Military Review

Preparing Russia for military failure at the strategic level

293

Unfortunately, I only got to the point of writing an article now. But better late than never.


Before proceeding with the main part of the narrative, I consider it necessary to voice some important concepts on which all reasoning is based.

Regular readers are already aware of the ongoing debate about the role fleet in the general system of the Russian Armed Forces, several authors have already unsubscribed on this topic:
A blow against reality or about the fleet, Tu-160 and the cost of human error,
About the fleet that we need.

Thesis 1


All the time that military science has existed, military leaders have been striving for essentially the same thing: through a combination of deception, speed and stealth, to be able to focus the most powerful blow in a record short time on the most vulnerable or critical direction for the enemy. At the same time, in relation to the enemy, all measures were taken to disperse his forces.

An example is the operation "Citadel" in the German version - "it was supposed to use the moment of surprise", "to ensure the maximum massing of the strike forces in a narrow area", "to carry out the offensive at the fastest pace."

In fact, at the strategic level, the outcome of the Battle of Kursk depended on the ability of the parties to concentrate the maximum possible forces in one sector (to a large extent logistic, and before that - production).

An example of the dispersal of forces (sometimes forced) can be an operation to disembark the "allies" - the key factor that determines the success of the operation by 90% was the secrecy of the landing site, since in this case the German troops were forced to disperse their forces. If this had not been achieved, the landing would have been doomed to failure.

“The Anglo-American command did not expect to achieve operational surprise for the landing in France, which was almost impossible given the scale of the invasion, so all calculations were based on achieving tactical surprise, which was very important even in the face of a huge advantage of the allies in forces.

In order to achieve surprise in the invasion of France, the command of the Western Allies widely used measures of misinformation and disorientation of the enemy in order to mislead him about the time and area of ​​the operation. "

Thus, one of the main criteria of weapons that determine their importance for defense capability are:

- the ability to concentrate a blow;
- speed;
- stealth.

Thesis 2


With the development of technology, the nature of hostilities and their pace have changed a lot. Once upon a time stories there was a period of protracted trench wars, due to the fact that the defense was "mechanized" (there were fortifications, artillery, etc.), and the attacking forces in this situation were "cannon fodder". Tanks changed this ratio, which was brilliantly used by Germany, implementing the tactics of blitzkrieg - "lightning war".
Today, wars involving high-tech weapons became even faster. The concept of "contactless phase" has been implemented.

The scenario of a "missile" war is as follows:

1. Cruise missiles saturate and suppress air defense in a narrow area (here everything is the same as with the landing of the allies: you do not need to destroy all air defense along the perimeter of the country, it is enough to "pierce" in one place with a focused strike and continue to strike "deep into" through the gap formed ).

2. The attack by cruise missiles occurs from a line outside the range of the fighter aviation... After the air defense is suppressed, airfields are destroyed - aircraft are either locked on the ground due to damage to the runway, or are destroyed in parking lots.

3. Drones begin to destroy everything that is on the ground (in parallel, fighters, already having a clear numerical superiority, they finish off the shortcomings, where aircraft need to arrive with a large-caliber ASP or to work on areas).

Thus, the moment when air defense ceases to cope with repelling strikes is a turning point, 99% predetermining the further development of events. The time interval from the start of hostilities to this moment is measured in hours and days.

Combining these two theses together, we have a real picture of the importance for Russia of the Tu-160, which are head and shoulders above the ships in all these parameters.

By the end of the second day, the difference in the number of missiles sent to the enemy becomes almost tenfold (in comparison: if frigates were built for the same amount).

Parsing the answer


After the criteria "what is good" and "what is bad" are defined, one can proceed to the analysis of the answer of the esteemed Timokhin.

Are the ratios of the number of ships identical to their real combat power? This question is really difficult.

Yes, they are identical. And this is a very simple question.

The fact is that Timokhin is extremely biased in this matter. And I am ready to do anything in order to "prove" the inconsistency of even the most obvious arguments about the weaknesses of the Russian fleet, such as, for example, that the "combat power" of five ships is greater than one.

In addition, Alexander replaces the concepts of "combat power" and "tactical or strategic failure."

An example is the New Year's assault on Grozny, during which the Maikop brigade was destroyed. Despite the fact that in terms of "combat power" the brigade (due to the presence of armored vehicles) significantly surpassed the forces of the militants, consisting almost exclusively of infantry, it was completely destroyed precisely due to the failure at the tactical level.

Let's go back to the ships.

Another fundamentally important point that Timokhin does not take into account is tactical capabilities directly depend on those forces (quantity, training and equipment) that take part in the operation, and on their capabilities.

If you are outnumbered, for example, you can surround the enemy. If the numerical superiority is on the side of the enemy, then you need to think about how you would not be surrounded.

If we transfer this situation to the example of ships, then Timokhin is trying to appeal to the fact that if the ship is the first to detect the enemy, it will be able to win that very first salvo. So far, everything is beautiful and good, and even I agree with everything.

It becomes bad when we start to substitute specific numbers - if in the case of an attack on ground targets, we could divide the ships by 3, then, speaking about a naval battle, we are talking about 5 (and if we implement plans for a base in Sudan and campaigns in the Persian Gulf, then the number will be even larger).

And in order for the tactics to work, you need 1 helicopter to find the enemy before 5 helicopters find it.

This is an example of how group composition affects tactics.

That being said, it can be a wonderful tactic on paper. But, for example, if it (the infantry theme) implies the protection of approaches to the height by placing mines, but the detachment does not have the mines themselves, or the person who knows how to install them, then this tactic cannot be applied in practice.

The next stage is the attack itself. And here the power of the salvo and the effectiveness of the air defense are already important. Timokhin himself writes about it this way:

"In a battle of surface forces with each other, the won first salvo and the total missile salvo of the participating ships become important."

And the total salvo, according to Timokhin, apparently, also does not depend in any way on the number of ships.

Moreover, the enemy may move to a qualitatively new level.

For example, if you double your forces, but instead of 5 ships, the enemy will take 1 helicopter carrier.
Let's concretize - for example, we got the opportunity to finally build a cruiser-helicopter carrier, about 15 thousand tons with 15 helicopters. And the Turks are also building "about the same".

Where should we send it?

Once they wrote to me that I do not understand well the priorities of the fleet, because task number 1 is the combat stability of the strategists, let our "eagle" float to cover them.

That is, we have a helicopter carrier, we spent money on it, but this does not make things easier for ships in the Black Sea Fleet. And the ratio is: the same 1 frigate against 5 frigates and 1 helicopter carrier.

But Timokhin insists that there are no problems. And besides, it presents special tactics. The special "tactics" are pretty simple:

1. Call the unreadable Kuznetsov (and other non-existent ships of the "Gorshkov era"), who will sail in two weeks. And from whose side ... No, planes will not fly to bomb the Turks. Because, as mentioned above, the tipping point has long been passed. And to the sound of the orchestra, wreaths will be lowered into the water and solemn speeches about duty and courage will be delivered.

2. To overcome this ratio by brute force and / or to count on the fact that the "neighbors" will be even weaker / unable, etc. (which is partly still working now).

3. Call the aviation.

And what will happen if you call the aviation?

Timokhin himself answers this question:

"But if this is still done, the balance of surface forces, precisely from the point of view of the fight against surface forces, becomes simply meaningless."

What are we talking about. Only with the addition - not only from the point of view of the struggle of surface ships with each other, but in all other respects.

And this fact visually shows us the true state of affairs - what is actually hidden behind a beautiful phrase, like ships and planes complement each other in the specified regions. It turns out that the role of the fleet in this "complementing each other" is the role of the concierge grandmother, who can lock herself in her booth, fall under the table and call the police from there.

An example of the absolute uselessness of the fleet


Many thanks to my opponent for the fact that he himself gave such a successful example of the utter uselessness of the fleet as the 2008 war with Georgia. To enhance clarity, let's compare the results of two diametrically opposed scenarios:

1) our fleet defeated the Georgian one dry;
2) the Georgian fleet defeated the Black Sea.

How would this affect the course of the war?

The answer is none.

Was the fleet capable of solving at least one of the key tasks of that war? Help our peacekeepers in time? Stop the Georgian columns in time?

No.

All these tasks could be performed by aviation - which is exactly what happened. Another thing is that this did not happen very skillfully. But, nevertheless, it was the aviation that had all the possibilities to stop the aggression as quickly as possible and hamper the actions of the Georgian troops. Thus, what was happening at sea was a kind of "peace in itself." The aviation is at war there, the columns of Russian equipment are moving forward, and the fleet has its "party" on the maritime theme. Sea battle for the sake of sea battle.

What's the point?

A rhetorical question.

Thanks again to Alexander for an example.

But this is poor Georgia. Maybe Turkey will be different? And the fleet will be able to "show itself", making a tangible contribution? Let's take a look, and at the same time we will analyze the issue of "fighting for the first salvo."

The theory of the fight for the first salvo on the example of the conflict with Turkey


The question of the advantages of the first missile salvo is disclosed in the article “The reality of missile salvos. A Little About Military Superiority, "which is highly recommended reading. There is also some mat. apparatus that allows you to delve deeper into the issue.

The authors R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov call the fight for the first salvo an "old concept" and point out that following it is unacceptable.

What is the essence of the fight for the first salvo?

A smaller and comparatively weaker group of ships can easily destroy a stronger group if the first salvo wins.

In doing so, two key points stand out.

1. In order to attack targets at sea, you need to aim. The group of ships that will be the first to detect the enemy and provide themselves with the possibility of an aimed salvo / missile guidance will be able to shoot first.

2. When mutually tracking each other, it is important to recognize the signs of an impending strike and have time to strike first.

No, dear Timokhin, we are not against this concept, but with all our hands in favor. Moreover, I will show how the Tu-160 matches it better.

Then begins something with which I strongly disagree.

Timokhin looks at the map of the World Cup region and writes the following:

"But in battle surface forces with each other winning the first salvo becomes immeasurably more important.

That is, the answer, in the case of comparing the potential of the surface forces from the point of view of fighting each other, is no, it is not identical.

To which I object - that, excuse me, but the battle of ships in the World Cup will not be isolated. The aviation of Turkey and Russia will not silently observe how the battle of the surface forces with each other takes place. And in this case, aviation will run the show.

How does the whole situation begin to look in the event of such a conflict?

After two hours, all ships have one of the statuses:

- they either drowned,
- they have empty mines.

This means that their impact potential is already zero... They can meet and sink the enemy's ship, but let's ask ourselves a question - how will this bring us (or the Turkish side, but better - us) closer to victory?

Now imagine that you are the commander of this theater of operations and you have the same "Timokhinsky" regiment of naval aviation. What are your priorities? Fly to finish off ships with empty mines, or try to knock out enemy airfields, from which enemy aircraft are operating, trying to do the same with your airfields?

The situation is similar to the Georgian scenario: after the devastation of the mines, the sea battle is a "peace in itself". Fight for the fight. Which brings no one closer to victory strategic level, no matter how beautifully and correctly Timokhin described the tactics of the battle.

Will these ships be able to recharge?

In conditions when the naval bases are high-priority targets and are located right on the coast, taking into account the entire strike potential of both countries at the very beginning of the conflict, they very quickly cease to exist. This is an elementary logic - with a concentrated strike on one object, to deprive the combat capability of all combat units tied to the supply from this object.
Therefore, I repeat, taking into account the entire strike potential of the forces located in the region, the bases of the fleet will simply be swept away (along with all the stocks of missiles). And you can not count on reloading.

What does the whole confrontation begin to boil down to?

Imagine that each side has 200 air defense missiles. For now, this will be a very primitive model. And the first 200 missiles will be shot down. But the 201st and subsequent ones will fly along enemy airfields. And they will begin to lock planes on them by damaging the runway, destroy fuel and ammunition depots, planes in parking lots. Then aviation with less expensive ammunition flies in and finishes off the remnants.

That is, in fact, the one who is the first to send 200 missiles towards the enemy (in fact, break through the airfield defenses) wins the conflict.

And this is where the ability of the sides to focusly send the largest number of missiles to one point as quickly as possible comes to the fore. I have already made a comparison of the Tu-160 with frigates in terms of this indicator. The result turned out to be devastating for the fleet.

Let's take another story - we decide to strike first.

At the same time, this must be done as quickly and covertly as possible, because any intelligence signs of preparation can provoke the enemy to get ahead of us. What tool will be easier to do this? Strategic missile carriers? Or flying planes across the country and sending attack ships from the Northern Fleet on a week-long journey?


USA Airbase. Hangars for servicing B1-B and B-52 are visible - the nature of the work performed on the aircraft remains unclear. As well as the level of readiness of all aircraft standing in the open parking lot.

Without regard to the number of missiles, ships can be taken out to sea.

Ships can be withdrawn, and planes can be relocated. And you may not be in time. And many expensive things cannot be taken out to sea or relocated. And you don't need to tempt fate. And, as in the case of the Tu-160, initially place them (Tu-160, not ships) in the rear. And close the question.

In order to fight during the war, and not engage in logistics operations.
This is the “adequate strategy”.

And the Turks will run out of cruise missiles.

The problem is that if we implement Timokhin's program of hanging missiles on aircraft with a small combat radius, then our missiles run the risk of running out almost earlier than the Turks. For the same reason - the disunity of forces.

Since all the TSA that we release, we must distribute in an amicable way in all directions.

At the same time, this whole thing is also placed "on the front line" under the blows of the enemy. And one missile, which "successfully" hit the takeoff, immediately "locks" all stored strike APS at this airfield, since with a combat load from this runway the plane already risks not taking off. As, however, he himself risks being locked up. And the rocket can end up in a warehouse, and in a caponier ...

And the situation will turn out when the missiles are on the balance sheet of the Ministry of Defense, just 200 in Kaliningrad, and 200 in Kamchatka. And they are needed in the Crimea.

It's strange that I have to talk about this. After all, this is the logic of the very theory that Timokhin refers to, when, having successfully “attacked the enemy first,” we can delete from the mathematical equation of the salvo model those missiles that went to the bottom together with the ship that did not have time to fire.

Therefore, by the time the Turks run out of cruise missiles, it would be good if we didn't run out of planes there (capable of taking off from the runway with a combat load).

Timokhin's control panel


Timokhin voluptuously exaggerates the topic of what a wonderful thing this "first blow" is and how it "solves" in several of his articles and in dozens of comments.

But when he comments on my words regarding the scenario of the conflict with Turkey, the miracle strike stops working. The magic ends.

Of course, the Roketsan SOM missiles are very dangerous. But with a properly organized air defense, with the proper work of reconnaissance and aerospace forces, the strike will not turn out as deadly as R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov are trying to show.

This is a fairly frequent occurrence for Timokhin, when what works in one of his articles stops working in another.

As if it has a remote with on buttons and off. Where appropriate, it includes a concept or theory. And where it is not necessary - it turns off.

And this phenomenon occurs very often, sometimes several times in one article. Here, the first blow "decides", but here - "does not decide."

Or another example:

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

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

And, honestly, I'm shocked by the scale that the contradictions take in this example.

When it comes to ships with disposable mines, the difference in speed of 5 knots, that is, 10 km per hour, is important.

When it comes to the Tu-160, which surpasses ships in striking potential at times, its high-speed capabilities are an "outdated concept." The ability to increase your speed relative to "subsonic bombers" by 100, 200, 300, 500 km per hour?

How is it that plus 10 km per hour is important, but plus 300 km per hour (for example, because it can be more) is not important? Here - speed is important in all aspects, but here - already an "outdated concept"?


But Timokhin's "remote control" easily allows you to do this.

“Unfortunately, global trends that speed is no longer important are finding supporters in our country as well.”

I even know one of them.

"The authors stubbornly assume that our fleet will be like sheep in a slaughterhouse."

When planning, it is important to assess the most possible scenarios, given the threats present. Simplified, we can talk about an unfavorable scenario, neutral and successful. I have no questions about what our military will do if events unfold in a favorable or at least neutral scenario for us. They will do what they have been taught.

However, it is important to understand what aspects affect who can win the first salvo.
And this depends on many factors.

For example, in its region, all of Turkey's aviation is already focused: they do not need to transfer aircraft. This means that the intelligence signs of an impending strike are minimal. And the impact potential is, on the contrary, the maximum.

By offering to transfer forces as a solution, we are already increasing the chances of losing. We are already lagging behind, which means that our military should be given an instrument that counteracts this lag. And such an instrument is a strategic missile carrier.

This is also due to the gigantic difference in the "deployment speed" that exists between the strategists and the AUG or KUG, which Timokhin proposes to transfer to the Mediterranean against Turkey. And the transfer of which, according to the postulates of the same Timokhin, will further increase the risk that we will lose the first salvo.

But back to planning.

But what our military will do if we lose the first salvo - I think this is the most important question. Since you need to think about it in advance, since then it will no longer be possible to correct it either by skills, or by preparation, or by tactics.

Moreover, if a scuffle happened, even going out into the Black Sea and finding themselves sandwiched between the two shores from which the aviation works, they will in any case be like sheep in a slaughterhouse. In fact, it doesn't even make much sense for them to go out: they shot from the pier, worked out their air defense, and that's it - you can go home (I'm exaggerating a little).

You also need to understand that while ships are at sea, they burn their resources. And they cannot constantly be at sea. Therefore, some of the ships always remain at their bases for rotation. This makes it possible to destroy them during a sudden strike.

Is it possible to output all ships at sea? Yes, you can. But in this case, simply by creating a threat without hostilities, you can force the enemy to "wind up the motor resource". This means that the production schedule and repair capacity must be ready to compensate for this. Are they ready?

"Intelligence must work" ...

And it works - what should the General Staff of the Russian Federation think, seeing the map of the Black Sea region turned upside down by 90 degrees, on which the Turks demonstrate a massive raid of their aircraft with the use of long-range ASP, which they are not unsuccessfully developing and implementing?

Precisely because the intelligence is working, and it was decided to build the Tu-160.

The problem of the locked up Russian fleets in the waters


In short, what was discussed - the problem of our fleets is that they are locked, and the straits are controlled by other states.

For example, the United States does not depend on anyone in the question of whether their ships can go out into the ocean or not.

Timokhin himself understands and recognizes this problem, which is why he wrote an article (Building a fleet: the consequences of inconvenient geography) and presented the “solution”.

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

For now, I would like to draw your attention to the words "pre-deployed".

Then Timokhin criticizes my answer in this way:

We have an aggravation with Turkey (again). And we are transferring the repaired Kuznetsov with a normally trained air group to the western part of the Mediterranean (to the west of Greece, which is hostile to the Turks). "Nakhimov", with systems and weapons brought to a combat-ready state ...

According to the authors, this aggravates the "problem of disunity of forces."

To be honest, it's just not clear what you can answer to this. There is a logically incoherent statement, a set of letters. How can you answer a set of letters?

The only thing that is really there is either:

- Timokhin's inability to navigate the timeline and distinguish between "in advance" (which he himself wrote in his own article) and "after the fact" - when we have already Problems;

- deliberate replacement of one for another, due to the inability to give an answer to what was really discussed.

What is post factum? When an event occurs and a threat becomes obvious, the General Staff assesses the degree of the threat and takes measures to counter it, allocating adequate means for this. This has nothing to do with what Timokhin himself wrote about. I will repeat the quote:

“And here the Soviet experience from the“ Gorshkov era ”comes to our aid, namely the concept of OPESK - operational squadrons. OPESK were pre-deployed "...

Now we come to the climax.

In order for "the Soviet experience to come to our aid from"era of Gorshkov", We need two more things to come to our aid:

1) the fleet of the Gorshkov era;
2) production facilities of the Gorshkov era.

The fact is that the fleet has one drawback - its wear is directly proportional to its activity. And we all know that we have, to put it mildly, problems with the production of ships.

In order to constantly maintain the same number of ships in the composition, it is necessary that new ships arrive at the same rate as the old ones drop out.

The production capacity of the USSR could allow the fleet to "burn" the resource of the ships.
And their number really allowed, even dividing by 10, to end up with every tenth - stronger than the entire Turkish fleet. And in advance (without quotation marks, please note, really in advance), as a duty fire weapon, to put forward in all the necessary areas. And there, as they say, "hang out".

Therefore:

- if Timokhin wrote his article as a historical one, then, of course, this is only worthy of high appreciation. There was such a country, the USSR, and there was such a concept.

- if we are talking about how to shift this concept to Russian realities, then this is, alas, a rather mediocre fantasy that has nothing to do with reality... For the simple and understandable reasons stated above, we are not pulling back on the role of the USSR.

Everything that has now been described in more detail in the previous article was formulated by Roman briefly in one question:

And where those ships? And what do we have in return of of the Soviet fleet?

One short sentence turns the article by Alexander Timokhin into interesting and informative, but purely historical material.

That is, there is again a lack of understanding that the tactics It depends from the "composition" of the participants.

Earlier, in another article, he already tried to prove the uselessness and uselessness of naval capabilities for Russia, to which he received a detailed and motivated answer from M. Klimov, given in the article "The ability to fight at sea is a necessity for Russia." And I must say that no reasonable counter-arguments to the theses of M. Klimov on the part of R. Skomorokhov did not follow.

The fact is that in his article Maxim did not give any arguments himself.

He described the threat, and then immediately jumped to what to do with the fleet. Without substantiating why.

Here is the threat

Poland, including some of the most powerful armored fists in Europe and a serious ammunition load of long-range (and "back-office") JASSM-ER aircraft missiles, with which it can shoot through everything, up to Moscow and St. Petersburg, the picture is not good.

Especially considering that ships in Baltiysk can be hit by long-range artillery from the territory of Poland (as well as a significant part of air defense facilities and airfields).

It's so cool when, in the XNUMXst century, high-tech weapons worth millions of dollars are shot from cannon artillery.

This is a reason to cram more of these most expensive weapons into these areas. How will the fleet destroy tank fists? And how will it interfere with aviation?

The same as on the Black Sea. Only at the World Cup did the Turks need expensive missiles, and in this region, penny shells are enough.

I understand how aviation can do this. Having crushed airfields with cruise missiles, get the "keys to the sky" and use drones to cut out all their "tank fists", be it Abrams or leopards.

So what were the arguments there?

At the same time, the authors did not understand the fact that in naval warfare aviation and ships complement each other and form a single system, even after reading and using for citation the article “Naval War for Beginners. Interaction between surface ships and strike aircraft ”. By using, but not trying to understand. After all, pictures with a beautiful white plane are much easier to understand ...

Are we against interaction? Not at all.

But, having simulated the battle in the regions that worry us most of all (on our staircase right outside the door), we clearly saw that real contribution of ships to the outcome of the confrontation extremely small on strategic planning level (as a tool to attack targets that pose the greatest threat - airfields).

That is, it has been clearly demonstrated what that vaunted "sea power" is.

"... due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what naval power is."

Perhaps it is the respected Timokhin who does not understand what “sea sickness” is in these regions?

Although no, he seems to understand.

But if this is nevertheless done, the correlation of surface forces, precisely from the point of view of the fight against surface forces, becomes simply meaningless.

And then what? Is he playing with the "remote control" again?

Example with Japan


Maybe the Japanese will ask the US to intervene?

Maybe yes.

Only it is not a fact that the latter will immediately and with all their might get into this conflict. They did not fight for Georgia, for Ukraine, against us for their terrorists in Syria. And there are doubts that they will rush headlong into the battle for the Japanese Kuril Islands.

I understand that this was an attempt to come up with some kind of scenario that would demonstrate the importance of the fleet. I can't forbid dreaming. But this particular attempt, in addition to the fact that it demonstrates an extremely low level of Timokhin's understanding of the situation in the world, is notable to others for us. Now I will explain how.

They certainly did not fight for Syria, Georgia and Ukraine, because they fought them against us. And they will continue to fight.

As one politician said, some US forces are not using it as a sword, because the sword is a reusable weapon, but as a condom. These are backward countries, and no one will try to develop them. Ukraine was beckoned to become an allies, but they never "got married." But Japan is a sword. This is already a full-fledged "subject". A developed country, with technology, with a base for US aircraft carriers.

And without the consent (obtained in advance) of its master, Japan will not raise the issue with the Kurils. The owner is aware of the claims, and the owner remembers them. And he will tell you when you can. To do this without his knowledge is to put the owner in an uncomfortable position. Because he seems to have to do something, but it was not part of his plans. And that's not what the subordinate side should do.

The problem is that the situation in the Baltics, Ukraine, Syria and around the Kuriles is influenced by the same puppeteer. And the most unfavorable scenario for Russia is if this puppeteer pulls all the strings at the same time. Then the question with the dispersal of forces will come around tenfold.

It is food for the mind.

Conclusion


In conclusion, we can say that Timokhin is very keen on "tactical games" that often take place in a fictional world with a separation from both reality and a more important strategic level.

The money we spend on the defense industry will go towards the purchase of our military "tools" for waging war. In order to buy the right tools, it is important to know what the military will be aiming for, and this has already been determined - a quick, covert strike concentration.

The tool that allows you to do this is good. A tool that leads to an excessive dispersal of everything that is possible (from the units themselves, to ammunition and fuel) is bad.

Against this background, almost all of Timokhin's proposals, which he “draws” at the tactical level of planning, at the strategic level, represent direct sabotage: instead of increasing Onyx (8 meters) to the size of the Tu-160 compartment (12 meters), Timokhin proposes to castrate it is up to 6 (cut off 2 meters of the accelerator) in order to "be able" to hang it on a small plane.

Instead of a large aircraft, which will carry a longer-range and high-speed rocket (due to that very accelerator), it is proposed to use a small one, which will also have to be dispersed along with the entire ammunition complex of expensive missiles, placing them on the front line, so that later, when you need to fight, you will logistics.

It is also noteworthy that the general connotation of Timokhin's statements regarding the Tu-160, in addition to the fact that it is not elementary truth (like statements about the inability to fly on "ordinary" kerosene and much more), is aligned with the fact that the United States brought money to Ukraine - the destruction of the Tu-160 so that this aircraft ceases to exist.

All of the above is nothing more than direct sabotage at the strategic level of planning, in places acquiring frankly grotesque proportions.

PS


Some more food for the mind.

The second idea is A. Vorontsov's idea of ​​using the Tu-160 in military operations at sea. This very extravagant idea, oddly enough, even received supporters.

And right at the Pentagon. Americans can and should. We cannot and do not need to.

Preparing Russia for military failure at the strategic level

Why don't you think about it? Now in Port Sudan, the PMTO is being equipped, the question of air support for the ships based on this PMTO will arise. Let's say ours also rent an airfield. And what, to throw the Tu-160 there? Why write such nonsense?

The question of the base is not only a question of its protection, but also of what forces can be deployed on this base.

For comparison - the US base on about. Guam.


Recently The USA has allocated an additional 1 billion dollars for its development... 3 large airfields with 2 takeoffs each, 2 active. B1 is based. This is the USA, they can. They need. We don't? We have a powerful fleet?

After all, remembering the "importance of the speed of deployment" - to deploy ships in Sudan, should something happen, faster than the Tu-160 (again to the question of the "control panel").

As for the fact that

“Neither Timokhin nor Klimov have ever offered to" pour huge sums "into the fleet. On the contrary, most of our articles on military-economic topics are just devoted to how to reduce the cost of the fleet relative to today's level, without losing combat effectiveness. Or how to increase combat effectiveness at approximately current costs without seriously increasing them.

The only exception is a hypothetical light aircraft carrier. But even for it, funds can be found by reducing useless programs, and not by significantly increasing budgets. "

More about this in the next article ...
Author:
Photos used:
US Air Force
293 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Woodman
    Woodman April 2 2021 07: 50
    +2
    Brevity is the soul of wit. In fact, everything that I have just read, the guarantor expressed in one sentence in his response to Biden's insult.
    PS In my opinion, Timokhin's arguments were still somewhat more convincing.
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 2 2021 13: 32
      -1
      Absolutely agree. The author does not take into account that if you take the same Turks, then in order to start an operation against the Black Sea Fleet, they will need to prepare it. Our intelligence, apparently, will drink tea at this time. They received information about the impending overthrow of Erdogan earlier than he did, and they are apparently guaranteed to slam the preparation of the Turks for war.

      And why does Vorontsov think that in 2008 the battle with Georgian ships was "a world in itself"? And if they reached the coast of Abkhazia and cut across Sukhumi, for example? Or our base in Novorossiysk? Or does Alexander think that they went on a cruise?

      You can continue to list questions to the author, but there are many of them. The publication is voluminous. It is only worth noting the fact that Vorontsov did not answer Timokhin's thesis that setting up the Tu-160 for the fleet, tucking them in the necessary modernization for this, would not be cheap at all.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. gvozdan
          gvozdan April 2 2021 21: 02
          0
          Are you sure the SM-3 can engage targets in the atmosphere?
          The power of the Tu-160 lies in the fact that they themselves can clear
          1. Shurik70
            Shurik70 April 2 2021 21: 28
            +2
            Many letters.
            To summarize briefly: "the fleet can be important, but not necessarily, the quality of the fleet is important but not always important"
      2. for
        for April 3 2021 02: 50
        0
        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
        They received information about the impending overthrow of Erdogan earlier,

        Or maybe this is not information, but misinformation.
      3. Amin_vivec
        Amin_vivec April 4 2021 13: 07
        +1
        I also liked the thesis that if the Georgian fleet had completely defeated the Russian one, it would not have affected the course of the war.
        And if the "superior Georgian fleet" blocked the ports of Novorossiysk and Sevastopol, would strike at the operational depth, at the Russian civilian infrastructure, armored vehicles columns moving along the Georgian military road with high-precision ammunition ... I would create an access denial zone around myself ... I would have landed marines landings near Novorossiysk or Sochi ...
        The fleet is an effective tool in itself. Including in the fight against the coast and the air.
        Is it possible to lose it mediocrely? Can. However, like everything else.
        1. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl April 4 2021 22: 25
          +1
          Quote: Amin_Vivec
          if the "superior Georgian fleet" blocked the ports of Novorossiysk and Sevastopol, would strike at the operational depth, on the Russian civilian infrastructure, on the columns of armored vehicles with high-precision ammunition moving along the Georgian military road
          belay is it MRKshkami ?! ?! belay and on the ground (along the columns) ?!
          1. Amin_vivec
            Amin_vivec April 5 2021 01: 40
            0
            The author throws down the thesis that the Georgian fleet smashed the Russian one to smithereens, and this would not have affected the outcome of the conflict. If we can imagine the first, why don't we imagine such a course of events))))
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 2 2021 13: 46
      +7
      I agree ... there is a dispute along the way, although before that there was "who is stronger - a bear or a shark?" .. Although everything depends on the correct use of both aviation and navy ...
      1. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat April 2 2021 17: 27
        +7
        Well, on the Black Sea, due to the specificity of the theater, a large fleet is not needed at all - everything is really completely decided by aviation and missiles. The only reason it would be needed is to deploy submarines there. But it will be quickly multiplied by zero anyway. Submarines, yes, these things are needed and mines. We need a lot of mines. And in Russia, mines are very tight, they simply do not exist. The Soviet ones are outdated and have exhausted all the storage periods, but there are no new ones. Absolutely.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 2 2021 20: 38
          0
          but the Black Sea Fleet base for the Mediterranean and so on ... and they already need large gunboats
      2. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin April 2 2021 17: 27
        +4
        That's it. You need to have balanced aircraft, diversified, if you will. Instead of putting eggs in one basket. In my opinion, this is the alphabet.
  2. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 07: 57
    +6
    I fully support the respected Alexander Vorontsov, a reasoned article with adequate logic, with the addition ... along with the total vulnerability of surface ships and the complete uselessness of large surface ships, no one denies the importance of submarines
    1. prior
      prior April 2 2021 11: 09
      +3
      It seems that the role of the surface component of the Navy in a big war is very similar to the role of the militia.
      It is necessary to have it, but it does not play a strategic role.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar April 2 2021 11: 47
      +12
      Quote: vladimir1155
      the importance of submarines no one denies

      But after all, one of the tasks of the NK will be reconnaissance and air defense, which, among other things, will complicate (to the point of complete impracticability) the work of enemy anti-submarine aviation. Yes, and with enemy submarines, the NK can fight much more productively, which not only provides favorable conditions for the operation of their own submarines, but also serves as a factor in protecting the coast from attacks by enemy submarines.

      Quote: vladimir1155
      along with the total vulnerability of surface ships

      Ships are undoubtedly vulnerable (and who is invulnerable?), But certainly not totally. If, of course, he has adequate air defense systems and does not stand at the pier, humbly awaiting execution.

      Quote: vladimir1155
      the complete uselessness of large surface ships

      First, which ship is considered large? Is the frigate already counted? Secondly, it will definitely not be completely useless (subject to a competent project): it is still a potential highly protected carrier of a large number of strike weapons. There is more a question of a general strategy: if initially we "lock" ourselves within the BMZ, without looking further than a couple of hundred miles from the coast, then yes, large ships are not needed at all.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 11: 56
        +3
        Quote: Kalmar
        yes, big ships are not needed at all.

        I support, all the tasks are poor and, therefore, ensuring the submarine exit from the bases may well be carried out by a few corvettes and frigates, minesweepers, if you think the frigate is big, I will not argue, the main thing for me is the truth, but what to call it does not matter, I am not against the frigate, just supporters of the totalitarian the destructive sect of the aircraft carrier witnesses consider a typical frigate to be too small, there is pitching, and these are sailors who are afraid of pitching, give them at least a battleship and more cabins ... let the infantry get wet in dugouts and submariners huddle on bunks, and pilots in a cramped cockpit without the right to mistake, ... and give them a battleship no less ... they tried to scare me (the old sea wolf) by sending me (an old sea wolf) to the TFR Pitlivy (typical frigate) and send me to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk ...
        Displacement 3200 t
        Xnumx length m
        14,2 width m
        Draft 4,28 m
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar April 2 2021 12: 10
          +4
          Quote: vladimir1155
          all tasks are good and, therefore, ensuring the exit of submarines from bases may well be carried out by a few corvettes and frigates, minesweepers

          The question is in translating "scarcity" into absolute values: 10, 20, 50? They have a lot of tasks: covering the naval base, protecting the "bastions" and much more.

          Quote: vladimir1155
          if you think the frigate is big, I will not argue

          So I ask: at what point is the ship considered too large? Well that is it is clear that monsters like 1144 in our time, perhaps, are redundant. At the same time, for actions, say, in the oceanic zone, a small ship is poorly suited, i.e. you need something closer to 8-10 thousand tons of VI.

          Quote: vladimir1155
          supporters of the totalitarian destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses consider the typical frigate to be too small, there is pitching, and these are sailors who are afraid of pitching

          What does it have to do with it? They are just about an aircraft carrier, which physically cannot be small: the plane needs space. As for pitching, here, again, more about ocean trips (long in time): several weeks of continuous turbulence are unlikely to benefit the crew.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 21: 32
            -1
            Quote: Kalmar
            So I ask: at what point is the ship considered too large?

            I consider 3000-4000 tons to be optimal, although the frigate 1155, 7000 tons is no longer needed, now electronics miniaturization
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 21: 43
            -1
            Quote: Kalmar
            The question is in translating "scarcity" into absolute values: 10, 20, 50? They have a lot of tasks: covering the naval base, protecting the "bastions" and much more.

            unfortunately, you will have to dance from the stove, count how many of them at the Pacific Fleet (6) and the Northern Fleet (6) today, I would multiply by two ... this is the required number for the first time, although more is better, of course,
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 2 2021 17: 34
          +4
          Quote: vladimir1155
          they tried to scare me (the old sea wolf)

          Well, you fucking beast! Still, you will answer the question: who did you serve on the 1155 project? And the fact that he went as a fisherman is not a service, but the work is extremely difficult and honorable!
          So: - Who are you such a "wolf of the sea", whose whole ass is covered in shells and algae hanging from the ears !?
          (Gulchatay! Show your face!)
          PS Add speed and cruising range to the "main characteristics" of the Inquisitive, well, you can also add autonomy - it will also not hurt, however. laughing
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 21: 33
            +2
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            who did you serve
            mechanic 1135, and 1155 it was a dream
    3. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 2 2021 11: 49
      -5
      That is, you agree that your relatives would serve on RTOs, which will be the first to go against the KUG / AUG of the enemy, and they will be sent, there will be nothing for others, thanks to people like you ...
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 12: 05
        +9
        Quote: Ryusey
        served on RTOs, which will be the first to go against the enemy's KUG / AUG

        Firstly, I am not a supporter of MRCs and I consider them a mistake caused by the drmsd and admiration for calibers. For example, I am a supporter of nuclear submarines, mpk and krv-fr, plo, supporter of minesweepers, they will not be sent against kug, their task is to ensure the exit of the submarine, control the water area within a radius of 1000 km under the protection of coastal aviation, and submarines. The area of ​​action of coastal aviation and non-nuclear submarines is up to 3000 km, and the area of ​​nuclear submarines is unlimited. Yes, there is a risk in the war for everyone, but there is a stupid risk, namely, surface ships against the KUG, and there is justified from under water or under the protection of coastal aviation of coastal means to solve important combat missions and with the probability of success.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar April 2 2021 12: 26
          +4
          Quote: vladimir1155
          control of the water area within a radius of 1000 km under the protection of coastal aviation

          Only aviation at such a range will not be able to provide normal cover. While the planes are preparing to take off, while they rise into the air, while they go out to intercept - the enemy can already have time to shit and leave. Here you need either to have some prohibitive number of aircraft, so that a couple of dozen of them are continuously on duty in the air, or super-effective reconnaissance, in order to know exactly the time and place of the next enemy strike.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 21: 37
            -1
            Quote: Kalmar
            an exorbitant number of aircraft, so that a couple of dozen of them are continuously on duty in the air, or super-effective reconnaissance,

            first, following Timokhin, you repeat about the air duty (not 1941 long ago) and then you yourself answer that there are A100 reconnaissance aircraft and satellites, they must record all surface and air targets, and against the submarine there are just those fr and krv a also PLO aircraft
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar April 2 2021 23: 32
              +2
              Quote: vladimir1155
              and then you yourself answer that there are A100 reconnaissance aircraft and satellites, they must record all surface and air targets

              A satellite is never omnipotent, it surveys the area at regular intervals.

              As for the A-100, for a start, it is not really there yet. Then, "to fix all surface and air targets" he can only in one position - suddenly, in the air. Back to the need for constant patrolling, right? Or how else can aviation work in anticipation?

              Quote: vladimir1155
              and against the submarine there are just the same fr and krv as well as PLO planes

              For a start, we have, one might say, no PLO aircraft: they are outdated and not really modernized. And with frigates and corvettes, we went in a circle: yes, they can work on submarines, but aviation will cover them only at a relatively short distance from the coast. Due to this, it will not be easy for them to keep the enemy at a distance excluding the use of CRBD.
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 21: 46
            0
            Quote: Kalmar
            Only aviation at such a range will not be able to provide normal cover.

            if we abandon AB and make dozens of coastal aircraft, then they can, su35 Flight range:
            near the ground (height - 200 m, speed - M = 0,7): 1580 km
            on high:
            without PTB: 3600 km
            with 2 PTB-2000 l: 4500 km and this is a front line .... 1000 km and then Tu22 Tu160, there maybe more than 3000 km
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar April 2 2021 23: 37
              +2
              Quote: vladimir1155
              if we abandon AB and make dozens of coastal aircraft, then it can

              I am tormented by deja vu: it seems that we have already discussed all this, perhaps even with you. The combat radius is not equal to the range at which the aircraft will provide cover to the ship. This is the maximum range in the "fly back and forth" mode. If the enemy turns out to be unpunctual, he is late for a meeting, then our plane, 1000 km from the airfield, will not be able to wait for him for a long time: there will not be enough kerosene. Let's go back to where we started: either a lot of aircraft are needed, or super effective reconnaissance.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 3 2021 09: 43
                -1
                Quote: Kalmar
                the range at which the aircraft will provide cover for the ship.

                the cover is not in circles over the ship, but in the defeat of a target threatening the ship, the modern principle of "shoot and go," especially since the ammunition is very limited, so the range and combat radius do not differ so much. for 35 km it can move away from the base, and then, as I already wrote, the zone of responsibility tu3000, tu 1500
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar April 3 2021 17: 21
                  0
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  the cover is not in circles over the ship, but in the defeat of a target threatening the ship, the modern principle of "shoot and go"

                  That again brings us back to the point about reconnaissance: you need to have a very good idea of ​​the enemy's actions so that the "drying" was in the right place at the right time. Minutes for half an hour missed each other - and the target cannot be hit, tk. she was late for her "defeat".

                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  further, as I wrote, the area of ​​responsibility is tu22, tu 160

                  As well as the area of ​​responsibility of the enemy F-18 and F-35C. The conditions in which the "carcasses" without cover will work, frankly, uncomfortable.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 April 3 2021 21: 50
                    0
                    Quote: Kalmar
                    That again brings us back to the point about reconnaissance: you need to have a very good idea of ​​the enemy's actions so that the "drying" was in the right place at the right time.

                    I do not argue, but for sure reconnaissance is not patrolling by dryers, there are reconnaissance satellites, drones, and A50 A100, of which more are needed, on the distant lines of the TU they also operate on the principle of a shot, go away, for that they have supersonic sound, ... but I don’t pilot if that correct me .. and of course we are talking now about nuclear submarine bases on the oceans, Murmansk and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, there will not be very many enemy aircraft, they need an AB, and then TU will hit it, or the nuclear submarine will sink it and all of the planes will sink upside down ... on the seas the situation is different, there are all the techniques of conventional videoconferencing,
        2. Ryusey
          Ryusey April 2 2021 13: 19
          +1
          Well, of course, you know that PLO is the enemy's strong side, do you also know that the bet on PL has already been made and how did it end?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 22: 33
            -1
            Quote: Ryusey
            Have you already made a bet on the PL and how did it end?

            with what?
        3. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 2 2021 18: 11
          +6
          Quote: vladimir1155
          minesweepers ... water area control within a radius of 1000 km under the protection of coastal aviation, and submarines.

          Pancake! and where do such tactical standards come from, probably from the overhead!
          The area of ​​action of coastal aviation and non-nuclear submarines is up to 3000 km,
          Everything! Out! Full paragraph! I'm leaving, I'm leaving for a monastery (female!) am
          Damn, you fucking boatswain! Well, you can't do it like that to chicken out the generally accepted cutting of the operational zones of the fleet !!!
          there is a stupid risk namely surface ships against KUG,
          Damn, I don't even know what to argue with the "sea wolf" ... After all, it will inadvertently bite! Well, at least to give him the definition of one of the NK class, or what?
          Rocket ship - combat surface ship, designed to destroy any warships and enemy transport ships on closed seas and in the near sea zone.
          (Classifications of ships of the Russian Navy - Wikipedia)
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 21: 48
            -2
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            A missile ship is a combat surface ship designed to destroy any enemy warships and transport ships on closed seas and in the near sea zone.

            you mean mrk ...
    4. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov April 2 2021 15: 51
      0
      Then why should we or amer aircraft carriers? Why the fleet at all ??? The author is a marshal of a computer game in such a case. Although today there are many strategists laughing
    5. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 2 2021 17: 21
      +2
      Quote: vladimir1155
      with the addition ... along with the total vulnerability of surface ships and the complete uselessness of large surface ships, no one denies the importance of submarines

      ABOUT! The fisherman drew! Hello colleague, waterfowl! laughing
      Everyone is vulnerable, and so are the big ships ...
      But they have a powerful electronic warfare system and a decent air defense / missile defense in the middle-close zone, as well as self-defense complexes (ZRPK). This makes it possible to ensure the combat stability of submarines. And from their main enemies BPA, as well as from PLA, in certain cases ...
      So, "all kinds of mothers are needed, all kinds of mothers are important" - the same is about NK, as a kind of forces of the Russian Navy.
      AHA.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 21: 51
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        But they have a powerful electronic warfare system and a decent air defense / missile defense in the middle-close zone, as well as self-defense complexes (ZRPK). This makes it possible to ensure the combat stability of submarines. And from their main enemies BPA, as well as from PLA, in certain cases ...

        no, they don’t have .... because one of these wunderweiles of your 1144 (a couple in turn) remained and there will be no more money ... that is not on the ocean) than your wunderwales in one copy
  3. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets April 2 2021 08: 20
    +6
    I have one feeling that the author is on donations from KAPO?
  4. antivirus
    antivirus April 2 2021 08: 24
    -13%
    I hope the Academy of the General Staff calculates the future war differently. saw how Zhyukov and Tymoshenko "prepared" in 41g.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 2 2021 11: 32
      +6
      Well, you are definitely smarter than Zhyukov, where is he up to you with a higher divan education.
      1. GEOID
        GEOID April 2 2021 12: 27
        -10%
        It makes no sense to argue who is smarter, after Shoigu's order to close the archives of the Second World War.
        Remains Rezun and Solonin.
        The latter is very convincing, especially in the stories of games. And about Zhukov's "genius".
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 2 2021 12: 37
          +3
          What? Has haloperidol been injected for a long time?
      2. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov April 2 2021 15: 52
        +1
        Is the author smarter?
  5. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya April 2 2021 08: 30
    +3
    The only good news is that all military-political decisions are made not by these "experts", but by the quite adequate Head of our country! And then O. Bender's words come to mind: "... What regiment did you serve in? Be strong! Abroad will help us!" In general: "... Ostap suffered ..."
  6. Per se.
    Per se. April 2 2021 08: 33
    +23
    To enhance clarity, let's compare the results of two diametrically opposed scenarios:

    1) our fleet defeated the Georgian one dry;
    2) the Georgian fleet defeated the Black Sea.

    How would this affect the course of the war?

    The answer is none.
    Was the fleet capable of solving at least one of the key tasks of that war? Help our peacekeepers in time? Stop the Georgian columns in time?


    The author leaves out of parentheses that if the Georgian military had time to block the Roki tunnel, without the fleet it would be difficult to provide real assistance to our peacekeepers, to persuade Georgia to peace. Of course, pants and over your head, if you wish, you can dress, do without the fleet, especially if you ask how the fleet will help us in a hypothetical war with Mongolia ...

    Eternal extremes, what to save on, what we need less, the second "lung" or the second "kidney". The army and the navy, in general, the types of armed forces, cannot be considered in themselves, the problem lies in their competent use in interaction.

    If the author talks about preventive strikes, suppression of air defense, in fact, a global war, then the fleet is not to a small extent needed so that it does not come to this. Without a full-fledged fleet, we will be taxed from all sides, the fleet must solve many military and political problems in a timely manner, without bringing matters to a relapse. Even one kind of missile cruiser "in the roadstead" of the same Batumi, could well cool the hot Georgian guys, if our fleet appeared on time and in the right place.

    Maybe there are already enough new ideas in the spirit of the doctrine of General Douai? Not to solve all problems with one aviation or one fleet, well, and the "hedgehog" should be clear ... So what is the dispute, what is this "duel in front of the auditorium", where "Timokhin" sounded many times. The conclusions and opinions of anyone are not a verdict on whether or not a fleet is needed. My personal opinion, the Russian fleet is needed, and not for one littoral zone. Those who "drown" for the "land of Russia", either in a naive delusion, in order to "do the best", or an adherent of our Anglo-Saxon "partners".
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 2 2021 11: 29
      -2
      if the Georgian military had time to block the Roki tunnel, without the fleet it would be difficult to provide real assistance to our peacekeepers


      There would be simply no one to provide assistance. The account was there for a couple of days maximum. Then the war lost its meaning.

      Russian fleet is needed


      Air.
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 2 2021 13: 21
      +2
      I totally agree, rather a stupid adept)
    3. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 2 2021 13: 36
      +5
      Great answer, colleague good ! Reasoned, balanced, clear. hi
    4. ccsr
      ccsr April 3 2021 16: 38
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      The author leaves out of parentheses that if the Georgian military had time to block the Roki tunnel, without the fleet it would be difficult to provide real assistance to our peacekeepers, to persuade Georgia to peace.

      Here you are mistaken, because 5-6 of our strategic bombers attacking Tbilisi with a full BC in non-nuclear weapons would immediately end the conflict 12 hours after the Georgian troops fired at our peacekeepers. So if someone turned out to be a little gutsy, this does not mean that our armed forces could not quickly end this war with the help of aircraft alone.

      Quote: Per se.
      If the author talks about preventive strikes, suppression of air defense,

      Here the author is fantasizing a little, because it would hardly occur to American strategists to start a war with Russia by launching cruise missiles - he seems to be captivated by journalistic ideas about a modern nuclear war between Russia and the United States.
      Quote: Per se.
      My personal opinion, the Russian fleet is needed, and not for one littoral zone.

      Nobody denies that Russia needs the fleet, but competent people are against what Timokhin imposes with his writings - he is simply torn off from military reality, so he carries him, like that Ostap.
      Maybe it's time to go down to earth and understand that Russia is only half of the USSR, and the Korotkov fleet and its ideas about the ocean-going fleet are not only ruinous for it, but simply destructive for the future of the country. It is from this point of view that we must approach the writings of such authors.
      Quote: Per se.
      Those who "drown" for the "land of Russia", either in a naive delusion, in order to "do the best", or an adherent of our Anglo-Saxon "partners".

      Can you personally oppose the Strategic Missile Forces with anything that could be the main weapon of our country? Name so that you can seriously discuss this issue.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. April 5 2021 07: 38
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        Here you are mistaken, because 5-6 of our strategic bombers attacking Tbilisi with a full BC in non-nuclear armament would immediately end the conflict 12 hours after the Georgian troops fired at our peacekeepers.
        It would have been so simple, they would have done so, but the troops went through the Roki tunnel.

        I have already mentioned the doctrine of General Giulio Douet, not to solve all the issues with air strikes, you still need an infantry, a ground presence. Yugoslavia did not "surrender" from the NATO bombing, in Vietnam it had no solution at all, the Yankees had to get involved in ground operations. You once said about this that the United States was ready to use even nuclear weapons, would not use it, it wouldn’t work, like the nuclear crematoria with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in fact genocide.
        At Damanskoye, we would not have used nuclear weapons either, just as Great Britain sent a squadron to the Falklands, and did not strike a nuclear strike on Argentina.

        Speaking about double-purpose ground airfields (in your comments), you are somewhat disingenuous. Yes, hardly anyone will use the aircraft carrier for civilian purposes, but not all military airfields are suitable for civilian use, for example, at the same American bases, at our remote points and closed lanes. Most importantly, aircraft carriers are not opposed to unpaved airfields, but a mobile addition. Aircraft carriers would have been enough for us, and the rest would have been supplemented by land runways.

        In principle, I have already said about the extremes above, there is no need to strike at them, and, in any case, these are only our personal opinions, which here may coincide or not.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr April 5 2021 12: 42
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          It would have been so simple, they would have done so, but the troops went through the Roki tunnel.

          Our Commander-in-Chief collapsed, so they could not make a decision for almost a day.

          Quote: Per se.
          Speaking about double-purpose ground airfields (in your comments), you are somewhat disingenuous.

          I'm not dissembling anything - all civil and military airfields have a dual purpose in crisis situations, and even highways in some areas are adapted for landing combat aircraft.
          Quote: Per se.
          and, in any case, these are only our personal opinions, which may or may not coincide here.

          With this I completely agree.
  7. BAI
    BAI April 2 2021 08: 43
    +4
    1.
    If you are outnumbered, for example, you can surround the enemy. If the numerical superiority is on the side of the enemy, then you need to think about how you would not be surrounded.

    The events of the summer of 1941 showed that the opposite could be true.
    2. Yesterday's events in the Baltic showed that the fleet needs, first of all, a "pusher" - to push out hostile ships without using weapons. In the event of war, ships are big targets. In the Baltic and Black Sea, their combat value will be zero.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 April 2 2021 08: 52
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      2. Yesterday's events in the Baltic showed that the fleet needs, first of all, a "pusher" - to push out hostile ships without using weapons.

      There are such. They are called icebreakers. laughing
      Russian military icebreaker "Ermak":


      1. BAI
        BAI April 2 2021 13: 13
        +3
        It is better for an icebreaker to work in ice than to push out any debris. Send icebreakers to the Black Sea too?
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 2 2021 18: 38
        +3
        Quote: Boris55
        There are such. They are called icebreakers.
        Russian military icebreaker "Ermak":

        Each icebreaker has a reserved place for the installation of weapons. Ermak is no exception. If the air defense system was planned to be placed on Lenin, then on Ermak they talk about a full-fledged RK. So - not a fact!
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 2 2021 11: 30
      +1
      In the summer of 41, the Germans had a significant advantage in strength. If he was not somewhere locally, then the Red Army in those places held up well.
    3. Machito
      Machito April 2 2021 11: 47
      +2
      Quote: BAI
      1.
      If you are outnumbered, for example, you can surround the enemy. If the numerical superiority is on the side of the enemy, then you need to think about how you would not be surrounded.

      The events of the summer of 1941 showed that the opposite could be true.
      2. Yesterday's events in the Baltic showed that the fleet needs, first of all, a "pusher" - to push out hostile ships without using weapons. In the event of war, ships are big targets. In the Baltic and Black Sea, their combat value will be zero.

      The INF Treaty is dead, but neither Russia nor the United States is yet deploying missiles in Europe. The calibers allow you to bypass the deceased INF Treaty and keep PoleEuropes at gunpoint even if the ships are in bases. Aviation does not shoot from the ground.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 2 2021 12: 38
        0
        Then missiles can be fired from cars, ships are not needed.
        1. Machito
          Machito April 2 2021 14: 11
          +1
          Quote: EvilLion
          Then missiles can be fired from cars, ships are not needed.

          It is likely that both Russia and the United States are developing ground-based launchers for medium and short-range missiles, but today there is no talk of deploying them in Europe. As soon as their placement occurs, the question of building Buyanov will disappear by itself.
  8. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob April 2 2021 08: 45
    -19%
    As the Ukrainian fleet on the Black Sea will be bigger, maybe even better than the Russian one, then Russia will not have any chances.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 April 2 2021 08: 50
      +6
      Quote: Yoon Klob
      then Russia will not have any chances.

      You forget about the unsinkable aircraft carrier of Russia - Crimea. We can get anyone out of it on the Black Sea.
      1. Bourgeois 1963
        Bourgeois 1963 April 2 2021 09: 55
        -6
        You should tell this funny story about the "non-sinkable aircraft carrier" to old man Erich von Manstein. The fleet over the past 170 years can be compared to football, money is thrown into the sea, and the result is zero. Maybe we really are purely land people.
        1. sergo1914
          sergo1914 April 2 2021 10: 19
          +10
          Quote: Bourgeois 1963
          You should tell this funny story about the "non-sinkable aircraft carrier" to old man Erich von Manstein. The fleet over the past 170 years can be compared to football, money is thrown into the sea, and the result is zero. Maybe we really are purely land people.


          Something I do not see on the other side of neither the second Manstein, nor the Wehrmacht of the 1941 model. Well, compare the timing of the defense of the Crimea by ours and the timing of throwing the Germans out of there. Bad metaphor.
    2. huntsman650
      huntsman650 April 2 2021 09: 41
      +4
      Yaksho grandmother would be a grandfather ....))))
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 April 3 2021 09: 27
        -2
        Quote: huntsman650
        Yaksho grandmother would be a grandfather ....))))

        Do not doubt. If we bombed terrorists in Syria from the Caspian Sea, then we will definitely get it.

        1. huntsman650
          huntsman650 April 3 2021 10: 01
          +1
          You have beguiled something akst darling) this is above the lad Garnom redirect. I tested these pencils on the SF)))
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 12: 17
      +2
      you please write more legibly, why did you add English letters to the Russian language, what kind of rural dialect you have, your blatant illiteracy at the level of Harlem, where did you study? Have you finished school? here is the level of modern digital gadget education! they are not able to write in Russian, but how to hire such a person, how to entrust him with something? probably from a remote taiga village, and you are writing about the navy ... the educational officer will have to teach you to read and write on the ship like a little one ... pay special attention to grammar!
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 2 2021 19: 56
        +2
        Quote: vladimir1155
        pay special attention to grammar!

        Useful advice! Before you blame others - look in the mirror, "sea wolf" pr.1155!
        First, let's do some "error correction":
        please write more clearly
        should write: - you , please , write raзmore agile - total - 2 punctuation and 1 spelling mistakes. (2/1);
        some kind of rural dialect; graduated from school; write in Russian
        the hyphen is missing: "some"; "school", "in Russian" - (- / 3) Total: 2/4 errors. am
        PS I am tolerant of the "author's letter" of colleagues, but only not when such "writers" begin to teach others to read and write ...
        AHA.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 21: 57
          -3
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          I am tolerant of the "author's letter" of colleagues, but only not when such "writers" begin to teach others to read and write ...

          well, it is clear that you don’t understand the nautical business, so you decided to look for grammatical errors ... there are so many of you a whole sect and everyone needs to be explained, there is no time to do proofreading
    4. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 2 2021 13: 23
      +1
      From the bottom of my heart, I amused, otherwise it is cloudy outside, and here you are joking)
    5. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 2 2021 18: 49
      0
      Quote: Yoon Klob
      the Ukrainian fleet on the Black Sea will be bigger, maybe even more and more than Russian,

      Yoon and stupid! (with)
      God forbid our calf to catch the WOLF ... (Russian proverb).
      Now your Evil Clown will get into an adventure in the Donbass, and that will be the end of your whole Bandera movement. And Ukraine will again become a normal Slavic country, as it has always been, albeit as part of the Republic of Ingushetia or the USSR.
      Morok zapadensky will subside and again there will be a clear prospect of friendship and cooperation of THREE fraternal Slavic peoples: Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian. It was not for nothing that Kiev was the mother of Russian cities!
      Amen.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 21: 59
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Amen.

        + despite the fact that you are mistaken in tactics and strategy
  9. Runway
    Runway April 2 2021 08: 53
    +4
    Theorists of Soviet sports ... both. OShS VO to both help. About the "puncture" of the air defense line - laughing
  10. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 April 2 2021 08: 53
    +7
    The article is interesting, I am not an expert, but without the fleet somehow it is not ICE, although in WWII, we had total superiority of the fleet over the enemy in the Black Sea, and everything was decided by the German aviation !!!!!!!
    1. dauria
      dauria April 2 2021 10: 17
      +2
      although in the Second World War, we had a total superiority of the fleet over the enemy in the Black Sea, and everything was decided by German aviation


      England and France in the 40th year had a total superiority of the fleet over Hitler's, but everything was decided by the German infantry. And only the Soviet infantry was able to break the back of Hitler, grinding the German infantry in four years ..
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 2 2021 20: 00
        +2
        Quote: dauria
        only the Soviet infantry was able to break the back of Hitler,

        AHA ... And artillery, aviation, tank troops stood modestly on the sidelines ... laughing
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 2 2021 13: 25
      +5
      In the Second World War, "neighbors on the continent" clashed with strong ground forces, and now our enemy is sitting across the ocean and a mighty fleet and air force ...
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 2 2021 20: 02
        +2
        Quote: Ryusey
        and now our enemy sits across the ocean and is a mighty fleet and air force ...

        But a colleague suggests breaking the Yankee ridge with infantry ... laughing
  11. srelock
    srelock April 2 2021 09: 06
    -2
    I propose to introduce an annual moratorium (with the possibility of extension) on articles of maritime content, except for news reports ...
    It seems that the authors simply do not have time to take the pills. laughing
  12. Illanatol
    Illanatol April 2 2021 09: 13
    +5
    It is too early to bury large surface ships, they are able to stand up for themselves. Aviation will never replace them, it is simply unthinkable to keep a sufficient number of bomb carriers in the air, while surface ships can stay for months in the desired area.
    A breakthrough of the air defense missile defense system due to "oversaturation" - the fantasy of an amateur. Air defense systems are mobile, you can transfer reserves, and the carriers themselves will quickly find themselves under a missile attack.

    The fleet is needed, as is the aviation, however. The problems of the Russian Federation are not in the weakness of the economy and the lack of the necessary technologies, but in the failure of the socio-economic structure ("formation") itself, which is incapable of providing the foundations of the nation's survival.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 2 2021 11: 33
      -2
      Well, the USSR has provided it. Where is he now?
      1. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 2 2021 13: 07
        +6
        The reasons for the defeat of the USSR lie not in the military sphere and not even in the economic sphere.
        The victory of the whore over Socrates, the victory of philistinism and consumerism over ideals, the victory of social entropy. But what destroyed the USSR is now quite successfully destroying Western civilization, the positive that once was in it.
        However, this is already offtopic.

        P.S. If the USSR had not provided, the Russian Federation would have shared the fate of Yugoslavia long ago. We still exist thanks to the Soviet legacy.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 2 2021 13: 23
          -4
          The Russian Federation would have shared the fate of Yugoslavia long ago. In Yugoslavia, there was a war on nationalist grounds with Russia, it is incorrect to compare, and yes, the backbone of the USSR is the RSFSR.
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol April 2 2021 13: 37
            +6
            We also tried to play this card in the North Caucasus. The scale is more modest, since the Russian Federation still has nuclear weapons.
            It was the leadership of the "backbone" who played the first violin in the collapse of the USSR. We are still celebrating our "Independence Day".
      2. Ryusey
        Ryusey April 2 2021 13: 27
        +4
        He was betrayed, all of me, including you, for which we are paying now.
    2. vic02
      vic02 April 2 2021 15: 28
      +2
      SAMs are mobile, you can transfer reserves
      Do we have them?
  13. Snusmumrik
    Snusmumrik April 2 2021 09: 19
    +1
    All this resembles a conversation between a blind man and a deaf person.
  14. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 April 2 2021 09: 28
    0
    The author wrote nonsense
    1. Runway
      Runway April 2 2021 09: 39
      +1
      Alexander, no offense, but you also "annealed" about "rocket carriers". wink
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 2 2021 11: 33
      0
      Take pills and calm down.
  15. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  16. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 April 2 2021 09: 54
    +4
    Well, why did the author (however, like many others) unsuccessfully and inappropriately recall the "destruction" of the allegedly entire Maikop brigade? From its composition, a combined battalion took part in that battle, and not the entire brigade in full force. It is about the destruction of this combined battalion that we need to talk about.
    1. Xscorpion
      Xscorpion April 2 2021 11: 52
      +5
      Quote: Sergej1972
      Well, why did the author (however, like many others) unsuccessfully and inappropriately recall the "destruction" of the allegedly entire Maikop brigade? From its composition, a combined battalion took part in that battle, and not the entire brigade in full force. It is about the destruction of this combined battalion that we need to talk about.

      Especially if you consider that he is sure that only the Chechen infantry fought against it, although Grozny was defended by a full-fledged tank regiment, a rocket regiment, 3 motorized rifle regiments, anti-aircraft artillery and anti-tank flights, and several artillery battalions, not counting individual battalions, companies, batteries and divisions various types of troops of the CRI.
  17. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 2 2021 10: 10
    +2
    Interesting discussion.

    About three years ago, I compared the power of a salvo of Turk and Black Sea Fleet missiles. The Turks had 6 times more. Now the picture has not moved too much in our direction.
    1. Xscorpion
      Xscorpion April 2 2021 11: 54
      +1
      Quote: Pavel57
      Interesting discussion.

      About three years ago, I compared the power of a salvo of Turk and Black Sea Fleet missiles. The Turks had 6 times more. Now the picture has not moved too much in our direction.

      Have you compared the Turks' Black Sea Fleet? Can you tell me which border boats have more missiles on them than our Black Sea Fleet?
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 2 2021 13: 51
      +4
      the problem is that the author proposes to reduce everything to the fleet of the near sea zone and rest against missile carriers, which automatically deprives the General Staff of the flexibility in decision-making
    3. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 2 2021 14: 12
      +4
      there is no discussion here, in fact there is a dispute on the topic "does a right-hander need a left hand" .. and all the arguments are in the style of "one about Thomas, the other about Erema" ... It seems that not the army and industry are discussing, but the game is a strategy of the level of Teams and Conger ..
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Galleon
    Galleon April 2 2021 10: 18
    +7
    Misrepresentation and insult of the opponent's statements, cheating in argumentation, such as
    Yes, they are identical. And this is a very simple question.
    The fact is that Timokhin is extremely biased in this matter.

    - without justification and evidence of hanging such a label,
    and, finally, persistence in illiteracy and graphomania - these are the distinctive features of the author of the presented article. Why doesn't it get to this person that the Tu-160 does not have anti-ship missiles in its ammunition load? The author does not understand the difference between a moving and a stationary target and aiming weapons at them?
    Why are such articles published? Where is the editorial job?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 2 2021 10: 21
      +1
      Great comment, thanks.
    2. sergo1914
      sergo1914 April 2 2021 11: 41
      0
      Quote: Galleon
      Why doesn't it get to this person that the Tu-160 does not have anti-ship missiles in its ammunition load?


      Really? What year are you living in now?
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 2 2021 12: 33
        +3
        He's in 2021.
        So what about the anti-ship missile?
      2. Galleon
        Galleon April 2 2021 13: 42
        +5
        Do we have Tu-160s working for sea targets? Do these strategists have such a combat drill? If we are talking about military affairs, we must think concretely: the weapon adopted and available in the arsenals in sufficient quantities, the necessary and sufficient number of forces for its use, and the practiced combat use. If at least one component fails, there will be zilch. You can’t shoot what you don’t have, no one to shoot, or they don’t know how to shoot. It is possible and necessary to add a fourth condition - there is no military cunning in the use of weapons.
        1. Scharnhorst
          Scharnhorst April 2 2021 18: 11
          +1
          Please comment on the installation of "Harpoons" on the B-52 SAC US Air Force. Or "Daggers" on the MiG-31 for sea targets. Then you are absolutely right. But the author raises the question of the development of the fleet strategy for the years ahead, and not for April 3, 2021. Even the Tu-160 we have only a dozen and a half (Tu-95 are not very suitable). And no one proposes to reformat them into MRA from strategists. If cool crews are capable of delivering CRBM strikes against strategic targets and are not devoid of the skills of striking with free-falling bombs, then they are able to master the use of missile launchers against naval targets. Most likely, such a task has not yet been set before the leadership of the Aerospace Forces. And the air version of "Onyx" and "Zircon" will not hurt to be adopted.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 2 2021 22: 35
            +1
            Please comment on the installation of "Harpoons" on the B-52 SAC US Air Force.


            Let me.
            https://topwar.ru/174595-amerikanskie-bombardirovschiki-protiv-sovetskih-avianoscev.html
            Watch the salvo required to break through the antediluvian Soviet naval air defense, then try to extrapolate to Aegis.

            Or "Daggers" on the MiG-31 for sea targets.


            Where did you get the idea that the "Dagger" can really at sea targets?

            (Tu-95 is not very suitable)


            On the contrary, they are better suited. In theory.

            If cool crews are capable of delivering CRBM strikes against strategic targets and are not deprived of the skills of striking with free-falling bombs, then they are also able to master the use of CD against sea targets.


            The question is not about the crews from the word "absolutely".

            The question is - how will your pterodactyls cope with interceptors before the launch line?
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              April 3 2021 00: 38
              -3
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The question is - how will your pterodactyls cope with interceptors before the launch line?

              When did you write an article about the battle of Russian ships in the Persian Gulf where the interceptors were?
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 3 2021 01: 20
                +3
                There is an introductory enemy without aircraft carriers and bases in the region. The Turks, for example.

                The classics must be read carefully.
                1. Alexander Vorontsov
                  April 3 2021 01: 46
                  -3
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  There is an introductory enemy without aircraft carriers and bases in the region. The Turks, for example.

                  The classics must be read carefully.

                  And in this scenario, would you prefer to "remain" without aviation than to accept help from the Tu-160?
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 3 2021 01: 55
                    +5
                    How will he get there? It is necessary that the Iranians or Afghanistan and Pakistan provide a corridor.
                    Or Turks + Egypt and further bypassing Saudi Arabia and Yemen over the Red and Arabian Seas.

                    It's kind of shaky. You simply cannot base any calculations on this.
                    1. Alexander Vorontsov
                      April 3 2021 02: 48
                      -3
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      How will he get there? It is necessary that the Iranians or Afghanistan and Pakistan provide a corridor.

                      Sudan. You'd rather have the Su-30 there.
                      It’s the Americans who base the B-52 on Guam and draw a circle with a radius of 10 km indicating the area in which these aircraft can operate.
                      And mind you ... we are stromi item MTO. Anyway.
                      So there should be a good airfield there too.
                      So and so to invest - but the ships need to build and the aviation is not necessary?

                      You yourself wrote that the important speed of deployment is to transfer the Tu-160 there directly so SO much faster than something from the Northern Fleet or the Black Sea Fleet.

                      And again, with regard to the "early deployment in the area" fleet, this is possible.
                      And with regard to aviation, "in advance" can not be placed?
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 3 2021 03: 15
                        +5
                        So it is necessary that the Sudanese give this airfield. And also, so that we have the budget to take out airbases wherever we possibly will fight with someone.

                        So far, there is only PMTO. That's how I'm behind the airfield. But it is necessary that he was. He's not there yet, and I do not know if our unwillingness to have him there or there are other reasons.

                        to transfer there Tu-160 straight here SOOO much faster than something with the Northern Fleet or the Black Sea Fleet.


                        something with the Black Sea Fleet can ALWAYS be there. This is a fundamental difference between ships and airplanes - they can be kept at the range of using weapons against the enemy for months and long before the start of hostilities.
                      2. Alexander Vorontsov
                        April 3 2021 12: 12
                        -5
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        So it is necessary for the Sudanese to give this airfield

                        No, you directly answer the question - would you rather be left without aviation than if the Tu-160 throws a pack of missiles?

                        Arguments like "so it is necessary that whatever" they are already inappropriate here, because we are already considering a scenario for which a lot of things are already needed (at least for such a battle to take place).
                      3. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 3 2021 12: 28
                        +6
                        to be left without aircraft than if the Tu-160 throws a pack of missiles?


                        No, I will choose the Tu-160. But you don’t realize that this is the most unrealistic and worst option, which is also inapplicable in a real war against a strong enemy.

                        You just do not have enough understanding of the process, you do not imagine how the search for a target is conducted, how a decision is made about the sequence of destruction of the found targets, how "contact" is maintained before the attack to ensure that the strike forces are directed at it, etc.
                        For you, all this does not exist, you have no idea how it is, so you are talking nonsense about the Tu-160

                        Let me ask you a clarifying question.

                        Do you intend to capture the target of the GOS anti-ship missile system on a carrier or on a combat path?

                        Let's start with this.
                      4. Alexander Vorontsov
                        April 3 2021 12: 56
                        -2
                        No, I will choose the Tu-160.

                        Already happy.
                        But you do not realize that this is the most unrealistic and worst option,

                        And 2 options were proposed, you suggested the Su-30 and the like.

                        What is the radius of the weapons complex for these aircraft? At what distance from the airfield can they hit the ships?
                        And how many missiles will each carry?

                        Do you intend to capture the target of the GOS anti-ship missile system on a carrier or on a combat path? Let's start with this.

                        Move in stages start with the development of Onyx and shooting at the target location.

                        and inapplicable in a real war against a strong enemy.

                        In a war against a strong enemy, only it is applicable. Did you want to fend off B-52 Su-30s? Yes? Are they applicable?
                        Another question is that now we are not able to participate in such a war.
                      5. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 3 2021 12: 59
                        +4
                        Move in stages, start by mastering the Onyxes and shooting at the target area.


                        I repeat the question - target capture on the combat path or on a carrier? The tactics and organizational structure of the formation are built from this, the technique will also differ.

                        Striking forces cannot be created without an answer to this question.

                        so what?
                      6. frog
                        frog April 3 2021 14: 52
                        +2
                        so what?

                        Question, IMHO, purely rhetorical?)) Or do you seriously expect your opponent to answer ??))
                      7. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 3 2021 15: 45
                        +3
                        Well, he claims the right to voice the concept of using aviation against surface ships, and this is the most fundamental issue.

                        Let him google, then think about what he googled, then maybe he will come to some conclusions ...
                      8. frog
                        frog April 3 2021 19: 06
                        +1
                        And you are an optimist))) Which is not bad, of course, but ......
                        Considering what has already been written on this resource - there are some .... mmm .... doubts about the proposed concepts. It is clear that these are just my cockroaches. But I know where they come from)))) And if you put other sources of information on it ... plus new trends ..... doubts smoothly develop into confidence repeat
                2. GEOID
                  GEOID April 3 2021 17: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  What weapon complex radius these planes?

                  I guess what was meant. But you are more careful with the terms.
          2. GEOID
            GEOID April 3 2021 17: 56
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            they can be kept at the range of using weapons against the enemy for months and long before the start of hostilities.

            D changes. What is D for one purpose is not D for another.
            Figures and calculations. D knock out electronic warfare, aviation, RDG, channel overload, false targets. Apply everything in a complex.
            "-" stationary in that they are stationary.
  • Galleon
    Galleon April 2 2021 22: 45
    +5
    Quote: Scharnhorst
    Comment on the installation of "Harpoons" on the B-52 SAC US Air Force

    Good evening. hi
    I think this measure is a response to the growing Chinese fleet. We need a massive missile salvo, and old people are also involved in this. Moreover, 12 Harpoon anti-ship missiles are not enough.
    Let us recall the number of B-52s in service - 66. Tu-160 - 15 units - hardly comparable. Another nuance: a few years ago, B-52s ceased to be carriers of nuclear weapons, why not assign them the task of participating in the first strike on naval targets? A smart move.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 3 2021 00: 08
      0
      Quote: Galleon
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      Comment on the installation of "Harpoons" on the B-52 SAC US Air Force

      Good evening. hi
      I think this measure is a response to the growing Chinese fleet. We need a massive missile salvo, and old people are also involved in this. Moreover, 12 Harpoon anti-ship missiles are not enough.
      Let us recall the number of B-52s in service - 66. Tu-160 - 15 units - hardly comparable. Another nuance: a few years ago, B-52s ceased to be carriers of nuclear weapons, why not assign them the task of participating in the first strike on naval targets? A smart move.

      Yes ... as well as an investment in the development of a base on about Guam.
      https://topwar.ru/178839-guam-kak-jelement-sderzhivanija-kitaja-ssha-vydelila-1-mlrd-dollarov-na-razvitie-bazy.html
      1. GEOID
        GEOID April 3 2021 18: 06
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        B-52 ceased to be carriers of nuclear weapons

        A problem at most for a couple of hours for a group of technicians.
        I admit they removed the task, but did not remove the opportunity.
        Probably a problem with extending charges. Zot'ev had articles on tritium.
        And on the stock of bombs. They did a lot in their time.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 3 2021 01: 27
      +2
      Another nuance: a few years ago, the B-52 ceased to be carriers of nuclear weapons


      They ceased to be carriers of nuclear bombs, the tasks with the ALCM remained.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    April 2 2021 23: 27
    -1
    Quote: Galleon
    Do we have Tu-160s working for sea targets? Do these strategists have such a combat drill? If we are talking about military affairs, we must think concretely: the weapon adopted and available in the arsenals in sufficient quantities, the necessary and sufficient number of forces for its use, and the practiced combat use. If at least one component fails, there will be zilch. You can’t shoot what you don’t have, no one to shoot, or they don’t know how to shoot. It is possible and necessary to add a fourth condition - there is no military cunning in the use of weapons.


    They said brilliantly. I'm serious.
    I was thinking how to formulate a thought for the next article in the cycle, and you won't be able to do better than that.
    For this I will refer directly to you.

    Regarding to shoot something that does not exist - Timokhin was never at all embarrassed by "shooting something that does not exist." The concept of operational squadrons from the times of Gorshkov.
    We have an aggravation with Turkey (again). And we are transferring the repaired Kuznetsov with a normally trained air group to the western part of the Mediterranean (to the west of Greece, which is hostile to the Turks). "Nakhimov", with systems and weapons brought to an operational state,


    To pass off as working "tactics" that worked "then."
    At the same time, he is not even able to understand what he himself is writing about.

    This tactic involves
    1) better situational awareness in the region
    2) a powerful enough group

    Well, let's shift it to the Mediterranean Sea?
    A dozen NATO countries that graze the entire water area. On reconnaissance, we are losing.
    The impact potential is simply ridiculous.
    So what is this "tactic" about in practice?
    1. Galleon
      Galleon April 3 2021 12: 53
      +4
      Hello, Alexander. Your antagonism with your namesake, turning into a personal relationship, is upset and depressing. If you could hold on to the discussion! After all, as a sinner, it seems to me that your counterpart A. Timokhin is right in the main. I understand that it is easy to break off: I myself broke down from indignation when I wrote the first commentary on your article.
      So you write:
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      This tactic involves
      1) better situational awareness in the region
      2) a powerful enough group
      Well, let's shift it to the Mediterranean Sea?
      A dozen NATO countries that graze the entire water area. On reconnaissance, we are losing.
      The impact potential is simply ridiculous.

      And no one is trying to apply such tactics to the Mediterranean. Mediterranean is TRANSPARENT for NATO, tracking of our ships in this sea is carried out CONTINUOUSLY. The tactics described by you can work in the Baltic, in the White, Barents Black and Okhotsk seas. Perhaps that's all. But these are seas that are extremely important to us. With that outfit of forces and means that we have, we would have to solve this problem, without a swing to Mediterranean.
      Try to understand Alexander - he is primarily distinguished by a sober approach and a deep knowledge of our forces and means. And your reproach to him is that he thinks in old categories ... after all, something new, something new that would change something - he is not there. "Dagger" for naval targets? Massively? Honestly - show at least one results of firing a "Dagger" at an anchored target - and I will believe, and be glad, and repent for my disbelief.
      And the thought you like is not original, such thoughts were put into us by our Teachers. Take it without any links. hi
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        April 3 2021 13: 45
        -1
        Quote: Galleon
        your counterpart A. Timokhin is right in the main.

        There are things he is right about. The question is what exactly do you mean?

        And no one is trying to apply such tactics to the Mediterranean.

        1) Where then should we apply it? I wrote in the article - let's move from the foundation to the top. What happens right outside our door has the highest priority. Before sending ships to Australia, let's think about what's behind the door
        And behind the door there is complete tin.

        We have no intelligence advantage.
        Not an advantage in the "bayonets". A volley, pennants, etc. as you wish.
        Why then this tactic? She will work against us - which I am hinting at by posing the question - assess the combat stability of our fleets in these regions, together with the bases.

        No one is trying to apply such tactics to the Mediterranean.

        A lot of interesting things apply to the Mediterranean.
        For example, you write
        tracking of our ships in this sea is carried out CONTINUOUSLY

        Read how Alexander answers the question in the topic
        https://topwar.ru/181353-neudobnye-voprosy-dlja-storonnikov-avianosnogo-lobbi.html#comment-id-11367454
        The larger it is, the higher the chances of getting into a missile ambush instead of killing the HVU. Or fly to an empty place, at best.

        Those. NATO planes fall into a missile ambush in the Mediterranean.
        Well, our conversation is in the original in the same place.


        With that outfit of forces and means that we have, we would have to solve this problem, without a swing to Mediterranean.

        Yes. That is why Roman and I were of the opinion in one of the articles that the fleet of the first line of defense, let's say ... this is the objective reality of Russia, we cannot think about anything else and we need to finish it.

        And your reproach to him is that he thinks in old categories ...

        There is a little different matter - the tactics of the times of Gorshkov do not work without that fleet. This is the same as that you cannot shoot something that does not exist.
        1. Galleon
          Galleon April 3 2021 15: 15
          +2
          [quote = Alexander Vorontsov] There are things in which he is right. The question is what exactly do you mean? [/ Quote]
          First of all, Alexander's articles, with their integrity of thought and argumentation, very well correspond to the absurd opinions expressed at the VO about the modern role of aircraft carriers (as the pinnacle of the development of the surface fleet, I'm not afraid to say) and show the tactics of using the fleet by the enemy in modern conditions.

          [[quote] quote] No one is trying to apply such tactics to the Mediterranean. [/ quote]
          1) Where then should we apply it? I wrote in the article - let's move from the foundation to the top. [/ quote]
          Wow belay - I, in the next sentence of the text, list the names of the seas in which the use of this tactic is possible. And if even simpler, the use of the tactics described by you is possible only where an advantage in the air can be ensured. Both quantitative and qualitative.

          [quote] [quote] And your reproach to him that he thinks in old categories ... [/ quote]
          There is a little different matter - the tactics of the times of Gorshkov do not work without that fleet. This is the same as that you cannot shoot something that does not exist. [/ Quote] [/ quote]
          I don't understand the term "tactics of the times of Gorshkov" a little. Sergei Georgievich took out entire squadrons for exercises at sea, which is now lost. In combination with the name of this admiral, it was more fitting to talk about general naval operations, and not about tactics. Since then, reconnaissance means have been strongly developed, the enemy has become more secretive, it is more difficult to detect him. In this I see the main difference - and Timokhin writes and talks about it, with calculations and calculations. You are just in a hurry in your thoughts and do not have time to understand it. Try to understand.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            April 3 2021 16: 12
            +1
            Wow, belay - in the next sentence of the text I list by name the seas in which the use of this tactic is possible. And if even simpler, the use of the tactics described by you is possible only where an advantage in the air can be ensured. Both quantitative and qualitative.

            I could not understand what tactics are in question? On the suppression of the Tu-160 enemy airfields, taking into account that it is aviation that will pose the main threat in these regions?

            I don't understand the term "tactics of the times of Gorshkov" a little. Sergei Georgievich took out entire squadrons for exercises at sea, which is now lost. In combination with the name of this admiral, it is more appropriate to talk about general naval operations, and not about tactics.

            You probably haven't read the backstory.
            https://topwar.ru/178933-chernovik-1.html

            so Timokhin writes and talks about it, with calculations and calculations

            Yes, he writes. In fact of the matter. And then there is "Timokhin's console".
            I gave you a link, read what he writes about a missile ambush organized by OUR ships on enemy aircraft.
            By the way, what do you think of this?
    2. GEOID
      GEOID April 3 2021 18: 11
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      So what is this "tactic" about in practice?

      Only their different attitude to the value of life and unacceptable damage.
      Which is what someone shows, judging from his childhood memories of a rat that was cornered.
      The subconscious mind of childhood translates this behavior into the behavior of a supposedly "scumbag".
      But Peshkov and Azerbaijan show that this does not work. Against the same "scumbag".
  • Niko
    Niko April 2 2021 12: 37
    +1
    Quote: Galleon
    Misrepresentation and insult of the opponent's statements, cheating in argumentation, such as
    Yes, they are identical. And this is a very simple question.
    The fact is that Timokhin is extremely biased in this matter.

    - without justification and evidence of hanging such a label,
    and, finally, persistence in illiteracy and graphomania - these are the distinctive features of the author of the presented article. Why doesn't it get to this person that the Tu-160 does not have anti-ship missiles in its ammunition load? The author does not understand the difference between a moving and a stationary target and aiming weapons at them?
    Why are such articles published? Where is the editorial job?

    Yes, the author of a lot about his beloved Tu160 either does not know or is silent. No underwaffle of it is for sure.
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 April 2 2021 13: 02
    +1
    Why doesn't it get to this person that the Tu-160 does not have anti-ship missiles in its ammunition load?
    Doesn't have - so add. What is the problem?
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 April 3 2021 12: 49
      +4
      Quote: Falcon5555
      Doesn't have - so add. What is the problem?
      Don't you see a serious problem? 1. Tu-160 is very small, even for nuclear deterrence. Okay, we decided to hand them over to the navy.
      2. Transferred to the fleet, then a normal (and not X-22) long-range anti-ship missile is needed (the loss of each such aircraft is irreparable, the launch range should exclude the carrier from being intercepted by carrier-based aircraft). Let's say Onyx was redesigned for aircraft basing, 250 pieces were riveted.
      3. We need to stuff this new Onyx into the plane, we have to take out the old "carousels" along the X-55 and put new ones under the new Onyx, and then try to ensure the stability of the aircraft with them (it was not possible to ensure the stability of the aircraft with them on the Tu-95MS, only 1 launcher was made there revolving type).
      4. We stuffed the rocket, we need to make sure that the plane can launch it, we change the avionics to work with the new rocket.
      5. Now it is necessary to dock the aircraft with the naval communications, reconnaissance and target designation. Again we are changing the avionics and communications.
      6. And now the longest thing - we are preparing pilots of naval aviation on the Tu-160 (no, those who pilot them as strategists will not be suitable).
      That's all.
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 April 4 2021 12: 45
        +1
        no, those who pilot them as strategists won't fit
        Why won't they fit? The blood is not blue, is it (in a good way)? Vaughn Zhukov - and the blood is not blue at all, but the most peasant - and a couple of classes in a parish school, a furry school (shoemaker), plus some short-term command courses for advanced training, and bam - already the chief of staff. laughing Or a modern defense minister, and not an American minister, who is on the farm, but ours, who, it seems, really commands the troops, but did not serve in the army at all. laughing (Although this one is capable) But this is all off-topic. It is necessary to prepare all the pilots so that they can fight over the sea. This is necessary now, and not only if such a strategy is adopted. If the existing Carcasses cannot work against ships, that is no good!
        And in general, the conversation was, as far as I understand, about a long-term strategy. The question was what to build: aircraft carriers with aircraft carrier aircraft and navy, or aircraft capable of fighting against ships. Accordingly, the answer of the author of this article is aviation, and strategic aviation at that. So if "carousels" do not suit you - no question - change the "carousels" to universal ones.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 April 4 2021 12: 59
          +2
          Quote: Falcon5555
          Why won't they fit?
          The Second World War showed that land pilots over the sea are not just useless, but even harmful: they are lost, targets are incorrectly identified (and okay, when a destroyer was mistaken for a battleship, worse, when a battleship is for a destroyer), they cannot get on the ship. Now they even report where the accident really cannot: the sailors have their own squares on the map, the pilots have their own.
          Quote: Falcon5555
          It is necessary to prepare all the pilots so that they can fight over the sea.
          It will be prohibitively expensive. You cannot prepare a pilot at a desk, he must fly.
          1. Falcon5555
            Falcon5555 April 4 2021 13: 18
            -1
            I do not agree with anything.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 4 2021 16: 07
              +1
              But this is a fact.
          2. Falcon5555
            Falcon5555 April 4 2021 14: 42
            0
            Now they even report where the accident really cannot: the sailors have their own squares on the map, the pilots have their own.
            That is, and therefore it is necessary to build aircraft carriers ... because sailors have their own squares ... laughing Maybe it will be cheaper to redo the squares? laughing
            World War II showed that land pilots over the sea are not just useless, but even harmful
            Who split the battleship Marat into two battleships Marat? An ordinary land pilot, huh? He probably had no idea that he was useless. And because of whom the Black Sea Fleet and the shipping company suffered losses as after the Battle of Stalingrad and were forced to isolate themselves (as they say now laughing ) in Georgian ports? Who is the virus? As I understand it, it was all ordinary land aviation - bastards with bast shoes - everything as it should be. Germany did not have a separate naval aviation at all, because Goering stated that everything that flies was mine, and Giler had some incomprehensible trust in this comrade. Who was the hardest hit on the British fleet off Crete? Those who did this did not even suspect that they could confuse the battleship with the destroyer. And if they were confused, then probably the worse it was for both of them.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 4 2021 16: 08
              0
              Marat was bombed by the luckiest pilot in history, in addition, he was at the base.
              Only those Luftwaffe units that specialized in strikes against NK had good results against ships at sea.
              1. Falcon5555
                Falcon5555 April 4 2021 19: 12
                0
                Marat bombed the luckiest pilot in history
                Excuse.
                besides, he was standing in the base.
                So what? In that base, on the contrary, it was safer for him - he was covered by a cloud of anti-aircraft artillery (which, as you know, had a cat on board) and aviation. In addition, I missed - from what date is it now forbidden to bomb ships in the base?
                Only those Luftwaffe units that specialized in strikes against NK had good results against ships at sea.

                Experts on military history will say more precisely, but in my opinion, something like these units appeared in the Germans only during the epics around Malta and PQ-17, and, apparently, our "theaters" did not have them.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 4 2021 20: 34
                  0
                  In that base, on the contrary, it was safer for him - he was covered by a cloud of anti-aircraft artillery (which, as you know, had a cat on board) and aviation. In addition, I missed - from what date is it now forbidden to bomb ships in the base?


                  The base is the most dangerous place.

                  our "theaters" did not have them.


                  There were, see "Operation Verp", our losses were associated precisely with the fact that the Germans threw "specialists" into the theater of operations.
                  1. Falcon5555
                    Falcon5555 April 5 2021 00: 03
                    0
                    The base is the most dangerous place.
                    If the base is asleep, then yes. Otherwise, it depends on the circumstances. Kronstadt did not sleep. In the Leningrad region, to the surprise of the Germans, there was also a radar that warned.
                    There were, see "Operation Verp", our losses were associated precisely with the fact that the Germans threw "specialists" into the theater of operations.
                    Oh, yes. The most colorful fake of the Black Sea Fleet, perhaps, could have involved guest performers from southern Italy, in the sense, German land pilots trained in the war around Malta - III./StG3. They could train in the Malta area to throw bombs at ships from their Laptezhniki. During the time "Verpa" was located in the Crimea. They acted, apparently, very bravely, but they also suffered considerable losses.
                    But this does not cancel, and perhaps even confirms the idea that it is necessary to train ground pilots to work over the sea.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 5 2021 14: 10
                      0
                      But this does not cancel, and perhaps even confirms the idea that it is necessary to train ground pilots to work over the sea.


                      There are only 24 hours in a day. Therefore, it is necessary something, but they will never reach the specialized naval units, whether the latter are trained properly.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 3 2021 13: 18
      +1
      The entire board must be redesigned.
      But this is not even the main thing. How to use it?
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 April 4 2021 12: 51
        0
        How to use it?
        What's the problem? How are aircraft used against ships? - That's how to apply. Good radar and radio direction finding on board. Then develop tactics. Type one scouts at high altitude, transfers targets to low-flying ones, they attack, at this time the "scout" distracts attention and flees, if they are chased after him, with his 2+ Mach. Something like that.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 4 2021 16: 06
          +1
          Then develop tactics.


          First tactics, then tactical and technical assignment on board.
          1. Falcon5555
            Falcon5555 April 4 2021 17: 43
            0
            First, understand what you need; then do what is possible; then he will learn to fight by what has turned out against what has turned out from a possible enemy, that is, tactics.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 4 2021 20: 36
              -2
              No, first the application model, and these are tactical schemes.
              Then TTZ from them.
              For example, do we need the plane to independently attack air targets or not? Should the missile perform target acquisition on the combat path or on the carrier? In the first case, do we need a datalink for a rocket or not?
              From this, the outline of the required machine is drawn.
              1. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl April 4 2021 23: 38
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                No, first the application model, and these are tactical schemes.
                Then TTZ from them.
                that is, something went wrong with the project of the corvette 20380 initially ???
                Otherwise (following your logic), no one thought about the model of its application AT ALL ...
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 April 2 2021 13: 27
    +1
    Now it will not be possible to create a system on board the Tu 160 for tracking sea targets with reference to Liana. Americans are engaged in a similar direction why are we worse?
    1. Galleon
      Galleon April 2 2021 13: 36
      +4
      Vadim, we are certainly not worse in something, I agree with you, but we do not have many strategists to orient them to multiple sea targets. This requires naval aviation with a "caliber" smaller than a strategic missile carrier. And most importantly - how can you seriously talk about what does not yet exist?
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 2 2021 21: 01
        +3
        Quote: Galleon
        This requires naval aviation with a "caliber" smaller than a strategic missile carrier.

        Two words.
        1. Yes, the Tu-22M3 was a classic MRA, now there is a 22M3M. But for some reason he is not allowed to form the MPA divisions in the fleets and the regiment for Kasp fl. The MRA regiments were also formed on the basis of the Su-22M, both as missile carriers and as scouts ... Now they are supposed to be replaced by the Su-34. But again, this is in perspective.
        2. Our "strategists" Tu-95 at one time were carriers of anti-ship missiles. They can carry Calibers, why can't you put an LMS along the profile?
        Another question is why is it not done? Apparently because the launch lines have shifted and the Su-30SM or MiG-31K will be able to use anti-ship missiles ... with the 9-S-7660 aeroballistic missile system on large NK.
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        April 3 2021 00: 03
        -1
        we don't have many strategists to target multiple naval targets
        Yes. And for this, it is important to start building them in order to at least leave the same number for another 30 years.
        It needs naval aviation with a "caliber" smaller than a strategic missile carrier

        Ideally yes.
        But the point of naval aviation is that the "carrier + ASP" weapon system would allow ships to be hit before they reach the launch line of the CD through our infrastructure. And the Su-30 does not allow this.
        Timokhin's quote
        This is a theoretical line at which an aircraft of the Su-27 family (the same Su-30SM or Su-34) can launch an attack without refueling in the air. About 1 km from Severomorsk-000, maybe a little further.

        I am already silent about this drawing of him
        https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2020-11/1606513996_-predel.jpg
        To fly around the NATO country ... it is unclear only who will sail to our north? Turks? Japanese? Australians?

        In other areas, he simply could not draw even 1500 km so as not to run into a foreign shore with a dozen airfields ...
        And the Tu-160, if based in Sudan, will be able to attack an IBM in the ocean ...
        Timokhin himself wrote an article about a ship battle involving our ships in the Persian Gulf.
        But he apparently would prefer to leave the ships without aircraft at all than agree to let the Tu-160 throw a pack of anti-ship missiles "on the move" before "ours" converge with "theirs" ...


        Therefore, choosing from what "is" - the su-30-34 (Timokhin's version) and the Tu-160s under construction and available, the strategists are more suitable for this role (out of 2 evils).

        Besides, it is not the same and EVIL.
        The reserve radius can always be converted while in the area and waiting for the indication target. Or entry from different sides.
    2. Soldatov V.
      Soldatov V. April 2 2021 15: 31
      0
      In the Crimea, there was a regiment or division of the Tu-22m with anti-ship missiles. Three rockets per plane.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 3 2021 07: 48
        +3
        Quote: V.
        In the Crimea, there was a regiment or division of the Tu-22m with anti-ship missiles. Three rockets per plane.

        Two. I talked with the Tu-22M pilots and they gave the following scheme: standard (range and supersonic) 1 missile and a couple of bombs, abnormal (either range or supersonic) two missiles. Three - only in overload, well, for example, if you urgently need to transfer them from the warehouse to the airfield. So it is more correct to count the missiles in a salvo, two per side.
        1. GEOID
          GEOID April 3 2021 18: 18
          +4
          Quote: abc_alex
          Three - only in overload,

          Transport option.
          One per alarm load. Time 2.30-2.50 is no longer in time and there are not so many ready-made ones in RTB.
          Tu-16 two. The only real one. But with a conventional warhead.
          On three sides, it was planned to give a lift on a rocket with a red head. But they did not have time.


          We are sitting on the preliminary (February 79) runs into the classroom. AP, and shouts: "Everyone to the airfield in accordance with the planned combat, take readiness ,,," ..
          We ????,
          Kom: "What the hell ... is not clear, combat alarm."
          I ran home (for a headset) a tablet with me ... Wife with a question ??

          Me: HZ-said the combat alarm ... "

          We run to the bus stop (from where we left for the AU), we look and the "Romanians" (the neighboring regiment) move out ..

          Where???
          Same way..
          We come to the airplanes, t / s - hangs the rockets ... and they turn the EXPLOSERS in ... we ask RTVkashnikov, - what kind of BC ?? ..

          "First" ... here, as they say .- "# and thoughtful .."

          Next comes the command - the commander with the navigator for instructions.

          On the instructions, we are told ... our regiment with K-10SNB missiles, - To strike at Shanghai, KSR-5 “Romanians” at Beijing, then everyone will land in Khabarovsk, a suspension of 10 tons in a bomb version and take off for a second strike. ..
          The routes were quickly drawn (almost straight sticks), the ISHR was counted, - on the plane .. start, taxi, flight in radio silence, start the engines on a green rocket ..
          We took readiness, the technician shouts "green rocket" .. and a little bit of trouble .. and drove, - they started, steered .. we were the first .. behind us "Romanians" ... taxied more than 60 planes ... our AP on the executive ... the rest ... are behind him ... and the navigator says to me: “Commander, p-ts, this is war ...
          It became sad .. they stood for 15 minutes threshed ... apparently someone at the top had brains ..
          We look at the "red" - one, the second, the third ... with the KDP .. "fu.u.y.y .." - exhaled ... we drove to the parking lot ...
          True, we spent 3-4 days in the DSakh (they did not take off the missiles), and only there they told us about the bad Chinese and the good Vietnamese ... how many years have passed, but in the memory everything has been preserved to the smallest detail ...
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            April 4 2021 15: 05
            +1
            Quote: GEOID
            and departure for a second strike ...

            And how long was the second strike planned?
            1. GEOID
              GEOID April 4 2021 16: 54
              0
              I dont know.
              This was written by the former NSh regiment, Knevichi.
              I am an anti-submarine man.
              Here at the BEZ-310 forum, he is a MRA. Ask if he answers.
              Most likely "When ready." Especially in Khabarovsk. And this is a gas station, except for the suspension.
              And "pour" fifty Tu-16s? Even if there are TZ-22 for 18 tons, well, three or four pieces.
              One plane has 36 tons of fuel. By time, download one TK ton per minute.
              This was centralized among the bourgeoisie at that time.
              Seen in Tula (Greenland).
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                April 4 2021 17: 03
                0
                And how long does the ASP suspension take?
                Regarding centralized refueling, yes ((I've already written a couple of articles here about the lag of our aviation in the field of airfield services ((
                https://topwar.ru/177845-kak-rabotaet-voennaja-aviacija.html
                1. GEOID
                  GEOID April 4 2021 21: 13
                  +1
                  Who minus it for you? And why?

                  Suspension. IL-38 fast. Cassettes with RSL if the search engine, if the PLOR was brought in, 40 minutes.
                  If search and shock, plus AT or APR. Likewise. The hatches are different, the suspension is parallel.
                  If RY or RN (special) is longer. Disguise, reception and transmission. KBU check (run).
                  Until one o'clock.
                  If there are mines, then decent. Tighten the winch cable for each. An hour and a half.
                  The Be-12 also did not last long. Difficulty - the hatch is low, but through the top one I have never seen.
                  Here in the video there is a little AT-1 loading and torpedo throwing.
                  Who threw whom ... we torpedo or she us ...
                  https://valcat-8.livejournal.com/7757.html
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey April 2 2021 13: 32
    +1
    He does not understand the difference between naval and strategic aviation in general, but what are the nuances you are asking about).
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 2 2021 13: 57
    +2
    no, Well, here is a discussion about what can be done, the missiles can be hung up, especially if we recall the same Gremlins ... here the point is different, neither shipbuilders can make planes, not aviators can make ships, but taking into account the workload of both, we will need to build new factories for the sake of a theoretical gain ... it's like at one time ditching cannon artillery because of missiles ..
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 April 2 2021 10: 20
    +4
    "Timokhin's console"


    ))) Under the table )))
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 2 2021 10: 21
    +5
    Tanks changed this ratio, which was brilliantly used by Germany, implementing the tactics of blitzkrieg - "lightning war".


    This is no longer true, blitzkrieg is not tanks, but primarily mechanized heavy artillery, which will break through the defenses, which tanks, especially those disabled like the early Pz-III, will pick with heavy losses and, most importantly, for a long time, so that the enemy will pull up reserves.

    there is no need to destroy all air defenses along the perimeter of the country, it is enough to "pierce" in one place with a focused strike and continue to strike "in depth" through the gap formed


    This will undoubtedly be a success, but first, the attacker is not always aware of the results of his strikes. The missiles were gone, and whether targets were hit within 1 km, or not, this still needs to be reconnoitered. Secondly, fighters, while the airfield is working just do not care, they will fly anywhere in a certain radius, and the air defense system can move several tens of kilometers in a couple of hours. And they, most likely, will move as soon as possible, since the exposed positions of the air defense missile systems are destroyed air defense systems.

    the bases of the fleet will be simply swept away (along with all stocks of missiles)


    Deepened storage facilities are likely to survive. After all, the rockets are not laid out on the piers.

    Despite the fact that in terms of "combat power" the brigade (due to the presence of armored vehicles) significantly surpassed the forces of the militants, consisting almost exclusively of infantry


    I have doubts that there were not much more bandits there, otherwise the brigade would have fought back itself, even if it had been specially sent for slaughter.

    But Japan is a sword


    Well, the sword is wielded by the one who owns it, and not vice versa. And if Japan has claims against us, then the United States does not support them, they do not guarantee the Japanese anything except what is written in the treaties. Whether Japan has the Kuril Islands or not - it doesn't matter to the Americans.

    As for aviation, I have doubts that its concentration can be quickly revealed. The satellites do not hang around the clock, which means that if the same IAP-22 flies from the Far East to the Crimea, and inflatable dummies are rolled into the empty parking lots, then the satellites will not notice anything, in the case of simple awnings at airfields, which are easy to justify by the protection of those. personnel from rain and sun, the very presence of equipment at airfields may remain unclear for a long time. The transportation of the ASP to the theater of operations, well, you never know the trucks stop by at the bases. Another scenario is also possible, a period of tension, when the forces of the parties are dragging along, but they seem to have the right on their territory, but there will be a war, or not, from the fact that the conventional Turks will know what, for example, we have collected from the Black Sea all their Su-35s and brought up a couple of Su-34 regiments, it won't help them much if they don't know when these planes will fly to bomb and shoot down at once. And no one bothers the parties even at this time to relocate aircraft from an airfield to an airfield within the theater of operations, so today missiles must be sent to one place, and tomorrow to another. With ships, such feints simply will not work.

    The USSR also saw German divisions near the border, but he could not predict anything until the fur arrived. connections, that is, precisely that relatively small force that multiplied the speed of the course of the war on June 22nd.
    1. Xscorpion
      Xscorpion April 2 2021 12: 02
      -1
      The satellite may not hang around the clock, but it loses control over a certain point on the surface for a maximum of an hour. After that, for about half an hour, this point is in the satellite's field of view. During this time, it is impossible to covertly organize even preparation for take-off, at the slightest reconnaissance signs, additional surveillance will be established over this area. , including from airplanes. Or simply an additional satellite will be reoriented to this area, the satellite orbit correction is a matter of several minutes.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 2 2021 12: 40
        0
        You have no clouds, and the satellites instantly turn around.
        1. Xscorpion
          Xscorpion April 6 2021 07: 55
          +1
          Quote: EvilLion
          You have no clouds, and the satellites instantly turn around.

          And we have continuous clouds like on Venus all year round? The average turnaround time, depending on the altitude of the orbit and the latitude over which the satellite flies from 80 minutes in polar orbits to 90 minutes at equatorial latitudes.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion April 6 2021 07: 58
            0
            In fact, there are almost always some clouds, and they prefer to take good satellite images for advertising somewhere in the Persian Gulf region. Night is also not 24 hours a day, but it comes with an enviable regularity.
            1. Xscorpion
              Xscorpion April 6 2021 08: 31
              +1
              Quote: EvilLion
              In fact, there are almost always some clouds, and they prefer to take good satellite images for advertising somewhere in the Persian Gulf region. Night is also not 24 hours a day, but it comes with an enviable regularity.

              In addition to the visible range, the survey takes place in the infrared range and the method of radar sensing. Satellite imagery now, even underground and under water, allows you to find oil and other deposits of other fossils. So clouds are not a serious obstacle.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 3 2021 12: 25
        -1
        but loses control over a certain point on the surface for a maximum of an hour.


        Who told you such nonsense?
        1. Xscorpion
          Xscorpion April 6 2021 07: 50
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          but loses control over a certain point on the surface for a maximum of an hour.


          Who told you such nonsense?

          This is the standard standard, the permissible orbital displacement error is no more than 1 degree per day. After that, the orbit is adjusted. Or do you really think that military satellites fly like God sends, and not along pre-laid and corrected trajectories? The fact that the satellites have a mandatory check -points over certain points of the earth's surface, which they must pass at each turn?
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 6 2021 10: 44
            -1
            This is how a low-orbit spacecraft (any) flies over the Earth approximately.

            1. ccsr
              ccsr April 6 2021 11: 44
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              This is how a low-orbit spacecraft (any) flies over the Earth approximately.

              You are illiterate in this matter, because elliptical orbits have been used not only in communication systems, but also in intelligence systems since Soviet times.


              Moreover, a civilian satellite was recently launched over the Arctic in the same orbit.
              The first colored satellites of the Arctic region of the Earth were received on March 23 from the Russian satellite "Arktika-M". The satellite's equipment makes it possible to observe the planet with a frequency of 15 to 30 minutes in 10 spectral ranges - three visible and seven infrared. Surface resolution ranges from 1 to 4 km.
              Such capabilities of the device make it an indispensable tool for monitoring the weather and ice conditions, tracking climate changes, as well as remote sensing of selected areas of the earth's surface. A special elongated elliptical orbit makes Arktika-M a real “eye of Russia” in northern latitudes.
              .... During the earth's day, a satellite in such an orbit manages to turn around the Earth twice, but because of these features, it "hangs" over the Northern Hemisphere for about 16 hours, spending only 8 hours on the equatorial regions and the Southern Hemisphere and two consecutive "descents" through the perigee.

              So leave the word "any" to yourself, because at perigee the satellite can be in low-orbit, and at apogee it can fly to geostationary orbits.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 6 2021 14: 55
                0
                The fact that the satellite does not fly through the orbit over the same point does not negate this. And the dispute was about that.
                1. Xscorpion
                  Xscorpion April 10 2021 15: 42
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  The fact that the satellite does not fly through the orbit over the same point does not negate this. And the dispute was about that.

                  Well, it doesn't fly straight over the same point. It flies a few arc minutes south, north, east or west. If you deviate more than one degree from the original orbit, the orbit is corrected. What do these few arc minutes mean? Which is a few square meters. km will the view shift, in contrast to the original orbit? If there is an aircraft carrier or other important target, they will return to the place very quickly, and even an additional satellite will be transferred if necessary.
            2. Xscorpion
              Xscorpion April 10 2021 15: 36
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              This is how a low-orbit spacecraft (any) flies over the Earth approximately.


              You live in the middle of the last century. You probably still think that intelligence from a satellite is received only when it leaves orbit, and not through digital transmission? And you probably do not know that, for example, satellites in polar orbits are generally 24/7 see any point under their orbit, regardless of where they are at the moment.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 3 2021 07: 59
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      blitzkrieg is not tanks, but first of all mechanized heavy artillery, which will break through the defenses, which tanks, especially such disabled ones as the early Pz-III, will pick with heavy losses and, most importantly, for a long time, so that the enemy will pull up reserves.

      Nope. :)
      Blitzkrieg is not a tactic at all. This is the military doctrine of the state level. This is mobilization and deployment. This is the principle of the formation of the army and the policy of the state. Outrun the enemy strategically, carry out an invasion faster than the enemy can prepare for defense. Choose the target of the invasion not based on the task of destroying the army, but on the basis of the task of destroying the state, destroying the control system. The Chioba will end the war in victory before the enemy knows they are defeated. To wage the war so fast that interwar reserves are called out for the entire campaign.
      That's what lightning war is. And whether tanks, cannons, what's the difference? In Poland, they cost horses (:)) ...
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 3 2021 19: 36
        0
        There is always mobilization in the armies of the late 19th and mid-20th centuries. The problem is that if your armies consist of infantry from the WWII era with 76 mm cannons powered by a couple of horses, and a few 6 '' on some columns of horses harnessed in a train, then they are ahead of the enemy by a week, or even two, you simply will not have time to inflict defeat on him, you will occupy some part of his territory, and then you will have a fight on equal terms, because he also called in the reservists, pulled up the reserves. In the years of WWI, this was superimposed on the fact that 1 machine-gun crew can hold at least 10, at least 20 times the large enemy forces.

        And it is quite another matter if your army in these 2 weeks can advance half a thousand kilometers, occupying vast territories and destroying (mostly prisoners) the maximum number of enemy forces. This is called a blitzkrieg. Without acc. technical means it is impossible. Napoleon, for example, IMHO sat on a hedgehog due to the fact that he did not understand the rapid defeat of European armies in 1-2 battles and the development of success until the enemy recruited new soldiers, they simply could not work in Russia, moreover, the capture of Moscow in any way did not force Russia to surrender.
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex April 4 2021 01: 37
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          There is always mobilization in the armies of the late 19th and mid-20th centuries.

          Well, everything is more cunning there. In the 19th century, the sequence of actions, as a rule, was as follows: states quarreled, war was declared, mobilization was carried out, and DB began. It could take weeks from the first step to the last. Blitzkrieg was invented precisely so that the mobilization process did not postpone the start of the database. That is, from the moment "the states quarreled" until the moment the DB began, time should not have passed at all. Even the war was not declared. Ideally, the strike should have been applied to the enemy army in peacetime, and disorganized the command structure.
          And when there is no serious resistance in front of your army, you will fly all over France on horseback with a whistle.




          Quote: EvilLion
          Napoleon, for example, IMHO sat on a hedgehog due to the fact that he did not understand the rapid defeat of European armies in 1-2 battles and the development of success until the enemy recruited new soldiers, they simply could not work in Russia, moreover, the capture of Moscow in any way did not force Russia to surrender.


          And then he could not come up with anything else. He thought in terms of the European wars of the modern era. Then all wars were like that.
    3. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 4 2021 09: 32
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      This is no longer true, blitzkrieg is not tanks, but primarily mechanized heavy artillery, which will break through the defenses, which tanks, especially those disabled like the early Pz-III, will pick with heavy losses and, most importantly, for a long time, so that the enemy will pull up reserves.

      You have the wrong idea about the blitzkrieg.

      The essence of the modern blitzkrieg strategy lies in the autonomous actions of large tank formations (tank groups) with the active support of aviation [Approx. one]. Tank units break through behind enemy lines to great depth, without engaging in battle for heavily fortified positions. The breakout goal is capture of control centers and violation of enemy supply lines... Fortifications, defense centers, and the main forces of the enemy, which find themselves without control and supply, quickly lose their combat effectiveness.


      Tanks, even such disabled ones as three-ruble bills, inflated the pace of hostilities to a level when the enemy command simply did not have time to coordinate actions and adapt to the changing situation, by the time the defense reacted had already been broken through in a weak spot and the front was falling apart.

      "Slotting" the fortified positions as the central idea of ​​the plan is not implied at all - neither by artillery nor by tanks. The fortified positions will then surrender themselves, or really large calibers will be brought up to the already surrounded, like near Leningrad, and then it’s definitely ala ulyu.
  • Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko April 2 2021 10: 28
    0
    Those. Will there be a war? And the whole world to dust or half the world? And nuclear or not nuclear? The parties agree to fight without the use of "vigorous loaf". And what about the goals of the war? There is no longer communism in Russia, there are enough capitalists. New imperialist?
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 2 2021 13: 36
      +1
      And what interferes with the vigorous loaf, just a particularly powerful weapon and that's it.
  • kig
    kig April 2 2021 10: 30
    +2
    Regular readers are already aware of the debate that has begun on the role of the fleet in the overall system of the Russian Armed Forces.

    yes ... it's a pity that the admirals don't read topwar, otherwise they would have adjusted everything according to the debate long ago.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 2 2021 21: 17
      +1
      Quote: kig
      it is a pity that the admirals do not read the topwar, otherwise they would have adjusted everything according to the debate long ago.

      Why don't they read it? Some read it. But what about "would regulate" - this is to the Brilliant Headquarters ... If there was, like grandfather, the Ministry of the Navy, the admirals, of course, would steer ... and so, only "report" their proposals on the matter.
      Yeah, that's it.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 3 2021 01: 22
        +1
        To the brilliant headquarters


        Need to remember.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 3 2021 11: 52
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Need to remember.

          AA, hi
          This is a very common expression between "friends", when the General Staff returned documents "back" (without consideration on the merits) with an unsubscribe, such as: will be considered or submitted for detailed study in ....
          Yeah, "the affairs of bygone days are crowded in my memory ..." (c)
  • Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall April 2 2021 10: 43
    +2
    ... instead of increasing Onyx (8 meters) to the size of the Tu-160 compartment (12 meters), Timokhin proposes to castrate it up to 6 (cut off 2 meters of the accelerator) in order to "be able" to hang it on a small plane ...


    By itself, such a modification of Onyx would make sense. It does not always make sense to drive the Tu-160, the possibility of defeating the NK in tactical aviation with a highly effective modern anti-ship missile system is very important. In addition, it is potentially possible to consider the possibility of doubling the ammunition load of the Tu-160 with such "reduced" anti-ship missiles. Those. in one scenario, the Tu-160 carries 12 full-fledged Onyx / Zircon anti-ship missiles, in the other, 24 shortened Onyx-M missiles.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 2 2021 13: 31
      0
      Hypersonic missiles are much more important.
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall April 2 2021 22: 53
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        Hypersonic missiles are much more important.


        So yes, but there are nuances:
        1. Zircon has not yet been worked out, and Onyx has been in the series for a long time.
        2. It is not a fact that Zircon can be "shortened" (the "long" version remains).
        3. The meaning of the reduction in size is to increase the ammunition load so that they can be placed 2 longitudinally on one drum. That the BC was 24 pcs. Or as with the X-15 on a 4-drum PU.
        4. Export. I would not sell zircon yet - critical technologies.

        When a serious enemy is 12 Zircons, or simply 12 "long" Onyxes, there are no enemy fighters and long-range air defense, but there are many close air defense and many targets - short Onyxes. Something like this.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa April 2 2021 10: 57
    0
    And why this time without Roman? Did he not want to participate in the continuation of the series?
    laughing
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 12: 23
      -5
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      why this time without Roman

      you always have time to get personal, but you have not answered 5 specific questions asked to you .... weak right? we are waiting by the sea of ​​the weather .. you have no answers and keep quiet
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 2 2021 12: 58
        +1
        What are the five questions?
    2. GEOID
      GEOID April 2 2021 12: 32
      +1
      Well, this is my favorite character .... Doubling the ammunition at the expense of what? Reducing the amount of fuel?
      We must bring them all together the Operator, Warrant Officer SSYK and Tarakanov.
  • Niko
    Niko April 2 2021 11: 17
    +3
    In style, a child's argument in the sandbox, who is stronger: a whale or an elephant. Articles written in such a peremptory, self-confident tone are unpleasant to read, they bring nothing but enmity (even if the arguments were correct) The author's limitations (I mean his limitations ONLY by aviation, and even from it ONLY tu160) does not add any advantages to him in comparison with Timokhin, whom he does not like so much (which, according to the author, is limited by the fleet)
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 2 2021 12: 25
      -6
      your total blind support for Timokhin is well known, this is a sign of a totalitarian destructive sect
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey April 2 2021 11: 46
    -6
    We’re all fucking rubbish, pulling an owl on the globe, and it hurts them.
    1. DWG1905
      DWG1905 April 2 2021 14: 28
      +2
      Interesting article. If we take the puddles - the Baltic and the Black Sea, there is no place for large ships, this is obvious. The north is questionable, but they won't let us go too far. The question about Tu-160 class aircraft, while Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS we will leave aside. The first question is their number, it is negligible. With the resumption of real stable mass production, well, we will have cars in 30 years in 10. This is for one flight. The second question is, how many airfields do we have, where can this monster be based? This is if you carry out dispersal. The third and most important, why such a complex aircraft, if it still cannot overcome the air defense, if kerosene very quickly ends up at supersonic speed along with the range. Those. conceptual dead end. This, of course, does not mean that the Tu-160 is not needed, it has many other positive aspects. But its combat potential is not very great. Therefore, there is no need to rely on strategic supersonic missile carriers. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that in the event of a mess with our neighbors, they and the corresponding CDs will graze the organizer of the mess. We need a massive subsonic relatively cheap carrier of various cruise missiles, long-range explosive missiles, etc. - a launch platform and reconnaissance and target designation aircraft for various purposes for all types of aircraft. Only such a system will make it possible to quickly concentrate forces and resources in the right place. Everything else has low mobility, although this does not negate the land and sea basing of various types of cruise missiles and medium-range missiles. This is still so, but with the advent of aerospace aircraft, the world will change radically.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 3 2021 08: 06
        +2
        Quote: DWG1905
        Why such a complex plane, if it still cannot overcome the air defense, if kerosene very quickly ends up at supersonic speed along with the range.

        What for? Why supersonic and air defense breakthrough by the carrier? There will be enough subsonic sound for him to repeatedly concentrate and disperse at the turn of the anti-ship missile launch. And let the missiles break through the air defense ...
  • smaug78
    smaug78 April 2 2021 12: 00
    +2
    Quote: sergo1914
    Quote: Galleon
    Why doesn't it get to this person that the Tu-160 does not have anti-ship missiles in its ammunition load?


    Really? What year are you living in now?
    You are clearly writing from a wonderful distance. Share your knowledge?)
  • Ptolemy Lag
    Ptolemy Lag April 2 2021 12: 29
    +3
    Timokhin's arguments are many times more convincing, we look forward to his answer !!!
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer April 2 2021 12: 31
    -6
    Citizens Timokhin and Klimov are very dubious authors. Sometimes I get the impression that one person writes, under different nicknames. I just want to ask the question: "Whose mill are you pouring water into, citizens?"))))
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 2 2021 12: 33
      +6
      To the mill of bringing the combat readiness of the RF Armed Forces to the proper level, and not to what it is now.
      What did you think?

      Oh yes, I forgot that you are not one of those who think, sorry for the provocative question.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer April 2 2021 17: 57
        -8
        Yes, you have nothing to apologize for, already used to your IQ))
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 2 2021 22: 17
          +5
          There are too many numbers in my IQ for you to read.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer April 3 2021 10: 01
            -4
            The ability to juggle with figures is not yet a sign of intelligence))))
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 3 2021 12: 29
              +3
              Yes, but in your case, the inability to do anything is a clear sign of a lack of mind.
          2. vik669
            vik669 April 3 2021 16: 08
            -1
            So the more bad a person is, the more he considers himself smart and draws numbers to himself in his IQ - after all, you can't praise yourself, no one will praise!
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 3 2021 16: 52
              +2
              Very weak.
  • Niko
    Niko April 2 2021 12: 31
    +4
    This style of writing (and thinking) looks convincing (for a certain circle of readers) mainly because opponents do not have the opportunity to insert even a word into a seemingly logical line of reasoning, And the previous articles of opponents are ignored. From them individual phrases and thoughts without context are pulled out, which are easy vulnerable in this form to ironic attacks. Sitting at the same table with his opponent, the author will not be capable of anything other than a hysterical argument.
  • Time traveller
    Time traveller April 2 2021 13: 04
    0
    Russia needs a navy to land and support peacekeepers on the American, African and Australian continents. And ADD - so that no one interferes with the Navy to carry out these tasks.
    (I exaggerate, of course, but not much).
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 2 2021 13: 34
      0
      Peacekeepers, as well as military equipment, can be transferred with the help of VTA, and this will be much faster than ships, the more our aircraft can land on primers.
      1. Time traveller
        Time traveller April 2 2021 16: 00
        -1
        Expensive and dangerous, because BTA is vulnerable even to partisans. To suddenly land an airborne assault - yes. Carrying urgent cargo to reliably protected airfields is also yes.
        And the strengthening of the airborne forces, its fire support by artillery and assault aircraft, the transportation of heavy equipment, ammunition, equipment for military bases and other humanitarian goods according to the criterion "price-quality" did not come up with anything better than the Navy. This is partly confirmed by the work of the Syrian Express, for which it was necessary to urgently purchase dry cargo ships, because BTA could not cope.
        And then the Navy can be sent to an area where it MAY be required to conduct a peacekeeping operation. Even an airborne division in the air in 15 minutes. years from the border of a state in need of humanitarian assistance, where, for example, the opposition is trying to overthrow a government friendly to us, is not capable of exerting such a moral impact as a reinforced marine battalion aboard a ship in its waterways.
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 3 2021 08: 09
        +5
        Do you want to carry a tank regiment with planes? How many flights do you need to make? And then there was also ammunition ... It is not always possible to create the world with a company or a battalion ...
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 April 2 2021 13: 15
    +1
    Timokhin proposes to castrate it up to 6 (cut off 2 meters of the accelerator) in order to "be able" to hang it on a small plane.
    Was that? Didn't notice. It is difficult to keep track of all the twists and turns of this saga. In my opinion, others suggested using tactical aviation, i.e., according to my observations, it was in the comments. I also believe that praying for the 160s is impossible for many reasons. For example, and because no airfield in the Russian Federation is now invulnerable, and even more so will not be invulnerable in the future, due to the mass of known circumstances. It will be even easier for the enemy to gouge 1 arbitrarily internal airfield with 160, or these giga-planes themselves on it, than 100 border airfields with tactical aviation. Shooting down the 160s is, of course, easier than Su - **. Etc., etc.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 2 2021 13: 39
      0
      And how will they bomb airfields inside the country - they will be immediately discovered with subsonic cruise missiles at the time of launch, and their range does not exceed 2500 kilometers; they will fly this distance for more than 2 hours; Russia has long been a complex and unified air defense that will fly unnoticed.
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 April 2 2021 13: 59
        +4
        Are you kidding me? But today is the second of April. laughing
  • ccsr
    ccsr April 2 2021 13: 55
    +2
    Author:
    Alexander Vorontsov
    Thus, one of the main criteria of weapons that determine their importance for defense capability are:
    - the ability to concentrate a blow;
    - speed;
    - stealth.

    Something I misunderstood about the words "concentrate the blow" - this is how to understand:
    - from the point of view of the enemy's territory;
    - from the point of view of the concentration of our nuclear charges in one of the components of the strategic nuclear forces;
    - from the point of view of the simultaneous launch of all nuclear charge carriers.
    I would like the author to develop his views on this.
    As for speed and stealth, this is certainly important. But why the author did not mention the most important thing - the total power of the nuclear charges that we must bring down on the enemy, is completely incomprehensible to me.
    But this is the most important element of our entire doctrine, and it is only on it that we must rely in questions of any use of our weapons, even tactical, even operational, even strategic.
    Now let's consider what scenario the author offers us.

    The scenario of a "missile" war is as follows:
    1. Cruise missiles saturate and suppress air defense in a narrow area (here everything is the same as with the landing of the allies: you do not need to destroy all air defense along the perimeter of the country, it is enough to "pierce" in one place with a focused strike and continue to strike "deep into" through the gap formed ).

    These words sound strange, if only because while cruise missiles are flying in our direction, with an unknown warhead, the response to the enemy will be in a strategic version - we planned this back in Soviet times, as soon as the Americans made a bet on the CD. Knowing this, why should they expose themselves to our first blow?

    2. An attack by cruise missiles occurs from a line outside the range of action of fighter aircraft. After the air defense is suppressed, airfields are destroyed - aircraft are either locked on the ground due to damage to the runway, or are destroyed in parking lots.

    The author apparently believes that the take-off of the US strategic aviation will remain unnoticed by us, or the flight of missiles from ships will take a couple of minutes and we will not have time to do anything? Let me remind you that in Soviet times, as soon as B-52s approached the Kola Peninsula and hit the radar screens of the country's air defense, all the regiments of the Moscow air defense district raised an alarm - anyone who served in these regiments will confirm this to you. And now this is also being worked out.

    3. Unmanned aerial vehicles begin to destroy everything that is on the ground (in parallel, fighters, already having a clear numerical superiority, finish off the shortcomings, where aircraft need to arrive with a large-caliber ASP or to work on areas).

    Sorry, but this is complete nonsense, because no one starts a nuclear war with drones.

    Thus, the moment when air defense ceases to cope with repelling strikes is a turning point, 99% predetermining the further development of events. The time interval from the start of hostilities to this moment is measured in hours and days.

    Who told you all this, I do not know, but keep in mind that there will not be "a few days" and even nothing will be measured in hours, because since Soviet times the count has been TEN minutes. Remember this, and you may be able to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
    Combining these two theses together, we have a real picture of the importance for Russia of the Tu-160, which are head and shoulders above the ships in all these parameters.

    I agree with regard to surface ships, but SSBNs are inferior in all respects.
    By the end of the second day, the difference in the number of missiles sent to the enemy becomes almost tenfold (in comparison: if frigates were built for the same amount).

    Sorry, but this is just a fantasy, and there will be no second day at all, because everything will be sent in the first hour. That is why we need, based on your thesis
    the ability to concentrate a blow;
    and to plan such a strike so that on the second day there was no need to send anything - this is the dialectic of a fleeting nuclear war, for which we were preparing back in Soviet times.
    In general, I agree with many of your views, except for the placement of anti-ship missiles on the Tu-160 - it is too shallow, it is easier to strike with conventional cruise missiles with a nuclear charge if you enter the coordinates of the AUG on board the aircraft, or during the flight of the missile. I don’t think it’s technically impossible to do it.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 2 2021 22: 26
      +1
      Quote: ccsr
      the Americans have relied on the CD. Knowing this, why should they expose themselves to our first blow?

      The author apparently believes that the take-off of US strategic aviation

      What does the USA have to do with it?

      For 20 years the United States has been not in a cold state, but in a hot war with us. By someone else's hands.
      Was Sashko Bilyi an American? Or Khattab? Are the Taliban Americans too? And our plane was also shot down by the Americans? Maybe Georgians are Americans? All this riffraff in Syria?
      It is enough for the United States to "push" someone on us, and the more damage is done for us, the better.

      This scenario is not just probable, it HAS BEEN implemented many times and we are reaping the benefits right now.

      For the US to push Turkey against Russia is to hit the jackpot.
      This is the sweetest scenario.

      1) Russia will take a lot of damage.
      2) One of the largest NATO armies in the region will go out of the equation - it will be possible to scare everyone and lobby for an increase in military spending of European countries. As in the case of the Japanese, whom they force at their expense (Japanese) to maintain their (American) bases.
      3) The creepy Erdogan will disappear
      4) The contradictions within the bloc will disappear - the conflict between Greece and Turkey and NATO will not have to use a French aircraft carrier to be an arbiter there.
      5) Erdogan showed that he can reject US demands, but they do not need such an ally. It is more profitable to just feed him.
      6) Simultaneously arrange a hotbed of complete terrorist trash (as in Syria) on the Iranian border and next to Russia.

      I don’t believe that the coup attempt in Turkey was accidental ... we have one star-and-stripe coup lover here, but ... maybe a coincidence?)

      Who told you all this, I do not know, but keep in mind that there will not be "a few days" and even nothing will be measured in hours, because since Soviet times the count has been TEN minutes. Remember this, and you may be able to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

      Don't be so nitpicky about the little things.
      The point was that the time scale will be much less than the time for the transfer of the fleet.

      Tembolee TEN minutes - you mean the USSR during the confrontation with the United States.
      There was another level of BG. The scale was monstrous.

      Now "without a swing," in the event of a sharp aggravation, neither Russia nor its neighbors are capable of deciding everything in tens of minutes.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr April 3 2021 16: 17
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        What does the USA have to do with it?

        And who can threaten us besides the United States and China?

        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        For 20 years the United States has been not in a cold state, but in a hot war with us. By someone else's hands.

        You are mistaken, because if you remember the history of the USSR, there have been several conflicts since the Korean War, where US troops opposed us with instructors, weapons, equipment, etc.
        But we didn’t panic about it. What makes you do this now, since you are already comparing these conflicts with a nuclear war against the United States, I do not understand.
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        This scenario is not just probable, it HAS BEEN implemented many times and we are reaping the benefits right now.

        You are completely confused - it was not even a war of Russia against some state, but only our military assistance, because we have not declared war on anyone since the Great Patriotic War.
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        For the US to push Turkey against Russia is to hit the jackpot.
        This is the sweetest scenario.

        I don't know why you are fantasizing, but keep in mind that as long as Turkey is a NATO member, it has no right to start a war without the consent of all members of the bloc, and they understand perfectly well that if Turkey violates this condition, then the other members of the alliance will not give a damn that Russia later will do with the Turks. And everyone understands this very well, together with Erdogan.
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        Don't be so nitpicky about the little things.
        The point was that the time scale will be much less than the time for the transfer of the fleet.

        These are not trifles, considering that you insisted on the creation of 50 Tu-160 aircraft, which is no less a profanation than the creation of an ocean-going fleet in the spirit of Timokhin's journalistic fantasies.
        Maybe it's time for you to really look at the country's capabilities, and not throw in absolutely unrealistic numbers for discussion.
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        Tembolee TEN minutes - you mean the USSR during the confrontation with the United States.
        There was another level of BG. The scale was monstrous.

        Don't be fancy - now they make decisions even more quickly than they did during the Soviet era, because more serious systems of intelligence and command and control have appeared.
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        Now "without a swing," in the event of a sharp aggravation, neither Russia nor its neighbors are capable of deciding everything in tens of minutes.

        And why are our strategic nuclear forces on duty around the clock, and their readiness to strike does not fit into tens of minutes, but up to ten minutes? Well, who told you that we would do a "swing" if it unmasks our preparations for a surprise strike?
        You may be a great specialist in aviation technology, but this does not mean that you correctly understand how, from an operational and strategic point of view, you need to use aviation in the upcoming war. And because of this, your calculations are perplexing to those who understand it, which is why not everyone agrees with you.
  • Andrey NM
    Andrey NM April 2 2021 13: 59
    +1
    About empty mines ... If the missile silos at such a time at the SSBN are already empty, this can only mean that somewhere some state has ceased to exist and that the remnants of the enemy aircraft simply have nowhere to return, as, indeed, SSBNs.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 2 2021 22: 19
      +3
      Not really. They will have somewhere to return.
  • Machito
    Machito April 2 2021 14: 37
    +2
    Article plus. I like that on VO controversy flares up between Vorontsov, Skomorokhov, Klimov, Timokhin and other authors. Truth is born into an argument. The controversy piques the interest of readers and stakeholders.
    I am more impressed by the position of Klimov and Timokhin. It looks smarter, more complex, holistic and comprehensive. It is obvious that Klimov and Timokhin have their own point of view on the development and tasks of the fleet. I hope that the rest of the authors will push for the study of the materiel to continue the dispute.
    Vorontsov's emphasis on aviation and the almost destroyed naval aviation is a bias in the development of the fleet.
    The main task of the fleet, in my opinion, is to move enemy attack ships away from our shores.
    As for the development of our fleet, my opinion is that it is necessary first of all to develop the Arctic fleet, because today we cannot catch up and overtake the United States and China. But in the Arctic, we are ahead of the rest of the planet, and our sworn friends will have to catch up with us, spend huge amounts of money and trail behind us. The shortest road to the shores of the United States is through the North Pole. And I hope that our armed icebreakers Papanin and Yermak are just the first signs. SOM began to develop the Arctic fleet. He was not a very successful naval commander, but a scientist was unique.
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 2 2021 14: 50
    0
    And why were the Tu-160 chosen? I suspect that our puddles are quite well shot even by the coastal complexes. And now you can build a lot of them. That is, yes, aviation, of course, is a powerful thing, personally the Tu-160 will become a very strong addition, but will our impoverished economy pull the anti-ship version of the Tu-160?
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 3 2021 08: 20
      +3
      Quote: Basarev
      And why were the Tu-160 chosen?

      Of all the combat aircraft available to Russia, heavy anti-ship missiles can be suspended only under the Tu-22, Tu-95, Tu-160, Su-34, Su-30. The 22nd are not produced, the 95th, too, only one anti-ship missile can be mounted under the Su-30, and the 34th (two missiles) requires modification for the needs of the fleet. Actually, that's the whole alignment. As they used to say in the 90s: "with all the wealth of choice ...".
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 3 2021 19: 23
        0
        Do you think that for the Tu-160 the scope of modernization for the PKR will be less than for the Su-34? You shouldn't think so.
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex April 4 2021 01: 20
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Do you think that for the Tu-160 the scope of modernization for the PKR will be less than for the Su-34? You shouldn't think so.

          I think that the architecture of the Tu-160's side itself is more difficult to modernize. After all, these machines were created when no one even spoke about "open architecture". And the Su-34 is perhaps more "open" for modification ...
  • Peaceful SEO
    Peaceful SEO April 2 2021 14: 55
    +3
    The saddest thing about these series of articles (on both sides) is that the authors are trying to polarize opinions and approaches, which, as a result, may result in "either ships or airplanes." And this will be a real strategic and tactical failure.
    Authors, you would like to meet, have a beer with a fish and discuss the general concept. A concept that would include the effective joint use of naval and aviation forces in all theaters of operations.
    This would be constructive, and not measuring with textiles
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 2 2021 15: 06
    +1
    by the way ... and now the most important thing in your dispute ... is that it is useless because the 50 Tu-160M ​​proposed by Vorontsov will be built in 10-15 years without cutting the modernization of the fleet laughing
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 2 2021 22: 21
      0
      No, they will not build, they will not master just such a number.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 3 2021 09: 26
        -1
        why? the pace of construction of 1-3 aircraft per year is quite acceptable, and for 15 years and 50 aircraft it is not difficult to do with the growth of competence ... the question is that with the advent of heavy UAVs, missile carriers and heavy fighter-bombers built using Stealth technology, and even that -22m3m Next raise a big question about the need for more 160s
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 3 2021 12: 30
          0
          This is in theory. In practice, we have the Russian Federation, here you are not here.
      2. Scharnhorst
        Scharnhorst April 3 2021 13: 47
        +1
        Such a categorical revelation from John the Theologian or from Timokhin-Kudrin? wink
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 3 2021 14: 01
          -1
          This is just knowledge of our realities.
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 3 2021 17: 21
            0
            in this case, you need to say that there is a low probability ... but not categorically declare)
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 3 2021 22: 09
              -1
              Well, here I'm really sure.
              And you don't really need so many 160s, they need to be built just enough to revive production before the start of the PAK DA assembly.
              And then they are not needed at all.
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 4 2021 09: 57
                0
                well, it will be necessary to make a decision after receiving serial machines and working out their use, if they are so wunder-waffle that they can solve the whole range of tasks, then yes, it will be possible to reduce the number of ordered carcasses ... Although for me it is better to focus on the revival of the moment -1.44, to expand the missile compartment so that everything from the most promising fit in there and rivet for the fleet and the aerospace forces ... does not fit ..
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 4 2021 16: 05
                  -1
                  The MiG will also not fit. Take a look at the size of Onyx, this will roughly have to be dragged.
                  1. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 4 2021 17: 03
                    0
                    Well, the Mikoyanites at one time argued that the Mig-1.44 can even raise mosquitoes ... most likely on an external sling, but I don't see any difficulties in finalizing the project for intra-fuselage placement, yes it will be quite expensive and take a long time to develop, but the machine will allow you to close a lot of questions at once
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 4 2021 17: 18
                      -1
                      It is easier to make a drummer based on the Su-34 or Su-30SM - there is no need for any R&D at all, everything is assembled from ready-made components.
                      1. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 5 2021 09: 27
                        0
                        so I'm not about "hanging a rocket under an airplane", namely about the development of an inconspicuous missile carrier, so that rockets of the level from Dagger / Gremlin / Onyx and up to 55/101 inside the fuselage .. even if only a couple of them will fit in .. because in this in the event that reaching the line of attack will be easier and safer, and the 1.44 has good dimensions, the internal compartment is already there, stealth is taken into account ... and the 30/34s need to redo all this, which will eventually lead to a new aircraft
  • akarfoxhound
    akarfoxhound April 2 2021 15: 38
    +2
    To be honest, I would very much like the authors to write not divan / analytical-internet ad-libbing, but first presented themselves in their professional suitability in the matter they are describing. What is your education, what have you finished? How do you relate to the development of questions of tactics and strategy? Have you read a lot of journalists, memoirs and analysts, media reports by a number of non-participants and made the result, or is it the conclusions of trained and having an idea of ​​the real situation on the basis of intelligence?
    The general style of presentation is far from professional.
    I ask you not to accept criticism with disagreement or agreement with the general message of the author's article
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 2 2021 21: 43
      -5
      Quote: akarfoxhound
      To be honest, I would very much like the authors to write not divan / analytical-internet ad-libbing, but first presented themselves in their professional suitability in the matter they are describing. What is your education, what have you finished? How do you relate to the development of questions of tactics and strategy? Have you read a lot of journalists, memoirs and analysts, media reports by a number of non-participants and made the result, or is it the conclusions of trained and having an idea of ​​the real situation on the basis of intelligence?
      The general style of presentation is far from professional.
      I ask you not to accept criticism with disagreement or agreement with the general message of the author's article

      Good evening =)
      Thank you for your message! Your feedback is very important to us.

      I know how to help you.
      In order to satisfy your high demands for professionalism, you need to go to the Internet and type combinations of words into a search engine, for example, "military academic journal" or "peer-reviewed military edition".
      Sometimes it helps.
      There and ed. the advice is full of uncles with a mustache, gray heads, titles, hero stars and appropriate education, and before publishing an article, its editorial board reads and approves.

      I hope my answer helped you.
      Best regards, all the best.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 2 2021 22: 21
        +1
        There all the same copy-paste of my articles slips.
        So you don't have to go far.
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          April 2 2021 22: 48
          -2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          were heard lectures by the counter-admiral in the alliance of the commander of the only AUS at that time, with the Marine, who directly organized and participated in the offensive MDO, "

          Do you have your articles?
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 2 2021 22: 57
            +2
            No, only plagiarism
      2. akarfoxhound
        akarfoxhound April 2 2021 22: 38
        +1
        I cannot deny myself the pleasure of listening to professionals, forgive me. At the same academy, the counter-admiral in the alliance of the commander of the only AUS at that time, with the Marine, who directly organized and participated in the offensive MDO, "talked" with the colonel, and now Major General, who organized "in the south" the first airbase and combat operations of the crews shock air units from the point, wonderful, educated people and professionals in their field. This is exactly what is interesting.
        And it turns out in the nuances of the tactics and strategy of the country do we have any "well-read on the topic" cook, steelmaker, taxi driver? Do you know where professionalism and approval of the reality of what is written, albeit by the same editorial staff, is not required? Isn't it a fence here? I was wrong?

        Thank you, you helped me a lot with the definition of the depth and seriousness of article thoughts.
        Best regards, good evening!
  • Tektor
    Tektor April 2 2021 17: 53
    0
    What is a fleet for? To inflict damage on the enemy and minimize damage from enemy actions. Compliance with parity. Therefore, the main purpose of the fleet is to provide situational awareness and target designation in order to close important areas of the world's oceans from access to the enemy. And in order to respond quickly to changing situations.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 April 2 2021 20: 10
    -1
    A positive point in the article.
    Vorontsov quite rightly noted, using the example of a helicopter carrier, that when performing "task # 1" - defending SSBNs - the fleet becomes unsuitable for war.

    Negative points - strange thoughts about strategy.
    About Turkey. Suppose Tu-160m2 was hit successfully. Then again and again. Then the missiles ran out. Why
    Should Turks Want Peace? Will the losses force? The US will compensate for the loss. How to make Turkey go to peace?

    It's even worse with Japan. Why can't Americans want a one-on-one war between Japan and Russia? The losses of both sides are to the benefit of the United States. The post-war confrontation also benefits the United States. Americans will gladly approve of Japan's war with Russia.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 2 2021 23: 02
      -2
      Quote: SVD68
      Then again and again. Then the missiles ran out. Why
      Should Turks Want Peace? Will the losses force? The US will compensate for the loss. How to make Turkey go to peace?

      Our aviation will crush their aviation.

      Aviation operates from infrastructure.
      That at the same time at the airport at the same time in equal proportions should be
      1) fuel reserves
      2) the number of terrestrial services
      3) stocks of ASP

      And if 1 projectile hits the place where the fuel is stored, then everything else "disappears".
      Yes, the staff can simultaneously serve 4 sides and hang the ASP - there is nothing to refuel. Well, etc.
      Theoretically, it is possible to work with it, you can fill up the operational refueling from a tank "in the bushes" then it will fly to another, there it will refuel and from there will fly on a combat mission, but this all reduces efficiency.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 April 3 2021 08: 35
        0
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        Our aviation will crush their aviation.

        And how to get peace from Turkey?
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          April 3 2021 11: 09
          -2
          Quote: SVD68
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Our aviation will crush their aviation.

          And how to get peace from Turkey?

          Depends on the scenario.
          If the war happened when Turkey had a sane leadership (not an "ideological leader" or a puppet government), then the classic - war = continuation of politics. Everything happens according to the same scenario as in most wars - Austerlitz lost = sat down and signed documents. In our case, as soon as the air defense falls, it becomes possible to destroy all expensive and technologically advanced facilities that throw the country in development for decades. To prevent this from happening, the losing country is motivated to offer a political way to end this by signing a peace treaty.

          Worse for Russia if Turkey (or part of it) will be like in Syria. And in this sense, Russia is even interested in the sane leadership of Turkey - yes, it can get overwhelmed and bite in the back, but it will not start an openly insane military adventure like Mishiko, and at the very least, you can negotiate with him.
          1. SVD68
            SVD68 April 3 2021 12: 12
            0
            Which Austerlitz?
            Turkey suffers losses, but we also suffer. Smaller ones, but we carry them. The US is making up for the Turkish losses, but nobody is making up for us. Turkey is conquering Syria, and we cannot prevent this. Yes, the Turks are winning, not losing! Let it be formally, but in the minds of people it will be a real victory.
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan April 2 2021 21: 46
    -3
    Ground complexes + videoconferencing is the most effective (price-quality) response to modern threats. You can have a mighty bunch of small boats that must behave very arrogantly with a serious uncle with wings behind him.

    What is the point of having a fleet in closed waters if they are perfectly shot from the shore. Increasing the quantity, quality and survivability of ground complexes is incomparably easier, faster and cheaper than building 1-2 incomprehensible troughs a year.

    Videoconferencing is more flexible, faster, more versatile. With our size, a vehicle that covers thousands of kilometers in hours, not in a day, should be a priority.

    The creation of a fleet of DLRO aircraft and tankers is more important than the construction of an aircraft carrier.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 2 2021 22: 56
      -1
      Quote: gvozdan
      What is the point of having a fleet in closed waters if they are perfectly shot from the shore.

      No
      As well as the practical meaning in Timokhin's articles about "naval combat of surface forces with each other" in these waters.
  • squid
    squid April 2 2021 22: 06
    +1
    The article is very chaotic, but the exposure of the Aircraft Carrier Witnesses sect in general and Timokhin in particular is always a useful matter.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 2 2021 22: 23
      0
      Gygy.
      It remains only to wait for someone to actually take and expose. And not like here.
      laughing
      1. Newone
        Newone April 3 2021 02: 11
        -1
        Timokhin yes you exposed yourself, assuming that you represent the sect of the Aircraft Carrier's Witnesses (I don't think so if that). The fight for the first salvo by the aircraft carrier in front of the ship with URO is played dry
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 3 2021 03: 17
          +1
          Well, how does it play ...

          He can also break away from the enemy's URO ship. In addition, the fight for the first salvo is conducted not only by single ships, but by their detachments, groups, etc.

          PS I'm glad that I threw the fight for the first volley into the masses.)
          1. Newone
            Newone April 3 2021 22: 17
            0
            Can / cannot - spherical horses in a vacuum. In fact, the Americans had to return the Iowa (and not the fact that they could turn the tide).
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 4 2021 02: 40
              -2
              The point is in Iowa, there was nothing to break, in the late 80s they would have carried us forward with their feet.
              Lossy, yes.
              But nonetheless.
              1. Newone
                Newone April 4 2021 14: 54
                0
                In the late 80s, for the first time ever, we had a chance to push them forward with our feet, and not just inflict unacceptable damage. After the introduction of the planned and practiced, this chance became much more than 50%. And they knew it very well, that's why they went to negotiations.
  • av58
    av58 April 2 2021 22: 19
    -1
    Some were taught to read and write in vain. For example, an author named "Vorontsov". About such Zhvanetsky once said: "To write, as well as, sorry, you need to write when you are already unbearable." To do this, there must be something significant inside so that the output does not turn out to be a stream of meaningless sentences.
  • Rlptrt
    Rlptrt April 2 2021 23: 17
    +1
    You are confusing soft with warm. In the best traditions of the Runet, I "read it to .... Then you can not read." That is, I will skud only about the first mistake, because they are further in each paragraph.
    Is the number of ships equal to their striking power? No and no again! Timokhin is absolutely right. Exaggerated situation: two countries are at war. One has a hundred missile boats with an anti-ship missile, and the other has one aircraft carrier. There is nothing else. The ratio is 100: 1. But the Pvian carrier approached and stood 1000 km from the coast. The boats will not even reach the launch range of their missiles (400 km), and the aircraft carrier's planes will demolish the boats without difficulty. Is there a difference in combat power and numbers?
    Yes. It does not follow from the initial two theses that we need TU-160 and only them. And everything else is junk. Khrushchev has already done so. The consequences were fixed for a long time.
    Actually, the rest of the article is the same. Misunderstanding of the fleet.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 2 2021 23: 30
    0
    Quote: Xscorpion
    Can you tell me which border boats have more missiles than our Black Sea Fleet?

    A question to the question - is it difficult for the Turks to overtake their fleet to the Black Sea if necessary? They seem to be keeping the S-400 in the Black Sea (they call it the White Sea, by the way).
  • Newone
    Newone April 3 2021 02: 17
    +1
    The author plays with Timokhin in a sea battle of spherical horses in a vacuum.
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 April 3 2021 04: 12
    -1
    Timokhin's arguments are better.
    When it comes to ships with disposable mines, the difference in speed of 5 knots, that is, 10 km per hour, is important.

    When it comes to the Tu-160, which surpasses ships in striking potential at times, its high-speed capabilities are an "outdated concept."

    A frigate with increased speed characteristics can catch up and follow the AUG or destroyer with a weapon for a long time and at the same time transmitting its coordinates, thus leveling the enemy's capabilities. The Tu 160 can also do this, but it will cost much more than operating 10 frigates.
    The Tu 160 has no speed advantage over the F22, the main enemy of the Tu 160.
    3 large airfields with 2 takeoffs each, 2 active. B1 is based. This is the USA, they can. They need. We don't? Do we have a powerful fleet?

    The Guam base, like any American base, is well guarded from the sea and, more importantly, they control all sea routes. They will easily block such a base without a fleet, as the Japanese did against our fleet in 1905. Tu 160 over the sea are excellent targets, several destroyers will stand in the way of the flight and shoot them like in a shooting range.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 3 2021 08: 28
      0
      Quote: ramzay21
      The Tu 160 has no speed advantage over the F22, the main enemy of the Tu 160.

      E-eee, can you describe briefly the scheme of interception of the Tu-160 Raptor? For example, who and when will tell the pilot when and where the missile carrier flew? And how will the Raptor get there, at comparable speeds but not comparable ranges?
      1. ramzay21
        ramzay21 April 3 2021 08: 56
        0
        E-eee, can you describe briefly the scheme of interception of the Tu-160 Raptor? For example, who and when will tell the pilot when and where the missile carrier flew? And how will the Raptor get there, at comparable speeds but not comparable ranges?

        This is often shown on TV in our news. It's just that their reconnaissance works well and there are AWACS aircraft in the required quantities, and they direct the F22. They also have a lot of tankers and have no problems with refueling. Ours also showed this at the last exercises, only we have it for show and they have a routine service. F22 also has an advantage, it detects Tu 160 much earlier than Tu 160 detects F22.
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          April 3 2021 11: 17
          +1
          Quote: ramzay21
          for us it is window dressing and they have a routine service. F22 also has an advantage, it detects Tu 160 much earlier than Tu 160 detects F22.

          Here is the map.
          On it, for the scale, a distance of 3000 km is indicated - a conditional launch line.
          Tell us how the raptors will intercept the Tu-160 there.


          AWACS in the required quantities, they induce F22

          Did you teach physics at school? Can you formulate what is the main difference in range between the attack of a ground target and an air one? And what physical principle (took place in high school) is it conditioned?
          1. ramzay21
            ramzay21 April 3 2021 21: 06
            -1
            Hello, Alexander!
            Here is the map.
            On it, for the scale, a distance of 3000 km is indicated - a conditional launch line.
            Tell us how the raptors will intercept the Tu-160 there.

            What has Turkey to do with it? Its F22 does not cover it, they cover the United States, and there the interceptions of our strategists have been worked out and shown on TV many times, just at the launch lines. And they are not very worried about Turkey.
            In Turkey, they can work with IRA calibers from the Caspian Sea, for example, it is much cheaper.
            Did you teach physics at school? Can you formulate what is the main difference in range between the attack of a ground target and an air one? And what physical principle (took place in high school) is it conditioned?

            I think you will not argue that the AWACS aircraft in the passive mode with its antenna will detect the Tu 160 much further than the Tu 160 will detect it, and will be able to aim at the F22 target. It is also clear that the RCS of the Tu 160 is many orders of magnitude higher than that of the F22, and therefore the F22 will detect the Tu 160 much earlier, and may not enter the detection zone, and follow the Tu 160 with the weapon without showing its presence. What is shown on TV as an indicative interception is for peacetime and the demonstration of the detection of our aircraft, in a threatened time everything will be different.

            And further. In Soviet times, economists considered that building an aircraft carrier with an air group and operating it for air cover of bastions and SSBN deployment routes is much cheaper than long-distance aviation flights from coastal airfields to combat patrols of the area. Despite the fact that fuel in the 80s cost immeasurably cheaper and the budget was immeasurably higher.
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex April 4 2021 01: 14
              +2
              Quote: ramzay21
              What has Turkey to do with it? Its F22 does not cover it, they cover the United States, and there the interceptions of our strategists have been worked out and shown on TV many times, just at the launch lines. And they are not very worried about Turkey.

              I believe the author showed you on the map the meaninglessness of the very fact of "interception" of the missile carrier by the Raptor. Any "interception" in this case will not solve the main problem - to avoid the launch of missiles from an aircraft. The modern Tu-95 must be intercepted by the state troops almost over the airfield, since it can shoot at most targets not only without entering the air defense zone, but even without leaving the territory of the Russian Federation.
              That is, the flight of the interceptor link should be carried out BEFORE the launch of the missile carriers from the airfields, long BEFORE. For hours. And pass over the territory of Russia in the area of ​​operation of all available air defense systems.

              Quote: ramzay21
              I think you will not argue that the AWACS aircraft in the passive mode with its antenna will detect the Tu 160 much farther than the Tu 160 will detect it

              Are you confused? AT passive? And this, excuse me, how? Tu-160 is continuously broadcasting on the air? I would have understood if you had said "active". But as an AWACS aircraft in passive mode:
              1) recognizes the target?
              2) determine its coordinates?
              Especially, provided that the missile carrier is moving in an unknown direction at a speed exceeding the speed of the reconnaissance?
              In my opinion, you have issued an EXTREMELY controversial assumption.

              Quote: ramzay21
              What is shown on TV as an indicative interception is for peacetime and the demonstration of the detection of our aircraft, in a threatened time everything will be different.

              So I would like to understand how it will be? For example, who will aim the Raptors when AWACS destroy the long-range interceptors? And they will be destroyed. You do not think that someone will allow these "chandeliers" to fly with impunity. Well, and how the Raptors will intercept the missile carriers under the conditions described above: the line of launching missiles from the missile carrier is more than 5 times greater than the Raptor's combat radius.
            2. ccsr
              ccsr April 4 2021 10: 01
              +1
              Quote: ramzay21
              And further. In Soviet times, economists considered that building an aircraft carrier with an air group and operating it for air cover of bastions and SSBN deployment routes is much cheaper than long-distance aviation flights from coastal airfields to combat patrols of the area. Despite the fact that fuel in the 80s cost immeasurably cheaper and the budget was immeasurably higher.

              Well, after all, lying is not blushing, because firstly, do not bring who thought it in Soviet times, and secondly, keeping an aircraft carrier at the berth most of the time is much more ruinous than periodic long-distance strategic aviation flights, which in most cases were associated with the usual training of pilots.
              I am not even talking about the cost of ships and aircraft, but I recommend taking into account that most military airfields have always been dual-use, and in emergency situations they could receive civilian aircraft, or even be transferred to Civil Aviation altogether. Could you transfer the aircraft carrier to whom if it was decommissioned? Moreover, the air defense aviation made it possible not to deploy missiles around the entire perimeter of the country, and this creature reduced our military spending on the army. But the aircraft carrier could not do this all the time - so what are the savings?
              Therefore, your references to Soviet military airfields and aviation, and the costs of them, or your fantasies, or lies by unknown authors.
              1. ramzay21
                ramzay21 April 13 2021 07: 03
                0
                Well, after all, you’re lying without blushing, because first of all, don’t bring who thought it in Soviet times

                Research work Order, in the 60s, just opened this question.
                secondly, keeping an aircraft carrier at the berth most of the time is much more ruinous than periodic long-distance strategic aviation flights, which in most cases were associated with ordinary pilot training.

                This is due to the incompetence of the leadership; in the United States, aircraft carriers spend about 50% of their time at sea, including time for repairs, which means this is achievable.
                I'm not even talking about the cost of ships and aircraft, but I recommend taking into account that most military airfields have always been dual-use, and in emergency situations they could receive civilian aircraft, or even be transferred to Civil Aviation.


                Rogachevo airfield, on Novaya Zemlya, which civilian would you transfer? It is only needed by the military, like many other airfields. This means that the construction and modernization of airfields should be laid down exactly as military personnel.
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr April 13 2021 11: 13
                  0
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  Research work Order, in the 60s, just opened this question.

                  Whose work is this and who did it - can you indicate? Yes, and the sixties are long gone, even the battleships are gone.
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  This is due to the incompetence of the leadership; in the United States, aircraft carriers spend about 50% of their time at sea, including time for repairs, which means this is achievable.

                  Lies, because it is even technically impossible, because many repairs and maintenance can only be done at the pier.

                  Quote: ramzay21
                  Rogachevo airfield, on Novaya Zemlya, which civilian would you transfer?

                  Many civil aircraft fly through the polar zone, and in case of emergencies it will be an alternate airfield. The truth is, who will support him is a big question.
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  This means that the construction and modernization of airfields should be laid down exactly as military personnel.

                  Nobody denies this. Not only that, we are lagging far behind in the number of airfield networks in Europe and the United States, so this is a good investment for the future.
            3. Alexander Vorontsov
              April 4 2021 13: 26
              -1
              In Turkey, they can work with IRA calibers from the Caspian Sea, for example, it is much cheaper.

              We already considered that, if necessary, dividing all built ships by 3, it turned out to be much more expensive.
              Even the most ardent flotophiles, including Timokhin, stopped arguing with this.
              Calculations are in my become a pro Tu-160, but where can I see yours? Well, those that were made in Soviet times?
              Nowhere?
              For some reason I thought so.

              What has Turkey to do with it? F22 does not cover her, they cover the USA

              Despite the fact that the topic is about the war with Turkey.
              Take and show on the map how any aircraft will intercept the Tu-160.

              We are waiting for an explanation.
              1. ramzay21
                ramzay21 April 13 2021 07: 24
                -1
                We already considered that, if necessary, dividing all built ships by 3, it turned out to be much more expensive.
                Even the most ardent flotophiles, including Timokhin, stopped arguing with this.

                I don't know what you thought, but in normal fleets ships spend at sea 50% of their time, including repairs. This is an organizational and resolvable issue. The same RTOs can shoot back not only while at sea, but also from the wall, but the Tu 160 cannot shoot while at the airfield. The coefficient of the time spent by the Tu 160 in the air will never come close to 50%.
                At a cost, the same MRK costs as much as two engines from the Tu 160, carries a comparable number of missiles and has about the same fuel tank, only the Tu 160 will last for ten to fifteen hours of patrolling, and the MRK for 15 days.
                Calculations are in my become a pro Tu-160, but where can I see yours? Well, those that were made in Soviet times?

                The research paper The Warrant, drawn up in the 60s, addressed this issue.
                Despite the fact that the topic is about the war with Turkey.
                Take and show on the map how any aircraft will intercept the Tu-160.

                Turkey is a NATO member and they will not calmly watch their ally being bombed.
        2. abc_alex
          abc_alex April 4 2021 00: 59
          0
          Quote: ramzay21
          This is often shown on TV in our news. It's just that their reconnaissance works well and there are AWACS aircraft in the required quantities, and they direct the F22.

          No, not like that. When the US statesmen "intercept" our aircraft off the coast of the United States, one must understand that these flights are carried out within the framework of agreements and by agreement of the parties. And the Raptors do not intercept our vehicles, they escort us. That is, this is not a combat mission: our "strategists" go unarmed along a previously known route. And EMNIP, each flight is announced in advance. This is not it. If only because the "interception" is carried out at such a distance from the territory of the United States, which is much less than the flight range of the Tu-95 missile armament. The combat radius of the Raptor is 760 km. The range of the Kh-102 missile is more than 5000 km. By itself, the Raptor's "interception" of a carrier of such missiles off the coast of the United States is precisely for showing on television, that is, a farce.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK April 3 2021 04: 54
    -2
    Not an article but bullshit! The author is far from weapons and politics! Remember the battle of Peter the Great near Narva! What nafig Grozny? Traitors to the Motherland were at the helm of the country!