Military Review

Far Ocean Black Hole

277

Let's talk once again about the exorbitant ambitions of some of our military regarding the "presence" and "demonstrations" of Russia in the so-called far ocean zone. Because ambitions, which are then laid out on the pages of the media, are no longer quite ambitions, they are positions expressed by people "in execution" throughout the country.


In simple terms, it’s like “you have to answer for the market”. But with this in modern Russia, everything is not just bad, everything is lousy. It’s easy to shrug off today in terms of the fact that for five years we will have domes with gardens on Mars. In general, with our words, everything is just fine. And some warships will be sailing in squadrons near Florida, frightening the Americans not just, but very simply. But these are words.

But with business ...

In general, I would like to refer to the repeated words of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Yevmenov, that one of the most important tasks is to build up ships in the distant sea and ocean zones. This is really surprising, especially when it is said that the naval the fleet Russia has a very wide range of tasks, including in the DMZ.

That is, it is necessary to build ships that will, in the opinion of Evmenov (and in fairness - not only him), which will solve various tasks on distant frontiers near foreign shores.

In general, such tasks do not immediately come to mind by themselves. For 30 years of Russia's existence, there was one operation off the "distant shores", which, it should be admitted, the Russian fleet failed. This, of course, is about supplying the group in Syria.

Next, I will quote the well-known analyst Sivkov, who believes that

“The presence of the Russian Navy in peacetime to ensure economic interests is necessary in the South Atlantic, oceanic zones adjacent to the coast of South America and regions of Southwest Africa, in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Norwegian and Greenland Seas, in the northwestern Pacific Ocean in fishing areas, the central and eastern Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean adjacent to the northwest coast of Africa, piracy-infested islands and seas of the Pacific Ocean in the northern Indian Ocean. There, the Russian fleets in peacetime should fight pirates, protect the ships of Russian owners engaged in fishing activities and cargo transportation, demonstrate the country's flag and other measures to support Russia's diplomatic activities, participate in peacekeeping operations, protect and evacuate Russian citizens from zones of military conflicts, natural and man-made disasters ”.

Everything, however, got confused in the Oblonskys' house ...

The very concept of using "Russian fleets", which will fight with someone there and protect someone off the coast of South America and in the South Atlantic, looks really ridiculous. To be honest, I am not even drawn to unscientific fiction.

Let's face it: almost all of Russia's so-called “deep sea and oceanic fleet” are former Soviet ships 30 years old and older.



In general, what are “DMOZ ships”? These are aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers (BOD), frigates. And how wonderful it is with us that some can seriously talk about anti-piracy operations in the South Atlantic or in the Indian Ocean?

The list is simply amazing.

Heavy aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov". SF. 1990 year. Under repair.

Heavy nuclear missile cruiser - 2
"Peter the Great". SF. 1998 year.
"Admiral Nakhimov". Pacific Fleet. 1988 year. Under repair.

Missile Cruiser - 3
"Admiral Ustinov". SF. 1986 year.
"Varangian". Pacific Fleet. 1989 year.
"Moscow". Black Sea Fleet. 1982 year.

Large anti-submarine ship (BOD) - 7
"Admiral Chabanenko" SF. 1999 year. Under repair.
"Vice-Admiral Kulakov". SF. 1981 year.
Severomorsk. SF. 1987 year.
"Admiral Levchenko". SF. 1988 year. Under repair.
"Admiral Tributs". Pacific Fleet. 1986 year.
"Admiral Vinogradov". Pacific Fleet. 1988 year.
"Admiral Panteleev". Pacific Fleet. 1993 year.

Destroyer - 3
"Admiral Ushakov". SF. 1993 year. Under repair.
"Quick". Pacific Fleet. 1989 year.
"Persistent". BF. 1993 year. Under repair.

Frigate - 10
"Admiral Kasatonov". SF. 2020 year.
"Admiral Gorshkov". SF. 2018 year.
"Marshal Shaposhnikov". Pacific Fleet. 1985 year.
"Okay". Black Sea Fleet. 1980 year. Under repair.
"Inquisitive". Black Sea Fleet. 1981 year.
"Admiral Grigorovich". Black Sea Fleet. 2016 year.
"Admiral Essen". Black Sea Fleet. 2016 year.
"Admiral Makarov". Black Sea Fleet. 2017 year.
"Intrepid". BF. 1980 year. Under repair.
"Yaroslav the Wise". BF. year 2009.

And that's all that can be attributed to the ships of the far sea zone. 26 units. Corvettes and small rocket ships, sorry, will not go to the South Atlantic. Alas.

And of the remaining and included in this mournful list under 30 years old, only 6 (SIX) frigates.

The remaining 20 ships can be distributed as follows:
Over 40 years old - 3
Over 30 years old - 10
Over 20 years old - 5
Over 10 years old - 2
And that's all, actually. In operations far beyond our territorial waters, we can safely count on 6 new frigates and 7 old ships. Little. And if we also take into account that our ever-breaking under-aircraft carrier is on this list, then everything is completely sad.

Therefore, when patriotism goes off scale to such an extent that discussions begin that the fleet should search for groups of ships and track them, it makes you think. Moreover, very seriously.

Indeed, you just need to answer one single question: how frivolous is all this. When the "Doctor of Military Sciences" writes that "... important tasks will have to be solved in the far sea zone - to destroy strike, primarily aircraft carrier anti-submarine and other enemy groupings, as well as to hit enemy coastal targets", you involuntarily hear the friendly laughter of two dozen missile cruisers and nearly a hundred destroyers. American, of course. And eleven aircraft carriers.

And with these two dozen old Soviet ships, and even scattered across four fleets, Russian "experts" believe that it is possible to "destroy enemy strike groups"?

If only bringing him to exhaustion with laughter ...

Yes, times are not the best in the US Navy, and they have ships there from repair to repair, even new ones. But quantity is always quantity, and when it comes to the 1 to 5 confrontation, all this talk about the "destruction of strike forces" by the forces of the surface fleet is ridiculous.

However, not only strike ships are a headache for the "high seas" fleet.

If you carefully study the lists of ships of the Russian Navy, you can come to another unpleasant conclusion: escort ships are also needed.

Literally everything is needed: tankers with fuel, tankers with water and dry cargo ships with food, radar tracking ships, weapons transports, and so on. You need literally everything.

As an example, we can take the Northern Fleet, which has at its disposal ONE large sea tanker "Sergei Osipov" built in 1973 and four medium tankers built in 1974, 1982, 1982 and 2019. That is, one new one, the rest ... But it is good that at least one new tanker is available.

In other fleets, it is no better, and it will even be worse.

In addition, in general, any transport operation for our fleet becomes unbearable if it requires even the slightest effort. Suffice it to recall the feverish purchase of rusty dry cargo ships in Ukraine through intermediaries in Belarus and Mongolia in order to provide a rather small aviation grouping of the Russian army in Syria.

The Black Sea Fleet failed on its own. And this, roughly speaking, from the Crimea through the straits to Syria. To the Mediterranean. And some talk about supplying ship groups on the other side of the world ...

Americans are good. They have a completely modern fleet that has a network of bases around the world. We have nothing but a base in Syria, which means that we will still have to consider issues of supplying ships.

That is, after the question "where to get these groups of attack ships?", The question should be asked "who will refuel the ships and feed the crews?"

There are no answers yet.

But the most unpleasant thing is that they cannot exist, since today in Russia there are no two things that can solve the problems of the fleet. There is no money and no way to build ships.

One of the modern experts had the idea that "The basis of the forces of the far sea zone of Russia - the frigate".



Yes, you can tell for a long time what terrible ships Russian frigates are. What are they power-equipped and what modern weapon stands on them. And they tell ... Hotly and with enthusiasm.

Six frigates that Russian shipbuilders were able to master - it says a lot. 2009 to 2020. Six frigates in 11 years. For comparison, the Japanese built 20 destroyers in 2000 years (from 2020 to 19). And four helicopter destroyers.

Nevertheless, speaking about the capabilities of the Russian fleet to operate at a distance from bases, speaking of the same frigates, it is worth remembering that frigates need fuel, water, food, ammunition, and so on.

Yes, it is possible to assemble something similar to a strike force from the existing ships of the fleet. However, how the supply problem will be resolved is now a little unclear.

In the Soviet Union, there was a very promising project 1183 "Pegasus". Integrated supply ship (KKS) "Berezina". A well-armed transport with a displacement of 25 thousand tons, capable of taking up to 5 tons of various cargo on board. It was built in a single copy in 000 and cut into metal in 1975.


There are no analogues and no matter how expected. And the question of who will deliver these frigates, which will carry out some operations in the same Indian Ocean, is open. There are no bases, no KS ships, the question arises: what kind of missions in the far sea zone are we talking about?

And in general, can we talk about some kind of presence in the DMZ, if, roughly speaking, the ships carrying out this presence simply do not have a rear service?

They say that the theater starts from the coat rack and the port starts from the pier. The "today" of the Russian fleet is sad. There are no new ships and there is no way to build them at a decent pace. No money, no personnel, no production capacity.

There are, however, a sufficient number of propagandists who have recently been broadcasting about how strong the Russian fleet is, without thinking at all how serious it looks. And it doesn't look very serious.

You can very bravely describe the capabilities of old Soviet ships and new Russian ones, equipped with the latest missiles such as "Caliber" or "Onyx", of course, there is a quality, but we look at the fleets of our potential adversaries, and we understand that in order to represent the real a threat to the same Japanese fleet, you need to have somewhat greater capabilities than six (albeit new) frigates.

A complex approach. A correct, well-calculated plan, which includes not only the construction of one submarine per year and one attack ship in two years. In general, ships must be built faster, the Soviet legacy will soon end altogether.

But attention should also be paid to the problems of auxiliary vessels. Otherwise, all this talk about long trips and completing tasks in the DMZ will remain populism and idle chatter.

And I would like the Russian fleet to be a fleet, and not a gathering of the type "with the world on a string", suitable only for the fact that in a war, heroically and quickly die.

But for this, especially for the development of the DMZ, the money should go to the construction of ships, and not disappear into another black hole in Russian reality.

For some reason, the distant sea zone haunts our military from politics and politicians from the war. Exciting, I would even say. There is nothing to go into it, nothing with anything and nothing for anything, but I really want to. Either it was smeared with orders, or with sums of money, it is difficult to say.
Author:
277 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 3 March 2021 03: 55
    +31
    by the fleet, one can judge the "greatness" of the country ...
    1. paco.soto
      paco.soto 3 March 2021 04: 53
      -5
      by the fleet, one can judge the "greatness" of the country ...
      Reply © ©
      In the voice of the camp director Dynin: "when I was little ... © ®" I had stamps of the USSR fleet in my collection and already then I knew that the USSR was a great country.
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 3 March 2021 05: 07
        +24
        The most powerful navy was under L.I. Brezhnev.
        1. paco.soto
          paco.soto 3 March 2021 05: 17
          0
          Uncle lee
          Today, 05: 07

          0
          The most powerful navy was under L.I. Brezhnev.
          Reply
          © ©
          That's ya about the same! Then only the stamps were information for us to schoolchildren (as now VO)))
          1. Civil
            Civil 3 March 2021 09: 49
            +9
            There are, however, a sufficient number of propagandists who have recently been broadcasting about how strong the Russian fleet is.

            Judging by the quality and quantity of their articles, the propagandists were also seriously cut off funding. But they also have families, loans ...
          2. Doctor
            Doctor 3 March 2021 09: 52
            +8
            That's ya about the same! Then only the stamps were information for us to schoolchildren (as now VO)))

            Moreover, the stamps were mostly large ships.

            And now, looking at the structure of the modern US fleet, the question arises:
            Do they need ships of the near sea zone at all?

            The frigate (and above) will work both on the coast and in the open ocean, but the corvette will not.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 3 March 2021 13: 33
              +15
              We have completely different logistics and coastal distances from the USA.
              The United States essentially has 4 main bases, 2 on the west coast, 2 on the east
              and they are relatively well connected by the Panama Canal. And the whole coast is covered.
              This is not the case with us. Not only are there practically 4 theaters cut off from each other (the northern fleet, the Far East, the Black Sea and the Baltic), but there are also a lot of other problems, starting with the fact that ALL main bases are practically constantly blocked by probable friends.
              At the same time, the Arctic is practically not covered and the shores are poorly covered even near large bases. And one can start talking about a sane cover for trade communications only after doubling the friendly land area and quadrupling the composition of the high seas fleet. Let me remind you that before the USSR could rely on Cuba, part of Africa, Vietnam, the Warsaw Pact, at the very least, it was friends with China.
              Pay attention to what China is doing - they are working like a textbook, creating a cover for sea communications. And everything is connected - and border disputes, and the fleet program, and the development of industry, and the budget, and the bases where necessary, and the expeditionary force is created with a bunch of support ships - every year news about the introduction of this ship crew, and even the social security of sailors.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 3 March 2021 14: 58
                +3
                We have completely different logistics and coastal distances from the USA.
                The United States essentially has 4 main bases, 2 on the west coast, 2 on the east

                Yes, the length of the Russian coastline is almost 2 times longer than that of the United States.
                But what is this coast? Do I need to cover him at all?

                But the States have a headache. smile

                Population density map of the world.

                1. yehat2
                  yehat2 3 March 2021 15: 12
                  +2
                  the Arctic coast is a potential foothold for missile attack and infiltration
                  so you have to defend.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 3 March 2021 15: 40
                    +3
                    the Arctic coast is a potential foothold for missile attack and infiltration
                    so you have to defend.

                    Certainly. But everything is relative. In Krymskaya they captured Urup and tried to seize Petropavlovsk, in WWII "Admiral Scheer" fired at Dixon, and the German submarines went to the mouth of the Lena, but the fate of the war was not decided there.

                    But the Americans have a completely different matter.
                    Anyone here is sure that the US fleet is the aggressor's fleet. In fact, without the Navy, America would have ceased to exist long ago, even the Mexes would have captured it.

                    A powerful fleet is a vital necessity for the existence of the United States as a state; most of the population, industry, and military facilities are concentrated off the coast. In the West, generally in the form of a narrow strip.

                    And we now have a fleet, consider it not. And sho? laughing
                    Well, they sometimes infiltrate reconnaissance groups from nuclear submarines through the North and East. It does not make the weather. wink
                    1. yehat2
                      yehat2 3 March 2021 16: 39
                      +6
                      well, strictly speaking, the US has industry all along the water, including rivers, especially shipping and lakes. Not only the seaside.
              2. RoTTor
                RoTTor 4 March 2021 01: 09
                +12
                One task of the Navy in the far zone has disappeared: the protection of the domestic merchant / fishing shipping - with the loss of the domestic merchant fleet under its own flag and the destruction of our largest fishing fleet in the world.
                A decrease in the number of fish in the diet of citizens = a decrease in phosphorus in the brain = stupidity = a lack of understanding of the sea strategy.
              3. Kawado
                Kawado April 21 2021 13: 51
                0
                Well, everything is very controversial here, for example, the Arctic is covered by the Arctic, navigation there is quite complicated and there is nothing to do there without an icebreaker fleet. The Pacific basin is also not sugar, and navigation there is also far from easy and not all year round, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is well protected by the armed ridge of the Kuril Islands, and in the Bering Sea you are not particularly close, and there is nowhere. The Baltic and the Black Sea are not an option for any major maneuvers, since the Russian part of these seas (and even much more) are shone through and shoot from the coast, large forces cannot be driven there (more precisely, there is exactly zero sense in this and the risks are very high).
                But this is both our plus and minus. On the one hand, our entire coast is practically covered, it is quite difficult to crawl up to it unharmed and even unnoticed, on the other hand, every exit of our ships to the DMZ = "pale" and it is almost impossible to get out into the ocean unnoticed (submarines do not count).
                As for the United States, their coast is open at a glance and it is necessary to keep very significant forces to protect it, and the Panama Canal, as practice has shown, cannot always help out, and even if it goes well, it can even be taken remotely under control. With logistics, they are really much better than ours due to geographical reasons, but the huge open and densely populated coastline is a very vulnerable place.
                And if the Russian Poseidon project is not at all a "cartoon", then the US Navy command has something to think about, because with the advent of underwater drones, their entire huge fleet may well become useless to protect their own shores.
                China has almost the same situation as the United States, only without the link to the Panama Canal. But again, China is still also surrounded by seas, which allows it to effectively use ships in the near and middle zone, as well as to use islands and archipelagos (including alluvial ones).
                As we can see, each fleet has its own problems and advantages, each country is forced to develop its fleet in its own way, in accordance with current tasks.
                But a strong nuclear and aircraft-carrying surface oceanic fleet of Russia is certainly needed, in the North and the Pacific Ocean at least (in fact, these 2 strike groups equipped with modern weapons are quite enough) to bring our probable friends to a state of adequacy.
            2. RoTTor
              RoTTor 4 March 2021 01: 02
              0
              Why instill in the enemy classification all these "corvettes / frigates", why in our media call our military equipment NATO chasers?

              Betrayal begins with little things: about 30 years old children's toys, soldiers, and so on. - or fascist, or American, or NATO
              1. Uncle lee
                Uncle lee 4 March 2021 02: 17
                +2
                Quote: RoTTor
                "corvettes / frigates",

                Galleys, triremes, galleons, brigantines ... wassat
              2. Kawado
                Kawado April 21 2021 14: 28
                0
                Yes, not exactly "enemy", just new classes of ships.
                Always it was.
                Formerly cruisers (Russian cruisers) and distroyers (Russian destroyers), now frigates and corvettes.
                You can, of course, come up with your own names (we have enough Russians imagination), such as rocket launchers, submarines, airplane strikes, all the drowsers, kilda launchers, etc.
        2. ammunition
          ammunition 3 March 2021 10: 32
          +20
          Fleet is = (90% budget + 5% technical strength + 5% access to the seas)
          We're watching.
          1) budget

          No. Country Income
          ($ million) Expenses
          ($ million) Deficit / Surplus
          (million $) Year
          1 USA [2] 3 328 700 4 107 700 −779 000 2018
          2 Китай[3] 2 712 000 3 267 000 −555 000 2018
          3 Япония[4][5] 564 000 861 000 −297 000 2018
          4 Великобритания[6] 716 584 775 884 −59 300[7] 2018
          5 Италия 884 400 927 700 −43 300 2017
          6 Бразилия 726 600 749 000 −22 400 2017
          7 Канада 623 700 657 300 −33 600 2017
          8 Испания 492 400 535 900 −43 500 2017
          9 Австралия 461 000 484 900 −23 900 2017
          10 Германия[8] 397 000 397 000 0 2018
          11 Франция[9] 357 749 445 389 −87640 2018
          12 Нидерланды 344 800 340 200 +4600 2017
          13 Republic of Korea 351 600 338 000 +13 600 2017
          14 Мексика 292 800 314 900 −22 100 2017
          15 Швеция 274 800 269 900 +4900 2017
          16 Россия[10][11] 309 165 265 537 +43 628 2018
          17 Бельгия 248 700 260 000
          ----------------------------
          Total. The state budget of Russia (in terms of expenditures) is less than even in Sweden.
          2) Technical strength
          The technical power is not so hot right now. Eating up the remnants of the Soviet legacy. Almost no new personnel are trained.
          3) Well, 5% access to the seas ... This access remained. There are almost no non-freezing ports.
          --------------------------------
          Conclusion: - It is necessary to change the entire strategy of the fleet. In the sense ... that "to stretch the legs over the clothes." Yes .. this is humiliating .. sad .. but this is the reality of the last 30 years.
          1. FIR FIR
            FIR FIR 3 March 2021 11: 03
            +7
            Both the large deficit and the large budget surplus testify to the incompetence of the authorities and the economic crisis. In the first case, they thoughtlessly spend, but do not earn, in the second, they do not know how to spend money wisely for the good of the state.
            1. PROXOR
              PROXOR 4 March 2021 11: 14
              +1
              Yeah. Tell that to the government of Norway. Which have a horse surplus, and at the same time the standard of living there is not an example better than ours.
          2. YOUR
            YOUR 3 March 2021 13: 21
            +6
            And why do we have such a budget? Where is the most stable and powerful economy?
            What has changed since the times of the USSR then perhaps there were non-freezing ports.
            They built a boat, okay, a corvette, but still, by the standards of the USSR, it is a big boat and joy ...
            1. ammunition
              ammunition 3 March 2021 14: 19
              +7
              Quote: YOUR
              And why do we have such a budget?

              Long question. sad
              Quote: YOUR
              What has changed since the days of the USSR

              The changes are more than disastrous.
              Let's start ... at least with the budget. In 1989, the state budget of the USSR in terms of expenditures was 481.4 billion rubles. That is, 816 billion of those dollars. Multiply by 3.6 = 2937 billion. current dollars. That is - 11 (eleven) times more than now. And the cost of the fleet is 20 times more than now.
              -------------
              But that's not all .. For example .. then Ukraine was a part of our big country. Technically highly developed .. with a hardworking and skilled population .. sad .. and now it has been turned into hostile territory .. and so on. etc. The changes are more than disastrous.
              Then not only the Ukrainian shipyards worked for our fleet ... but also the Polish shipyards ... and the GDR shipyards ... for a reasonable and small fee.
              -------------
              .. ambition .. it is of course .. former greatness .. Greatness and inner peace.
              IMHO .. now the situation is more difficult than in 1930.
              We hope .. that there were troubles and difficult times in history .. and somehow resurrected, by the grace of God .. So we hope for patience. We trust in God.
              1. IC
                IC 3 May 2021 14: 45
                0
                Comparing the planned economy then and the Russian mid-market now is like digging from the fence until lunchtime. Luvshe is not in dollars, but in parrots.
          3. Ryusey
            Ryusey 3 March 2021 16: 01
            +1
            This is not reality, this is the path to the cemetery ...
          4. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 20: 02
            0
            Now, recalculate this PPP plate.
            3) Well, 5% access to the seas ... This access remained. There are almost no non-freezing ports.


            14 pieces in all directions and theater of operations, if that. It's large.
        3. YOUR
          YOUR 3 March 2021 13: 18
          +3
          And the most frail now. In the 30s of the last century, this was not the case.
          1. paco.soto
            paco.soto 3 March 2021 14: 46
            -1
            the most frail now. In the 30s of the last century, this was not the case.
            Reply © ©
            Well, this is "real reality ™", and our children's strong convictions will be eternal !, like "the taste of ice cream for 15 Soviet kopecks"
            1. RoTTor
              RoTTor 4 March 2021 01: 48
              0
              What an unskilled enemy bot-hack: does not know how much the Soviet ice cream cost.

              To whom is the ice cream, to whom the Western bends-suckers ...
        4. Niko
          Niko 3 March 2021 17: 14
          0
          "The most powerful fleet was under Brezhnev" - the fleet was not bad, but it was then that it became part of a bottomless hole devouring REAL MONEY "in exchange for self-respect. And the shortage and cards in the near future are partly (and not insignificant) a tribute to the inability to count money
        5. Niko
          Niko 3 March 2021 17: 47
          +1
          The quote "the most powerful fleet was under Brezhnev" is a controversial statement in itself, but another thing is more important, the ships have been tuned, and even more tanks than anywhere else, and the COUNTRY is about ... fucking. PETER the 1st somehow turned out differently
          1. RoTTor
            RoTTor 4 March 2021 01: 50
            +3
            About the state in which Peter left Russia, read at least the largest Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky
        6. WapentakeLokki
          WapentakeLokki 3 March 2021 18: 45
          -2
          and maybe all the same under Catherine 2 ??? ...
    2. Eug
      Eug 3 March 2021 09: 09
      +21
      As for me, the fleet is one of the means of ensuring the greatness of the country. The main indicator is the feeling of security of citizens in their own country, first of all, and abroad, of course, too. The DMOZ fleet is needed primarily by Russian corporations that are actively "exploring" distant territories. To what extent the interests of the oligarchs correspond to the interests of the population - everyone himself can answer this question. As for me, it is much more important at the current stage to turn Okhotskoye and Barents in fact into "internal" ones and to ensure the deployment and use of NSNF, as well as the ineffectiveness of using Axes from sea directions. Something like this....
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 3 March 2021 10: 15
        +20
        Quote: Eug
        ..Fleet DMOZ is needed primarily by Russian corporations, which are actively "exploring" distant territories. .... As for me, it is much more important at this stage to turn Okhotsk and Barents in fact into "internal" ones and to ensure the deployment and use of NSNF ..

        I absolutely agree with you.
        In any section of martial arts, they first thoroughly study the techniques of defense and only then - the skills of attack, attack. First you need to learn to defend yourself ...
        To dream about the march of aircraft carrier strike squadrons, having only a few (truly) modern surface ships in stock is self-deception, an illusion ...
        More recently, we discussed the construction of two UDCs in Kerch for the needs of the domestic fleet. The same "dreamers" famously minus my comment. UDC is the most complicated and expensive ship, which has its own specific goals (the landing of a battle MP reinforced with armored vehicles and
        support for attack helicopters, into enemy territory to capture a bridgehead, before the main expeditionary forces approach). It is possible to use this ship for solving a number of other tasks, but all this will be either more expensive or less effective, that the solution of the same tasks in standard ways.
        So where are we going to land the two battalion MPs? Will the enemy navies allow this giant to go far from our shores? How many ships (frigate / destroyer class) do you need to escort a 40.000 ship, which is practically defenseless against attacks from under the water and from the air ...?
        1. Overlock
          Overlock 3 March 2021 18: 09
          +24
          Quote: Doccor18
          How many ships (frigate / destroyer class) do you need to escort a 40.000 ship, which is practically defenseless against attacks from under water and from the air ...?

          Without an escort, this is a mass grave
        2. bayard
          bayard 3 March 2021 22: 47
          +6
          Quote: Doccor18
          So where are we going to land the two battalion MPs?

          As for the "battalions", of course you got excited, the capacity of these ships is 1000 - 1200 people l / s MP, each. So, according to our classification, these are already two regiments. wink , and this is already a significant difference. And, depending on where, of course, these two regiments can do a lot.
          Maintain a friendly regime at a critical moment, for example.
          In the USSR, there were also rather big BDKs, one of my comrades used to go to an urgent emergency. So one day, on the way from Vladivostok to St. Petersburg, around Africa, they entered Angola ... and there they had a chance to fight - with UNITA. And then they also managed to attend the parade in Leningrad.
          Anyway, it's good when there is a Fleet. It's even better when the Navy has such ships.
          And now they often write "how can they do without an escort", completely forgetting that at the time of their laying, we had already laid (and built) 10 frigates of the 22350 series. And these frigates will be in service anyway by the time these UDCs are delivered. So much for an escort. Including the modernization of the entire fleet of 1155 to the level of "frigate".
          And in the Far East, such ships will be very useful - the Kuril ridge, if anything, to win back. And of course - to support friends, to prop up the domestic business there with military might.
          And for the price, they are not so "scary" - about how frigate 22350 comes out. In any case, the Mistrals cost us exactly that amount.
          Quote: Eug
          As for me, it is much more important at the current stage to turn Okhotskoye and Barents in fact into "internal" ones and to ensure the deployment and use of NSNF, as well as the ineffectiveness of using Axes from sea directions.

          And this goal is before the Fleet, but I think that the bias in construction in favor of the NSNF and the expensive (and not corresponding to their tasks) "Ash" is a mistake.
          Serious error.
          For the principles of Admiral Gorshkov's Naval Strategy have not been mastered.
          The fleet must not sit in a defensive position!
          His strategy must be proactive and OFFENSIVE.
          That is, to create threats in theaters that are extremely inconvenient and painful for the enemy.
          How can this be achieved?
          Refuse or drastically reduce NSNF in favor of highly protected and mobile land-based ICBMs. And the Fleet should concentrate on active operations (watch) in the waters adjacent to the enemy's shores.
          How can this be done?
          Yes, with the help of the same "Borey", but with the letter "K" - armed with the KR "Zircon" and "Caliber-M". Each such submarine can carry up to 112 of these missile launchers.
          The cost of such a submarine is equal to the approximate cost of frigate 22350.
          And it's not a joke .
          This "Ash" costs twice as much.
          And "Borey" is also more secretive and makes less noise, thanks to the jet propulsion unit.
          So, if the Dolphins with the Sinevs and Liners, who are serving their time, are not written off, but after some repairs are put on constant watch at distant piers (by supplying and connecting to the networks from the coast), then we will receive the forces of a constant counter-strike. readiness for another 20 years.
          Watching in the bastions is certainly great, but the question of the survival of these SSBNs raises serious doubts. And the SSBNs located in the bases are not in constant readiness for a retaliatory oncoming strike ... This greatly reduces their effectiveness in general.
          It is another matter if the forces of the Fleet's RSYaF are moved closer to the enemy's shores. This will force the enemy to overextend their forces in finding and tracking them in the oceans.
          And everything will turn out according to Gorshkov.
          It was only then that submarines with ballistic missiles were on duty there, and now they will be armed with missiles with a range of 1000 km ("Zircon" up to 4500 km. (Caliber-M "with nuclear warheads).
          Plus MAPL with the same missiles, but a smaller arsenal.
          But they will create a MASSIVE and MASSIVE threat. And at the same time, the main forces of the strategic nuclear forces will be located in the depths of our landless homeland, under good protection and in CONSTANT readiness.
          And with such a strategy, by the way, the enemy's submarine submarines scouring our bases will play a much less important role for us.
          And the forces of the surface fleet, not being tied to the protection of the "bastions", will be able to enthusiastically hunt for them, curdling their blood and creating even greater operational stress for the enemy.
          So with a much smaller force, we will be able to create and provide an EQUAL threat to the enemy's territory and all of its military infrastructure in the world.
          Here is a variant of the RF Naval Strategy for the next 20-30 years.
          This is precisely the ASYMMETRICAL RESPONSE to the naval threat from the United States and its allies.
          And within the framework of this program, it is necessary to curtail the program for the construction of expensive and ineffective "Ash" as soon as possible - to complete the already laid ones, and switch to the construction of inexpensive, not overly sophisticated MAPLs of moderate displacement. But precisely in large batches.
          And no "Husky \ Likes" VI in 13 tons !!!
          Only MAPL VI of equivalent pr. 945.

          So - YES HELLO VM STRATEGY them. Gorshkov!
          On a new historical level.
          1. Eug
            Eug 4 March 2021 08: 22
            +1
            Of course, transferring threats to the shores of "partners" is great, but how realistic is it?
            1. bayard
              bayard 4 March 2021 18: 06
              +5
              Realistically, even within the framework of the current (unchanged) fleet rearmament program. It is enough to send all the Yaseny currently under construction not to the "bastions", but to the shores of the United States, to be on duty there at a distance of about 500 km from their coast. Armed with "Zircons" and "Caliber-M". This is for a start.
              Next - the laying of the Borey-K series and / or the completion of the already laid SSBNs as SSGNs. And the Bulava missiles should be used as ICBMs and MRBMs from land-based carriers.
              All this is necessary in order to abandon the "bastions" and free up the forces of the Navy for services in the DMZ / OZ.
              Makarov knew how to use the ships and means that the industry and the Ministry of Defense imposed on him and fit them into his Strategy. And everything worked out for him.
              This is something worth learning.
              Operational tension by surface forces for them (the Americans) will create (is already creating) China. And that's great . The guys will have something to do with each other.
              We can create operational tension with our own submarine forces, and the surface ones will be target designators for our submarines and a cover against the brutality of anti-submarine aviation. To stop these threats, the enemy will spend many times more manpower and resources. Moreover, not only us, but also China will have to counteract them, splitting and stretching its forces.
              And at the same time, the main forces of our strategic nuclear forces will be in the depths of our territory, inaccessible to the Kyrgyz Republic and covered by the S-500 complexes from ICBMs and SLBMs.
              And, by the way, Putin has already spoken of his intention to deploy our submarines with Zircons on board 500 km from the shores of the United States.
              So the idea is not taken from the ceiling.
              But the strategy at sea should become not defensive, but rather offensive - proactive. To force the enemy to play by our rules, to react to our initiatives.
              The value of the Borey-K with 112 cruise missiles on board will be much higher in the 500-kilometer zone of the United States than the value of the Borey-M in the "bastion" under the gun of American and British MAPLs and their anti-submarine aircraft. They will tie on themselves much more forces and means of the enemy and create a threat where they are tricky.
              1. Eug
                Eug 4 March 2021 18: 37
                +2
                Well, God forbid that your arguments be heard by those on whom the development of the Navy depends.
              2. Doccor18
                Doccor18 5 March 2021 10: 51
                +3
                Quote: bayard
                ..It is enough to send all the Yaseni currently under construction not to the bastions, but to the shores of the United States ... We can create operational tension with our own submarine forces ... The enemy will spend many times more manpower and resources to stop these threats. Moreover, not only us, but also China will have to counteract them, splitting and stretching its forces ... But the strategy at sea should become not defensive, but offensive - proactive. Making the enemy play by our rules, reacting to our initiatives ...

                Everything that you wrote is reasonable and logical, but ...
                Today in the news section there was information about the 21st Virginia-class boat. 21st! And all of them will be, according to the plan by 2040 - about 50. And how many Ash trees? And how many will there be in 20 years? It's good if 8 ...
                And okay, if we "butted" only with the US Navy, but with NATO ... And this is also dozens of modern frigates and submarines (both nuclear submarines and non-nuclear submarines with VNEU) ...
                Why am I all this. The quantity is not the last thing. Yes, the enemy will take a lot of forces to fend off the threats of several Ashes, but they have these forces with interest. They, if they wish and exert all their forces, will be able to completely block all our fleets in the bases ... And there will be enough forces for this too. And then only a nuclear strike and the end ... And without a nuclear one ... will we have enough strength to break this blockade? With a very limited number of ships available, and almost no naval aviation ...
                And to hope for the help and support of the Chinese comrades is very rash and shortsighted ...
                1. bayard
                  bayard 5 March 2021 20: 38
                  +1
                  Quote: Doccor18
                  Today in the news section there was information about the 21st Virginia-class boat. 21st! And all of them will be, according to the plan by 2040 - about 50. And how many Ash trees? And how many will there be in 20 years?

                  Quote: Doccor18
                  And okay, if we "butted" only with the US Navy, but with NATO ... And this is also - dozens of modern frigates and submarines

                  This is true . But you overlooked China's rapidly growing naval power. The United States and NATO will also have to oppose it, crushing and stretching their forces.
                  Let's look at the medium term.
                  Now there are 9 "Ash" (one "Ash" and eight "Yasen-M") and a number of Soviet-built MAPLs in stock and construction, let's estimate their number at 6 (in the medium term). In total, we have 15 MAPL / SSGN. Plus a certain amount of SSGN pr. 949, we will pre-fire 6 more pieces.
                  If you take the appropriate measures and part of the already laid down Borei is completed in the Borei-K version, or laid after the already laid down Borei-M (Shoigu announced his intention to lay 2 to 6 Borei -K "), then the possible outfit of forces for service in the waters adjacent to the United States will increase by another 6 SSGNs. And these will be VERY powerful SSGNs - up to 112 cruise missiles on board, not counting the missile launchers launched from the TA.
                  If, in addition to the above, we stake on the construction in the future not of monstrous "Husky \ Likes" VIs of 13 tons or more, but MAPLs in the dimension of pr. 000 ...
                  Let's consider these possibilities.
                  Due to the moderate VI and dimensions, a promising MAPL should come out with a cost in a serial sample of the order of ... the cost of a modern corvette (since we have Borey as a frigate 22350), and such a large and fast construction is possible, because we do not need a "wunderwaffe" a normal MAPL with TA. You can, of course, attach up to a dozen RCs to it for the wheelhouse ... or you can limit yourself to the capabilities of launching the RC through the TA.
                  And so it turns out that by the middle to the end of this decade, we will already be able to create the required operational tension.
                  Even in the coming years, when the first two "Ash-M" will be able to go on duty in the Atlantic.
                  The upgraded projects 949, 971 and even the upgraded 945 can do the same (if they wait for such modernization.
                  The surface forces of the Fleet should also grow in the coming years. "Admiral Nakhimov" and "Admiral Kuznetsov" should return to service, new frigates of project 22350 (engines for them have already gone from the industry), modernized project 1155, should be commissioned.
                  These ships will be able to ensure the withdrawal of submarines into the open sea, provide them with cover and, if necessary, target designation.
                  All processes must be viewed in dynamics and considered for the future not only existing ships, but also those under construction.
                  But without the Naval Strategy, all these ships and submarine cruisers are just expensive and high-tech hardware.
      2. YOUR
        YOUR 3 March 2021 13: 35
        +7
        A little bit wrong, you reason. Look where the scraps of our industry are located, where are the most populated places, large cities. A compass and a map of the world can be of any scale, postponed 2000 km and were surprised. Why would they need the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Barents Sea, if they can launch their cruise missiles directly from the port, from their places of permanent deployment.
        Why enter the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? If the main industrial base and the most populated cities are Vladivostok, Komsomolsk on the Amur and Khabarovsk. There are no more strategic goals, well, except that a gas processing plant will be built in the Amur Region and a hydroelectric power station. Also the Arctic, the North. there is strategic Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Vorkuta, Norilsk so this is the coast. From the West, they can sniff directly from the main base from Spain, they can come closer from the Mediterranean Sea.
        Novosibirsk will remain unattainable for Axes.
        And we practically do not have a fleet that can prevent this from being done.
        1. bayard
          bayard 3 March 2021 23: 21
          0
          For protection from "Axes" the fleet is not obligatory, since they can shoot from the pier.
          To do this, you need a reliable detection system (over-the-horizon radars for opening a raid and an AWACS on duty aircraft for guiding fighters) and fighters themselves at coastal airfields.
          No one can handle CD better than fighters.
          And the Fleet still needs to be built.
          But competently.
          1. Aerodrome
            Aerodrome 4 March 2021 02: 42
            -2
            Quote: bayard
            For protection from "Axes" the fleet is not obligatory, since they can shoot from the pier.

            from what ??? children ... in "axes" the meaning is the minimum distance to the object, and surprise, in the hope of a weak air defense.
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 4 March 2021 03: 50
              +1
              Question????? At what altitude does the Tomahawk fly and the radar's detection range at this altitude?
            2. bayard
              bayard 4 March 2021 06: 08
              +5
              Quote: Aerodrome
              . in "axes" the meaning is the minimum distance to the object, and surprise, in the hope of a weak air defense.

              The meaning of "Axes" is in launching a missile launcher from a safe distance for the carrier with the most dense salvo, flight at an extremely low altitude, bypassing the terrain bypassing the enemy's air defense systems, and hitting targets deep in its territory.
              Unless, of course, their combat mission is not to destroy the enemy's air defense.
              "Ax" is a difficult target for ground-based air defense because the range of their detection does not exceed, as a rule, 35 km. and there is very little time left for the reaction.
              Therefore, the most important task of air defense is the timely opening of the beginning of the attack, and for this, ONLY AWACS and over-the-horizon radars ("Sunflower", "Container" and the like) are suitable. But for the guidance of fighter aircraft, ONLY AWACS aircraft are suitable. Ground-based radars will be of little use, they will not provide failure-free wiring and target designation.
              The best and optimal means of dealing with such CDs is fighter aircraft, because it can intercept them at distant lines and for it there is no radio horizon and closing angles (when acting on these targets). For a fighter, the KR is a simple target - it does not maneuver, does not accelerate, and has a subsonic speed. Interception is complicated by the small linear size of the target and the relatively small RCS. can be hit by both explosive missiles and an onboard gun after they have been used up.
              Before the removal of YABCHs from the Axes (or rather, the removal from service of the CD with nuclear warheads), there was some problem ... these CDs had the Impatient mode. This means that when it was hit by any air defense means, a nuclear warhead was initiated ... And the fighter took a great risk, approaching it at a short distance ... Objects over its own (our) territory could also be damaged. That is why the MiG-31 practiced the interception of these and similar cruise missiles with R-33 explosive missiles, preferably over the sea surface. But if there were a lot of targets, having spent the P-33 and P-60, there was still a cannon, firing from which at the CD was worked out as a separate exercise.
              Quote: Aerodrome
              children.

              Actually, in the past, he was an officer in the combat directorate of an air defense formation.

              So for the fight against the CD, the fleet is not particularly needed. We need a good air defense system with ZGRLS and AWACS aircraft inclusive, and a sufficient number of interceptor fighters on alert.
              And the Navy has other tasks - the fight against the carriers of these CDs.
              And here he again cannot do without aviation in any way.
              This time the sea, for reconnaissance and target designation. And also fighter - for air cover.
              Hence the conclusion - aviation is the head of everything. A versatile, highly mobile and highly effective means of war in any theater of operations and in any environment.
              hi
        2. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
          VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 5 March 2021 06: 55
          0
          If they hit Siberia and the Far East that country is kirdyk! What does the west have to do with it? All fields and some aircraft factories will be covered! And there is no need to argue from the position of a Duma deputy! They cover their ass! Afraid that your villa will suffer? Everything strategic is in the Urals and beyond the Urals! In the Second World War, the loss of the western part of the country, the defense of the Motherland did not affect! In the west of the country, the fleet should be given no more than 25%! Your reasoning, the reasoning of a liberal! And it looks like you don't understand strategy! The plant can be rebuilt, and if there are no mines of the mines, then the point is from this plant! Why a missile defense bunker in the Urals (Perimeter)? There is no fleet maneuver in the west! The experience of the blockade of the Gulf of Finland did not give you anything ?!
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 5 March 2021 10: 25
            0
            Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
            Afraid that your villa will suffer?

            Are you talking to me? Thanks at least you can dream.
            Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
            Everything strategic is in the Urals and beyond the Urals!

            If you wrote about the USSR, then I completely and completely agree with you.
            Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
            In the Second World War, the loss of the western part of the country, the defense of the Motherland did not affect!

            Are you serious? When the factories stopped working and left for distant distances, did this affect the defense capability? Yes, practically all industry in Siberia appeared only for this reason.
            Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
            And it looks like you don't understand strategy! The plant can be rebuilt, and if there are no mines of the mines, then the sense from this plant!

            And then you understand. Such heresy to write it is necessary to contrive.
            Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
            Why is a missile defense bunker in the Urals (Perimeter)?

            Oh how! Where do the firewood come from? Those. the Moscow missile defense area is located in the Urals.
            Wonderful.

            Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
            There is no fleet maneuver in the west! The experience of the blockade of the Gulf of Finland did not give you anything ?!

            Re-read the article about what it is about

            And the main thing. If you carefully read my comment, to which you wrote the answer, you may or may not understand that I wrote about the reach of the CD Tomahawk
          2. YOUR
            YOUR 5 March 2021 12: 40
            0
            Yes
            Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
            Why is a missile defense bunker in the Urals (Perimeter)?

            The Perimeter system has nothing to do with missile defense.
        3. ccsr
          ccsr 5 March 2021 13: 07
          +1
          Quote: YOUR
          Novosibirsk will remain unattainable for Axes.
          And we practically do not have a fleet that can prevent this from being done.

          In general, the fleet, in principle, will not be able to solve this problem, if only because the flight routes of the KR will be chosen outside the coverage area of ​​the naval air defense. So we have only one hope for the Aerospace Forces, which will cover large areas with its own forces and means, including large naval bases.
          By the way, this was the case in Soviet times - the same Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea was covered by the country's air defense forces in the first place. And the fleet had its own air defense system, just like it was done in the Ground Forces, which had their own air defense systems.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 5 March 2021 13: 52
            0
            For that, having in service with anti-ship missiles, the range of which generally does not exceed 300 km can significantly complicate the life of the enemy fleet. This is primarily the purpose of the fleet, the fight against the enemy fleet, the disruption of communications, the destruction of coastal fortifications, administrative and military objectives.
      3. Ryusey
        Ryusey 3 March 2021 16: 02
        0
        And how will you do this without the fleet?
    3. iouris
      iouris 3 March 2021 15: 36
      +1
      and if the fleet is small?
    4. Niko
      Niko 3 March 2021 17: 08
      +6
      "By the fleet you can judge the" greatness "of the country" - it is possible, but if ONLY by the fleet, to put it mildly, a kindergarten. A lot still speaks about the greatness of the country, and at least not less than the fleet - the level of poverty, the standard of living, the size of salaries and PENSIONS, etc.
      1. sleeve
        sleeve 8 March 2021 12: 39
        +1
        Well, here he is. As pensions and everything else increase, so immediately the fleet will be built. Well, to "match".
        1. Niko
          Niko 8 March 2021 12: 50
          0
          In this sequence, only for
          1. sleeve
            sleeve 9 March 2021 03: 54
            0
            Exactly then, the DPRK piles on us, well, or Georgia and Pencien will become even less ...
    5. mojohed2012
      mojohed2012 4 March 2021 08: 31
      +1
      To cover the bases of the fleet and the areas of deployment of forces and equipment (including submarines with nuclear weapons), what a distant zone is there ...
      They didn't scrape together the forces for the Syrian transit ...
    6. sleeve
      sleeve 8 March 2021 12: 37
      -1
      Switzerland is like a mess, eh!
    7. The comment was deleted.
  2. Revolver
    Revolver 3 March 2021 04: 20
    +14
    If you look at things soberly, then Russia as a great maritime power ended under Tsushima. Since then, there have been several attempts to re-enter this exclusive club (under Nikolai, Stalin, and Brezhnev), but they all ended with the death of the head of state and the drain of the heirs.
    1. apro
      apro 3 March 2021 05: 07
      +13
      Quote: Nagan
      If you look at things soberly, then Russia as a great maritime power ended under Tsushima.

      It ended with the destruction of the USSR, and it did not even begin under Tsushima.
      1. WHAT IS
        WHAT IS 3 March 2021 05: 52
        +27
        Here I agree - with the collapse of the Union, the ocean fleet was lost.
        1. Silhouette
          Silhouette 3 March 2021 08: 21
          +10
          The ocean fleet is based on a basing system. The ocean fleet is not about swimming in the ocean en masse, or demonstrating something there, but solving specific combat missions. This requires bases and a supply fleet. We have never had and never will have such a fleet. To die with honor is easy for us, but to win - alas! ... It will not work. Build an ocean-going fleet programmed to perish? Is that what you want? This already happened under Gorshkov. Enough.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 3 March 2021 12: 40
            +9
            Quote: Silhouette
            The ocean fleet is not about swimming in the ocean en masse, or demonstrating something there, but solving specific combat missions. This requires bases and a supply fleet. We have never had and never will have such a fleet. To die with honor is easy for us, but to win - alas! ... It will not work. Build an ocean-going fleet programmed to perish? Is that what you want? This already happened under Gorshkov. Enough.

            On the whole, I agree with you, we simply will not pull what we could have done during the Soviet era. But if we focus on the specific tasks of our ocean-going fleet (excluding nuclear submarines from the strategic nuclear forces), then there are essentially two of them - either to destroy the enemy's fleet in the ocean, or to destroy some state located far from our borders. To solve these problems, missile cruisers and aircraft carriers are not needed at all, because the emerging missiles with a flight range of 500 to 5000 km allow small-tonnage warships to carry out these tasks from our territorial waters (especially with a nuclear warhead). And if we also add the capabilities of naval aviation, then the range of action of the naval forces without surface ships in general will increase to 7000 thousand km, and without straining.
            Proceeding from this, I think, our fleet expects a complete structural reformatting, in particular, a change in the ratio of surface and submarine fleets in quantitative and qualitative terms. Moreover, the development of coastal missile systems will be required, and for different distances, but with a greater transition to flight ranges, capable of destroying not only enemy ships, but also the capitals of many countries of the world. At the same time, it will be necessary to expand the capabilities of naval aviation, up to the point that increasing the number of aircraft, and the possibility of their weapons in terms of range. All this will require even more investments in naval intelligence systems, including the space and coastal units of OSNAZ, in order to have constant operational information about the enemy. This is especially important for the Northern Fleet, which, having essentially become a district, will have to solve the tasks of district operational intelligence in the interests of all armed forces.
            Summing up, the question immediately arises - where to get the money, and how to redistribute it within the Navy itself in order to change the structure of the fleet. Even if we find both money and opportunities for reorganization, another question will arise - the naval ones themselves are ready for such changes, or, due to their naval snobbery, they will in every possible way prevent any reorganization.
            In general, no matter how different authors write here, nevertheless, the cardinal decision on our Navy will be made by those who hardly read VO, and I think the question of financial possibilities will be in the foreground there. I don’t know what the naval units will offer, but it would be good if they thought about the fleet for many years ahead, and did not solve the momentary problems associated with their desire to sit quietly until retirement.
            1. Overlock
              Overlock 3 March 2021 18: 13
              +16
              Quote: ccsr
              the question immediately arises - where to get the money

              The most important question!
              Quote: ccsr
              nevertheless, a cardinal decision on our Navy will be made by those who are unlikely to read VO, and I think the question of financial possibilities will be in the foreground there.

              For such purposes, we have a very capable reformer, Serdyukov.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 3 March 2021 19: 29
                0
                Quote: Overlock
                The most important question!

                Unfortunately, this has always been the main issue - both under the Russian Empire and under the Soviet Union.
                Quote: Overlock
                For such purposes, we have a very capable reformer, Serdyukov.

                He is too small a fry for this - in general, he is unlikely to decide what, I do not believe that he is a serious authority in these matters.
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 3 March 2021 13: 43
        +4
        requirements for great power status have changed
        if earlier it was an exclusively coastal fleet and the Republic of Ingushetia by the 18th century, mainly through the efforts of Peter, approached a generally good level, then then the fleet race, which began with the growth of the British Empire, and then the fleet of Europe, starting with the Reich, no longer left the chances of the Republic of Ingushetia to be on a par with the strongest. The construction of a series of battleships before WWI was a grandiose adventure, which logically ended with the defeat of the army and the unfinished construction of the main 4 laid down ships.
        The second chance, already the Soviet fleet, was given the implementation of the huge Stalinist program of shipbuilding and industrialization, the fruits of which were seen under Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
        And Tsushima is a fight that essentially hasn't changed anything.
        1. bayard
          bayard 3 March 2021 23: 59
          +2
          Quote: yehat2
          And Tsushima is a fight that essentially hasn't changed anything.

          In addition to Tsushima, there was the fall of Port Arthur with the death of the 1st squadron. Two others died in Tsushima. As a result, Russia lost its fleet as such, and only in 1912, after comprehending everything that had happened and drawing conclusions, began to recreate its fleet.
          She just did not have time to build her battleships for WWI and during it. Yes, against the German fleet, they alone did not shine - they just covered St. Petersburg \ Petrograd.
          They simply did not have time to build the Stalinist fleet for WWII, the sailors and naval commanders were not brought up. That is why his role was auxiliary.
          After WWII, a new program for the construction of the Navy - practically from scratch. Having the USA and England as opponents ... But Stalin started, Gorshkov built. Timokhon has a good article on this topic, but there were no conclusions and recommendations for today. I hope to continue.
          Gorshkov built the Fleet, which won in the cold confrontation until the end of the 70s. And then he simply did not have time to reorganize in the new conditions and to the new strategy of the enemy. It was an intellectual loss, but rather not of Gorshkov himself (age), but of the military and political leadership of the country as a whole.
          In the late 80s, the political leadership was preparing the country for surrender.
          And the solution of new problems was quite possible and real, relying on the forces and means (resources) that the Navy and the country as a whole possessed.
          The problem of the domination of anti-submarine aviation over the sea was solved by the appearance of aircraft carriers with normal aircraft in the USSR, which were able to disperse these kites in a theater of operations. The rearmament of 1143 projects on the supersonic Yak-41 created additional conditions for this.
          Refusal of the overdevelopment of NSNF in favor of land-based ICBMs would free up huge forces of the Navy, associated with the need to protect "bastions", to hunt for enemy nuclear submarines near their shores and in the World Ocean.
          SSGN and MAPL off the coast of the enemy with the CD "Granat", would have played the same role as a pistol at the temple.
          All this (and much more) could have become a reality, if not for the betrayal of the political leadership. So the Navy did not lose. And certainly not Gorshkov.
          If the USSR had another ten years, the balance of forces and capabilities could well swing in the other direction. To do this, it is enough just to look at the programs for building the Fleet and the pace (!) What this construction was going on.
          And it was not the Navy that ripped the USSR apart. And not the sun in general. And the illiterate and wrecking economic policy of the top leadership of the USSR.

          And now Gorshkov's approach to the construction and Strategy of the Fleet is relevant and can be extremely useful. The fleet must create a threat and operational tension, relying on the strategic nuclear forces of its great country. It is precisely such a Fleet that must be built. And we must remember that Gorshkov started with a very weak and undeveloped Fleet, but this Fleet created a threat even then.
    2. New Year day
      New Year day 3 March 2021 10: 11
      +5
      Quote: Nagan
      on things soberly, then Russia as a great maritime power ended at Tsushima.

      Quite right. The last attempt was under Brezhnev, everything else is "smoke in the eyes." To build ships, the authorities do not need to fill their pockets and not to pose as a hegemon, but to work! The Chinese quietly build ships of 40 units a year and nothing. In the world, only 2 countries are rattling atomic weapons, only 2! And in both the economy is very bad
      1. Malyuta
        Malyuta 3 March 2021 10: 28
        +16
        Quote: Silvestr
        The Chinese quietly build ships of 40 units a year and nothing

    3. donavi49
      donavi49 3 March 2021 10: 48
      +12
      Why under Tsushima? If for good, then under Catherine the last glimpse at the level of England-France-Spain, and then the fleet has already begun to really lag behind or look for its own ways (round monitors) - of course, unparalleled in the world.


      Shipbuilding in the 00s is German, French, English, Swedish mine boats, American, French, German, Danish cruisers, French battleships, etc. And projects based on purchased ones, which were built in Russia with varying degrees of import (cars, range finders, radios, drives, electric motors, batteries, etc.).

      Gorshkov's great fleet came much closer to Catherine's peak than the tsarist dotsushima.
      1. Overlock
        Overlock 3 March 2021 18: 14
        +21
        Quote: donavi49
        (round monitors) - of course, unparalleled in the world.

        - they were called "popovki", if I am not mistaken
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 4 March 2021 02: 26
        +2
        you forgot about the gunboats. one usually stood in each important port, or even several.
        In China, the United States constantly kept 7 gunboats.
  3. FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 3 March 2021 05: 12
    +9
    It is necessary to forget about the ambitions of the "great sea power" and build a concept based on the possibilities of the economy and industry.
    By building and massively laying corvettes of the 20380 and 20385 series, we have already confirmed the doctrine of protecting our economic zone and nothing more, and there is no question of any ocean-going fleet.
    Everything is correctly stated in the article, without having support vessels, you can forget about the ocean fleet. So we forgot. The corvette is our everything, it does not need any tankers, no dry cargo ships, nothing else. He left and came to the port at the end of fuel and supplies.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 3 March 2021 06: 15
      +4
      Quote: FRoman1984
      It is necessary to forget about the ambitions of the "great sea power" ...

      Agree to be one-armed?

      Although, we can agree with you that:
      Quote: FRoman1984
      By building and massively laying corvettes of the 20380 and 20385 series, we have already confirmed the doctrine of protecting our economic zone and no more

      If we recall the history of the Russian fleet, we can confidently say that Russia has never achieved any victories in the far sea zone. Major and high-profile victories took place in the Black Sea and the Baltic.
      The development of a distant sea zone in the absence of bases, partners is impossible.
      Quote: FRoman1984
      and build a concept based on the capabilities of the economy and industry.

      The concept must be, and the tasks of the fleet must be defined. But there is no need to complain about the lack of funds and the weak economy and industry. Instead of palaces, it is necessary to build shipyards with year-round operation and renew the repair base for the fleet. Maybe the case will get off the ground.
      And so soon it will be possible to forget about the ambitions of not only the sea, but also the space, aviation, and cultural power and get lost in the fields of ballet ...
      1. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 3 March 2021 06: 56
        +12
        It is a pity that there was no videoconferencing in those days, so the third hand would have grown.
        Don't live in the past. The armor of the ancestors does not always come close to us.
        Yes, I agree, instead of palaces on the Black Sea, our guarantor should invest in the project of the destroyer "Leader", but the reality is completely different. Therefore, corvettes and MRKs are being built. And "Lazarev" was finally signed a week ago for cutting. Although the third ocean "Orlan" would be very much needed by the Navy.
        We will certainly get lost, both in astronautics and in other industries, if they are led not by professionals, but by the Rogozins.
        1. Ryusey
          Ryusey 3 March 2021 16: 08
          -6
          I understand that you would have done much better?
          1. FRoman1984
            FRoman1984 5 March 2021 07: 19
            0
            Quote: Ryusey
            I understand that you would have done much better?

            It probably would not even occur to me to agree to a leadership position in an industry in which I am not an expert. Probably, a graduate of the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University, a swamp in life (some "jumps on trampolines" are worth it) should not lead the national cosmonautics, do you think?
      2. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 3 March 2021 07: 27
        +5
        Quote: ROSS 42
        If we recall the history of the Russian fleet, we can confidently say that Russia has never achieved any victories in the far sea zone

        And what about the Chezme victory?
        Yes, it seems close, in the Mediterranean Sea, but our squadron went there across the ocean around the whole of Europe. And it operated autonomously practically in the internal waters of the enemy.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 3 March 2021 07: 54
          +5
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          And what about the Chezme victory?
          Yes, it seems close, in the Mediterranean Sea, but our squadron went there across the ocean around the whole of Europe. And it operated autonomously practically in the internal waters of the enemy.

          It is that in the inland waters, solid islands, some of them inhabited and with agriculture. Fresh water can be collected on the shore, and grub is also there, the locals, even the Turks, very much agree to trade with the Russians at the point of the ship's cannons, and the price does not break. But if they needed kerosene for turbines or fuel oil for boilers, they would hardly be able to buy it even at barrels, but they had a sailing engine, the wind blew according to the will of God.
      3. Silhouette
        Silhouette 3 March 2021 07: 57
        -3
        Quote: ROSS 42
        If we recall the history of the Russian fleet, we can confidently say that Russia has never achieved any victories in the far sea zone. Major and high-profile victories took place in the Black Sea and the Baltic.

        Why remember her? You need to know the history. In Mediterranean under Catherine, they were notoriously mischievous. Chesma is all there, Corfu. Beirut was stormed. With the support of the British, really. When the support ended, the British arrested the fleet, brought it under escort to England and disarmed. We no longer went to the far sea zone to fight. Under the USSR, there was a squadron in the Mediterranean Sea, which in case of war was prepared for Tsushima No. 2. I also consider the experience unsuccessful. So there is nothing to do in the Russian DMZ, except to demonstrate something to someone and improve combat training for actions in its economic zone ..
        1. Ryusey
          Ryusey 3 March 2021 16: 11
          0
          And this is not the whole truth, very selectively you give examples of "light-faced"
      4. lucul
        lucul 3 March 2021 08: 50
        +1
        The concept must be, and the tasks of the fleet must be defined. But there is no need to complain about the lack of funds and the weak economy and industry. Instead of palaces, it is necessary to build shipyards with year-round operation and renew the repair base for the fleet.

        The concept has existed for a long time, and our enemy has been very successfully implementing it for the last 500 years. To surpass him, you need to do what he does, there are simply no other options. The military fleet was created to protect the country's merchant fleets, and if there are no merchant fleets, then the fleet is essentially not needed - its maintenance will never pay off.
        Here is Timokhin's excellent article on the concept of the fleet, where he chews everything on his fingers.
        https://topwar.ru/162222-stroim-flot-teorija-i-prednaznachenie.html
        1. Silhouette
          Silhouette 3 March 2021 09: 50
          +4
          In my opinion, this article is a response to Timokhin's eulogy for the birthday of Admiral Gorshkov about his great fleet of the late USSR in the VO. The answer is quite reasonable and reasonable. I would add that Germany was not very successful in solving problems in the DMZ during World War II. Despite their undoubted professionalism. Submarines of communication in the Atlantic could not block, and the damage caused by them turned out to be acceptable. The surface ships managed to fight within the framework of our eternal DMZ scenario: "Our proud Varyag does not surrender to the enemy and" In vain is the old woman waiting for her son home. "
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 3 March 2021 12: 43
            +1
            Quote: Silhouette
            In my opinion, this article is a response to Timokhin's eulogy for the birthday of Admiral Gorshkov about his great fleet of the late USSR in the VO.

            Precisely noticed - just the second part of "Roman" ...
        2. New Year day
          New Year day 3 March 2021 10: 16
          +1
          Quote: lucul
          To surpass him, you need do what he does , there are simply no other options

          wanted to say - the economy?
          "If you want to ruin the country, give it a cruiser"
      5. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 3 March 2021 09: 24
        -2
        There is simply no money for defense, especially for the Navy. And there will be no money in such a situation in the economy as it is now. And there will be money for the Fleet only when business in Russia becomes more profitable and safer, especially small and medium-sized businesses. At the same time, taxes on small and medium-sized businesses should be significantly reduced, since they rarely send money abroad. Social spending will also have to be cut, especially for economically unpromising regions, although this is not popular. State labor old-age pensions are likely to have to be abolished as well.
        But that's just not the current leadership of the country will agree to this, but the future, which will have a greater credit of trust from society. And until the leadership of the country is changed, we will weaken and rot for a long time. And the current state of the Russian Navy for the generations of the middle of the 21st century will become still enviable, especially in terms of the nuclear submarine.
        1. Bolt cutter
          Bolt cutter 3 March 2021 12: 40
          +3
          cut taxes on small and medium-sized businesses, as they rarely send money abroad
          Displays still as - by consumption. Slightly raised small businessmen first of all buys imported items of pseudo-luxury, apartments / houses on the Spanish coast, goes to waste money on May.
          1. FRoman1984
            FRoman1984 5 March 2021 07: 26
            +1
            Quote: Bolt Cutter
            cut taxes on small and medium-sized businesses, as they rarely send money abroad
            Displays still as - by consumption. Slightly raised small businessmen first of all buys imported items of pseudo-luxury, apartments / houses on the Spanish coast, goes to waste money on May.

            Probably because business does not believe in tomorrow, does not believe in equality of all before the law, stability and predictability of the state and economy, does not believe in the honesty of the people who run the country. Why is it possible for one former prime minister and president to have vineyards in Italy (just, for example), while others are prohibited from withdrawing their earned money and buying houses in Spain and teaching children abroad?
      6. FIR FIR
        FIR FIR 3 March 2021 10: 29
        +4
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Agree to be one-armed?

        No, we don’t agree.
        But where to get the second Potemkin?
    2. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 3 March 2021 11: 39
      +2
      With this approach, you should forget about everything. Then the alignment: the United States owns (directly and indirectly) 94,73% of the Earth's surface, Russia - 3,32%.
      1. Ryusey
        Ryusey 3 March 2021 16: 13
        +1
        In this situation, Russia will not be.
    3. Overlock
      Overlock 3 March 2021 18: 19
      +16
      Quote: FRoman1984
      we have already confirmed the doctrine of protecting our economic zone and nothing more, and there is no talk of any ocean-going fleet.

      Then, it is logical, "Kuznetsov" - on pins and needles, 2 regiments of naval aviation - to disband (and so now they only take off from the simulator), 2 - simulator (Saki and Yeisk) - under the bulldozer. Can you imagine the scale of all the losses? Tens of billions!
      On the other hand, for some reason they keep everyone afloat?
      I agree, there is no capacity for the construction of large ships, money and desire, too.
      It seems that the frigate is our everything! I doubt it. that the UDC on the Gulf will be launched
      1. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 5 March 2021 07: 58
        0
        Quote: Overlock
        Quote: FRoman1984
        we have already confirmed the doctrine of protecting our economic zone and nothing more, and there is no talk of any ocean-going fleet.

        Then, it is logical, "Kuznetsov" - on pins and needles, 2 regiments of naval aviation - to disband (and so now they only take off from the simulator), 2 - simulator (Saki and Yeisk) - under the bulldozer. Can you imagine the scale of all the losses? Tens of billions!
        On the other hand, for some reason they keep everyone afloat?
        I agree, there is no capacity for the construction of large ships, money and desire, too.
        It seems that the frigate is our everything! I doubt it. that the UDC on the Gulf will be launched

        I think that instead of Kuznetsov, his air groups on aging aircraft and two controversial UDCs, they better invested in the destroyer Leader (not only the ship itself, but also the preparation of facilities for construction) and would repair / modernize Lazarev and Peter. The benefits and benefits would be much greater.
  4. Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 3 March 2021 05: 23
    +8
    ... And that's all that can be attributed to the ships of the far sea zone. 26 units
    well yes... of which "relatively capable of hiking" (according to its state) maximum 16 !!!. crying
    And over the next three years ... if a pair of new 22350s are added, they may well stop due to the wear of the power plant, another 4-6 units. what
  5. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 3 March 2021 05: 23
    +20
    Here it would be to adhere to at least some kind of consistency! We made decent projects of a corvette and a frigate - so build them in large batches! But no, there is always some kind of improvement, the right people receive orders and kickbacks, but things are barely moving ...
    1. New Year day
      New Year day 3 March 2021 10: 19
      +8
      Quote: Sahalinets
      But no, there is always some kind of improvement

      just trying to make a cruiser out of a corvette - pull and pull, but it does not work "stone flower!"
    2. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 6 March 2021 15: 31
      0
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Made decent projects corvette and frigate - so build them in large series!
      The frigate will go. But here is project 20380, call decent, with its speed of 27 knots, the composition of weapons and the PRICE (?!), wherein, - the tongue does not turn !!! yes
  6. Tagan
    Tagan 3 March 2021 05: 36
    -6
    Quote: Aerodrome
    by the fleet, one can judge the "greatness" of the country ...

    Is this the only yardstick in your understanding? The United States, for example, does not have an icebreaker fleet. So, what is next? But as I understand it, the greatness of Russia does not give you peace, which I would like to belittle from post to post.
    1. Runway
      Runway 3 March 2021 05: 46
      +14
      List of US ports in the Arctic? List of freezing and ice-guided US ports?
      The length of the Yankee coastline in the Arctic?
      So icebreakers are not a yardstick either.
      The navy is not an indicator of the greatness of the state. It's just a tool. Multifunctional.
    2. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 3 March 2021 06: 58
      +19
      Quote: Tagan
      Is this the only yardstick in your understanding?

      And in your understanding, how is the "greatness" of a state measured? In the number of billionaires available and the size of the property they acquire (overseas)? In the absence of domestic civil aviation? In the feudal system of household, social, industrial, legal and other relations? In the absence of a competitive industry (one that does not need to make requests abroad)? Announce the entire list ...
      Let's live without a navy, like Switzerland or Belarus, like Ireland or Uzbekistan ... Which choice suits you best?
      Countries that do not have oil buy it from others. If the country does not have production facilities for the construction of ships, then they must either be created at home, or use the services of those who are capable.
      The total length of the state border of Russia is 60 km, including the land border (on the mainland) - 932 km (of which river and lake - 22 km, the land itself - 125 km), and sea - 38 807 km

      In any case, Russia must have a navy. And the tasks for him and the quantitative composition should be determined initially. And those who interfere with the construction of the Russian fleet should not only have income in Russia, but also have the right to manage it. So I think.
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 3 March 2021 09: 02
        +9
        "How the" greatness "of a state is measured" - the greatness of a state is measured by the well-being of the majority of the population, the provision of pensioners, the availability of high-quality and affordable medicine and education. Everything else will gradually follow itself.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 11: 38
          +2
          the well-being of the majority of the population, the provision of pensioners, the availability of high-quality and affordable medicine and education


          And how is this ensured?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 3 March 2021 21: 20
            -7
            the greatness of the state is based on 1. the inner concentration of decency and the ability to think logically of the majority of the population, for example, when Russia was an Orthodox believer, that was its population, and Bismarck wrote about Great Russia with which it is harmful to quarrel. And if the population gets drunk and kills their children a couple of million a year, if men abandon their wives and children for the sake of women with low social responsibility, or force their wives to kill their children, if everyone is sitting in corners like rats and stupidly does not go to the polls, but with frenzy minus me. Or they paint libels on the fence of the church and go out to rallies against a tog or another temple. Where is the great people? this people is worthy of thieves' power and plunder by the Americans. 2 the greatness of a nation is based on the large number of children. Learn from the Uzbeks from the Chinese, he works two jobs, lives in a closet, but sends all the money to his wife and two or four children ... the Uzbek is interrupted five times a day for prayer ...
            “If an Albanian woman gives birth to seven children, and a Serbian woman has seven abortions, then the Albanians need this land more than the Serbs.” - Serbian Patriarch Pavel

            Source: https://ru.citaty.net/tsitaty/616817-patriarkh-serbskii-pavel-esli-albanskaia-zhenshchina-rozhaet-sem-detei-a-serbsk/

            so do not be distracted by aircraft carriers, this land will be transferred to the Uzbeks, the Chinese need them more. What kind of just government are you talking about, if you betrayed and crucified Christ, what kind of economy are you talking about? Seli supports theft for whom, if you killed your children, and if you have money, then spend everything on advertised nonsense ... But there is no economy and the fleet ... keep minus me for the truth,
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 16: 25
              0
              You should cool down, drink some water ...
      2. New Year day
        New Year day 3 March 2021 10: 24
        +7
        Quote: ROSS 42
        And in your understanding, how is the "greatness" of a state measured? In the number of billionaires available and the size of the property they acquire (overseas)?

        By criterion, we are almost a superpower! laughing
        Quote: ROSS 42
        In any case, Russia must have a navy.

        Should ... but not under this power hi
  7. clerk
    clerk 3 March 2021 05: 49
    +4
    Here you need to clearly understand what ships and vessels are needed for what purposes. To fight the enemy naval groupings in the DMZ, Russia has no forces and is not foreseen. Strikes on the coast from the NK are also not an example of efficiency. And for the protection of fishermen and the fight against pirates (if this has become a serious problem), you can use any, armed with a blockage from the warehouses, a transport vessel of decent size, autonomy and seaworthiness. That is, in fact, return to the practice of auxiliary cruisers. It will be much more profitable for solving such problems on the basis of the cost-effectiveness criterion.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 3 March 2021 07: 59
      +4
      Quote: clerk
      actually return to the practice of auxiliary cruisers. It will be much more profitable for solving such problems by the cost-effectiveness criterion.

      To nightmare Somali pirates, even a corvette has excessive power, another thing is that autonomy will not be enough if there is no base in those parts.
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 3 March 2021 11: 42
        +2
        And here is the base for you.
        The pirates were misappropriated, the coast was occupied, the surviving aborigines were driven to work = a base in Somalia.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 3 March 2021 17: 22
        +3
        It is wise for Russia to build frigates.
        For auxiliary tasks in the deep ocean zone.
        Support for them is only psychological: the "nuclear club" that exists.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 3 March 2021 19: 39
          -1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Support for them is only psychological: the "nuclear club" that exists.

          No need to whistle - they can carry their tactical and operational nuclear charges on board, and they will provide a range of their use by a couple of thousand kilometers. So, without "psychological" support, they can smash any state in the Middle East into nuclear dust from the Mediterranean or the Caspian Seas, if there is a team.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 3 March 2021 19: 49
            +3
            No one will place nuclear weapons on a lone frigate. This is a risk that exceeds reasonable.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 3 March 2021 20: 05
              -2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              No one will place nuclear weapons on a lone frigate. This is a risk that exceeds reasonable.

              Three frigates, a submarine and a tanker are enough to complete this task?
  8. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 3 March 2021 06: 41
    +9
    There is nothing to go into it, nothing and not for anything, but I really want to.

    The key word is why?

    You need to start with goal-setting.
    What will our fleet do in the ocean?
    Whom to catch, whom to protect, with whom to be friends and with whom to fight?
    And from this "stove" it is necessary to dance and, accordingly, make plans for the development of the fleet.
    What ships, how many, where. Agree on supply bases, buy new friends on distant shores, etc. etc.
    And yes, there is not a word about aviation in the article today.
    But without it, even the defense of the coast will not work. We don't need it either?
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette 3 March 2021 08: 07
      0
      What will our fleet do in the ocean?

      A question that no supporter of the DMZ fleet answered. And I don't like the term itself. He's kind of vague, vague. I am more accustomed to the old, more honest name - ocean zone, ocean fleet. The sea is all something coastal. Far, near .... damn it! Continuous uncertainty and vagueness. What are the tasks of the fleet in the DMZ? Who and how should solve them, by what forces? Proceeding from the fact that we are against everyone. Against Japan, Turkey and NATO.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 11: 35
        +8
        A question that no supporter of the DMZ fleet answered.


        1. When you were taught, they did not explain that the combat stability of forces in BMZ without a detachment of forces in DMZ is not ensured? This is the basics of operational art.
        2. Are you aware that any transition from one fleet to another is carried out across the ocean? And it requires appropriate seaworthiness, and in wartime also combat capability, weapons on board, etc.?
        3. Are you aware of the dangers of American SSBNs for the Russian Federation? Do you understand that they are just in the DMZ?

        The reality is just another - these are supporters of the strategy "to pupate on land and endlessly and wait for white people to kill us in burrows, like lemmings" diligently avoid questions like those that I asked you in this comment, often resorting to outright lies to protect their wretched positions.

        For example, can you answer my three questions clearly, without jerking?

        No.
        1. Silhouette
          Silhouette 3 March 2021 16: 05
          +3
          It's called "I asked myself, I answered myself." Moreover, he was accused of cheating (distortion). Well done! I give a standing ovation. I answer.
          1. Alexander, what kind of combat stability and what forces in the DMZ do you want to talk about? When solving what problems? Each fleet has its own. Which zone? In the area of ​​responsibility of the Black Sea Fleet or the Pacific Fleet? Or maybe the SF? Or are you interested in Baltika? For how long? It seems to me that you do not understand the subject of the conversation.
          Well, for a start, it would be good to define the terms. When I was studying, the terminology was somewhat different. Are the Ocean Fleet and the DMZ Fleet the same thing or are they different? Where are the boundaries of the DMZ in your understanding, where does the near end and the far sea zone begin and how can this be applied to the Baltic Fleet and Pacific Fleet? Dahlak and Socotra - what is this, to which zone do they belong? I do not understand what you want to hear from me. What kind of combat resilience do you want to hear about? About theoretical or real, the one that I know firsthand.
          2. On your second question, I never know. Moreover, he never made inter-fleet transitions from Vladivostok to Sevastopol back in 1987. I have no idea about combat effectiveness and seaworthiness
          3. Well, I don't know anything about SSBNs, although at one time I served on 3 of the 4 best BODs of that time of Project 1134 B. I can only say that there were no cases of American SSBNs found in their patrol areas from words never. Neither the Pacific nor the Indian Oceans. But there was something to destroy them. But only in the near sea zone and in interaction with that outfit of forces that you mentioned. But SSBNs do not go to BMZ.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 19: 16
            +4
            1. Alexander, what kind of combat stability and what forces in the DMZ do you want to talk about? When solving what problems? Each fleet has its own. Which zone? In the area of ​​responsibility of the Black Sea Fleet or the Pacific Fleet? Or maybe the SF? Or are you interested in Baltika? For how long? It seems to me that you do not understand the subject of the conversation.


            Let's discuss the SF, the combat stability of the forces performing the tasks of protecting the air defense missile defense system. Which, in turn, is critical for the ability of SSBNs to fulfill the tasks they face. Well, or you can do the same in the Pacific Ocean, as you like. Assume ZRBD where it is convenient for you, even in the Bering Sea, even in the Okhotsk Sea (for the Pacific Fleet) or in the White Sea for the Northern Fleet, in general, whatever you want. Time is summer, ice starts "higher" than in winter (SF).
            We consider the American airbases in Alaska and the Aleuts bombed to the state of radioactive ash, our Anadyr, Provideniya, Pevek and Yelizovo too.

            2. On your second question, I never know. Moreover, he never made inter-fleet transitions from Vladivostok to Sevastopol back in 1987.


            Then why the mantras about "what should our fleet do in the ocean"? Yes, we can get from base to base only across the ocean.

            3. Well, I don't know anything about SSBNs, although at one time I served on 3 of the 4 best BODs of that time of Project 1134 B. I can only say that there were no cases of American SSBNs found in their patrol areas from words never.


            Well, it was never by surface forces in the late 80s. And because the Americans grazed in their protected areas in the Gulf of Alaska and the North Atlantic.
            In general, there were very many detections.
            And I will add, when trying to strike a surprise attack on us, their SSBNs will have to come closer to our shores. And it was here that the surface forces would have said their word ... if they had been.

            But only in the near sea zone and in interaction with that outfit of forces that you mentioned. But SSBNs do not go to BMZ.


            And you still write to me about the misunderstanding of the question ...

            Well, let's move on to point 1 in order not to waste time.
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette 3 March 2021 19: 44
              +1
              However, how quickly you jumped from the DMZ to the air defense missile system and from the destruction of SSBNs to the provision of SSBNs!
              Who is actually juggling?
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 16: 28
                0
                However, how quickly you jumped from the DMZ to the air defense missile system and from the destruction of SSBNs to the provision of SSBNs!


                And these are related questions, you, as an officer, MUST understand them.
                1. Silhouette
                  Silhouette 4 March 2021 17: 39
                  +1
                  In this world, everything is connected ... But the topic of the dispute and the material of R. Skomorokhov was the far ocean zone and the ocean fleet, for which you stand up. It's actually about her, not about the coastal seas. Everything is clear with them and there is nothing to argue with. The rusty nuclear cruiser in the photo was in no way useful for the oceans of our planet; it did not go further than the coastal Sea of ​​Japan and rotted at berth No. 2, specially built for it. An inglorious story. But the ship was good .... Is it necessary to build even better and more powerful than it? .... For what? ... Next to it, another atomic giant, Ural, rotted at the pier, which never went to sea at all and did not complete any of the tasks for which it was created. Here is the great fleet of Gorshkov and the real results of his naval leadership in one photo.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 19: 41
                    -1
                    You can write a comment on the merits of the question? I remind you:

                    For example, can you answer my three questions clearly, without jerking?

                    No.
                    1. Silhouette
                      Silhouette 4 March 2021 20: 46
                      +1
                      I gave three answers to three questions. What else does?
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 22: 04
                        -1
                        You didn't give.

                        Once again, specifically - in what way are you going to ensure the combat stability of, for example, several KPUGs from corvettes or IPCs performing anti-submarine search missions in order to ensure the transition of SSBNs to ZRBDs, without being present in the DMZ?

                        Just state the principle.

                        Well, or vice versa, explain why my question does not make sense, just keep in mind, I will lay out a map for you with the situation "based on" the real teachings of the 80s. I will simply designate the force with dots-circles. And you will show the class.

                        Ready?
                      2. Silhouette
                        Silhouette 5 March 2021 10: 45
                        +1
                        To him about Ivan - he is about a fool .... To him about the black hole of the ocean fleet - he is about the KPUG from the IPC ..... What do they have to do with the topic of conversation ?! He is about Evmenov, who wants to get a base in Sudan, and he is about the internal seas of the deployment of SSBNs ..... Are you generally sane ?! I do not deal with the motives of the teachings of the 80s! I participated in them! And he worked out the deployment of SSBNs from Pavlovsk not in circles, but at sea. And you play tanks or whatever ... battleships and cruisers.
                      3. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 5 March 2021 19: 23
                        0
                        Let me remind you that our dialogue with you began with my statement:

                        1. When you were taught, they did not explain that the combat stability of forces in BMZ without a detachment of forces in DMZ is not ensured? This is the basics of operational art.


                        which you, as it seems to you, are trying to challenge.

                        Therefore, your argument

                        . To him about the black hole of the ocean-going fleet - he is about the KPUG from the IPC ..... What do they have to do with the topic of conversation ?!


                        we throw it in the trash, because initially it was about something else.

                        Now on the merits of the question. The IPC KPUGs are so relevant to the topic that the enemy will deploy the forces necessary to destroy them in the DMZ.
                        Dreamers on the topic of coastal, mosquito, and other microflots usually fall for this moment.
                        Accordingly, that is why, having the main task of ensuring the combat use of SSBNs, the Navy, at the same time, practiced the destruction of enemy surface forces in the DMZ, while there was nothing.
                        Because otherwise no KPUG will exist long enough for SSBNs to be able to either work as a factor for enforcing peace, or work out according to their goals.

                        And this is known to any person with the title "from cap-2 and uphill."

                        I do not deal with the motives of the teachings of the 80s! I participated in them! And he worked out the deployment of SSBNs from Pavlovsk not in circles, but at sea.


                        Sorry what? SSBNs have always been deployed from Vilyuchinsk. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (if you are talking about it) was the base of the border guards and part of the OVR forces (specifically the IPC).

                        So what did you do there on the "Bukar" in the sea?

                        About Evmenov, who wants to get a base in Sudan,


                        Not so much in Sudan as in the Red Sea.
                        And it is right. And Evmenov has nothing to do with it.
                        https://vz.ru/society/2020/11/17/1070914.html
                      4. Silhouette
                        Silhouette 5 March 2021 21: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (if you are talking about it) was the base of the border guards and part of the OVR forces (specifically the IPC).


                        Do not tell my slippers.
                        What does Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky have to do with it if I was talking about PAVLOVSKY? What are you smoking there? ..... SSBN - as a factor of coercion to the world ..... This is the apotheosis of amateurism.
                      5. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 6 March 2021 17: 19
                        +1
                        Ah ... and the 4th flotilla ...

                        Clear.

                        What are you smoking there? ..... SSBN - as a factor of coercion to the world ..... This is the apotheosis of amateurism.


                        They exist for this very purpose.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 3 March 2021 09: 29
    +1
    Why do you need a fleet?
    A nuclear war with the West is inevitable. Because the West is waiting for the weakening of Russia and the moment when Russia will not be able to inflict unacceptable military damage on the West. Therefore, Russia needs a fleet to protect its SSBNs, so that SSBNs 1) have a large number of SLBMs; 2) managed to shoot back in the West with these SLBMs.
    That's what Russia needs a fleet in the ocean for. Without the fleet, our SSBNs will be defenseless and will cease to be a deterrent against an attack by the West on Russia. And the West will attack and defeat Russia.
    1. Overlock
      Overlock 3 March 2021 18: 27
      +19
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      A nuclear war with the West is inevitable.

      And without a nuclear war in any way? There will be no such war, for there will be no winner in it. The alternative to nuclear war is hybrid and economic wars.
  • New Year day
    New Year day 3 March 2021 10: 29
    +13
    Quote: Jacket in stock
    Agree on supply bases, buy new friends on distant shores, etc. etc.
    And yes, there is not a word about aviation in the article today.

    To create foreign bases you need:
    1.money and very large
    2.more or less relations with these countries
    3. lack of press on these countries, i.e. acceptable relationships with all global players.
    Let's put money into the MTO point in Sudan, start raising their economy (the country is wildly poor), get involved in the process like in the Olympics, and then America will crush the Sudanese authorities and run, leaving everything behind.
  • next322
    next322 3 March 2021 06: 53
    +7
    the pace of construction of 22350 is catastrophically low, only next year the fleet may receive 3 ships ....... one SV plant clearly cannot cope, instead of unnecessary long-term construction of the UDC, a couple of 22350s could be laid in Kerch for the Black Sea Fleet
  • Tagan
    Tagan 3 March 2021 07: 02
    0
    Quote: WFP
    List of US ports in the Arctic? List of freezing and ice-guided US ports?
    The length of the Yankee coastline in the Arctic?
    So icebreakers are not a yardstick either.
    The navy is not an indicator of the greatness of the state. It's just a tool. Multifunctional.

    I wrote about that. Moreover, our tasks are different.
    1. Runway
      Runway 3 March 2021 08: 49
      0
      Within the pocket and tasks, and must create (not build steamers) Fleets and flotillas. PB, Rembaza, KECh economy, BMTO, aviation, bervoyska and MP, auxiliary ships and finally steamers with guns, missiles, torpedoes and trawls.
  • Tagan
    Tagan 3 March 2021 07: 14
    -1
    Quote: ROSS 42
    Quote: Tagan
    Is this the only yardstick in your understanding?

    And in your understanding, how is the "greatness" of a state measured? In the number of billionaires available and the size of the property they acquire (overseas)? ...

    Well, what are you thinking out for me? In my understanding, this is one indicator out of many. Some indicators can partially neutralize others under certain conditions.
    About Belarus without a fleet - test!))
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 3 March 2021 08: 37
    -6
    Not an article but baby talk! For example, why should Russia move towards the Falkland Islands? What could be Russia's interests in the South Atlantic? We have a completely different strategy and tactics at sea! Looks like a ustatka in the evening drank a glass and away we go! Even if you go out into the ocean, you first need to develop a target designation system! Why is Russia asked to go out into the ocean? The adversary will bother himself! The times of Tsushima and the battles of aircraft carriers, like the United States and Japan in WWII, are over!
    1. New Year day
      New Year day 3 March 2021 10: 30
      +2
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      We have a completely different strategy and tactics at sea!

      and which ones? laughing Enlighten, teetotaler!
      1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
        VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 4 March 2021 11: 03
        -2
        Aren't you spies for an hour?
  • slm976
    slm976 3 March 2021 08: 55
    +6
    I'm reading another article by Roman Skomorokhov, and once again I don't really understand what the author wanted to convey to the readers? ((
    The fact that things are bad with our fleet? That ships are being built slowly? That shipbuilding has never been restored?
    So this is understandable to everyone who is even slightly interested in the fleet .... Why then from article to article additionally smear the so gray reality with black paint? After all, the author did not say anything new in this article, the sky is blue, the sea is blue, and the Russian Navy is experiencing a shortage of ships of almost all classes, and even with the task of elementary replenishment of the ship's composition, it still cannot cope, despite the rather serious efforts being made.
    I think there is not a single person, even the slightest bit interested in the fleet, who would not know what this author is repeating for the umpteenth time in his articles ..
    Those who are really worried about the fleet, over the post-Soviet years have learned to rejoice at the small, each mortgaged ship, each repaired, each restored shipyard ... spit, swear at the pace of construction, but wait for each ship and rejoice at its acceptance into the fleet.
    The ships are being built, very slowly, but they are being built. Ships are being modernized, also very slowly ... often this slowness is akin to a crime, and perhaps somewhere it is a crime, we do not know this, but I fully admit it, but the caravan is going .. and Roman Skomorokhov writes articles about the fact that everything is bad and we cannot cope with the forces of the navy with the American or even the Japanese fleet.

    But for some reason, Roman Skomorokhov does not write that during the times of the USSR itself, with its capabilities, when huge funds were allocated to the fleet and there were serious shipbuilding capacities, we, too, could not resist the US Navy and its allies with the help of the Navy ... the reasons for this are also known and are described by many authors, including here on VO.
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette 3 March 2021 10: 19
      +3
      Quote: slm976
      I am reading another article by Roman Skomorokhov, and once again I do not really understand what the author wanted to convey to the readers?

      I explain in a popular way. A black hole is such a thing that sucks everything into itself and does not give anything back at the exit. The thing is useless. So, the far sea zone is a black hole. Now it is clear?
      1. slm976
        slm976 3 March 2021 12: 44
        +1
        A black hole is such a thing that sucks everything into itself and does not give anything back at the exit. The thing is useless. So, the far sea zone is a black hole. Now it is clear?


        You forgot to add a very important phrase at the end of your post, namely:
        "In my purely personal opinion"
        - with this phrase your post would at least represent something! And without it, he is an empty concussion of air. no semantic load !.
        Now it is clear?))
      2. slm976
        slm976 3 March 2021 13: 36
        +4
        So, the far sea zone is a black hole


        In my opinion, you are very much confused in the definitions. Do you even imagine the difference between BMZ, DMZ and the ocean zone? The author writes about the oceanic zone and the insufficient number of ships in this zone, you write that the DMZ is a black hole, of course it is very figurative))), but tell me please, what is your DMZ?

        With some simplification, we can say that:
        Coastal zone, distance from the native coast to 200 miles.
        Near Sea: 200 - 500 miles.
        Far sea zone: - 500 - 1000 miles.
        Ocean zone: - 1000 miles and further.

        For example, the central part of the Baotian Sea belongs to the DMZ.

        That is, without the control of the DMZ - "this useless black hole", we will not be able, for example, to protect our coast from attacks by Tomahawks from enemy sea carriers ...
        Are you seriously suggesting not to bother with this useless DMZ? Did I understand your post correctly?
      3. Scharnhorst
        Scharnhorst 3 March 2021 16: 26
        0
        Our sailors, like American lawyers or good diplomats, can adjust the same words to fit a convenient semantic content! Going around Scandinavia to a parade in St. Petersburg - a long sea voyage, get a prestigious badge! Two months SSBNs under water and ice on duty in the Barents Sea (special economic zone of the Russian Federation) with a nuclear club in the field
        in the Milky Way Galaxy, there is nothing more useful than a black hole somewhere in the center. Everything revolves around her. The distant sea zone in the Baltic is somewhere near the Falklands or abeam Stockholm? Give the definition of DMZ, BMZ to the fleet and they will stop living in virtual reality from Sivkov.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 19: 39
          +2
          Give the definition of DMZ, BMZ to the fleet and they will stop living in virtual reality from Sivkov.


          And where did you get the idea that this definition does not exist?
    2. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets 3 March 2021 11: 51
      +6
      [quote] [Those who really worry about the fleet, over the post-Soviet years have learned to rejoice at the small, each mortgaged ship, each repaired, each restored shipyard ... they spit, swear at the pace of construction, but wait for each ship and rejoice at its acceptance into the fleet ./quote]
      This approach is akin to taking opiates. Things are progressing from a "bad" state to a "very bad" state, and we are glad that we are not dead yet.
      Everything must be changed, including the land mentality, otherwise our future, if any, will be determined by the winners at some congress. And there will remain from Russia a couple of regions for the entertainment of tourists (bear, vodka, balalaika).
      1. slm976
        slm976 3 March 2021 12: 58
        +2
        This approach is akin to taking opiates. Things are progressing from a "bad" state to a "very bad" state, and we are glad that we are not dead yet.


        Dear Victor, my approach is the only normal one - to accept the situation as it is and not to reflect if changing the situation does not depend on you. And, of course, do something if you can. Therefore, even a slow forward movement makes me happy!

        Your approach with the author, if we proceed from your own comparisons, is akin to sado-masochism, the problem is well known, it is being solved, not quickly and effectively enough, from your point of view, but you are picking this problem endlessly, getting pleasure from this incomprehensible to me - alone and in the same words, in the same articles, without offering absolutely anything new and repeating the same mantras from publication to replication!

        Everything must be changed, including the land mentality, otherwise our future, if any, will be determined by the winners at some congress. And there will remain from Russia a couple of regions for the entertainment of tourists (bear, vodka, balalaika).


        Uh-huh, there was a birthday here the other day of one of the same "changers of everything with a spot", who destroyed a great country with his changes !!! He also believed that everything should be changed at once, he did not really understand anything and thought little about the consequences of his changes.
        There is a golden rule - do not touch what works, if it does not work well, make small, pinpoint changes so as not to harm first of all!
        1. Victor Leningradets
          Victor Leningradets 3 March 2021 14: 26
          +4
          Dear Sergey!
          I would be glad if I was mistaken. But life severely corrects me from unjustified hopes.
          Roman Skomorokhov, thanks to him for the next article, simply draws attention to the pernicious tendency to present need as salvation. There is no fleet type, but there is a parade!
          The point is not that something is being done, and this is presented as some kind of progress, but that we are doing much less than is necessary. And this is not an objective reality at all. We can do many times more here and now, and the policy of international financial circles artificially deprives our defense industry of the necessary funds. We are lagging behind our opponents, and it seems that we are lagging behind forever.
          My youth fell on the heyday of the Soviet Navy. How many firewood they broke, but a lot of useful things were done, and most importantly - there was a skill, people worked, enterprises (albeit not comprehensively) developed. Well, the fleet itself - went to the oceans, fired and, of course, was not well served. And the cadres - the people were gold!
          Now - the opposite is true, we are losing everything that was mastered in Soviet times, without gaining anything new, and the "land" are broadcasting that everything is fine. They say there is nothing for us to seek happiness beyond the seas, to manage on our territory, and the fleet is a useless toy of Peter I and other tyrants in power.
          With this approach, the enemy, not us, will decide what to do with our territory. In the previous cadence of 1991, it was already cut by a quarter. So a drunken dance to a bear balalaika is another version of "light".
          You are wrong about Gorbachev. He's just a simpleton who has been used and thrown away. We did not come to catastrophe by someone's ill will, but simply by losing in the confrontation with the collective West. How Germany in 1918 "unexpectedly" collapsed at the feet of the victors. And defectors, saboteurs-reformers, traitors-siloviki - these are all symptoms of that defeat.
          You say that it does not depend on us, this is not entirely true. We cannot issue decrees, finance megaprojects and develop strategic programs. But we can influence public opinion, form a request for a new policy, work with the younger generation. I do not care how my grandchildren grow up and what country they live in. So I think that such a low-cost event as discussions about the future of the fleet is extremely useful.
          1. slm976
            slm976 3 March 2021 16: 06
            +1
            Roman Skomorokhov, thanks to him for the next article, simply draws attention to the pernicious tendency to present need as salvation. There is no fleet type, but there is a parade!


            At Roman Skomorokhov, as usual, everything was mixed up in a heap.
            To summarize briefly - everything is bad with us, everything is fine with them, and there can be no talk of any ocean fleet, because there are no ships, there is no money, there is no opportunity to build ships, he does not see tasks in the ocean zone, and therefore does not figs to talk about the need to build ships for the ocean zone, even in the future !!! And everyone who writes and speaks about such prospects strives for PR and drank.
            In general, it is difficult to find the main idea here, because the author himself, in my opinion, has not fully decided what he wanted to say !!!

            What exactly do you agree with here? For what thanks to him?

            The point is not that something is being done, and this is presented as some kind of progress, but that we are doing much less than is necessary. And this is not an objective reality at all. We can do many times more here and now, and the policy of international financial circles artificially deprives our defense industry of the necessary funds. We are lagging behind our opponents, and it seems that we are lagging behind forever.


            Everything always depends on the starting point !! Of course, if you are comparing the fleet now and the Soviet Navy, then of course there is no progress (especially with regard to the numerical strength), there is regression. But what if you compare it with the situation 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago?
            Further, I'm sorry, but huge (by our standards) funds were poured into the defense industry in general and shipbuilding in particular, but this did not give the desired result, why?
            Because it is not money that builds ships, and what was destroyed and collapsed by the collapse of the USSR cannot be restored just like that with an infusion of funds ... you need to restart entire industries, restore production, train a huge number of skilled workers and engineers - this is long and expensive !!! And every positive news is worth its weight in gold here.

            For example, recently on the frigate under construction, project 22350, they loaded the first domestic power plant assembly, for you and Skomorkhov this is a trifle, there is nothing to talk about, especially if you recall the Soviet engine building ...
            But for me, this news is worth its weight in gold, I really hope that the power plant will work immediately and without problems, because this immediately opens the way for us to large-scale production of ships of project 22350 and, in the future, project 22350M, which are the very ships of the distant sea ​​and ocean zones, the absence of which (new) Skomorokhov is so worried about.

            You are wrong about Gorbachev. He's just a simpleton who has been used and thrown away. ...


            Gorbachev is a proud, dilettante, disgusted with himself as the messiah, and most likely a traitor!

            So I think that such a low-cost event as discussions about the future of the fleet is extremely useful.


            The discussion, in addition to stating that everything is bad, also implies proposals - what to do and how to solve the problem. In this article, except for the next statement, everything is bad with us, nothing else is present. There is no discussion in it, and there is no invitation to discussion either ...
  • g1v2
    g1v2 3 March 2021 09: 02
    +2
    For all the purposes indicated in the quote, there are enough patrolmen 22160, of which there are already 3, and there will be 6 in total. NEITHER CRUISERS, NORTHERN SUBMISSIONS ARE NEEDED FOR THESE PURPOSES - THESE ARE OTHER TASKS.
    Okay, I'll try to explain it on my fingers. For example, there is a ship with a sanctioned cargo. For example, to Venezuela or somewhere else. How to make sure that he is not detained or captured? We need to give him military escort. It doesn't matter what kind of weapons this escort will have. The main thing is that it is a Russian military ship. Another variant. We mine our uranium in Tanzania. This is Africa if anyone suffers from multiple sclerosis. For example, in case of any exacerbation, it must be accompanied. For this, a cruiser is also not needed. Our fishermen are fishing somewhere far from our shores. There are problems and they need to be protected. Will we send Kuzyu there or will we send the apple?
    Further. Fight against piracy, flag demonstration, humanitarian missions and other routine. Well, for these purposes, the same 22160 - for the eyes.
    It's just that besides the goals of confronting NATO, the fleet has a whole bunch of equally important goals. Moreover, a war with NATO is still unlikely, but local conflicts and everyday tasks are something that happens all the time. And for these purposes an appropriate tool is needed.
    1. Overlock
      Overlock 3 March 2021 18: 34
      +18
      Quote: g1v2
      We mine our uranium in Tanzania. This is Africa if anyone suffers from multiple sclerosis. For example, in case of any exacerbation, it must be accompanied.

      Quote: g1v2
      Moreover, a war with NATO is still unlikely, but local conflicts and everyday tasks

      So local conflicts are possible just with NATO countries. In this case, even a cruiser will not save
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 3 March 2021 19: 54
        +1
        Local conflicts with NATO countries are unlikely. But with whom it is more likely to fight - for example, with the GUAM countries. Plus expeditionary operations in third world countries. In the same CAR, ours are already participating. request
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 19: 38
      -1
      We mine our uranium in Tanzania. This is Africa if anyone suffers from multiple sclerosis. For example, in case of any exacerbation, it must be accompanied. For this, a cruiser is also not needed.


      Our Uranus can easily become not ours when the Westerners simply staged a coup there.
      And how will 22160 help you then?
      Here is the repaired Kuzya, with a trained air group, heels of missile frigates and a brigade of MPs on landing ships would quite help to return Uranus, yes.
      And the three-inch trough is not.
  • Galleon
    Galleon 3 March 2021 09: 10
    +14
    The "new Russia" has a new fleet that meets its interests - https://sport24-ru.turbopages.org/sport24.ru/s/news/football/2021-02-23-novaya-yakhta-vladeltsa-chelsi-romana- abramovicha-bolshe-bukingemskogo-dvortsa-foto
    And what Roman writes about is the remnants of the old, ours with you.

    44 billion is 3 and a half frigates 11356, only 1 yacht of only one owner.
    1. Ben Gunn
      Ben Gunn 3 March 2021 13: 18
      +9
      And if all the yachts of these "respected citizens" are counted into destroyers-frigates, then we can suddenly surpass the US fleet)
  • Foxnova
    Foxnova 3 March 2021 09: 46
    -6
    As soon as Japan masters the nuclear triad, we will measure the fleets. I just remind you that now only 2 countries in the world have a nuclear triad. How much money she eats off count for yourself.
  • New Year day
    New Year day 3 March 2021 10: 07
    +8
    ... patriotism goes off scale to such an extent that discussions begin that the fleet should search for groups of ships and track them ...

    Moreover, they plan to block the Red Sea and Suez!
    ... it makes you wonder. Moreover, very seriously ...

    .... about mental health, adequate perception of the reality of the level of development of the country and about the current moment. Unfortunately, the creation of logistics centers around the world indicates that the vertical also has such sentiments.
    This is called "down the drain"
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 3 March 2021 10: 52
      +9
      Quote: Silvestr
      Unfortunately, the creation of logistics centers around the world testifies that the vertical also has such sentiments.
      This is called "down the drain"

      I do not agree with you.
      A little PMTO in remote corners of the world, on the shores of relatively friendly countries, will not hurt. All the same, PMTO is not a naval base. Funds for creation will require little, but the benefits are significant. The creation of 2-3 such points in the Indian Ocean basin will be much cheaper and implemented faster than the construction of even one full-fledged integrated support ship for the Navy.
      1. New Year day
        New Year day 3 March 2021 11: 13
        +1
        Quote: Doccor18
        A little PMTO in remote corners of the world, on the shores of relatively friendly countries will not hurt

        I agree! But then there is a desire to expand and deepen!
        Name friendly countries ...
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 3 March 2021 11: 47
          +5
          Quote: Silvestr
          But then there is a desire to expand and deepen!

          Any good undertaking can be spoiled by excessive zeal ...
          Only stupidity and greed have no limit ...
          Quote: Silvestr
          Name friendly countries ...

          In fact, the richer and stronger you are, the more friends you have. The stronger Russia is, the more friendly countries there will be.
          It is already quite realistic to have a PMTO in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Maldives, Vietnam, the Philippines and a number of Central American countries ...
          1. New Year day
            New Year day 3 March 2021 14: 59
            -1
            Quote: Doccor18
            In fact, the richer and stronger you are, the more friends you have.

            Here it is, the key! - Loot and strength! So what kind of friendship is it then?
          2. Overlock
            Overlock 3 March 2021 18: 39
            +22
            Quote: Doccor18
            It is already quite realistic to have a PMTO in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Maldives, Vietnam, the Philippines, and a number of Central American countries ..

            The question is: what do we get in return? -The commitment to purchase palm oil (as with "Su" was) and investing in the development of their states? It costs money. There is a MTO in the Philippines - how often will the ship come there? Is there any economic feasibility in this? Maybe this MTO item will become "golden" for the country.
      2. Scharnhorst
        Scharnhorst 3 March 2021 16: 39
        +1
        It doesn't make sense to build one desert gas station for a random car once a year! fool
    2. clerk
      clerk 3 March 2021 11: 06
      -4
      ... .... about mental health, adequate perception of the reality of the level of development of the country and about the current moment. Unfortunately, the creation of logistics centers around the world testifies that the vertical also has such sentiments.
      This is called "down the drain"
      What, apart from "Putin down" and "dispossession of the oligarchs", do you personally propose part of the development of the fleet?
      1. New Year day
        New Year day 3 March 2021 11: 14
        +3
        Quote: clerk
        What, apart from "Putin down" and "dispossession of the oligarchs", do you personally propose part of the development of the fleet?

        I honestly pay all taxes - is that not enough?
        There will be no development of the fleet under this power, but it would not hurt to lower the skin from your oligarchs
        1. clerk
          clerk 3 March 2021 11: 42
          0
          .
          I honestly pay all taxes - is that not enough?
          There will be no development of the fleet under this power, but it would not hurt to lower the skin from your oligarchs
          The question was not whether you pay taxes honestly or dishonestly, but you legally evade taxes. And not about your desire to "take everything and share" (c). The question was, what do you personally propose in terms of the development of the fleet, if according to your "MTO points around the world - money down the drain"?
          1. Galleon
            Galleon 3 March 2021 14: 05
            +6
            Quote: clerk
            what do you personally offer in terms of fleet development,

            Such a question can be asked either by a person who came to this resource for the first time by accident, or by someone who was indifferent to the problems and pain of the development of the fleet in general before this polemic.
            What is there to offer if all the proposals are regularly presented in articles on VO? There are almost no naval aviation left, there are almost no PLO forces left, there are no intelligible modern torpedoes, no AWACS, but are you asking rhetorical questions here ?? Now, if I could, I would generally drive you out of here!
            1. clerk
              clerk 3 March 2021 14: 19
              0
              ... What is there to offer if all the proposals are regularly presented in articles on VO? There are almost no naval aviation left, there are almost no PLO forces left, there are no intelligible modern torpedoes, no AWACS, but are you asking rhetorical questions here ?? Now, if I could, I would generally drive you out of here!
              Well, complain - like an evil clerk with his specific questions interferes with our patriotic cry in the style of cartoon Winnie the Pooh ("and honey and condensed milk, and preferably more"). laughing In fact, only one "argument" comes from you and your "popbolschik" - "here we will drive out Putin, we will return the USSR, we will nationalize everything that is possible and impossible, there will be a lot of money for which we will build a huge ocean fleet." This your "argumentation" is called - "kindergarten - panties with straps" (c)
              1. New Year day
                New Year day 3 March 2021 15: 04
                -2
                Quote: clerk
                In fact, only one "argument" comes from you and your "popbolschik" - "here we will drive out Putin, we will return the USSR, we will nationalize everything that is possible and impossible, there will be a lot of money for which we will build a huge ocean fleet"

                Brain Cancer, Show Evidence of Your Diarrhea ...
                1. clerk
                  clerk 3 March 2021 15: 08
                  -2
                  ... Brain Cancer, Show Evidence of Your Diarrhea ...
                  Almost any of your messages on the topic of modernity is proof of diarrhea.
                  1. New Year day
                    New Year day 3 March 2021 15: 11
                    -1
                    Quote: clerk
                    Almost any of your messages on the topic of modernity is proof of diarrhea.

                    So don't read it! Like being toilet paper?
                    1. clerk
                      clerk 3 March 2021 15: 17
                      -6
                      ... So don't read it! Like being toilet paper?
                      In the context of the discussion, this is closer to a brush that cleans your "chimney". laughing
                      1. Overlock
                        Overlock 3 March 2021 18: 41
                        +18
                        Quote: clerk
                        In the context of the discussion, this is closer to a brush that cleans your "chimney". laughing

                        "Intellectual"!
                        Made you like a kid.
                      2. clerk
                        clerk 3 March 2021 19: 21
                        0
                        .
                        "Intellectual"!
                        Made you like a kid.
                        You did it. Your pants. Therefore, you can continue with your like-minded people to console each other to the point of opiating. You still have no thoughts on the topic laughing
        2. New Year day
          New Year day 3 March 2021 15: 02
          +3
          Quote: clerk
          The question was - what do you personally offer in terms of the development of the fleet,

          I can offer you to cut off half a liver or a head - I have been trained to do this. There is the Minister of Defense for proposals.
          1. clerk
            clerk 3 March 2021 15: 12
            +1
            ... The question was - what do you personally offer in terms of fleet development,
            ///////
            I can offer you to cut off half a liver or a head - I have been trained to do this. There is the Minister of Defense for proposals.
            ... That is, you criticize what you do not understand either ear or snout. Actually, it was clear from the beginning, but now you yourself have confirmed it.
  • Paranoid50
    Paranoid50 3 March 2021 10: 15
    -4
    laughing laughing laughing Oh, everything is according to plan - the duty sketch-sketch is in time.
  • prior
    prior 3 March 2021 10: 33
    +13
    Article - phantom pains in the Soviet Union.
    I have been saying for a long time - Russia is slowly cooling down.
    Examples of this are everywhere, in space, in aviation, in the navy, in industry, in education ...........
    Getting ready for the "land", as the "great orator" Klitschko said.
    1. New Year day
      New Year day 3 March 2021 11: 21
      +7
      Quote: prior
      Article - phantom pains in the Soviet Union.

      This phantom is alive as long as the Soviets are alive. The younger generation will come, like our managers, and the phantom will die.
      Quote: prior
      I've been talking for a long time - Russia is slowly cooling down

      a matter of time, since the current government is no longer able to change anything
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 11: 23
    +16
    The task of supplying the grouping in Syria was failed not by the fleet, but by the ATO - the department of transport support.
    How long can you write nonsense?

    And he is also responsible for logistics.
    The consistent genius of Serdyukov and Shoigu, smoothly flowing from the first to the second, led to the fact that the Navy has neither the right nor the ability to engage in its rear, this is the task of managing the rear under the command of the ARMY General Bulgakov.

    Here he claims for floating and must be presented, the Navy has nothing to do with it, the war in Syria in general would not have been pulled out without the fleet.
    When the ATT screwed up, our decision makers remembered that we, the continental power, have a fleet! We must puzzle him. To the objection that all transport capabilities were taken away from the fleet, an order was followed to use what is.
    As a result, BDK, killers, floating workshops and everything else went into action.

    So no need to juggle.
    Regarding the fleet in Syria - here.
    https://topwar.ru/158417-vmf-rossii-protiv-ssha-i-zapada-primer-iz-nedavnih-operacij.html

    As for why he is in the current political situation, in principle - here
    https://topwar.ru/175267-sposobnost-voevat-na-more-jeto-neobhodimost-dlja-rossii.html
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 3 March 2021 11: 53
    +1
    The problem of the absence of NEW BOC projects with a displacement of 7-9 thous. Tons, which has been "worn out" in recent years. (niche ex. 1134 A and 1155) is. And the reasons are known. But there is also progress - over the past 10 years, internal Russian cooperation in equipment and weapons has been established by 90%. It remains to "put the squeeze" on their power plants (both diesels and turbines) for all types of ships.

    And - finally, it will be determined where, at which 2-3 shipyards it will be possible to build large BOCs on a regular basis. And if the current ones are so loaded with civilian courts. Build a modern one with new equipment and floating docks instead of the lost Nikolaev ones. Whether in St. Petersburg or in the Far East
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 3 March 2021 11: 56
    -1
    If you carefully study the lists of ships of the Russian Navy, you can come to another unpleasant conclusion: escort ships are also needed.
    In order to have at least a hypothetical opportunity to fight off the coast of South America (although what have we forgotten? ..), and not "show the flag" in peacetime, the cruising range of warships should be several times different - like the German "pocket battleships" of times last century.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 3 March 2021 12: 25
    +10
    laughing Oh, this Roman Skomorokhov! Why don't we have a DMZ if we NEVER build a fleet! What is DMZ for Roman? Squadron battles, raiders scurrying about enemy communications, shelling Miami, landing troops in Alaska ... powerful and epic, bravo !!! I also like this DMZ, why hide it .... But unfortunately, the life of the far sea zone is solid gray everyday life, completely devoid of romance! Go there, stay here, look after this, chase that one, protect those, scare them there, look after this .... boring Roman, but someone has to do this .... and who, in your opinion, will do it?
    Yes, it is possible to assemble something similar to a strike force from the existing ships of the fleet. However, how the supply problem will be resolved is now a little unclear.

    The development of the PMTO network, I see no other options.
    But attention should also be paid to the problems of auxiliary vessels. Otherwise, all this talk about long trips and completing tasks in the DMZ will remain populism and idle chatter.

    On this I completely agree with you. But again, the auxiliary fleet must be in keeping with the spirit of the times. Complex supply tankers of project 1559-V, one for three fleets is quite enough even for the foreseeable future, but with the rest it is sad ... medium sea tankers of project 23131, small tankers of project 03182, VTNy of project 03180 are in great need. VTRy pr.20360, MTO vessels pr.23120. It all depends on industry, not money!
    For some reason, the distant sea zone haunts our military from politics and politicians from the war

    Are politicians from economics not considered at all?
  • A.TOR
    A.TOR 3 March 2021 12: 55
    0
    All answers to the question "when will there be a fleet" and others like this have the following answer:

    Now find RF
    1. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 3 March 2021 15: 17
      +8
      Alexander, are you, by any chance, a gold medalist in the Unified State Exam? The economy is not what is painted in your color picture. Do you really believe that Singapore or Thailand can compare with Moscow or, say, the Tyumen region, not to mention the Russian economy in terms of their economy? The fact that half of the world has been pulled like an owl on the globe by the US economy, they will print even more money, they will add to the services of lawyers the turnover of salons for cats and dogs. It seems a little - will cover income from intimate services and drug trafficking. Let's not forget the locomotives of the US economy: Hollywood, Disneyland and McDonald's!
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 19: 22
      +3
      In the West, you can easily find a rating of scientific and technological development, where Russia is below Pakistan. I found.
      Your plate does not reflect the real power of the economy, but what part of legal entities is registered as a joint-stock company and issues shares traded on the stock exchange.
      Taking into account the fact that in the states even a racing team in NASCAR may have shares that are circulating on the stock exchange, you can safely redraw this scheme on toilet paper and go somewhere with it.
  • Jack sklo
    Jack sklo 3 March 2021 13: 20
    +5
    Roman, you would at least check the background information that you give! TFR "Fearless" pr. 11540 entered service with the Baltic Fleet in 1993, and not in 1980.
  • DMi
    DMi 3 March 2021 13: 30
    +3
    Why does the Russian Federation need a distant sea zone. The United States understands why, China understands why. RF there what real tasks should be solved? Does the Russian Federation have sea trade? Are there overseas colonies?
    The maximum that is needed is underwater strategists and the protection of their own borders. Everything else is a pointless waste of the budget.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 19: 30
      +5
      RF there what real tasks should be solved?


      Ensuring the security of the country's territory and its troops abroad (Syria). Providing communications with territories where troops are located abroad.

      Does the Russian Federation have sea trade?


      Even some. And the number of merchant ships is greater than that of the United States. The tonnage is really smaller and stronger, but our economic structure is different.

      The maximum that is needed is underwater strategists and the protection of their own borders.


      So that the underwater strategists somewhere southeast of Novaya Zemlya are not overwhelmed, it is necessary to be able to destroy the enemy's naval forces approximately in the vicinity of the West Fjord.
      That already DMZ, and in fact, and by hand.
      And this is just one example.
      1. DMi
        DMi 4 March 2021 11: 55
        0
        I thought that the submarines themselves provide survival due to stealth) well, at most, the second multipurpose nuclear submarine is led behind them as a bodyguard) and here it’s how ... for each boat on duty, you need a surface squadron for cover)

        The country's territory is protected at its borders, and not in another hemisphere. To protect the coastal zone for small and small missile ships ... actually.
        Supply ships go to Syria without cover. More precisely, they have a political cover, and that's enough. An ocean fleet thundering with nuclear engines is not needed for such tasks. Moreover, the marines with landing ships are not needed. Well, no, and there will not be any tasks for them in the foreseeable future.
        All these games are just mastering the budget and inflating positions and careers. Not affecting the real defense of the country in any way. Best case scenario.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 4 March 2021 15: 51
          0
          Quote: DMi
          I thought that the submarines themselves provide survival due to stealth) well, at most, the second multipurpose nuclear submarine is led behind them as a bodyguard) and here it’s how ... for each boat on duty, you need a surface squadron for cover)

          The multipurpose submarine is a means of "finishing off" what was able to break into the positional area through the PLO line.
          Quote: DMi
          The country's territory is protected at its borders, and not in another hemisphere. To protect the coastal zone for small and small missile ships ... actually.

          RTOs are not needed to protect the coastal zone. Simply because their air defense allows them to work only within the effective radius of coastal aviation - 300-350 km from the nearest airfield (the effective radius of coastal aviation is determined by the time of approach of the reserves to the covered ships: this time should be less than the time from the detection of enemy aircraft to their arrival at launch line).
          But if we already have coastal aviation in the area, then why do we need RTOs? Wouldn't it be better to base an air regiment of anti-ship missile carriers instead of them on existing bases? wink
        2. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 16: 26
          -1
          I thought that submarines provide their own survival at the expense of stealth)


          No, and for a long time

          The country's territory is protected at its borders, and not in another hemisphere.


          She defends herself at the turn of the enemy's use of weapons.
  • zloybond
    zloybond 3 March 2021 13: 44
    +5
    Russia now has money. But they are patriotically invested in American promissory notes. Well, instead of that we distribute loans at low interest rates to just anyone. And we take loans at such good interest ... It smells of sabotage and treason somewhere in the economic sector ...
  • Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 3 March 2021 13: 46
    +2
    = That is, it is necessary to build ships that will, in the opinion of Evmenov (and in fairness - not only him), which will solve various tasks on distant frontiers near foreign shores. =
    Still, I did not understand, the author does not agree that the ships should be built? Evmenov is talking about the construction of ships.

    = For 30 years of Russia's existence, there was one operation off the "distant shores", which, it should be admitted, the Russian fleet failed. This, of course, is about supplying the group in Syria. =
    The author claims that the grouping of the RF Armed Forces in Syria was left without food, ammunition, equipment? Once he used the word "failed."

    = The very concept of using "Russian fleets", which will fight with someone there and protect someone off the coast of South America and in the South Atlantic, looks really ridiculous. To be honest, I am not even drawn to unscientific fiction. =
    And what's so funny about that? Sivkov is not talking about the present day, not about the fact that today the Russian fleet "is fighting with someone there and protecting someone," but about what is necessary in principle. Hinting that ships should be built. Only.
    The author chose the wrong objects for criticism.
    It is impossible not to agree with the rest with the author.
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 3 March 2021 14: 28
    +2
    "And in general, can we talk about some kind of presence in the DMZ, if, roughly speaking, the ships carrying out this presence simply do not have rear services?"
    in fact, they do, they recently opened a base near the Red Sea - a small step, but sure ... hi
  • Serhi
    Serhi 3 March 2021 15: 07
    +3
    Uncle is right in many ways, but not in everything. The entire legacy of the USSR was destroyed in a matter of years, sawn up and sold by our liberals under Yeltsin. Fortunately, they did not manage to destroy and sell everything. And it's good that those ships that were listed remained and thank God that we began to build new ones, gritting our teeth, with what difficulty and pain it is given, since many factories and enterprises that worked for the entire union now remained in Ukraine, which led to localization and the transfer of production to Russia. We must not forget about the sanctions, which since 2014 have been aimed and to a greater extent at, in order to prevent the revival of the Russian fleet. And under such conditions, any other country would simply be bent. Therefore, you need not write pessimistic articles, without you our Western "friends", liberal pseudo-patriots and other evil spirits will write them, but offer reasonable ideas for the development of our fleet and in support of USC enterprises that are getting up from their knees after being destroyed in the 90s thanks to the American revolution. jeans and gum.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 3 March 2021 15: 10
    +2
    Russia has one peculiarity - 4 disjointed naval theaters of military operations. And then there is a choice: either to build stronger fleets for each, or to provide for the transfer of forces from one to another.
    For the transfer, ships are needed that are capable not only of making an ocean crossing, but also immediately after engaging in battle. And these are exactly the ones that are called in the article "DMZ ships".
    So now the question is whether we need ships of the first rank ("DMZ ships"). Do we need a maneuver between fleets.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 3 March 2021 15: 45
      +1
      Russia has one peculiarity - 4 disjointed naval theaters of military operations.
      Which is fundamentally wrong. The Black Sea with the Baltic Sea can be seen and shot up and down; there is nothing to consider as naval theaters of military operations.
      For half a year, the Northern Fleet has been fully communicated with the Pacific Fleet, and the Severomorsk-Vladivostok route is less than 5 thousand miles, which is not so much by modern standards. In the event of damage to the Panama Canal, American fleets will be cut off by twice the distance.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 3 March 2021 17: 16
        +1
        Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
        Which is fundamentally wrong.

        You actually do not deny what I have said, but choose the option of strengthening the Baltic and Black Sea theaters.
        The transfer to the Northern Sea Route requires forces capable of engaging in a squadron battle in the Bering Strait region.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 19: 32
        +5
        For half a year, the Northern Fleet has been fully communicated with the Pacific Fleet, and the Severomorsk-Vladivostok route is less than 5 thousand miles, which is not so much by modern standards.


        Not half a year, but August. Well, maybe a bit of July. Warships have sonar antennas in a bulb, with non-metallic fairings, even small ice breaks them, not a single attempt to resemble a BOD along the NSR has been good for a long time, even in summer. You need completely open water.

        In the event of damage to the Panama Canal, American fleets will be cut off by twice the distance.


        With their deployments, preliminary deployments and the basing system, the opponents of the United States will not even feel this cut off - they will not have time.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 3 March 2021 19: 58
      +4
      Quote: SVD68
      ... And then there is a choice: either to build stronger fleets for each, or to provide for the transfer of forces from one to another.

      The transfer of forces is impossible, firstly, because of the transience of future hostilities, and secondly, because of the missile systems in service with the fleets that can resolve issues in another region, so there is no point in doing this.
      Quote: SVD68
      Do we need a maneuver between fleets.

      Now the main maneuver should consist in organizational staff measures to reduce the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet to flotillas, the transfer of their posts to the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, and with a corresponding increase in funding for the two main fleets.
      It is long overdue, if only because now the coastal forces and aviation of the Black Sea Fleet are fully able to control the entire water area of ​​the Black Sea, so small ships can do there. The situation is similar with the Baltic Fleet.
      1. Scharnhorst
        Scharnhorst 3 March 2021 22: 51
        +4
        Now the main maneuver should consist in organizational staff measures to reduce the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet to flotillas, the transfer of their posts to the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, and with a corresponding increase in funding for the two main fleets.
        It is long overdue, if only because now the coastal forces and aviation of the Black Sea Fleet are fully able to control the entire water area of ​​the Black Sea, so small ships can do there. The situation is similar with the Baltic Fleet.

        Let's start from the end! wink It is possible and necessary to manage with small ships on the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Sea Fleet, here I agree with you, because and I myself am a supporter of the transfer of the GRK and the destroyer to the vastness of the Pacific Ocean. Although this unreal event will hardly change the balance of power in the Far East region. Controlling the Black Sea is strategically useless without control over the straits. Let's remember the Second World War. But the Baltic Sea is different! You cannot build the Crimean bridge to the Kaliningrad enclave. Since it is impossible to rely on Belarus and a land corridor can not be laid in case of war. The Western District, the Baltic Fleet and the Aerospace Forces will have to jointly forcefully force the Tribaltic extinctions to peace with one throw. It is the fleet that will have to isolate the combat area from the sea. And for the sake of completeness, prioritize and prioritize an armed conflict: 1. Eastern Military District with the Pacific Fleet; 2. Northern Fleet (as a district); 3.Western and Southern Districts with BF and Black Sea Fleet. I think that the Americans are unlikely to climb to us in the Far East or in the polar tundra. European landknechts will be thrown into a meat grinder in Europe, and they themselves will come for victory at the last moment. I would not get excited with the Black Sea and the two Baltic flotillas. hi
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 4 March 2021 11: 53
          0
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          Although this unreal event will hardly change the balance of power in the Far East region.

          This will create more serious forces and develop the infrastructure of the Far East, because it is simply pointless to develop the Black Sea Fleet in this direction, and you correctly indicated the reasons.
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          But the Baltic Sea is different!

          There, in my opinion, it is better to create the most powerful coastal infrastructure and naval aviation in order to solve combat missions in the first hours, and how it goes next is difficult to predict. Even if there is a land blockade without hostilities, all the same, sea ferries will quickly establish communication with our enclave - we already know from the withdrawal of the group of forces.
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          I think that the Americans are unlikely to climb to us in the Far East or in the polar tundra.

          I suppose that we need these zones, first of all, for organizing the duty of our strike forces in them, including those with nuclear weapons, and not as a way to protect those regions. All the same, the more our nuclear weapons are "smeared" across different types of armed forces and regions, with a single command and control, of course, the more difficult it will be for the enemy to build missile defense systems. it is very expensive.
          I think that our naval commanders have gathered their military councils more than once in order to discuss in which direction they should move - I only express my assumptions, but they may have a different reasoning. Life will show where we will come in ten years.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 19: 56
        -1
        What "Black Sea Fleet aviation", ensign? Where did you dig it from? We have that, already half-dead Omshap can

        fully able to control the entire Black Sea area

        ?

        It's time for you to rest. Leave the snow in the fresh air before it has melted yet.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 4 March 2021 20: 33
          +2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          What "Black Sea Fleet aviation", ensign? Where did you get it from?

          Don't whistle an illiterate journalist - even if one seaplane remains in the Black Sea Fleet, it will still be related to aviation, and not to surface ships:
          In 2011, the MA Black Sea Fleet department and the 7058-AvB department were disbanded. As part of the Black Sea Fleet, one 7057 AvB remained with basing at two airfields.
          In June 2014, the 7057th Naval Aviation Air Base, which was part of the Black Sea Fleet, was reorganized back into two aviation regiments, which were returned to their former names and honorary titles. On July 1, 2014, the 43rd Sevastopol Red Banner of the Order of Kutuzov, a separate naval assault aviation regiment was relocated to the Saki airfield. The Gvardeyskoye airfield was transferred from the Russian Navy to the Russian Air Force. At the Gvardeyskoye airfield, the 37th mixed aviation regiment of the Russian Air Force, two squadrons (12 Su-24M and 12 Su-25SM) were formed.

          So there is at least one regiment, and the rest of the tasks were transferred to the Aerospace Forces.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          It's time for you to rest

          And it's high time for you to stop pretending to be a military connoisseur - you understand how military professionals treat your chatter here, so do not puff up your cheeks, or you will burst.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 21: 58
            +1
            One half-dead assault air regiment, about which I am writing.

            So what are you going to control?
            Huh?

            you understand how military professionals treat your chatter here


            They are normal, I can throw links to dialogues, and not always drunken warrant officers, but REAL professionals, not you.
            Well, with chatter, then you are just different.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 5 March 2021 12: 56
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              One half-dead assault air regiment, about which I am writing.

              Your amateurish approach to this only testifies to the fact that you still do not understand the importance of aviation for the fleet. And in connection with the increased speeds and the decrease in the time standards for combat readiness, it plays a greater role for the fleet than it was even in the Second World War.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              So what are you going to control?

              Your illiteracy simply does not allow you to understand how a new regiment can be formed on the basis of this regiment with a change in the organizational structure, including an increase in the number of squadrons, or giving it additional squadrons for operational control.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              but REAL professionals, not you.

              I know your "professional" by the name of Klimov, and I also understand why he was kicked out of the fleet. So leave your enthusiasm for this "professional" - he is even considered by many naval bouncers.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 5 March 2021 20: 57
                -1
                Ensign, I know many times more about the importance of aviation in the war at sea than you were able to learn in your entire life.

                At the Black Sea Fleet, there are no significant aviation forces except for one under-strength assault regiment, which is only partially re-equipped from the Su-24 to the Su-30SM.
                This is enough to cover a landing squad or a large convoy once, enough for a couple of destroyers if someone gives them data on the position of the target.

                No deployment of additional chiles on the basis of this regiment, no deployment of aerial reconnaissance to support its operations is planned, only new aircraft are promised, but it is not known when.

                Therefore, I repeat the question - what are you going to control them?

                I know your "professional" by the name of Klimov, and I also understand why he was kicked out of the fleet.


                A priori, something cannot be "understandable" to you. It was even incomprehensible to you when these same professionals personally drove you on the asphalt face. There are a lot of them here, at VO.

                At least take a look at this shame of yours (though you won't understand that this is a shame, your brain will not allow you, but at least other people will look)

                https://topwar.ru/171110-ubijcy-avianoscev-kakim-nejadernym-oruzhiem-vmf-rossii-mozhet-porazit-aug-ssha.html#comment-id-10414388

                Your opponent has served in the naval aviation for more than 25 years, he himself looked into the sight at the American aircraft carriers, and was engaged in the search, Lieutenant Colonel.

                And you? Walking disgrace.
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 5 March 2021 21: 15
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  I know many times more about the importance of aviation in the war at sea than you were able to learn in your entire life.

                  Nifiga you do not know, journalist, so you are engaged in verbiage.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  There are no significant aviation forces on the Black Sea Fleet

                  This does not mean that it does not exist at all. Moreover, I am sure that during the reorganization of the Black Sea Fleet, at least a mixed helicopter regiment will be created in order to reduce the total number of ships.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  No deployment of additional chiles on the basis of this regiment, no deployment of aerial reconnaissance to support its operations is planned, only new aircraft are promised, but it is not known when.

                  This is just journalistic chatter, because only a few at the headquarters of the fleet know about what organizational staff events are planned.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  It was even incomprehensible to you when these same professionals personally drove you on the asphalt face.

                  This is who they are and when it was - I would like to see how it happened, otherwise your chatter does not inspire confidence for a long time.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  At least take a look at this shame of yours

                  No need to whistle - give the text specifically and then we will understand that you yourself do not understand a fig about this.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Your opponent has served in the naval aviation for more than 25 years, he himself looked into the sight at the American aircraft carriers, and was engaged in the search, Lieutenant Colonel.

                  And what, this should impress me? One rear admiral somehow triggered that almost a third world war could begin, because they lost an aircraft carrier at the Pacific Fleet - I laughed heartily at the naval fantasies.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And you? Walking disgrace.

                  It is not for you, miserable dilettante, to judge this - you will not grow up to this.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 6 March 2021 16: 44
                    +1
                    Haha, you have a warrant officer and megalomania, I see.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 3 March 2021 15: 29
    -2
    Yes, even by reading the entire article, you can determine the author, simply thirsting for the destruction of the fleet.
  • Sagaidark
    Sagaidark 3 March 2021 15: 30
    +3
    No fleet, no geopolitics. No geopolitics, no strong economy. No economy, no future.
  • iouris
    iouris 3 March 2021 15: 39
    0
    The fleet needs access to the ocean. He's gone. Let China tense up.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 3 March 2021 15: 55
    +1
    What is the main mistake? The fact that Russia, even in the format of an empire, needs a fleet less than others, because the country is continental.

    We have land scenarios much more likely than sea ones. And even more so in the far sea zone.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 19: 33
      +3
      Now, throw in the list of possible opponents of the Russian Federation, then cross out those who have a common border with us.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 3 March 2021 20: 07
        -1
        And there is not a single intelligible position there. NATO or China will not go into direct confrontation. And everything else is little things
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 16: 24
          0
          Why would not it go? And why do you unite NATO as termites into a monolith? There are options. We were balancing on the brink with the Turks in 2015 and 2020. And, apparently, we will.
          The Japanese have a growing number of publications about the northern territories, it is also unclear why.

          In general, you still try.
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 4 March 2021 17: 08
            0
            And on what edge is that? Two or three mutually shot down planes over Syria? Well, here start with the question what are our goals in general in Syria ...

            And the Japanese are not even funny. Chain Pikemen of the Americans - I will still believe. There, eyewitnesses to the events in Hiroshima are still alive, so that they can climb into the country with more than two bombs.


            Nuclear weapons are absolute security in our world, which you can either pump by yourself, as we did 30 years ago, or stop believing in yourself and surrender, like South Africa.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 4 March 2021 19: 40
              -1
              Nuclear weapons are absolute safety in our world


              The payback for this vision of the issue can be really scary.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 3 March 2021 15: 55
    +1
    In general, such tasks do not immediately come to mind by themselves. For 30 years of Russia's existence, there was one operation off the "distant shores", which, it should be admitted, the Russian fleet failed. This, of course, is about supplying the group in Syria.

    LYING!
    1. Sfurei
      Sfurei 4 March 2021 19: 47
      0
      I agree, not even a lie, but nonsense ..
  • Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 3 March 2021 16: 01
    0

    But the most unpleasant thing is that they cannot exist, since today in Russia there are no two things that can solve the problems of the fleet. There is no money and no way to build ships.


    One whining, tired already.

    All Russia has both the money and the ability to build DMZ ships.

    Russia today is building a new fleet, started with corvettes and frigates and put them on stream, this year the first destroyer of project 22350M will be laid and 2 BDK and 2 UDC have already been laid.

    Further - more, there will be more corvettes and frigates and destroyers and BDK and UDC and aircraft carriers and minesweepers and everything else.

    But why compare Russia with Japan now? Japan today is an ally of the United States on the anti-Russian front, it has gained access to the American market for its products and uses American technologies and projects in the construction of its fleet, while Japan has not experienced significant crises since 1945 and has been developing calmly.

    And Russia just as 10 years ago got out of the debt hole, the war in the Caucasus and the economic crisis, we just started to produce at least something ourselves and began to earn money and only just got the economic opportunity to build a fleet, and give the would-be whiners a naval armada right away, so that it is not less than that of the United States and that there are many bases and supply ships))).

    Do not whine, everything will be and everything goes to this.

    On corvettes and frigates of a new type, Russia has worked out new weapons systems and now, by scaling and increasing the displacement, it will build the destroyers of Project 22350M and the cruiser Project 23560 with a nuclear power plant, which do not need supply ships in the DMZ as often as, for example, the same ship with a gas turbine engine.

    In long-term campaigns in the future, the basis of the AUG and KUG of the Russian Navy will be precisely nuclear-powered ships - cruisers, aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered submarines, which will be supplemented by smaller ships with a gas turbine engine.

    Russia will not be able to build a fleet comparable in size to the US fleet, we are corny and we have a weaker economy, but we are able to build a fleet that will be reckoned with by all the US, Japan and China.

    And this is how we will ensure our safety and presence in the DMZ.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 5 March 2021 12: 37
      0
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      started with corvettes and frigates and put them on stream


      On a stream - it's like in China, in dozens. Russia cannot do that, but it does not need so much.
  • Galleon
    Galleon 3 March 2021 16: 18
    +4
    Quote: clerk
    Well complain

    Complain about you? The bug's tank does not press.
    It's not just about money. People holding public office do not pursue public interests. First of all, those people who have a naval education, experience for the leadership of the fleet and argumentation to substantiate the state interests of the direction of the development of the Navy.
    1. clerk
      clerk 4 March 2021 22: 09
      +1
      ... Complain about you? The bug's tank does not press.
      Then don't whine ..
      ... It's not just about money. People holding public office do not pursue public interests. First of all, those people who have a naval education, experience for the leadership of the fleet and argumentation to substantiate the state interests of the direction of the development of the Navy.
      Duty "pop-sick" idle talk without any specifics.
  • Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 3 March 2021 18: 38
    0
    If it’s in the shop, the problem is the absence of even a minimal organization of supply. And the supply includes not only ships and supply ports, but also resources of reserves (we have almost no reserve ships) and specialists. So our fleet can win battles (not necessarily, just a chance that it can), but is not able to influence the war as a whole.
  • hostel
    hostel 3 March 2021 18: 46
    +1
    Everything is written correctly. But the Urapatriots do not know this, they threaten to shower the enemy with calibers, daggers, etc.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 3 March 2021 19: 34
      -1
      Nothing here is true, although the jingoistic patriots deliver yes. But this, as they say, is another question.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 3 March 2021 19: 39
    0
    Quote: Overlock
    Quote: Aleksandr1971
    A nuclear war with the West is inevitable.

    And without a nuclear war in any way? There will be no such war, for there will be no winner in it. The alternative to nuclear war is hybrid and economic wars.

    Such a war will happen if there are clearly predicted winner and loser in it. The defeated one will be the one who cannot send his nuclear weapons into the enemy, and the winner will be the one who sends his nuclear weapons into the enemy. Without the fleet, we will not be able to ensure the guaranteed dispatch of SLBMs to the West, for each of our SSBNs is at gunpoint with a minute readiness to strike at it. And our SSBNs will not have time to shoot from the pier. But our Navy does not yet give the West a 100% guarantee of the destruction of our SSBNs before a salvo.
    Therefore, there really will not be a nuclear war as long as we can somehow defend our strategic nuclear forces. And a nuclear war will happen when our strategic nuclear forces disappear or become defenseless.
    And from a philosophical point of view, the warriors were, are and will be despite all the dreams of humanists and peacemakers. The main thing is that only our people do not perish in future warriors.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 3 March 2021 20: 30
    +2
    thanks to the respected Roman Skomorokhov for the truth and courage to resist the sect of the aircraft carrier witnesses who are not ready to think or give arguments, but who are always ready to be frenziedly despicable and cowardly minus from around the corner
  • Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 3 March 2021 20: 35
    -3
    "For comparison, the Japanese built 20 destroyers in 2000 years (from 2020 to 19)."
    So the Japanese are better than us Russians. Are you seeking this recognition? Well, they have achieved ... so what? To declare war on Japan and immediately surrender - is that your brilliant idea? What about? We will build many destroyers - whatever you want. All you need to do is cross out the word Russia on the map and write the word Japan (USA, Germany, Great Britain, etc.) Stop whining, better give your money to build a destroyer ... And why?
  • Non-fighter
    Non-fighter 3 March 2021 21: 19
    +1
    The Navy, like any other type of troops, is a TOOL, and it must carry out the tasks assigned to it by the political leadership. Based on the tasks, its composition is determined. This is a Wishlist. In reality, we stretch the legs along the clothes.
    The main tasks facing the fleet:
    1. Ensuring strategic parity. "The whole world is in dust." Therefore, we are building a submarine, and at least maintain the required number of missiles on alert. How it turns out is another question :(
    2. Defense of your country. So that the axes flew to us not from our shores, but a bit farther to start.
    3. "Syrian Express" and Co. - these are already urgent tasks, we had to dodge.
    So until there is a clear statement of the problem, there will be no concept and there will be no fleet either.
    And before building a fleet, you need to think about who will feed and water it on the other side of the world. There are a lot of examples here - here is the campaign of 2 TE under the command of Rozhestvensky, here is the siege of Kamchatka during the Crimean War, here are the German raiders in the Atlantic, who raided from one tanker to another
  • Adimius38
    Adimius38 3 March 2021 23: 11
    +1
    Well, what do you want if we have had one lie and show-off for many years. In fact, nothing has been built in our country for more than 30 years, and this is with fabulous income from the sale of oil and gas. So we get one zilch from the surface fleet. Of course, there can be no talk of any comparison of the fleet with the major powers. Why is that? ask this question to everyone's beloved "if not he then who" why not a single large attack surface ship has been built in 30 years. But the number of dollar billionaires has grown exponentially
  • Usher
    Usher 3 March 2021 23: 41
    -1
    Only the author forgets that the forces are proportionate to the economy. The Armed Forces and especially the Navy are a tool in geopolitics.
  • certero
    certero 4 March 2021 00: 10
    0
    The Russian fleet simply has nothing to do in the far ocean zone. What tasks is he going to solve there?
    1. Artemion3
      Artemion3 4 March 2021 16: 40
      0
      For example, long-range sea reconnaissance
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 4 March 2021 00: 16
    0
    Based on what has been written, we can only say that the scribblers will still have a lot of time in order to easily find material about the problems of the fleet. At least as long as this fleet exists, then the problems will not go anywhere. It is difficult to imagine at all what must happen in Russia in modern conditions for something to change.
  • Vladimir Vitalin
    Vladimir Vitalin 4 March 2021 01: 43
    +1
    Dear, the article contains a possibly correct, but superficial analysis of the state of the Russian Navy in terms of ships of the far sea zone. In reality, the problems are much deeper and it's not only and not so much in finances, but in other, basic problems, which many people forget, alas ...
    Let's imagine that the whole country has agreed to live in the conditions of "war communism", that is. to give up cheese and sausages in refrigerators in favor of boiled potatoes with vegetable oil and black bread, stopped buying cars and apartments and invested all free personal funds in State Loan bonds, etc. - money for the construction of shipbuilding plants appeared, the builders of the Ministry of Defense built 5-7 shipyards in 3-4 years to lay 6-8 hulls of modern frigates at the same time, but the main question arises - WHO WILL BUILD, i.e. - where to find qualified personnel of CNC machine operators, welders, electrical installers, cable operators, electronic equipment adjusters, gunsmiths, painters, etc. etc. They simply DO NOT, and NOBODY IS PREPARING them, and this is the main, main problem. Our educational institutions graduate a huge number of "managers", and almost no specialists in blue-collar professions.
    This suggests that the problem of our fleet with ships of the far sea zone should be solved comprehensively, taking into account all, even at first glance, insignificant factors, including the advanced training of qualified workers ...
    Being a realist, I think that in the next 15-20 years, there is no reason to expect a sharp quantitative (I'm not talking about a qualitative one) jump in the ships of the far sea zone, alas ...
    Oh, so sorry ...
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 4 March 2021 12: 17
      -1
      Quote: Vladimir Vitalin
      Being a realist, I think that in the next 15-20 years, there is no reason to expect a sharp quantitative (I'm not talking about a qualitative one) jump in the ships of the far sea zone, alas ...
      Oh, so sorry ...

      Any military specialist will tell you that the point is not in the machines and workers, but in the fact that the very concept of a nuclear strike has changed, where the minutes are counted, and where the secrecy of its preparation comes first, and the second is the flight time to the target. In these parameters, the far-field fleet completely lost to coastal missile systems, not to mention the fact that using a ship as a platform for missiles is many times more expensive than stationary or mobile complexes of land (coastal) forces. It is quite obvious that even the departure of several additional ships on a voyage in excess of the usual mode is in itself an unmasking sign. And during the movement of such a ship group to the deployment zone, the enemy will not only have time to prepare, but also to deliver a preemptive strike if it considers that preparations for war have begun and such a signal has been received.
      That is why the dialectical question arises - from the ships of the oceanic zone we will be more useful in a future war, or, taking into account all the costs, we will find ourselves without pants and without a guaranteed retaliation strike.
      Another thing is how all the navies will perceive this reality, but in any case they will have to take this into account.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 4 March 2021 04: 18
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
    "For comparison, the Japanese built 20 destroyers in 2000 years (from 2020 to 19)."
    So the Japanese are better than us Russians. Are you seeking this recognition? Well, they have achieved ... so what? To declare war on Japan and immediately surrender - is that your brilliant idea? What about? We will build many destroyers - whatever you want. All you need to do is cross out the word Russia on the map and write the word Japan (USA, Germany, Great Britain, etc.) Stop whining, better give your money to build a destroyer ... And why?

    In matters of naval formation, we must only strive to protect our SSBNs so that there is an opportunity to drown Japan and the West in nuclear fire. This is our guarantee to prevent an attack on us.
    But when we have real money and a real big economy, then it will be possible to create a fleet not only for the protection of SSBNs, but also for the gunboat policy, forceful regime change abroad and other reprisals against weaker foreigners. I would like Russia to get a taste for and smash distant countries like what the European colonial powers did in the old days.
    1. Serhi
      Serhi 4 March 2021 10: 18
      0
      Western countries will sink themselves without our fleet at the expense of LGBT people, BLM, lack of faith and emigrants from the countries bombed and plundered by them. God is with us!
      1. ava09
        ava09 5 March 2021 19: 45
        0
        God is God, you yourself would have helped. At least the realization that the geopolitical adversary will not die on his own, especially by feeding on the juices of Russia.