear QUALITATIVE superiority.
                    Quote: squid
                    Quote: bayard
                    In Donbass, the clouds are gloomy again

                    We are urgently building an aircraft carrier!

                    No - we are urgently solving the "Ukrainian question" and restoring the territorial integrity of the United State. bully soldier
                    After that, we grow sharply in territory, population and resources.
                    And then - in 4 - 5 years, we begin to build aircraft carriers. laughing
                    Quote: squid
                    Quote: bayard
                    How can you weaken the defenses by strengthening it in every possible way?

                    Easily. Waste very limited resources instead of something useful on something completely useless.

                    To begin with, it is worth thinking about how to remove those restrictions - from the resources that are currently in place and hinder us. what For example, to cancel the notorious "budget rule" imposed on us by the IMF. bully Then revise and repeal the "Law on the Central Bank", with the abolition of this institution as such, and the restoration of the natural functions of the State. The Treasury and the State Bank of Russia.
                    Do you feel how it became easier to breathe?
                    From just one virtual action?
                    There are a number of other activities that should be carried out, but I will not talk about them for now.
          4. bayard
            bayard 10 March 2021 15: 24
            0
            Quote: squid
            ... they are unnecessary and even harmful for the defense of their coast.

            You are wrong - they are vital.
            And it is in this guise.
        2. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 10 March 2021 19: 12
          +1
          Quote: bayard

          But the Navy needs NEW PLO aircraft and AWACS aircraft for basic aviation.

          Good comment. And I liked the article as a person far from the marine theme. I liked the article precisely for its controversial nature with the articles of Klimov and Timokhin, which I also read with interest. I would very much like to continue the discussion. But it must be broken down by topic - naval aviation, how much and what is needed, the coastal zone NK, the oceanic NK, ships of the 1st rank, etc., the submarine fleet, etc.
          1. bayard
            bayard 10 March 2021 20: 35
            -1
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            Good comment

            Thank you for your kind words . But in fact, all of these topics have already been discussed more than once, these articles are simply spaced apart in time ... even for years. a year and a half ago, the topic of BMZ ships, first rankings, and the problems of the submarine fleet were discussed more than once. And naval aviation ... Many topics have already set the authors sore, because they are like peas against a wall ... But I think that there is a benefit, and there was ... for finally a decision was made to continue the series of corvettes 20380 and 20385 ... true with very dashing quirks like - "Give out to everyone according to the" Barrier "" ... but this is no longer about strategy and tactics, not about strengthening the defense, but about ... the unrestrained enrichment of some interested parties.
            So the topic with "Varan" surfaced - the need to develop and build just this type, tonnage and purpose, AB was then discussed and sorted out up to various scenarios of combat use ... And a project sane in terms of characteristics and cost appears ...
            Both Timokhon and Klimov will of course continue their publications, they have prepared a whole cycle there.
            Some have already been published.
            hi
            1. Krasnoyarsk
              Krasnoyarsk 10 March 2021 20: 54
              0
              Quote: bayard
              But I think there is a benefit

              Any discussion is useful. At VO, it can be quite long. We're not MO. They cannot argue about this for a long time. But we can.
              1. bayard
                bayard 10 March 2021 21: 03
                0
                ... Oh, and we discussed these topics for a long time ... the type, number and composition of the aircraft carrier's wing ...
                I defended exactly the same as "Varan" ... So gradually the idea of ​​atomic monsters dried up ...
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 March 2021 08: 32
      +4
      That is, one that can inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy's fleet when attempting to attack. And also to perform local tasks in the oceans, without claims to dominance.

      The provision of a positional area for SSBNs draws on a full-fledged fleet - minesweepers, corvettes, PLO aircraft, aircraft that will cover it, multipurpose (A) submarines. For local tasks, the minimum is frigates, submarines, supply vessels, landing forces.
      1. Pavel73
        Pavel73 9 March 2021 08: 41
        +6
        Yes. But there are no cruisers or aircraft carriers on this list. And everything else is quite within our power.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 March 2021 08: 45
          +1
          At a minimum. But the "landing force" presupposes vertical coverage; the presence of an aircraft carrier.
          1. bar
            bar 9 March 2021 10: 03
            0
            Quote: strannik1985
            But the "landing force" presupposes vertical coverage; the presence of an aircraft carrier.

            If the task is not to land troops on other continents (and such a task does not seem to be worth it), then in the near "far abroad" coastal aviation will fully carry out the vertical grip. A striking example of this is the Syrian operation.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 9 March 2021 11: 31
              +6
              A striking example of this is the Syrian operation.

              Syria is just an example of a negligent attitude towards the fleet, there the supply goes port - port, landing ships are not needed at all, ordinary ro-ro is enough.
              1. bar
                bar 9 March 2021 11: 42
                +1
                Aircraft carriers were even more unnecessary there. Kuzya went there only to practice.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 9 March 2021 12: 41
                  +2
                  Aircraft carriers were even more unnecessary there.

                  A fleet is desirable there, so that no "terrorists" have a desire to drown a ship with weapons and military equipment. For a ship connection, it is necessary to "move" the air defense line at low and extremely low altitudes, at least by helicopter - AWACS. Not around the clock, at a distance of up to 250 km, he will provide this. Far zone of PLO - again a helicopter is better. Search and rescue. One after another pulls and it turns out that UDC + pair of DVKD is desirable.
              2. Serg65
                Serg65 9 March 2021 13: 09
                -1
                Quote: strannik1985
                Syria is just an example of neglect of the navy

                What is negligence?
                Quote: strannik1985
                there the supply goes port - port, landing ships are not needed at all, ordinary ro-ro is enough.

                Where in 2015 could you get free ro-rokers? And now where can I get them?
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 9 March 2021 14: 10
                  +4
                  What is negligence?

                  Such "toxic" transportation should be carried out on the ships of the state shipping company or the auxiliary fleet of the Russian Navy, and not ruin the KFOR resource.
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 9 March 2021 14: 33
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    transportation must be performed on ships of the state shipping company

                    what And do you know many state shipping companies?
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    and not ruin the KFOR resource.

                    And they were not killed, due to their complete absence in the ranks of the Russian Navy!
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 9 March 2021 14: 40
                      +5
                      And they were not destroyed

                      Even as they ruined, the inheritance from the USSR was very quickly sold out in the early 90s.
                    2. Serg65
                      Serg65 9 March 2021 14: 57
                      +4
                      Quote: strannik1985
                      the inheritance from the USSR was very quickly sold out in the early 90s.

                      I thought we were talking specifically about the times since 2015!
                      Quote: strannik1985
                      Even as they ruined

                      This is a separate topic, full of tragedy and betrayal.
          2. Machito
            Machito 9 March 2021 11: 37
            +16
            Skomorokhov's answer to Timokhin and Klimov: the fleet is not needed, strategic aviation is needed. Articles by Klimov and Timokhin are much more reasoned. This article is frankly superficial, the topic has not been disclosed. How will the Tu-160 fight against submarines, AUG? How will target designation be carried out? Etc. You can ask a million questions about the article. The pictures that Klimov and Timokhin paint look complex, well thought out from all sides, including those with naval aviation.
            Nevertheless, the authors have a plus for polemics and alternatives.
            1. bar
              bar 9 March 2021 13: 19
              +4
              Quote: Bearded
              Skomorokhov's answer to Timokhin and Klimov: the fleet is not needed, strategic aviation is needed. Articles by Klimov and Timokhin are much more reasoned.

              Klimov and Timokhin have been digging this topic for a long time, and not only on this resource. One article against such a shaft does not solve much. But it's good that at least she appeared. I hope the authors will not stop there, and another point of view, alternative to Timokhin and Co., will also be supported by a sufficient number of reasoned publications.
            2. squid
              squid 9 March 2021 17: 00
              +2
              On the contrary, everything is clear and to the point. The fight against submarines (of course, on their shores) - frigates / corvettes and anti-submarine aircraft. AUG - missile volleys of Caliber / Zircon from Tu-160. NK target designation - space or coastal AWACS aircraft. Everything is quite obvious.
              I would add that aviation is not necessarily strategic - the same Su-57 or MiG-31 are quite suitable, they can launch calibers and zircons. And much more versatile.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 17: 20
                +9
                AUG - missile volleys of Caliber / Zircon from Tu-160. NK target designation - space or coastal AWACS aircraft. Everything is quite obvious.


                Obviously, even at the everyday level, you do not understand what you are writing about.
                Show you on a real satellite reconnaissance system how it works?
                As for the coastal AWACS, there is a Bez 310 in the comments, its naval missile-carrying aviation regiment on the Tu-22M went into such a training attack, on guidance from the A-50. Ask him how it ended there.
                1. squid
                  squid 9 March 2021 18: 11
                  +3
                  On the real one - is it at MKRTs Legend of the 70s? Or is it still on modern American radar and optical reconnaissance satellites? Progress in launch vehicles and satellites themselves is a topic for a separate and rather big conversation. And how to find a large NC from space in 2020 is not a problem at all. There would be a desire. In light of the upcoming deployment of the starlink low-orbit constellation for 42000 satellites, it is somehow indecent to say that it is so difficult to deploy a hundred or two for a reconnaissance constellation. And how would this grouping have to be withdrawn in any case, for the same ground, aviation and even airborne forces.
                  As for AWACS - sorry, what else are you going to provide target designation at sea? What kind of "fleet"? Do you know about the fact that the earth is round? Have you heard about the radio horizon? The main feature of the same augs is in the deck drills, which our naval commanders did not deny. As well as the problem of target designation for our RRC, which was solved (surprise!) By the "legend" and aviation (tu-95rts).
                  You yourself, Comrade Admiral, do you understand what you are writing about? Or if only to dream of big boats?
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 18: 17
                    +4
                    On the real one - is it at the MKRTs Legend of the 70s?


                    No, on modern Chinese "Yaogans".

                    And how to find a large NC from space in 2020 is not a problem at all. There would be a desire.


                    Well, show?

                    It is somehow indecent to say that it is so difficult to deploy a hundred or two for a reconnaissance group.


                    Well, Russia cannot cope with a couple of "Peonies" in any way, and not at all because of the money.
                    In addition, one must understand that a radar reconnaissance satellite is never a small Musk repeater.
                    Well, yes, for the money a hundred or two radar reconnaissance satellites cannot be mastered even by NATO entirely - very expensive.

                    As for AWACS - sorry, what else are you going to provide target designation at sea?


                    Do you even vaguely understand who you are writing all this to?

                    Okay.
                    Likbez.
                    About bypassing a real-life satellite reconnaissance system -
                    https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html

                    About what a control center is and where it comes from.
                    https://topwar.ru/176421-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-problema-celeukazanija.html
                  2. squid
                    squid 9 March 2021 19: 54
                    0
                    I have read your articles. For the future, the same can be stated five times more succinctly. Although, maybe someone on the contrary likes to stretch the pleasure. On the positive side, you cannot deny a certain liveliness of thought. Not a senile, it can be seen.
                    Now on the content of the articles. Target location data is suddenly out of date (wow!). It turns out that you can dodge a grouping of less than a dozen satellites (well, who would have thought!). And similar truths. But in fact it all boils down to the same thing - satellites, drone aircraft, additional rtr and hydroacoustics are added (obviously not for ranges of hundreds of kilometers). Only the information obtained by them is compared in some headquarters, which are intensely creaking with their brains (and I thought I pressed the button and that's it). And as a result, the author for some reason does not believe in the effectiveness of space reconnaissance in general and the "legend" in particular, as well as target designation beyond several hundred kilometers. The upcoming revolution in the means of launching spacecraft into space, progress in the development of the same satellites and optical / radar reconnaissance means, in satellite information transmission systems, etc. is completely ignored. The fact that the "legend" of the development of the 70s might have been ineffective, and that it might be possible to slip between the elements of the Chinese satellite constellation, does not at all prove that such a system cannot be created (with acceptable costs) now or in the near future. What needs to be done in military / civil space for this is a separate conversation. It is also quite possible to transmit the coordinates of the target in real time to a subsonic missile with a range of 5000 km now (although, perhaps, not yet for our country).
                    In general, your opuses in no way refute my thesis - satellites + aircraft drlo. Rather, on the contrary, they confirm. And in the USSR, 50 years ago, they came to the same conclusions, judging by the "legend" and the tu-95rts. The fact that there are no such satellites and aircraft now is not an argument. There are no aircraft carriers with cruisers and other things of your "big fleet" either, so what?
                    And most importantly, it is not clear where these arguments of yours come from in the dispute "missile-carrying aircraft" vs "large oil companies." If the target is detected in the same way, then why the missile salvo from the Tu-160, as the author suggests, will be worse than your RCR with aircraft carriers?

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Do you even vaguely understand who you are writing all this to?

                    I don’t know yet. Offhand - a retired capraz, playing in retirement soldiers on the Internet. Warmly?
                  3. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 20: 00
                    +3
                    Now on the content of the articles. Target location data is suddenly out of date (wow!). It turns out that you can dodge a grouping of less than a dozen satellites (well, who would have thought!). And similar truths. But in fact it all boils down to the same thing - satellites, drone aircraft, added rtr and hydroacoustics (obviously not for ranges of hundreds of kilometers). Only the information obtained by them is compared in some headquarters, which are intensely creaking with their brains (and I thought I pressed the button and that's it).


                    Did you understand the main thing with your companions? That there’s nothing to be found outside of their capture lane? And what does the enemy usually know about their orbits?
                    Satellites alone do not guarantee anything, absolutely.

                    As for the AWACS, I specifically suggested that you talk to a person who led missile carriers to strike at the surface target of the POLK precisely on commands from the AWACS aircraft. Chat.

                    And most importantly, it is not clear where these arguments of yours come from in the dispute "missile-carrying aircraft" vs "large oil companies." If the target is detected in the same way, then why the missile salvo from the Tu-160, as the author suggests, will be worse than your RCR with aircraft carriers?


                    Because of the same, why it is impossible to build a large catapult and throw huge cast-iron blanks across the continent into enemy ships, receiving data on the target from satellites. It is difficult, expensive and ineffective; in our conditions, even industrial facilities will not be able to master this.

                    I don’t know yet. Offhand - a retired capraz, playing in retirement soldiers on the Internet. Warmly?


                    Cold.
                  4. squid
                    squid 9 March 2021 20: 35
                    +2
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Did you understand the main thing with your companions? That there’s nothing to be found outside of their capture lane? And what does the enemy usually know about their orbits?


                    Well. Between 4-8 Chinese can be skipped (in your theory). And between 40-80? The counter-argument "expensive" is not accepted - no more than 1/100 of the starlink, and no more than 1/10 of it.

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    As for AWACS, I specifically invited you to talk

                    Why should I communicate with someone if, in your articles, reconnaissance aviation is the main tool for detecting NK? What will the description of a single case of unsuccessful achievement of the target give me if there were no other RC tools anyway?

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Because why can't you build a large catapult and throw yourself across the continent?

                    You have not understood the point of the argument.
                    Those. Is it possible and necessary to build a large catapult on the RRC, but not on the Tu-160? As a platform for anti-ship missiles than the Tu-160 in your opinion worse than your "large fleets"?
                  5. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 21: 15
                    +3
                    And between 40-80? The counter-argument "expensive" is not accepted - no more than 1/100 of the starlink, and no more than 1/10 of it.


                    There can be no such radar reconnaissance satellites. Technically.
                    Here is Peony, for example https://t.me/SeaPower/359 (below picture)

                    Why should I communicate with someone if, in your articles, reconnaissance aviation is the main tool for detecting NK?


                    But I didn't mean AWACS at all!

                    You have not understood the point of the argument.
                    Those. Is it possible and necessary to build a large catapult on the RRC, but not on the Tu-160? As a platform for anti-ship missiles than the Tu-160 in your opinion worse than your "large fleets"?


                    I am not a supporter of the RRC, this is in the first place.
                    Secondly, naval aviation and surface ships have different tasks.
                    They do not replace each other - they only complement. Here's an example of interaction:
                    https://topwar.ru/177552-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vzaimodejstvie-nadvodnyh-korablej-i-udarnoj-aviacii.html

                    and one does not work without the other, or works very badly.

                    To put it quite simply to the troglodyte level, ships hold the water area and do not allow enemy surface forces to break through until the aircraft arrives. Aviation destroys it, then the ships finish it off.
                  6. squid
                    squid 9 March 2021 21: 33
                    +1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    There can be no such radar reconnaissance satellites.

                    This refers to the scale of the entire starlink system, not a single satellite. 42000 satellites, the total cost is declared at 10 billion. What prevents, looking at this, at the current level of development, to withdraw not 4 naval reconnaissance satellites, but 44, at an acceptable cost? Generally speaking, there are many things that interfere with the current Roscosmos, but this is a topic for another big conversation. And achieving at least relative parity in space is much more important than any fleets.

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    But I didn't mean AWACS at all!

                    Well, what can you do if radar is the main way for aviation to reliably detect targets at a normal distance. I would not count on RTR in wartime, even though you like it so much.

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    one does not work without the other, or works very poorly.

                    ships hold the water area and do not allow enemy surface forces to break into it until the arrival of aviation. Aviation destroys, then the ships finish off.


                    Hold, yeah. In peacetime, they can knock with sides, punish the violator of the state border.
                    For war, you have 60-year-old performances.
                    Attempts to justify the existence of beloved beautiful large ships at any cost are visible.
                  7. S. Viktorovich
                    S. Viktorovich 9 March 2021 22: 39
                    +2
                    Reconnaissance and target designation from space is technically possible and the only thing that will make it possible to effectively use naval and aviation carriers.
                  8. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 10: 35
                    +2
                    What prevents, looking at this, at the current level of development, to withdraw not 4 naval reconnaissance satellites, but 44, at an acceptable cost?


                    The fact that they cannot be built at an acceptable cost.

                    Generally speaking, there are many things that interfere with the current Roscosmos, but this is a topic for another big conversation.


                    At the same time, you can discuss what is stopping the Americans and the Chinese. It can turn out to be a very interesting dialogue.

                    Well, what can you do if radar is the main way for aviation to reliably detect targets at a normal distance.


                    That's right, but where does AWACS have to do with it? You are demonstrating:

                    1. Lack of understanding of the capabilities of such aircraft, in particular the features of the radar field they create.
                    2. "Superlinear" thinking, so to speak, simplifies all the diversity of reality to one single option. But he is not alone.

                    Hold, yeah. In peacetime, they can knock with sides, punish the violator of the state border.


                    And in the military, they can create a zone of continuous acoustic illumination for hundreds of kilometers, in which any submarine is like a fly on glass, even a Seawulf, when trying to break through a submarine, lift helicopters for destruction or destroy it with an anti-submarine missile. And, the specificity of the ship, it can be in the search area for at least two months.
                    If the "flashed" submarine is far away, then it is possible to request the departure of anti-submarine aviation from the shore, which without a ship simply will not know that there is an enemy submarine in the area.
                    And this is just one single example.
                    There are actually many more of them.

                    For war, you have 60-year-old performances.


                    Well, how are you starting to understand already or not?

                    Attempts to justify the existence of beloved beautiful large ships at any cost are visible.


                    You can also be ugly. but so that the helicopter could lift on four points. And launch a rocket too.
                    And so that the watch could be carried without a vomit trough nearby.
                    And this is the length.
                    And the length requires proportional width and draft.
                    And she is GEM.
                    Excess volumes are stuffed with weapons.

                    Somehow it is in reality, with real, not fictitious, prices for satellites.
                2. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 10 March 2021 10: 00
                  0
                  Let's then just take it for granted that the detection of AUG is a debatable issue and with a high probability it will not happen. => The task inevitably comes down to the interception of missiles and aircraft fired from the AUG. But for us, this task needs to be solved only in a small area of ​​Komsomolsk-on-Amur, which can be attacked even from Hokkaido, even from South Korea, and we have a compact area that is quite easily stuffed with air defense, since there is a choice AUG is gone, then she becomes Elusive Joe.
          3. Runway
            Runway 10 March 2021 03: 16
            -1
            Timokhin did not wear epaulettes (any), but "plunged" into the topic and successfully monetizes the topic of naval suffering.
          4. squid
            squid 10 March 2021 03: 20
            -1
            I don't know what there is more - monetization or "city madman"
            Are there any serious authors here, or is it a collection of sofa experts writing articles to each other?
          5. Runway
            Runway 10 March 2021 03: 28
            0
            There are interesting articles with an insight into the history of TV. But there is a lot of "upholstered furniture" (sometimes it is funny to read both "works" and comments).
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 10 March 2021 11: 06
          -5
          Quote: WFP
          Timokhin did not wear epaulettes (any), but "plunged" into the topic and successfully monetizes the topic of naval suffering.

          Not only did you notice this - in my opinion, this hack is fed by someone, too often he admires the American armed forces and always shows how wretched everything is with us. Although any military specialist, reading his scribbles, will immediately understand that the next jacket has decided to try on admiral's shoulder straps. In general, the dog barks, the caravan moves on, conceptually, the problems of the fleet, except for the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces, are not particularly interested in the General Staff, which is why the groans of Timokhin and Klimov cause only an ironic laugh at their outlook.
        3. Runway
          Runway 10 March 2021 11: 34
          0
          It seems to me that you are going too far on the account of "feeding". The man caught the obvious, "long-running" topic for "patriotic criticism" for a commensurate reward.
          Having a flock requires a shepherd. In fact - "steam in a whistle" for the first and bread and butter for the second.
  2. ramzay21
    ramzay21 9 March 2021 20: 11
    +7
    The Americans have a space targeting system, they are now the most developed and advanced, but this is an auxiliary system and does not provide full coverage.
    AWACS aircraft are now the basis of target designation, but the problem is that they are not in the fleet. 4 pieces of A50u capable of something serve in the Aerospace Forces and no one in the Navy will give them away, they themselves do not have enough. Ancient 5 pieces of A50 with equipment from the 70s and 80s look beautiful on the parade, but they will not be able to detect modern targets, but even they serve in the Aerospace Forces. The A100, which is undergoing tests, will also be in the videoconferencing in a single copy. What AWACS aircraft are you going to operate in the Navy?
    And about the Legend. She never found an American AUG who didn't want to be found. In 1982, for example, neither the Legend nor the Tu 16R air reconnaissance regiment nor several nuclear submarines were able to detect two American AUG, which, as it turned out, were maneuvering 300 km from Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky and practicing strikes against our base.
  3. squid
    squid 9 March 2021 20: 47
    +4
    Well, first of all, it's not a fact that we know what the Americans actually have there. There was information that their radar reconnaissance group had improved so much that they are able (now or in the near future) to detect our mobile ICBMs in patrol areas even under tree crowns. What can we say about NK.
    Secondly, if the United States does not monitor the sea from space, then they did not have any opponents there until recently. Only now China can be matched to something like that. And even then against his fleet of carrier-based AWACS amer behind the eyes.

    Quote: ramzay21
    What AWACS aircraft are you going to operate in the Navy?

    The ones that will be created with the money saved from the construction of the "big fleet" and other expensive and useless garbage. And not for the "fleet" (in the sense of ships), but for aviation with anti-ship missiles, as the author of the article suggests. And, most likely, both AWACS and strike aircraft will be universal, and not some kind of special "sea".

    Quote: ramzay21
    And about the Legend. She never found an American AUG

    I'm not sure if it's straight "never". But the fact that the 50-year-old system 40 years ago did not find something is not an argument in favor of the fact that now it is impossible to make one that does. There would be a desire. Aircraft carriers are essentially the same, but electronics, radar, satellites and means of launching them have gone far ahead.
  4. Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 10 March 2021 08: 29
    +1
    Quote: squid
    Well, first of all, it's not a fact that we know what the Americans actually have there. There was information that their radar reconnaissance group had improved so much that they are able (now or in the near future) to detect our mobile ICBMs in patrol areas even under tree crowns. What can we say about NK.
    Secondly, if the United States does not monitor the sea from space, then they did not have any opponents there until recently. Only now China can be matched to something like that. And even then against his fleet of carrier-based AWACS amer behind the eyes.

    Quote: ramzay21
    What AWACS aircraft are you going to operate in the Navy?

    The ones that will be created with the money saved from the construction of the "big fleet" and other expensive and useless garbage. And not for the "fleet" (in the sense of ships), but for aviation with anti-ship missiles, as the author of the article suggests. And, most likely, both AWACS and strike aircraft will be universal, and not some kind of special "sea".

    Quote: ramzay21
    And about the Legend. She never found an American AUG

    I'm not sure if it's straight "never". But the fact that the 50-year-old system 40 years ago did not find something is not an argument in favor of the fact that now it is impossible to make one that does. There would be a desire. Aircraft carriers are essentially the same, but electronics, radar, satellites and means of launching them have gone far ahead.


    Very far.
    Capella Space's All-Seeing Eye: Harbinger of the Satellite Intelligence Revolution
    https://topwar.ru/178436-vsevidjaschee-oko-kompanii-capella-space-predvestnik-revoljucii-v-sputnikovoj-razvedke.html

    PMSM in the short term (15-30 years), no large military object on the surface will be able to hide and will be monitored in real time.
  5. squid
    squid 10 March 2021 08: 45
    0
    Well, some civilian humanitarians, posing as specialists in the fleet and opupey professionals with aplomb, scribble here articles and comments in the spirit of "vyvseletanti" and they say try to find that AUG at least 300 km away. And the conclusion - it is necessary to build the Great Fleet of 100-gun frigates of the 18th century model for boarding combat) Otherwise, there will be nothing to meet on the distant approaches))
  6. squid
    squid 10 March 2021 14: 20
    +1
    Thanks for the link. This was just not enough to poke Timokhin's nose.
    "the system is capable of receiving images with a resolution of 25 centimeters and higher"
    "The mass of the satellite is 107 kilograms"
    "the final constellation of 36 satellites will allow receiving an image of any part of the planet with an interval of no more than one hour"
    "The satellite was created (developed - approx.) In 4 years by a team of 100 people"
    Those. for 3 kopecks (by the standards of military budgets) and just a few years of development by a small team, you can create a system capable of detecting anything with an interval of 1 hour. And for 30 kopecks - by bringing out 10 times more satellites - apparently with an interval of 6 minutes.
    I hope Timokhin reads this and cries.

    In general, you have great articles. Thank )
  7. bk0010
    bk0010 10 March 2021 20: 43
    +1
    Quote: squid
    you can create a system capable of detecting anything with an interval of 1 hour
    Not to find, but to photograph a certain place. Further reasoning is purely theoretical, having no relation to real means. What is the probability that there will be an aircraft carrier in a 10x10 km image? Let's spit on the resolution, we are not looking for a needle, we shoot 10x60 km. Has it become much better? And so 5 times per revolution: for more, the baby does not have enough energy. We will neglect the limitations of the onboard storage device for simplicity. And then you must bring these pictures to the receiving point (from 0 to 90 minutes), drop, process and analyze (a person must work here, full automation is fraught). You may not lead to the receiving point, but use a repeater satellite (if you are allocated one), but such a kid does not have the means to work through it. Even if you have 136 satellites, you can only solve the problem of searching for AUG only by chance. There is an option to listen to the broadcast from orbit, but the AUG can go silently, like the British to the Falklands. Conclusion - it is impossible to rely on space in solving this problem (just detection, not issuance of control points), this is a purely auxiliary tool.
  8. Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 11 March 2021 08: 36
    +1
    Quote: bk0010
    Quote: squid
    you can create a system capable of detecting anything with an interval of 1 hour
    Not to find, but to photograph a certain place. Further reasoning is purely theoretical, having no relation to real means. What is the probability that there will be an aircraft carrier in a 10x10 km image? Let's spit on the resolution, we are not looking for a needle, we shoot 10x60 km. Has it become much better? And so 5 times per revolution: for more, the baby does not have enough energy. We will neglect the limitations of the onboard storage device for simplicity. And then you must bring these pictures to the receiving point (from 0 to 90 minutes), drop, process and analyze (a person must work here, full automation is fraught). You may not lead to the receiving point, but use a repeater satellite (if you are allocated one), but such a kid does not have the means to work through it. Even if you have 136 satellites, you can only solve the problem of searching for AUG only by chance. There is an option to listen to the broadcast from orbit, but the AUG can go silently, like the British to the Falklands. Conclusion - it is impossible to rely on space in solving this problem (just detection, not issuance of control points), this is a purely auxiliary tool.


    It is rather a demonstration that the creation of radar reconnaissance satellites is possible in a fairly compact size and relatively inexpensive.

    Even with the current characteristics and cost, the US Department of Defense can build and launch 2000-3000 of these, without much "straining" for the budget. Their orbits can pass in such a way as to maximally control the areas of interest to the United States (they do not need Antarctica yet). They can work in the interests of several departments at once - the Navy, the Air Force, the Ground Forces, the CIA, the NSA and others.

    But rather, for exploration, more advanced models will be created, more expensive, launched in smaller quantities, but much more functional.
  9. S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 11 March 2021 17: 37
    +1
    It is the dense satellite constellation that creates the obvious technological superiority. There is no need to refer to "Legends-Vines" - they are outdated even before their creation.
  10. ccsr
    ccsr 10 March 2021 11: 20
    0
    Quote: ramzay21
    And about the Legend. She never found an American AUG who didn't want to be found. In 1982, for example, neither the Legend nor the Tu 16R air reconnaissance regiment nor several nuclear submarines were able to detect two American AUG, which, as it turned out, were maneuvering 300 km from Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky and practicing strikes against our base.

    I do not know how reliable your information is, but I have already heard something like this somewhere, and in my opinion this is only evidence of the poor organization of reconnaissance by the Pacific Fleet department, because at first they hushed up the very fact of such a loss. Well, then, when they reported to the main headquarters, there they quickly determined the coordinates with the help of other reconnaissance systems. Moreover, if the AUG carried out the development of aviation tasks, then the radio engineering brigade of the air defense and the radio engineering brigade of the district intelligence department monitored their flights constantly. Or, in the worst case, an army radio technical regiment in that region could conduct radio interception and direction finding. So here we are not talking about the loss of the AUG as such, but about the misstep of the fleet intelligence, which, because of its snobbery, did not want to contact the neighbors, and when it got hot, they still did not turn to them, so as not to expose themselves to ridicule ... In general, this situation is not so much tragic as it is disorderly, and it is obvious, who knows how all this is organized.
  11. ramzay21
    ramzay21 11 March 2021 04: 45
    +1
    This case was described in detail by Rear Admiral Karev, a participant in these events. There is also a description of these events by the Americans, but it is better not to read them. In 1982, everyone took their duties very seriously and the General Staff was aware of everything that was happening. During this operation, the American AUGs were in radio silence, their radars worked in passive mode, so no electronic reconnaissance equipment detected them. Found these AUGs when they left the radio silence mode.
    There was another case, which was described by the Admiral of the Fleet Kapitanets, when he was the Commander of the Northern Fleet. In 1986, an American AUG maneuvered in the Norwegian Sea, although then it was found by the Tu 16P regiment, and the Legend system again did not find anything, moreover, according to the admirals, it turned out to be useless.
  12. ccsr
    ccsr 11 March 2021 11: 24
    0
    Quote: ramzay21
    During this operation, the American AUGs were in radio silence, their radars worked in passive mode, so no electronic reconnaissance equipment detected them.

    And before the establishment of the radio silence regime, the naval forces were not obliged to track the coordinates of this group, the speed and course of its movement? This means that the approximate area of ​​the AUG location in 6-12 hours could be quite accurately determined with a compass on the map, and accordingly, a reconnaissance aircraft could be sent there to fly around the area.
    But even if we take into account this regime, it means that the AUG was a useless enemy - the planes definitely did not take off, otherwise their onboard radars and the pilots' negotiations were sure to be detected.
    It is strange that our pilots of naval aviation at that time did not arrange a flight over the deck of aircraft carriers, if they were, as they say, 300 km from our borders.

    Quote: ramzay21
    and the Legend system again did not find anything, moreover, according to the admirals, it turned out to be useless.

    This statement shows the level of professional knowledge of this naval commander at a very bad side - the "Legend" reconnaissance system could carry out annual maintenance of the ground complex at that time, and it usually lasts several days. And if the naval gouging didn’t worry about how they would cover this hole in intelligence, then the Legend complex has nothing to do with it.
  13. ramzay21
    ramzay21 11 March 2021 21: 04
    +1
    At that time, the Pacific Fleet reconnaissance tracked all the Pacific AUGs, and one of the AUGs left the Japanese base, one of our reconnaissance ships recorded its exit and left in a southwestern direction, then turned on the radio silence mode and ours lost it. And they found it when she worked out strikes on our base in Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky, went further south and left the radio silence. Despite the radio silence, the AUG was in full combat readiness, all aircraft flew and carried out combat patrols, and even intercepted our scouts. Ours, as you say, drew a circle with a compass, sent our scouts in the direction of the departure of their planes, they found something and sent the MRA air division to strike, only there was no one there and they returned with nothing. The Legend system did not detect anything all this time. You can read in more detail from Rear Admiral Karev, it is better not to read a direct participant in the events from the Americans.
    This was stated by the person who commanded the Federation Council and uses this system in practice. And this practice has shown that, if you wish, you can become invisible to this system. In 1986, the AUG was in the Norwegian Sea and Legend did not find its approach there. As she did not discover in 1982, the action of two other AUG in the Pacific Ocean. During the exercises, everything worked perfectly, Legend detected the target, gave out the target control, and our nuclear submarines 949 and 949A launched Granites from a long range and they hit the target. Only when the target begins to evade this system does everything stop working, and this is what the SF Commander writes about.
    There is no need to idealize the capabilities of satellite reconnaissance, and ours and the Americans knew perfectly well how to deceive it. At our military enterprises, there was a graph with the time of flight of enemy satellites, and all the secret equipment at that time was hidden in hangars.
    To provide reliable reconnaissance and command control from satellite reconnaissance systems, tens of thousands of satellites are needed, and they must see in the dark and through the clouds, they must be able to transmit a huge array of data, and on the ground this entire array must be processed, and in a short time and transmit these data to a nearby ship. Nobody in the world is able to do this yet. To help you understand better, the US-A Legends active reconnaissance satellites consumed so much energy that they had to install a nuclear reactor.
  14. ccsr
    ccsr 12 March 2021 11: 33
    0
    Quote: ramzay21
    Despite the radio silence, the AUG was in full combat readiness, all aircraft flew and carried out combat patrols, and even intercepted our scouts.

    You are already contradicting yourself, i.e. they intercepted our reconnaissance planes, and of course it was difficult to guess from where the American planes took off in the ocean. And even more so, if American planes flew over the ocean, then I will never believe that the country's air defense forces on duty did not track them at a distance of 300 km, and did not keep them under control. The Osnaz regiment or the district brigade did the same - it could not have been otherwise in Soviet times. Well, the fact that the gouging with the Pacific Fleet missed the AUG and did not immediately request the General Staff, it has nothing to do with the capabilities of the reconnaissance technique.
    Quote: ramzay21
    You can read in more detail from Rear Admiral Karev, it is better not to read a direct participant in the events from the Americans.

    I laughed when I read his revelations, where he sagely declared that because of this, the third world war could start. Yes, naval storytellers have a certain charm, but it is time for them to moderate their fantasies so that the professionals do not laugh.
    Quote: ramzay21
    This was stated by the person who commanded the Federation Council and uses this system in practice.

    The chief of the General Staff Kvashnin officially announced that the orbital satellite constellation would replace Lourdes, after which smart people immediately understood what he was, if they did not know how the intelligence of the GRU, which was directly subordinate to him, was organized. So this is far from proof of the rightness of this person, especially since the "Legend" is not in his subordination.
    Quote: ramzay21
    At our military enterprises, there was a graph with the time of flight of enemy satellites, and all the secret equipment at that time was hidden in hangars.

    Well, don’t screw up garbage - have you at least been to serious enterprises? Firstly, nothing can be photographed inside the workshops, but between workshops everything is transported covered with awnings or in containers, without identification signs. Secondly, there were many enterprises, and not all US intelligence satellites could immediately identify, so it would be a monkey's work. And taking into account the time of circulation, even for an eight-hour shift, the reconnaissance satellites could fly over some object several times.
    Yes, in some cases this was necessarily taken into account, at test sites, in particular, during tests at stationary facilities, but not at enterprises.
    Quote: ramzay21
    To provide reliable reconnaissance and command control from satellite reconnaissance systems, tens of thousands of satellites are needed,

    This is nonsense - coastal radio reconnaissance systems also take good bearings of many of the radiation from both the aircraft carrier itself and from planes flying from it. And if the radar of an aircraft carrier is operating, then the reflected signal from flying aircraft can be received at our RTR stations, and even before they enter the coverage area of ​​our air defense systems.
    Quote: ramzay21
    For you to understand better, the active reconnaissance satellites US-A Legends consumed so much energy that they had to install a nuclear reactor.

    Yes, not the reactor of the classical type, but the type that our lunar rovers used - these are two big differences in the power of the RTG and the nuclear "boiler".
    Quote: ramzay21
    For you to understand better,

    My young friend, I am afraid that since I understand all this, you can hardly understand - you and I have too much difference in understanding these issues.
  15. ramzay21
    ramzay21 13 March 2021 09: 13
    0
    Ground and surface systems can detect and identify a surface target that is in radio silence at a distance of the radio horizon, that is, approximately 170 km, these are the laws of physics.
    The fact that our planes detected enemy aircraft does not at all mean that they found AB, they even determined the course along which these aircraft left, but this does not at all mean that these aircraft headed for AB, this is definitely not the case. The Americans should not be considered fools, they have a very serious and well-tried tactics of AUG and AUS actions. During this operation, they raised E2, and put it on patrol over an empty ocean, it approached this place at low altitude in radio silence mode, simulated takeoff from AB and turned on the radar, then patrol aircraft did the same, simulated takeoff, contact with ours and supposedly leaving in the direction of AB, imitated landing on PMV, according to the instructions of E2, which was working on transmission in radio silence mode, they left for AB, the same was done by E2. AV went further at full speed, and our MRA division, which arrived on the radio, with signs of AB work, flew into an empty ocean. And at this time, AB could work out strikes in another place. And this is just one of the many combinations of AUG work.
    I laughed when I read his revelations, where he sagely declared that because of this, the third world war could start. Yes, naval storytellers have a certain charm, but it is time for them to moderate their fantasies so that the professionals do not laugh.

    The participants in those events tell what happened in reality and your objections would be justified if you were there yourself or cited the stories of other participants in the events. And so it's just your, unsubstantiated opinion.
    This is nonsense - coastal radio reconnaissance systems also take good bearings of many of the radiation from both the aircraft carrier itself and from planes flying from it. And if the radar of an aircraft carrier is operating, then the reflected signal from flying aircraft can be received at our RTR stations, and even before they enter the coverage area of ​​our air defense systems.

    These tools can detect the operation of the radar and radio traffic of the AUG and aircraft, if it is being carried out, the problem is that they are not fools there either, as you suppose they are sitting, and they will not turn on the radar, and moreover, they will turn on the navigation lights like a tanker and will simulate the radio traffic of a tanker. And then what? They have already shown how it happens. Yes, our radio detachment detected the work at the frequencies of the AUG Midway, when the planes approached our coast by 150 km, on the PMV in radio silence mode, worked on our targets and returned to AB. And then, well, you put such stations every 300 km along the entire length of the coastline of the Russian Federation, that is, for almost 40 thousand km, you will end up a lot of money and they will also know about this and will simply fly up 200 km to our coast, to the PMV and in radio silence and launch rockets and that's it ...
    And the Americans said that in order to avoid being discovered by the Legend, they simply made their way, with the calculation of the time and place of flight of our satellites, observed radio silence and sometimes hid under the clouds. The money spent on the Legend was simply thrown into the wind, which was what those who really worked with her spoke about.
  16. ccsr
    ccsr 13 March 2021 20: 44
    0
    Quote: ramzay21
    Ground and surface systems can detect and identify a surface target that is in radio silence at a distance of the radio horizon, that is, approximately 170 km, these are the laws of physics.

    The radio horizon depends on the frequency of radiation and the propagation of waves in the atmosphere. For which radio waves did you define a radio horizon of 170 km?
    Quote: ramzay21
    The fact that our aircraft detected enemy aircraft does not mean at all that they detected AB,

    And where did they take off from, isn't it impossible to trace? Or do reconnaissance planes not have side-looking radar?
    Quote: ramzay21
    And this is just one of the many combinations of AUG work.

    You are in vain trying to amaze me with the fact that, in my opinion, is generally a trifle, compared to what was in the European theater of operations, where there were about a thousand nuclear weapons carriers alone, and we knew where each of them was. I know in practice how radio reconnaissance works together with air defense units in the near and distant, which is why I will never believe that if the naval reconnaissance went wrong, then all other types of reconnaissance also missed the presence of enemy aircraft in our near zone.
    Quote: ramzay21
    And so it's just your, unsubstantiated opinion.

    Maybe it doesn't mean anything to you, but professionals already understand that our intelligence is multi-level, and mistakes in the operational link of species reconnaissance does not mean that all other types of reconnaissance would have done the same, and could not reveal the preparations for the third world. Some former military men like to fill themselves with a price and this must be taken into account.
    Quote: ramzay21
    And the Americans said that in order to avoid being discovered by the Legend, they simply made their way, with the calculation of the time and place of flight of our satellites, observed radio silence and sometimes hid under the clouds. The money spent on the Legend was simply thrown into the wind, which was what those who really worked with her spoke about.

    I don't even want to comment on these fantasies - spit in the face of the person who told you this nonsense. By the way, to keep you informed, our other reconnaissance satellites also worked on more subtle targets and were able to identify even a small column of military equipment, which, against the background of the aircraft carrier, looked like a pencil on a writing table.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 9 March 2021 18: 19
    -5
    Quote: Bearded
    How will the Tu-160 fight against submarines, AUG?

    And they are not intended to fight the AUG, they have primary targets on the territory of the United States or its allies.

    Quote: Bearded
    How will target designation be carried out?

    The naval intelligence monitors the deployment of all large groups of enemy ships around the clock. Knowing the speed of movement of the marching order and tracking the course, you can hit the intended location with one ballistic missile with ten warheads, taking into account the flight time. Even if they do not hit any aircraft carrier or cruiser, after such a massive use of nuclear weapons on many ships, it will not only demolish many elements of superstructures, but also a dynamic strike on the hull can simply disrupt some of the mechanisms of the ships.
    Quote: Bearded
    The pictures that Klimov and Timokhin paint look complex, well thought out from all sides, including those with naval aviation.

    It is precisely that they are "artists", and realists understand that the fleet must increasingly switch to other combat systems, and first of all, strengthen naval aviation and coastal missile systems with a flight range from several hundred to several thousand kilometers.
    Quote: Bearded
    Nevertheless, the authors have a plus for polemics and alternatives.

    The authors more realistically assess the prospects for the development of the fleet, and it is good that some "specialists" will get acquainted with this opinion.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 9 March 2021 18: 43
      +7
      Quote: ccsr
      Realists understand that the fleet must increasingly switch to other combat systems, and first of all strengthen naval aviation and coastal missile systems with a flight range from several hundred to several thousand kilometers.

      What kind of "naval aviation" should be strengthened?
      PLA and IA? Or transport? How exactly should you strengthen?
      But about "coastal missile systems" I would like a little
      learn more deeply. What kind of "systems" are there with
      flight (probably rocket) up to several thousand kilometers?
      Something I'm completely confused ...
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 9 March 2021 20: 39
        -4
        Quote: Bez 310
        What kind of "naval aviation" should be strengthened?

        Bomber first, then anti-submarine, and only then reconnaissance. Fighter and transport aircraft should be left with the Aerospace Forces, it will be more expedient at least from the point of view of maintenance and operation.
        Quote: Bez 310
        But about "coastal missile systems" I would like a little
        learn deeper.

        Missiles for the near-field have long been created, for long-range air-launched cruise missiles, and placing them in protected launchers, it will be cheaper.
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 9 March 2021 20: 46
          +6
          Quote: ccsr
          Bomber first

          There is no such aircraft in the Navy ...
          Quote: ccsr
          for long-range upgrades air-launched cruise missiles,

          What missiles are we talking about?
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 9 March 2021 21: 29
          -2
          Quote: Bez 310
          There is no such aircraft in the Navy ...

          So it was necessary to create it, since the Northern Fleet became a district - there was front-line bomber aviation in the districts, and this was a normal phenomenon. Whether they want to be naval or not, they will have to rebuild, if only because they will bear some of the tasks of other branches of the armed forces, because in the North and the Far East they have the infrastructure for this.
          Quote: Bez 310
          What missiles are we talking about?

          First of all, about these:
          For the first time, Caliber missiles were presented at the MAKS-1993 air show. NATO received the codification Sizzler ("Ashbringer"). Range of action against sea targets - up to 350 km,
          on the coast - up to 2600 km.

          .....
          The X-101 air-to-ground strategic cruise missile (X-102 with a nuclear warhead) using technologies to reduce radar signature also received its first combat use in Syria, where they were used to strike terrorist positions. The main carriers are Tu-22 and Tu-160 bombers. The product was developed by the Raduga design bureau (1995–2013). The exact specifications were not disclosed. According to some reports, the launch range reaches 9000 km, and the circular probable deviation is 5 m at a distance of 5500 km.
        3. Bez 310
          Bez 310 9 March 2021 21: 53
          +6
          Sorry, I can't take it anymore ...
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 02: 31
          +2
          The ensign got you ...
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 18: 58
    0
    The authors more realistically assess the prospects for the development of the fleet, and it is good that some "specialists" will get acquainted with this opinion.


    The authors propose to build 5 Tu-160Ms per year to attack aircraft carriers.
    Prapor approves.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 10 March 2021 10: 05
      +1
      No one proposes to attack aircraft carriers, but an attack from a Tu-160 is at least much easier than an attack from surface ships, since the planes at least easily gather into one group, even with dispersed basing.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 10: 58
        +2
        It is very difficult to assemble aircraft into a group when taking off from different airfields, and in the case of the Tu-160, these will be very far-flung airfields.
        Aviation provides a more powerful missile salvo, ships - an instant strike from the tracking position, without flight time as aviation.
        Ships and planes do not replace each other.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 10 March 2021 13: 05
        0
        Collecting ships that are hundreds of kilometers from each other is impossible in principle. We will have some kind of frigate "Admiral First-time-about-this-hear" in tracking. He's definitely going to fight.
      3. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 13: 19
        +1
        They can get together in advance and then not disperse. The frigate "Admiral First-time-about-this-I hear" should simply report coordinates, course and speed and that's it. Others will recruit.
      4. EvilLion
        EvilLion 10 March 2021 14: 08
        +1
        Airplanes can be assembled from all over the country within XNUMX hours, ships, when half a dozen of them in each fleet cannot be assembled together in a week. Well, the "Admiral" will be guaranteed to be quickly destroyed, after which the enemy is free to sail in any direction. The Soviet squadrons did not just follow, but had to give battle right away.
      5. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 11 March 2021 14: 41
        0
        but they should have just fought at once.


        Well, what's the question then?
      6. Alexander Vorontsov
        12 March 2021 22: 45
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        Airplanes can be assembled from all over the country within XNUMX hours, ships, when half a dozen of them in each fleet cannot be assembled together in a week. Well, the "Admiral" will be guaranteed to be quickly destroyed, after which the enemy is free to sail in any direction. The Soviet squadrons did not just follow, but had to give battle right away.

        Seemingly simple thoughts.
        But for some they are somehow overwhelming.
        It is difficult for Timokhin to assemble planes) That's difficult and that's it.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    12 March 2021 22: 44
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Airplanes are very difficult to group together

    Yeah, exactly ... just like cockroaches scatter))))
    What is the severity? This is an ordinary task. There is no need to come up with frankly stupid "arguments".
    You also write that it is harder to take off than on a boat to sail on this, aviation generally sucks, and everything that floats "must have".
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    13 March 2021 00: 51
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The authors more realistically assess the prospects for the development of the fleet, and it is good that some "specialists" will get acquainted with this opinion.


    The authors propose to build 5 Tu-160Ms per year to attack aircraft carriers.
    Prapor approves.

    1 - when there is essentially nothing to answer, it remains only to ascribe what was not said. But you still cuddle at least sometimes.
    2 - no, it is better to build 5 ships, then divide them into 5 puddles, so that their bases would be under the sights of the MLRS, and from such a knee-elbow position .... what should Alexander do?)) Watch how American bombers fly over Ukraine, yes?)))) Protect the coast)))
    3 - endlessly dream of building a domestic "rather big aircraft carrier" ... a ship of omnipotence !! cheap unlike the Tu-160.
    Unlike the Tu-160, the crew of which will be only some ... 3-5 thousand, together with a shift. And the service of such a "city" in man-hours did you consider Alexander?))) Probably mere pennies - change the light bulb in the toilet at most, right?


    By the way, you actually once thought about it ... a floating city for 2 people, a battleship with appropriate life support systems. Ventilation. Communications.
    How many spare parts are there ... how many man-hours of work on replacement and maintenance ...
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 10 March 2021 09: 51
    0
    And the hell to fight the submarines, if the whole point of the fight is still to shoot down the missiles they fired? And AUG is aviation, which means that the air defense should fight it.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 12: 51
    +4
    And where was "vertical coverage" provided in the Syrian operation? Do you even understand what these words mean?
    1. bar
      bar 9 March 2021 13: 25
      -2
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      And where was "vertical coverage" provided in the Syrian operation? Do you even understand what these words mean?

      I am far from your understanding of this topic. In my thoughtlessness, for "vertical coverage" I took the support of the operation from the air, which, in the case of Syria, was provided by aviation from land airfields, for example, from Khmeimim. If I am mistaken, tell yourself about "vertical coverage", in any discussion terminology is the first thing.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. bar
          bar 9 March 2021 13: 41
          -4
          Quote: timokhin-aa

          With regard to the Navy - the landing of a part of the amphibious assault in the form of an air assault in the near rear of the enemy, and the rest of the assault - from the sea.

          Well, how would this beautiful theory look in relation to the Syrian operation?
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 13: 56
            +3
            So you gave it out about Syria. You also explain what is the connection between vertical coverage and Syria.

            And this is not a theory, this is practice, incl. our.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. bar
            bar 9 March 2021 14: 37
            +1
            I wanted to answer, but a wise comrade from below explained that there is no place for amateurs. Therefore, I merge. Sorry that, out of my own stupidity, I got into the discussion of such respected masters. hi
  • Serg65
    Serg65 9 March 2021 13: 07
    +1
    Quote: bar
    in the near "far abroad" the vertical grip will be fully carried out by coastal aviation. A striking example of this is the Syrian operation.

    belay Ooh, are you also a strategist?
    1. bar
      bar 9 March 2021 14: 31
      +3
      Quote: Serg65
      Ooh, are you also a strategist?

      What do you mean, I'm an ordinary dilettante and sofa theorist. Sorry, I did not know that without a diploma from the Academy of the General Staff, they would not be accepted into this discussion. recourse
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 9 March 2021 14: 59
        +3
        Quote: bar
        I did not know that without a diploma from the Academy of the General Staff, they would not be accepted into this discussion

        You don't even need a diploma, you just need logical thinking, freed from politics ... and that's it!
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 9 March 2021 18: 22
    +4
    Quote: strannik1985
    Providing a positional area for SSBNs pulls on a full-fledged fleet -

    which confirms the falsity of the SSBN concept for us request
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 9 March 2021 23: 04
      0
      But if we have already made these SSBNs and are going to make them again, then we need at least a fleet to cover their deployment. Probably this is a "full-fledged" fleet, but probably still not the fleet of the far sea zone, because without it SSBNs may not fulfill their task. And they won't be allowed to shoot from the pier, the pier is 100 km from NATO, and here the authors of this article are right, they are right that we really need the planes, but the use of the Tu-160 as carriers of anti-ship missiles is doubtful, and they have so few its own important mission, but the Tu-22 is better suited for this.
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 10 March 2021 08: 39
        0
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        ... they are also right that we really need planes, but the use of the Tu-160 as carriers of anti-ship missiles is doubtful, and there are so few of them and they have their own important mission, but the Tu-22 is better suited for this.


        Tu-22M3 will not be available soon enough. Tu-160s are significantly superior in all respects - combat load, range. And we can kind of build them.

        I considered the possibility of using the Dagger with the Tu-160 here:
        Hypersonic "Dagger" on the Tu-160. Reality or fiction?
        https://topwar.ru/153987-giperzvukovoj-kinzhal-na-tu-160-realnost-ili-vymysel.html

        But the Dagger itself is not an end in itself, since its anti-ship capabilities are in question, but it could be both Zircon and Aviation Caliber ...

        The main thing is to look at the radius of destruction on supersonic and subsonic (there is an error, but the order is clear). And refueling is even more interesting.

        And most importantly, as an element of the nuclear triad, the Tu-160 has a minimum value, they are exactly what is needed for conventional wars.

        50 Tu-160 x 24 KR / anti-ship missiles is 1200 missiles in a salvo. Missiles would be enough ...
        Now, let's take 10 sorties. Even if the ammunition load is half, then for 10 sorties it is 6000 CR / anti-ship missiles.
        1. squid
          squid 10 March 2021 09: 14
          0
          These Tu-160s surrendered to you. No doubt, to fly, for example, to the Indian Ocean only on them. But for the defense of its coast, additional heavy fighters or interceptors will be enough - su-35/37, moment 31. Caliber and zircon will be quite raised in mass. The dagger and its variations too. You can drive across the country quickly enough, with one or two refueling. Within a day, with all smoke breaks. At the same time, the IA will increase. And there will be an opportunity to maneuver forces not only between the theater of operations, but also the types and types of the Armed Forces - before and after all anti-ship volleys will be used as a conventional aircraft, preventing potential partners much superior to us from seizing air supremacy. Or work on the ground with guided bombs - from local to global conflicts. Double, triple, versatile use.

          And it is possible, as they rightly said, without any aviation at all - to launch the same modified calibers and x-101 directly from the coast, the range now allows. And the weight and size restrictions are removed - make yourself any missile of any range. Self-propelled launchers can be transferred by transport aircraft.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 10 March 2021 10: 07
            0
            Aviation can go to the point in a flock and fire a volley. Transport aircraft are hardly much cheaper than the Tu-160.
            1. squid
              squid 10 March 2021 10: 27
              0
              Quote: EvilLion
              Transport aircraft are hardly much cheaper than the Tu-160.


              Cheaper and strong. And they are needed in any case. And there are already and more are under construction.
              And ground-based launchers are much cheaper than aircraft carriers, their reaction time is higher (you do not need to take off) and consider that there are no restrictions on the size of ammunition in comparison with aviation.
              In general, a better combination of carriers Su-57, Tu-160 and ground anti-ship missiles.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 10 March 2021 10: 48
                0
                Ground-based, if this is not an ICBM, it is still necessary to drag it to the theater of operations. And they are more highly specialized. Although this does not diminish their need. It's just that different missile systems are more likely local troops, and strategic bombers are a mobile RGK.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 10 March 2021 11: 40
            -1
            Quote: squid
            These Tu-160s surrendered to you.

            You are assessing everything correctly, because for this aircraft it is simply a waste to suspend missiles for less than 5000 km. Indeed, "Daggers" are best suited for shorter-range and cheaper aircraft, and it is even better to develop a ground-based version of this complex in order to keep the entire near sea zone under control without aviation. It is hardly advisable to create a mobile version of such a system - the Americans will still quickly calculate its exit from the PPD, so that protected starting positions are more beneficial for us.
            Quote: squid
            to launch the same modified calibers and x-101 directly from the shore, the range now allows.

            We must come to this - it is reasonable and rational.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 9 March 2021 14: 38
    -3
    It is easier to do coastal missile systems with hypersonic missiles and anti-ship MRBMs - up to 5500 km with a range of destruction of submarines of anti-submarine and transport ships.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 9 March 2021 23: 09
      -1
      Vadim, how much can you talk about this? Well, we have already written 10 times about not getting normal target designation at 5000 km. Especially on submarines, and even ballistic missiles.
      1. squid
        squid 10 March 2021 10: 28
        0
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        do not get normal target designation at 5000 km


        Who told you? From satellites - easily. The Americans are either already receiving COs for our "poplars" in real time, or will soon receive them.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 10 March 2021 10: 49
          0
          Do you even understand that in real time you can only observe from a geostationary orbit from which you can see approximately a globe?
          1. squid
            squid 10 March 2021 11: 21
            -1
            Do you understand that it depends on the number of satellites? and that the launch of Mon into orbit is undergoing a revolution before our very eyes. and the satellites are completely different. and in space, for not so much money in our time, groupings are being deployed, which in the days of "legends" would have been considered fantastic.
  • Proxima
    Proxima 9 March 2021 16: 08
    +2
    Quote: Pavel73
    No, the Russian fleet is needed. But within reasonable limits. That is, one that can inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy's fleet when attempting to attack.

    Many authors focus on the closed nature of our fleets. This is especially true of the Black Sea and Baltic Fleets (I don't even stutter about the Caspian Flotilla). And they put it at a terrible disadvantage. Naturally, if, for example, the Black Sea Fleet is assigned the task of entering the open ocean during the period of hostilities, then yes, of course this is a problem. Well, and if for the navy, doctrine is the protection of the coast and the near sea zone, then this disadvantage turns into an advantage! fellow One has only to block a few straits and the enemy will not be able to realize his numerical superiority. There should be and doctrine that will emphasize for minesweepers, corvettes, frigates, destroyers, and of course submarines (inexpensive Varshavyanka can be used) - cheap and cheerful! good All this, combined with coastal defense, which is almost an order of magnitude cheaper, should have an effect. It seems to me that our naval strategists need to think in this direction when they place orders for warships. hi
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 9 March 2021 18: 21
    +1
    Quote: Pavel73
    The Japanese smashed our fleet piece by piece.

    there is more fault of the country's leadership and the fleet, which did not ensure the concentration of the fleet in the Pacific Fleet request
  • iouris
    iouris 9 March 2021 12: 05
    0
    The question must be posed differently: is it capable? Is it possible to finance these Wishlist for at least a hundred years (are there these hundred years?), To train scientific and engineering personnel, to create infrastructure, technologies, production ...
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 9 March 2021 13: 14
      +3
      Quote: iouris
      but is it capable?

      Capable!
      Quote: iouris
      Is it possible to finance these Wishlist for at least a hundred years

      Not possible .. over the past 100 years, the power in Russia has changed 8 times, and with it, the views on this problem have changed! I don't think that stability awaits Russia for the next 100 years.
  • DMi
    DMi 9 March 2021 12: 56
    0
    Yes, it is not needed. It seems to be quite obvious. Compact fleets to guard borders and support local wars. Anything more and "oceanic" is money down the drain. The Russian Federation cannot be an "oceanic" fighter either economically or geographically. Yes, and there are no real practical goals and benefits in the "ocean" fleet.
    1. Severok
      Severok 9 March 2021 13: 50
      -1
      We definitely do not have the ability either financially or physically to strengthen the quantitative and qualitative composition of the fleet.

      Anything more and ocean money down the drain ??? The strong Russian Fleet was never useless and in no way was the strengthening of the fleet a waste. Russia is able to strengthen the Fleet qualitatively and quantitatively, but the "managers" are incapable of creation - their hobby is to sell everything and everyone, and to fill their pockets tighter, which we have seen for the last 30 years in Russia.
      1. DMi
        DMi 10 March 2021 19: 28
        -1
        What happened is gone. All references to historical victories and conflicts should be forgotten. The central idea of ​​the article is that TECHNOLOGIES have changed. The weapon has changed. The tactics and strategy of using weapons have changed. Most likely, the fleet will soon begin to disappear altogether as a type of troops, and will only have an auxiliary value. And in all countries.
        Once upon a time, the cavalry was the main strike instrument on land. Until a machine gun and an armored vehicle with an internal combustion engine appeared. Soon large surface ships will look the same anoranism as a cavalryman with a saber bald.
        1. Severok
          Severok 13 March 2021 02: 53
          0
          The fleet will never play a secondary role.
          See the History of the Russian Fleet: starting with the "oaks" of Prince Igor, continuing with the galleys of Peter, following the sloops of Lazarev and Bellingshausen, passing through the brig Mercury, holding on to the bastions of Sevastopol, keeping the honor of the flag with the guns of the Varyag and Koreyets, coastal batteries of Port Arthur and the forces of Admiral Makarov passing the narrows of Moonsund and the crampons of the White Sea throats, the economic whirlpools of the construction of Sevastopol and the Gangut / October Revolution, squeezing through the shallow waters of the White Sea-Baltic Canal and exhausting extreme forces on the Lend-Lease caravan escorts, weaving the Baltic and the Black Sea coast from mines, keeping provocative attacks by USA NAVY and NATO forces, retaining strength during the betrayal of Gorbachev-Yeltsin, the Russian fleet stood with honor and dignity despite all measures to weaken and glorify it.
          Unfortunately, the modern weakening of the Russian Fleet does not depend on the people of Russia, as in the days of the emperors of Russia, but entirely on the conscience of the inviolable presidents, deputies, council of federations and admirals of Russia, who do not care about the Fleet like their own child, but only stick to him like leeches.
  • Sevastiec
    Sevastiec 10 March 2021 13: 51
    0
    In addition to strategic and tactical submarine forces and littoral ships, we need one or two strong expeditionary squadrons, certainly with aircraft carriers. This opinion, I had after Libya and since then, has not changed.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 9 March 2021 07: 14
    +1
    I don't know, but the money put into the URAL ship would be enough for a couple of car factories. And what did you get? But nothing. More precisely, billions of losses, and admiral's show-off.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 9 March 2021 12: 20
      +5
      Quote: Free Wind
      What did you get?

      An excellent reconnaissance ship with phenomenal capabilities! The fault of the ship is that it was born at the dawn of the decline of the USSR and that Comrade Gorbachev, by the hands of Comrade Yazov, simultaneously deprived the ship of most of the specialists by means of a decree on the dismissal of all students from the ranks of the SA and the Navy! The recruitment of ordinary conscripts was the beginning of the end for SSV-33!
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 9 March 2021 14: 38
        -1
        Do you consider a ship that no one needs more than a car factory for the country? The ship was created to watch the Americans launch a training missile. Damn, a training rocket ...
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 10 March 2021 13: 30
          +2
          Quote: Free Wind
          No one needs a ship

          This is just your personal opinion!
          Quote: Free Wind
          do you think the ship is more necessary for the country?

          There were 3 car factories that could not provide the Soviet people with passenger cars and do you think that the fourth would just do it?
          9 truck factories NINE! And for the construction of the BAM, they bought Czechoslovak, American and Japanese equipment !!!! And do you think that the tenth plant would solve this problem ????
          Quote: Free Wind
          The ship was created to watch the Americans launch a training missile

          The ship tracked the entire North and Central Pacific Ocean!
          Quote: Free Wind
          Damn, a training rocket ...

          The training one often becomes a combat missile and not knowing its performance characteristics threatens with big problems! Well, I suggest you secede from Russia, make Novorossiysk a free port and you will have unlimited happiness !!!!!!!
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 9 March 2021 18: 40
      0
      Quote: Free Wind
      I don't know, but the money put into the URAL ship would be enough for a couple of car factories.

      Do not fantasize, because the VAZ plant in Togliatti cost the USSR $ 2,2 - 2,4 billion in the sixties (about 1,8 - 2 billion rubles at the official exchange rate), and the cost of building the "Ural" was somewhere around 100 million rubles, which was two to three times cheaper than the cost of a destroyer of those years.
      Quote: Free Wind
      But nothing. More precisely, billions of losses, and admiral's show-off.

      And nothing that the construction of the "Ural" was directly approved by Brezhnev, after the GRU General Staff presented the most detailed intelligence reports about the Egyptian-Israeli war, and when it became clear that with small and medium reconnaissance ships we are simply not able to track even such conflicts? You apparently do not understand that it was thanks to the intelligence ships that we were able to monitor the situation in detail and make appropriate decisions at the level of the secretary general.
      Young intelligence officers, who came on duty 5-6 times a month, were delighted with the Israeli holiday. Among them was senior lieutenant Mikhail Shatberashvili.
      He recalls the day the war began as follows:
      “Yes, indeed, having taken over the operational duty, I expected to carry it out without fuss and hassle. But very soon I had to say goodbye to dreams of a quiet watch.
      Later, we learned that the day before, the commander and his deputy for reconnaissance, Captain 2nd Rank V. Popov (upon returning from combat service, he was awarded the Order of the Red Star) had repeatedly negotiated with Moscow, during which our chiefs from the General Staff guided them on the possible transfer of the Israeli armed forces to increased combat readiness and the start of hostilities.
      Captains of the 2nd rank V. Popov and A. Tityaev, head of service No. 4, were constantly at the post of the operational duty officer, analyzing the data of radio interception and the nature of the work of the reconnaissance families of the ground forces, the Air Force and the Navy. "
      After 10 o'clock in the morning, the electronic intelligence ship "Crimea" noted the activation of the medium-wave beacon for flight support of Israeli aviation "Rafah", which was located on the Israeli-Egyptian border. This indicated that in about 40-50 minutes Israeli aviation would start flying.
      The "Gabriel" missile guidance station of the "ship-to-ship" class also came to life on the air. According to the intelligence data, it was possible to draw a conclusion: four modern Saar-4 missile boats went out to sea from Haifa. Two of them - "Reshet" and "Keshet" - were identified by the "rumors" of the electronic reconnaissance ship.
      And now, finally, a massive rise in Israeli aviation. The first to receive this strategic information was the foreman of the shift of radiotelegraph operators, the chief sergeant-major N. Sushenitsa. Upon his return from the campaign, he will be awarded the medal "For Military Merit".
      The information was transferred to the post of the operational duty officer. Here she is received by the deputy commander for intelligence.
      What happened next, recalls Mikhail Shatberashvili:
      “With a brief but extremely important report, I ran from all legs to the commander’s cabin. The commander reads, crosses out the word "Urgent" and puts the highest category of urgency in the Armed Forces of the USSR - "Air!"
      The cipher’s cabin is next to the commander’s, and a minute later the cipher telegram is sent to the recipients.
      So in the hot autumn of 1973 the war began. ”
      This was the ship's fifth cruise in the Mediterranean. Many officers and warrant officers have accumulated considerable experience in enemy electronic reconnaissance. True, going to sea at the end of August, no one could have imagined that they would have to work, in fact, in the war, during the Arab-Israeli conflict. A trip to the hottest spot in the Mediterranean will last five months, instead of the planned one hundred days.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 9 March 2021 07: 32
    +14
    The myth that the fleet will meet the enemy first
    This is not a myth, if not exaggerated and distorted. The fleet is like border guards, a quiet war does not stop there, the fleet is always in business. Whether the fleet promptly fends off the threats of "peacetime", how successfully it solves local problems, will largely depend on whether it comes to a big war. This is what the strategists of the "land" of Russia stubbornly refuse to understand.

    There will be no new Jutland naval battle or new semblance of battle for Midway Atoll if a global war breaks out. In the photo, the US Navy base Norfolk.

    This, it is much easier to destroy at once, one nuclear warhead. Here, only, all this will spread over the seas and oceans, as soon as the threatened period begins, this will be the main task of the fleet, if it comes to an inevitable global conflict, only the pre-launch component will be important. After the exchange of nuclear strikes, there will be little sense in the struggle for communications, as, most likely, in general in the surface fleet.

    Therefore, we need a fleet not for a big war, but for its prevention. We need a fleet not to fight wall to wall, but to create full-fledged groupings capable of solving all tasks at sea. So, behind these groupings the entire nuclear power of the state should stand. To deny the fleet, its role in the geopolitical factor of our time, is at least short-sightedness, but by and large an ideological sabotage, sabotage. The fact that our "sworn friends" and "partners" primarily contributed to the destruction of our fleet speaks volumes.
    1. bar
      bar 9 March 2021 10: 05
      -1
      Whether the fleet promptly fends off the threats of "peacetime", how successfully it solves local problems, and will largely depend on whether it comes to a big war.

      This is just demagoguery. However, like everything else written.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 9 March 2021 10: 38
        +5
        Quote: bar
        This is just demagoguery.
        What is the falsity of the statements? The article asks, - "Does Russia need a strong fleet?"Then, let's decide what kind of Russia we are talking about, weak or strong? Demagoguery, to prove that a strong country has a weak fleet. If anyone is for a weak and dependent Russia, it is clear why such a Russia should have these two loyal allies - the army and the fleet, two new colonial ones are enough - oil and gas.
        Also, the fleet does not appear suddenly, what one needs to have today had to be created far away "yesterday". The construction of the fleet is both new technologies and jobs, the most important thing is the strength of the entire state, state policy.
        1. bar
          bar 9 March 2021 10: 51
          -3
          Quote: Per se.
          What is the falsity of the statements?

          I didn’t talk about falsity. Your statements are absolutely true, like slogans on posters in the USSR. And just as far from real life.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 9 March 2021 12: 09
            +8
            Quote: bar
            Your statements are absolutely true, like slogans on posters in the USSR. And just as far from real life.
            This is called ideology, if you like, ideological warfare. We lost the USSR not because there were correct slogans only on the posters, but because we believed the advertising gloss of the West, the wolves in the sheep's clothing of "democracy."
            Here, ideological lies, duplicity, hypocrisy and demagoguery, the Anglo-Saxons have no equal. You, very likely, are also here for someone else's uncle, "drown", as clearly not stupid person, should understand the obvious things. Let's ruin our shipbuilding, our fleet, after that you can't buy it. There can be no strong and independent country without a strong fleet, for a strong fleet, naturally, you need a strong science and a strong economy.
            1. bar
              bar 9 March 2021 12: 30
              -1
              Quote: Per se.
              We lost the USSR not because there were correct slogans only on the posters, but because we believed the advertising gloss of the West, the wolves in the sheep's clothing of "democracy."

              At the expense of "we", I would not generalize. Any nation is often led to beautiful candy wrappers, it is difficult to blame them for this. We lost the USSR due to the complete disintegration of our "leading and inspiring force" from the very top. And what about the people, at the referendum, the people voted for the preservation of the USSR, and it was not the people who ruined it.
            2. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 12: 35
              +7
              Quote: Per se.
              There can be no strong and independent country without a strong fleet.

              It is so, but without a strong merchant fleet, we will never have a military. If you look at the Russian ports, it turns out that the bulk of the ships on loading and unloading under foreign flags. And even the state-owned Sovcomflot walks under foreign rags. Based on this, the conclusion suggests itself that today's state does not really need a fleet.
              To an uninitiated reader, the numbers given in the table will probably not say anything, therefore, for comparison, we will give some data. Let's take 1992 as a basis. In the White Sea-Onega river shipping company, which was barbarously plundered and destroyed in the 2000s, about 200 units of dry-cargo fleet of river-sea navigation vessels were in operation. That is, in one shipping company there were about as much as now in 31 shipping companies. The Baltic Shipping Company, which became the first victim of large-scale theft already in 1996, was in operation about 170 units of sea and ocean vessels of various types, which are currently completely absent in Russia. The Volgotanker Shipping Company, which was destroyed after 2003 as a result of the destruction of Yukos, operated more than 250 tankers of various types, that is, almost three times more than at present in all companies that own a tanker fleet. I believe that the scale of the catastrophe that befell the Russian merchant fleet in the last 18 years is not so difficult to comprehend by comparison.

              https://balt-lloyd.ru/sudohodstvo/torgovyj-flot-rossii-na-konec-2018-goda.htmal
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 9 March 2021 15: 00
                +3
                Quote: Mordvin 3
                It is so, but without a strong merchant fleet, we will never have a military.
                This is the economy in general, our shipbuilding in particular, experience, personnel, capacities. Earlier, much attention was paid to the mobilization component of the military fleet at the expense of the civilian. Where is it now?

                Our "partners" tried to clean everything up in such a way that, for example, even the prospect of re-equipment of the 1609 project, the code "Atlantic", disappeared, and the newest ro-ro ship of the series, "Vladimir Vaslyaev", was bought by the Americans themselves and modernized for their Navy ("USNS LCPL ROY M. WHEAT ").
                By the way, the project 10200 "Khalzan" was created on the basis of the civilian project of the ro-ro launch "Captain Smirnov".
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 17: 21
                  +1
                  Halzan is a sawmill named after. Admiral Amelko, it's a sin to remember this project in vain.
            3. DrEng527
              DrEng527 9 March 2021 18: 26
              +2
              Quote: Per se.
              Therefore, we need a fleet not for a big war, but for its prevention.

              very reasonable! can be added to implement the specific interests of the country at the right points ...
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 9 March 2021 12: 35
            +2
            Quote: bar
            just as far from real life

            And what exactly is Sergey's reasoning from real life? How do you personally view this?
            1. bar
              bar 9 March 2021 12: 51
              0
              I personally look at it this way - for real life, real sentences are needed, and not general beautiful words. And even if these proposals are controversial, as, for example, among the authors of the article or their opponents.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 9 March 2021 12: 56
                +2
                Quote: bar
                I personally look at it this way - for real life you need real sentences, not general beautiful words.

                I see that you are beating around the bush and that you don’t have anything specific ...
          3. The comment was deleted.
    2. iouris
      iouris 9 March 2021 12: 36
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      our "sworn friends" and "partners" primarily contributed to the destruction of our fleet

      They "contributed", not "destroyed". And who destroyed it? And what about their names, addresses, turnout passwords? Where do they work now? Without knowing the answers to such questions, how can you create something?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 9 March 2021 13: 04
        +5
        Quote: iouris
        And what about their names, addresses, turnout passwords?

        Grachev died.
        F. Gromov-died.
        Kuroyedov is a member of the Presidium of the Academy of Military Sciences.
        V. Baskov (the father of that same Baskov) - died.
        They destroyed, but Borjomi was drinking late ... the train left!
        1. iouris
          iouris 10 March 2021 09: 24
          0
          Drink Essentuki.
    3. DMi
      DMi 9 March 2021 12: 59
      0
      List the peacetime threats that the fleet must fend off. It is very interesting to me.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 13: 40
        +1
        Here
        https://topwar.ru/175267-sposobnost-voevat-na-more-jeto-neobhodimost-dlja-rossii.html
    4. squid
      squid 9 March 2021 17: 16
      0
      Well, what "threats" will our Grand Fleet, built using the resources of aviation and ground forces, fend off? I hope you understand that the budget is limited, and spending more somewhere else will get less? Will the Grand Fleet protect us from NATO, whose border is on land? From China? Will it help with Ukraine? Will it help out in the Caucasus? Will it be able to withstand the maritime (by geographic conditions) power of the United States, whose military budget is 10 times larger and the natural importance of the fleet is much higher?
      One demagoguery in the spirit of "what country was destroyed!" Of course, the Great Fleet would be useful, as well as the Invincible Air Force and the Indestructible Army ... Who is against that? But so far there is only a limited budget, 12 times less than the American, 4-5 times less than the Chinese, and even less Saudi. And these modest resources should be directed not to what may be useful to us, but to what we cannot do without.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 9 March 2021 18: 49
        -3
        Quote: squid
        But so far there is only a limited budget, 12 times less than the American budget, 4-5 times less than the Chinese, and even less Saudi. And these modest resources should be directed not on what may be useful to us, but on what we cannot do without.

        And they don’t want to take this into account, it’s easier for them to use slogans like “you give coal, fine, but up to ....”
        So it turns out that the bawlers in the person of Klimov and Timokhin carry all sorts of nonsense, and if someone, like the authors of the article, tries to explain at least something to them from the point of view of common sense and economic opportunities, then they are immediately recorded as enemies of the fleet. Although smart people already understand that the country's defense must be built on the basis of the effectiveness of weapons and their prices, some naval officers still cannot understand this truth. And then again we will scratch turnips, why again we were left without pants.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 02: 28
          +1
          the point of view of common sense and economic opportunities,


          prapor, 50 Tu-160M ​​is 750 billion.
          This is if without modernization for anti-ship missiles and so on. Wishlist Vorontsov.
          1,5 rebuilt for the Sochi Olympics.
          2 rather large aircraft carriers.
          48 patrol ships designed without fanaticism.
          190 normal naval attack aircraft based on the Su-34.

          So what about the authors with common sense, and the ensign?

          By the way, keep in mind that people like you do not usually have a psyche for a long time with me.
          There was one activist, I still tortured him until he was completely incapacitated.
          And I will finish you off, ensign too.
          You will stick a spoon in your ear.
          Two years later.
          laughing
          1. squid
            squid 10 March 2021 09: 28
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            190 normal naval attack aircraft based on the Su-34.


            Another gem from the great naval commander ... Why the heck are you a naval strike aircraft based on the Su-34? Why on the sea its capabilities for bombing unguided ammunition, radar for work on the ground, some armor and other attributes of a front-line bomber?
            It is much more efficient to use multipurpose fighters - su 35 or 57. For launching anti-ship missiles, it will only be better, how the aircraft will be able to work and, in general, an incomparably more versatile aircraft, whether on land or at sea. Su-34 is better only for bombing barmalei in different Syria.
            The Tu-160M ​​will come in handy as a "distant hand" - to fly over the Atlantic and generally keep half the world in sight. Instead of your "ocean fleet" useless. Target designation, as you have already reliably proven, can be taken from satellites.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 10: 53
              +3
              Another gem from the great naval commander ... Why the heck are you a naval strike aircraft based on the Su-34? Why on the sea its capabilities for bombing unguided ammunition, radar for work on the ground, some armor and other attributes of a front-line bomber?


              Because the Su-34 glider allows you to lift heavy long-range missiles, the same Onyxes, and this is a large missile weighing 2,5 tons in the aviation version.
              You have not forgotten that the enemy ships must be DESTROYED, and not just found?
              The radar will need a different one, the engines too.

              It is much more efficient to use multirole fighters - su 35 or 57.


              It is very difficult for one pilot to have long combat missions, this was tested in the 90s on the Su-27. At the same time, hitting a sea target is very difficult in itself and one person may simply not be able to cope. The Su-34 has large internal volumes for electronics, for the installation of mutual information exchange systems, an information terminal for joint actions to ensure interaction with surface ships, etc.

              The Tu-160M ​​will come in handy as a "distant hand" - to fly over the Atlantic and generally keep half the world in sight.


              Pink pony is detected. Well, he CAN'T do what you attribute to him, do you understand it or not? Technically, it can't.
              1. squid
                squid 10 March 2021 13: 35
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Because the Su-34 glider allows you to lift heavy long-range missiles, the same Onyxes, and this is a large missile weighing 2,5 tons in the aviation version.


                Su-34 engines have noticeably less thrust than 35 and 57. The maximum permissible declared weight of the BN is really higher, but even for the 35th it is 8 tons - enough for any calibers and zircons. Even on the Su-30, up to three brahmos are hung up. Moreover, most likely this is a limitation on the suspension nodes, and not the airframe. It will be necessary - it can be increased, for the same f-15 as far as I remember about 11 tons.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Long combat missions are very difficult for one pilot.

                It would be hard - there would be no combat radius of 1500 km in a single-seat aircraft. At the very least, they would make a double one at once. 3-4 hour flight, not so fantastic.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                hitting a sea target is very difficult in itself and one person may simply not be able to cope


                The 70s are long gone. Everything is automated. As easy as launching a jassm-er from a single-seat f-35

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The Su-34 has large internal volumes for electronics, for the installation of systems for the mutual exchange of information, an information terminal for joint actions to ensure interaction with surface ships, etc.


                A huge advantage by the standards of 40 years ago

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                He CAN'T do Technically he cannot.

                Why would a heavy bomber, specially designed for launching cruise and aeroballistic missiles, suddenly be unable to launch such a missile at ships? If even a single-seat fighter can.
                Because you don't feel like it? Because then the meaning in your precious ships disappears?
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 10 March 2021 10: 11
            0
            1 Corvette 15-30 billion. Su-34, it seems like 1 billion is estimated.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 10: 53
              +1
              The standard version of the Su-34 is unusable; it will be necessary to make a new car in this glider, it will be more expensive. Plus weapons.
          3. ccsr
            ccsr 10 March 2021 10: 54
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            50 Tu-160M ​​is 750 billion.

            And I did not argue that this should be done - the authors of the article are also the same jackets as Timokhin, so they are talking nonsense, not realizing that we can’t pull it, and we don’t need so many of these planes.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            So there are authors with common sense,

            Nevertheless, they have more common sense in their texts than both Klimov and Timokhin, and this immediately catches the eye.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            By the way, keep in mind that people like you do not usually have a psyche for a long time with me.

            Calm down, verbiage, your place on the stage, you will give performances there.
            So will you continue the lies about Iraq, or is it enough for the conclusion of a team of military specialists, under the leadership of the Colonel-General? Look, don't put a spoon in your ear from such a disgrace ...
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 13: 27
              +3
              Haha, that tore you up.
              So will you continue the lies about Iraq, or the conclusion of a team of military specialists is enough


              I didn't lie about Iraq. In Iraq, everything was absolutely unambiguous. It's just that a drunken warrant officer suddenly found out that there are people who know these things in detail and hysteria.

              Tell me, ensign, did the drivers who broke through on fuel trucks to the American checkpoints in Baghdad have M-16 or M-4 with them? And the guy who drove the burning fuel truck away from his own was white or black?
              I know to such a degree how it was there.
              I know that the money to bribe the Iraqis had to be transferred by the "berets" that were attached to every beat. c of the 3rd Infantry, which entered Baghdad, and I know that they were met with fire in the end and they had to fight along with the infantry.
              I even know what kind of pickups they were given in order to move around among the locals.
              I know what the commander of the Iraqi brigade was counting on when he led his own in the last attack near Baghdad, at the junction.
              And I know how close he was to the goal.
              There were not enough guns, which the Americans had previously killed with contraband fire.
              Otherwise, a tank brigade would have broken through to Baghdad ahead of the Americans along with the remnants of Medina, and the war would have gone completely differently.
              The ensign is far from me.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 10 March 2021 18: 29
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I didn't lie about Iraq. In Iraq, everything was absolutely unambiguous.

                Lied, and brazenly - that's what you verbiage claimed:
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                That's just in Iraq in 2003, it was not so much American aircraft that won as American tanks.
                So, between us.

                And here is the authoritative opinion of military professionals:

                In 2008, the Institute of Military History of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation published a 764-page work "The Art of War in Local Wars and Armed Conflicts." With regard to the wars in Iraq, it draws the following conclusion. “Characteristic of the war in the Persian Gulf was the fact that ... in this war, the dominant place belonged to strategic and operational means, represented by ... aviation, as well as missile means. Tactical formations and their actions (infantry, tank, and artillery formations and units) did not determine the "face" of the operation ..., its course and outcome.»


                A.V. Usikov, G.A. Burutin, V.A. Gavrilov, S.L. Tyshlykov, under the general editorship of Colonel-General A.S. Rukshin, Moscow, Military Publishing, 2008, p. 308

                So which tanks could decide the fate of the war, if everything was decided by aviation and missile weapons at the strategic and operational level?
                Since when did tank units become part of the operational and strategic echelon? Learn materiel, verbiage.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Otherwise, a tank brigade would have broken through to Baghdad ahead of the Americans along with the remnants of Medina, and the war would have gone completely differently.

                In your sandbox you will play tanks - there is your place, dreamer.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 11 March 2021 14: 39
                  0
                  So which tanks could decide the fate of the war, if everything was decided by aviation and missile weapons at the strategic and operational level?


                  This is NOT TRUE, that's all.
          4. Alexander Vorontsov
            12 March 2021 22: 23
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            the point of view of common sense and economic opportunities,

            prapor, 50 Tu-160M ​​is 750 billion.
            This is if without modernization for anti-ship missiles and so on. Wishlist Vorontsov.
            1,5 rebuilt for the Sochi Olympics.
            2 rather large aircraft carriers.
            48 patrol ships designed without fanaticism.
            190 normal naval attack aircraft based on the Su-34.
            So what about the authors with common sense, and the ensign?
            laughing


            I'm flattered that you write something in the "answer", the truth is that what you write is not an answer because it does not concern the really serious issues discussed in the article.


            1) Yes, I am a supporter of collecting 50 vehicles in the depths of the territory, capable of striking focused on 1 theater of operations.
            You are a supporter of dividing everything by 5, and then wondering why the resulting piles are so weak.

            2) In none of your articles did you mention the fact that the bases of the Russian fleet in modern realities are fired at almost from cannon artillery. In your articles you put an equal sign between the US bases (which divide the fleets by 2) and the Russian Federation. Apparently you do not see the problem in the fact that the base can simply be shot from the MLRS. Without any ships.

            I see this as a problem. This is another difference between us.

            3) You don't see the difference between basing something on the front line or basing something in the rear.
            Or don't want to see. Just ignore this point. Themselves have never written about him, do not comment on it. It doesn't matter to you that the fleet is on the front line and the Tu-160s are hidden in the depths.
            It's the same for you.
            For me, no.

            4) You gave the numbers. 50 TU 160 versus 190 Su-34.
            Which will be divided into 5 fleets for a total of 40 (let it be 200).
            Which is better ... 50 Tu-160 or 40 Su-34.
            Following your logic, 40 Su-34s are better.
            Well ... no words. This is even without taking into account their multiple difference in load.

            5) We talked about the size of the rockets already ... you are a fan of small things.
            I tried to explain elementary things to you - look at the size of the Tu-160 compartment. Bigger, more space, potentially bigger missile ... = range / speed ... useless.
            The smaller the plane, the better for you.

            6) You yourself wrote a review article about the importance of the first salvo, and in it, among other things, you discussed separately on the topic of reconnaissance signs of an impending strike.
            And you don’t want to understand that the Tu-160 has no equal on this point. Well, it simply doesn’t. Open google maps, look at the TU-160 in the parking lot and tell me the readiness of each side.

            Yes, I consider it an advantage.
            You, as if nothing had happened, seriously write about the ability to drive packs of Su-34 across the country.
            7)
            48 patrol ships designed without fanaticism.

            Which are completely useless ...
            However, it remains unclear how any of the four fleets and one flotilla will be able to do at least something if the United States implements a similar scenario, which is called "in full"?

            Those. I repeat Timokhin and Klimov repeat like a mantra that the fleet will take the hit first.
            Although the scenario is clearly being worked out when in general the entire fleet will be simply helpless banal due to geography.

            8)
            2 rather large aircraft carriers.

            Yes, let's omit 1 detail ...
            Tu-160 has already been designed, they have ALREADY been built. Crews and personnel have ALREADY been trained.
            Weapon systems have been developed.

            What is a "rather big aircraft carrier" is not clear at all.
            Have you already decided whether it will be atomic there or not? Springboard or catapult? And what kind of catapult? This is how many articles you can write, pouring from empty to empty.
            And comparing the real Tu-160 with the mythical "rather big aircraft carriers".
            Listen, maybe it's better to take 3 Griffins? Or 1 golden dragon? Or a dozen pink ponies)))


            So what about the authors with common sense, and the ensign?

            Indeed, what common sense can there be in the idea of ​​not throwing away the Soviet legacy.
            And develop it further.
            Although yes ... a stupid idea.
            They acted wisely in Ukraine when they began to cut them. Exactly, exactly.
            That's where the common sense klandike is ...


            The standard version of the Su-34 is unusable; it will be necessary to make a new car in this glider, it will be more expensive. Plus weapons.

            Yes, everything is so with you. Even a new aircraft carrier from scratch is a trifling matter.
            Only when it comes to finishing something on the Tu-160 is it in no way.
    5. Alexander Vorontsov
      13 March 2021 01: 04
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      This is not a myth, if not exaggerated and distorted.

      Well, explain by commenting on these photos
      1) Where is the exaggeration here
      2) How will the fleet meet the enemy over the land part of Ukraine?


      This, it is much easier to destroy at once, with one nuclear warhead

      Yeah. You can shoot our bases with ordinary MLRS. Non-nuclear country.
      And their nuclear warhead.
      Parity .... same thing yeah.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Proton
    Proton 9 March 2021 07: 38
    +3
    Good article, there is a reason to think and analyze.
    Thanks to the authors!
  • rocket757
    rocket757 9 March 2021 07: 39
    +12
    However, the country's defense capability implies a complex system of interaction between various branches of the armed forces.

    However, the country's defense capability DIRECTLY depends on the state of the economy, on the state, development of many industries, scientific technological potential, development of the country ???
    A modern, efficient fleet, and everything else cannot be built, at the technological, technical, SCIENTIFIC level at which we can get stuck !!! If we do not pay due or even increased attention to a whole range of PROBLEMS that already exist and will grow in the future!
  • TELEMARK
    TELEMARK 9 March 2021 07: 42
    +8
    Thanks to the author for the article, I do not undertake to discuss the importance and necessity of a strong Navy, although, I think, it is obvious that no TU-160 will provide such a demonstration of the flag, as an ocean-going ship will do! But about the photo in the article, there is a remark - the launch of the anti-ship missile system is carried out from the B-2. (Photo)
    1. bar
      bar 9 March 2021 10: 08
      -1
      Quote: TELEMARK
      no TU-160 will provide such a display of the flag as an ocean-going ship will do!

      And we definitely need this window dressing ??? Build aircraft carriers so that they can deliver "signals" all over the ball, like the striped ones do?
      1. Eroma
        Eroma 9 March 2021 10: 20
        +5
        The fleet is a means of protecting and expanding trade! The fleet is an instrument for promoting the economic interests of the country, one must be able to use this instrument, and in order to learn how to use it, one must at least have it.
        1. bar
          bar 9 March 2021 11: 08
          -1
          Quote: Eroma
          The fleet is a means of protecting and expanding trade! The fleet is a tool for promoting the economic interests of the country

          These are the slogans of the ancient times of the "great British empire". But, firstly, Russia is not on an island, but on the largest continent. Secondly, in the modern world, the fleet can do little to help "expand trade", except to scare Somali pirates. And what will the fleet do, for example, with the sanctions imposed on us by the striped ones? Did the fleet help to transport Siemens turbines to Crimea?
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 9 March 2021 12: 43
            +5
            Quote: bar
            And what will the fleet do, for example, with the sanctions imposed by the striped ones?

            Okay, we are removing the fleet altogether, who will do something with the sanctions? Strategic Missile Forces? ...also no! Air Force? ...also no! Ground forces? ....also no! Then a logical question ... why are they all to Russia? 70 billion is not lying on the road ... here's your pensions of millions, and the lollipop is free !!!!!
            1. bar
              bar 9 March 2021 12: 53
              -2
              Quote: Serg65
              Okay, remove the fleet altogether

              Well, why jump from one extreme to another? Our whole life is continuous compromises, among them and to look for acceptable options
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 9 March 2021 12: 54
                +1
                Quote: bar
                Our whole life is continuous compromises, among them and to look for acceptable options

                So what is your acceptable option?
            2. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 13: 41
              +4
              chupa chups free !!!!!


              No, without the sun there will be no free chupa-chups.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 9 March 2021 13: 51
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                No, without the sun there will be no free chupa-chups.

                from what? Was on the Maidan in Kiev, but will not be in Moscow? discrimination however!
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 13: 58
                  +4
                  But on the Maidan it was not free!

                  For the "chupa-chups" of the Maidan, the Ukrainian people will pay an EXTREMELY high price, Sergei.

                  And for free, they can poke something completely different in their mouths there. Not a chupa-chups never laughing
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 9 March 2021 14: 35
                    +4
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    For the "chupa-chups" of the Maidan, the Ukrainian people will pay an EXTREMELY high price

                    They realized this after they had been siphoning off! wink
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 16: 48
                      +3
                      Nope. Not understood. Alas, Sergei.
                      At least, many did not understand.
                      1. Fan-fan
                        Fan-fan 9 March 2021 23: 26
                        -1
                        Well, it's tight in Ukraine, but for Czechs, Poles and other Slovaks, chupa-chups seem to be almost free. Why?
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 02: 21
                        +2
                        Come on...
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 12: 47
          +2
          Quote: bar
          Did the fleet help to transport Siemens turbines to Crimea?

          Exactly. In general, the fleet is the most profitable in terms of cargo transportation.
          1. bar
            bar 9 March 2021 12: 55
            -2
            We decided to troll and cling to what I did not finish. naval fleet? Well, I have improved. hi
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 13: 04
              +3
              Quote: bar
              We decided to troll and cling to what I did not finish. naval fleet? Well, I have improved. hi

              I believe that we will not have a strong navy without a strong merchant fleet. It is his development that will provide an inflow of funds to the treasury, and as a result - the construction of the navy. And we have complete trouble with this merchant fleet.
              ... If the government does not urgently take measures for the large-scale construction of new ships, and this is 35 - 55 units per year, instead of 6, then after 2022 we may witness an event unprecedented in the history of the Russian and Moscow states, when cargo ships will float along our rivers and lakes. ships of foreign shipowners. Even before Peter the Great, this did not happen in Ancient Russia, well, yes, you can see the current rulers, the upcoming shame of national pride does not bother.
              https://balt-lloyd.ru/sudohodstvo/torgovyj-flot-rossii-na-konec-2018-goda.htmal
              Do you like this scenario? I don't.
              1. bar
                bar 9 March 2021 13: 11
                -2
                Quote: Mordvin 3
                I believe that we will not have a strong navy without a strong merchant fleet. It is his development that will ensure the flow of funds to the treasury,

                I completely agree. But we no longer have a merchant fleet. What is still left has been offshore for a long time. And the trade itself is limited to pipelines and a little by rail and road. And there are practically no hopes for the development of this trade in the conditions of total sanctions. Hence the sad thoughts about the fate of our Navy, "a violinist is not needed" sad
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 13: 20
                  +1
                  Quote: bar
                  I completely agree. But we no longer have a merchant fleet.

                  Well, I don’t understand which fifth column is preventing it from developing? Navalny? Somali pirates? Country 404? Panama can? Ugh, no words.
                  1. bar
                    bar 9 March 2021 13: 32
                    -2
                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    Well, I don’t understand which fifth column is preventing it from developing?

                    Maybe the absence of a planned economy? Mikhelson and the company are quite capable of building gas carriers for themselves if they need them. And the rest apparently do not need it, the existing situation suits, and you will order figs. Capitalism ...
                    1. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 13: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: bar
                      Mikhelson and his company are quite capable of building gas carriers for themselves, if they need them.

                      For himself, beloved, Mikhelson did not build a gas carrier at all, but this is a trough. And not in Russia, but in Germany.
                    2. bar
                      bar 9 March 2021 13: 46
                      0
                      Quote: Mordvin 3

                      For himself, beloved, Mikhelson did not build a gas carrier at all, but this is a trough. And not in Russia, but in Germany.

                      And for his Novatek, he builds gas carriers, including at the Zvezda plant.
                    3. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 13: 49
                      0
                      Quote: bar
                      And for his Novatek, he builds gas carriers, including at the Zvezda plant.

                      They build it in Korea, but in China. And on the Star they only collect.
                    4. bar
                      bar 9 March 2021 14: 14
                      -2
                      It doesn't matter in this discussion.

                      Mikhelson and his company are quite capable of building gas carriers for themselves, if they need them.

                      And nobody else needs anything, that's why we don't have a fleet.
                    5. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 9 March 2021 14: 52
                      -3
                      Numerous offices are engaged in civil transportation and they provide ships. To build new cargo ships, you need a lot of money - it's easier and much cheaper to sign a contract with existing carriers.
                    6. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 14: 57
                      -1
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      To build new cargo ships, you need a lot of money - it's easier and much cheaper to sign a contract with existing carriers.

                      Again:
                      If the government does not urgently take measures for the large-scale construction of new ships, and this is 35 - 55 units per year, instead of 6, then after 2022 we may witness an event unprecedented in the history of the Russian and Moscow states, when cargo ships will float along our rivers and lakes. ships of foreign shipowners. Even before Peter the Great, this did not happen in Ancient Russia, well, yes, you can see the current rulers, the upcoming shame of national pride does not bother.
                      https://balt-lloyd.ru/sudohodstvo/torgovyj-flot-rossii-na-konec-2018-goda.htmal
                      Do you like this scenario? I don't.
                    7. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 10 March 2021 16: 04
                      -2
                      For domestic transportation in Russia, ships are already being built of all kinds, but for the ocean zones of third-party freight carriers, it makes perfect sense to set up your own, it is very expensive and time-consuming, and at the exit, bankruptcy, since this service market is packed to capacity.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 9 March 2021 14: 55
    +2
    Quote: Mordvin 3
    I believe that we will not have a strong navy without a strong merchant fleet. It is his development that will provide an inflow of funds to the treasury.

    Vladimir, the state-owned merchant fleet is always unprofitable ... and even under the USSR! The fleet with state share participation is another matter! At the moment, tankers and gas carriers are profitable, for other types of ships the workload will be seasonal and, God forbid, if the freight turns up! The only way out would be to create a command for naval military transport, but this structure will also lay a heavy burden on the shoulders of the state, since the ships of this command will mostly be idle at the berths.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 15: 02
      +2
      Quote: Serg65
      Vladimir, the state-owned merchant fleet is always unprofitable ... and even under the USSR!

      My precious father in the seventies rushed to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, catching cod and making money. wink And these ladies? Who gave a thousand for Valerchik?
    2. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 16: 27
      +2
      Quote: Serg65
      Vladimir, the state-owned merchant fleet is always unprofitable ... and even under the USSR!

      And yet, yes! Can you answer the question why freight transportation is profitable for many countries, but not for Russia?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 10 March 2021 12: 49
        +2
        Quote: Mordvin 3
        Can you answer the question why freight transportation is profitable for many countries, but not for Russia?

        Well, first, a question to a question (classic laughing ) ..... How many countries have a state-owned fleet?
        Well, the answer ... 2/3 of the world merchant fleet is in private hands, or with a share of the state ... after the communists, democrats, liberals ... God forgive me ..., the nationalists stole the merchant fleet, who their pockets, some in their new apartments ... Russia has no fleet left, just as there are practically no shipyards left (out of 8 plants on the territory of Russia, there are only three plants). The saddest thing is that Russia has lost not only its fleet but also customers ... well, and the lack of exports until recently. The niche was empty and competitors immediately occupied it. Entering the sea freight market again is now daunting, but it is possible ... it takes time and the main desire!
  • Eroma
    Eroma 9 March 2021 13: 27
    -2
    Sanctions are politics and nothing to do with the fleet! And the industry is capable of building ships of any class, I think it will be capable of making turbines for thermal power plants!
    And what does it have to do with an island or a continent? what trade is MARINE! laughing without a fleet not like negative
    Pirates are trifles, today the development of the world market goes through investments! Do you need cheap raw materials? Go and dig it yourself! (That is, invested in production and infrastructure). We need to sell something more complicated than consumer goods, for example, cx equipment, invested in the agriculture of the consumer of cx equipment, etc. bully and who will protect your investments in Africa, Latin America, or the east? Local governments? If you start to actively rake in profits somewhere, then these governments will easily become corrupt and not democratic, and in order to protect your investments, you need to be able to protect friendly governments! And without the fleet, this is not possible!
    As the biggest country fellow , from us more than anyone else! Baikal should belong to humanity, not Russia, because it's not fair! laughing Are you going to protect yourself while sitting in the taiga? Having a fleet on which other peoples can rely allows us to create military alliances and thereby increase our strength! angry we are not afraid of the United States, in one helmet they have nothing against us, but NATO and its allies already have real chances! You need a counterweight and without a fleet you won't get it!
    1. bar
      bar 9 March 2021 14: 19
      -1
      Well, what are these slogans for? Let off only steam? Get off the armored car already. I am also for all good and against all bad, but what difference does that make?
      "Thoughts are real, dear" (c)
      1. Eroma
        Eroma 9 March 2021 16: 26
        +2
        What is the reality dear? hi
  • Dmitry_6
    Dmitry_6 9 March 2021 14: 44
    +2
    Why juggle?
    In the event of the application of "sanctions", our ships and merchant trawlers and pipelayers and transport vessels will have to be escorted, and such an array of forces cannot push back and arrest our ships under the pretext of transporting "sanctioned turbines". It is critically important how to deliver the same uranium from the other end of the world if it comes under sanctions?
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 9 March 2021 10: 55
    -3
    Quote: bar
    Quote: TELEMARK
    no TU-160 will provide such a display of the flag as an ocean-going ship will do!

    And we definitely need this window dressing ??? Build aircraft carriers so that they can deliver "signals" all over the ball, like the striped ones do?

    and this "flagpole for displaying the flag" will be more expensive than all nuclear submarines and in terms of cost as the country's air defense ...
  • Serg65
    Serg65 9 March 2021 12: 38
    +2
    Quote: bar
    And we definitely need this window dressing ???

    Those. locking yourself behind your fence is the best way out for Russia?
    1. bar
      bar 9 March 2021 12: 59
      -2
      Quote: Serg65
      Those. locking yourself behind your fence is the best way out for Russia?

      Well, it throws you to extremes. Either completely remove the fleet, then lock it up ...
      Although, in the course of affairs in international politics, we will soon have to lock ourselves up. Everything goes to this. And the fence is stronger, preferably "iron"
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 9 March 2021 13: 06
        +1
        Quote: bar
        Although, along the way

        laughing You need to speak at the rally! Fiery speech is nothing for the protesters just right! Forgive hi
  • Boris55
    Boris55 9 March 2021 07: 47
    +2
    Quote: A. Vorontsov, R. Skomorokhov

    1. Does Russia need a strong fleet?
    2.It is necessary to reconsider the tactics of using the fleet, introducing support for the rapid reaction forces
    3.In the state in which the Russian navy is now, it is not capable of solving the tasks that are entrusted to it optimists.

    1. Needed or not needed no questions. Needed. But the question is, why is it needed - to unleash an aggressive war or to defend the country, and based on this issue it will become clear what kind of fleet we need.

    2. With tactics of application. If you haven't noticed, we have long been forming a unified management (including with the use of artificial intelligence) of all forces, from space to underwater. You are late with this proposal.

    3. I would like to know who the optimists are and what do they have to do with our defense?
  • Runway
    Runway 9 March 2021 07: 51
    +4
    Group tournament named after Gulliver (blunt points against sharp points). laughing
    The idea of ​​the authors about the "Tu-160 because of the" air defense echelons "" the Yankees should applaud while standing (the airplane, like the "bear" - contractual, however).
    About steamships and airplanes - one "ash-m" - a little more than the Su-34 / -35 air regiment. How many "death stars" such as "Peter" and "Nakhimov" are modernized in the air regiments - xs.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 08: 47
      +9
      Quote: WFP
      About steamships and airplanes - one "ash-m" - a little more than the Su-34 / -35 air regiment.

      Ash-m was contractually worth 47 billion head and 41 billion - serial. Su-35 in 2009 cost about 1,375 billion rubles (the contract for 48 aircraft - 66 billion rubles), well, taking into account inflation of 1,7 billion in 2011, the maximum. So formally you are absolutely right - Ash-m costs 24-28 Su-35.
      But this is - if we compare the contract values. In reality, of course, the ships cost MUCH more, but the Su-35 was delivered at contract prices.
      Quote: WFP
      How many "death stars" such as "Peter" and "Nakhimov" have been put into modernist regiments - xs.

      Taking into account inflation, the cost of one Ash-m is about 80 billion, which is quite comparable to the cost of modernizing Nakhimov.
      1. Runway
        Runway 9 March 2021 09: 42
        +1
        Here you are, with a slight movement of your hand, "scraped along the bottom of the barrel" 3-4 IAP (one hundred boards).
        Even in a 50/50 proportion for the tasks of work on aircraft and naval air defense systems / strikers with anti-ship missiles, we have an aggregate onboard salvo of 300 Uranovs (if they do not slander that the 35th is dragging 6 anti-ship missiles).
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 09: 54
          +5
          Quote: WFP
          Here you are, with a slight movement of your hand, "scraped along the bottom of the barrel" 3-4 IAP (one hundred boards).

          Instead of a pair of Ash - I think there are 80.
          Quote: WFP
          Even in a 50/50 proportion for the tasks of work on aircraft and naval air defense systems / strikers with anti-ship missiles, we have an aggregate side salvo of 300 "Uranov"

          80.
          Quote: WFP
          if they do not slander that the 35th drags 6 anti-ship missiles

          He will drag out the drag, but how far is it? :))))) 2 Cr each in real combat conditions.
          For example, the use of AB in the north in the United States was seen as follows - AUS, with aircraft packed in overload, approaches the coast of Norway, from where the bulk of the aircraft flies to Norwegian airfields and operates from there, and the AB itself is simply a base for repair / supply. From Severodvinsk, bypassing Norway (there will be the same Sentry) to Tromso - at least 1,5 thousand km.
          And I'm not even talking about the fact that even two hundred Su-35s are completely useless against enemy submarines ...
          1. Runway
            Runway 9 March 2021 10: 34
            -3
            50% of the combat load of the striker (6 Uraniums) + PTB. A radius of 1000 km is taken out.
            The 35s against nuclear submarines are useful in terms of closing the "air" (cover) for the means of plane / nmo (slaughtered mega-steamship "Nakhimov" - gives plus 4 "636" or X steamships of project 12700).
            Variations of the integrated approach "air-ship-on-board" in exchange for "white elephants" can be considered a lot.
            The sailors have a mobile reserve of a hundred potential strikers (land-based AUS without admirals) with a time lag for moving Murmansk-Vladik of 48 hours, without "butting" from the aerospace forces / AVO for "give the airplane" is quite a solution for the task in the theater.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 11: 20
              +5
              Quote: WFP
              50% of the combat load of the striker (6 Uraniums) + PTB. A radius of 1000 km is taken out.

              Maybe he will take it out, only this is not enough
              Quote: WFP
              Variations of the integrated approach "air-ship-on-board" in exchange for "white elephants" can be considered a lot.

              Yes, not much, and a lot. If you remember that the aviation regiment needs its own (and very expensive) air base, etc. And so only one runway in Makhachkala "pulled" 12 billion.
              The cost of building a new runway at Makhachkala airport, taking into account the entire infrastructure, lighting equipment and a perimeter fence, is estimated at 12 billion rubles. This is reported by TASS, referring to the general director of the airport, Arsen Pirmagomedov.

              And if you remember that you don't want military airfields, you need to equip them with special equipment, some kind of air cover, etc.
              Quote: WFP
              slaughtered mega-steamer "Nakhimov" - gives plus 4 "636"

              Only someone has to cover them while charging the batteries.
              Quote: WFP
              The sailors have a mobile reserve of a hundred potential strikers (land-based AUS without admirals) with a time lag for moving Murmansk-Vladik of 48 hours, without "butting" from the aerospace forces / AVO for "give the airplane" is quite a solution for the task in the theater.

              The idea itself is good, but why put it in conflict with other needs of the fleet?
              1. Runway
                Runway 9 March 2021 11: 30
                -2
                This is my subjectivity "from the hip." In the conditions of "short chain mail" I see no point in "mega steamers" (which one devil will not fight alone).
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 9 March 2021 10: 29
        -3
        Ash-m was contractually worth 47 billion head and 41 billion - serial

        More math.

        Instead of one Ash, 23 apartments can be built in Murmansk.
        If one sailor's family is 4 people, then approximately 100 will fit.

        In this situation:
        Taking into account inflation, the cost of one Ash-m is about 80 billion, which is quite comparable to the cost of modernizing Nakhimov.

        It is generally possible to build a "city of the future."

        There will be more sense, everyone knows that Ash (if anything) will drown in the first 10 minutes. wink
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 9 March 2021 20: 05
          +2
          Quote: Arzt
          everyone knows that Ash (if anything) will drown in the first 10 minutes.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 9 March 2021 20: 25
            0
            everyone knows that Ash (if anything) will drown in the first 10 minutes.

            RAVE

            You know better, of course, but I doubt that with the general loss of technology at the level of the late 80s, in the construction of the submarine fleet, we suddenly reached out to the Americans.

            Take stealth, for example.
            7900 displacement and a water cannon - Virginia or 13500 and a propeller - Ash?
            The answer is clear. smile
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 9 March 2021 20: 44
              +1
              Quote: Arzt
              in the construction of the submarine fleet, we suddenly reached out to the Americans.
              Doctor, so the amy themselves admitted it.
              In 2014, Rear Admiral of the United States Navy Dave Johnson, at the time, the executive director of the US Naval Systems Command told the media how impressed he was with the Russian submarine Severodvinsk that even in his office there is a scale model. He also said that the United States will face a tough adversary in the form of modified Yasen submarines.

              Quote: Arzt
              Take stealth, for example.

              Let's try...
              in 2016, rear admiral Michael Jable declared about the acoustic superiority of the Russian "Ash" and the need for a response from the United States - the construction of modernized submarines of the "Virginia" class.

              I just don’t understand why you don’t believe in our kulibins ...
              The new SSGN "Kazan" is being brought to mind with a file. But the task was set to make a unit no worse than a Virgin! And such boats are being built. There are still few of them, but they HAVE already APPEARED!
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 9 March 2021 21: 10
                -1
                In 2016, Rear Admiral Michael Jablely announced the acoustic superiority of the Russian Ash trees and the need for a US response by building modernized Virginia-class submarines.

                Is not a fact. Firstly, beware when the enemy praises you, and secondly, maybe the guys from Groton asked him to say so. For a small bribe. wink

                I just don’t understand why you don’t believe in our kulibins ...

                Because he drove both a Zhiguli and a foreign car. Although I admit that the gap in the military-industrial complex is smaller.

                But it's not just the boat. And the crew? Living conditions, confidence in the future, good rest, etc.
                And what about the combat training program? Adequacy of command?
                It's a system!

                Therefore, I say, maybe instead of Borey alone, build a normal town, so that before going out to sea, they do not plug a broken window in a hostel with a pillow wink
                1. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 9 March 2021 21: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Because he drove both a Zhiguli and a foreign car. Although I admit that the gap in the military-industrial complex is smaller.
                  Doctor, did you shoot from the AKM? And why did the Yankees in Libya stole our "Pantsir" air defense missile system and tore it to pieces, while the GZO is still ... NOTHING ... etc.
                  Quote: Arzt
                  And the crew? Living conditions, confidence in the future, good rest, etc.
                  And what about the combat training program? Adequacy of command?
                  The crew on the submarine is a pro "counterpoop" (with a good salary, by the way!), - which periodically undergoes retraining at the training center (Obninsk, Sosnovy Bor). Everyone is constantly training on the simulators at the base ... On the boat, everyone has their own berth (the ams have a "warm berth" system - one got up, the other lay down) ... Ours are accommodated in cabins for 4-2 people ...
                  The training program in accordance with the "Course ..." teachings, trainings ... tests, checks ... Everything - in the BP's piggy bank!
                  Quote: Arzt
                  can instead of one Borey build a normal town,
                  Vilyuchinsk - the issue has been resolved. In the North, it seems, too. BUT! the program of building the Navy's submarine forces must be punctually carried out, however, as well as the surface forces - too!
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 9 March 2021 22: 05
                    -1
                    Doctor, did you shoot from the AKM? And why did the Yankees in Libya stole our "Pantsir" air defense missile system and tore it to pieces, while the GZO is still ... NOTHING ... etc.

                    AKM is a mechanical device. His skilled turner can pile in the garage, given samples, the right steel, and minimal equipment.

                    The boat will be more difficult. Let's say with stealth more or less, but what about the ears?
                    If the Yankees in 1943 were able to make a radio fuse that could withstand 20 g and fit into a 000-inch projectile, then what can a Virginia GUS do now?

                    Will we hear it earlier? angry
                    1. Boa kaa
                      Boa kaa 9 March 2021 23: 35
                      +3
                      Quote: Arzt
                      Will we hear it earlier?

                      Mina says we can already. Unfortunately, I finished my service, and my former subordinates, those who know, are already rubbing parquet in high headquarters.
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 9 March 2021 08: 56
      +2
      Quote: WFP
      Group tournament named after Gulliver (blunt points against sharp points).
      It would be so simple ...
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 9 March 2021 07: 51
    +1
    It seems to me alone that articles with similar titles appear on VO with such an enviable frequency that they can be combined into one weighty folio?
    It would be great, before writing new articles on the need for the fleet, to oblige the authors to re-read this "tolmud" in detail.
    1. Niko
      Niko 9 March 2021 09: 03
      +3
      Quote: "It seems to me alone ...." No, not alone, only it seems to me that the authors of these articles (or the author) are the same every time, so reading your own analytical exercises is unlikely to raise the level of subsequent
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 07: 52
    +21
    Рњ-РґСЏ ...
    Such a long article ... And, in fact, about nothing.
    The main task of the fleet - to provide a massive nuclear missile retaliation just passed by the authors. The vulnerability of the Black Sea Fleet was derived based on the reach of the Crimea from the territory of Turkey. 300 km to the authors - the cat sneezed ...
    This means that in the event of hostilities in this region with the use of high-tech weapons, the battle will resemble a Mexican duel, when everyone will shoot at all of all the "guns". And when "the blue smoke will dissipate after the battle," who will remain on his feet is unknown.

    There is no "Mexican duel" there and is not expected. It should be understood that in Crimea alone there are 9 operating military airfields, and in order to disable them, no less than 540 tactical missiles of the Tomahawk level will be needed (60 missiles per airfield, by analogy with the US strike on Syria). Where does Turkey get so many missiles? Even the United States has a few thousand Tomahawks at its disposal. And such missiles are needed for a number of very important tasks - pinpoint strikes against air defense, enemy command centers, etc. Spend them on disabling Crimean airfields? Well, let's say, what's the point? First, our aviation will still be dispersed and it will not be possible to inflict too much damage on it. Secondly, the airfields will be returned to service, it will not take too long for this (again, by analogy with the Syrian airbase that was hit). Thirdly, well, let's say, they even knocked out, there are other continental airfields. Both seaports and naval base (yes, the same Novorossiysk)
    And in fact, if necessary, Severomorsk can be shot with ordinary MLRS.

    Can. Will there be a lot of sense in this? Or do the authors seriously believe that the entire SF by the beginning of hostilities will proudly stand at the piers of Severomorsk? Will the ships be specially withdrawn from Severodvinsk in order to overtake them to Severomorsk? :)))
    Before the start of a war, there is always a period of political tension, and all ships "on the move" by the beginning of hostilities will be deployed at sea. This is not to mention the fact that not only our northern naval bases are close to Norway. Norway, which is characteristic, is also close to our borders, which can be very fatal for it in the event of the start of full-scale hostilities.
    And there are such objections - a wagon and a small cart throughout the text of the article.
    1. V1er
      V1er 9 March 2021 08: 18
      +6
      Everything is very competent. I am waiting for your article with a full answer.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 9 March 2021 09: 09
        +2
        There is nothing to answer here, a very weak article that only considers 1 scenario. And Klimov and Timokhin have already answered. They had articles about why the fleet is needed and what it should be (too lazy to look). There was nothing supernatural there. No cruisers or super aircraft carriers. And they are not needed, modern frigates and corvettes are able to solve all the tasks facing the surface fleet of Russia. Everything fits within current budgets. You just need to spend them wisely. To count the number of types of surface and submarine ships produced in the United States, hands are enough. We have some kind of extravaganza of similar projects.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 11: 44
        +6
        An illiterate text from only continuous distortions, mixed with Vorontsov's pathological exaltation at the mention of the Tu-160
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 9 March 2021 08: 44
      +8
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Рњ-РґСЏ ...
      Such a long article ... And, in fact, about nothing.
      ... And there are such objections - a wagon and a small cart throughout the text of the article.

      I absolutely agree.
      An article-provocation, created with the sole purpose of getting 800 comments that will refute what is written in it ...
    3. vvvjak
      vvvjak 9 March 2021 08: 48
      +8
      Andrey enter the topic, write an article. And then Klimov with one "Virginia" drowns the entire Russian fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, and Roman raises the question "is there a need for a fleet at all if it can be drowned by MLRS from Norway." I do not have enough, in this matter, your balance and objective analysis.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 08: 49
        +11
        Quote: vvvjak
        Andrey enter the topic, write an article

        Okay:))))))
        1. vvvjak
          vvvjak 9 March 2021 09: 01
          +4
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Okay:))))))

          Zhdems
    4. Ryusey
      Ryusey 9 March 2021 09: 09
      +4
      Plus with everything, only you could not explain what this most threatened period is, or rather its signs?
      Could this be a toughening of the rhetoric of the Foreign Ministry of hostile countries? ...
      Or maybe this is the placement of the enemy's missile defense system closer to our borders?
      Maybe the approach of carriers of nuclear weapons (and Burke can already carry 92 pieces) is almost close to our land?
      Placement of troops along the border perimeter?
      They also say that during this period the activity of their fleet decreases - the resource of equipment is conserved, maintenance is carried out, and how much AUG is in the sea now?
      Psychological treatment of your population, the so-called dehumanization of the victim?
      Or maybe incite hatred in your citizens and then consolidate it and direct it to an external enemy?
      Or am I missing something else of the utmost importance?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 09: 14
        +6
        Quote: Ryusey
        Plus with everything, only you could not explain what this most threatened period is, or rather its signs?

        First of all, the deployment of the enemy's fleet (and not only the fleet) in the areas from which the strike will be delivered.
        1. Ryusey
          Ryusey 9 March 2021 09: 34
          +1
          Is it necessary now?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 09: 42
            +6
            Quote: Ryusey
            Is it necessary now?

            By itself. There will be the deployment of numerous groupings - aircraft carriers, and esms, and submarines, and aviation ... Well, there are many aircraft carriers in Norway right now?
            1. Ryusey
              Ryusey 9 March 2021 11: 05
              -1
              Well, depending on what to put at the forefront, if surprise, then the ability to "close" several SSBNs to fire a salvo, while simultaneously deploying general-purpose forces, then ...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 11: 31
                +5
                Quote: Ryusey
                Well, depending on what to put at the forefront, if surprise, then the ability to fit "close" several SSBNs to fire a volley

                SSBNs have their own tasks, this is Armageddon. If the Americans agree to this, then the reasoning that "Crimea is 300 km from Turkey" is somewhat senseless, don't you think? :))))
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 12: 11
                  +4
                  You are not quite right, Andrey.
                  SSBN can be used in the first strike.
                  Now.
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 9 March 2021 15: 03
                    -5
                    Subsonic cruise missiles flying over the sea surface - yes, even the old C 125 will shoot them down with a bang.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 16: 49
                      +4
                      SSBN.
                      Podvodnaya
                      A boat
                      Atomic
                      Rocket
                      That the letter "B" at the end of the abbreviation means guess yourself or you need to decipher?
                    2. Tamer
                      Tamer 9 March 2021 16: 52
                      +3
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      Subsonic cruise missiles flying over the sea surface - yes, even the old C 125 will shoot them down with a bang.

                      The old S-125 will not be able to cheer
                      1. Vadim237
                        Vadim237 10 March 2021 16: 07
                        +1
                        But he simply can - subsonic cruise missiles with integrated air defense are useless weapons.
                      2. Tamer
                        Tamer 11 March 2021 13: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        But he simply can - subsonic cruise missiles with integrated air defense are useless weapons.

                        Those. Are you not considering the massive use of CD as a way to overcome air defense by exceeding interception capabilities? And the standard 20-year-old analytical version of the MRAU with the simultaneous approach of the KR echelon and the air defense breakthrough echelon too? And with the use of modern UAVs and false targets? How are we with the selection of false targets when they really mass use? The fire performance of air defense is also limited))) And you say that the CD is a useless weapon. If you know how to cook, it is quite edible, and c-125 is like a dead poultice
      2. Runway
        Runway 9 March 2021 11: 18
        -1
        Probably, the curtailment of the national economy of "peacetime", like the first RP, and only then the completion / coordination / change in the intensity of bp in the army of "peacetime".
        I think so.
  • paul3390
    paul3390 9 March 2021 10: 15
    +4
    Before the start of a war, there is always a period of political tension, and all ships "on the move" by the beginning of hostilities will be deployed at sea.

    An extremely controversial thesis. For about the same concept was before the beginning of the Second World War. How did it end - remember? Besides - the tension can last a considerable time, and what - will you constantly keep the fleet at sea? Again, experience shows that if the adversary has made a political decision to start a war, he may not surround it with any political demands and raids. And just shy away, hoping then to dictate their conditions from the positions reached. Like the Japanese in 41 .. So - a very dangerous point of view.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 10: 23
      +2
      Quote: paul3390
      An extremely controversial thesis. For about the same concept was before the beginning of the Second World War. How did it end - remember?

      I remember, do you? Before the start of the Second World War, if anything, the Germans concentrated their troops on the Soviet-German border, which was known back in April-May 1941.
      Quote: paul3390
      Besides - the tension can last a considerable time, and what - will you constantly keep the fleet at sea?

      The enemy cannot either. That is why, during the times of the USSR, we deployed our forces (fleet) against the discovered American ones and returned "to their winter quarters" when the Americans left.
      Quote: paul3390
      Again, experience shows that if the adversary has made a political decision to start a war, he may not surround it with any political demands and raids. And just shy away, hoping then to dictate their conditions from the positions reached. Like the Japanese in 41.

      The Japanese in the 41st shied away not because the hangover was heavy, but in connection with the famous "Hull note", which actually put the sons of Yamato before a choice - to leave China, or to fight with the United States. That is, there was just "hitting", only American, not Japanese.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 9 March 2021 10: 30
        +1
        Then explain - what do you consider tension in modern realities? At which it is necessary to introduce increased combat readiness?

        After all, even before the Second World War - our leadership did not consider the deployment of Germany as an excuse. And the Yankees, having presented an ultimatum, did not at all count on a strike on Pearl Harbor.

        And now the situation is even more complicated, because the means of attack have radically changed. Allowing to inflict great damage without the deployment of millions of armies on the border. Yes - nuclear weapons are keeping us from such a scenario for now. But - it is effective only when there is an iron confidence that it will be used in response. That under the current government is by no means obvious ..
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 11: 37
          +1
          Quote: paul3390
          Then explain - what do you consider tension in modern realities? At which it is necessary to introduce increased combat readiness?

          When the enemy begins a large-scale deployment of troops in areas from where he can strike at us.
          Quote: paul3390
          After all, even before the Second World War - our leadership did not consider the deployment of Germany as an excuse.

          Count. And the training camp was, in fact, a covert mobilization of troops in the border districts. Another question, due to the fact that intelligence greatly overestimated the number of the German Armed Forces, believed that the divisions concentrated in our country (in fact, almost the entire combat-ready Wehrmacht) is no more than 50% of all German divisions, so they thought that half of the army Hitler was not on us will attack.
          Quote: paul3390
          And the Yankees, having presented an ultimatum, did not at all count on a strike on Pearl Harbor.

          This is yes. But this is a question for the Yankees themselves.
          Quote: paul3390
          And now the situation is even more complicated, because the means of attack have radically changed. Allows to inflict great damage without the deployment of millions of armies on the border

          Only a full-scale nuclear attack. And even in this case, it would be very foolish not to deploy the army.
          1. paul3390
            paul3390 9 March 2021 12: 22
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            When the enemy begins a large-scale deployment of troops in areas from where he can strike at us.

            Sorry - but it is ALREADY deployed in areas from where you can strike at us. At least - in the key border areas for us. Crimea, Kaliningrad, Kuril Islands. Moreover, no one seems to be planning to attack them with ground forces or airborne troops. At least - this is absolutely not in the American concept of war. Yankees - they like to leave from afar at first than to leave dirty ..
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 12: 28
              +4
              Quote: paul3390
              Sorry - but he's ALREADY deployed in areas where you can hit us

              No, not deployed
              Quote: paul3390
              At least - in the key border areas for us. Crimea, Kaliningrad, Kuril Islands.

              Specify which forces are ready to attack Crimea right now :))) Who is threatening Kaliningrad and the Kuriles right now.
              And further. It is impossible to win a war with a local blow either to the Crimea, or the Kuriles, or Kaliningrad. Well, the Japanese hit the same Kuriles, for example. And then what?
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        13 March 2021 15: 15
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The enemy cannot either. That is why, during the times of the USSR, we deployed our forces (fleet) against the discovered American ones and returned "to their winter quarters" when the Americans left.

        You don’t understand at all what it is about.
        They wrote to you that it is not normal when the threat to the BASE of the fleet is MLRS. [/ B]
        Precisely because it is disproportionate to the financial TK.

        When a homeless weapon forces expensive ships to go to sea in a "period of tension" and burn their expensive resource there, it is a tough thing.

        Is it really that hard to understand?
        (in the case of aviation - despite the fact that planes are more expensive, in times of tension, simply standing on the ground, they also pose a threat, because theoretically they can attack the base at any moment - there is enough radius).
        Those. planes are on the ground, and expensive ships are out to sea.
        The situation is not much better.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 March 2021 10: 23
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          You don’t understand at all what it is about.

          Alas, your understanding of the problems of the fleet did not go beyond the level of your vocabulary.
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          They wrote to you that it is not normal when the threat to the BASE of the fleet is MLRS. [/ B]
          Precisely because it is disproportionate to the financial TK.

          What did you answer
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Before the start of a war, there is always a period of political tension, and all ships "on the move" by the beginning of hostilities will be deployed at sea. This is not to mention the fact that not only our northern naval bases are close to Norway. Norway, which is characteristic, is also close to our borders, which can be very fatal for it in the event of the start of full-scale hostilities.

          What exactly is not clear to you here?
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          When a homeless weapon forces expensive ships to go to sea in a "period of tension" and burn their expensive resource there, it is a tough thing.

          fool They are forced to go to sea not by "bum weapons" (by the way, today neither the United States nor Norway has MLRS with a range of more than 80 km, there are only ballistic missiles mounted on the MLRS chassis), but a period of tension and the need to carry out missions inherent in the fleet. Which the fleet will not do while at anchor.
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Those. planes are on the ground, and expensive ships are out to sea.

          You know, it’s strange to even respond to such statements. Airplanes, so you know, do not "stand on the ground" but are dispersed at the designated airfields, which are chosen precisely on the basis of not losing aviation from the first "disarming" strike.
  • bar
    bar 9 March 2021 10: 18
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The main task of the fleet is to provide a massive nuclear missile retaliation

    Here you are too. Trying to oppose the authors, you yourself confirm that of the entire "fleet" only 1/3 of our "triad" is important, and what ensures its combat effectiveness. We are not even talking about any "retaliation" by any other forces of the fleet.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 9 March 2021 11: 07
      +2
      And what will this third provide?
      1. bar
        bar 9 March 2021 11: 45
        -3
        Quote: Ryusey
        And what will this third provide?

        Well, obviously not cruisers and aircraft carriers and other big and beautiful ones.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 12: 11
          +4
          Well, in general, they are, if that.
          1. bar
            bar 9 March 2021 12: 31
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Well, in general, they are, if that.

            Well, it is this point of view of yours that is discussed in the article)))
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 12: 54
              +3
              This is not my point of view.
              This is not a point of view at all.

              Otherwise, the theory of a spherical Earth (geoid) can be challenged as "just a point of view" in favor of a flat one, and that, nevertheless, points of view have the right to exist, a flat Earth should also have it.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 11: 41
      +6
      Quote: bar
      Here you are too. Trying to oppose the authors, you yourself confirm that of the entire "fleet" only 1/3 of our "triad" is important, and what ensures its combat effectiveness.

      Excuse me, but I wrote that the authors left the main task of the fleet "overboard". The rest of the conclusions - that, it turns out, the rest of the tasks are unimportant, you made yourself. I don’t need to attribute them.
      1. bar
        bar 9 March 2021 12: 23
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Excuse me, but I wrote that the authors left the main task of the fleet "overboard".

        Well, the authors do not seem to question this "main task", as well as the country's leadership.
        1. squid
          squid 9 March 2021 17: 31
          -1
          And I would bet. Why does Russia need SSBNs? Which are located on the external borders of the state. Which must be covered, guarded. Which can be grazed by the more perfect and numerous "Virginias". In which, if anything, there is no certainty. Isn't it easier to do more "Yarsov" and disperse over the territory?
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 9 March 2021 22: 18
            +4
            Quote: squid
            Why does Russia need SSBNs? Which are located on the external borders of the state. Which must be covered, guarded. Which can be grazed by the more perfect and numerous "Virginias". In which, if anything, there is no certainty. Isn't it easier to do more "Yarsov" and disperse over the territory?

            1. They have SSBNs, we have APRK SN (rpkSN). They are not at the outer borders. They are somewhat "closer" to the partners, which significantly reduces the "apercut" time.

            2. APRK SN do not need to cover, especially to protect. This all unmasks her. This is a lone killer. But the approaches to the patrolling area (ROP) are blocked by forces ... The main threat is PLA and AV PLO. According to them, "forces" are preparing to work.
            3. They can. But she herself is checked. Plus, others check it. There are some other "tricks" ...
            4. At the expense of confidence. So far, there is confidence in the reliable communication of the SBU and the readiness to fulfill the Combat Order.
            5. Yars, of course, good ... But they can be seen from space. And the boat still needs to be found ... Then, the Yars fly longer ... the firing bearing is known in principle, the aiming points are also known ... and this simplifies the missile defense task.
            Somehow, however.
            1. squid
              squid 10 March 2021 10: 06
              -1
              What is this anyway? And what does the Kh-101 aviation cruise missiles have to do with SSBN / RPKSN? Can you imagine our deployment areas? The spoiler is the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Barents Sea, closer to their shores, where we can theoretically cover them. And, of course, it is necessary to protect and cover them - otherwise the "Virginia" will sit on its tail, the "Orions" will fly by, or even NK will come in and destroy.
              Fighting stability in a retaliatory strike - yes, there is. It seems to be. If, again, the deployment areas will have something to cover. And, again, the question of cost / efficiency is to rivet additional yars in the depths of your territory, or build a SSB and then rack your brains and turn out your pockets, trying to protect them from qualitatively and quantitatively superior fleets.
              With regard to missile defense, the opposite is true. The areas of SSBN patrolling are known and they are determined not by treaties but by the ability to cover these areas somehow. And the trajectories there are, in principle, predictable. Drive Arly Berki and shoot down missiles at the boost stage. But poplars, even now, are concentrated under the contract, but in case of an aggravation they can disperse from the Urals to Kamchatka - try to intercept them.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 10 March 2021 11: 52
                -3
                Quote: squid
                Fighting stability in a retaliatory strike - yes, there is. It seems to be. If, again, the deployment areas will have something to cover. And, again, the question of cost / efficiency is to rivet additional yars in the depths of your territory, or build a SSB and then rack your brains and turn out your pockets, trying to protect them from qualitatively and quantitatively superior fleets.

                Indeed, it is easier to rivet extra yars, or change the number of charges on one carrier, than to build nuclear submarines, try to protect them, spending a lot of money, but still not solving the problem of their survival in the event of a sudden nuclear attack by the enemy.

                Quote: squid
                But poplars, even now, are concentrated under the contract, but in the event of an exacerbation, they can disperse from the Urals to Kamchatka - try to intercept them.

                It is unlikely that it will come to this, because the Americans will immediately notice any gesture, which means either withdrawing from the agreements, or smearing them right now on our territory, in response to American stations in Poland and Romania.
                However, this is the business of our politicians, not the military - technically, we can do it all quickly now.
    3. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 18: 26
      +1
      Quote: bar
      Here you are too. Trying to oppose the authors, you yourself confirm that of the entire "fleet" only 1/3 of our "triad" is important, and what ensures its combat effectiveness. We are not even talking about any "retaliation" by any other forces of the fleet.

      And where does only retaliation? If we take the Second World War, for example, then a huge amount of equipment supplied under Lend-Lease was provided by the fleet. And the contribution of this technique to the land struggle against the Germans is still very significant. From 11 million pairs of boots to nearly half a million tank cars.
    4. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 9 March 2021 21: 52
      +3
      Quote: bar
      There is no question of any "retaliation" by any other forces of the fleet.

      Do you want to talk about NPA or SSGN-ah with KRDB or 3M22, RPK SN with 3M29?
      Oh well...
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 10: 59
    -10%
    The main task of the fleet is to provide a massive nuclear missile retaliation
    For posthumous retaliation, it is much easier to collect the entire nuclear arsenal, bury it deeper, say, near Chelyabinsk, and remind the adversary "if anything, the whole world is in dust ...". With this approach, you don't have to spend money on the army at all. While everyone else has a fleet - an instrument of earning money for the treasury, and only Russia has its own way ... straight to Paradise.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 11: 41
      +6
      Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
      For posthumous retaliation, it is much easier to collect the entire nuclear arsenal, bury it deeper, say, near Chelyabinsk, and remind the adversary "if anything, the whole world is in dust ...".

      They will laugh and attack. What we are going to do?:))))
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 12: 56
        -10%
        They will laugh and attack.
        Until now, for some reason, they have not attacked. Why would they?
        What we are going to do?
        You are here dreaming of yadrenbaton, offering to maintain a fleet to support it. So tell me what you will do, and at the same time you can clearly argue who / why you need it.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 13: 10
          +7
          Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
          Until now, for some reason, they have not attacked. Why would they?

          Because our nuclear weapons are on alert, and not buried near Chelyabinsk.
          1. Nestor Vlakhovski
            Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 13: 29
            -12%
            You are probably misunderstanding. Nuclear weapons buried near Chelyabinsk and will stand on alert. With the same efficiency as on missiles, only without unnecessary vulnerability, the adversary cannot defuse a nuclear mine with all the will, in contrast to extremely vulnerable submarines and aircraft.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 13: 44
              +3
              Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
              Nuclear weapons buried near Chelyabinsk and will stand on alert. With the same efficiency as on missiles, only without unnecessary vulnerability, the adversary, with all his might, will not be able to neutralize a nuclear mine.

              The problem is that a nuclear mine is practically harmless to him.
              1. Nestor Vlakhovski
                Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 13: 56
                -7
                a nuclear mine is practically harmless to him.
                so who, and you have been in the weapons theme not for the first day and you probably know that a targeted underground explosion of the domestic arsenal will be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. In the eyes of an adversary, there is no big difference between getting a percentage of what has broken through and what has fallen through cities and a global man-made disaster. And for a Russian with high urbanization and a widespread panel-high-rise people, the difference between a nuclear missile exchange and a nuclear land mine is also small.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 March 2021 14: 44
                  +6
                  Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                  so who, and you have been in the weapons theme not for the first day and you probably know that a targeted underground explosion of the domestic arsenal will be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.

                  It won't. Sorry, but the total energy released during the catastrophic tsunami earthquake in the Indian Ocean on December 26, 2004 (magnitude 9,3) is equivalent to 9600 gigatons. And our nuclear arsenals are three orders of magnitude more modest.
                  1. Nestor Vlakhovski
                    Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 15: 01
                    -5
                    Yes, I did not expect a lot of stupidity from you.
                    You should first delve a little into the topics you are talking about.
                    http://www.iris.iris.edu/HQ/Bluebook/chapter5.magnitude.html
                    https://web.archive.org/web/20170213164328/http://www.iris.iris.edu/HQ/Bluebook/chapter5.magnitude.html
                    1. squid
                      squid 9 March 2021 17: 34
                      +6
                      Actually, he's right. A nuclear "doomsday land mine" which, having dashed into its territory, "will destroy the planet" is a joke for science fiction writers. As well as "nuclear winter" and other apocalypses. The maximum is the destruction of large cities of the belligerent countries. There will be no global cataclysms.
                    2. Nestor Vlakhovski
                      Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 18: 12
                      -5
                      joke for science fiction writers
                      no, because they talk about it in scientific circles
                      In the comment above, I accidentally duplicated the same link, there should also be web.archive.org/web/20080410220042/http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html

                      Russia's current nuclear arsenal is within 5 Gigatons, this alone is enough for an 8,5 magnitude earthquake. A 20-fold increase in power is possible even without significant costs. And this is only seismology, induced radiation, atmospheric pollution and other factors, we did not even consider.
                    3. squid
                      squid 10 March 2021 09: 41
                      +2
                      Well, you yourself also refuted. Well, there will be an analogue of the Anchorage earthquake near Novosibirsk - will humanity die from this? Even Chilean. Already in Krasnoyarsk, the houses will remain intact.
                    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 March 2021 09: 43
                      +3
                      Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                      no, because they talk about it in scientific circles

                      Will you give me a link? There is nothing of the kind in the link you have duplicated many times.
                      Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                      Russia's current nuclear arsenal is within 5 Gigatons, this alone is enough for an 8,5 magnitude earthquake.

                      What will be felt within the Russian Federation. And nothing more. The rest of the world will deeply spit on this.
                      I'm not even talking about the fact that we don't have 5 gigatons and it's close
                      Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                      A 20-fold increase in power is possible even without significant costs.

                      Excuse me, how? :))))) Do you think that a twentyfold increase in our nuclear potential will cost nothing?
                  2. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 9 March 2021 21: 32
                    0
                    Quote: squid
                    A nuclear "doomsday land mine" which, having dashed into its territory, "will destroy the planet" is a joke for science fiction writers.

                    Actually, a doomsday nuclear mine usually means a cobalt bomb. It is not that difficult technically and is still considered a means of guaranteed self-destruction of civilization.

                    The only question is, why? request
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 March 2021 09: 40
                  +4
                  Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                  Yes, I did not expect a lot of stupidity from you.

                  very cute
                  Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
                  http://www.iris.iris.edu/HQ/Bluebook/chapter5.magnitude.html
                  https://web.archive.org/web/20170213164328/http://www.iris.iris.edu/HQ/Bluebook/chapter5.magnitude.html

                  So what? Have you read the link yourself? :)) Where is the destruction of the earth?
  • bar
    bar 9 March 2021 11: 46
    -2
    Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
    While everyone else has a fleet - a tool for making money to the treasury

    Who, for example, has a fleet - an instrument of earning money for the treasury?
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 12: 52
      -5
      Who, for example, has a fleet - an instrument of earning money for the treasury?
      Everyone who has it.
      the main tasks of the fleet are the protection of sea trade routes, ensuring its own shipping, creating problems for the shipping of competitors, protecting the economic zone and fishing. This is the active earnings in which the normal fleet takes an active part and pays for its maintenance. For "yedrenbaton - weight in dust" the fleet is certainly not needed.
      1. squid
        squid 9 March 2021 17: 36
        -1
        In what century does he have such tasks? And which fleet - the corvettes-frigates, against which no one objects, or the cruisers-aircraft carriers, which the local great naval commanders dream of?
        1. Nestor Vlakhovski
          Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 18: 38
          -2
          In what century does he have such tasks?
          It is here and now, all developed countries are investing in the navy, not because they are fools.
          And which fleet - the corvettes-frigates, against which no one objects, or the cruisers-aircraft carriers, which the great local naval commanders dream of?
          How do I know what kind of ambitions the Emperor and his retinue have. Apparently, the status of a raw material appendage of the West suits the political leadership quite well, which means that the fleet is not needed (which we can see with our own eyes).
          The fleet is the prerogative of commercial and industrial countries, it is needed to ensure the uninterrupted supply of raw materials and the ability to sell their products, in order to sell raw materials the fleet is not needed at all.
          1. squid
            squid 9 March 2021 19: 05
            -2
            Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
            The fleet is the prerogative of commercial and industrial countries, it is needed to ensure the uninterrupted supply of raw materials and the ability to sell their products, in order to sell raw materials the fleet is not needed at all.


            Well, first of all, raw materials are also products. Secondly, be curious with whom and in what ways the continental power Russia is trading (spoiler - with China and the EU). Thirdly, if the United States decides to violate our "continuity" with satellites from Iceland to Australia - what size of the fleet will have to be opposed to them? And will he be needed in a global nuclear war?
  • Fan-fan
    Fan-fan 10 March 2021 00: 09
    -1
    collect the entire nuclear arsenal, bury it deeper, say, near Chelyabinsk,

    Nestor, I gave you a plus, because I laughed heartily. Thanks for the joke.
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 9 March 2021 18: 32
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Before the start of a war, there is always a period of political tension, and all ships "on the move" by the beginning of hostilities will be deployed at sea.

    IVS thought so too, but the Germans just hit request
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    12 March 2021 23: 47
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Can. Will there be a lot of sense in this?

    Does it make much sense to have Pearl Harbor?
    Lots of.

    that the entire SF by the beginning of hostilities will proudly stand at the piers of Severomorsk?

    Timokhin has a good article about reconnaissance signs of an attack.
    When your base can be shot by ordinary MLRS, this is a complete ...

    And this was written in the context of Timokhin's article, where he compared our divided fleets with the United States.
    We cannot shoot the main US Navy bases with MLRS.
    No one can.
    And ours can.
    And this is just really bad.
    There is too much difference in the class of weapons ... when very expensive (ships) can be destroyed with cheap (MLRS). Plus with minimal intelligence.

    Or the authors seriously believe that the entire SF by the beginning of hostilities will proudly stand

    1 - the naval base is not only ships. These are MTO items, fuel, ammunition, repair facilities.
    2 - yes, they believe. This is the point of planning - before planning how we wake everyone up to win, first let's make sure we don't get caught with our pants down. The ships have 1 feature - their resource is developed during active operations. Therefore, it is very expensive to constantly keep the maximum number of ships at sea.

    Are cases so rare in the history of military affairs when someone attacks someone at an inconvenient moment?
    That we were insured somewhere against this?


    That's why I wrote that yes, when the Tu-160s are hidden in the depths of the territory, this is another important plus.
    It is much more difficult to get them.
    By the way, look where the main base of American strategists is) Also probably by chance.

    And here it is funny to read flotophiles.
    Just compare the scale - will the Tu-160 have time to take off if an SSBN swims under the coast and fires a volley?
    Do you feel it? Comparison ... SSBN and MLRS.
    Tu 160 will not have time to take off when the submarine arrives.
    And the fleet, like a ninja, will dodge the MLRS ... right with all the coastal belongings.
    In general, everything is as usual.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    13 March 2021 15: 04
    0
    [quote] There is no "Mexican duel" there and is not expected. [quote]
    Still as expected.

    [quote] It should be understood that in Crimea alone there are 9 operating military airfields, and in order to disable them, you will need at least 540 tactical missiles of the Tomahawk level [/ quote]
    It should be understood that no one ever fought with Tamaghawks alone.
    Here's what to understand ... so as not to write fairy tales trying to fight with only 1 type of weapon.
    The impossibility of such an option is due precisely to an attempt to win the war with missiles alone.

    All the Turkish Air Force, where did you go? Apparently they shouldn't participate in the first blow, right? And why? Turkish generals are too stupid to PLAN ... SUDDEN ATTACK to use something other than cruise missiles.
    Well, just like that.

    [quote] And such missiles are needed for a number of very important tasks - pinpoint strikes against air defense, enemy command centers, etc. [/ quote]
    Why are you writing this to me? You write to yourself, it's not me who "fight" with only tamahawks.

    [Quote] Spend them on disabling the airfields of the Crimea? Well, let's say, what's the point? [/ quote]
    You are now asking what is the use of a missile for 1 million, zhahnat 2 planes in the parking lot for 100 million, do I understand correctly?
    I don't know ... it's difficult. I can't understand this ... but ... maybe the fact is that 100 million is 100 times more than 1 million? Not? Damn, I don’t know ... I don’t know ...

    [quote] Firstly, our aviation will still be dispersed
    [/ Quote]
    Yeah, this is your favorite fairy tale.
    That we will definitely get lucky. Well, that's a must.
    The word SUDDEN and PLANNED strike does not mean anything to you at all.


    The difference between us is that when I plan, I lay in situations that are unfavorable for us (this is what a plan is needed when it’s fortuitous from without a plan usually rushing).
    And you ... stupid opponents who, in principle, are unable to prepare a sudden and well-planned attack.
    Don't ask WHY ....
    They just can't. "Well, stupid" (c) ....

    You yourself did not notice that in your logic you just agreed to "invulnerability".
    Why do we need CDs at all if our valiant pilots are guaranteed to escape from the blow?
    And our valiant air defense troops are guaranteed to shoot down all the missiles?
    Well, in your own picture of the world, this is how everything happens ...))) All in one gate ...

    [quote] Firstly, our aviation will still be dispersed and it will not be possible to inflict too much damage [/ quote]
    That will fail, and that's it.
    Why? By the fact that we are Russian and God is with us.
    This means that we have the best commanders and we are always lucky.
    And our opponents have the opposite - Zadornov said that they are Stupid)))) YYYYYYY ...

    The bottom line ... yes, for you, the article is really about nothing.
    By the fact that in it I asked the question - what will happen if we lose the first blow in a conflict with a regional country?

    The flotophile answer is that it won't happen.
    Because...
    God with us...
    Ships and planes are guaranteed to get out of the blow ...
    Structurally .... there are no direct words.


    [quote] And, in fact, about nothing. [/ quote]
    Of course nothing))))
    The illustration below doesn't tell you anything =))))


    That some next puppet of the West, a fan of chewing a tie on the air, decides to take part in a military adventure against Russia for money.
    And by the forces of primitive weapons, they will shoot them from the hailstones. Something valuable ... a Navy base for example))) Together with expensive ships.
    And then I tear to the west on the run, to my curators.
    And then make claims to poor Georgia (enter the necessary), right?
    With a dead donkey ears as "compensation".

    It never happened.
    And here again ...


    [Quote] Or do the authors seriously believe that the entire Federation Council by the beginning of hostilities will proudly stand at the piers of Severomorsk? Will the ships be specially withdrawn from Severodvinsk in order to overtake them to Severomorsk? :)))
    Before the start of a war, there is always a period of political tension, [/ quote]
    The author seriously believes that war is the art of deception.
    The author seriously believes that no fools are against us.
    The author seriously believes that they will attack at a convenient moment, and right now, many are just waiting for this moment.

    [quote] Before the start of a war, there is always a period of political tension, and all ships "on the move" by the beginning of hostilities will be deployed at sea [/ quote]
    1) Pearl Harbor doesn't tell you anything, does it?
    2) And what about the events in Georgia? Was there a period of tension there too?
    When our planes with a rear hemisphere tanked all the missiles that were fired at them, we were so ready for a war with homeless Georgia in terms of organization, command and intelligence. For 2 whole days our command didn’t understand what was happening there ... it was lucky that the country was poor and small.
    3) Increased military activity = increased tension.
    Therefore, it all looks "obvious" only for you - some kind of abstract tension and immediately combat readiness for all branches of the armed forces. Almost everyone is in the sea at once. brilliant plan in general.
    Not only is it an economic problem, since ships in the sea burn their resource, so also the behavior is frankly twitchy.
    4) It has already been written about the vulnerability of the fleet to trolling - ships at sea consume a resource, so their withdrawal at sea cannot be considered a panacea for all occasions. Such tactics (forcing to keep the grouping at sea) in itself may already be an instrument of war ... when the mobilization of insignificant resources (cheap weapons) ... creates a threat to parry which is more expensive.
    This is already an economic profit ...
    And since the economy is part of the war, the withdrawal of expensive ships at sea in certain circumstances is already an achievement for our opponents.

    You also need to take into account that the ship will not be able to sail forever. And the service period for large ships is also long. So you can force the resource to drain in one period and start active actions when the ship gets up for service.

    "Fortunately," I repeat, we have 5 fleets. And keeping several large ships on each is expensive for us.
    We will build 5 destroyers - 1 for each fleet.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 9 March 2021 08: 17
    +7
    Simple solutions, they are so simple.
    Of course, 50 Tu-160m2 is power. But how to determine when and where to fly? The same is true for long-range missiles. They need target designation. But target designators are the first target of the enemy. This means that they need to somehow ensure combat stability. How can the Tu-160m2 fight enemy submarines? But they also carry cruise missiles.
    But maybe you can win by attacking the stationary objects of the enemy? Also no. Even the Americans had to use ground forces against Iraq.
    Different forces, including the surface forces of the fleet, in their combination with each other make it possible to multiply their effectiveness.
    For example, the problem of Norway. Yes, the enemy forces there are extremely dangerous for our fleet. But there are Iskanders and amphibious forces against them.
    Yes, the Baltic and Black Seas do not need large ships and nuclear submarines. But it is one thing to conduct air battles with Turkey over the Black Sea. In this case, the United States and some Europeans will provide the rear for the Turks. And another, when a squadron of the Northern Fleet, capable of crushing the Turkish fleet, enters the Mediterranean Sea. Then the Turks will have no foreign rear.
    1. squid
      squid 9 March 2021 17: 39
      -2
      NK target designation can be provided from space, in the near zone - by coastal drone aircraft. Coastal anti-submarine aviation, as well as coastal forces from corvettes-frigates, are fighting against submarines.
    2. Mitroha
      Mitroha 9 March 2021 22: 25
      +3
      Quote: SVD68
      And another, when a squadron of the Northern Fleet, capable of crushing the Turkish fleet, enters the Mediterranean Sea. Then the Turks will have no foreign rear.

      Until the squadron of the Northern Fleet gets there, there will be no fleets in the World Cup. Individual units if only
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 12: 17
      +2
      Here's a good comment, plus.
    4. ccsr
      ccsr 11 March 2021 12: 20
      0
      Quote: SVD68
      Of course, 50 Tu-160m2 is power.

      This is a force, only unreliable for a nuclear war in the event of a surprise attack on us. There is no sense in building so many planes - we need, in my opinion, at most 15-20 such planes, so that during a threatened period at least 2-4 of them are in the air with a full ammo in nuclear warheads. And these aircraft should be in the Aerospace Forces, and not in the fleet - the fleet will not pull this technique.
      Quote: SVD68
      But how to determine when and where to fly? The same is true for long-range missiles. They need target designation.

      Yes, you finally understand that in reality, only 20 or at most 30% (and maybe less) of the US fleet is at sea, and everything else is at the berths, and they will not have time to leave their bases in 25-30 minutes. Even those surface ships that are in the sea, except for patrolling nuclear submarines, are not afraid of us, because they will not be able to be in an area dangerous to us in a day. And by this time, nothing will have to be defended in the course of mutual exchange of nuclear strikes.
      Quote: SVD68
      Even the Americans had to use ground forces against Iraq.

      If they had fired at least 10-20 tactical nuclear charges at Iraq, then there would be no question of any ground forces. Well, the Iraqi scenario is not suitable for us - it's obvious.
      Quote: SVD68
      Different forces, including the surface forces of the fleet, in their combination with each other allow you to multiply your effectiveness

      This is all theoretical nonsense, which can be easily refuted by the duty of our nuclear submarines in areas that are least controlled by the Americans, i.e. near our bases. By the way, here one author gave a very competent picture of the deployment of four of our strategic nuclear submarines, two of which are in northern latitudes, and which shoot through the entire territory of the United States. So they do not need surface support, and if they can release the entire BC, they will already cause unacceptable damage to the United States. Why should we then have a powerful ocean-going fleet, if even without it these nuclear submarines will better cope with the destruction of the United States?
      Quote: SVD68
      For example, the problem of Norway. Yes, the enemy forces there are extremely dangerous for our fleet. But there are Iskanders and amphibious forces against them.

      There is no problem with Norway - this is out of the question. The only danger can be posed by US strategic aviation deployed to Norwegian airfields, and no more.
      Quote: SVD68
      But it is one thing to conduct air battles with Turkey over the Black Sea. In this case, the United States and some Europeans will provide the rear for the Turks. And another, when a squadron of the Northern Fleet, capable of crushing the Turkish fleet, enters the Mediterranean Sea. Then the Turks will have no foreign rear.

      You don't seem to understand that the days of Admiral F.F. Ushakov is long gone, and the war with Turkey will begin with a war with the United States. At least understand this to begin with, in order to limit the flight of fantasies about the participation of the Northern Fleet in the war against Turkey.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 9 March 2021 08: 29
    +18
    The article is strange, and very controversial ...
    And the conclusions about the fact that the Tu-160 will save us are ridiculous.
    This aircraft is not designed for anti-ship
    tasks, well, just can't, that's all. Honestly, u
    we did not have new aviation anti-ship missiles with
    launch range of at least 500 km, and aircraft
    for such missiles, no.
    Despite constant reports of achievements,
    everything has changed in the Navy since Soviet times
    for the better, and the most mobile shock
    the strength of the Fleet is MPA, and is completely destroyed, and in return
    nothing is created.
    1. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 9 March 2021 12: 04
      0
      With the parallel creation of intelligent RCs with a PC or submarine warheads, it is a very possible thing. He raised a dozen "harpies" with a radius of up to 5000 km, released them at reconnoitered targets, and then on their own ...
      The main thing is to avoid interception of strategic bombers from the side of a dispersed air defense system based on ferocious interceptors with artificial intelligence.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 March 2021 15: 13
      -4
      Yes, it's easier to put two dozen Bastions with Zircons on this rocket with dimensions just the same as the Onyxes fit in an emergency situation and on all other seas and oceans - all enemy surface ships will have a khan in case of war within a radius of 1500 km if the data on the missile range is real.
    3. alstr
      alstr 9 March 2021 16: 47
      +1
      Correctly. Tu-160 is not needed as a fighter against the fleet. for this there is a TU-22.
    4. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 9 March 2021 23: 04
      +1
      Quote: Bez 310
      we did not have new aviation anti-ship missiles with
      launch range of at least 500 km, and aircraft
      for such missiles, no.
      It seems that about the X-32 it was said that D = up to 1000 km, the Tu-22M3M (2 units) was identified as the carrier, they say the Su-34 can carry 1 piece under the fuselage.
      Quote: Bez 310
      the most mobile strike force of the Fleet, the MPA, has been completely destroyed, and nothing has been created to replace it.
      And this is a tragic mistake of the leadership of the Russian Navy and Defense Ministry. Where the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces is looking is unknown! Maybe when the "Messenger" is dazzled and the Tu-160M ​​is made (an order for 10 units and the amount of 160 billion rubles KAZ has already received) then the Tu-22m3m will be returned "back" to the fleet. To support the pants. There is a second opinion: the MRA of the fleet is deployed on the Su-34M.
      Let's see what happens next.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 10 March 2021 08: 04
        +2
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        It seems that about the X-32 it was said that D = up to 1000 km

        Perhaps, but only for a target with previously known coordinates.
        After all, the X-22 PSI can do this too, but there is less fuel, therefore it flies
        closer.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 11 March 2021 13: 51
        +1
        There will be no MRA. It needs a command system, but our fleets are subordinate to districts.
        Go and try to explain to the army generals that just having planes is not enough, you also need special naval pilots for them, otherwise "just pilots" will be tortured to go to the target.
        They will laugh.
        1. S. Viktorovich
          S. Viktorovich 11 March 2021 17: 43
          0
          This is the main problem at the moment. In the Second World War, there were more meaningful decisions on the organization of the fleet-aviation, life forced. Now boots-boots are definitely produced.
    5. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 10 March 2021 00: 14
      -4
      "To be honest, we have not yet developed new aircraft anti-ship missiles with a launch range of at least 500 km, and there are no planes for such missiles."
      Wait, but what about the Zircon, for which many people here just pray?
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 10 March 2021 08: 06
        +1
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        but what about Zircon

        According to joyful reports in the media, this our
        Zircon has not yet flown more than 450 km, and
        then, by target with known coordinates.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 9 March 2021 08: 48
    +5
    But ...
    The main task of the fleet is to retaliate with SSBNs. And whatever Mr. Klimov writes, the submarine under the ice is an incomparably more difficult target than the mines of ground-based ICBMs, with coordinates known to a meter, poplars in hangars and long-range aviation crowded at Engels airfields.
    But to protect our missile carriers, surface ships are needed. And since they must have appropriate systems and operate them in a stormy sea and for a long time, they must be rather big. And this is already a huge task, which the Tu-160 will not solve in any way.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 March 2021 08: 50
      +1
      And whatever Mr. Klimov writes, a submarine under the ice is an incomparably more difficult target than the mines of ground-based ICBMs,

      There is a nuance, while the early warning systems are working, ICBMs will have time to launch before they are hit.
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 9 March 2021 09: 00
        +3
        And how many times has this early warning system worked incorrectly both for us and for them? We need titanium eggs to decide on a massive retaliatory strike in a few minutes.
        1. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 9 March 2021 09: 41
          +1
          Quote: Sahalinets
          We need titanium eggs to decide on a massive retaliatory strike in a few minutes.

          You just have to hit first.
          1. Sahalinets
            Sahalinets 9 March 2021 09: 42
            +3
            Are you sure you won't get caught by the trident?
            1. Narak-zempo
              Narak-zempo 9 March 2021 09: 43
              -3
              Quote: Sahalinets
              Are you sure you won't get caught by the trident?

              I'm sure I'll go to heaven.
              And in general, this is a sacred cause.
              1. Sahalinets
                Sahalinets 9 March 2021 09: 44
                +2
                Well, do not delay it, why wait for a war? wink
                1. Narak-zempo
                  Narak-zempo 9 March 2021 09: 46
                  -2
                  Quote: Sahalinets
                  Well, do not delay it, why wait for a war? wink

                  There will be no paradise without war and laughing
                  1. Mordvin 3
                    Mordvin 3 9 March 2021 13: 51
                    +1
                    Quote: Narak-zempo
                    There will be no paradise without war and

                    Will we burn in hell without war? Sheer sadness, whether with the war or without it. crying
      2. Ryusey
        Ryusey 9 March 2021 11: 09
        0
        Not a fact, far from a fact.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 11: 46
      +7
      The main task of the fleet is to retaliate with SSBNs. And whatever Mr. Klimov writes, the submarine under the ice is an incomparably more difficult target than the mines of ground-based ICBMs, with coordinates known to a meter, poplars in hangars and long-range aviation crowded at Engels airfields.


      Klimov never denied this. Klimov was indignant at the fact that this important task is being performed today with useless means.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 9 March 2021 08: 56
    +1
    What a cool article, and what will happen if a little farther than from under the coast, the enemy SSBNs will hit us very slightly, and hyper-warheads, even worse than the Vanguard, will the Tu 160 have time to take off, will the Poplars and Yarsy have time to take off, and most importantly, what will you do? parry? Corvettes or RTOs? And if these corvettes at the time of launch are erased by the US KUG and AUG, how will we cover them? What is the use of the notorious bastions when they do not ensure the inevitability of a retaliatory strike and, if necessary (and is there any certainty that it will not appear), a preventive one?
    In general, you did not disappoint, you are drowning with all your might for the destruction of the Navy, for the weakening of the country's defense and, as a consequence, for our defeat in the imminent inevitable war ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 11: 46
      +4
      What a cool article, and what will happen if a little farther than from under the coast, the enemy SSBNs hit us very slightly, and hyper-warheads, even worse than the Vanguard, will the Tu 160 have time to take off, will the Poplars and Yars have time to take off, and most importantly, what will you do? parry?


      They just forgot about the SSBN
  • Ivanchester
    Ivanchester 9 March 2021 09: 04
    +2
    The photo with the caption "Start RCC with B1" shows not B1, but B2.
    At the same time, as far as I understand, it is not capable of carrying an anti-ship missile, so most likely it is an AGM-158 JASSM missile, and not an AGM-158C LRASM.
  • Niko
    Niko 9 March 2021 09: 21
    +4
    Logic can, if desired, be found anywhere (even in similar articles). However, exercising logical thinking, do not forget that there are facts. For example, one of the main tasks of the fleet is to ensure the deployment (and, as far as possible, combat stability) of the underwater component of the country's nuclear shield. And then it turns out - that -160 will save us! The plane is certainly not bad, but in order to name all submarine missile carriers in terms of "retaliation strike" .... nonsense.
    1. squid
      squid 9 March 2021 17: 42
      -2
      Nobody objects to the coastal forces of the fleet, in the form of frigate corvettes. As well as anti-submarine aviation. Why aren't you a cover for SSBNs?
      1. Niko
        Niko 9 March 2021 18: 08
        +1
        It seems we have read different articles. The authors write that the fleet will be destroyed by the first strike, as well as the aviation bases that are not in the depths of the territory. And then from somewhere (apparently, because of the Urals, Tu-160 will rise for (retaliation) on this very occasion my comments
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          13 March 2021 01: 59
          0
          Quote: Niko
          It seems we have read different articles. The authors write that the fleet will be destroyed by the first strike, as well as the aviation bases that are not in the depths of the territory. And then from somewhere (apparently, because of the Urals, Tu-160 will rise for (retaliation) on this very occasion my comments

          To be precise, I just outlined the obvious issues of combat resilience.

          Fleet bases in the geography of Russia are much more vulnerable than US Navy bases.
          Fact? Well, maybe for some it is not obvious.
          Do you need to take this into account? Yes need.

          Does being in the depths of the territory affect combat stability?
          Yes it does.


          In the dry residue
          1) the survival rate is higher
          2) there is no need to divide by 5
          3) much better focusing impact than navy


          As if everything.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 19: 04
        +2
        They will be carried out by the shipmen from the DMZ.
        1. squid
          squid 9 March 2021 19: 11
          -1
          Corvettes-frigates are certainly not rivals of the AUG, this was not proposed. As a means of protecting the missile forces from the Virginia, along with anti-submarine aircraft - quite. And it would be more logical to defend against the "shipmen from the dmz" by the regiments of the su-57, created with the money saved from the non-implementation of the "big fleet"
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 19: 15
            +1
            It will not work, Here are the approximate figures for "defending the regiments of the Su-57".
            They won't be in time. For example, consider the rise of the regiment from Severomorsk-3, for example, and its flight to Bear Island to protect the KPUG from corvettes on the anti-submarine line.
            More details here:
            https://topwar.ru/163939-stroim-flot-oshibochnye-idei-nepravilnye-koncepcii.html
            1. squid
              squid 9 March 2021 20: 15
              +2
              I read it.
              The text is remarkable:

              "However, there was one example when the" asymmetry "worked just" with a bang. "
              We are talking about naval missile-carrying aviation of the USSR Navy, and, if we look more broadly, then about long-range bombers armed with anti-ship missiles in principle.
              The creation of MRA was the answer of the Soviet Union to the impossibility of creating several large ocean fleets in different parts of the country. Such aviation, firstly, in some cases negated the superiority of the West in the number of warships, secondly, it made it possible to very quickly inter-theater maneuver, thirdly, it was relatively universal - bombers could, if necessary, attack not only ships, and not just non-nuclear weapons. The instrument evolved slowly, but by the end of the 80's it was a force factor comparable to the American carrier-based aircraft and the carrier fleet - even if they did not have guaranteed superiority over them.
              The "asymmetric" solution to replace the battleship (which was not there) with a heavy attack aircraft proved to be very effective. "

              Isn't this the same as the author described in the article? Why should the same "asymmetry" stop working? Since then, guided missiles have evolved very strongly, aviation - significantly, large ships - have remained practically at the same level.
              The argument in your article "MPA was comparable in cost to the aircraft carrier fleet" and at the same time was supposedly highly specialized - is not true. Firstly, it is much cheaper, and secondly, the current Tu-160 is a very versatile tool.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 20: 45
                +4
                Isn't this the same as the author described in the article? Why should the same "asymmetry" stop working? Since then, guided missiles have evolved very strongly, aviation - significantly, large ships - have remained practically at the same level.


                It stopped working by the end of the 80s. The specificity of the MPA anti-ship missile system was that the GOS performed the target capture on the carrier, which required reaching the launch line, which was deep inside the combat radius of the deck interceptors. The approach itself was also a problem - the attack of the Main Target with a breakthrough through the air defense order. The Americans learned to coordinate the actions of URO ships located at a distance of hundreds of kilometers from each other, and the depth of only the naval air defense turned out to be hundreds of kilometers.
                Read what Bez 310 writes, he wrote a lot about this on this site.

                In such conditions, it was necessary, firstly, to change the approach to missiles and shoot "ship-like", that is, at the external control center, secondly, other aircraft were needed, and thirdly, it was necessary to solve something with fighter cover.

                Then, with the advent of the US missile defense system with ARLGSN and the NIFC-CA system, which allows any aircraft to direct the fire of shipborne air defense systems outside the radio horizon, it was necessary to go further, and to separate the tasks of reconnaissance and gunner aircraft, who were supposed to detect the target, classify contacts, and then control the flight according to the OZOI a salvo of missiles, if necessary, and "shooters" who simply pull the missiles to the launch line and fire them.

                It was also necessary to solve a conceptual problem - to choose whether we continue to rely on a strike on the main target, or we are sequentially hacking the air defense order, destroying URO ships, and only then the aircraft carrier.

                It was necessary to conceptually resolve the issue of how to deal with carrier-based aircraft - to destroy it on an aircraft carrier, lure it into a missile ambush and interrupt it with ships, or impose an air battle. Various combinations of these options had to be considered.
                None of this has been done.

                Before reviving naval strike aviation, all these issues must be resolved at least theoretically.

                The Tu-160 is a very expensive aircraft, it cannot fly supersonic on ordinary jet fuel, it is huge and requires hundreds of man-hours of inter-flight service. This is not a weapon for serious war, this is such a "big F-35" with similar disadvantages.

                Its avionics are not capable of ensuring the use of either PLUR or anti-ship missiles, it also cannot detect surface targets, it cannot perform anti-aircraft maneuvers with the same overloads with which, for example, the Su-34 can. About the fight against submarines using this aircraft is just unscientific fantasy.

                It will cost like the Su-30SM squadron, and, unlike it, will be shot down by ONE missile.
                Well, 50 aircraft in 10 years is definitely not about us, the pace of production of this wonderful pepelatsa is already obvious, isn't it?
                In reality, a naval strike aircraft should be made from the Su-34 or 30SM, and the VKS should be transferred to the future PAK YES when they begin to be made.
                The Tu-95 will be modernized so that they can operate as missile carriers until they are completely replaced with the PAK DA, and the Tu-160, with the start of production of the PAK DA, will be slowly withdrawn from service to save money. And do not drag all this to the fleet.
                1. squid
                  squid 9 March 2021 21: 00
                  0
                  Well, the arguments about the gsn and the launch line do not count now. First of all, we are defending the coast, which means that heavy coastal drlo aircraft are available. Secondly, as mentioned above, both satellite reconnaissance and satellite communications have been completely invented, which means that a rocket, with proper construction of an aircraft, can be launched from anywhere and its flight can be adjusted before the GOS is captured. What was impossible or simply was not done 40 years ago is now quite possible to do.
                  As for the Tu-160, I agree - they are good to fly over the Indian Ocean. Su-57 / mig-31 with suspended missile defense systems is enough for the defense of the coast and patrolling areas of the SSBN. At the same time, we will additionally strengthen the fighter aircraft. There will be a maneuver of forces not only between theaters, but also between genera and types of the sun. In general, a modern fifth-generation fighter that is not inferior to "potential partners" is now the most important type of aircraft for us, surpassing all "large" and "small" fleets in importance.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 21: 24
                    +3
                    Well, the arguments about the gsn and the launch line do not count now. First of all, we are defending the coast, which means that heavy coastal drlo aircraft are available. Secondly, as mentioned above, both satellite reconnaissance and satellite communications have been completely invented, which means that a rocket, with proper construction of an aircraft, can be launched from anywhere and its flight can be adjusted before the GOS is captured. What was impossible or simply was not done 40 years ago is now quite possible to do.


                    Well, it seems to have been discussed? With simulation pictures?

                    In general, a modern fifth-generation fighter that is not inferior to "potential partners" is now the most important type of aircraft for us, surpassing all "large" and "small" fleets in importance.


                    With this I do not argue in any way. And the new long-range bomber too.
                2. Alexander Vorontsov
                  13 March 2021 03: 11
                  -1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  The Tu-160 is a very expensive aircraft, it cannot fly supersonic on ordinary jet fuel, it is huge and requires hundreds of man-hours of inter-flight service. This is not a weapon for serious war, this is such a "big F-35" with similar disadvantages.

                  It's nice to see that your education efforts are not in vain.
                  Earlier you wrote that the Tu-160 does not fly at all on ordinary kerosene.
                  Now you are more knowledgeable and write more correctly.

                  But the number of bloopers is still very large (

                  Tu-160 is a very expensive aircraft

                  I admire your ability to repeat 1000 times mantras ... which have little meaning.
                  Mostly emotions. Well, that means very different ...
                  After all, there was already a topic in which they were compared - it turned out that everything and everyone does everything in terms of impact potential.
                  And this is without considering his other tactical advantages, in which he is also the best.
                  such as the invisibility of the preparation of the blow, the time of application.

                  he is huge and

                  Iiiii?

                  requires hundreds of man-hours of flight service

                  At the expense of servicing, they have already tried to teach you - the "topic" about the complexity of maintenance is rooted in the days when the first cars were just beginning to arrive in units and then, yes, the car was prepared for flight, in my opinion, for 3 days. The very first cars.

                  But the topic about the "development" of facilities you prefer to blink away from it ...
                  When I wrote - guys, think about why Americans train to reload their planes with drums ...
                  Ever since the days of Vietnam, our lag in servicing aircraft on the ground has been outlined, from maintenance to ending with ASP equipment ...

                  Nothing clicks in your head from this information. Well, that they are hanging anti-ship missiles on the B-52, and that they are reloading with drums ... well, and that in Guam where 3 runways are investing a couple of lard bucks, well, and that their missile carriers fly from all over the country, including Ukraine. ...
                  And we will cut our Tu-160 ...



                  It will cost like the Su-30SM squadron, and, unlike it, will be shot down by ONE missile.

                  Well, yes ... after all, writing to you about combat stability and the fact that the "su 30 squadron" has a greater chance of being gouged at the airfield in view of its proximity to the enemy due to its small radius .... apparently useless?))))

                  You also don’t understand what, for example, in order to carry out a re-launch ... the plane must return to the airfield and recharge.

                  If we are not talking about explosive missiles but about anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles .... these are heavy and expensive ammunition. Which should also
                  a) kept on the "front line" ....
                  b) should be dispersed over all the airfields of the country - here 1,5 missiles ... here 2 ...



                  And since our valiant squadron is based on the front line, then a little more will be brought to them.
                  This means that a tamahawk can fly into them too ... while they lie in the warehouse of the operational airfield ...

                  Therefore, you do not see a problem in what to place on the advanced squadron SU 30 along with all the fuel and BC for 2-3 sorties ... with a full complement ...

                  And, accordingly, you do not see any advantages, to base the Tu-160 next to an oil refinery, where fuel is in bulk, and expensive ammunition in large quantities can also be safely accumulated ...

                  It will cost like the Su-30SM squadron, and, unlike it, will be shot down by ONE missile.
                  Yeah ... from MANPADS ...
                  Can you find out the scenario of the downing of the Tu-160? From what distance, than ... who?
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 13 March 2021 20: 49
                    0
                    Alexander, to throw show-off, you have to start to represent something.
                    Stop being NOTHING

                    Earlier you wrote that the Tu-160 does not fly at all on ordinary kerosene


                    I wrote that he needed special fuel.
                    This is not the same thing, to put it mildly.
            2. squid
              squid 9 March 2021 20: 23
              -2
              It will work out. Rpksn do not go to the Indian Ocean. The semi-closed waters of the Okhotsk and Barents Seas (and even near the continental coast) can be fully covered by coastal aviation. At the same time, heavy drlo + dispersed aircraft will have a clear advantage over carrier-based E-3 and a bunch of aviation collected on one ship. And in terms of take-off time, and stability, and detection range. AUG itself is also quite possible to detect strongly in advance.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 20: 52
                +3
                Well, here's a shorthand for this "cover with coastal aviation", what's the question?

                And at the same time such an introductory

                ZRBD SSBNs in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk are located to the west of Kamchatka, in the adjacent waters. They should be covered from Kamchatka airfields.
                So think about how to do this, taking into account the fact that planes from the Aleutian Islands and Alaska are crushing from the east, and aircraft from bases in Japan from the south.

                And a hypothetical landing on the Kuriles, with the second echelon of the Patriot air defense system here.
                1. squid
                  squid 9 March 2021 21: 11
                  -2
                  Have you tried to think yourself? Above my own introduction.
                  From Hokkaido or Alaska - on the verge (or beyond) the combat radius. At least IA. From the Aleuts - the route lies over Kamchatka or Kuril Islands. Those. over the air defense system and airfields of our aircraft. In all cases, our airfields are several times closer to the patrol area of ​​our missile forces. What would not cover? I can't imagine what tsyfiri you are going to invent here.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And a hypothetical landing on the Kuriles, with the second echelon of the Patriot air defense system here.

                  Can you tell me the time of this landing, with the deployment of the Patriots? In a global nuclear war, since we are talking about RPKSN. And what will this deployment give, at the same time.

                  It looks like some kind of agony of argumentation on your part. Perhaps, capraz is really "cold" for you.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 21: 23
                    +4
                    Have you tried to think yourself? Above my own introduction.
                    From Hokkaido or Alaska - on the verge (or beyond) the combat radius.


                    Have you heard about refueling in the air?

                    From the Aleuts - the route lies over Kamchatka or Kuril Islands. Those. over the air defense system and airfields of our aircraft.


                    You did not understand. The point is that the attacks of these forces against Kamchatka first fetter our IA in battle, then nothing remains of it.
                    Which deprives the air defense missile system of air cover.

                    And this makes it possible to work with anti-submarine aircraft from Japan, for example.

                    Can you tell me the time of this landing, with the deployment of the Patriots? In a global nuclear war, since we are talking about RPKSN.


                    And where did you get the idea that failure to communicate at the set time of the SSBN will immediately lead to a nuclear war?

                    It looks like some kind of agony of argumentation on your part.


                    It looks like your understanding of the issue is rather vague so far.
                    1. squid
                      squid 9 March 2021 21: 49
                      -3
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Have you heard about refueling in the air?

                      Yeah, right over Kamchatka. The whole armada of hundreds of fighters. Hmm ...

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      first, they bind our IA in battle, then nothing remains of it.

                      Well, if the enemy is 10 times more, then naturally. Anything can be hacked. Although over its territory under the cover of air defense the chances are much greater than at sea on an aircraft carrier.

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      makes it possible to operate anti-submarine aircraft from Japan

                      And how long will it take for your refueling, air battles, and ASW aircraft to fly thousands of kilometers away? In a nuclear war, when the exchange of strikes takes place in the first tens of minutes and then the SSBNs that have been fired become useless.

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      And where did you get the idea that failure to communicate at the set time of the SSBN will immediately lead to a nuclear war?

                      A large-scale attack by US aircraft through our airspace in the area of ​​the missile patrol is obviously a sign of a big war going on. It turns into a nuclear one very quickly.

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      It looks like your understanding of the issue is rather vague so far.

                      everything is clear with you. you were revealed, mister "expert". swam like a schoolboy in the exam. Damn, even on topvar some sofa writers ... in general, everything is clear with you. interested persons can poke into this correspondence as a sample of your self-exposure in the discussion. and it was show-off - "you imagine who you are talking to" ... yeah. now I imagine. Interestingly, is the second mentioned in your party ("kurekhin"?) the same?

                      okay, dream about your boats further.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 10 March 2021 10: 47
                        +1
                        You understand my words the other way around. I did not write about an attack by an anti-aircraft missile system through the airspace of Kamchatka. You have not understood anything.
                        Apparently because you do not understand the essence of the subject.

                        Once again in a simplified form.
                        The US Air Force is destroying aircraft from Kamchatka.
                        While they are doing this, this aircraft cannot cover the ZRBD, as it is drawn into heavy battles in the other direction.
                        Therefore, the air defense missile system can be attacked by aircraft from the same Japan, using air refueling.

                        So clear, or should it be even simpler?

                        A large-scale attack by US aircraft through our airspace in the area of ​​the missile patrol is obviously a sign of a big war going on. It turns into a nuclear one very quickly.


                        How much is it very fast? An hour, a day? You do not hide behind a "nuclear war", strain your brain.
                        How, for example, does the General Staff learn about an attack on an SSBN, if the radar station in Kamchatka is knocked out by air strikes, and the aviation is bleeding out over Elizovo somewhere?
                        Do you know how they will find out what is there with the SSBN and how long it might take?

                        now I imagine. Interestingly, is the second mentioned in your party ("kurekhin"?) the same?


                        Madness should be embarrassed, and not proudly demonstrated to others.
                      2. ccsr
                        ccsr 10 March 2021 12: 10
                        -1
                        Quote: squid
                        In a nuclear war, when the exchange of strikes takes place in the first tens of minutes and then the SSBNs that have been fired become useless.

                        You are one of the few in VO who correctly assesses the possible scenarios and our response actions in the event of a war with the USA. All the naval fantasies of Timokhin and Klimov are not from a great mind and from a lack of genuine knowledge of how everything will unfold in the first minutes, which is why Timokhin pearls are born like this:
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        How, for example, does the General Staff learn about an attack on an SSBN, if the radar station in Kamchatka is knocked out by air strikes, and the aviation is bleeding out over Elizovo somewhere?
                        Do you know how they will find out what is there with the SSBN and how long it might take?

                        This dreamer does not even understand that after giving the command for a mass launch of the main potential of the strategic nuclear forces, neither the General Staff, nor the minister, nor the Supreme Commander-in-Chief will be able to change anything, which is why they will not care what will happen in Kamchatka with SSBNs. The main thing is that the SSBNs have time to release at least something, having fulfilled their duty, and heroically die in a retaliatory strike. What for the General Staff to find out what happened to the SSBN after the exchange of strikes, Timokhin can hardly explain - he is a great verbiage, but not a strategist, that is why you believe him, not respect yourself.
                      3. ccsr
                        ccsr 11 March 2021 12: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: squid
                        And how long will it take for your refueling, air battles, and ASW aircraft to fly thousands of kilometers away? In a nuclear war, when the exchange of strikes takes place in the first tens of minutes and then the SSBNs that have been fired become useless.

                        Timokhin and his admirers are not given to understand this - they are still captivated by the ideas of the past, and therefore they carry all sorts of nonsense about the battle of surface ships, air battles with AUG aircraft, tank battles in Iraq and other nonsense that they come up with in their head.
                        We knew what you are writing about back in the eighties, and all competent intelligence analysts understood that it was necessary to monitor, first of all, the state of combat readiness of the US strategic nuclear forces, and not the specific targets and coordinates of all their other armed forces, because with a transient exchange of strikes already not before that.
                        In general, I perfectly understand what you are writing about, and I see that such issues can be seriously discussed with you. "I recognize a bird by a whip." And verbiage like Timokhin and Klimov will blurt out any serious issue with their pictures and texts of strangers, the meaning of which they themselves often do not understand. So it turns out that there are a lot of pretentious statements, unnecessary information with the sole purpose of proving that we desperately need an ocean-going fleet, although it is already clear that this metal will not bring us any benefit, except for strategic nuclear submarines, on which we must rely. But they also have a vulnerability - there are difficulties in communicating control signals, and unfortunately, we will not always know the true reasons for the death of a missile carrier far from our shores in peacetime. This means that the reliability of this system is lower than that of coastal missile systems.
                        Quote: squid
                        A large-scale attack by US aircraft through our airspace in the area of ​​the missile patrol is obviously a sign of a big war going on.

                        Even the massive takeoff of these aircraft from the US territory is already a reconnaissance sign, according to which our leadership may decide to strike at the US. In addition, there are many other signs by which the probability of an attack is assessed, including the departure of ships from bases in excess of the usual number. That is why, knowing that the Americans are constantly monitoring this, it is simply stupidity for us to have a large surface fleet to escort nuclear submarines - they will immediately understand something is being started, and will take all measures to detect our missile carrier.
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      13 March 2021 00: 32
      0
      Quote: Niko
      Logic can be found anywhere (even in such articles) if you want, but when exercising in logical thinking, do not forget that there are facts. For example, one of the main tasks of the fleet is to ensure the deployment (and, as far as possible, combat stability) of the underwater component of the country's nuclear shield. And then it turns out - that -160 will save us! The plane is certainly not bad, but in order to name all submarine missile carriers in terms of "retaliation strike" .... nonsense.

      I have nothing against this task - a completely adequate, necessary (in a number of scenarios for the development of events) and a clear goal.
  • Niko
    Niko 9 March 2021 09: 42
    +3
    The authors cannot be denied the "boldness of thinking", the idea of ​​equipping the Tu-160 with "ANTI-SUBMARINE MISSIONS" is a force. It remains to wait for an article from the authors with an explanation (for ordinary people like me, who do not have such a sharp mind) how the Tu-160 will be looking for the enemy's submarines without the help of the fleet destroyed in the first minutes (according to the authors). And question number two: why waste on such trifles as strikes on the fleet and squares after the start of a full-scale conflict?
    1. squid
      squid 9 March 2021 17: 44
      -2
      NK can be easily found from space. In the coastal zone - by land-based drills. Anti-submarine coastal aviation is fighting submarines.
      1. Niko
        Niko 9 March 2021 18: 05
        0
        I understand all this perfectly well. You seem to have not read what the authors write about this.
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 9 March 2021 09: 44
    +3
    There is no "wunderwafele" that would solve all defense tasks, incl. they will not be solved by a small number of strategic aviation, which is quite vulnerable both on the ground and in the air. For the Russian army, the weak point is ensuring the interaction of diverse forces, incl. fleet and aviation. To implement such interaction, the priority should be the creation of universal global stable systems of communication, control, reconnaissance and target designation.
  • Eroma
    Eroma 9 March 2021 09: 46
    -1
    Russia is a huge land country with partners on its borders with huge armies (NATO and China), so the main thing is ground forces, air force and nuclear forces (these are the most important!). Russia cannot be defeated from the sea, but in geopolitics, the navy is the main branch of the armed forces! It is impossible to scare everyone with a nuclear club, because this is a doomsday weapon! A huge land army, there is no one to scare anyone in Africa, tk. she will never get there! Aviation is more mobile, but without the support of overseas partners, it is also dangerous only to neighbors! And only the fleet is really capable of projecting force anywhere on the planet, it is he who can transfer troops and provide aviation. It is the fleet that is able to demonstrate the flag and take under protection and sight anything and anywhere!
    It is necessary to clearly divide tasks according to the headquarters! nuclear war: these are rovers with missiles and their protection, these are Calibers and their deployment, these are naval air defense and missile defense and antiamphibious coastal defense, the main thing is to ensure a nuclear strike on SLBMs! Local wars are anywhere: these are nuclear submarines with calibers, these are surface forces for controlling the water area, these are landing and transport capabilities and the forces of their escort, this is aviation capable of sinking a fleet of 20-30 pennants (it is unlikely to be found in local conflicts). The fleet is needed and not the smallest, as I personally support the striking force in the form of the Tu160, it is more effective than missile cruisers, it seems to me, but the bombers themselves will not win the war at sea without the fleet itself!
    We have the status of a nuclear superpower and it allows us not to have a super fleet, because in their right mind, even the United States will rock the boat, and if it rock, then put out the light of humanity! There is probably no need for such work, which the fleet was engaged in in the USSR chasing all US ships, modern ICBMs and SLBMs, with CD on bombers can work normally from our territory, but we will not be able to crash all of Ohio, it may not be necessary, we if we get to Paradise
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 9 March 2021 11: 10
      0
      This is worse than stupidity, this is a mistake.
      1. Eroma
        Eroma 9 March 2021 13: 33
        -2
        What is the error? sad
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 9 March 2021 09: 49
    -1
    Timokhin is right. A preemptive strike on stationary airfields with previously known coordinates knocks out all our strategic aviation and is on duty without airfields for a long time, and it does not take missiles with nuclear warheads with it. But the fleet is another matter. Several frigates or nuclear submarines with calibers with nuclear submarines on the BS, not to mention SSBNs, must still be found, and they can do so many things that no one wants to attack.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 9 March 2021 11: 13
      +3
      Silo-based ICBMs can also be knocked out of action, the question is how to "fit" the flight time during the response period.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 9 March 2021 16: 00
        -3
        For tens of seconds, this is exactly how much preparation for launch is now underway - there is no way to knock out an ICBM from the enemy and there is no such weapon that can fly thousands of kilometers unnoticed for a single air defense system and disable mine launchers that can withstand an explosion of a nuclear charge of a megaton power class. All that they have at the moment is subsonic cruise missiles in the future, medium-range MRBMs may appear, but even they will need a few minutes to reach the mines during this time they will be detected by an early warning missile system and will begin to transmit information to the air defense missile defense systems to the command headquarters and the supreme commander-in-chief.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 18: 22
          +1
          For tens of seconds, this is how much preparation for launch is now underway


          Amazing business! Does the people in the Strategic Missile Forces know about this? laughing
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 10 March 2021 16: 08
            -2
            The Voevoda's preparation for launch was brought to 80 seconds back in the 30s.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 11 March 2021 14: 40
              -1
              Hello pink pony. How are you?
        2. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 10 March 2021 00: 42
          -2
          withstanding the explosion of a nuclear charge of a megaton power class.

          Where did you get this information, where is it written?
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 10 March 2021 16: 11
            0
            A statement from the designers of these mines.
    2. squid
      squid 9 March 2021 17: 47
      +1
      Aviation doesn't have to be strategic. PKR and su35 / 57 can be suspended. And disperse them over a pre-created airfield network. Multipurpose fighters now have a decent range, the number is greater, and as aircraft they are much more versatile.
  • codetalker
    codetalker 9 March 2021 10: 20
    -3
    And what kind of Russia needs a weak fleet? Maybe then without him at all?) No, the authors will not be able to push through this idea. Late...
    Russia will have a strong fleet! It is decided only in what capacity is strong and in what time frame. Whether a strong fleet will solve local (but important) tasks in the spectrum of tasks of the Armed Forces (ensuring the deployment of submarine strategic nuclear forces) or will Russia have a strong global fleet. To ensure the use of force by Russia anywhere in the world.
    It seems to me that Russia and the Russian people have global interests.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 9 March 2021 12: 33
      0
      To ensure the use of force by Russia anywhere in the world.

      What for? Is there at least one real challenge in using this force?
      1. codetalker
        codetalker 9 March 2021 12: 42
        -1
        Yes, as much as necessary. But these are tasks of a global nature. Let's not go far for an example. There was a case of using the CD in Syria from the Caspian Sea. But Syria is close. And, for example, New Zealand is not, and there is no opportunity to use strategic forces either.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 9 March 2021 12: 54
          +1
          Yes, as much as necessary. But these are tasks of a global nature. Let's not go far for an example. There was a case of using the CD in Syria from the Caspian Sea. But Syria is close. And, for example, New Zealand is not, and there is no opportunity to use strategic forces either.

          The idea that the US Navy is a fleet of aggression is constantly being implanted in our minds.
          In fact, it is the foundation of America's survival as a nation. Therefore, 10 aircraft carriers.

          Here is a map of the planet's illumination at night.


          Looking at it, you understand that we don't need the Pacific Fleet at all. In the entire Far Eastern Federal District, 5,7% of the country's population lives.

          Even if the staff members bring the entire fleet there and land 1 troops, they will get tired of getting to Moscow. laughing

          But they have a different matter. Coastal country.
          Give the task to Andrey from Chelyabinsk and Timokhin to save the United States and in their hands, less than 100 aviks will not work. laughing
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 13: 45
            +4
            Give the task to Andrey from Chelyabinsk and Timokhin to save the United States and in their hands, less than 100 aviks will not work.


            From whom to save something?
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 9 March 2021 14: 30
              -3
              From whom to save something?

              From China, for example. From Russia, when Yaseny finishes. Japan remembers everything. Germany has not asked her yet. Great Britain wants to rebuild the empire. Spain wants revenge for 1898.
              And it is banal, Iran will finally equip a miracle shell and sail on a barge. wink

              Everyone is eager to kick a dead lion and present it on occasion. laughing
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 9 March 2021 16: 47
                +2
                Neither China nor Ash is not a military threat to the United States from the word "in general."
                The rest is clear, right?
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 9 March 2021 18: 38
                  -2
                  Neither China nor Ash is not a military threat to the United States from the word "in general."
                  The rest is clear, right?

                  Of course they are not. Clearer than clear.

                  Because (and therefore) that the United States has the most powerful fleet in the world. laughing
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 10: 21
    -6
    The very fact that the problems of the fleet are being discussed is certainly positive.

    A known misconception. Discussion of the problems gives rise to doubts about the invincibility of Russia and the infallibility of its leadership. Do you need it, is it the swaying of these spiritual bonds?
    And if tomorrow the same Klimov Timokhin are found in the aviation or ground forces, how will you continue to live ?!
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 9 March 2021 11: 14
      +1
      Is it much better to die surprised that everything turned out to be wrong?
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 9 March 2021 11: 17
        -1
        Is it much better to die surprised that everything turned out to be wrong?

        You have to pay for stupidity.
        Alas, these are the laws of this universe, the struggle for a place in the sun will never stop.
  • garri-lin
    garri-lin 9 March 2021 10: 22
    +6
    I think the very structure of the fleet needs to be rethought. 3 flotillas: Caspian. Black Sea. Baltic. And two fleets. East and West. And he treats flotillas exactly as flotillas. And do not overload them qualitatively and numerically.
  • Galleon
    Galleon 9 March 2021 10: 45
    +3
    Hence our first conclusion: it is necessary to revise the tactics of using the fleet, introducing into it the support of the rapid reaction forces in the person of the Tu-160, armed with anti-ship missiles in addition to strategic weapons.

    None of the navies are opposed to helping fellow-in-arms. The author does not say how to help. So I can imagine a pair of Tu-160s accompanied by a flying division of turbine MRK 1241 - they have hydrofoils!
    second and final conclusion. In the state in which the Russian navy is now, it is not capable of solving the tasks that the optimists assign to it. We definitely do not have the ability either financially or physically to strengthen the quantitative and qualitative composition of the fleet.

    I will finish the author's "thought": therefore, perish the naval component of the nuclear triad - to be suicide submariners without cover from the water for the sake of the author's economy.
    But this is already a proposal for a state crime, it cannot be regarded otherwise. And then: do not care about the optimists. The fleet should not be used for optimism, but for precise staff calculations and in cooperation.
    In general, the article is weak. Reasoning over a map with a ruler and a compass about the obvious ... no, about banal things and with incorrect weak conclusions. Yes, she could not be strong and reasoned, because it was written as a counter to too serious articles about naval problems.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 9 March 2021 10: 47
    0
    And where does Skomorokhov have to do with it? He also said that there is no Su-57 and will not be. This means that there will not be any 50 Tu-160s. Why shaggy grandmother?

    As for the 22.06 syndrome, I am afraid that in the West, due to their unwillingness to learn history and sticking their heads in the sand, they just do not understand that during the period of threat Russia may well freak out and take preventive strikes, just to avoid repetition. And the situation, which in Washington and Berlin may have seemed not to go beyond the diplomatic showdown, will go into a hot phase.

    And a lot of things that alarmists like to broadcast about will cease to have at least some meaning. For example, I am 101% sure that in the event of aggression from Germany (these are more likely to be burned to figs immediately in nuclear fires, they will complete the work of their grandfathers) or Poland, our tanks will go along the shortest route through the Baltic states, with simultaneous demonstration ships local "presidents", and no Spain or Italy will run to save them: "For some reason you were rude to the Russians for decades, and now they kicked, get out yourself, we are not obliged to provide you with any help."

    Well, well, the maximum of air defense systems and fighters. Moreover, the emphasis on the air defense missile system, apparently, is fair, since raising even a 2-squadron regiment from readiness number 1, about which another order must be given, requires much more time than launching missiles to intercept. By the way, we somehow don’t ask the question of how the same Germany didn’t bend under the bombs right away, considering how long it’s been building factories now. Well, in those years the equipment was much simpler, and its reproduction was much easier. But now, if the industry is bombed out, then its restoration in a reasonable time is absolutely impossible.

    By the way, the B-1Bs were already the first to be written off, everything is bad with them. The US is holding on to the B-52s, not because they are so good, but because there is nothing else. For 30 years, as the Union is gone, their strategists did not stir their questions.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 9 March 2021 11: 17